Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 18 May 1995

Vol. 453 No. 2

Road Traffic Bill, 1995 [Seanad]: Second Stage (Resumed) and Remaining Stages.

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Dr. O'Hanlon

There is need for a national alcohol policy. We must, as individuals and as a community, address the role of alcohol in society. As Minister for Health I established an advisory council on health promotion and a group to examine the question of drawing up a national alcohol policy, and Deputy Howlin, one of my successors as Minister for Health, continued the good work. Like me, I am sure he would like to see that document published and up for discussion among the public.

During 25 years of the troubles in the North, 3,000 people were killed as a result of political violence. In the same 25 years 10,000 were killed on the roads in the South, and an average of 10,000 people a year were injured on the roads. Apart from the suffering of individuals who are injured and of their immediate families, friends and relatives, which is the most important element, there is the question of cost which, in 1988 was estimated at £585 million.

The effects of drinking on driving behaviour are well documented both here and abroad. Much worth-while research has been carried out by, among others, Blaney in 1973 in Ireland, Zador in the United States in 1989 and 1991 and Walsh et al in Dublin in 1977-81 who carried out a survey in Dublin and Kildare in which the coroners for Dublin city, Dublin county and Kildare were involved. Their survey revealed that of all the people killed on the roads in their respective areas during a five year period, 67 per cent had a blood alcohol level above 100 milligrams per cent.

I would support a tough line to deal with drunken driving and the abuse of drink by drivers. However, there is an anomaly. If a person who makes his living driving a public service vehicle is, during holiday time, caught over the limit but perhaps not very much so, that person will lose his licence and also his job. That person is, effectively, losing his licence for a lifetime in the context of work. I know a person who drove a public service vehicle. He was not in the habit of drinking except, perhaps, a bottle of stout on a Sunday evening. However, during the holidays he happened to meet friends for a drink. They were taken into the barracks on the way home and the blood alcohol was found to be above the permitted level. He lost his licence for 12 months, which was mandatory, but he also lost his job and will not be taken back as a driver of a public service vehicle. The new law will increase the 12 months, but this individual was, effectively, suspended from driving for his lifetime. This issue should at some stage be addressed. I take a tough line on drunken driving but there must be fair play in the administration of the law.

There are complaints about the high cost of motor insurance; young people in particular find it almost impossible to obtain cover, in some instances it costs more than the value of the car. Part of the answer lies in their own hands. While there is an obligation on the State to examine the cost of motor insurance and claims to see how they can be reduced it is important that young people consider the reasons they have to pay higher rates than other age groups. One of the reasons is that they are involved in more accidents. Organisations such as Macra na Feirme and youth clubs should address this issue and bring peer pressure to bear to improve the driving habits of some young people.

My experience as a medical doctor has influenced my attitude to the question of drink driving but over the years there have been tremendous changes for the better. Young people now arrange that at least one of them does not drink on a night out. They should be commended for adopting such a positive attitude to the question of drink driving. I welcome the changes in this legislation although I argue that the law will be more liberal in some instances than it was prior to the implementation of the 1994 Act. While the changes are balanced and fair I ask the Minister to keep the legislation under review. There is an obligation on all of us to examine the causes of road accidents. I am not suggesting that drink is the sole contributory factor; I have listed a number of other factors which should be taken into account, including speed, the failure of people to wear seat belts, the condition of cars and the provision of wipers on the head lamps of cars to improve visibility at night. There is a need to keep this legislation under review to ensure that we reduce the number of deaths on our roads to the minimum. I would like to think that it will be possible in our lifetime to reduce the number to zero. Perhaps this is not possible but there is an obligation on all of us to ensure that the number is kept to the minimum.

Mr. Nealon

As one of the Deputies who vigorously opposed some of the provisions of the Road Traffic Act, 1994 I am glad to welcome the changes in this legislation. The Minister has not made all of the changes that I would like to see but he has made progress.

Under the 1994 Act a person with a blood alcohol level of slightly over 80 milligrammes was considered to be a criminal, even though they may not have been involved in an accident, and lost their licence for an extended period and, perhaps, their job. That was a draconian provision and a most serious flaw.

Many of us asked the then Minister for the Environment to introduce graduated penalties as we thought that would be sensible. However — this was an outrageous and ridiculous excuse — he argued that graduated penalties would not work. I welcome the fact that they have been introduced.

It was felt at the time that the 1994 legislation would do serious damage to the business of the rural or cross-roads pub. That is what materialised; we were told that there was a 40 per cent reduction in their business. Thankfully there has since been a recovery. The rural pub is of importance; very often the drinking is a secondary matter, for many people it is a meeting place where they can exchange views — a fountain of philosophy — and there is good craic. It is sold abroad by Bord Fáilte as a tourist attraction.

If we wish to reduce the number of road deaths the way to do it is by enforcing the law. The law prior to the introduction of the 1994 Act would have been sufficient if it had been enforced. I am not talking here about the occasional blitz either before or after Christmas or during holiday periods but rather about constant enforcement. The problem is that people are aware that there is relaxation. I am convinced that the provisions contained in this legislation will not work if they are not implemented and there is the occasional blitz by the Garda at specific times of the year. There is a need for a constant Garda presence. The Minister for the Environment should discuss this matter with his colleague, the Minister for Justice, to ensure that the law is enforced.

I welcome the changes which have been made. Rather than impose a ban where the figure is between 80 and 100 milligrammes we should impose a substantial fine. However, progress has been made. The Minister acted swiftly and consulted widely with interested parties and has produced a balanced provision which is welcome.

Mr. McGahon

I wish to express a different point of view. I express regret that the Minister has succumbed to the power of the publican's lobby. Per head of population more people are killed on the roads here each year than in any other country in Europe. Year after year County Louth heads the list of fatalities. Because of its geographical location people from the North cross the Border to go on drinking binges and have killed people on our roads. Often no prosecution was brought subsequently.

Last January 44 people lost their lives on our roads. If there was a castastrophe and 44 people were killed, perhaps as a result of a bomb explosion, it would have been on the public agenda, the country would have ground to a halt in horror and politicians would have made condemnatory comments. Because the number of road deaths is fragmented no one cares except the bereaved families.

We adopt a relaxed attitude to drinking. It is intertwined with our psyche. The glorification of drink is unacceptable. People write ballads about drink and these songs go to the top of the hit parade.

In recent years Governments launched campaigns warning people about the dangers of cigarette smoking, yet there is no similar campaign about the horrors of drink, which are visited on every family. Because of the lobbying of the drinks industry no Government has the courage to address that problem. Cigarette advertising is banned from television, and rightly so, but young people are subjected to a continual bombardment of television advertisements for Heineken, Guinness and so on. Is it any wonder our youth are starting to drink at 12 years of age, as statistics verify, with horrendous social consequences? How many families are left without food as a result of indulgence in alcohol? How many children are sexually assaulted by people under the influence of drink? Toleration and glorification of drink is totally unacceptable and the matter must be addressed by a responsible Government.

Some Deputies suggested that social life would be adversely affected by the initial measures proposed in the Bill. Social life in towns and villages all over Ireland has been ruined by the public house culture and dependence on drink. It is a national disgrace to see young people sitting on bar stools on Sunday afternoon and summer evenings when the sun is shining. Probably 90 per cent of social problems emanate from over-indulgence in drink. Many unfortunate single parents, the fastest growing category, blame their predicament on drink, and they suffer the consequences for many years.

I am disappointed the Minister yielded to the publicans' lobby and the drinks industry. It is more important to keep people out of the graveyard than to have them sitting on bar stools. Life is very precious and the Government has a responsibility to ensure people's safety. More people per head of population are killed in Ireland from drink than in any other country in Europe.

Mr. Howlin

That is not so.

Mr. McGahon

I am not too far wrong. If we were to implement the laws properly we would need a Garda breathalysing unit outside every public house. I was told by a publican last week that the local sergeant arrived at 12.10 a.m. the previous morning and demanded a drink. I will not go into that matter now, but our relaxed attitude to drink is a contributory factor to the unacceptable level of death and mutilation on the roads.

I would draw the Minister's attention to a stretch of road in my county from Dundalk to the Border, which has the highest ratio of road deaths. In my previous occupation as a newspaper wholesaler and distributor I delivered newspapers late on Saturday nights and early Sunday mornings in a wide area of Counties Louth, Monaghan and Cavan. On the stretch of road I mentioned I had to stop making deliveries because of the actions of young people. I saw young men on their way home from discos in local hotels racing one another with no lights on their cars, driving on footpaths and passing motorists on the wrong side. I often wonder why there are not more deaths on the roads.

The absence of a highway patrol is a contributory factor in the number of people killed. On my way back from Belfast last Saturday evening four highway patrols were evident. We need highway patrols similar to those in France. In that country courts are set up on the side of the road. Some years ago a very prominent Irish politician was tried on the side of the road there. If a person does not pay the fine their car is impounded. Prevention of death on our roads should be a priority, and I regret the Minister yielded in the face of the lobby by politicians. However, I welcome the fact that he has graded the penalties. In Sweden there is an open prison system which has proved very successful as a deterrent to drink driving. An ordinary Joe Soap or a successful businessman is imprisoned if caught driving over the limit. Unless we introduce real deterrents the number of people who lose their lives on the roads will continue to rise.

Mr. Ring

I welcome the changes in the regulations. My uncle works in this business, and the public house, particularly in rural Ireland, is part of our culture. People go there for a social drink on Saturday and Sunday nights and after Mass on Sunday. Publicans have a difficult life and are expected to be solicitor, doctor and social worker. They are always expected to have the answer. Many politicians hold their clinics in public houses.

The effect of the legislation in rural Ireland last Christmas was enormous. I agree that those who are over the limit should not drive and if they do, they should be dealt with by the law. The Minister, having listened to the people, has struck a fair balance. Those people are law abiding and did not want to risk breaking it last Christmas. I saw the effect it had on rural towns last Christmas. When families travelled to town to do their Christmas shopping husbands did not go into the pubs to have a drink because they were afraid that if they took one they would be over the limit and were not prepared to take that risk. Those are not the people about whom gardaí or the Minister are concerned, they are concerned with those who continually break the law. This Bill will deal with them as effectively as the previous law and will also protect the rural job. While publicans put on an impressive display when they protested outside the Dáil by high-lighting the weaknesses in the Act, I compliment the Minister, his officials and the Government for the correct decision they made in introducing this Bill to amend that Act.

Publicans do an injustice to the soft drinks industry in relation to the prices they charge. They treat non-drinkers like myself unjustly by charging £1.10 or £1.05 for a mineral and in some cases a higher price for a Ballygowan. I challenge the drinks industry to demonstrate its commitment to the people. The Minister proved that he was willing to change by amending the regulations and I call on the drinks industry, particularly publicans, to reduce the price of mineral waters by 50 per cent. That would still yield a good profit. If the drinks industry were to do that, both it and the Government would have made a major gesture. Deputy Foxe, who is a publican, may not agree with me——

Mr. Foxe

It is the only true thing the Deputy said all day.

Mr. Ring

An uncle of mine is in the business but, as a non-drinker, I consider the prices charged for mineral waters in pubs are ridiculous. I am glad the Minister introduced this change as the rural pub is a way of life. The advertising campaign during the Christmas season included the phrase "use the DART", "take a taxi", but there is no DART in Newport, Belmullet or Claremorris and in some rural areas there is no taxi service because some communities are not large enough to justify one. The Minister may not realise it, but he helped to create a new taxi service business in small towns. I welcome that as it brought people into employment who would otherwise be unemployed. I am glad the Minister introduced changes to the Act. They will benefit the rural publicans in particular who provide a valuable service which is probably not appreciated. They are somewhat like politicians in that no matter what they do they cannot win and yet they have to listen to all sorts of problems. I am sure Deputy Foxe will confirm that they have to be a social worker, a doctor, a lawyer and be all things to all men, a bit like politicians. I compliment the Minister for getting it right this time.

Mr. Foxe

The present profit margins of pubs are at their lowest in approximately 20 years. While the changes the Minister introduced to the previous Act are welcome, I wish to refer to one aspect. When this Bill is enacted persons who consume a pint and a glass of beer or a half one and a glass of beer could lose their driving licence for three months, a punitive penalty especially in the case of those who depend on driving for a livelihood. In some parts of the Continent there are variations in the penalties for drink driving. People may lose their licences for social activities, like driving during the weekend, but allowed to drive during working hours. Perhaps the Minister will consider introducing such a measure. I intend to table an amendment on Committee Stage to amend the section which provides that people will lose their licence if their blood alcohol level is between 80 and 100 milligrammes. I admire the Minister for reviewing the Act so quickly. It was a courageous move on his part, but I would like him to go one step further and introduce a monetary fine for the offenders to whom I referred.

I accept the other provisions in the Bill, but judges presiding over drink driving cases should have greater discretion and it should not be compulsory that offenders lose their licences automaticallly. Judges should have greater discreation in this regard. I am sure the Minister will agree that it is punitive that a person who takes a pint and a glass of beer could lose his or her licence for three months.

We tend to think that the people most affected by this Bill will be the publicans. They are affected to a degree and even though I am a publican publicans are not the section of the community about whom I am most concerned. I am most concerned about people, mostly men, in their mid-50s to mid-70s who live a few miles outside a town and have been used to having two or three pints at night. Those men have been doing that for the past 30 to 40 years. If they abide by the law, all they can do is stay at home and look at the four walls. I refer particularly to single people not in the happy state of married bliss. That section of society is most hit by the new drink-driving laws. If those men abide by the law and stay at home all night, we will have to increase the number of psychiatric hospitals within two to three years. Those men go for a jar at night, not because they love alcohol or are alcoholics, for them the pub replaces the old rambling house or the céilís. They go to town at night to have a chat, exchange stories, lies or truth, but probably mostly lies. I am most concerned about that section of the community and I ask the Minister to consider them. Those men would stay at home rather than travel to town to only have a pint and a glass of beer and if they go into town they will break the law. I was serious when I said the psychiatric hospitals will be doing the business in about three years' time. Will the Minister reconsider the penalties it is proposed to impose on people caught driving with less than 100 milligrammes of alcohol in their blood?

Mr. Sheehan

I compliment the Minister on the amendments he made to the Bill, but he stopped short of making a worth-while change. He failed to introduce a clause whereby a person caught driving with a blood alcohol count of between 81 and 100 milligrammes would be only liable to a fine and not a driving disqualification. The mandatory loss of a licence for three months on a first conviction for such an offence is unacceptable. Such a penalty is unnecessarily severe, especially as it applies even where there is not an injured party or victim.

In addition to losing the licence, the driver will be subject to an even greater follow-on penalty imposed by the insurance industry which could have serious repercussions for the driver for up to five years. Car insurance premia could be loaded against the victim to the tune of 250 per cent. This will have disastrous consequences for the unfortunate people caught driving with a blood alcohol level of between 81 and 100 milligrammes.

I am sure all Members would agree that drink has always been a custom of the human race. Scripture illustrates that this was evident at the Wedding Feast of Cana in Galilee when Our Lord turned water into wine and the guests were impressed at the miracle.

Mr. T. Foxe

That is understandable.

Mr. Connaughton

In other words, they had a good time.

Mr. Sheehan

Life in rural Ireland is dull and lonely enough without making it worse. Will bachelor farmers, widowers and others be denied the pleasure of a couple of drinks following a hard day's work in the fields? The person who goes out with the intention of getting drunk deserves to pay the full penalty, but many people would not pass a breathalyser test after having only one pint and this provision will have serious consequences for them.

If that section of our community is denied the pleasure of having an alcoholic drink, their health will be affected and the demand for psychiatric services in rural areas will increase. It may be acceptable to apply this measure in our cities and large towns, but the nearest hackney service to the little humble village of Goleen is 40 miles away and there is no bus service to take people home from the pub at night. Neither does it have a DART or rail or bus service enjoyed by those in the capital city who can travel by public transport from their nearest pub to their homes. In rural Ireland on a desolate winter's night, with rain and wind howling many people must travel five miles of narrow mountainous boreens from the nearest pub to their homes. Those people will not risk losing their licences. Rather they will stay at home in solitude, in solitary confinement. Hospitals and other institutions will overflow with people if this provision is enacted without amendment.

I appeal to the Minister, who understands the fabric of rural life, to remove the driving disqualification clause for those caught driving with a blood alcohol level of less than 100 milligrammes. He could impose a fine of up to £100, but he should not deprive the unfortunate people who go to the pub for a social drink the right to drive. I hope the Minister will consider those who live some miles from pubs and have nothing to live for but a drink at the end of the day. He should let common sense prevail, remove this clause and make the Bill acceptable to all concerned.

Mr. Connaughton

In keeping with the views of most Members, I welcome the change in the Bill and support its thrust. In regard to the driving disqualification penalty proposed for those caught driving with a blood alcohol level of between 81 and 100 milligrammes, I would prefer if, for a first offence, the clause did not apply, but for a second offence it should. The substitution of this penalty with a fairly hefty fine would make this an excellent Bill. However, the new measures are balanced and most members of the public are grateful to the Minister for amending the Bill. When the Oireachtas passes legislation it is usually not revised for a few years. People in general now support the Bill.

Like other Deputies I met many deputations last Christmas who were concerned about the effects of this Bill. It made people realise the danger of drinking and driving, but it went a little too far. I accept it is difficult to get the balance right. Many people have no other social outlet but to have a couple of drinks in their local pub. As Deputy Foxe would know, there is no place better for social entertainment than the local pub. If people could not go to the pub at the weekend, life would be very dull for them. However, there is another side to that coin. Our laws must protect the people who use our roads. Whether we are enacting laws dealing with the problem of drink driving or speeding, we must ensure that unsuspecting members of the public can travel safely on our roads. We in this House have a responsibility to protect the public from serious injury and death on our roads. I do not subscribe to the view that a person who drinks four or five pints can drive as safely under certain conditions as someone who drinks one pint. All the evidence indicates that there is a certain limit above which people become a danger to themselves and others on the road.

I think the limit in the Bill of 80 milligrammes is appropriate. Many people were of the opinion that the limit should not be below 100 milligrammes but this brings us into line with most other EU countries. The main problem that I became aware of in the past four or five months was the fear that people who had been disqualified from driving would be required to sit their test again. I am happy that will not now be so, except where a person is convicted for dangerous driving resulting in death or serious bodily harm or in the case of hit and run accidents. No Member of either House of the Oireachtas would say that such people should be required to resit their driving test before having their licences reissued to them. I compliment the Minister on retaining that provision.

I believe this amending Bill will be passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas and it has general support among the public. I compliment the publicans on the case they put forward. However, I was more concerned about the effects of the new legislation on the public than on the publicans. I agree there were fewer people in pubs last Christmas but barriers can be broken down when measures have been in place for a long time. The problem was that the penalties were too severe and that has been accepted on all sides. That is why I believe there has been a general welcome for this Bill.

I wish to return to the important issue of enforcement. I do not see the point in having a major Garda campaign to deal with drink driving during the Christmas period if the same is not done for the remaining 11 months of the year. Two nights ago I was driving from Loughrea to my home at a very late hour when I came across a Garda checkpoint. The gardaí were using a breathalyser to check whether drivers had been drinking. I was delighted to see that because it should be made known that the gardaí continue to monitor people for drink driving throughout the year. There should be an evenhanded approach to this. Where people are obviously not in control of their vehicles, there must be a mechanism in place whereby the gardaí can take them into custody.

I have been told by some people that the attitude of public representatives to this issue is totally wrong. A certain section of the population believe that much more draconian measures should be implemented to deal with the problem of drink driving, but if we were to take that argument to its logical conclusion, we would have to have a garda outside every pub in the country to make sure that people getting into cars had not been drinking to excess.

I believe parents have a great responsibility to ensure that their teenagers are aware of the dangers of drinking and driving. We can enact legislation in the Dáil which hopefully will be enforced by the appropriate authorities, but unless there is a change of attitude on the part of parents towards drinking, what we do in this House will make little difference. Parents are the primary educators but many of them seem to think that gardaí, teachers or legislators should deal with this problem. If we are to achieve our objectives in dealing with this problem, parents will have to take more responsibility for dealing with the consequences of teenage drinking. I do not wish to appear to be giving a sermon; I have my own responsibilities as a parent but much more will have to be done by parents to address this problem.

I wanted to make some more points about the Bill but time does not allow for that. On balance, I believe the Minister has got it right. I am a little concerned about the issue of disqualification on the first offence and I wanted to put that on the record.

I should have said at the outset that I wish to share my time with my colleagues, Deputies Boylan and Connor.

Mr. Boylan

I thank Deputy Connaughton for sharing his time with me. I compliment the Minister on bringing in these realistic amendments. I was one of the few Deputies in this House who were strongly opposed to the original legislation which I knew would not have the effect the then Minister was hoping it would have in dealing with the problem of drinking and driving. It adversely affected rural communities who had no means of transport to get to their local pubs other than their cars or tractors. As a result of the original legislation the social lives of those people were gradually being destroyed. On their behalf, I thank the Minister for bringing in this common-sense legislation to deal with the problem. I fully support Deputy Connaughton's views in that regard also.

I ask the Minister to examine the problem of speeding and reckless driving. I realise that is a completely different issue but speed has been the cause of a number of accidents recently resulting in the loss of young life. I do not wish to point a finger at any particular group but we will have to come to grips with this problem. We have a speed limit in this country — I believe it is 60 miles per hour — and it can have the effect of slowing down traffic that is already moving safely. On the other hand, there are undeveloped stretches of road on which it is only safe to drive slowly. Time and again I have seen cars overtake other cars on blind corners. Their drivers are hoping that oncoming cars will move out of their way to allow them pass. Reckless driving causes many accidents. The Minister has dealt sensibly with the problem of drink driving and 99 per cent of the people support him. I compliment the Garda Síochána on the way they handled driving offences in the interim period. Reckless driving must be tackled if we are to save lives.

I am told the speed limit is 50 m.p.h. but juggernauts having to make time travel at higher speeds. There is no point in a law that people will inevitably break. We need to set speed limits at reasonable levels so that people will travel within it safely and I ask the Minister to re-examine this matter.

Mr. Connor

I welcome this amendment of the 1994 Road Traffic Act. I congratulate the Minister for the courage he has shown in amending the law. While there was a great deal of protest about the draconian measures introduced by the former Minister for the Environment, Deputy Michael Smith there was support for them. I felt that these measures were draconian and were inappropriate especially in rural Ireland and Deputy Nealon was one of the first Deputies to draw attention to that during the Second Stage debate on the Road Traffic Bill, 1994.

The Vintners' Federation of Ireland, a major interest group, lobbied me as well as every other Deputy in the House and I agree broadly with two paragraphs of its letter. I hope I am not boring the House by reading the two relevant paragraphs:

There remains now just one concern relating to the proposed amendment. That is the mandatory loss of licence for three months on first conviction with blood alcohol levels of 80 mg. or more. This penalty is unnecessarily severe bearing in mind that it is mandatory and it applies even where there is no injured party or victim.

In addition to the loss of licence, the driver will be subjected to an even greater follow-on penalty by the insurance industry — a penalty which will have serious repercussions for up to five years later. Car insurance will be severely loaded.

These are reasonable points and the Minister should take them on board. The car insurance industry should not have carte blanche to load insurance premia on car drivers convicted for driving under the influence of drink. They may have been convicted for having a blood alcohol level between 80 and 100 milligrammes which is a relatively minor offence. I do not know what the Minister can do about the problem but something can be done.

I will digress slightly from the Bill to refer briefly to the roadworks programme initiated under the Structural Fund which will be in operation until 1999. I am not satisfied that the National Roads Authority now directing funds to our major roads is doing the best job. We have a little more than 100 kilometres of seriously deficient national roads which contribute to accidents and are the scenes of many of our worst accidents. Deficient sections of national primary roads are found in every county but worst of all are the roads of County Roscommon. The Minister took the advice of the National Roads Authority in allocating funds for national roads 75 per cent of which comes from European Union funding. However, the National Roads Authority should be more accessible to public representatives and I hope it will be more open to advice from the Department. I accept that many people at senior administrative level in the National Roads Authority transferred from the Department but having listened to its representatives at a conference recently in Bray I could not be convinced but that they saw themselves as something of an independent republic in their attitude to questions and towards policy. That National Roads Authority was conferred with very important powers in relation to policy and funding and this should be looked at. In principle it sounded good at the time but it certainly is not delivering the goods in its first year of operation and I ask the Minister to look seriously at this matter.

Minister for the Environment (Mr. Howlin)

I thank all the Deputies who contributed to the debate. It is a short but very important Bill. That so many Deputies spoke bears testimony to the interest this issue has engendered. In responding to the debate I will direct my remarks to the main issues raised on disqualification and penalties for drink driving offences.

I welcome the remarks of the main Opposition spokespersons, Deputies Dempsey and Quill. They supported the new measures and indicated they would not table amendments. They also supported the decision of the Government not to revert to the limit of 100 milligrammes per 100 millilitres of blood. There was consensus that such a move would have had a negative impact on road safety. The imposition of a single minimum period of disqualification, irrespective of the level of alcohol has been the focus of much criticism during this debate. I indicated in my opening remarks that I thought it was a valid criticism of the 1994 provision. My aim in reviewing the Act was to strike the right balance to provide the legislative framework for a safer environment on our roads and accordingly I was pleased to note general all-party agreement for the grading of penalties and the general thrust of the changes I wish to bring about. The disqualification of drivers with blood alcohol levels in the bottom band was a point of consistent focus. This is an issue I have carefully considered in the review. The Government is fully satisfied that some period of disqualification from driving should apply to all drink driving offences and that has been the case since the very first drink driving offences were instituted. It would have been a significant move to alter that principle and it might have given the wrong signal, something that on balance we did not want to do.

A further issue raised by Deputies during the debate was the cost of motor insurance. Deputies will be aware that insurance companies determine their costs on the basis of the assessment of risk, and that conviction for any serious road traffic offence will have implications for the motorist's insurance premium. In addition to saving lives one of the key aims of road safety initiatives is to reduce the cost of motor insurance for all road users. As road deaths and injuries are reduced I will certainly ensure that pressure is put on the insurance industry to replicate that by reducing insurance costs. The Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise and Employment has decided to commission a study which will analyse insurance costs and identify the key factors which contribute to high insurance costs.

In his contribution Deputy O'Hanlon referred to the clause which gives the courts the option not to apply the repeat driving test requirement. It will be a matter for the courts to apply that clause where they are of the opinion that there is an exceptional or unusual reason a convicted person should not have to pass a driving test. The repeat driving test requirement will not apply to the generality of cases.

Other Deputies referred to enforcement and I concur with what they said. I want to create, in consultation with the Minister for Justice, an environment where people do not feel they must be mindful of the drink driving laws at Christmas time only. It is an ongoing issue. If we establish laws which have broad public support, as I believe this measure will have, enforcement will be a regular feature and people will come to the conclusion that they cannot drink and drive. That is the objective of all road safety measures.

I took careful note of all the issues raised and hope to respond to them in other measures that will come before the House as the scope of this measure is rather narrow. Generally speaking, Deputies welcomed it. Deputy McGahon said that we had the highest number of road deaths as a percentage of population of any EU state. The latest figures I have for the 12 EU countries indicate that Ireland in 1991 ranked ninth in terms of road deaths. We were not among the eight worst countries but that is not something about which to be complacent. There was consensus on the Bill on all sides which I welcome. I have tried on the one hand to have a regime which will ensure the greatest degree of safety on our roads and on the other hand one which all citizens will be comfortable with and support. This should be a fundamental principle of the legislative process. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill put through Committee and reported without amendment.

Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

Minister for the Environment (Mr. Howlin)

I thank all Deputies for their contributions and especially for their co-operation in ensuring the speedy passage of the Bill. They will be aware that section 3 deals with the transitional phase. I am anxious that there will not be a residual backlog of cases between the bringing into effect of the previous legislation last December and the coming into effect of this legislation. The sooner the legislation is put on the Statute Book the fewer anomalies will arise. That point was recognised by the Whips in tabling the Bill for discussion.

The Bill is a fair one. That will be recognised by the majority of interests outside the House, particularly the motoring public. It will result in a system of enforcement and penalties which will be regarded as just and equitable.

Miss Quill

I commend the Minister for the efficient manner in which he dealt with the Bill, for the speed with which he brought it before us and conducted it through the House. Since the Minister announced that he intended to amend the Bill there has been uncertainty among the public. The Minister responded quickly and sensitively to that. He conducted the Bill through the House with great efficiency and has earned the praise of my party for so doing. I commend him for dealing with the matter in this manner.

Mr. Connor

I join in congratulating the Minister for the way in which he has dealt with this difficult legislation. It took courage to deal with it. While the provisions of the previous Act were controversial they had a lot of support. I thank the Minister for dealing efficiently and expeditiously with the Bill and also for the understanding way in which he dealt with the points raised by various Deputies.

Question put and agreed to.