Senator Mullooly is in possession and has 16 minutes left.
Road Traffic Bill, 1995: Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
Over the last number of years Irish people have developed a responsible attitude to drinking and driving. Yesterday evening I gave examples of how this attitude manifests itself. There are still some individuals who are exceptions to the rule. I have no problem with legislation which provides for severe penalties for such persons and a mandatory disqualification period must be part of that penalty for serious drink driving offences.
There is also no problem with the provisions in the 1994 legislation which increase the penalties and disqualification periods where serious offences are involved. However, that Act went further; it reduced the maximum permissible level from 100 milligrams to 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood. This is a significant change, but since this brought Ireland into line with most EU countries it was difficult to argue against it.
The fundamental problem with the legislation arose not from the reduction in the blood alcohol level but because the Act did not differentiate in regard to the mandatory penalties in the case of a person who marginally exceeded the new limit vis-a-vis a driver who had consumed a substantial quantity of alcohol and was shown to have a high blood alcohol level.
Many Members of both Houses were uneasy and apprehensive about that aspect of the legislation. Both publicly and privately these fears were made known during the period in which the Bill was considered. A strong case was made by Members on all sides for a graduated scale of penalties based on blood alcohol levels and greater discretion for the courts, particularly in cases of marginal infringements. The arguments made in support of a graduated scale of penalties were stronger than those against. However, it was not included in that Bill.
We all accept that a wide range of factors other than alcohol can and do contribute to road accidents. These include excessive speed; bad roads; substandard public lighting; wet, icy or greasy road surfaces; poor visibility; defective or poorly lit vehicles; dangerous overtaking; and drivers who show no consideration for other users or no regard for road signs. Any one of these factors or a combination of two or more of them is possibly more likely to be the cause of a serious road accident than the intake of a small amount of alcohol.
The problems with the 1994 Act arose because it was perceived to be purely anti-drink driving legislation and the penalties provided for in the case of low blood alcohol level offences were considered out of proportion to the gravity of the offence. The drink driving aspect of the legislation was highlighted when the Bill was published and it attracted the bulk of the publicity received when the legislation was going through the Oireachtas.
This aspect was also hyped when sections of the legislation were brought into force shortly before Christmas. This coincided with the start of the annual pre-Christmas road safety campaign, which was another problem. In addition to increasing the penalties and the mandatory disqualification period for all drink driving offences, the 1994 Act also introduced the mandatory requirement that anyone who had been disqualified for such an offence would have to pass a driving test and produce a letter of competency in order to gain a new driving licence.
The publicity surrounding the Christmas road safety campaign put a continuing spotlight on the provisions of the 1994 Act. To underpin the campaign the Garda traffic section adopted a high profile. Photographs of Garda checkpoints appeared in all the newspapers. On radio and television there were stories of drivers being breathalysed and failing the test after as few as two drinks. Everyone knew the penalties and became more convinced they were out of proportion, certainly in cases of marginal offences.
The road safety campaign advertisements were insensitive to rural areas, which did not help matters. Exhortations such as: "Hop on a bus, Gus"; "Take a taxi, Maxi"; or "Grab the DART, Bart" went down like a lead balloon in rural Ireland and put people's backs up. The PR people who devised these slogans showed no awareness of the existence of an Ireland outside the Pale or of the realities of life in that Ireland.
Law abiding people, who a week earlier could lawfully drive to a local pub and have a couple of drinks, felt trapped and criminalised. Advice to catch a DART had little relevance or use to these people. Telling those in sparsely populated or remote rural areas to make alternative transport arrangements when this was not possible was of little consolation.
An elderly farmer living alone at the end of an otherwise uninhabited rural road, who drove to his local pub on a Saturday or Sunday night for a drink and a chat with his neighbours, became a victim and a prisoner of the new laws. For him, losing his driving licence would be the end of the line because he would need his car or tractor to get around his fragmented holding or go to the mart, the shop or the church. He would feel he had little option but to dispense with his weekly visit to the pub.
Some people said this would not happen. There were those who said people would make alternative arrangements and that there would be little disruption, if any, of business or social life in rural communities. These people were proved wrong. It was not possible for the majority of people in rural areas to make alternative transport arrangements. Public transport in these areas is non-existent and taxis and hackney cars are few and far between. Publicans who tried to make transport arrangements for their customers ran into insurance and other difficulties. The consequences were that over the Christmas period, rural towns and villages all over the country were like ghost towns. Pubs were deserted and turnover in many cases was down by as much as 50 per cent.
There was a groundswell of deep resentment and anger against the new drink driving legislation. This was fanned by many reports of early morning checkpoints where people on their way to work were breathalysed. According to the reports many of these people had made alternative transport arrangements when going out for a few drinks or to a Christmas party the night before. I do not know whether these reports were true or false but they were widespread during that period. I believe that even the staunchest supporters of the new limit and penalty saw that the legislation would have to be amended. The impact of the legislation on rural communities, people living in remote areas and on public house business in rural areas was far greater than anybody had envisaged. The disqualification period, particularly for marginal offenders, was seen as an extremely severe penalty.
Any disqualification period is a severe penalty and results in a loading being applied to that person's motor insurance premium by the insurance company. A loading can be of the order of 200 per cent or more and normally lasts for five years. It applies even though the insurance company does not suffer any loss or pay out arising from the offence in respect of which the disqualification is imposed. Many people have reservations about the mandatory disqualification, except in the case of very serious offences, because it is used by motor insurance companies as a justification or excuse for imposing exorbitant increases and loading. This is particularly unjust in cases where there was no loss to the insurance company.
Perhaps we should have a system of penalty points for some of the less serious road traffic offences. Under such a system there would be an automatic disqualification for any driver incurring an aggregate of a certain number of points. Penalty points could automatically be erased at the end of two or three years from the date on which they were incurred. Such penalty points could be applied in respect of a wide range of road traffic offences where the offence was deemed by the court as not sufficiently serious to warrant a disqualification. One such offence could be a marginal breach of the drink driving limit. Such a system would be much more satisfactory than the black and white situation we have at present. It would also be a fair and effective system.
To use a modern cliché, such a system could be described as an integrated approach to road safety. It would not place a particularly strong emphasis on one type of offence, thereby possibly reducing the emphasis there should on other road traffic offences. It would be an incentive to drivers, particularly those who had incurred some penalty points, to ensure they did not incur any more. It would also be a much more equitable system for dealing with relatively marginal offences rather than imposing a penalty that included a mandatory disqualification, however short. Mandatory disqualification has serious implications. Such a system would be consistent with the principle of graduated penalties enshrined in this Bill and it would have the effect of attracting widespread public support for what the Minister, and indeed all of us, are endeavouring to do in the area of road safety.
I welcome the amendments provided for in the Bill. Perhaps the Minister will give some consideration to the suggestion I made about a penalty points system as a possible alternative to mandatory penalties in the case of less serious road traffic offences, particularly offences covered by the lowest blood alcohol band provided for in this Bill.
I welcome the Minister of State to the House. I congratulate the Minister on his approach to this Bill. He had extensive consultations with and listened to people on both sides and this can be seen in the provisions of the Bill. When Ministers settle into office and embark on the dicky bow circuit, they often exclude the views of ordinary people and do not listen to them. However, this Minister has set a good example. He is prepared to listen to what people have to say and he is to be complimented for that. He has set a headline.
The 1994 Road Traffic Act had many fine provisions, but because its introduction coincided with the usual Christmas publicity campaign to reduce accidents it provoked huge hostility. This hostility was not just among the publicans but among the general public as well. This hostility was much greater in rural areas where there was no transport or taxis available. I have never seen anything like the hostility in my area. I was actually afraid to go to Mass on Sunday in case I would get a going over.
The current Minister came under much pressure to increase the blood alcohol levels from 80 milligrammes to its former limit of 100 milligrammes. I believe he was right to refuse to do so, as the previous Minister was right to drop the level to 80 milligrammes. They were right because in eight of the EU member states the limit is 80 milligrammes and it is lower in the other states. It would have been totally wrong if our limit was higher and out of step with the rest of Europe.
The provision in the 1994 Act, which reduced the permissible alcohol level from 100 to 80 milligrammes and at the same time disqualified anyone over 80 milligrammes from driving for two years and made it mandatory for such a person to pass a driving test before a licence was returned, went a few steps too far. No one can justify dealing so severely with a person slightly over the 80 milligrammes limit who was convicted under the 1994 Act. The crime, if it could be called that, certainly did not justify the sentence.
There was much folklore and tales about what might happen and what would not happen. We all heard of the possibility of a person going to his local pub for a social drink after a day's work who could expect, after consuming approximately two pints, to lose his licence for two years and to have to pass a driving test before his licence would be given back. In practical terms, hundreds of thousands of people in rural Ireland have done that for many generations. It is a tradition in rural Ireland that people go to their local pub for a chat and to meet their neighbours and have a social drink. Because of the new regulations, these people almost found themselves prisoners in their own homes and they were infuriated.
The Minister's graded system of penalties and the requirement not to have to pass a driving test before one's licence is returned except in exceptional circumstances is a victory for commonsense. It is also worth noting that the courts have been given discretion in certain circumstances and I welcome that.
The Vintners Federation of Ireland have told Members of the Seanad about two matters. It is still a little concerned about one of the provisions in the present legislation. It feels that the mandatory loss of a licence for three months on first conviction with a blood alcohol level of 80 milligrammes per 100 millilitres is unnecessarily severe, bearing in mind that it is mandatory and applies even when there is no injured party or victim. I would have preferred to have that left to the discretion of the courts. It also pointed out that many insurance companies could take advantage of this situation and impose a far greater penalty in that they could load the insurance. Maybe the Minister, even at this late stage, could look at that.
I would like clarification from the Minister, when he is replying, on another section of the Bill. It appears he has made a provision in the 1995 Bill to allow people convicted under the 1994 Act to apply to the courts to have their disqualification orders amended and brought into line with the 1995 Bill when passed. If my interpretation is correct — and I hope the Minister can clarify that — it is more than welcome.
This Bill represents a job well done. In conclusion, I ask the Minister to look at the two requests for alterations from the Vintners Federation of Ireland, because they make sense. I also ask the Minister, if he is not already doing so, to monitor the situation insofar as insurance companies are concerned. If they are seen to be taking advantage of this situation when no accident or third party is involved, the Minister should take whatever action is necessary to curtail this criminal practice.
The background to this Bill was the effort made by the previous Minister for the Environment, Deputy Smith, to change the drink culture in this country, especially as it related to drunk driving. Acting on advice at the time, and it has now been adequately aired, he has given his reasons why he proceeded at the time with the stringent penalties which became part of the Road Traffic Act, 1994. That Act was debated in both Houses of the Oireachtas and was passed by both the Dáil and Seanad. It was not until the full implications of the penalty aspects of the Bill became widely publicised that the various lobby interests in this country, led by the Vintners Federation of Ireland, attempted to have the legislation changed by way of public protest. Indeed, this is their right. In many cases, as has been pointed out by my colleague, Senator Mullooly, and Senator Townsend, the very livelihood of the owners of rural public houses was seen to be at stake if the sections of the Bill relating to penalties were to proceed through the courts. It is true that during the Christmas period business for many rural and, indeed, urban public houses was well down on previous years. The ex-Minister, in losing that battle, has not lost the war — and it is a war. The real message of this legislation, in its original and amended form, is that if one drinks, one does not drive. It is a simple message. It has nothing to do with pub or drink culture, public houses, the Vintners Federation of Ireland, lobby groups or anybody else. It is simply stating that fact.
The reaction to the original proposals attracted a wide spectrum of comment. Some of those who got involved in the debate on penalties — articles I read by Kevin Myers of The Irish Times and Tom McGuirk of the Sunday Business Post on this issue spring to mind — warned of an impending social disaster that would end the social life that we know and love in Ireland. The hysteria, and it was hysteria, that surrounded the introduction of this Bill created the impression that Ireland would literally close down overnight. The annual anti-drink driving campaign, which, irrespective of the new legislation, has saved and continues to save lives, unfortunately coincided with the introduction of the provisions of the new Road Traffic Act. The resultant campaign to amend the more controversial elements of that Act has, inevitably, brought us back to this House.
My colleague, Senator Mullooly, has teased out in great detail the impact of the original legislation on rural Ireland and of the various attempts that have been made to amend the legislation. bringing it to the point we are at today. I do not intend to repeat what he said. However, I wish to state a personal interest. I do not drink, although contrary to some comments. I did drink during my formative years when living in England; and, having had that experience, I am aware of what it can do to the faculties. The fact that I do not drink is not based on any ideological hangup — I came to the conclusion that I did not like it and that it did not like me — so I have no problem with drinking or with anybody who drinks and I frequent public houses. Indeed, my late father often used to say that he grew up in a public house.
I grew up — perhaps this influences my thinking about contemporary Irish society and my attitude towards drink in general — in a culture and at a time when public houses were places for adults; they were not for young people. Celebrating an examination result or another social occasion usually centred around an ice cream soda in the local shop and the thought of going to a pub never entered our young minds. In my teenage years the public house was still a no-go area. If you won a football competition, you certainly did not fill the cup with anything stronger than orange or lemonade. That was the way things were. Those teenagers in our peer group who were known to frequent pubs during my time were usually socially shunned. Sadly, as those Members who are in the licensed trade will readily testify, there are rotten apples in every profession and there are publicans, even in my home town, who will serve underage drinkers with impunity and get away with it. They were not the sort of company one kept and they tended to operate in their own milieu.
However, today's pub culture in Ireland is all pervasive. Celebration with drink has now become so entrenched in our society that when the ex-Minister for the Environment attempted to bring us into line with the rest of Europe and introduce legislation that was already accepted in Europe, he was almost socially ostracised. His family suffered personal abuse. Senator Townsend said he had difficulty going to Mass in Carlow. He should talk to the former Minister, Deputy Michael Smith, about what happened to him and his family coming up to Christmas. Such outrageous attacks should not be visited on a public representative from any party doing their legislative duty and discharging their legislative obligation. Lobby groups, especially the Vintners Federation of Ireland, and those attempting to change the legislation, which is their democratic right, publicly deplored what was going on. It would be remiss of me as a friend and colleague of the former Minister and as a parliamentarian, irrespective of whether I know him, not to put on record how appalled we were by this attack on a public representative.
If the controversy surrounding this legislation has done nothing else, it has awakened the majority of the people to the fact that the abuse of drink and the combination of driving while drunk is lethal. It has made people aware of that lethal cocktail. However, it would be churlish and stupid of me not to mention the anguish experienced by publicans, particularly those in rural areas, as a result of the original proposals in the Road Traffic Act, 1994, and their interpretation of its penalties in terms of the impact they would have on their businesses. Like many country towns, my home town has a preponderance of public houses. Decent honourable people attempting to run their businesses efficiently and legally and to raise their families and pay their taxes found themselves in a situation where they believed that the implications of the penalties in the Road Traffic Act, 1994, would have a serious short to medium term and perhaps a fatal long term effect on their businesses.
The impact of the legislation was such that not only in my home town but throughout rural Ireland, publicans came together to organise minibuses and transport for their clientele in order to encourage them to come out and to ensure that if they drank more than perhaps the legislation allowed, they would not be subjected to breathalyser tests on the way home which would scare them and, as has been pointed out by many speakers, would create a situation where they would drink at home and not in a bar. If the original legislation has been left as it was, we would have faced a situation where, similar to a number of other European countries, the tradition of drinking outside the home by gathering for a social drink in a public house would have been all but eliminated.
The legislation would not have diminished the amount of alcohol consumed, but it would have effected a change in social and cultural habits which are endemic and unique to this country because of our rural population. The change would have been so great that businesses would have had to close and families would have found themselves destitute. I do not believe any Government or legislator would be able to defend that result. In that context I supported representations made, particularly by the Vintners Federation of Ireland, as a representative of local publicans who are friends of mine. I would not support any legislation which would make an already difficult employment situation in rural Ireland any worse.
As regards the change in the Administration, I am inclined to believe, although it is only supposition, that if the last Fianna Fáil-Labour Government had remained in office over Christmas and into 1995, the former Minister or his representative would be in the House putting forward perhaps the same proposals which we are being asked to pass today. I say that because representations from lobby groups gathered momentum over the Christmas period and into the New Year which resulted in meetings between the new Minister and various groups at the end of January and February. He acted quickly and introduced amending legislation which I have no doubt will be passed.
It is important to say to those on the other side of the argument — for example, the association representing the victims of drink driving — that I do not believe this amending legislation constitutes a reversal of or a filtering down of the thinking or philosophy behind the 1994 Act. It is a human response to that legislation in that it now allows a certain discretion where social drinking is concerned. Those of us who have studied the various reports and tests carried out in the light of this controversy in the past few months will testify to the fact that the absorption of alcohol into the system varies from individual to individual. I could drink three pints and the Leas-Chathaoirleach six pints, but they may have no effect. However, somebody else could be affected by drinking two pints.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I would not like to take that chance.
I am being hypothetical. Forgive me if I suggested that you consume a lot of alcohol.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The thought never crossed my mind.
My intention was to emphasise that there are different strokes for different folks. It has been proven that alcohol affects people differently. People who over three or four hours consume alcohol above what would be considered the legal limit often insist they are capable of driving a car. However, they are found to be wrong when tested. Licensed vintners would not defend the idea that absorption of alcohol is uniform, and to some degree the amending legislation recognises that. The Vintners Federation of Ireland has corresponded with Members in recent days seeking further amendments to the legislation. I am sure the Minister is aware of these representations and I am sure he will address those concerns in his reply on Second Stage. While I am not an expert, the approach by the Vintners Federation of Ireland seems reasonable, but I will rely on how the Minister views it in relation to the amending legislation.
I want to comment on a point made by Senator Mullooly. The greatest insult to rural Ireland was made during this controversy by some "genius" in the National Road Safety Association — I would love to know and talk to that person — who devised a supercilious approach to encourage people to drink but not to drive by referring to the DART, the bus and the taxi. It was so insulting to rural people, not because it mentioned public transport which is not available in many parts of rural Ireland but because the individual who created the campaign to encourage people not to drink and drive was so insular, closeted, parochial and secure in their east coast, Dublin 4 attitude that they believed this campaign would have a good effect. However, that did not happen.
We have learned our lesson, although none of us is perfect. I hope the Minister, who will have some responsibility for ensuring that the effects of this legislation are brought home to the people, will ensure that a more imaginative campaign will have genuine appeal, not only in one part of Ireland but nationally and across the age groups.
The biggest problem facing society in the next decade will be the growing number of young people abusing alcohol, which is a drug. I have no solution to how one reverses the culture I have outlined which has developed over the last two decades in this country. However, I am sure the Minister agrees that we all have a responsibility to protect the innocent in this regard and to eliminate the scourge of underage drinking in society.
I appeal to the Vintners Federation of Ireland, in particular, to be the vanguard of this new campaign. I know that responsible vintners in this country abhor underage drinking and that they do everything in their power to root it out. This situation has reached crisis proportions. Drink is now at the centre of all social activity. You, a Leas-Chathaoirleach, or I never believed the day would come when the GAA would take drinks sponsorship. This shows the dramatic change in attitudes in this country. Abuse of drink is a lethal weapon and it causes chaos and death in irresponsible hands.
I welcome the proposals in this legislation, but I hope we as legislators try to address the abuse of alcohol, which will have a detrimental effect on our society.
I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications, Deputy Stagg, to the House. The Minister and the Government have got the balance right as regards the proposed changes. This happened as a result of the review which took place after the changes in the previous legislation were examined. Strong lobby groups were represented, including those which Senator Howard and Senator Bohan were involved in, and also other well meaning associations such as the Mothers Against Drunk Driving, insurance companies, etc. It was important that a review took place after a certain period so that hasty decisions were not made. I deplore the attacks made on the previous Minister.
There is widespread support for what we are trying to achieve in this area. Differences arise over how difficulties are resolved in urban and rural areas. The message from this debate must be that if one is drinking, one should make alternative arrangements to get home. There are different ways of solving this problem in different areas. Many publicans in the Dublin area took this matter seriously and provided minibuses and coaches at a nominal fee or free gratis in areas where major functions were held. They tried to ensure that people got home. Lack of taxis and minibuses meant that people could not get home when they wanted to. This situation must also be considered.
If one travels around the city during the day one will see that taxi ranks are full. Unlike other major cities, where people would not think about bringing their cars to work, we do so every morning and create traffic jams. It is important to look at ways of improving late night transport. Great improvements have taken place in the Dublin area in relation to link buses which travel at certain times during the night. Changes have also taken place in relation to taxis. This system is continuing in certain public houses in the Dublin area; it is not only a two or three week phenomenon in December. We must encourage this to continue.
The message from this debate must be that if one is drinking, one should not drive. The Minister has looked at the system and made some changes. Road carnage was reduced in December 1994, when there were 28 fatalities — 28 too many — and 729 injuries. This compares with 1993 when there were 41 fatalities and 965 injuries. We must reduce this even further. These accidents are not all drink related. One hears about tragic accidents at odd times which have been caused by speed, faulty brakes, bald tyres, etc. Drink is not always the cause, although some will be drink related.
The road safety campaign should continue throughout the year rather than being restricted to Christmas, when everyone has a good time at parties which they feel they cannot miss. If people are going out for a night they should make it more enjoyable by not driving.
Obviously the situation in rural Ireland poses difficulties, although I understand that in some areas publicans have responded positively. I am sure that my colleagues who are actively involved as nominees of their respective associations will inform the Vintners Federation that some publicans could do a lot more than they have been doing. While some responded positively by recognising the need for change in our culture and trying to improve the situation, others did not want to put anything back in. While no one wants to see anyone's livelihood being taken away, I would rather see people alive than people's livelihoods being threatened.
It was unrealistic to expect that we would go back to the former limit of 100 milligrammes. I support the fact that no change has been made to the new limit of 80 milligrammes which is now in place. However, it must recognised, as with other aspects of the criminal code, that a balanced sliding scale is required for different, more serious offences. The Minister has addressed that situation as far as possible and, while it is not foolproof, by and large he has got the balance reasonably right.
The vintners have suggested that no driving disqualification should apply for a first offence. But, unfortunately, if we are trying to get away from this culture and ensure that there is no drinking and driving, we must accept that some disqualification is necessary. I do not know how hard the vintners are pushing their case, but given some of the progress they have made on this matter so far, they have not done too badly in relation to the changes that have been made. I suppose that if they did not go for that they would not be doing their job.
In common with most Members on the other side of the House, we support the legislation which deals with an area that cannot be decided in a political way. Opposition Members, who were on this side a few months ago, are every bit as concerned as we are in trying to achieve a certain balance as well as publicising the message that drinking and driving are not on. I am sure all Members of the House support that view.
In his reply I trust that the Minister will address some of the points that I and others have made. After the review we have, hopefully, got the balance right, although it is hard to be absolutely accurate in such matters. It is important for the message to go out that drinking and driving are just not on and those consuming alcohol must recognise the need to be stricter with themselves than previously. Publicans can also help by not pushing drink on people who have already had one too many, by helping to get people home safely and by not serving drink to young people who are underage. Young people have enough difficulties without having to come to terms with problems arising from excessive drinking.
I support the Bill and hope that the proposed balance will achieve the desired results.
I want to thank all Senators who contributed to the debate on this short but important Bill. I was pleased to note a broad level of agreement in the House and a general welcome for the proposals to grade disqualification periods by reference to alcohol levels.
The Bill has a very narrow focus. Its Long Title describes it as an Act to amend certain provisions of the Road Traffic Act, 1961, relating to consequential disqualification orders. It was inevitable, however, given the background to the Bill, that some contributions would relate to issues outside its scope.
In my response to the debate I intend to concentrate on the main points raised in relation to disqualifications, and penalties generally, for drink driving offences. In the Minister's opening contribution he described the Bill as "tough but fair" and said it was "striking a balance". I believe we have got that balance right. While some Senators expressed reservations, particularly on points of detail, the thrust of our proposals has attracted all party support.
One of the main issues raised during the course of the debate yesterday and today was the treatment of offenders with alcohol levels in the bottom band. Since this Bill was published, I have heard a number of different viewpoints on that issue, which shows the difficulty of reaching a consensus. A number of Senators argued that the imposition of a disqualification for drivers with blood alcohol levels of 80 to 100 milligrammes would be very severe. As far as the policy issue is concerned, the Government is satisfied that some period of disqualification, however short, should apply to all drink driving offences. This has been the case since 1961. The Government carefully considered this issue, including the arguments raised by Senators in this debate, and is satisfied that a period of three months' disqualification for a first offence, with an alcohol level in the bottom band, is the correct period.
The second major issue raised in the course of the debate was the cost of motor insurance and the practice of insurance companies in loading the premiums of motorists involved in accidents or prosecuted for road traffic offences and disqualified from driving. A number of Senators mentioned the implications for motor insurance premiums as a factor in influencing their views on disqualifications for motorists caught "just over the limit". The primary aim of road safety initiatives is to reduce the number of accidents, save lives and prevent injuries.
Reducing the cost of motor insurance for all drivers is a further key aim. The cost of motor insurance is directly linked to the level of compensation payments. As road deaths and injuries are reduced, we expect to see reductions in the cost of insurance for all motorists. The Minister has, in fact, discussed this particular issue with insurance interests. One company has already responded and hopefully more will follow that example.
A conviction for any serious traffic offence, and not just one resulting in an endorsement or disqualification, will impact on a driver's motor insurance premium. This is not a requirement of road traffic legislation; it is a practice developed by the insurance companies, who determine the cost of insurance for individuals on the basis of their assessment of risk. In relation to motor insurance costs generally, I should add that my colleague, the Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise and Employment, has decided to commission a study to analyse insurance costs and identify the key factors contributing to higher costs in Ireland.
I would like to respond to two additional queries raised in the debate. Senator Kiely referred to drivers under the influence of drugs and suggested that this was probably a greater problem than alcohol. This, of course, is also an offence. "Intoxicant" includes both alcohol and drugs. Under section 14 of the Road Traffic Act, 1994, a blood specimen can be sought from a person suspected of being under the influence of drugs.
Senator Dardis queried the position in relation to changes in the alcohol level. Under the 1994 Act the Minister may vary the legal alcohol limit by way of regulation. However, the normal procedures governing the making of such regulations do not apply. Before such regulations can be made, a draft of the regulation must be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and each House must pass a resolution approving the draft. In other words, the draft regulations must be debated in each House and passed by each House.
Senator Mullooly suggested the adoption of a penalty points system as an alternative to endorsement or disqualification. It was suggested that penalty points would apply to minor or first offences only rather than the more serious offences we are discussing here, which would not be envisaged as being included in a points system building up to a disqualification. The concept is attractive but, as I say, only for minor offences and not for drink driving ones. At this stage the technology is not available to operate a penalty points system. It requires a sophisticated central driving licence register which is not yet in place but is being developed.
Senator Townsend asked for clarification about people who committed offences under the 1994 Act. There is a transitional clause dealing with these cases. Under section 3 of the Bill, certain people convicted of offences committed since 2 December 1994 can apply to the court to have disqualifications amended to bring the periods of disqualification into line with those in this Bill.
I thank Senators for their contributions. The overall thrust of the Bill has been welcomed and I look forward to the co-operation of the House in facilitating its early passage.
Question put and agreed to.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?
At 1.30 p.m.
Committee Stage ordered for 1.30 p.m. today.
Sitting suspended at 12.10 p.m. and resumed at 1.30 p.m.