Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 3 May 1995

Vol. 143 No. 3

Road Traffic Bill, 1995: Second Stage.

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

Minister for the Environment (Mr. Howlin)

The purpose of this short Bill is to amend the provisions of the Road Traffic Acts, 1961 to 1994, dealing with the imposition of consequential disqualification orders following conviction for certain road traffic offences. The Bill arises from a review of the operation of the drink driving and other enforcement provisions of the Road Traffic Act, 1994, which came into operation on 2 December of last year.

Before dealing with the specific provisions in the Bill, it would be helpful to outline for the benefit of the Seanad the developments which gave rise to the new proposals.

The principle of consequential or mandatory disqualification is that 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.

In 1994, a new Road Traffic Act was enacted following detailed consideration in both Houses of the Oireachtas. That Act was comprehensive in its scope and included a general updating of the law governing drinking and driving. It also included a range of new measures which had been recommended by an inter-ministerial group which had been looking at ways to reduce the cost of motor insurance.

Prior to the 1994 Act, legislation governing drinking and driving was set out in the Road Traffic (Amendment) Act, 1978. Under the 1978 Act, the maximum permissible blood alcohol level for drivers of vehicles was 100 milligrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood. A person found guilty of exceeding the blood alcohol limit of 100 milligrammes was liable at that stage to the following penalties: mandatory disqualification from driving for a minimum of one year; a fine of up to a maximum of £1,000 and imprisonment up to a maximum term of six months.

The new drink driving provisions in the Road Traffic Act, 1994, were introduced by the previous Administration as a road safety measure and were part of a much wider road safety campaign which has been ongoing since 1991. The new provisions reduced the blood alcohol limit from 100 milligrammes to 80 milligrammes, increased the mandatory disqualification period to two years and introduced a new requirement to pass a driving test before a licence is returned.

The 1994 Act did, however, give some discretion to the courts in this area. It allowed the court to apply a one year disqualification and to decide not to apply the driving test requirement where the court is satisfied that there are special reasons to justify such a course. The other penalties were not changed. The maximum fine of £1,000 and the maximum term of imprisonment of six months were not altered. Subject to those maxima, the level of any such penalty is entirely a matter for the court itself.

The drink driving and related enforcement measures of the 1994 Act came into operation on 2 December 1994. The commencement of the provisions coincided with the launch of the annual Christmas road safety campaign which traditionally involves intensified road safety publicity and enforcement.

The House will be aware that the new measures introduced last December had an immediate impact. In December 1994 there was a major reduction in road casualties, both deaths and injuries, compared with the same period in 1993. In December 1994, 28 people were killed on the roads and 729 were injured compared with 41 deaths and 965 injuries in December 1993.

While it cannot be claimed that the reduction in road accident deaths and injuries was directly or solely achieved by the new legislation, it is clear that a combination of the new legislation, the intensified enforcement and the publicity campaign had a very positive impact from a road safety perspective.

However, there was also a negative reaction to the Act. It is fair to say that the new measures were controversial and that they gave rise to significant media and public interest. There were claims that the new measures were placing the livelihood of those employed in the drinks industry at risk and that there was a negative impact on social life, particularly in rural areas. It was claimed that the penalties were excessive and, in particular, that a single minimum disqualification period, irrespective of the level of alcohol in individual cases, was unfair and resulted in penalties being imposed which took no account of the severity of the actual offence committed. The House will recall that there was a vigorous demand for change, but there was also a strong campaign seeking to ensure that the stringent measures were kept in place.

These developments were monitored and the Government decided that a review of the provisions should be undertaken. On 4 January last I announced that I would meet with a variety of interest groups to hear at first hand their views on the impact of the new measures. The groups I met included representatives of vintners, restaurateurs, hoteliers, the insurance industry, Mothers against Drink Driving and the Campaign against Drunken Driving. In addition to the oral submission, I received written submissions from a wide cross-section of opinion.

During the consultation process, a number of interest groups sought an increase in the blood alcohol level from 80 milligrammes back to the former limit of 100 milligrammes. The limit of 80 milligrammes now 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 the blood alcohol limit of 80 milligrammes in force since 2 December 1994.

All the evidence available to us indicates that the risk of accident rises 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 and it would be a negative step to amend the law to increase the limit. The Government has no intention of taking such action.

As part of the review, I also 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 so as to match the disqualification period to the gravity of the offence committed. Most of the interest groups which made written or oral submissions to me had argued strongly that such a system of graded disqualification periods would be more equitable and more likely to attract the support of the public, particularly the motoring public.

The desirability and feasibility of introducing graded penalties has been considered on a number of occasions in the past. I understand the former Minister considered the issue during the passage of the Road Traffic Act, 1994, but that he was advised, following consultations 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 have been advised that, on the coming into operation of the 1994 Act, the Director of Public Prosecutions has reviewed the need for that tolerance and that he 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 removes a major obstacle to the introduction of a graded system of penalties.

A further element of the Road Traffic Act, 1994, which I reviewed was the requirement to pass a driving test before a driving licence is returned following conviction for drink driving offences. The courts have had a discretionary power since the early 1960s to impose such a requirement, for example, where the court was of the opinion from the evidence given that the convicted person was not competent to drive. This requirement to pass a driving test, following conviction for certain offences, was made mandatory in the 1994 Act. 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 the provisions should be amended. Accordingly, such an amendment is before the House today.

I would like to outline details of the proposed amendments in the Bill. The changes to the disqualification requirements are set out in section 2. This section proposes to substitute two new subsections (3) and (4) of section 26 of the Road Traffic Act, 1961, as inserted by the 1994 Act. The new subsection (3) outlines the changes to the provision which currently requires persons convicted of certain offences to pass a driving test in addition to the minimum period of disqualification before the driving licence may be returned.

Under existing provisions, set out in the 1994 Act, the requirement applies where a person is convicted of any drink driving offence, of dangerous driving or of leaving the scene of an accident where death or injury was caused. The amendment now proposed will confine the requirement to resit a driving test to two serious offences — section 53, dangerous driving where death or serious bodily harm is caused, tried on indictment; and section 106, hit and run where death or injury is caused. The courts will retain a discretion not to apply the driving test requirement where the court is satisfied that special reasons exist to justify such a course of action. 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.

The new subsection (4) sets out the proposed new disqualification requirements for drink driving offences. Consequential or mandatory disqualification will continue to apply to all drink driving convictions, but the subsection proposes 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 a four year disqualification for second or subsequent offences are to apply. These include the old drunk driving offence, that is, 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. The Bill proposes that where people refuse to give a sample, the maximum penalty provision will come into force.

For the purposes 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 be drivers convicted with a blood alcohol level in the range of 81 to 100 milligrammes. This is the new offence category introduced last December. 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 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 a two year ban for a second offence in this category. A one year ban has applied since 1978 to all drivers with blood alcohol levels over 100 milligrammes. That is restoring it to the position prior to last December. The highest band will be 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.

I previously described these proposals as tough but fair. The three month ban for a conviction with a blood alcohol level between 81 and 100 milligrammes is a significant penalty, with the usual consequences including a motor insurance loading. At the other end of the scale, people with blood alcohol levels over 150 milligrammes will face an automatic two year ban. The provision in the 1994 Act which allows the court to impose a one year ban where special reasons exist is to be dropped. As a result, people with alcohol levels over 150 milligrammes will, in practice, be subject to longer disqualifications. The statistics of the Medical Bureau of Road Safety, which analyses the blood and urine specimens, show that 75 per cent of people who provide a blood or urine sample are in this top band. The import of the three bands are to make it less severe at the lower end, to retain the middle ban as it was prior to last year and to increase the penalty so as to make it more severe than the new legislation for those who are well over 150 milligrammes. People will welcome this as a tough but fair system.

Section 3 of the Bill contains transitional provisions and applies to offences committed since 2 December 1994, when section 26 of the Road Traffic Act, 1994, came into operation. Some drink driving offences committed since 2 December 1994 have already come to trial and persons convicted have been dealt with under the 1994 Act. Other offences committed in the same period have not yet come to trial, but when they do they will also be dealt with under the 1994 provisions. To do otherwise would introduce an inequality before the law, with harsher penalties applying simply because a case came to trial more quickly.

However, section 3 of the Bill before the House today will allow all persons who committed relevant offences since 2 December 1994, and who are dealt with under the 1994 Act, to apply to the court seeking to have disqualification orders amended so as to have the provisions in section 2 of this Bill applied to them. Transitional provisions on these lines are not strictly necessary. The penalties which apply to any offence are those prescribed in the law which is in force at the date of the commission of the offence. However, I believe that the transitional provisions in this section are desirable and that they will be recognised as being fair and equitable. I did not want a situation to exist where for a period of time between December 1994 and the passage into law of the current Bill, people would be dealt with more harshly for the same offence than they would subsequently. So the help of the Attorney General was sought in devising a mechanism where people can go back to the courts and have the provisions of this new Bill applied to them when it is enacted.

In drawing up the proposed changes in this Bill I was anxious to ensure that the efforts of my predecessor. Deputy Michael Smith, to whom I want to pay tribute, and the progress made in recent 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.

During my extensive discussions with all interested parties it became clear to me that various groups have a role to play in achieving the common objectives of allowing rural life to flourish and at the same time to ensure that our roads are safe. These proposals represent my best effort at striking that balance and I exhort all others to play their part in achieving this important objective.

Before concluding, I want to stress again that the new measures should not be interpreted as a licence to drink and drive. The purpose of these amendments is to ensure that penalties are appropriate to the offence. They are certainly not intended to give comfort or succour to the drunken driver. The penalties provide the basis for effective and ongoing enforcement of the anti-drink driving policies well into the future.

There is evidence that the majority of the public increasingly supports the notion of not driving after drinking. We will continue, through the ongoing national road safety campaign, to educate and inform road users of the dangers of mixing the two. However, if our road safety campaigns are to be effective we need public support, and it is essential that this support is not lost through measures which are perceived as draconian. I believe that public support can best be built on through a measured campaign which includes enforcement and penalties which hit hardest at the serious and persistent offenders. This Bill sets out to do that in the best way that I can see, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Daly

For a long number of years successive Ministers for the Environment, and Governments, have campaigned vigorously to reduce the number of deaths and injuries on the roads. Road safety campaigns, public advertising programmes, new legislation — updated from the early 1930s in 1961, 1965, 1978, 1984 and again now — and many other methods were used and adopted in an effort to minimise the number of road deaths and injuries. Each new campaign was publicly promoted, but nevertheless the toll of death and injury continues to bring tragedy, misery and pain to thousands of families.

Every year over 400 people die on the roads while 10,000 more are injured, many of them being permanently incapacitated. The continuing high level of death and injury on our roads is a cause of deep concern and no effort must be spared to reduce that carnage. While all these deaths are not alcohol related, many of them are and, as everybody in the House knows, one death is one too many. It was against this background that the Houses of the Oireachtas passed the Road Traffic Act, 1994. After a discussion in the Dáil, a special committee discussed it in detail and there was a fairly long deliberation on its Second and Committee Stages in this House in early March 1994. A record number of amendments were tabled in the House and Members had an opportunity to discuss the issue in detail, which I do not propose to do now.

While the 1994 Act has been the subject of much criticism, nevertheless it focused attention on the danger of driving with excess alcohol, perhaps more than any other initiative which has been taken over the past 20 years. The early signs of reduced road fatalities since the introduction of the legislation indicated that the new law was having a marked and significant effect. In introducing the legislation the then Minister for the Environment, Deputy Smith, and the Government were convinced that the measure was necessary to make an impact on the increasing number of tragedies on our roads and that the legislation was necessary and essential to bring about a significant reduction in the toll of death and injury. It may transpire that the 1994 Act may have brought about a turning point in the spiralling number of road tragedies and it may have already had an important influence in changing attitudes nationally to drinking and driving.

The international trend today is towards a situation where those who drink, regardless of how little, will not be encouraged to drive. The Minister indicated the European standards and the situation which prevails in most states in the European Union. Even in the short time since the 1994 Act was passed, there has been an increasing level of awareness, especially among young people, of the dangers of driving while under the influence of alcohol. Since the Act was introduced more and more young people have refrained from drinking so they could drive to facilitate their friends. There is a far greater understanding among young drivers, in particular, of the dangers involved and I hope this will help to reduce the numbers of young drivers who drink. I have had personal indications of this, especially at Christmas, when groups of young people in my locality, which is a rural area, made the necessary arrangements to ensure that on their nights of entertainment there would be somebody who would not drink and would drive. Perhaps the 1994 Act will have a very big impact on young people, change many of their attitudes and have an important impact on the effort to reduce the number of fatalities on our roads.

It would be true to say — and the Minister acknowledged this — that the public reaction to the new measure was not favourable. It has been demonstrated on many other issues that public acceptability of any legislation is essential if the law is to be effective. The general view that the penalties were excessive and needed to be adjusted and looked at more carefully in the light of the discussion which took place and that there was a necessity to have some amendments and changes made was generally widely accepted throughout the community. A change in the law was demanded and I believe the Minister was wise to examine the penalties. He acted very expeditiously and I compliment him on the way he met with the various organisations and representatives who went to see him and on the speed with which he took action and introduced this Bill.

There is a sizeable number of people who believe that the present law should not be changed. Many of them feel that the law should be stronger in this area. Many of them have suffered the trauma of having children, parents and relatives killed on the road by drunken drivers. No words could adequately express our deepest sympathy to those who have lost relatives and friends in tragic road accidents. However, laws and penalties alone will not bring an end to such tragedies. There must be general acceptance in the community that drinking and driving is a recipe for catastrophe and must be ended.

During the past year there has been an organised campaign by the Licensed Vintners' Association to secure changes in the 1994 legislation. When I and other public representatives had meetings with the representatives of the Licensed Vintners' Association they were courteous and understanding and made their representations in a fair and frank manner. I accept that licensed vintners in Ireland are equally concerned at the appalling number of road fatalities. The Licensed Vintners' Association is a responsible body and fully recognises that it is not in its interest — no more than anybody else's — to see the number of road fatalities from alcohol related accidents increase. The vintners would accept, however, that there is a connection between death on the roads and drunken driving and that while the penalties have been adjusted, their continuing co-operation is essential and must be forthcoming to assist in the campaign to keep Irish roads clear of drunken drivers.

Fianna Fáil will not oppose this measure. However, we would not wish to send out a message, or a signal, that we will go easy on drinking and driving. On the contrary, in the event of an escalation of drinking and driving and a continuation of the appalling tragedy of death and injury on our roads, we will not be slow to support further measures and controls to end the slaughter on the roads if the situation warrants it. The Minister has been fair in this Bill. It is not our intention to propose any amendments at this stage. I am sure the Bill will have the widespread support of all Members of the House.

Mr. Howard

I welcome the Minister to the House and particularly the measure he is bringing before us. I join in the observations he made in the concluding part of his speech when he said that the new measures should not be interpreted as a licence to drink and drive. He also said that the purpose of these measures was to ensure that the penalties are appropriate to the offence. There is widespread acceptance of those sentiments in the House.

Senator Daly complimented the Minister for responding to the difficulties that arose following the implementation of the legislation last December. I concur with Senator Daly. I compliment the Minister on proposing a regime that can be described as fair, just and balanced in dealing with what emerged as a sensitive issue. The approach adopted by the Minister reflects common sense and understanding, qualities that had to be applied to the situation that had developed. I am satisfied that the Minister is applying those qualities in this Bill.

I welcome the graded penalties. A number of us campaigned and argued for such penalties during the passage of the 1994 Act. I also welcome the elimination of the mandatory requirement to pass a driving test except in the two circumstances outlined by the Minister in his speech — section 53, where dangerous driving causes death or serious bodily harm and is tried on indictment and section 106, where death or injury is caused as a result of hit and run. That is a fair, balanced and appropriate approach.

The Minister said that the penalties in the 1994 Act were perceived as being draconian. He is correct; that would also be my description of the penalties. In addition, I would say that they were unbalanced and that they caused a degree of social upheaval in rural Ireland that we have not witnessed previously, certainly in my lifetime. As a result of the implementation of the 1994 Act countless thousands of law abiding people became virtual prisoners in their homes over the Christmas period. Compliments are due to the Minister and to his colleagues in Government for recognising that fact and for responding to it reasonably quickly. Compliments are also due to my colleagues in both Houses of the Oireachtas who recognised that mayhem was being caused and who lobbied to prevent a recurrence of such mayhem over the coming months. While the Minister is responding to and dealing with that situation fairly effectively, he is also retaining safeguards in the legislation to protect the community from drunken driving. He has the support of all sides of the House in doing that. He has the support of probably all the organisations that campaigned for a more enlightened approach to the effects of the 1994 Act.

I have a special interest in so far as I am a licensed vintner. I make no apology for the occupation in which I am proud to be involved. I wish to make a few points about the social role, as it were, of the pub in rural Ireland. However, before I do that, it must be pointed out that the dispersal of population in this country is unique in the European context. People in Europe mainly live in towns and villages. There is a greater dispersal of people in rural Ireland. The pub has emerged all over the island and certainly in the rural areas as being the centre of social activity. Indeed, the rural pub is more than that. It has helped, more than any other source, to preserve and develop our unique culture that is expressed through music, singing, dancing and so forth.

The contribution the pubs of Ireland make to tourism is enormous. Figures show that a visit to an Irish pub is visitors' second choice of activity. They enjoy the atmosphere and find it unique. The spread of Irish pubs throughout Europe and the United States is an example of a unique institution finding its way, developing and prospering on both sides of the Atlantic. Pubs are a most valuable asset to our economy. In another way — and I say this with the utmost care — in rural Ireland and particularly in winter the rural pub is often the medium that preserves the sanity of an aging population.

While in a general way I support the Bill, it is only natural that a Member of the House will examine the Bill and wonder if there are ways in which it could be improved. The Minister might consider an amendment giving the courts discretion when dealing with people with a blood alcohol level of 81 to 100 milligrammes to impose a fine rather than the three months driving ban. I will outline the circumstances later in which that might apply. The argument for this amendment can be made under three headings. The first is that, as a matter of principle, discretion in all circumstances, and not only with regard to this measure, should rest with the courts. No two cases are ever the same, and I argued this when we last debated this issue. I said then that, in general terms and not solely with regard to drink driving, the imposition of mandatory penalties and the compelling of courts and judges to impose these penalties reflects on the integrity and confidence of the Judiciary. As a general principle I am in favour of giving discretion to the courts, having examined and considered the facts of each individual case. With regard to drink driving, this suggestion should apply to people whose blood alcohol level is in the low category. I would prefer to see it applied to all categories, but I am satisfied that there is no hope of achieving this. The Minister should, therefore, consider this improvement to the legislation.

The second argument has been put forward to all of us in a letter dated 21 April 1995 from the Drinks Industry Group. The letter deals with the effects of the legislation on the social drinker, including the costs of insurance, especially when an accident is involved. The letter begins:

The Drinks Industry Group has noted with approval the proposals of the Minister for the Environment to introduce certain amendments... in relation to the graduation of penalties and the deletion of the mandatory requirement to pass a driving test...

Notwithstanding these improvements, the Group remains concerned that a conviction for a first offence where a blood/alcohol count is between 81 and 100 mgs. carries with it a minimum disqualification period of three months. We believe this to be an unnecessarily severe penalty particularly when no other offence has been committed.

Reliable information obtained by our Group from the insurance industry indicates that where no other offence or accident has been involved such a disqualification would result in a loading of between 100-250 per cent on the basic premium. [In his address, the Minister accepted this.] Such a loading is, we are sure you will agree, excessive albeit that our statistics indicate the number of likely offenders would be quite small as evidenced by the Medical Bureau's analysis of specimens taken during December 1994 as set out below — [these figures bear out the Minister's remarks]:

Blood/Alcohol Count:	Number:	Per Cent:
81-100 mg.	13	5
101-150 mg.	64	23
150 mg.+	201	72
Totals	278	100

We believe that such a loading. having as it would a five year life, would be an excessive economic penalty even greater than that imposed by the law.

... This being stated we believe that it would be equitable to give the courts the discretion to impose a fine without the necessity to order an endorsement of licence at the 81-100 mgs. blood/alcohol count level where a first offence is involved.

The Drinks Industry Group has a reasonable argument in this instance.

The third argument can be made under the heading of those on an errand of mercy. The Minister has recognised the situation in rural Ireland, and coming from a rural county — County Clare — I can testify that there are parts of west County Clare which are 70 miles from a general hospital and up to 98 miles from a maternity hospital. A sudden illness, accident, threatened miscarriage or whatever may arise, but since an ambulance is, equally, 70 miles away, a good neighbour can be pressed into service, and perhaps having consumed a pint or two he is stopped at a check point. It is now down to the discretion of the garda at that check point, because once the driver, on an errand of mercy, blows into the bag, a court cannot, even if a life, or a number of lives, have been saved, exercise discretion once the bag and the sample have shown that the person concerned is over the level of 81 milligrammes. The errand of mercy argument, therefore, is one the Minister should accept.

There are a number of other points which could be made with regard to this argument, some of which I have first hand knowledge. In the rural areas in my county, doctors can live ten miles apart and they operate a rota system. Last Christmas, one doctor, who was off duty for the night, threw a party for his family and friends in his home. The doctor on duty was attending an emergency and following a traffic accident the doctor off duty was called and asked to attend. He reluctantly did so. The gardaí arrived in due course, both drivers were breathalised and the doctor said to me later: "I was damn lucky they didn't try me as well". He approached me, because I am a Member of the Oireachtas, to explain the kind of dilemma which face him and others like him in isolated rural areas. I discussed this matter with a vet and he said they have the same problem.

We are not dealing with human lives, but this is a factor that people who do not understand what living in rural Ireland is like and the effect such measures can have, often ignore. I know of a case where the fire alarm went off and the fire crew assembled. The driver, having been in the local pub, got into the cab. There was a Garda check point a couple of hundred yards down the road, but because the blue light was flashing and the siren was sounding they were waved through. The vehicle arrived at the farm and the fire was extinguished, but the driver was not prepared to drive the vehicle back to base, with the result that the fire chief had to be contacted to find another driver. Luckily, no other fire broke out in the area at that time but, if it had, there would have been consequences because of that man's fear of being stopped at the checkpoint which had probably been moved. The driver got a fright. When driving to the scene of the incident, in his anxiety to participate in an errand of mercy, he did not realise that he was approaching a Garda checkpoint. A similar experience — about which I do not have first hand knowledge and can only mention in passing — occurred in another county with regard to relief ambulance drivers.

However, I do have knowledge of the following case — and it occurred in a county adjoining to my own. There were two elderly neighbours who usually drove the two miles into town to have a few drinks. One of them was very worried about the new law. He asked the local Garda sergeant how many pints he could safely drink. The sergeant knew this man and told him to park the car at the end of the village, facing towards home, to have the few drinks as usual and to go home, quietly and carefully as he always did and he would be all right. That arrangement was fine until the sergeant was off duty one night and the squad car from the city — I live between two cities and I will not identify the city more closely than that — set up a checkpoint. The man of whom I am speaking rolled down the window and explained that he had an arrangement with the sergeant but he was breathalysed. The rest is history. Now under section 3 the Minister is providing the opportunity to rectify this to some degree.

These are my reasons for inviting the Minister between now and Committee Stage to consider providing that element of discretion, particularly where an errand of mercy is concerned, in the legislation to enable the court to judge each case on its merits. I leave that in the Minister's hands. The Bill is titled the Road Traffic Bill, 1995. We are dealing with road traffic and while the inclination is to discuss the measures solely connected with drink driving, the fact that it is titled the "Road Traffic Bill" gives it wider scope. For that reason I will refer to a number of other aspects of road traffic. I have taken my information from two documents published by the National Roads Authority —Road Accident Facts in Ireland, 1993, and National Roads Authority Report, 1988 to 1992. Both documents come from the Library. I have examined them and made some notes.

In 1993 431 people were killed on Irish roads, an increase of 4 per cent over the number killed in 1992, but there were more vehicles on the road in 1993 than in 1992 and the fatality rate per licensed vehicle on the road was actually unchanged. I understand that road accidents fell in 1994 by 6 per cent. As the new regulations only came into force in December 1994 we cannot say that they were entirely responsible for that 6 per cent reduction. Ireland has the fourth lowest number of road deaths per 100,000 of population in the European Union.

The analysis of persons killed in 1993 on a percentage basis shows us that car users at 43 per cent and pedestrians at 33 per cent are the two highest categories, followed by motorcyclists at about 12 per cent. An interesting statistic here relates to the hours most associated with accidents. The six hours between 9 p.m. and 3 a.m. represent 25 per cent of the time available. It might be assumed, therefore, that 31 per cent of the accidents which occurred during this period might in some way be linked with driving but the hours between 3 p.m. and 9 p.m. had a higher accident rate of 34.5 per cent.

Another interesting fact has emerged from these publications; I am putting these facts on the record because of statements made by people outside the House in relation to the influence of alcohol in driving accidents. In the 1992 publication it is stated that in 6 per cent of road accidents, alcohol was a factor; in 64 per cent, it was not a factor, and in the remaining 30 per cent the driver's condition was not known. From these statistics it is obvious that to blame most road accidents on drunken driving is incorrect.

The reasons for fatalities on our roads are many. A great deal could be done to reduce the accidents without reducing alcohol limits or increasing the penalties for those who are over the limit. I will refer to a number of other statistics. It is known, for example, that other factors have a part to play in road accidents, for example travelling in excess of the speed limits, the failure to wear safety belts, the failure of pedestrians in rural areas to wear reflective markings on their clothing at night, inadequate protection in cars, such as side impact bars etc., the mechanical failure of cars, pedestrian carelessness or mistakes, the failure of cyclists to wear helmets, poor roads and road engineering and weather conditions. During winter time the weather can be a big factor in road accidents because drivers have to contend with frost, ice, snow, fog, mist or high winds. Of the total number of fatal accidents, 61 per cent occurred in daylight or on well lit roads and 37 per cent occurred on dark roads with no lighting.

Certain actions could be taken by the Minister for the Environment and the Minister for Justice to reduce road accidents, apart from changing the alcohol limits. The Minister could ensure that, before obtaining a driving licence, each person sits a written test on the rules of the road and the cause of accidents; all persons with provisional licences should be required to drive with a fully licensed driver; there should be an annual test of roadworthiness for all cars; attempts should be made to ensure that all imported second hand cars have undergone a roadworthiness test on entry to the State; incentives should be given for accident free driving; an attempt should be made to reduce the speed limits to the United States levels and to enforce these limits accordingly; penalties for exceeding speed limits should be increased; year-round consistent enforcement of traffic regulations should be ensured; a special division of the Garda with its own resources should be established to specialise in this area and pedestrians should be required to wear reflective clothing in unlit areas at night. Another proposal that might be considered, especially for learner drivers or for those who have been convicted of exceeding the speed limit, would be to legislate for the fitting of speed governors to cars, as happens in the United States.

I have made these points because the title of the Bill enables us to deal with aspects of road traffic regulations that extend beyond those relating to drunk driving. I welcome in general the proposals the Minister has put forward in this legislation and I invite him to consider making additional amendments on the basis of the arguments I have made.

Dr. Henry

I welcome the Minister to the House and I also welcome the Bill. I am glad the Minister paid tribute to his predecessor, Deputy Smith, who was most courageous in introducing his Bill in the face of much opposition. I stated at that time that some of the Bill might require further examination. The present Minister has taken the opportunity to do so, although perhaps sooner than I would have liked. Nevertheless, most Senators had a certain amount of unease about points in the Bill.

We must also pay tribute to the Mothers against Drink Driving, an organisation which for many years pushed for a more much serious attitude towards drunken driving. For too long, it was far too acceptable for people to leave our homes or pubs and drive with excess alcohol in their blood.

A section of the Bill deals with consequential disqualification and proposes that a person must resit their driving test. This was a rather harsh measure in the original Bill, especially in view of the fact that there is a considerable delay before one can take a test and punishment had already been imposed. Has the Minister considered those people who may be convicted of a drink driving offence but who have never taken a driving test, such as those who got driving licences under a general amnesty?

I recall one such amnesty where thousands of people got full driving licences without taking a test and I think there was a further amnesty. Perhaps these people should be required to take a test. Most drivers are reasonably good, but there must a considerable number of drivers who have never taken a test. In addition, some people appear to be able to get temporary licences on a continual basis, although they have failed the test on several occasions. One hears very little about these people until somebody is involved in a fatal accident, which may not necessarily involve drink. These two groups must be examined when the Minister is considering the implementation of the Bill.

Senator Howard made an extremely good point when he said that drivers with provisional licences should be accompanied by a person with a full licence. This was the case and I am sure it was as inconvenient for people with young adult children as it was for me. We must examine this area again, given that so many fatal accidents involve young people. I agree with a great deal of what Senator Howard said about accidents.

The Minister made the important point that the Bill must be considered in the context of a continuing national road safety campaign and not in isolation. The original Bill shook everybody up and must have done a great deal for taxi drivers in Dublin over the Christmas period. It is almost impossible to gather from statistics the effect of various factors in accidents. The closest I could get to statistics on fatalities and injuries on roads show that 27 people were killed and 278 injured in February compared with 29 fatalities and 699 casualties in February 1994.

For the first two months of this year. the figures dropped to 55 people killed and 1,402 injured compared to 59 fatalities and 1,443 injuries last year. However, as Senator Howard pointed out, it is very difficult to pinpoint significant factors in such statistics. For example, one does not know the vehicle usage or the weather conditions — whether it was frostier in February this year or last year. Although it is difficult to make comparisons, we must acknowledge that there was an improvement.

The benefit of graduated penalties, in terms of the level of alcohol in a person's blood, is that it appears to be more just, especially when the person was not involved in an accident. Various statements have been made as regards how much it is safe to drink, whether one should eat beforehand and what type of people are more likely to be affected by drink. However, we must be careful about setting down definite guidelines.

I was interested in the item on the "Late Late Show" at Christmas when Gay Byrne invited four people, two men and two women, to a dinner party during the show. They all had a drink before dinner and each consumed approximately half a bottle of wine during the meal. I do not think any of them had over 60 milligrammes blood alcohol when they were tested. In general, a considerable amount of alcohol must be taken — although I am not recommending that people consume a considerable amount to see how much they can take before they are charged with drunken driving — before the limit is reached.

The Minister mentioned an interesting statistic — that 75 per cent of those tested were over 150 milligrammes; this means they were quite drunk. The problem with the limits arises when it is not just one person who has taken an excessive amount of drink, weaving around the roads, but several people in the same condition. The accident rate in those circumstances, which could also involve pedestrians, cannot be examined in the context of statistics, but it could be of importance.

The Minister has been as fair as possible with regard to the penalties. Perhaps it is as well to leave them as mandatory sentences, given the recent court judgment in relation to the possible abuse of the appeals system and the reduction of sentences and fines. I am fully aware that no two cases are the same, as Senator Howard said. However, as regards a doctor who goes out to an accident but who is unfit to drive, he or she could be in even more trouble with the medical defence union. A good Samaritan act in such a situation could land a doctor in very serious trouble.

As the Minister said, we must consider the Bill as part of a comprehensive national safety campaign. I agree with Senator Howard that other legislation must be enforced. Senator Howard mentioned seat belts; I gather the level of compliance in this regard is approximately 60 per cent in urban areas and 40 per cent in rural areas. I must declare an interest in this area. As a doctor, I see so many serious injuries which could have been avoided if people involved in accidents had been wearing seat belts. In fact, many fatalities would not have occurred if seat belts had been worn.

In this regard, I point in particular to the lack of compliance with the regulations concerning the seating of children. We still see tiny children and children under the age of 12 years sitting in the front seats of cars and they can be seen as projectiles when they sit between the two seats in the back. If parents are not prepared to make some effort to take care of their children, further action must be taken to enforce the legislation in this area. I am sure most Senators recently read a report of an accident where a child was killed when it was thrown from a car. It was under no restraint whatsoever and the adults in the car, who were restrained, stepped uninjured from the wreckage. This area must be considered again.

I am glad vehicle inspection tests will be introduced next year. It is dreadful that the introduction of these tests took so long. With any luck, they should be self-financing. I was in Hungary last year and I noticed the condition of the cars worsened the further I travelled east. I sometimes think that cars, which are not in good conditions, are sent to peripheral parts of Ireland. This issue must also be examined. There is legislation dealing with tyres, but I do not notice people being prosecuted in this regard.

As Senator Howard said, there is a great deal which we could deal with in addition to this legislation, such as speeding and going through red lights. All of us in this city must be aware of the number of times that red lights are broken. It is quite impossible to say to children that it is safe to cross when the lights change because people go through the red lights at every crossing. One of the most notorious places for this is the corner of Merrion Road. Why have cameras not been brought in to put a stop to that?

Concentrating our efforts on those who drive after taking an excess amount of alcohol is not all that is needed; we must look at the whole perspective. I hope that the tenor of the Bill will be reflected in enforcing legislation. Bringing in legislation is one thing, but do we have the ability and the will to enforce it? If we do, although the legislation has been modified, it will be very useful. We also need to enforce the existing legislation and to not look at every accident as being a one issue matter: it could be speed, bad driving, bad weather conditions and alcohol. The whole perspective must be looked at rather than singling out this one area.

Mr. Calnan

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy O'Sullivan, to the House and the Minister, Deputy Howlin, who was here earlier. I compliment them on meeting the various groups after the controversial Bill was published in 1994. The new measures, which were published just before Christmas 1994, were the most controversial for a long time. They received significant media and public interest and became the most talked about topic at county council, urban council and town commissioners meetings and in pubs and clubs. People were wondering if they would ever be able to drive again if they drank. It created a great deal of controversy, which I am very glad that the Minister met head on, and he has come up with a solution which we hope will be acceptable.

I am glad to see that the periods of disqualification have been graded. It was not fair for a person with a driving licence with the letters A, B, C, D and E to lose their licence for having 81 or 85 milligrammes of alcohol. The new graded system of three months disqualification for 81 to 100 milligrammes; one year for 101 to 150 milligrammes and two years for over 151 milligrammes is much fairer than the previous blanket disqualification.

The Minister has amended the requirement for a driving test to offences where death or serious bodily harm is caused and tried on indictment, or leaving the scene of accident where death or injury was caused to a person. The element of discretion left to the court on this is very welcome. The requirement to sit a driving test after a simple offence of having 85 or 105 milligrammes of alcohol was very unfair and a very severe penalty, considering that many people's jobs depend on driving.

There is also the problem of people having to drive in an emergency the morning after they have been drinking. Some people, having taken all precautions the night before, at a wedding or whatever, thinking that they would not have to drive the next morning. receive a call from their boss that an emergency job has to be done. I hope that proper discretion will be used by the people who have the power in that instance.

Jackie Healy-Rae in Kerry portrayed the situation in regard to pubs very well when he said that the only DART he saw in Kerry was the dart thrown at the dart board. The scene in rural Ireland is quite different to that of the cities where it is possible to get a taxi for a few pounds or a late bus. In rural areas the pub is the social centre for many people who live on their own in isolated areas, not within walking distance of the pub. A scheme to make taxis and hackney cabs more easily available should be looked at. The opening hours should be left to the discretion of the pubs, as happens on the Continent. If some pubs closed at 9 p.m. and others closed at 10 p.m. people would not be rushing to get a last drink before closing time.

Disqualification at 80 milligrammes is in line with other EU members. Eight members have a limit of 80 milligrammes, one has a limit of 70 milligrammes, four have a limit of 50 milligrammes, one has a limit of 40 milligrammes and one has a limit of 20 milligrammes. If we retained a limit of 100 milligrammes we would not be in line with the rest of Europe.

Drink driving is only one aspect of road safety and we need to look at many other aspects. For example, on many long distance, good roads I have frequently encountered slow drivers in the middle of the road. One is told to keep into the left as far as possible and if that was adhered to it would stop a great deal of frustration which often leads to accidents. Bad signals or no signals and small vehicles pulling out in the middle of the road to turn left — of course, large vehicles have to do that — will also have to be looked at if we want to save lives on the road. The junior school warden scheme is an excellent scheme which works very well and it should be extended to post primary schools. Television and the newspapers can also play a large role in road safety.

With regard to drink driving, it is very unfair to have such huge insurance loading when no accident is involved. A person should be penalised in the courts by being disqualified from driving or fined. However, even where there is no personal injury or damage or insurance claim, a person's insurance is doubled. That is a second penalty about which something will have to be done. If young people are caught over the alcohol limit they can be refused insurance or the premium is made so high that it is as good as refusal. It is not fair to penalise a person twice for an offence.

Many people who live near rural pubs walk there at night, especially in the winter nights, wearing dark clothes, which makes the roads treacherous. People walking to and from pubs on a wet or foggy night wearing dark clothes are endangering their own lives and those of drivers. We need to stress this.

Young people racing cars in built up areas, doing hand brake turns, spins and so on, is very frightening and will have to be clamped down on. There are often speed traps on wide open roads where there is not a great deal of danger. However, in built-up areas speeding and dangerous driving need to be tackled to protect lives.

A pedestrian crossing in a rural area may not always be noticed. Children often think they have the right to run across them. I wonder if zebra crossings are appropriate for rural roads; in rural villages they can be a hazard.

I compliment the Minister on dealing with the difficulties in the law encountered before Christmas. The previous Minister, Deputy Smith, had a terrible time and members on the Government side also had difficulties. The Minister has recognised that the graded system is better and that taking a person's licence was not right in all cases. I hope he will examine the insurance issue because it is not right to doubly penalise people.

Mr. Bohan

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy O'Sullivan, to the House. The Minister for the Environment is to be congratulated for introducing this legislation, which represents a fair and commonsense approach to the vexed question of drink driving offences.

While it is clear the 1994 Act was well intentioned, it is equally clear in retrospect that it signally failed to make the punishment fit the crime. In so doing it caused severe disruption in the public's normal social life as well as creating unnecessary hardship for the drinks industry — one of Ireland's most important industrial sectors, employing more than 60,000 people in the manufacturing, distribution and retailing of alcohol.

While accepting that the permitted blood alcohol levels introduced in the 1994 Act bring Ireland largely in line with the rest of Europe, it is true that the social implications of the related penalty system had a more far-reaching effect on customers than was originally intended. The rigid and quite severe system of penalties under the Act gave rise to very high levels of uncertainty as to how much alcohol could be consumed by drivers and, therefore, responsible consumers, who represent by far the majority of drinks industry customers, were forced in many cases not to drink at all. Successive Governments and their enforcement agencies, not only here but in other countries, have been notoriously coy about defining what sensible drink driving limits are. A level of 80 milligrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood may mean a lot to a police sergeant but not to a motorist.

Over the past ten years or so drink driving has become a steadily less socially accepted practice. The practical experience of the implementation of the 1994 Act, particularly over the Christmas period last year, reversed this desirable development and brought the law into public disrepute. The Irish drinks industry has consistently encouraged consumers to find alternative ways of travel to and from their place of alcohol consumption and this policy is emphasised annually by the industry's funding of pre-Christmas national and local radio advertising campaigns which advocate such an approach.

The grading of the penalty system, particularly at the marginal levels of infringement, combined with a higher degree of discretion granted to the Garda and the Judiciary in the implementation of these penalties will overcome many of the adverse public reactions directed at the 1994 legislation by the public and the retail trade. I am glad the Minister has recognised this in the new legislation. It has been suggested by members of the anti-alcohol lobby that the new amending legislation was introduced due to publican pressure. It was not publican pressure but public pressure and the Minister sensibly recognised this.

In graduating the penalties and dispensing with the obligation to do a driving test after a drink driving conviction the Minister has adopted the right approach. For many people, particularly the elderly, having to do a driving test before having their licence restored would mean they would be permanently off the road.

Much has been written and said in recent months on the issue of drink driving. A problem with the debate is that in Irish circumstances there seems to be little reliable research upon which to base conclusions. The result is that many of the arguments put forward rely on emotional statements rather than on hard facts. The same does not apply elsewhere. In the United Kingdom in 1994, for example, of 105,932 drivers breathtested after road accidents only 6.6 per cent were found to be in excess of the 80 milligrammes limit.

Evidence from the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Finland indicates the blood alcohol count among fatally injured drivers or those arrested for impaired driving is not low. It is much higher than the legislative minima and the average count was in the region of 170 milligrammes. The overwhelming majority, about 80 per cent, of fatally injured drinking drivers had blood alcohol counts well over the national limits: 65 per cent had blood alcohol counts in excess of 150 milligrammes and nearly 50 per cent exceeded 200 milligrammes. In those countries many fatally injured drivers had blood alcohol counts between 300 and 400 milligrammes. Research also indicates there are not many high blood alcohol count drivers among the motoring public and corresponding policies and programmes that target the offending group can produce significant results.

There is no strong case for disassociating drinking and driving as a general policy; but in Ireland, as in other developed countries, only a small core of people are responsible in one way or another for the majority of road deaths where alcohol is involved. Evidence also suggests this small core does not respond well to broad based conventional enforcement systems, such as random police checkpoints. A selective rather than a broadly based enforcement policy may be more effective in dealing with this small group of individuals as a long term and ongoing process.

It must be recognised that drink driving is not the only cause of deaths, accidents and injuries on our roads. Speed and poor road design must also assume an important part of the blame. Joyriding and car theft are other factors about which little has been done. Between 1985 and 1994 over 87,000 cars were stolen in the Dublin area alone.

I, like my colleagues in the industry, am concerned that a conviction for a first offence where the blood alcohol count is between 81 and 100 milligrammes carries with it a disqualification period of three months. This is unnecessarily severe, particularly where no other offence has been committed or no accident has taken place. Disqualification for many may mean the loss of a job or livelihood, a related penalty which carries a cost that far exceeds the relative importance of the offence.

Reliable information from the insurance industry indicates that where no other offence or accident has been involved, such a disqualification would result in a loading of 100 to 250 per cent on a basic premium. Such a loading is excessive, albeit that official statistics indicate the number of likely offenders will be quite small. For example, only 5 per cent of those tested during December last at the height of the drink driving crackdown had blood alcohol counts between 81 and 100 milligrammes. Such a loading, as it would have a five year life, would be an excessive economic penalty, even greater than that imposed by the law. The ongoing policy of the Irish drinks industry is to use every possible opportunity to promote the sensible use of alcohol at all levels and on all occasions.

Broadly speaking, the Minister's new proposals will restore public respect and confidence in our drink driving laws. Once again, he is to be congratulated for the steps he has taken. That said, I request him on grounds of equity to go further and give the courts discretion to impose a fine without the necessity to order a suspension of licence at the 81 to 100 milligramme blood alcohol account, where a first offence is involved.

Mr. McDonagh

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit, an Teachta Ó Súilleabháin, go dtí an Teach. Roimhe sin bhí an tAire, an Teachta Ó Húilín anseo. Molaim an bheirt agus an Rialtas faoin iarracht atá siad ag déanamh an réim slándála a chur i bhfeidhm do na sluaite atá ag baint usáid as na bóithre sa tír seo faoi láthair.

In welcoming the Ministers, Deputy Howlin and Deputy O'Sullivan, to the House I compliment them. After much soul searching and discussion the Minister has recommended to the Government certain amendments to the Road Traffic Act, 1994, and the Bill to that effect is now before the House. The Minister has taken the view that it is not fair that a driver barely over the 80 milligramme blood alcohol level should be liable to the same penalties as someone driving with twice or more the legal limit. This makes good sense. The Minister is to be strongly commended for his decision and the stance he has taken.

The decision will also command more respect from the driving public than the law which existed heretofore. To apply the law as rigorously to someone just over the 80 milligrammes limit as to someone who is over the 150 milligrammes level is grossly unfair and totally unacceptable. It makes no sense.

This Government is not advocating drinking and driving; no Government has or will do so. Too many accidents have been caused by people who have taken it upon themselves recklessly to sit behind the wheel of a car in a condition which endangered not only their lives but the safety and lives of others. A campaign against drink driving will reduce the number of accidents, save lives and reduce claims on insurance companies. One hopes that in the future it will contribute to further reductions in premia.

The connection between alcohol level in the blood and the likelihood of accidents is now well known and has been established and confirmed by international studies. Many of us here have too often stood beside open graves and grieved with relatives and families. These things might not have happened if more care had been taken with the consumption of alcohol.

There must be no relaxation of the campaign to reduce accidents and slaughter on our roads. Our accident figures are still much too high. While we all recognise and accept alcohol can be and is a major factor in road accidents, speed is the chief factor. Due to my geographical location in the far west of Galway I have to travel across the country on a weekly basis to the Seanad. I see how speed limits are broken and the ruthlessness with which drivers are using our roads. A clampdown on speed is imperative if we are to reduce the level of accidents.

Possibly the greatest offenders on our roads at present are drivers of large trucks. The current speed limit for such vehicles is 50 miles per hour, but many lorry drivers are not obeying that limit. It becomes increasingly difficult to get past these large trucks — it is like a nightmare at times. The Minister and the Department should examine this area.

As the years go by stronger and more powerful cars come on the market and people endeavour to get from A to B at a quicker pace. There is a major problem on the national, secondary and regional roads in rural Ireland. These roads were not built for speed and are unable to take the huge volume of cars travelling on them at high speed. A major campaign is needed to discourage speeding; perhaps the existing campaigns could be relaunched as we come into summer.

The 30 miles per hour and 40 miles per hour speed limits signs in towns are welcome but they are no longer effective in many instances. Drivers have got used to the signs and they make no impression on them. The only reason drivers slow down in speed limit areas is the fear of being caught. I must say mea culpa in this instance. New signs should be placed in villages in small towns, stating the area is subject to Garda speed checks. The danger of overtaking on a continuous white line should also be brought home to drivers. This happens regularly — many times when driving along part of the road marked with single or double white lines cars have sped past me.

In any discussion on a Road Traffic Bill it is important to refer to the dangers of speeding and the need for drivers to slow down and obey the regulations. I trust when this Bill becomes law and people accept the limits for consumption of drink while driving, the Minister will turn his attention to the major killer on our road, which is speed.

This Bill should not be interpreted as a licence to drink and drive. The measures proposed are designed to link the penalty to the severity of the offence and not to give leeway to the drunken driver. As the Minister has said, the measures are tough but fair.

The current law had a profound effect in pubs, particularly those in rural Ireland, during the Christmas period last year. The tougher laws meant empty pubs, massive financial losses and job cuts. In the big cities this led to a culture change, with people staying at home and drinking there. It led to there being fewer cars on the road. As has been said, that was fine for people in large cities where one could catch a bus or DART but in the rural countryside the effect was devastating.

I live in the heart of the countryside and am happy to do so. The nearest public house is one mile from my house and many Members would say the walk would do me good. I am currently the only Fine Gael Oireachtas Member in County Galway who is known to take a drink. After the constituency revision announcements yesterday, I am not sure whether I am in East or West Galway but I am definitely in County Galway. However, that is a discussion for another forum and another day. If I were to walk to the nearest pub I would have to walk on the N63, which is the road leading from Galway to Roscommon and ultimately to Belfast and the North of Ireland. One could not risk walking on that road because of the speed of the cars travelling on it and its terrible condition. There has been a major campaign for a number of years to upgrade this road from national secondary to national primary status so we can have a proper road to cater for the huge volume of traffic. I will not go into that issue at this time.

In general in rural Ireland the people cannot walk on our roads at night for safety reasons. If people were to set out to walk in large numbers, it would cause a major problem and lead to many more deaths and killings on our roads. People have a major problem going for a drink or two in rural Ireland. It has to be accepted that, particularly at the end of the week, people who have been working like to go for a game of cards or darts and have a drink or two. The low limit and frightening penalties virtually made many people prisoners in their own homes, particularly during the Christmas period last year.

Like every other married person in this House, I have great affection, respect and love for my wife. However, over the Christmas period I think she felt I was growing over amorous because every day I asked: "Ger, are you available for the Corrib Great Southern tonight, Ballinasloe tomorrow night or Tuam the next night?" She does not take a drink and I do. Much as I love to have her with me on these occasions, it was very handy to have somebody to drive me home at the end of the night having had two or three pints. Extra pressure has come on the wives of politicians who have to be on the road with their spouses almost every night of the week. We all know the strains on politicians to attend different functions. This could also be the case for a lady politician who takes a drink and perhaps uses her husband, if he is a non drinker, to drive her home.

I welcome the change in the driving test regulations. The requirement to pass a driving test following conviction was made mandatory in December 1994. While it may have a deterrent value, the Government now believes — and I welcome this decision very much — that it is not an appropriate penalty for drink driving offences. It has been decided to delete that requirement and of course retain such a requirement for two serious offences — dangerous driving tried on indictment, where death or serious bodily harm is caused, and hit and run, where death and injury is caused. This is a sensible decision and I commend the Minister and the Government.

The basic purpose of the measures is to ensure that penalties are appropriate to the offences. I do not think anybody can quibble with that. The penalties provide a basis for effective and ongoing enforcement of our anti-drink driving policy in the future. I also believe that the terms enshrined in the new Bill will help to allow rural life to flourish and at the same time ensure our roads are safe. Quite a good balance has been achieved. It would be remiss of me and others in this House not to commend the Minister for the Bill before us. Like everybody else, I appeal to drivers to adhere to the stipulations contained in the law. I also appeal to the Minister to accept what I have said about the terrible effects of speeding on our roads, particularly on national secondary, county, regional and rural roads which are built for the accommodation of traffic moving at a reasonable pace and not for speed.

In general I welcome the Bill. There are certain stipulations which have already been referred to by my colleague, Senator Howard, and on which I will not elaborate. He made a strong case that in certain instances discretion could be used to great effect. I support what Senator Howard said and I hope the Minister will take cognisance of it. I welcome the Bill and I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on it.

Mr. Farrell

Ba mhaith liom fáilte a chur roimh an Aire Stáit, Deputy O'Sullivan, go dtí an Teach seo agus go dtí an Aire maidir leis an Bhille seo. We all thought the Bill was a little too severe in ways. While listening to the contributions here, it struck me that the biggest criminal in our society today seems to be the motorist. A person can steal a car, rob a bank with it and crash it. When he goes to court he is brought before a psychiatrist and a psychologist for assessment and ends up doing community work. The poor man coming home and doing a few miles more than he should within a specific area or who has taken a wee drop over the limit is the criminal and is put off the road practically for life.

Over the last 20 years or so we introduced speed limits to make the roads safer and reduce insurance. There are speed checks everywhere and I sometimes think they are more of a danger than anything else. Very often, the gardai rush out of a gateway with what I call the hairdryer and a person driving fast has to slam on the brakes. This can cause more harm than good. I appeal to the gardaí on those checks to stand out on the road and be open and honest about it and not hide in gateways as it is a danger.

I was speaking to a policeman in England last year. They were using all available power to prevent accidents at a certain roundabout but accidents were still occurring. They decided to simply put up cameras. Anyone driving in England recently will have seen that it there is a speed check ahead there is a notice saying "Police Speed Check Ahead" and everyone slows down. There are also signs saying "Cameras Ahead." People are driving much more carefully. The policeman told me that since they introduced this new system they have a better relationship with the people and fewer penalties. He said they were too busy to be out on the road stopping cars. They had too much crime on their hands and wanted all their men on crime and detection. Since they brought in this new system, everybody has slowed down. There is no longer any mad speeding on the motorways. The police may or may not be on duty when the camera is there. They came out in the open and it is a far better system.

We introduced the insurance disc which was supposed to be the greatest thing since the sliced pan and would guarantee that every car would be insured and insurance costs would drop. We have insurance discs and still a big percentage of cars are uninsured. What has the disc done? We then stipulated that tyres had to measured and have a certain thread or else one was committing an offence. We all have new tyres now and great cars, but the number of accidents and insurance cases are still increasing. Now they are talking about testing the safety of motor cars. How many times does anyone see an old banger involved a crash? Very few. It is big cars like Mercedes, MG's and Porsches that are involved. The person driving the ten year old car will be driving between 35 to 40 miles per hour inside the yellow line. Bringing in safety tests for cars is not the answer either, but the Department should introduce it in such a way that it will be implemented without any garage being involved.

It is a bonanza for the garages doing the testing as far as trucks are concerned. They will find many problems with a truck if it is brought in for testing. They will say that they cannot pass it and that it should be traded in. However, if it is traded in, it will be on the road a month later. If these laws are introduced, their implementation must be taken out of the hands of those involved in the trade. If this provision is implemented, it will put a lot of small garages out of business. I was involved in that business at one stage. Indeed, I maintained that I was the only one armed mechanic in Ireland. Only the bigger garages will have the DOE regulations and he will not pass any truck without a fault. Many of the smaller truck garages have gone out of business because no matter how well they tested a truck, it is easy for another garage testing it to find faults with it. There is no appeal and one does not have a choice. If the Minister is bringing in safety testing for cars, I ask him to have it done by a local authority tester in a similar way to the driving test. Nobody in the trade would then be giving him a list of the things to be fixed for the sake of making money. If this testing is ever brought in, that would be the only fair way to do it.

I drove for years without taking a driving test. I then decided to get a hackney licence and did a test. After my accident, I also had a test for competency and a medical test for fitness. However, was there ever any research done to find out how many of us who started driving without any test were ever involved in a motor accident? It would be interesting to do a survey to see how many, if any, of those who were driving under the amnesty were involved in accidents. When people pass a driving test they think they are great drivers. However, those of us who have been driving for many years know that only experience and practice makes a good driver.

I see pedestrians as a major problem and something needs to be done about them. How many times, when the traffic lights are green, do people walk across in front of a car and ignore the fact that the driver has the right of way? The driver then has to stop and let them walk across in front of him. I guarantee that one would not get easily onto Pearse Street with a car. A driver has to slowly edge out onto the street because the pedestrians will ignore him. This matter needs to be examined because they too are often responsible for accidents.

I have said for many years that there should be no bar extensions. Pubs should be allowed to stay open until midnight and after that time the shutters should come down, irrespective of whether the bar is in a pub, club or hotel. The existence of bar extensions is one of the main reasons for accidents, especially in summertime. People may decide to go there instead of going home after the pub closes. If there were no bar extensions, there would be a more balanced drinking regime; the small pub would have a better chance of competing and nightclubs would be less of a den for drugs and drink. A young person recently told me that the reason many people took drugs was that they were far cheaper to buy than drink. If the breweries decided to decrease the price of alcohol, there might be a corresponding decrease in the use of drugs.

I would also like to refer to the serious matter of endorsements. The Minister should bring in a clause, either in this or in some other Bill, to deal with this matter. It has already been said that if one gets an endorsement on their licence — they were in no accident and did no injury to anyone; they were just caught at a checkpoint — although they may have their car insured for only a small period, they will not get their money back for the reminder of the period for which they have paid. They can suspend their cover, but if it is not reintroduced before the time of renewal it will be lost anyway. One would have paid their insurance but it would have then gone down the swanny; the insurance company would have it. If people want to get insurance after having their licence endorsed — I was told this by a man who had his licence endorsed — they have to get five refusals from five different insurance companies and then go to the Insurance Federation of Ireland. The Federation will instruct a company to give them a quote, but it could give any figure. If having car insurance is mandatory, there is a need for a law to make it compulsory for insurance companies to give insurance at a reasonable rate when one does not cause them any costs or expenses. Endorsing licences and taking people off the road for a year is nothing compared to getting back on the road. The Minister should seriously examine that point. Often a person who is only slightly over the limit is caught and the penalty they pay is horrendous as far as insurance companies are concerned.

I have always campaigned against alcohol abuse because I believe it has caused more hardship in this country than anything else. There is a great outcry against smoking, but it does not do half as much damage to health, the people or the community as alcohol abuse. Using alcohol in moderation is okay but it is not all right to abuse it. There is a high rate of abuse in this country and something should be done to try to stop it, but that is another day's work.

As far as this law is concerned, I am delighted that the Minister has brought in a graded system of fines. It is unfair to impose the full penalty if one is only slightly over the limit. That is one thing I will never be caught for because I do not intend to get involved with alcohol at this stage. However, it is criminal that insurance companies should be this hard on drivers with an endorsement; they are being treated too severely. Motorists face penalties like parking fines everywhere and the reason for imposing these penalties is that everyone knows he will pay.

A new speed limit system has been introduced in some villages forcing cars to drive in single file. It is a great system. If it was implemented in all of our villages, it would stop speeding through our villages far better than any garda with a radar. This system prohibits speeding. The 70 mile an hour speed limit on dual carriageways is too low. The speed limit for modern cars with ABS brakes, good suspension and new tyres should be at least 75 to 80 miles an hour, which is not fast today. I would like to know how many Ministers' drivers keep within the speed limit; I guarantee that few do.

Mr. Dardis

The Ministers do, it is their drivers who do not.

Mr. Farrell

Who is in charge of the car? The speed limit on national primary roads should be at least 65 miles per hour. There would be traffic jams if everybody drove at 55 to 60 miles per hour. As a Member said, slow drivers are often a greater hazard on the road than fast drivers. There should be a happy medium. I would like the Minister to increase the speed limit slightly on dual carriageways. We could all live with a 70 to 75 mile an hour speed limit and few would exceed it. I welcome the Bill.

Mr. Dardis

I welcome the Minister to the House. This is a good Bill which deals with reservations expressed in the House when the previous legislation passed through. It is a pity that the Bill was not amended at the time and that the then Minister, Deputy M. Smith, did not respond to the arguments made to him. During Committee Stage on 3 March 1994 I said to the Minister that:

I support the idea of graduation. I listened to the Minister's response in terms of the legal challenges which might arise about the level being 101 milligrammes as compared to 100 milligrammes. The law has set minimum limits which are established at, for example, 80 milligrammes per millilitre of blood. If we have a minimum limit, why can we not have graduated limits? What is the difference between a minimum limit and graduated limits when one is establishing what the level of alcohol is through scientific procedures?

The Minister in his reply said:

I am advised in the strongest way possible by the Attorney General that if we were to have graduated penalties ... the question of mounting a legal challenge would certainly be on the cards in circumstances where there was a very considerable difference in the penalty range between offenders and where the difference in alcohol levels was just one milligram.

I get worried about lawyers and the advice given by them to Government and Ministers. In my experience in this House the greatest refuge for a Minister at any time is to cite the advice given to him by the Attorney General or by some eminent legal person. From my experience of lawyers, one not only gets an opinion for and against but a range of opinions in between, all of which are argued with tremendous cogency and are regarded as valid.

The Minster dealt with this point and he made the observation about the Director of Public Prosecutions and said that this had changed the situation. He said:

I have been advised that, on the coming into operation of the 1994 Act, the Director of Public Prosecutions had reviewed the need for that tolerance and that he decided on the basis of assurances given to him about the accuracy of analysis [something we debated at length here] to discontinue the tolerance and to prosecute borderline cases. The Attorney General has advised me that this decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions removed a major obstacle to the introduction of a graded system of penalties.

On 3 March 1994, the former Minister, Deputy Smith, spoke about the tremendous obstacles involved, while Minister Howlin told us today about the removal of all these obstacles. What a wonderful world it is. It demonstrates that if one has the political will to frame the law in the way one desires, one can actually find a way of doing so that will accommodate reservations expressed, although we are as always constrained by the Constitution and what it says as regards things that are overriding on the legislation before us.

Over one year ago the point about graded penalties was made vigorously by Members of this House. We were told that it was not possible and that amendments would not be accepted. When the law was introduced there was public outcry, which was understandable. As a result of that outcry and representations made by the vintners and other parties, the law is being amended. It is being amended to the degree it should have been.

During the past few weeks I, like other Members of the House, received literature from various interest groups, including vintners from Galway and the drinks industry group. The question of raising the level from 80 back to 100 milligrammes per millilitre of blood arose at the meetings. I believe the level should be left at 80 milligrammes. This legislation is reasonable and has responded to representations made. Graded penalties should be introduced to deal with those whose blood level is between 80 and 100 milligrammes and above.

I take the point made by the drinks industry group, which I believe is in the Minister's speech, about the majority who are tested for blood alcohol having alcohol counts in excess of 150 milligrammes. I believe that when one reaches that level penalties should be severe. It is not right to remove penalties at the lower end. The only argument is about the degree of the penalty. The degree of the penalty is dealt with effectively in this legislation and from that point of view it has my support.

My experience of the vintners — I am sure it is that of other Members also — is that they are a well organised lobby group. I do not say that as a criticism, but as a compliment. When they met public representatives at the time this matter was very controversial, they did so in a responsible way. To my mind, they put their case coherently and explained the implications for their business and for employment in a reasonable and constructive way. I, and I am sure other Members, have no difficulty with lobby groups coming to see us because that is our job as public representatives. I said to the vintners at the time that I would not be in favour of changing the limit upwards — if anything, the trend internationally and in Europe is downwards. However, it could get to a point where one might wonder if there is enough background alcohol in one's blood to cause a problem without even taking a drink.

I understand from the legislation as passed that it is open to the Minister to change the blood alcohol level. The Minister must come to both Houses of the Oireachtas to have that passed, but it is not a matter for new legislation. I am open to correction on that. I am sure the Minister's advisers will tell him the answer, so we may hear it at the end of Second Stage. As I recall, the Minister is allowed to alter the limits because there was a dispute about whether he should be given that power. The Minister argued that he should not have to come back to House repeatedly with changes in legislation. I do not see anything wrong with that, because the function of the Houses of the Oireachtas is to pass legislation even if it means coming back to change legislation. At the time I would have argued that that was the correct thing to do. I understand the Minister is allowed alter the limits subject to confirmation by both Houses. In those circumstances it is almost routine that confirmation is given, because it is not a question of legislation.

We must be conscious of the victims of drink driving and the ultimate sanction that somebody loses their life in a car accident caused by the consumption of alcohol. The question of whether one is fit to drive at 80, 100 or 120 miles an hour is irrelevant in terms of the law. The law must set a level and I believe this level is correct. We must be conscious of the effect alcohol has on someone who drives a car, and I say that as someone who consumes alcohol.

Debates have taken place on the quality of rural life versus city life and it has been suggested that there should be a different standard for the country compared to the city. I live on a farm. Last Saturday evening I went to my local sporting club where I had two pints. I then drove home on my tractor, not in my car. If someone hit my tractor the consequences would be more serious for them than if they hit my car because it is weighty equipment. We should not be deceived into thinking that because someone lives in the country there is less risk of an accident if alcohol has been consumed. Accidents are as likely to happen in the country as in the city given the number of people driving cars. I would be interested to see the statistics in this regard, if they are available. Accidents in the country are no different to those in the city and in some cases they may be more severe because people drive more quickly in the country than in the city.

I have no sympathy for the urban-rural debate other than to accept that the pub is central to the social life of the rural community and that in many areas there is no other social outlet. In the west the pub is the only place people living alone or who are getting old or who do not have another mode of transport, can go.

When this matter was debated at functions around Christmas someone told me they had no sympathy for the publicans. I asked why as they should have been aware that it is difficult to make a living in the country pub. They realised that but they wanted to know if the country publican drove these people, about whom they were concerned, home. Perhaps they do. If their level of concern for their clients was matched by their actions, they might have received a more sympathetic hearing. This person did not get worked up about anything. He took a drink, but he wondered about the level of commitment of some country publicans to the local community. I am not saying they do not contribute significantly to their local communities, support fixtures, etc., but would they provide a service to drive these people home?

Mr. Bohan

They do.

Mr. Dardis

I am glad to hear Senator Bohan say they do and I am prepared to accept that.

Mr. Enright

They also do so in Offaly.

Mr. Dardis

I am glad to hear that because they do not provide such a service where I live. I am encouraged by what Senator Bohan said. Taxis are arranged to bring people home in the city.

Senator Farrell mentioned the speed limit on dual carriageways. I drive home on the Naas dual carriageway and it is impossible to drive at the 70 mile speed limit because of the people who travel at 45 miles an hour in the fast lane. They are a menace on the road. People are now passing on the inside because the slowcoaches are in the middle of the road. I would love to see the Garda Síochána dealing with such driving which I am sure is careless under the law.

My farm is bounded by the motorway which bypasses Newbridge. It is an education to be in the field beside the motorway and to watch people's behaviour. Large signs on each end of the motorway tell people that mopeds, tractors, invalid carriages and learner drivers are not allowed. However, people picnic on the motorway adjacent to my farm beside the River Liffey. Kildare County Council is introducing a contraflow system and it has erected bollards around which people do U-turns, I saw a tractor and sprayer, tractors with cattle trailers and bicycles on it. It is fascinating to watch what happens on the motorway. I am sure regulations can be enforced in this regard. Perhaps alcohol is not the only culprit in terms of causing difficulties on the roads.

I welcome the thrust of this legislation which deals with the reservations and difficulties with the original Act. I will not oppose this Bill. I commend the Minister on his efforts, particularly his reasonable approach to driving tests. He dealt with the extreme cases where death or serious injury is caused and the case is tried on indictment or where death or injury is caused by a hit and run. In those cases it is legitimate to throw the book at these people and make them take a test. He has struck the right balance in this regard. I am in favour of leniency for a first offence, provided it is at the bottom of the scale. However, second and subsequent offences must be severely dealt with and the Minister has my support in this regard.

Unfortunately, at Christmas and during the period when people were most sensitive about this matter, sensible people who always had a social drink stopped drinking or, if they took a drink, found, as Senator McDonagh did, someone to drive them home. However, people who drank large quantities of alcohol did not change their behaviour. They still drank the same amount and then drove home. These people must be severely dealt with if they are caught.

The Minister has found the right balance, therefore I support this legislation.

Mr. D. Kiely

I welcome the Minister to the House and I welcome, with some reservations, the measures he proposes in this legislation. I spoke strongly on the original Bill when it was going through the House.

If someone in France, Italy or Spain decided to stop drinking wine, spirits or beer and introduced legislation in their Parliaments, it would be argued that we should follow suit. It is no argument that eight European countries have lower levels than we have. If other countries want to introduce such legislation, that is their business. We must introduce our own measures. The Irish are known throughout the world for being able to hold their drink and for drinking too much. However, that is wrong.

I have been involved in the drink trade for most of my life. I thought that the people in the business were always very sensible and cared for their customers. I ran pubs in New York City for a number of years and here also. If I felt that one of my customers was over the limit I always ensured that they were taken home safely by a friend or neighbour, or I took them home myself.

My father was a garda and I remember they used to take drivers out of their cars and make them walk a white line. If they were able to walk along the white line it was felt that they were capable of driving but if they could not walk the line they were brought to court for being intoxicated. Now, however, you can have two pints and be able to walk as straight as a rule along ten white lines, yet in certain cases you would be over the limit. It is very serious in rural areas.

Senator Dardis said there was no difference between rural and urban Ireland but there is a vast difference. In Dublin, you can get home after work by taxi, train or bus but in my part of the country you get one shot at catching the train or bus and that is it because there is only one train or bus in and out per day. In fact, there is no bus service from where I live, in Tarbert, to Ballybunion, and you would be lucky to get one or two buses a week from Ballybunion to Dingle. The situation is ludicrous. If you expect a rural family, celebrating their child's Holy Communion or whatever, to hire a minibus for the day, it is just not on.

Highways and speedways were mentioned earlier. I would love to have them in my part of the country but the reality is that I have often driven behind a tractor for a half an hour before being able to pass the vehicle. You have to compare like with like. I compliment the Minister on scaling the original fines downwards but he will have to go a small step further.

Others can speak for urban areas but I will speak about rural life. Take the example of a young man who goes out and drinks two and a half pints. He is not too heavy and since he has not eaten he is slightly over the limit. He might be on top of the world after getting a new job as a courier, and be dating a girl whom he is planning to marry. But that man's life can be destroyed, even though he is only barely over the limit, if his licence is endorsed and he is put off the road for three months. His employer will tell him: "Sorry, you are out of work". There should be a first offence system to cope with such cases where a fine is imposed.

I am talking about a person with a blood alcohol level between the 80 and 100 milligramme limit, and I have no regard for a person who is at the 150 or 200 milligramme level. I have said publicly in this House that anyone who wants to drive with that amount of drink should have their car keys taken for good and should never be given a second chance by the courts.

However, there must be second chances for people in the lower limits between 80 and 100 milligrammes and from 100 to 150 milligrammes. For a first offender there should be a severe fine which is a penalty that would neither interfere with their insurance nor put them off the road. If a young person receives a three month driving ban for a first offence, the insurance company will drive their premium through the roof. I know of young people under 27 years of age who cannot get insurance for less than £1,400 a year, even with clean licences. That is wrong because it makes it far more difficult for people to live and to survive.

The insurance companies will have to be taken to task because some of them are going for the lucrative centre market, providing cover for people aged from 27 to 55. They have no interest in people under 27 because they think they are not able to drive, nor those over 55 who are considered too old or even senile. That is all wrong because if a young person can pass a driving test they should be given the same rights as someone over 27 years of age.

The number of drink-related accidents was mentioned but I would like to compare that with the number of accidents caused by people stealing cars who are involved in high speed chases and other criminal acts where alcohol is not involved at all. In the case of a road accident the first thing people say is that drink was involved, but that is totally unfair.

The entire social structure of our society is being taken away. We are driving young people to drugs; they are turning away from alcohol and taking drugs to get their kicks. If a young person is taken to a Garda station following a road accident they cannot be bagged for having taken too much marijuana, cocaine or Ecstasy, yet the use of these drugs is rampant. Ireland seems to be the gateway to western Europe for all kinds of drugs.

It is unfair to link drinking to every accident; if we do so, we might just as well close down all licensed premises. The social life of the pub is the one bit of relaxation after a hard week's work when one can play cards, darts or pool as well as listen to music and have a few drinks. The pub business is under pressure and is in serious trouble. Many rural pubs now only open for an hour or two per day — between 9 and 11 o'clock at night. Some people are afraid to go into a pub while others are afraid to be seen coming out of it because the phone may be picked up to inform that "Johnny was drinking". It is unfair.

Credit is due to the Garda in urban areas. They are busy people who are more interested in investigating stolen cars, break-ins and other crimes. That level of crime does not exist in rural areas because of the Community Alert schemes. Life is that bit easier but it can be more difficult as well when it comes to somebody having three pints. A man who lives five miles from me, in Ballylongford, used to drink three pints every Sunday night in the local pub. He has two small farms, one of which is two miles out of town and the other 25 miles away near Limerick city. When the new law was introduced that man gave up the one pleasure he had, which was to have three pints on a Sunday night, because he was afraid that if he was caught on the way home to Ballylongford having had three pints he would not be able to run his small farm outside Limerick. That man is a social drinker. I know him well. No matter who drank with him, whether it was the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste or Pope John Paul, he would not take a fourth drink. Many people are social drinkers like this.

I am sure that vintners, when compiling their figures at the end of the year, will prove that the level of alcohol consumed has dropped. In Listowel there are five pubs for sale, as are many other pubs in rural Ireland. They cannot survive. They are hit by one law after another. The Irish Music Rights Organisation charges them for playing radios. It is more difficult for them if they decide to put in juke boxes or have a guitar player on a Saturday night.

I admire what the Minister did and the pressure exerted by groups. I know people have had bereavements and have lost loved ones. I would like to know whether these deaths were due to the levels of alcohol in their systems or because they were high on other drugs.

I am concerned about moderate drinkers who may have two drinks or have an extra one at social functions and would be slightly over the limit. They would be penalised by being disqualified from driving for three months. They should be given a fine and a second chance at their livelihoods. Once one is bitten and gets a bad fright, one will not repeat the offence. The relevant district judges should have discretion after hearing the facts of a case. This point was made by the vintners. This is reasonable. Garda and other authorities dealing with cases in rural areas usually know the persons and circumstances involved and the damage that can be done to a young person. I fear that people may be picked on the morning after the night before and get into trouble, which may affect their jobs. This must be looked at, because jobs are difficult to come by.

A speaker said that 30 miles an hour speed limits should be introduced. If there are three houses in a place there is a 30 miles an hour speed limit. A garda may pull in a person who is barely over the limit. In small rural areas, with perhaps a half a dozen house, the maximum speed limit should be 40 miles an hour. I have said this at meetings of Kerry County Council when speed limits were recently reviewed. Speeding is a major factor in many accidents and I would hate anybody to blame alcohol for all such problems.

Many of those who cause serious accidents should be tried for the amount of drug substances in their systems. At a public seminar in Dublin 20 years ago I spoke about the abuse of drugs I saw in another country. I felt the problem was slipping into this country, and how right I was. Pupils in our primary schools are being interfered with and threatened. Fly by nights and smart alecks are giving youngsters ecstasy pills so they can become hooked on drugs. I have a family of four. I would prefer to see one of my children going into a public house to have a few drinks with their friends and living a normal social life rather than these people giving them pills and ruining their lives.

I appreciate what the Government and the Minister have done already but I implore them to go one small step further. There would be nothing to be ashamed of in doing this and they would have the support of most of the nation. Everybody knows that the difference between 80 and 100 milligrammes, which would amount to about half a pint of beer or stout, will not make a difference. The Minister referred to the fact that somebody with a zero level of alcohol in his system can drive more effectively and efficiently than somebody who has drunk one or two pints. On a television documentary some time ago I saw four expert drivers doing a test which involved driving between cones after drinking three pints. They hit the cones. They are expert drivers who examine cars. There is something very seriously wrong with them and their licences should be looked at, because in my experience two or two and a half pints never seriously affected a person's ability to drive. If somebody is not capable of driving after a few pints, they will not drive. People know the responsibilities they face. The Minister should leave the limit at 80 milligrammes but should remove the three months automatic disqualification from driving. Everybody would appreciate and admire him if he did this. People should be fined and given a second chance and their insurance should not be affected.

Mr. Enright

I congratulate the Minister of State and the Minster on having the courage to introduce this amending legislation. It took a considerable amount of courage to do so. I believe a great deal of time was spent weighing up the correctness of what they are proposing to do.

A very strong lobby is against drunken driving. An example is the Mothers Against Drunken Driving group. One must respect their views and attitudes to drink. They have suffered at the hands of people who when driving motor vehicles have caused the deaths or serious injuries of beloved members of their families. Most people have tremendous sympathy for their approach and attitude.

It is important when bringing in legislation to weigh up all aspects of what is proposed. I think the approach in this Bill has been correct. There has been a major change in attitude towards drink in Ireland. The change extends back over a number of years. People have changed their attitude to fitness, health and recreation and are reducing their consumption of alcohol. The attitude of people to driving has also changed. Young people in particular are very careful. Most young people I know will not drive a vehicle with any drink taken.

However, some people take a drink for social reasons and they are the people who were hammered by the previous legislation. I discussed this matter at length when we last debated this issue. I am referring to those people who have one, two or, perhaps, three drinks at night. They went to their local licensed premises to have a drink and enjoy the company, perhaps to play a game of cards or discuss the day's events, both local and national. The previous Bill was too heavy handed. It went too far and if it had continued in force would have seriously damaged life in both rural and urban areas.

Most speakers have talked about only rural life being damaged. The city of Dublin was also affected. It is all very well to advertise on television that people should take the DART or a taxi. In most areas of Dublin inhabited by ordinary working people and people on low or middle incomes there is a poor DART service. In fact, the service is non-existent in many areas in Dublin. It is beyond my comprehension how one can tell somebody to take a taxi home who is on a retirement pension or the dole, on disability benefit or on an income as low as £68 per week, and who goes for a few pints to his local, which might be a couple of miles away. That legislation was framed for people living on Ailesbury Road and people who are well off. However, what about people in Dublin on middle and low incomes? Many of these people are afraid to walk in Dublin after 10.30 p.m. at night. They are afraid of being mugged or robbed. They are ordinary, respectable, decent people whose only outlet from sitting in at home and watching television is to go to the pub, meet a few people and socialise. That was being destroyed by that legislation. Many of these people live humble lives. However, their lives are equally important to them. That legislation was affecting their lives.

The legislation, however, was hammering rural Ireland. I am referring to villages and small towns. Without any assistance from the Government through legislation of this nature, the lifeblood is being squeezed out of rural Ireland with the closure of small shops and businesses. They are experiencing enough difficulty. However, this legislation was framed in such a way that in the long term, if not in the interim, it would have closed many pubs across the country. In seven to ten years' time companies such as Guinness and other suppliers will cease deliveries to small country pubs because of lack of business. Many of the tourists who visit here like to go to country pubs and see what life is like in rural Ireland. Although many country pubs are attractive to tourists, there are also many pubs which do not have a passing trade and whose sole business is dependent on the people living in the pub's hinterland. Most of those people, since the introduction of this legislation, are not moving out of their homes at night.

What is taking place today is welcome. I would like the Minister to have the courage of his convictions and go one step further. The courts have served Ireland well. The Judiciary has shown at least as much courage as the Legislature — and, on occasions, more — in the decisions it has made which affect the social and economic life of this country. It made those decisions on occasions when this House failed to take the necessary steps and to enact the necessary legislation. Far too many laws are being introduced which make our courts rubber stamps. All the legislation dealing with taxation and excise duties have made the courts a formality or a rubber stamp. It is the same as charging a person with offences and putting the charge sheet into a computer. That is wrong.

It would be unwise of this House to continue to pass legislation which provides for mandatory sentences. We have a good system of government at present. There has been a change of Government and that is desirable. However, continuing to pass mandatory legislation over a period of time would have adverse consequences if an extreme Government came into power. That can happen and at that stage we would see the effect of mandatory legislation.

The argument put forward in favour of mandatory sentences is that they are a deterrent. Certainly, they are helpful in their value as a deterrent. I do not expect the Minister to make a huge change in the Bill before us. However, I will make one suggestion. In cases where there are between 80 and 135 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood, the Minister should at least allow the courts the discretion of deciding whether to impose a disqualification from driving. It is not a revolutionary change but it will at least show that this House trusts our courts to do what is right in individual cases.

I am not seeking a change in the penalties. There is a three month disqualification and a six month disqualification for up to 100 milligrams of alcohol. There are one year and two year periods of disqualification for having up to 135 and 150 milligrams of alcohol. The Minister should consider making the change I have suggested for levels of alcohol up to 135 milligrams. It would be an important and welcome change. If that change were made, the judge, after listening to all the facts outlined by the garda, can make a decision in a case where the person has consumed this amount of alcohol and where there is no evidence of dangerous driving. I ask the Minister to give strong consideration to this option. This legislation will be all the better for such a change. We should have faith in and trust our courts. That is the main point I wish to make on Second Stage and I ask the Minister to pay particular attention to it.

The Minister's approach to the driving test is welcome. When people pass their driving tests at 20, 25 or 30 years of age they are active and have no problems with the test. However, it is much more difficult for a person of 55 years of age who must retake a driving test to pass, and it becomes increasingly difficult with every passing year because reflexes are not as fast and the ability to do things is not the same as it was when the individual was ten, 15 or 20 years younger. The requirement to retake the driving test would have been harmful for many people and the Minister's proposal to amend the regulation is important and welcome.

The level of insurance premium which a person must pay who has 85 or 90 milligrammes of alcohol is outrageous. It is a minor offence, yet the individual concerned will probably have to pay an annual insurance premium of £1,500 to £2,000 for five years. This is unacceptable and the Minister should consider allowing the courts some discretion because a person who has one pint and a whiskey or two pints is not a criminal. He is an ordinary person who goes out for an evening with his wife or attends a local hurling, rugby or soccer meeting, or a farmer's meeting or a trade union meeting. Social life in Ireland is very important, especially with regard to tourism, where social contact is essential, but the legislation as drafted is damaging life as we know it.

Ordinary, law abiding citizens are now compelled to carry driving licences because joyriders are stealing cars. A person may have his driving licence stolen from his pocket in a pub tonight and, under the legislation, he will commit an offence if he drives home. Similarly, a person who leaves his licence somewhere commits an offence if he drives without it. Matters have gone too far in this instance and they require reexamination.

There was a great deal of good in the 1993 Act which I supported, for example, with regard to the speed limits, traffic control and so on. However, there were many undesirable aspects also. The development of legislation in this area reflects the attitude of people towards care on the roads. Like all in this House, I am very much against people driving having consumed a large amount of alcohol. Since most people are in favour of a social drink allowing the courts an element of discretion would be welcomed. I wish this legislation every success in both Houses of the Oireachtas.

Mr. Mullooly

I join in the welcome which has been given to the Bill and wish to be associated with the tributes paid to the Minister for having moved expeditiously and in a positive way to respond to the concern, widespread public unease and resentment which had manifested itself with regard to certain provisions of the Road Traffic Act, 1993.

The Act addressed a number of key areas of road traffic law where it was felt that changes were necessary and desirable. The main objective of the Act was to improve road safety and to bring about a reduction in the numbers killed and injured in traffic accidents on our roads every year. This was a laudable objective and, accordingly, there was general support for the main thrust of the 1993 legislation, both in the Oireachtas and outside, because of the very high level of death and injury on Irish roads. We are all aware of the statistics. Over 400 people are killed and more than 10,000 are injured in accidents on our roads every year. It therefore goes without saying that any reasonable measures which might help to bring about a reduction in these numbers would have a very high level of support from politicians and the public.

The problem with the 1993 Act was that it was perceived to have put an undue and unbalanced emphasis on the degree to which alcohol, even in very small quantities, is a contributory factor in road deaths and injuries on the roads and while we could argue as to whether or not the Act put this undue emphasis, this was the perception. I must emphasise that I am not discussing drunken driving and I would not like anybody to think that I am soft in any way on this issue. Drunken driving, or driving with high blood alcohol levels is something which no responsible person could, or would seek to condone. Ever since the offence of driving a vehicle with a blood alcohol level exceeding a legal limit was first introduced in 1968, the penalty has always included a mandatory disqualification and people accepted this. The level introduced in 1968 was 125 milligrammes per 100 millilitres of blood. In 1978 the limit was reduced to 100 milligrammes which was the situation until the reduction set out in the 1993 Act.

There is no doubt but that, since its introduction, the mandatory disqualification has been a very effective deterrent. Not alone that, but it has changed significantly attitudes and the attitude of the vast majority of motorists to drink driving. Throughout Ireland, and especially in rural Ireland there is now a very responsible attitude to drinking and driving. This is obvious on many fronts, for example, whereas 10 years ago people travelling to a wedding would all go by car, nowadays coaches or mini buses are organised to transport people to and from such events. The same applies to groups travelling to sporting events, and young people, especially, are adept at making transport arrangements for discos and such like which ensure that the drink driving factor is eliminated.

There is no question or doubt but that over the past number of years, there has been a significant cultural change with regard to drinking and driving. That is not to say that there is still not the occasional individual who will persist in driving even when he or she is unfit to do so because of the amount of alcohol consumed.

Debate adjourned.