Skip to main content
Normal View

Select Committee on Finance and General Affairs debate -
Thursday, 15 Jul 1993

SECTION 4.

Question proposed: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill."

The same arguments apply but I accept what the Minister said.

Question put and agreed to.
Sections 5 to 9, inclusive, agreed to.
NEW SECTION.

We now come to amendment No. 3 in the name of Deputy Gil-more. Amendment No. 69 is an alternative. Is it agreed to take amendments Nos. 3 and 69 together? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 3.

In page 7, before section 10, to insert the following new section:

"10.—The Principal Act is hereby amended—

(a) in section 53 (2) (a) by the substitution of ‘ten' for ‘five', and

(b) in section 53 (2) (b) by the substitution of ‘£5,000' for ‘one hundred pounds' and by the substitution of ‘12 months' for ‘six months', and

(c) by the deletion of subsection (5) of section 53.".

The main thrust of the discussions on this Bill to date — and when the Minister first published the Bill he made the point in the first line of his press release — has been that the battle to take drink out of the driving seat is set to enter a new and crucial phase. That is certainly the case as a result of this Bill. However, it would be a mistake to assume that all dangerous driving and accidents on our roads are due to drink. I have no problem with cracking down on drunk driving.

However, we have a problem of dangerous driving which may not be associated with drink. On Second Stage I pointed out that a young driver showing off to his girlfriend might be a lot more dangerous than an elderly farmer who takes two or three pints after his day's work and meanders home at half past eleven at night along a quiet country road. We must deal with the question of dangerous driving which may not necessarily be related to drink.

I noted the protest outside the gates of the House on the day we were debating Second Stage. I spoke to the people who took part in that protest and many of them were relatives of people who had been killed in road accidents which, in some cases, were the result of dangerous driving which may not have involved drink. They were convinced of the necessity to crack down on dangerous driving as well as drunk driving.

Section 53 of the 1961 Act makes dangerous driving an offence and provides that in cases where it causes death or serious bodily harm to another person the person responsible shall be liable on conviction on indictment to penal servitude for any term not exceeding five years or, at the discretion of the court, a fine not exceeding £500. I am proposing that the maximum penalty be increased from five years to ten years and the fine increased from £500 to £10,000 in cases where dangerous driving has resulted in serious bodily harm or in death. Similarly, in cases where serious bodily harm or death do not result, the 1961 Act prescribes fines of £100 or a term of imprisonment not exceeding six months. Again I think those penalties should be increased.

I know that in the Bill as originally published the Minister made provision for increasing the period of time for which one would be disqualified from holding a driver's licence if convicted of dangerous driving under section 53 of the 1961 Act. However, it must be very clear that the penalties provided for under the 1961 Act do not reflect the seriousness of the crime. It is fine to crack down on drunk driving but we should not ignore the fact that dangerous driving may not be associated with drink but the result of showing off on the road, just driving dangerously. That should be dealt with in the legislation and that is the reason I am proposing that the penalties for dangerous driving should be increased in this Bill.

I very much agree with the content of Deputy Gilmore's contribution in relation to the number of accidents which take place as a result of speeding which is unrelated to drink. Therefore, I would like to move my own amendment:

In page 36 between lines 7 and 8 to insert the following:

"(e) in section 53 — (1) by the substitution in subsection (2) (a) for ‘five years' of ‘ten years' and for ‘£3,000' (as inserted by the Act of 1984) of ‘£10,000', and (2) by the substitution in subsection (3) for ‘built-up area or special' of ‘built-up area, special or motorway'".

This amendment proposes two changes to section 53 of the Road Traffic Acts 1961, for example, the section dealing with dangerous driving. Paragraph 1 proposes an increase in the maximum penalty which may be imposed on conviction on indictment for the offence of dangerous driving causing death or serious bodily harm. This is a very serious offence and, while the existing maximum penalties are severe, I am proposing that they be increased to give the courts the power to impose very severe sanctions in exceptional cases, for example, cases where the nature of the offence is such as to warrant a lengthy term of imprisonment.

Paragraph 2 is a drafting change consequent on the creation of a new statutory motorway speed limit. The subsection to be amended provides that in a prosecution for dangerous driving it is not necessary to prove that the accused person was driving at a speed in excess of the relevant speed limit.

Paragraph (a) of Deputy Gilmore's amendment is similar to my amendment and I presume he will agree to withdraw that section. I regret I cannot accept his proposals in paragraph (b). The proposal to provide for a maximum fine of £5,000 and a maximum term of imprisonment of 12 months could have the effect of taking this offence out of the category of offences which may be tried by a District Court. The result would be that any dangerous driving offence would have to be tried in a higher court before a jury and this would not be practicable.

To clarify the position for Members, amendment No. 69 cannot be formally moved until we come to it in the ordinary way. It can be discussed but not formally moved.

We are all opposed to drink driving but the issue is being used as an excuse for being unable to reduce the number of serious accidents on our roadways that are not due to drink. The drink driving issue is being used as a scapegoat.

It is obvious that people are driving modern cars at horrific speeds and do not have the experience to control them. That may be appropriate on the race tracks but when I travel from Cavan to Dublin some drivers pass me on the road even though I am doing 65 or 70 miles an hour, which I consider fast. Whole families are being wiped out in these serious accidents which do not involve drink. There should be more control and sufficient gardaí to monitor speeding. I have seldom seen speed limit checks on our roads. As a local representative I have raised this matter with the Garda but they say they do not have sufficient manpower.

If the Minister implements these regulations he will close down rural Ireland. What is wrong with a farmer driving into his local town after a hard week's work to do some shopping, perhaps go to Mass on a Saturday evening, enjoy a few drinks afterwards and going home quietly minding his own business? What is wrong with a husband and wife going on their only social outing to their local lounge at the weekend and perhaps moving to a different lounge the following Sunday night to meet new people? The wife may not drink and the husband may drink only two to three bottles of stout. The Minister will now prevent this and tie these people to their homes. That will be the end result if these regulations are implemented. The Minister is not getting at the people who are causing the accidents, the reckless drivers who are not all young. The Minister must deploy more gardaí and patrol cars doing spot checks on our national roads and in the towns and villages where the road signs are no longer obeyed. In many cases they are rusted and overgrown and not maintained by the local authority. There is little point in implementing these regulations if they will not be applied. These regulations will affect people who do not interfere with anyone and who are extremely careful in their drinking habits. The Minister is moving in the wrong direction and these measures will not result in the prevention of serious accidents.

I agree with the points made by Deputy Andrew Boylan. I have serious reservations about the lengths to which this Bill goes in preventing people from drinking and driving. None of us would condone drink driving. When this Bill passes into law — as it most likely will — social life for many people living in remote rural areas will be eliminated. I do not know if the Minister and his officials are taking this into consideration. This measure has a certain validity where alternative modes of transport are available such as in cities and in large towns which have public transport, taxis and hackneys but where people have no alternative means of transportation the Minister is imposing a very severe restriction. Has the Minister borne this in mind?

I said this previously on Second Stage but it is probably best said on Committee Stage where we can have a question and answer session with the Minister. Is it the Minister's intention to close down all rural public houses? Is it his intention to penalise rural dwellers because that is how I see it? We are not dealing here with desperados, we are dealing with hardworking, good living people. This measure is too restrictive.

The Bill states that one will be considered drunk if the concentration of alcohol in the blood is over 80 milligrammes of alcohol per hundred millimetres of blood. As I understand it that will allow a person to drink the equivalent of one pint of stout, ale or lager or a half measure of spirits. If a person has two drinks he or she will be over the limit. That is not practical or fair and it is unreasonable. I do not believe that a person who has two pints or two half measures of spirits is a drunk driver. I would like to have a definition of a drunk driver because five years ago when we had the annual pre-Christmas anti-drink driving campaign the public were advised not to have more than two drinks. Under this legislation if they have two drinks they will be considered criminals. How can the Minister justify that? What constitutes a drunk driver? I would not consider myself a drunk driver if I had two pints or two shorts and I am sure that would be the view of most people.

This Bill is too far reaching. I realise drunk driving is a problem but we are being less than honest to pretend that two drinks constitute a drunk driver. We should face up to the fact. People are afraid of being accused of condoning drunk driving. I do not, nor does Deputy Boylan. I would like to have a medical definition of a drunk driver. The Minister is being unfair to people who do not have access to public transport. He is also unfair to rural dwellers and I hope he will consider amending the legislation to allow the continuation of the limits that pertain at present.

To return to the amendment tabled by Deputy Gilmore, the point has been well made that dangerous driving involves not just drunken driving but also recklessness and, in particular, speeding on the roads. I tabled an amendment to the Bill in relation to speeding on motorways. I do not wish to dwell on the drunken driving aspect of this Bill because I will have some comments to make in relation to the pub culture which seems to be glorified by some people. I accept that a number of people fear that the only social outlet in a rural area may disappear and I do not think anybody wants that.

It has been proved that speed kills, indeed it was used as a slogan in relation to particular advertising campaigns concerning dangerous driving. Dangerous driving kills as often as drunken driving and the appropriate punishment should be laid down in the Bill.

I welcome the Minister's amendment which clearly recognises that the question of dangerous driving must be addressed. I also welcome the fact that in cases where there has been either a death or serious bodily injury he is proposing to increase the maximum penalty to ten years' imprisonment and a £10,000 fine which is what I suggested in my amendment. I welcome that and, therefore, I will agree to his suggestion to withdraw that part of the amendment.

I recognise what the Minister says in relation to my amendment in that it would put the trying of dangerous driving offences outside the remit of the District Courts and that certainly was not my intention. I accept that would not be desirable so I will also have to withdraw that portion of the amendment. However, that aspect must be dealt with because as it stands dangerous driving, whether it involves a death or a serious injury, will carry a more serious penalty which is more in line with the offence. However, in other cases it carries only a small penalty. The £100 fine may have been increased in the 1984 Act but it is still a minor penalty with the six months' imprisonment. We should not wait until a death or serious injury occurs to attach a heavy penalty to dangerous driving offences. That part of the 1961 Act must be dealt with and I certainly intend to come back on Report Stage with a legally correct amendment to deal with that but I would ask the Minister to consider it between now and Report Stage.

In relation to the comments about the reduction in the limits for drink driving, I referred to this during my Second Stage contribution. It is difficult to oppose a reduction in the limit for the level of alcohol that one consumes prior to driving. Deputy Deasy was talking about one pint — very few people go to the pub and have one pint. We are effectively talking here about people not drinking. That will be the net effect of this legislation.

I understand the point made by Deputies Deasy and Boylan in relation to the effect of this measure particularly in rural communities. On Second Stage I asked the Minister if he could outline the justification for reducing the limit from 120 milligrammes to the 80 milligramme level. He did supply figures on Second Stage which indicated that over 50 per cent of those caught for drink driving were over twice the limit, which is fair enough. Under the existing law somebody over twice the limit has drunk five or perhaps six pints and they are fair game in anybody's language. I would like to hear the justification for the reduction in the limit. Do we have information about the number of offences or the extent to which road accidents are attributable to the interval between 80 milligrammes and 120 milligrammes or to the interval between the one or one and a half pints and the two pints? The message being put across is that if one is driving do not drink and that is probably an admonition that most of us take on board now.

The legislation has quite serious implications — which I accept — for social life in rural areas. I am surprised that some of my colleagues from rural constituencies have not tabled amendments to this Bill. I would like to hear the Minister's justification for the reduction in the level because it has not been spelled out to us yet.

Looking at the statistics available it seems clear that the vast majority of serious road accidents occur between 9 p.m. and 3 a.m. It is clear also that these accidents occur on Fridays, Saturdays, Sundays and Monday mornings. It would appear there is a direct correlation between drink driving and accidents, fatal or otherwise.

It is important to have regard for the national good as opposed to the individual interest. If there is a relationship between drink driving and fatal and other accidents it is incumbent on all of us to seriously consider the problem and the Minister is obviously addressing it in this Bill.

I would say to Deputy Deasy in particular that we must bear in mind the trauma suffered by parents or relatives of people who are killed in traffic accidents caused by drink driving. We must remember also the hardship to people maimed as a result of accidents related directly to drink driving and the long term effects on those families.

Deputy Keogh mentioned the drink culture, the acceptability of drinking and driving has existed for many years. The time has now come for that culture to be changed. This Bill represents a determined effort to do that. I come from a rural background although, by and large, I represent an urban community. I can understand it is easy for people to get taxis to and from wherever they want to socialise but there are difficulties in rural areas. There is also a realisation now in rural areas, particularly during the Christmas period, that if one drinks one does not drive. Alternative arrangements are made which can involve members of the family, neighbours or others driving you to the pub and back home. That is what we must achieve and this Bill obviously sets out to do that. In that respect I support the Bill although I realise there will be difficulties for individual pub owners in rural areas.

I suppose the essence of this Bill is the effect of the reduction in what is permitted by way of blood alcohol levels from 100 milligrammes to 80 milligrammes, which is what we are talking about. Unfortunately, I was unable to participate in the Second Stage debate. I would like to hear the Minister spell out the data in relation to the predicted effect of that reduction. I should also be interested to hear the effect of the earlier reduction. I hope I am correct in saying that, initially, when blood alcohol levels were incorporated in legislation, a level of up to 120 milligrammes was permitted in blood alcohol, which I gather was reduced to 100 milligrammes. Will the Minister spell out the effect of that reduction in relation to blood alcohol on patterns of road accidents? Nobody wants to advance a case for people driving cars when drunk. Indeed many of the people who spoke toady may fear being labelled what these days is termed "politically incorrect". The reality is that, if these provisions are enforced, the present patterns of driving behaviour in rural areas cannot continue. Anybody who has visited public houses, not just in rural areas but in urban areas — in urban areas at least people have the facility of being sufficiently close to pubs to be able to walk home — knows what I am talking about.

I understand that, in his Second Stage contribution, the Minister mentioned that over half the people arrested for drunken driving were found to have had blood alcohol levels in excess of 200 milligrammes. By any standard, those people were drunk. Would it be better to concentrate on ensuring that everybody driving a car must have a blood alcohol level of less than 100 milligrammes per 100 millilitres of urine rather than set about effecting further reductions without having made very much progress to date, particularly since it appears that in excess of half the people picked up are driving with alcohol levels in excess of 200 milligrammes? Indeed if one observes people in public houses, there is no doubt that many of them who get into cars will have consumed very large amounts of alcohol.

I should like to raise a point in relation to the availability of public transport, which would be well worth examining in the context of these changes. Obviously, that will be feasible in urban areas only. I would be particularly interested in hearing what the Minister has to say in relation to what the effect of the reduction from 120 milligrammes to 100 milligrammes, what history has shown in relation to that reduction and what he expects will happen in relation to the proposal to reduce that figure from 100 milligrammes to 80 milligrammes. In other words, how many accidents are caused because people drive cars with blood alcohol levels in the range between 80 milligrammes and 100 milligrammes? That is the essence of this provision.

I did not have the privilege of contributing to the Second Stage debate. As somebody from the heart of rural Ireland who does not agree with drunken driving or anything of that nature I would have to say that rural areas are at a great disadvantage compared to Dublin where there are all types of public transport available, such as the DART, taxis, buses and a whole conglomoration of transport. People in rural areas will be deprived of their traditional culture and way of life. I could cite the example of many rural pubs and old age pensioners who frequent them perhaps three times a week, for a game of cards, who would drink perhaps two pints. Those people will be confined to their homes, through fear of being harassed, which will bring about a major change in the pattern of life in rural Ireland. There is merit in a two-tier breathalyser system, one for the greater urban areas and another for rural areas, which should have been examined. People in rural areas are deprived of transport.

Probably that is the greatest contribution to decentralisation the Deputy could make.

Will Deputies please desist from interrupting Deputy O'Keeffe?

Many road accidents which were thought to be drink-related may have been caused by road structures. I drive regularly to Dublin. A small section of the road from Abbeyleix to Portlaoise, is no better than any county road I know. Indeed, there have been fatal accidents on that stretch. I congratulate the Minister on making extra funding available for the refurbishment of the Cork-Dublin road, especially that from Cork to Kilbehenny, in view of the number of accidents on that road, not caused by drink. If we are serious about reducing serious accidents and fatalities on our roads we will have to stop people coming from side roads, onto main roads, turning left or right. Private entrances also cause problems. The number of fatalities on that road in the last two years have been alarming, particularly in my constituency, from Waterglass to Kilbehenny, occasioned by people turning off to the left and right.

The provisions of this Bill will have serious effects on rural areas. I have spoken privately to the Minister and he knows my views. I gave the example of old age pensioners, a man and wife of, say, 65, 67 years of age who go to the local village pub for two pints, a game of cards, perhaps on a Wednesday, Friday and possibly, Sunday evening. They will be locked into their homes in future because they will be nervous of losing their driving licence.

When one talks in the context of 80 milligrammes as opposed to 100 milligrammes, the impression could be given that drinking is acceptable when driving. I think all Members present would condemn drunken driving. I did not have a chance to contribute to the Second Stage debate on this Bill. If I had I would have spoken in the same vein as previous speakers. Indeed a prominent publican in Dublin told me the position there is quite different from that in rural areas, in particular in relation to these drink-driving regulations. He did not foresee them having an appreciable impact on his business but realised they would have a significant impact on publicans in rural areas.

We now propose reducing the 125 milligrammes to 100 milligrammes and down further to 80 milligrammes and, in one section, it is proposed to reduce the level to 50 milligrammes. Many of the new regulations are draconian in that, not alone is one talking of 30 milligrammes but about a two years' suspension from driving and the licence being revoked. In addition, one is talking about insurance companies waiting in the wings to take whatever positive action is possible in raising one's premium. To date a person with up to 100 milligrammes in his blood passed the breathalyser. Henceforth a person with 90 milligrammes will be no different from someone with 15 or 16 pints and 250 milligrammes in regard to the type of punishment that will be imposed. There is a huge difference between one person who consumed two or three pints and another who consumed, say, 15 pints. The person who consumed 14 or 15 pints will be a hazard to everybody, including himself.

I agree with Deputy Deasy that most people would regard two pints as acceptable whereas henceforth such people will be fearful of the new regulations. We have to consider this Bill and its provisions in the context of what is happening. For example, many publicans at present experience difficulty in obtaining licences. The provisions of this Bill will have additional repercussions for them. In many cases we are following legislation introduced in the United Kingdom in 1981. English people tell you that the English country pub as they knew it has been destroyed as a result of legislation and the same thing will happen here.

While the 1978 Act has served us well, there have been many court challenges to it over the years and, of course, the Minister had to react to copperfasten the legislation. Many of us have read about court challenges where a slick barrister who could come up with some variation in regard to the breathalyser test could get his client off. I agree with the Minister that it was necessary to close off such loopholes, but whose idea was it to reduce the legal alcohol limit from 100 milligrammes to 80 milligrammes? Was it a Minister's idea? On what professional advice is it based? On what basis is it no longer acceptable to drink two glasses of wine or two pints as it was in the past? I wonder if we are going too far and moving too quickly because, after all, the legal limit of 100 milligrammes was looked on as fairly punitive and, as somebody mentioned earlier in relation to Christmas, the Irish people responded. The statistics prove that the situation has changed with a welcome decline in the number of fatalities. In 1972, there were 18,000 million vehicle kilometres and 26,000 million in 1992 which means more people have cars and more are travelling long distances and yet the situation has changed dramatically since 1978 when the Act was introduced. I am extremely concerned about this reduction in the legal alcohol limit.

Somebody else asked a valid question about the number of people breathalysed in the past whose alcohol level fell between 80 and 100 milligrammes. It would be interesting to know that because up to now they would have passed the breathalyser test and, in many cases, the Garda would have had to make a decision about whether to proceed against someone whose alcohol level was marginal. I am concerned about the direction we are taking because I do not think there is true recognition of what is happening in rural areas where the lifestyle, the social fabric, is completely different in terms of, for example, the availability of taxis and public transport. There was a need to tighten up much of the legislation, but it is a pity that the legal alcohol limit was not left at 100 milligrammes.

As we all know, other regulations are being introduced in regard to road traffic, particularly changes whereby the minimum period for which road tax is payable will be six months. Much will be said about that regulation before the Minister introduces it in October. There seems to be a move to punish the poor motorist generally, and the person who was able, up to now, to have one or two pints.

We all agree that people whose ability to drive is impaired to any significant extent by drink or drugs should be taken off the road and the Minister's Bill will certainly do that in a big way. However, it will do much more. It will have effects that I do not think the Minister intended, or will like, which were mentioned here by virtually every speaker this morning. In fact it will mean the end of many rural pubs. I am from a rural background, I know this scene very well, and, regardless of whether the Minister can react in any way to our fears, we should at least record them. In the west where I come from, a trip to a local pub after a day's work at the hay, the harvest or on the bog was — and is — one of the great traditions of the area. The people go there, and, with a couple of pints, wash down the dust of the day and, as their throats are cleared, they go on to settle the affairs of the world and of the parish. Maybe they create a few more difficulties in the process, but it is one of the great traditions of the west. It may not be very important in the major order of things, but it is a very significant part of their social life. If this Bill goes through, it will mean the closure of many rural pubs. Without this trade, if one could describe it as a trade, what is left? Many of these pubs are kept open as a sort of community service in an area and we will all have difficulties if they close. If a post office or school closes we can all protest with placards outside Dáil Éireann and call on the Minister to reopen it but we cannot very well do that if a pub closes down. Let us face the fact that if this regulation in regard to legal alcohol limits goes through it will mean that if you drive you do not drink.

It was said that there is really no limit, virtually any drink will mean you cannot drive. I would like to hear the Minister explain how the figure of 80 milligrammes, was reached. Was it decided because that is what operates in continental countries? Was it picked for some other reason? Were the various conditions operating in this country taken into account? The Minister has power to vary the maximum level, to set different limits for different classes of drivers. Will he explain exact possibilities in that area?

I sympathise with the Minister's dilemma. I know exactly what he is trying to do. I do not drink but, as my colleagues know to their cost, I buy a lot of it and at all hours of the night as well. As I read it, under the law if implemented as it is here before us today most Deputies could hardly drive home this evening from the Dáil. The smell of the drink would be enough to put them over the limit.

There are a number of questions I would like to ask the Minister. We are having a very sensible discussion here today on a very important topic. Let there be no doubt that the problem is how to control drink driving at a particular limit. I would like the Minister to indicate the medical view — if one exists — of the effect of two pints on an average human being and how it impairs his ability to drive a car. Somebody driving recklessly at high speed who has not had a drink could be far more dangerous than somebody who had drunk two pints or less. That is my non-professional view.

I agree with my colleagues who spoke about rural pubs, but there is not the same social taboo attached to too much drinking as to smoking, for instance. If the rural pubs are hit by this new legislation then they will need either a taxi rank or the capacity to provide bed and breakfast to their customers and neither is available in rural areas.

Will the Minister state how many people in the past couple of years have committed a second drunk driving offence? That is a very important statistic because anybody who was brought to court and lost his licence is very unlikely to reoffend. I do not have the figures, but I believe that losing one's driving licence is the supreme deterrent. I can think of nothing as draconian and I agree that we must stop the slaughter on the roads, no matter how we do it. I want to talk about how we deal with hit and run drivers. One could not deal too severely with them because those who are involved in an accident and run away from it are cowards.

That matter arises on a later section of the Bill.

I fully understand what the Minister is trying to do, but I would like him to comment on the reduction in the legal alcohol limit from 100 to 80 milligrammes. What does it mean? The 100 milligramme limit was satisfactory, provided the law was complied with.

We have heard talk about the need of rural villages several times before. It has not happened and is unlikely to happen. I recall that when this type of legislation was first introduced the catch cry up and down the country was that it would be the end of rural Ireland, the end of rural villages and the end of rural pubs. When the legal alcohol limit was brought down from 120 to 100 milligrammes the same thing was said but I believe that life will go on as usual in rural Ireland. Very few pubs closed following the reduction of the limit from 120 to 100 milligrammes and I do not see it happening this time.

There is a big difference between being under the influence of drink or being drunk, and having a drink or two which would slow down the reflexes. A person driving under the influence of drink is certainly a danger to the public and he can wreak havoc in terms of death and disability on innocent people. A person who is drunk should not be allowed to drive a car. The big question is exactly how much alcohol a person can have before the reflexes are slowed down. We must bear in mind that nowadays we have high powered cars with drivers travelling at ferocious speed, particularly on motorways, ring roads and bypasses. If a drink or two slows down the reflexes then, however remote the possibility, a driver pulling out onto the road or somebody crossing could result in far-reaching consequences. I can see the logic of the Minister's thinking in reducing the limit from 100 to 80 milligrammes. I also believe he is moving into line with most other EC countries because it is a very serious matter, probably one of the most serious matters discussed in the Dáil or at any committee for a long time. There is no difficulty in regards to speeding in many of the rural villages because the country roads are so bad that people cannot travel fast on them.

The Garda are responsible in dealing with drivers suspected of being over the legal alcohol limit for driving. They do not stop cars unless they are seriously concerned and I am sure that they would have recommended the reduction to the Minister. I have no difficulty in accepting this, but I would like the Minister to state if he has any medical reports on the effect even one drink would have on the reflexes of drivers and whether it has a different effect on drivers in different categories, etc.

This Bill must be seen in the light of the fact that 32 per cent of all fatalities occur at the time most associated with drinking, between 9 p.m. and 3 a.m. It is significant that the number of injuries arising out of accidents linked to drinking at these times has declined significantly since the early 1980s, from about 35 per cent to about 20 per cent of overall road accident injuries. It seems to indicate that steps taken over the last decade to reduce alcohol levels and perhaps to increase the level of enforcement have had a moderate degree of success, so there is an overall context in which the Bill is set and which is justifiable.

However, did the Minister consider setting a limit of nil, because many people opposed to the reduction, and those who want to see further reductions, are of the opinion that allowing people a drink or two is unnecessary temptation and that consideration should be given to not allowing alcohol. Others would argue that if one is out for a meal, a glass of wine is all some people might want and that, therefore, the upper limit should be here. I would appreciate a response to that question.

In the context of regulations which the Minister will introduce under this Bill, will she consider differentiating between levels of intoxication and consequent penalties? I have a problem with the possibility that someone who may have a level of just over 80 milligrammes of alcohol, maybe 100 or 120, will, after conviction, be labelled a drunk driver and suffer the same social stigma and penalties as someone who has exceeded the limit to a far greater degree. Given that we have reduced alcohol levels so much in recent legislation, perhaps there is justification for differentiation between levels of intoxication and resulting penalties. In other words I would envisage greater penalties for those who have exceeded the limit to greater degrees.

I have been impressed by the idyllic picture of rural life where everybody apparently goes out for these imaginary two pints, leave it at that and return to their homesteads satisfied; it is almost like de Valera's comely maidens on the village green but of a different variety. I am heartened by the confidence of Deputy O'Leary in rural Ireland's survival. It reinforces my conviction that it will. We holiday in the west and we know the scene people are endeavouring to picture.

It is in the interests of everyone to defend the pioneer, something I have done for the last number of years. There should be a pioneer in every household and in every parish. People will react and devise new methods——

A pioneer is the greatest recruiting officer for the pioneer association.

Absolutely, and they are very useful; they will enjoy themselves immensely and bring you home safely. People change and adapt to new situations, as they have done over the last 150 years. I do not think that it will be as catastrophic as people have indicated. I think Deputy Ned O'Keeffe's proposal is very interesting, it would probably lead to a rapid deurbanisation of Irish life, with massive applications for rural reclassification throughout the country. It has intriguing demographic implications and would be revolutionary.

On the section dealing with the powers of the gardaí to enter property — may I seek guidance, Sir——

That is different. I think what we have done here is to broaden the issue, but perhaps the Minister would like that section taken separately.

May I comment on it?

I understand the background to that section, to give the Garda the right to follow somebody and enter his private property because, in the past, people have escaped conviction by simply getting on to their own private property. We need to be certain that any arrest is solely in relation to road traffic offences and that this section could not be used in other circumstances, regardless of the agenda that people might have in a certain locality.

This has been a most interesting discussion. I am tempted to pursue some points, however, I am not tempted to pursue the point made by Deputy O'Keeffe differentiating between urban and rural areas because there might be competition between rural areas as to which was in greater need of flexibility. A lot of emphasis has been put on the elderly couple going out for a few drinks in the evening, maybe we should allow them greater flexibility than young bucks who are out, perhaps with other things on their minds, particularly now that certain new machines have been put in rural pubs and elsewhere. Indeed, will this Bill also be sex proofed? We are told that women have a greater capacity for alcohol than men, and surely if we are to follow up what Deputy O'Keeffe——

Maybe that applies to rural women rather than urban men.

It shows the nonsense of following up this particular line of argument. What is coming over extremely strongly is the concern about the effect this change may have on rural life, there is no doubt that in rural areas and indeed in the country as a whole the public house is the focal point of social life. That is not the case in any other country, from my experience. This is quite amazing for people who do not have experience of Ireland. Indeed one of the differences between North and South is that south of the Border the pub plays a much greater role in the social affairs of a local area, a parish, a town or a village than it does in the North, but there are other historical reasons which explain this. I understand the concern of those who represent rural constituencies and I would share their concern, because if these regulations were implemented hardly a pub in rural Ireland will survive. If, for example, these regulations were enforced in Deputy O'Keeffe's constituency — and I do not differentiate between his and any other constituency — the majority of pubs would close. I note what Deputy O'Leary said, that despite restrictions over the years, life goes on as usual. He did not spell it out but we all understand what he means. I always accepted that one of the considerations for bringing in legislation and which we as legislators have to bear in mind is the enforcement of the law. I always considered it to be a reasonably good rule of thumb that if proposed legislation was unenforceable, it would not be brought in. It makes a laughing stock of the law to bring in legislation which is unenforceable. If it is not the intention to enforce legislation why bring it in?

We must ask fundamental questions about this. Is it the intention of the Government or the authorities to enforce this legislation when it is enacted? Drivers and front seat passengers are supposed to wear seat belts. To what extent is this legislation enforced? I have noticed, for example, on well publicised occasions when Government Ministers are driving into Government Buildings to attend very important meetings and the television cameras are there, that one seldom sees them wearing seat belts. Is there a law exempting Ministers from wearing seat belts? I am not aware that there is such a law unless, of course, they are pregnant or have a medical reason for not doing so.

It is easier to duck without them.

For whatever reason, and I have noticed this on quite a number of occasions, Ministers arriving at Government Buildings are not wearing seat belts. It is very bad example and a striking illustration of the fact that legislation is not being enforced or implemented.

What if the driver is a garda?

My colleague made the point that the driver is a garda. There have been a number of well publicised accidents in which Government members were involved and it has been pointed out that at the time they were not wearing seat belts. Let us consider this proposed legislation in that context, because if it is not the intention to implement the legislation, why introduce it in the first place?

Let us also be aware of the effect which it will have on all aspects of social life. Certainly if the legislation is implemented it will have a very large effect in terms of changing the social pattern of drinking in pubs. It will mean that more people will be drinking at home and a much greater demand for the facilities of off licences. This happened in the North a number of years ago. I am not suggesting that the law is enforced more rigidly in Northern Ireland but there were particular reason that persons did not go to pubs for quite a period of time. They are still reluctant to go to pubs in certain areas because of the terrorist campaign and the fact that at one stage pubs were a particular target. That had a greater effect on people's drinking habits and social life than regulations relating to drunken driving. It will have an effect on the off licence trade.

The question about the limit of 80 milligrammes has not been satisfactorily answered and I hope the Minister will rectify that. Between 1968 and 1978 the limit was at 125 milligrammes. I assume the Minister has some facts and figures in relation to this. What effect did the reduction from 125 to 100 milligrammes have in 1978? Surely it has been possible to make a comparison of the figures over the ten year period from 1968 to 1978? In particular what percentage of people were caught driving with drink had a reading of between 100 and 125 milligrammes? Such statistics might give some guide as to the likely effects of reducing it from 100 to 80 milligrammes. I said I would not pursue all the points made but certainly Deputy Martin's point is worthy of consideration.

If one is going to handle or attempt to cope with the very difficult problem of people driving with drink by reducing the limit why not consider a limit of nil rather than 80 milligrammes? Many people — I include myself among them — would find it easier not to take a drink in a public house than to have one and a half or two pints. When you have one or two there is a tendency to go beyond that. The attitude of many people who decide to have a third drink is that they are now over the limit and may as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb. They forget about the limit and it is a matter of how they can avoid the Garda on the way home.

Consideration might be given also to the imposition of a second limit. I know that this was tried before in Britain and at one stage in Northern Ireland there was a difference if one had a blood alcohol level of between 80 milligrammes and 125 milligrammes. I am not thinking in those terms, I am thinking of something much higher than 125 so that there would be a deterrent in regard to heavier drinkers — those who totally ignore the law whom everybody recognises as a danger on the road. Someone marginally over the limit should not face the same penalty as someone who is irresponsible and reckless and clearly over the limit in some instances, maybe four or five times over the limit. That should also be considered.

Drink driving clearly is one, if not the main reason, for the tragedies of which we have far too many, on our roads. Let me emphasise it is not the sole reason, speeding, and the conditions of some vehicles that leave a lot to be desired are also factors. Some vehicles should not be on the roads. I hope the Minister has given serious consideration to that. The camber of some of our roads, including new roads, for example, the Lucan bypass at the roundabout at the end of the bridge, is wrong and a number of accidents has occurred because it is running the wrong way. Further down that road the design of the bridge has contributed very substantially to accidents near the Foxhunter public house. At the turn off for the Foxhunter, there is a bridge to the right which you cannot see because of its design and the Garda have admitted that its design is a major contributary factor to accidents there. Other factors must be taken into consideration. The main thing is to inculcate a sense of responsibility in relation to this matter. These proposed measures will not be successful unless at the same time there is a much greater sense of responsibility in relation to this matter as in so many others.

I support the speakers who raised the question of whether there should be a zero limit because it appears from the discussion this morning that it is very dangerous to go into a public house, consume alcohol and drive with a limit of 80 milligrammes. As one cannot specify clearly what is permissible, it is safer not to drink than to be under the impression that you can still have one or one and a half drinks. It appears that if you drink the one and a half measures of alcohol that you are accustomed to taking, there is no guarantee that you are within the limit. There is no equipment in the public house to check whether you are and, therefore, you are taking a risk. It appears from the argument put forward that the zero alcohol level is emerging as the most practical option. If you purchase bottles of wine, the tradition in pubs and restaurants is to consume what you have bought. The size of the bottle of beer is designed to hold the old imperial measures, and the alcohol limits when driving is not considered. The new blood alcohol level of 80 milligrammes may not come within any quantity on a bottle, and, therefore, if you consume a bottle of any alcohol you may be over the limit. The present design of measures may enable us to to go over the limit quite easily. When we purchase something we want to finish it. In the Irish culture, you never leave your drink behind you.

We need to look at many things, if we adopt the 80 milligrammes level we have to consider the nature of the alcohol, the size of the measure in spirits, bottled beers, bottles of wine and so on so that people will have some way in which to calculate whether they have exceeded the limit. People need to be advised on the approach to a public house that if they are going to drive they should not consume alcohol.

There is a question also that penalties should be applied according to the alcohol level in blood. For example, Deputy Finucane questioned whether somebody who has drunk 24 pints will receive the same penalty as a person who is one drink over the limit. If people are allowed to drink and then drive, we should consider the option of allowing the degree of alcohol in the bloodstream to determine the penalty. That is another way of looking at how we deal with people who excessively go over the limit compared to people who do so accidentally.

As other people said, everybody is against drink driving. Even at present what is happening is a disgrace because while the law specifies 100 milligrammes it is not being enforced. As the Minister said most people who are caught have double the limit. Instead of changing the law we should ensure enforcement. At present it is only during the Christmas period, when the gardaí do overtime, that a serious effort is made to enforce the law. There is, therefore, a need for enforcement, rather than symbols, messages or a PR campaign.

I am not happy with the proposed reduction from 100 milligrammes to 80 milligrammes because the ordinary sensible person who drinks two pints does not present a problem. There will be inequality in the law. As others said, there is no point making laws if they are not respected, observed or enforced. In making this change some people will try to observe it and if they do it their lifestyle will change, but others will just carry on regardless. Some of these drive home drunk every second night and we all want to stop them. It should not depend on the garda one meets or whether he likes the look of a person. That is what happens at present; a person may be waved on or, depending on who they meet, put through the wringer.

As others said, the person who drinks two pints will continue to do so. These changes will only make sense if a system of graduated penalties is introduced. This may present us with a difficulty but this principle has been enshrined in other legislation. If the figure is reduced to 80 milligrammes and a person is found to have a concentration of between 80 and 100 milligrammes of alcohol in his blood he should be fined £25 or £50 on the spot. In this way we would get the message across over a period of time. It is not fair that the person who drinks two pints will be treated in the same way as the person who drinks six to ten pints. The Minister should try to get the message across that the level is being reduced and that he wants drink driving to be considered socially unacceptable.

It is expensive to bring people to Garda stations and call a doctor. If a system of "on the spot" fines was introduced and a garda said that a person was over the limit he or she would cough up and pay the fine there and then. In this way we would get the message across and it would have an effect over time.

I do not agree with those who are trying to turn this into an urban or rural issue. I will ask the Minister for Justice to transfer some of the gardaí, who are catching people on back roads in rural areas to Dublin where they are needed for other tasks. There is a perception that in general the law is not enforced in rural areas at present; that it is being enforced to a greater degree in Dublin. I strongly believe that a system of "on the spot" fines or a system of graduated penalties should be introduced because the person who drinks two or three pints does not feel he is a criminal. I do not fall into the category of the person who drinks six, ten or a dozen pints. Those people should be taken off the road, put away and dealt with severely. It is ludicrous that everybody will be treated in the same way. The ordinary person who drinks two pints should be treated differently. I ask the Minister to consider introducing a system of "on the spot" fines.

Concern has been expressed here and in my constituency which I share with my colleague, Deputy O'Keeffe about this proposal. As the Minister is well aware, given his background there are many public houses located six to eight miles from the nearest town to which people go for a chat with their neighbours or a game of cards, etc. Despite what others said, their lifestyle may change. In this regard many people have asked me how much they will be able to drink, either in beer or spirits.

I wish to seek clarification in regard to the statistics for road accidents. I note that 32 per cent of fatalities occur between 9 p.m. and 3 a.m., 36 per cent between 3 p.m. and 8 p.m. and 15 per cent between 9 a.m. and 2 p.m. Can the Minister give us a breakdown of the figures and indicate how many fatalities were due to drink driving, dangerous driving, the condition of roads etc.?

In normal circumstances if a person takes a drink they would not be over the limit but it has been mentioned that if they are on medication it could have an effect. If they are stopped by a garda how will they be treated? We all look forward to the day when drink driving will not be considered socially acceptable. That is ideal but we have to take the practicalities into account.

I have listened with interest to some of the contributions and find myself at odds with the views of some of my own colleagues. Deputy Currie said that we might as well go the whole hog and reduce the limit to zero. If we oppose the reduction to 80 milligrammes on the basis of the damage that will be done to the rural pub we are not looking at the problem in the way we should and seeking an Irish solution to a world problem. If the present limit of 100 milligrammes was enforced the problems that will now apparently befall the rural pub would already be apparent. The question that needs to be asked is whether it would be sufficient to enforce the present law rather than reduce the limit to 80 milligrammes. If the figure is reduced to 80 milligrammes will there be enforcement or what are we trying to achieve? I have no difficulty with this proposal but the question we should be asking is whether it is too little too late. Many of my colleagues would not agree.

I am more sympathetic to those who voiced the opinion that we should consider reducing the level to zero. By reducing it to 50 milligrammes, as proposed by Deputy Keogh in her amendment, a person would be allowed to have sherry trifle and still be within the law. We would, in effect, be reducing the level to zero when it comes to the consumption of alcoholic drink. If the law is not enforced we might as well leave it as it is because this discussion is irrelevant. Will the Garda be given the resources necessary to ensure enforcement?

I would like to see the law being enforced provided that the person found to have a concentration of between 80 and 100 milligrammes of alcohol in his blood — I am very interested in Deputy Noel Ahern's suggestion — is fined even £100 on the spot. Today we could drive home with a concentration of 90 milligrammes of alcohol in our blood and still be within the legal limit but in a few weeks' time when this Bill becomes law we will be guilty of a criminal offence and could lose our driving licence, given a prison sentence or fined. How is it, if we are within the legal limit today, that we will be guilty in a few weeks' time? The increase in the penalties is severe.

While I have no difficulty with the proposed reduction to 80 milligrammes I ask the Minister to consider what treatment should be meted out to those found with a concentration of between 80 and 100 milligrammes of alcohol in their blood. That is a major cause of concern. We should consider introducing a system of "on the spot" fines for those people. Is the Minister telling me that there will be no enforcement except where someone, who is found to have a concentration of 90 milligrammes of alcohol in their blood, is involved in a road traffic accident?

I would like the Minister, for the benefit of those who were not present for the debate on Second Stage, to list the reasons it is considered necessary to reduce the limit from 100 to 80 milligrammes. This is the level that has been applied internationally for a long time. We have had the most liberal regime in Europe in regard to drink-driving for many years. Indeed many European countries are now moving towards a level of 50 milligrammes. The 80 milligrammes level — which I support — could be considered a tease; who wants to go out for one drink knowing they cannot have a second? As many others said, we may as well reduce the level to zero because if a person has more than one drink he or she will not be able to drive. The "Two will Do" slogan will no longer apply. From now on "Two is too many" will be factually correct.

The "round" system which is part of our culture and in our nature has contributed enormously to the problem here. When we go into a pub we are asked: "what will you have?" We then feel obliged to buy one in return. Even if people go out to have two pints they may end up drinking four if they are generous enough to buy two pints for someone else. That is part of Irish culture.

I do not think that what is being proposed today will have a greater impact on our pub culture than the present law. In my own town of Wexford the taxi-cab or mini-cab business has been one of the few growth areas in terms of employment. There are "London" taxis on Main Street, Wexford. The minibus business is flourishing. Most people who drink socially in rural or urban areas bring a spouse, neighbour or friend with them who will "stay dry" and drive home. We cannot be seen to condone or make excuses for those who drive when over the limit because there has been too much carnage on our roads.

I accept that those who drive when well over the limit present the main problem. The Minister has the statistics and I will allow him to repeat them at this stage. The problem is that those found to have a concentration of 85 milligrammes of alcohol in their blood will be treated in the same way as those with a concentration of 350 milligrammes. I ask the Minister therefore, to consider introducing a system of graduated penalties or "on the spot" fines for those found to have a concentration of between 80 and 100 milligrammes of alcohol in their blood and apply increased penalties to ensure the real criminal who contributes to the carnage is put off our roads. I do not think we are trying to get the person who drinks two pints. If we are going to accept a figure of 80 milligrammes perhaps we should accept the figure of 50 milligrammes. One drink is a tease; who wants to go out for one drink? The answer is nobody and I like a drink, too. If a person takes a drink they should not drive home; they should organise transport.

I preface my remarks with the comment that I am a member of the pioneer fraternity but my remarks will not be coloured by that. It is fine in theory to reduce the limit to zero but this is not possible in practice. Even though I am a pioneer, because of metabolic processes, there is some alcohol in my blood. As Deputy Doyle said, even sherry trifle contains some alcohol: some foods produce alcohol. It is fine in theory to introduce strict limits but they have caused hardship. That is the reason I support the proposal made by Deputy Ahern, since supported by other speakers, that a system of graduated fines should be introduced for those found with a concentration of between 80 and 100 milligrammes of alcohol in their blood. Let me give a practical example.

I know of a case where a small farmer, a bachelor with an aged mother, used to go out on a Sunday night only and religiously drank three glasses of Guinness. One particular night he took a fourth glass and on his way home he was stopped and found to have a concentration of 104 milligrammes of alcohol in his blood. I appreciate that hard cases make bad law but this case will be repeated when the limit is reduced to 80 milligrammes. A District Justice should have discretion — if a case goes that far — to deal with it in the same way as a section 50 charge is currently handled so that people will not lose their licence for a first offence. Perhaps a system of "on the spot" fines could be introduced for those found to have a concentration of between 80 and 100 milligrammes of alcohol in their blood. Since the Act was introduced in 1961 and amended in 1978 technological advances have been made in relation to alcometers etc. which give an accurate reading so that if people are found to have a concentration of 87 milligrammes they could be fined on the spot or the District Justice, having considered the facts of the case, could exercise his discretion. For a second or subsequent offence the law as it stands could be applied and a person disqualified. The Minister should consider this option. I know that the physiological or pharmacological effect of the changes will be relatively small but the penalties to be imposed will create the problems.

The Minister proposes to change, in a number of ways, the law relating to hot pursuit. Obviously he has taken his cue from the Supreme Court judgments. It is proposed that the Garda will have the power to enter hospitals and take urine and blood samples where the person in charge agrees. The Minister is right to come down heavily on offences in this area. Will he examine the graduated penalties for those caught with between 80 and 100 milligrammes of alcohol in the blood and see what he can do in that area?

We had an excellent debate on some ot these topics yesterday. We share the view that people should not drive after drinking to excess. The Department of Health ran an advertisement some years ago that "two will do" but, obviously, two will now put you over the limit. People have different tolerances to drink. There are legions of stories in this regard. A person who did not usually drink took a drop of brandy and port because he was sick and could not eat. He was stopped by the Garda on the way home and was found to be just above the limit. He was devastated, he suffered the shame of losing his licence for drink driving although everybody knew he was not a drinker.

I would not like people to be under the illusion that the drink driving laws are not being operated because the Garda are active in this area in rural and urban areas. We have to reach a consensus on what we are trying to achieve. Do we want to stop people driving after taking a drink? If so how can we achieve it taking into account what Deputy Penrose said? Perhaps we should consider increasing the penalties rather than playing around with these limits. People will argue that at the present limit they are capable of driving safely, that they are not drunk and so on, which is fine until they are involved in an accident. We know then they were not as careful as they thought they were. The penalty of the mandatory loss of a licence is a disincentive for everybody except alcoholics. They will drive without a licence and insurance, they just keep going. For the general run of people, however, the very fact that they could lose their licence by being caught is a major disincentive. The penalties in this Bill and the fact that they will have to do a driver's test is a greater disincentive than anything else.

I agree with Deputy Ahern regarding "on the spot" fines. If the garda is suspicious that a person is very drunk and well over the limit perhaps it would be better not to have the facility of an "on the spot" fine, as those people well may offer the Garda £400 or £500 instead of £100. We need to be very clear about what we are trying to do.

The message must go out loud and clear that we are serious; people drinking in excess of the limit will be penalised, the penalties will reflect the extent of the breach and a person may never get a licence back if his blood alcohol level is very high. Perhaps, the Minister will comment on this, because while there is a consensus round this table on what we want to do, it is difficult to know how to achieve it.

To take up the Deputy's last point, I wish there was consensus round the table but nothing could be further from the truth. As you will recall we had quite a lot of support for these provisions in the Dáil on Second Stage but it seems there has been a change of heart in some quarters since then. I would need the wisdom of Solomon to do what is required of me on the basis of what has been said here this morning — to ensure that I do nothing to interfere with the traditions and culture in rural pubs; to introduce a zero limit; to introduce a 50 milligramme limit and a limit well above the 80 milligrammes I am proposing. Clearly, we would like to meet the views expressed, but that is impossible.

What are we trying to achieve? Over the past number of years statistical evidence, compiled not only by ourselves but added to by the statistics from Europe and the US — there is a very strong body of material now available — aligns drink driving to the number of accidents, there is no getting away from that. We can argue about exact numbers but from the statistics in France, the US and this country, one can relate, with certainty, 25 per cent of fatal accidents and injuries to drink driving. Therefore, in Irish terms one is talking about over 100 people per annum losing their lives and as many as perhaps ten times that number involved in serious accidents necessitating long stays in hospitals. Overall the cost of accidents in this country is conservatively estimated at £600 million. That does not take into account the horrific family trauma and everything else associated with it. We need to get it into our heads that substantial numbers of people are being killed on our roads and that that is directly related to drink driving.

We must change that culture. I am not a killjoy. I love rural Ireland. I have been in many pubs throughout rural Ireland, in my own constituency and elsewhere and I have no wish to prevent people enjoying themselves and drinking if they wished.

In 1988 we spent £4 million a day on drink, so far this year we have spent £5 million a day on drink. During that time the provisions of the road traffic legislation were enforced, last year 7,500 specimens of blood and urine were taken and a very high proportion of those people ended up in court and the normal enforcement provisions applied. The argument that the previous provisions meant we had more pioneers, and fewer drinking does not stand up. There are reliable statistics here and elsewhere, and all European countries with the exception of Ireland, reduced the blood alcohol limits to 80 milligrammes per 100 millilitres of blood a long time ago. We are doing it now. There is unassailable evidence of the relationship between a very significant proportion of fatal accidents and tragic injuries to drink driving, there is no getting away from that.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
Sitting suspended at 1 p.m. and resumed at 2 p.m.

Before we adjourned at lunch time I was endeavouring to reply to a number of contributions made during the morning and I emphasised that there was clearly no help or consensus emerging from that debate. I covered one or two other aspects — on the question of enforcement, I said that nobody was to be under any illusions but that there would be strict enforcement, we had commitments from the Minister for Justice in that regard, and statistics show that something like 7,500 certified alcohol blood specimens were taken in 1992. There can be no clearer indication of the willingness and the ability of the Garda Síochána to put into effect provisions which we enact. There was one spectacular blitz in 1992 where, during the Christmas period, road deaths were as low as 30, compared to the corresponding period in the previous year when the death toll was 48. Stepping up enforcement is an important factor, we must continue to make resources available for that. I was at pains to try to emphasise that I was not a killjoy, that there was nothing in this legislation which would support that view and that in fact the contrary is the case. I indicated that something like £4 million a day was spent on drink in 1988 and it is now £5 million a day or £2 billion a year. What I am concerned about is not that people should not continue to enjoy themselves, but that they should not drink and drive because the unshakeable, unassailable evidence is there to link the two in a significant number of fatal accidents and a very substantial number of injuries on our roads.

I never suggested — I made that clear during the course of the debate — that drink driving was the cause of all accidents. However, information from scientific analysis, in places such as France, the United States and other parts of Europe, added to our information, proves that up to 25 per cent of all accidents on our roads are drink related. Clearly a very high percentage relates to speed and to dangerous driving, this debate arose from an amendment which Deputy Gilmore put down. I understand that he has withdrawn it although he is returning to another aspect at Report Stage, where we are not only dealing with drink driving but dangerous driving. We are increasing the penalties, introducing disqualification, and giving the right to local authorities to implement systems at local level which will reduce speed and help to avoid accidents. This is not a one dimensional Bill. This is undoubtedly a strong but quite all embracing provision to deal with not only drink driving but dangerous driving and other aspects.

A number of Deputies wanted to know why we were reducing the level of 100 milligrammes of alcohol per hundred millilitres of blood to 80 milligrammes. There was a time when the law dealt only with drunken driving but as the body of medical evidence developed across the world the link between levels of alcohol and their association with ability to drive, became clear. That is why, for the last 30 years in most modern developed economies, we deal with levels of alcohol. Where permissible levels and limits obtain it is impossible to reach a consensus on a correct maximum level. That is why we have tried to say that there is no strict limit and that international practice is to set a statutory maximum limit beyond which an offence is committed with very high penalties for non-compliance, while at the same time, through educational and publicity programmes we have tried to convey a strong message that drinking and driving do not mix. The maximum permissible blood alcohol level for drivers in most European countries is 80 milligrammes. This limit applies in Belgium, Denmark, Luxembourg, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom. A lower limit of 50 milligrammes applies in Greece, the Netherlands and Portugal. Spain has a lower limit for certain classes of drivers. We have decided that the limit in Ireland should be brought into line with the majority of member states but it will be kept under review.

I will give statistics in reply to queries about the reduction from 100 milligrammes to 80 milligrammes. The certified alcohol content of blood specimens taken in 1992 between zero and 52 per cent was between 51 and 60 milligrammes, 3.7 per cent; between 81 and 100 milligrammes, 3.9 per cent; between 101 and 150 milligrammes, 20.4 per cent; between 201 and over, 39.4 per cent; 70 per cent are above 150 milligrammes. Nobody can be under any illusions as to the significance of those statistics in terms of their relationship to drink driving and accidents and continue to ignore what we are required to do. Those statistics show a fair degree of recklessness.

Were they accident cases?

Mr. Smith

Not necessarily, but they were clearly potential accident cases.

Was that random testing?

Mr. Smith

Yes.

What were the figures for 100 milligrammes to 125 milligrammes?

Mr. Smith

Between 100 and 150 milligrammes, it was 20.4 per cent.

We must remember that between 80 and 100 milligrammes it is only 3.9 per cent.

When breathalysing, a garda will make a judgment on the basis of the law, so we would have no idea of the numbers who fell within that category and because of breathlysing, do not appear in those statistics, but that is not the issue here. Those figure indicate that quite a significant number of people in the face of continued educational and publicity campaigns, in the face of trauma and tragedy and statistics available, show a stubborn resistance to change. I accept that there have been good changes in many areas, and that people are organising their social events so that they do not need to drive. We welcome and encourage that, it is the essence of what we want to produce in a cultural change towards having a good social outing while making sure as far as possible that the result is not a tragedy or trauma for somebody else because of carelessness.

I outlined the European situation and our position. However we are coming down to the level of other countries. We have solid evidence which links drunken driving to road accidents. I refer members to a study carried out in America which estimated that drivers with blood alcohol levels of 100 milligrammes had a relative risk of being involved in an injury or accident approximately twice that of a person with a zero level. The study found that risk increases very sharply with increasing blood alcohol levels more than 100 milligrammes. If it can be argued that that happens at 100 milligrammes I would like to see one trying to argue that it does not happen at 98 or 99 milligrammes. This is an inexact science. We are trying to determine and put in place a good system and there is very considerable support for what we are doing.

Deputy Deasy and others asked how much a person can drink. That depends on body weight, food, strength and gender, so it is not possible to give an answer. We can say that small quantities of alcohol impairs a driver's concentration and factors such as fatigue, illness, and that drugs — we are not talking about illicit drugs, but about medicinal drugs — can exacerbate the effects and cause severe loss of concentration. If the blood alcohol level exceeds 80 milligrammes a normal reaction — and most members are familiar with this if not personally then from some friends who over estimated their driving ability — is that vision and judgment particularly in difficult driving conditions, are impaired. If we accept, and I do not think anybody around the table can prove the contrary, that a very substantial volume of road accidents is associated with alcohol intake and that we have a responsibility to try to ensure that that changes, we should welcome many of the positive aspects developing in society today; we want very much to encourage that.

The Minister said that the first part of my amendment is taken into account by his amendment, so I am quite happy to withdraw mine. I welcome the fact that he has agreed to increase the penalty for dangerous driving as distinct from drunk driving. Many road accident statistics were given during the discussion and the point was made that one-third of accidents occur between 9 p.m. and 3 a.m. Of those, a large proportion occur at the weekends, which tends to reinforce the view that there is a very strong association between drink driving and road accidents. We all accept that, but it is interesting to note that the highest number of accidents occur between 5 p.m. and 6 p.m. and between 8 p.m. and 9 p.m. Unless there is a lot of "happy hour" drinking, it is probably fair to assume that many of those accidents would have been the result of dangerous driving and the volumes of traffic on the roads. I am glad that the penalties for dangerous driving are being increased. I would like the Minister to consider, before Report Stage, the possibility of increasing the penalties for dangerous driving where somebody is caught driving dangerously because it is better to prevent accidents than to prosecute people afterwards.

I am pleased that the Minister responded positively to the first half of the amendment and I will withdraw it.

Without making a commitment I will undertake to look at the question of penalties before Report Stage, but on the best advice available to me from the Attorney General and on the basis of what I know, penalties are at the maximum permissible levels.

I am not clear from the Minister's response about his reaction to the suggestion that between 80 and 100 milligrammes of alcohol would warrant a different system of penalties or a graduated system of penalties. Perhaps he will consider quite hefty "on the spot" fines? On the figures given, 3.9 per cent of those tested had between 80 and 100 milligrammes in alcohol as distinct from far higher ranges and percentages of the range, which indicate that perhaps somebody with 85 milligrammes of alcohol for 100 millilitres of blood should not be treated in the same way as someone with 250 milligrammes of alcohol for 100 millilitres of blood. What is the Minister's reaction? That needs consideration as we are increasing the penalties and their range. I have no difficulty with trying to catch the persistent abuser and the person causing major risk to the public generally and to themselves, but I am a little concerned that the 85 milligramme person will be treated the same as the person with 250 milligrammes with heavy penalties. Would there be a sufficient disincentive if there was a very severe range of "on the spot" fines, for example £100 or £250, which would bring people to their senses? When the 100 milligramme level is reached the severe range of penalties now proposed should be continued. What is the Minister's view?

I indicated earlier that discerning at what stage a person's ability to drive is impaired because of drinking is not an exact science. Studies show that at 100 milligrammes one is twice as likely to have an accident than at zero. If one has marginally under 100 milligrammes, clearly one is very close to the same danger. Many of the speakers this morning attempted to decide levels of culpability based on the level of alcohol. That is something we do not want to do because if it is a serious offence at a certain level, we are talking after that about certain degrees of irresponsibility. We are setting the penalties at the European norm, which have been considered necessary in many other countries long before now. While we set maximum fines, the courts have the discretion to decide how to exercise their powers in different cases. In primary legislation I cannot be expected to decide on degrees of culpability when all the statistics available to me relate drink and driving to a substantial number of road fatalities and accidents and when it is regarded as on extremely serious offence throughout Europe and elsewhere. I cannot say it is a lesser crime because if there is a fatality there is no degree and if there is a serious accident there is no degree.

Is it only accidents we are talking about? That needs clarification.

Assuming that people could drink all they like and that there were no accidents on the roads, it is likely we would have a different world as far as road traffic legislation is concerned but the reality is that road traffic laws respond to needs in society, developed over time and reinforced to respond still further as needs evolve. The fact that a person is not involved in an accident while driving with a level of alcohol in the blood which has impaired ability to drive, does not exonerate that person.

What does the Minister mean when he says if there is a serious accident there is no degree?

I am being asked to create a degree above the level at which somebody goes scot free and above the level at which there is a serious offence in differentiating between 80 milligrammes and 100 milligrammes and above 100 milligrammes. If one's vision and ability to drive is impaired and one is involved in a fatal accident, there are no degrees in terms of the consequences for the person who has passed to his or her eternal reward whether one has 90, 101 or 205 milligrammes of alcohol in one's blood. The end result for that unfortunate person is the same. Our statistics show that at least 110 people per annum are killed. If that happened in one year in one village there would be uproar, but the fact that it is spread all over the country means that it is not seen as serious. I want to treat it seriously.

In relation to accidents, there is what one might call, degrees of seriousness. Very minor accidents can cause fatalities, but people have emerged — miraculously unharmed — from very serious accidents. I am talking about one's ability to drive safely and not be involved in accidents.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

We come to amendment No. 4 in the name of Deputy Gilmore. Amendments Nos. 6 and 8 are cognate. We will take amendments Nos. 4, 6 and 8 together, by agreement. We have gone through a lot of this, and I ask the Deputies to be as brief as possible so that we can get through all the amendments between today and next Tuesday. I am sure everyone would prefer if we tried to deal with all the amendments in the course of debating the Bill.

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 8, line 4, after "drive" to insert "or at the time of the sample being taken, in any case where the driver has been involved in an accident and leaves the scene of the accident before the gardaí have had an opportunity of taking a sample".

This deals with the very specific problem of the hit and run accidents mentioned briefly in the course of the earlier discussion. This amendment seeks to address the situation where somebody involved in a hit and run accident drives away from it. If he has drink taken, effectively, as things stands at the moment, he can evaide the law. Even under this new legislation, in most cases, in practice he can evade the law. The Bill states that the blood and urine samples, and the breath test, must be done within three hours. However, if one manages to avoid detection for three hours one escapes.

When there is a hit and run accident by the time the Garda are called, by the time they establish the registration number of the missing vehicle, its owner and who was driving it at the time and by the time they track it down, very possibly in many cases three hours will have elapsed and it will not be possible for them under this legislation to breathalyse the person even though he might be blind drunk. I know of one publicised case recently where the offender got a short sentence and was subsequently realeased. The victim in that case, a young woman, died in the accident, the family were very concerned that the person involved in the accident drove away and that it was never established whether he had drink taken. In hit and run cases, the three hours should be extended. I am proposing an arrangement whereby the Garda could go after hit and run drivers even after three hours, breathalyse them and do the blood test, urine test and so on. I appreciate that even in those situations, because of the lapse of time, the level of alcohol may have been reduced and may not show up as strongly but at least it will deal with a situation where a drunk driver has left the scene of the accident. The three hours should be extended to cover the cases where there has been a hit and run accident so that people with drink taken who are involved in an accident do not get away with it because the Garda do not catch up with them within three hours. That loophole should be closed in the legislation.

Section 49 of the Road Traffic Act, 1961, provides that a person shall not drive or attempt to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle in a public place while there is present in his or her body a quantity of alcohol such that within three hours after so driving or attempting to drive, the concentration of alcohol in his or her blood will exceed the concentration of 100 milligrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood. It is necessary to put some limit on the period after the material time, during which the blood alcohol level in the specimen may be used as evidence of an offence and the period must be sufficiently long to enable the suspect to be detected and brought to the Garda station and to enable a doctor to be called and to arrive and prepare for the taking of a specimen. The Commission on Drunk Driving considered that a period of three hours was reasonable and this period is accordingly, specified in section 49.

I very much appreciate the reasons for these amendments. I see the practical problems but I have one or two questions. When would the specimen be taken? It can only be taken after the person is caught and this could be six or ten hours later or even the next day. The problem is how can one prove that drink was taken before or subsequent to the accident. If a person leaves the scene of an accident he or she is liable to be prosecuted under section 106 of the Road Traffic Act, 1961, in addition to any other offence committed such as dangerous driving or driving while under the influence or an intoxicant under section 49 (1) of the 1961 Act. The prosecution under these provisions can be based on the evidence of a garda and does not require the taking or provision of specimen for analysis. In cases where death or serious bodily harm is caused, the Director of Public Prosecutions may prosecute for an offence of dangerous driving causing death or serious bodily harm. On conviction on indictment, this offence attracts a penalty of up to five years' imprisonment and a fine of up to £3,000. I have proposed an amendment to increase these penalties to a maximum of ten years and £10,000. Since 1968 an offence is committed by driving when the amount of alcohol in the body is so great that it will cause the concentration of alcohol to exceed the specified level at any time within three hours after the person has been driving. As I said earlier, it is necessary to put some limit and the best way of approaching this is on the basis of increasing the penalties for dangerous driving, because extending the time as suggested by Deputy Gilmore does not appear to us, on the best advice available, to help in establishing the proof as to when that drink was taken.

While I sympathise with Deputy Gilmore's amendment I agree with what the Minister said, that the capacity to enforce it would be very difficult. It is not a practical solution to the issues raised. There are obvious other sections within the legislation which can deal with hit and run crimes. They propose the best method for dealing with the hit and run driver becsause it definitely is a most heinous crime to cause an accident and then leave the scene. That is a very serious offence and the penalty should reflect the desire of society to penalise anybody who does that. One cannot go after them through this mechanism here, because it would be impossible to try to nail someone down, and get him breathalysed maybe ten or 12 hours afterwards. There is no point in bringing in something that just would not be enforceable. The Minister indicated that he is doubling the penalties for dangerous driving, but are there penalties for leaving the scene of an accident?

There is a penalty.

Will that be increased?

It is at present at the maximum which can be set at District Court level.

I have a lot of sympathy for Deputy Gilmore's views on this topic. The Minister mentioned that section 106 of the Road Traffic Act dealt with hit and run drivers. If and when they are hauled before the courts on a stand alone offence of hit and run driving are they automatically disqualified?

That has not been the position up to now.

Obviouisly, it would be in their interests to be hauled before the courts for that offence rather than for drunken driving. Therefore, given the set of circumstances that will prevail on balance, people guilty of "hit and run" offences will be better off than if they remain at the scene and face the consequences.

What is the penalty for a "hit and run" offence?

That is an important factor. Obviously, the coward will depart from the scene, thereby committing a heinous crime, as Deputy Martin said. That is something about which I feel very strongly. If people guilty of such offences are dealt with leniently by the courts obviously we are not treating the offence with the degree of severity it warrants.

I agree with previous speakers on this matter. It would be ironic if somebody had consumed more than the legal limit of alcohol and was involved in an accident and had the gumption to stay and face up to the charge were to be treated more severely than somebody who ran away. That would be an extraordinary phenomenon. What has the Minister to say about the penalty for a "hit and run" offence? It would be extraordinary if somebody who ran away from the scene of an accident was treated more leniently.

I sympathise with the proposer of the amendment. I would like to hear more details of the medical evidence since, as the Minister said, the alcohol levels of individuals register differently. Is it possible to assess the fall-off in levels of alcohol as time passes? Is that totally dependent on individual cases? Is there any way levels of alcohol can be assessed over a period? Alcohol remains in the body over a three-hour period and therefore there is a fall-off. Is it possible to identify how long the alcohol is in the blood or is it too difficult to assess? The Minister said three hours were recommended and does that mean that a four hour period is definitely out?

I am endeavouring to widen the net as much as possible and I realise there are enormous problems involved but there are many examples of "hit and run" and drink-related accidents. For example, my area of Balbriggan, on the main Belfast-Dublin road, witnessed more than its fair share of such accidents. Indeed examples obtaining in certain quarters of society have almost entered into folk history, given either the leniency of the sentence imposed or an inability to track down an offender. Is it possible to widen the net at least in sympathy with the terms of the amendment? I accept we should not continue ad infinitum saying, we will catch the offender some time and then breathalyse him or her because, obviously, that is nonsense.

Up to approximately 90 minutes after one will have taken one's last drink the blood alcohol level remains at its peak and then falls gradually. Again, we are talking about an inexact science, depending on individuals. I do not know to what extent we could contemplate a further increase in the number of hours and be certain we can prove that consumption took place prior to an accident, that is in cases where we are dealing with a person who has been involved in an accident and left the scene.

I do not mind taking a further look at this issue before Report Stage but I am agreeing to do so without making a commitment. It is difficult to see how something that has been tried and tested and enshrined in law for a considerable time can be changed without there being a scientific or legal basis for so doing. I will undertake to examine the issue.

With regard to people leaving the scene of an accident, a "hit and run", no word in the English language can describe the seriousness of such a heinous crime. In many cases individuals who, if they could have been treated in a hospital or been attended by a doctor at the scene could have recovered sooner or, in some cases, had their lives saved. We should show no sympathy for the perpetrators of that offence.

Strictly speaking, the penalty for a crime described as "leaving the scene of an accident" is a fine of £1,000 and six months in prison. It is extremely rare that the driver concerned is not charged with the offence of dangerous driving also. In such cases we are now proposing a ten year imprisonment sentence and £10,000 fine. We are increasing the penalties significantly. Indeed, it would be extremely unlikely that the Garda — in the circumstances outlined by Deputies Gilmore and Connaughton, would not also charge such a driver with dangerous driving as well as leaving the scene of an accident.

The Minister said he will give the matter some consideration, albeit without commitment, before Report Stage. In those circumstances it would not be wise to press the amendment. However, I wish to comment on the Minister's response. According to the Minister under the law a person found guilty of leaving the scene of an accident, is liable for the maximum penalty of £1,000 or six months in prison. The Minister pointed out also that such offenders can be charged with dangerous driving. The maximum ten-year jail sentence, and the £10,000 fine, arise only where there has been a death or a serious personal injury. People who leave the scene of the accident — when there is not a death or serious injury — may face the maximum penalty which will remain at only £1,000 or six months imprisonment.

The danger I perceive in continuing to include the three-hour rule is that that will act as an incentive for people to leave the scene of accidents. Under the Bill if one drives after consuming a limited quantity of alcohol one is likely to hit the 80 milligrammes level. In future a person driving home from a pub, having consumed two or three pints, will be over the limit. If they are involved in an accident — it may well be an accident where there is no injury sustained — and stay around they are going to be bagged, caught under the provisions of this Bill for being over the limit and liable to severe penalties, including disqualification from driving. If they decide to leave the scene of the accident there is a fair chance they will not be caught within the three hour limit. It will take the Garda time to get to the scene of the accident to establish the registration number of the vehicle and track down its owner. In that time the three hours may have elapsed.

There is concern about the open-ended nature of the provision. Clearly, there would not be much point conducting a test 24 hours after an accident. That may will have to be left to the courts to form a reasonable view. It is absurd that, if the Garda establish that somebody was involved in a hit and run accident, and do not catch up with him or her for, say, three hours or three and half hours they cannot breathalise that person. A Garda who apprehends a person within, say, two hours and 50 minutes of the accident can breathalise that person but, by the time is driven to the station for the blood test the three hours limit have elapsed. That clearly makes a nonsense of the provisions. We will have a law which states that somebody driving home from the pub having consumed two pints can be breathalysed and prosecuted for drunk-driving. Yet somebody who is involved in an accident and manages to evade the Garda for more than three hours can be charged only for leaving the scene of an accident or, perhaps, dangerous driving. That is not good law; there is a loophole there that needs to be closed off.

I await the Minister's response on Report Stage. I will resubmit these amendments on Report Stage and if the loophole is not closed off I will press them.

Deputy Gilmore realises there are some very severe practical difficulties about some of his propositions. For example, for the first time we are proposing disqualification from driving on first offence for dangerous driving. Everywhere we can make the penalty more severe, as a deterrent from the kind of development which he has outlined, we are doing so. It seems to be impractical to go further than that.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

We now move to amendment No. 5. Amendments Nos. 7, 9, 13, 14 and 15 are related. By agreement, therefore, amendments Nos. 5, 7, 9, 13, 14 and 15 may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 8, line 5, to delete "80 milligrammes" and substitute "50 milligrammes".

I hesitate to refer to rural Ireland after our discussion this morning. As the Minister said, establishing the limit is rather an inexact science. In this amendment I want to reduce the alcohol limits by a more significant amount. The point that should be made is that if one drinks one should not drive. I was very surprised to hear Members' defence of the rural pub and rural areas generally. Those who have examined the statistics in the Environmental Research Unit document will know that 66 per cent of all fatal accidents occur in rural areas. Therefore, those who defend the rural pub might well remember those statistics. It is also interesting to note that there are four times as many men as women killed in road accidents. What is the value of adhering to a rather male-dominated rural pub culture, if I might express it in that fashion? What we should be doing is making the absolute point that if one drinks one should not drive. The Minister illustrated, in the statistics he quoted, the increased risk of accidents when drink is involved. It is very difficult for somebody going out for an evening to say they will take one drink or contend that they will not enjoy themselves through consuming one or two drinks.

It behoves people to examine and react to this in a responsible manner. I realise the difficulties experienced through lack of transportation and so on in certain regions. But the fact remains that, if one goes out specifically to drink, then one should make specific arrangements for getting home without having to drive. While accepting that the limit set down by the Minister of 80 milligrammes may be sufficient, the fact remains that we do not know. Indeed, the argument could be advanced to propose a "nil regulation" or that "naught milligrammes" should have been stipulated in the amendment. That may be completely unreasonable. We have gradually eroded the limit. It might have been a good idea to slice it or bring it to naught rather to gradually erode it. That is the reason for this amendment.

The debate on the amendment is really the discussion we had before lunch. There is no need to go over the ground again. There was a strong view that to choose to insert 80 milligrammes only compounded the difficulty for most would be drinkers, the point being made that if one drives one should not drink, that one drink merely constituted a temptation to more. There are very few drinkers who could confine themselves to one drink if they are out and do not have anybody else to drive them home. I commend Deputy Keogh on having tabled this amendment. I shall listen with interest to the Minister's response.

The Minister indicated clearly that choosing the level is an inexact science in regard to the impact of alcohol on blood, in that people's metabolisms vary enormously. I am not convinced that the figures the Minister gave us of blood alcohol levels, percentages and the different accident cases alone justify what he is doing in the Bill even though I have no difficulty accepting the 80 milligrammes limit. I would have no difficulty accepting a 50 milligrammes limit, unlike some of my party colleagues. We are effectively telling people: if they drive they cannot drink, end of story. Perhaps indicating that 80 milligrammes is the permissible limit, and that one can have a drink is being unfair to the drinker and is not doing anyone a service.

Will the Minster indicate why, when he is into the business of reducing the limit, for the very sound reasons he has given he did not reduce the limit, say, 50 milligrammes? It is true that a great deal of European thought on this is to reduce the limit from 80 milligrammes to 50 milligrammes? In many countries — Australia, Finland, Greece, the Netherlands, Japan, Norway, Sweden and in many states of the US — the legal limit is 50 milligrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood. Our provision has stood at 100 milligrammes for a long time while the remainder of Europe stood at 80 milligrammes. We are now moving to a level of 80 milligrammes when many European countries have either moved or are considering moving to 50 milligrammes. Will the Minister indicate why he picked 80 milligrammes? Has that choice something to do with our Irish culture? Did he feel that was all we could wear as a community or has he scientific reasons for choosing a level of 80 milligrammes as distinct from 50 milligrammes, or as distinct from leaving it at 100 milligrammes? What is the scientific case for what is now proposed?

I get a feeling of déj� vu having listened to Deputy Keogh defend her amendment, which I support, given that the advertising engaged in has been to the effect that if you drive, do not drink. Certainly the message would indicate that we are accepting that one should not drink and drive. From a personal or public relations point of view, it is easier to remember that than trying to remember whether the law stipulated one or two pints this year, or what is the alcohol content of any drink. For ease of acceptance, in one sense, the message “If you drink do not drive” is good.

As a result of the legislation obtaining there are two types of law-abiding citizens. There are those who adhere to the spirit of the law, and do not drink and drive and others who would push the law to its limits, ascertaining how much drink they can consume within the law. I have heard it said by people involved in the drinks industry that, as a result of the tightening of controls, there is a bid to reduce the measures — it may be done under the guise of metrication — but it could also be an endeavour to preserve the culture of "I will buy you a drink if you buy me a drink", the rounds system, even if it applies only to two people. This would mean drinking would be reduced to measures almost like those of souvenir glasses one gets on holidays in an endeavour to comply with the legislative provisions, as they are reduced and further reduced rather than accept the basic tenet that to drink and drive is not acceptable. Deputy Keogh's amendment seeks to incorporate that tenet in the legislative provisions.

I agree with the points made by Deputy Sargent and others in that there is no question but that drinking and driving is unacceptable but I am not convinced that one can set any limit. I know our earlier discussion was somewhat country-versus-urban areas. Let us face the issue. We are not fooling ourselves or anybody else that, if the Garda implement the provisions of the current legislation on any weekend evening around any of the 700 publichouses in the Dublin area, there is no question but that most of those leaving such premises would be arrested. Our drinking habits are deeply embedded in our culture. That is unfortunate but, nonetheless, the case.

Therefore the line the Minister is pursuing of reducing over a period of time the amount of drink people can legally consume perhaps does constitute the way to go, that is if the Garda are prepared to implement those provisions, they have not been doing to date. We must also recognise that we are confronted by a very powerful drinks lobby in Dublin. I know this does not fall within the remit of this Minister, but such a small number of licences are issued and a very unsociable style of drinking has developed in urban areas with huge taverns containing thousands of people consuming drink at breakneck pace. We must get away from that practice. One of the consequences of that is contained in the document the Minister presented us this morning — evidence of between 400 and 500 tragedies of which, undoubtedly, many were drink-related. Therefore, on this occasion I would advocate reducing the limit. As Deputy Sargent said, we as a society we must stress that drinking and driving are utterly incompatible. If there were a proposal to imbibe any other drug while driving, people would contend such was totally unacceptable. Why should it be acceptable in the case of alcohol?

This amendment appears to say: "Make me pure Lord but not yet". If Deputy Keogh was seeking to say, "no drink, while driving" why did she not table such an amendment? If we agree with the principle that any amount of drink will affect one's driving behaviour why stipulate a limit of 50 to 80 milligrammes? This appears to me to be the Progressive Democrats aspiring to the high moral ground in this amendment.

We examined this point earlier. All of us have alcohol levels in our bodies — Deputy Broughan made this point also — so if a zero level was to be included all of us would virtually be over the limit now. If one consumed a sherry trifle one would have ten or 15 milligrammes per 100 milliletres of urine. Therefore a level of 50 milligrammes is considered to constitute no alcoholic drink.

There appears to be a great deal of confusion among the public about what one can drink and the provisions of this Bill probably will add to that confusion. The question is how much can one drink before being over the limit. It is somewhat like the attitude there used to be to sex: "How far can you go before it is a sin?" I predict we will encounter the same type of problem here. I was just taking up Deputy Michael Ahern's theme on purity. It is fair to say that under the existing law — the 100 milligrammes rule — if a couple at a meal, shared a bottle of wine, assuming they shared it fairly evenly, probably they would be at or about the permissible limit. Similarly, somebody consuming a drink or two after work on a Friday evening or, say, a farmer who drove to his local public house and consumed two pints would be within the 100 milligrammes limit. That is my understanding of the provisions. I know there are differences in individuals' alcohol capacities and so on but the 80 milligrammes limit will change that dramatically. We might as well call a spade a spade.

The 80 milligrammes limit effectively means one cannot drink if one is driving. There is no point in misleading people into believing that one can consume one pint, or a pint and a half, or if one is out for a meal perhaps one can consume a small glass of wine or if one is of a larger size perhaps one can consume a glass and a half. That will lead people into all kinds of difficulties. We might as well say: "Whether it be 80 milligrammes or 50 milligrammes, effectively it means no drinking", that is what the law means.

The public should clearly understand that "the drink a little" arrangement that has obtained to date will not apply henceforth. If reducing the permissible limit to 50 milligrammes, as Deputy Keogh suggests would reinforce that message, then we should do so rather than pretend that one can still drink a pint and remain within the permissible limit.

The other question that must be taken on board is that of enforcement. If we examine the circumstances that prevail over weekends we find the Garda, particularly in urban areas, have so much on their plate they simply do not have the time or resources to enforce even our existing drink-driving laws. Therefore, there is a need to appoint traffic police who would have responsibility for ensuring compliance with these and other provisions in this Bill. I mentioned the prospect of appointing traffic police on Second Stage, I did not table an appropriate amendment because I knew it would be ruled out of order on the grounds of imposing a charge on the Revenue. But, if one looks at the reports circulated today by the Environmental Research Unit on road accidents in Ireland in 1992, one discovers that the cost of road accidents here in that year was £795 million or almost £800 million.

Appointing traffic police to enforce the provisions of this Bill and other traffic legislative provisions would constitute money well spent and might well have the effect of reducing very considerably the costs of road accidents. Even if the permissible limit is reduced to 50 milligrammes or whatever if there is not enforcement it will be meaningless. If the only time of the year it is to be enforced is the week or two before Christmas — we know the dramatic effect its enforcement in that period has on road accidents — because of lack of resources available to the Garda, then it will not alleviate the problem as much as we would like.

We spoke on this issue at some length this morning. I contend this amendment goes to the ridiculous stage. Members spoke of circumstances/ provisions obtaining in places like Finland, Sweden and elsewhere. Who would want to follow their lifestyles?

They drink as much as we do but they do not drive after drinking.

They drink at home and live alone. We have a certain culture, a firm of social behaviour. I do not think we want to follow other countries in that fashion. The Minister says one runs twice the risk of being involved in a crash when one has 100 milligrammes of alcohol in one's blood; that sounds frightening without being able to draw a comparison with other circumstances. I do not know what the statistics produced demonstrate. For example, does the average person become involved in a crash say, every 30 years, or every 40 years? What exactly are we talking about? When one talks about doubling the risk, one would need to examine the position overall and draw comparisons with other events. This document states that the worst time of the day for crashes occurring is 6 o'clock in the evening when people are going home from work. To ascertain the effect of drinking one would need to ask: "What is the risk of driving after a heavy meal; what is the risk of driving when returning home from work, or whenever; should we all take four naps a day?" These statistics are frightening. One would need to compare them with other circumstances to substantiate their authenticity. The amendment seeks to go too far.

The zero option was the best one, but it has been proven that such is not possible. Perhaps a stipulation could be included in the Bill, not setting a limit of 50 milligrammes — but merely stating that it is not permissible to drink and drive. In other words, it should be made clear to the public, in the form of a statement, that drinking and driving are not permissible and that the consequences are such and such.

This morning I asked whether consideration was ever given to stipulating of a "nil level". I have since bounced off the idea with people who have assured me that they would like to have an opportunity to go out at night, consume one glass of wine, or one and a half glasses, and the 80 milligrammes level would appear to cover them. The requisite objective here should be balance. In the long debate this morning considerable opposition was expressed even to the 80 milligrammes level.

The Minister appears to be endeavouring to take on board all of the evidence he has accumulated from at home and abroad and reduce the permissible level significantly below the 100 milligrammes level, to 80 milligrammes. He appears to be meeting the views of the medical lobby on the levels of alcohol within the blood which can increase the risk of road accidents and so on.

The bottom line is that people will have to change their modus operandi. I question Members’ statements about lack of enforcement of the existing provisions. Such statements do not stand up to examination. There has been considerable improvement in enforcement. The Minister gave figures earlier to so demonstrate. We are all aware — I certainly have had experience — that taxis are used more frequently than they were five years ago, bringing people into towns or cities for a night out. In addition people use buses more frequently than heretofore. Groups hire buses and so on. This illustrates the change in cultural attitudes, albeit on a gradual scale, to drink driving. Certainly I have witnessed it in my locality and constituency. That practice will continue to grow, and people will resort to alternative means of transport to public houses or wherever they want to go, be it to attend a wedding reception or whatever. There has been a definite, significant improvement over the past ten to 20 years in our attitude to drinking and driving. It is too easy to make the glib statement: “there is no enforcement”. Obviously, there will not be a panda or Garda traffic car outside every public house in the country each night of the week and over every weekend; that is not possible physically and we all know that. In many ways the threat of the random test in itself is a deterrent. We do not want a garda outside every public house every night of the week, particularly in summer time. There is a need for a balance to be struck in our approach to this provision. The Minister is endeavouring to achieve that in this Bill and has come a long way.

At first sight, Deputies Doyle and Keogh are to be congratulated because, all morning it seemed I was under considerable pressure, to reduce the 80 milligrammes level. I do not know what sort of conversion has taken place. I would like to think I would have the same power over Fianna Fáil Deputies, and, in some sense, Labour Deputies to move away from where they stood a few hours ago in asking why I had reduced the level to 80 milligrammes; what grounds had 1 for so doing; what I was going to do to rural public houses.

I assume that during that lunch Members adhered rigidly to the rules and did not consume wine or other alcohol. The unfortunate Minister for the Environment, having done what everybody said on Second Stage was an exceptionally good job, is now being told, hours later: "forget about all that was said this morning, we have now changed our minds and we want you to reduce from 80 milligrames".

A Deputy

That is democracy.

It is democracy but it does show that probably I am right with that swinging pendulum.

I said on Second Stage that there is no safe alcohol limit for driving and most Members today emphasised that. International practice is to set a maximum limit because one cannot have an offence that is aspirational. Clearly one has got to set limits for the law to be enforced and that is what we are doing. The Government gave this matter long consideration, as did the interdepartmental committee. Evidence was submitted by insurance companies and we listened to people from different walks of life involved in enforcement, such as the Garda, the Department of Justice and other organisations. Then we examined what was taking place elsewhere in Europe and came up with the proposal of reduction from 100 to 80 milligrammes, the mandatory disqualification from driving, the requirement to undergo a driving test and the other measures we have put in place.

We are satisfied we have struck a balance. I accept there is no perfect answer, there is no exact science or an overwhelming body of evidence to demonstrate that Members are 100 per cent wrong and I am 100 per cent right. We examined practices around Europe and took into account the special circumstances obtaining here, in that, in some ways we are different. We have just about struck what is enforceable. There are strong enforcement provisions alongside what has obtained to date. Deputy Noel Ahern advocated that I should draw a comparison with all other areas before taking any decision. I would say to him: Life is not like that. We are talking about traffic laws. Some Deputies want me to decide social habits, whether one drinks, say, a bottle of wine or shares it. I am not becoming involved in that argument. As Minister for the Environment I am prepared to delegate further functions of that order to anybody who wants to undertake them.

To local authorities?

I stress that there are 10,000 accidents annually of which a minimum of 2,500 relate to drink-driving; that is fact.

On Second Stage I predicted it would take us three to four weeks to debate the provisions of this Bill and that during that time, up to 40 people would die on our roads. On the basis of statistics a minimum of ten to 12 people alive today, in one month's time will have passed to their eternal reward as a result of drink-driving. I do not have an easy task. We are endeavouring to find the best possible solution. I dealt with some of the detail of the decision to reduce the limit from 100 milligrammes to 80. I will not go into that statistical evidence again, but if I were not to take on board what is happening in Europe and the evidence from the ERU and so on but were to listen only to the contributions made at every extreme, I would come up with the answer that I have come up with. The discussion has reinforced my view.

Is the Deputy pressing her amendment?

No. but I wish to make a few comments. Of all the contributors the Minister has been one of the most reasonable and I respect what he is trying to do in this Bill. One of the reasons for tabling this amendment was to ensure that we would be strictly in line with European practice or what is now being advocated as European practice and that is a fair enough aspiration. No matter what our social habits are I do not know that one could say they are better or worse than those of Finland or the northern European countries, or that they are more or less boring. Certainly, if we need to change the culture, to stop drinking and driving, then we should do so and not make any apologies.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 6 to 9, inclusive, not moved.

Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 form a composite proposal. Amendments Nos. 16 and 17, 20, 21, 22 and 23, 25, 26, 27 and 28, 33 and 34 form related composite proposals and amendments Nos. 24 and 31 are also related. Amendments Nos. 10, 11, 16, 17, 20 to 28 inclusive, 31, 33 and 34 may be taken together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 8, lines 33 to 35, to delete "to a fine not exceeding £1,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to both" and substitute "in the case of a first offence to a fine not exceeding £500 or 3 months imprisonment or both. In the case of a first offence persons exceeding the limits by 100 per cent. shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £1,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to both".

We had much discussion on Second Stage and, indeed, this morning about having some kind of sliding scale of penalties for transgressing these laws. Disqualification from driving and having to re-do the driver test as proposed in the Bill are excellent sanctions. I am anxious that there should be some little leeway in the case of a first offence. It is a relatively minor amendment but it signals to people that consistent transgressors would be subject to even more rigorous punishment. Its purpose is to send out a signal of intent. Perhaps it would accommodate the Members' idea of having some type of sliding scale of penalties.

Once again I cannot accept these amendments. The amendments raise the issue of graduated penalties depending on the extent to which a driver is "over the limit" and this was fully considered by the Government. Graduated penalties could result in more frequent challenges to the technical methods and precision of the analyses of the specimens. On the basis of a legal limit of 80 milligrammes the amendment proposed would provide for different penalties for a level of 159 milligrammes and a level of 160 and this would certainly invite legal challenges to the accuracy of results in individual cases.

Neither can I accept a reduction in the maximum penalties for drink-driving offences. The maximum penalty of six months has applied since 1961 for the offence of driving while under the influence of an intoxicant. A maximum fine of £1,000 has applied since 1984. These penalties are maxima and it is a matter for the courts to determine the appropriate penalty in each case. The courts can take into account the alcohol level in the individual cases.

Clearly what is involved here is limiting the penalties that can be imposed or reducing them to half the maximum level for first offences. That would send out a signal from the Oireachtas that we are going soft on drink driving offenders and the principle enshrined in the Bill is quite the opposite. Some of the statistics I gave this morning in relation to the enforcement of the road traffic laws detailed the extent to which many drivers are drinking not just in excess of the limit but in excess of the limit to quite an extraordinary degree. There is still an acceptance in society that one can drink heavily and drive. We recognise the need to strengthen the law to help the road safety campaign still further. These amendments, however well intended, would give the opposite message at this time.

It is not my intention to send out the wrong signals but to respond to the various points made on Second Stage. On balance, I would prefer to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 11 not moved.

We now come to amendment No. 12 in the name of the Minister. Amendments Nos. 19 and 30 are cognate and amendment No. 18 is an alternative to amendment No. 19. Amendments Nos. 12, 18, 19 and 30 may be taken together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 8, line 44, after "enter" to insert "without warrant".

These are drafting amendments to put beyond doubt that a garda may enter property or a hospital without warrant. As currently drafted sections 10 and 11 empower a garda to arrest without warrant and for that purpose to enter any place. To remove any doubt these amendments clarify that entry without warrant is also authorised. The amendment to section 15 is required for the same reason.

On a point of clarification, my amendment No. 18 was supposed to have been accompanied by another amendment to subsection (8) of section 10. My amendment applies the same wording so I would like if the meaning of that amendment could be read into subsection (8).

I cannot accept the Minster's amendment which applies to the same subsection. There is great concern about this new provision of allowing the Garda Síochána to enter on private property, particularly a person's dwelling. I am not too hung up about a garda catching a person stepping out of his car as he parks it in the driveway. However, I have serious concerns about this ideological move. It is a huge shift for us to allow a garda, without a warrant, enter private property, private dwellings, by force if necessary, up to, I presume, three hours after a person has arrived home from what may be assumed to be a drinking session.

This is open to abuse. If a car is seen being driven in an erratic manner and the driver then parks and flees into the house, how would a garda know whether it was the father who was sitting at home in the armchair drinking his six-pack and watching the soccer or GAA match on television or a son or daughter who could well have come home intoxicated who was driving the car? It is open to too much misinterpretation and possible abuse and I have serious reservations about it.

My information is that the provision is also questionable constitutionally and would be open to challenge. I recognise that the Minister intends to restrict the forcible entry into a private house by a garda without a warrant to suspected drink driving cases, but this is the foot in the door, the tip of the iceberg. I do not think we can make this move in a Bill like this after a few moments discussion. It is a major consideration. I regret I have to oppose the Minister's amendment and will be proposing my own which, effectively, will seek to delete the portion of this subsection that allows the garda to enter, by force if necessary, a private dwelling.

I am as concerned as Deputy Doyle about this amendment. Anyone who has committed even a minor transgression of the law and has been presented with a summons in broad day-light by a garda visiting his house knows it raises a sense of nervousness throughout the house. If a garda were to invade a house at midnight or 3 a.m. it would have a traumatic effect not alone on the suspect but on every member of the family. This is going too far. Many people live in suburbia and, regardless of whether they are found innocent or guilty of an offence, the impact within a neighbourhood of something like forcible entry would be great as would the traumatic effect on the individual suspected of committing an offence and the family. I support Deputy Doyle and we will be opposing this section.

There is a need for balance. When I first looked at this Bill I had difficulty with the idea of powers being given to a garda to enter private property with a view to arrest. This measure is introduced in an attempt to close off loopholes. I understand that in March 1991 the Supreme Court determined that a garda who went into a person's driveway and arrested the person under section 49 the Road Traffic Act, 1961 was a trespasser on private property and that the person was not lawfully arrested. A number of statements by Supreme Court Judges Hederman, Griffin and McCarthy indicate that there have been cases where gardaí followed people who were obviously under the influence of drink but who, because they were on their own property, escaped the rigours of the law. We have to make some attempt to close off that loophole and to ensure that people do not escape appropriate penalties as happened in the past. It is a question of balancing the rights of the individual, the civil liberties of people against the common good and the overall needs of society.

Are there additional safeguards the Minister could introduce? A garda might use this mechanism to arrest somebody for some other reason. It is true that we tend to sell our enforcers short and we must look at that. We do not give the Garda enough resources legally or financially to pursue people. We tend to stop short of giving them aboslute powers to deal with people who so obviously transgress the law. It is not an easy question to deal with.

This section states that the power to enter private property is to be limited to securing an arrest under sections 49 and 50 of the Road Traffic Act, 1961. Those sections require a specimen to be taken within three hours and where immediate arrest is needed to ensure a specimen can be taken within the time limit specified. This latter consideration does not apply to non-drink driving offences. That does tighten things up somewhat. In other words, I take it that a garda has to take a specimen within three hours.

He would have time to get a warrant.

To suggest that a garda would decide to give a person two hours to have a drink at home and then knock on his front door and request a specimen from him is stretching credulity.

He should get a warrant if he goes into a house.

We have to look at both sides of the issue. We must take into account the experience of gardaí who have followed people who were obviously under the influence of drink. We cannot shy away from that. We must come up with legislation that avoids abuse but, at the same time, makes a meaningful attempt to come to grips with what has obviously been an unacceptable degree of avoidance of the law and the gardaí.

This section created many problems for all of us yesterday. There is a legal opinion from the Attorney General that this is all right, but many questions have been raised about it and examples given, some exaggerated. Deputy Doherty said yesterday that a garda acting in this capacity has more rights than other people. A garda may enter private property suspecting that somebody was driving a car on the street two hours previously under the influence of drink when that may not have been the case and the man might have been sitting at home drinking a gin and tonic or a six-pack of beer. How do we protect the constitutional rights of people when there is a doubt? Does that person need to have corroborating evidence that he was at home all night — his wife's evidence would not be accepted because she would be considered to be biased. Will the Minister respond to these points to help us in our efforts to legislate to catch the people who are guilty but at the same time protect people on their private property who are genuinely innocent? I instanced cases of people going into their houses drunk and the gardaí who were unable to follow them, finding them over the limit the following morning going to work. That was the only way they could catch them. That may be an exaggeration. Cars can be identified by colour and it may be presumed that the driver is a particular person. The garda may be sure he saw this person driving down a street in Wexford and turning into a driveway. An hour afterwards the garda might confront him and say he was driving in the street. If that person answers that he was not but was in the house what protection is there for the citizen in those circumstances? Can the Minister assure us that that protection is there? This has been discussed at length in Cabinet and with the Attorney General but we are not privy to all the details except, as Deputy Martin said, the Supreme Court decision which makes us all concerned that there is a loophole that we must try to close off. If that is what we are trying to do, let us be honest and admit that in the past people escaped the net. Nobody wants loopholes but the innocent should be protected.

This is a difficult issue. Most people would view with distaste the idea of a garda entering a private residence, in any circumstances, without a warrant. That would be the view most people instinctively held. This is an area where difficulties arise. Sometimes people encounter difficulties with the judicial system and there seems to be an incredible attempt by legal people to help transgressors of the law, on whom some sentence should have been imposed, to get off on a technicality.

This is a sensitive area for Deputies and Senators. In a recent publicised case one of our Members attempted to use the historic privileges of this House in respect of travelling to and from it. Sections 10 and 49 deal with a similar issue which covers the pursuit by the gardaí of someone driving erratically who appears to be under the influence of alcohol. Obviously, the circumstances outlined by Deputy Doyle could arise where a junior member of a family is observed or pursued by the gardaí to the house where somebody else in the house has been drinking. This is a difficult issue. In the Bill, we are trying to change one of the most unpleasant aspects of our culture. In relation to limits the Minister changed his mind over lunch. In the past Fr. Mathew and Thomas Davis, one of the great fathers of Irish nationalism, noted the great impact of alcohol on people. Having regard to civil liberties my instinctive reaction would be to be very restrictive in this area. Alcohol abuse is a difficult issue to deal with. The Minister is attempting in the Bill to turn the screw on a very unpleasant aspect of our culture which we must change. I disassociated myself from remarks by Deputy Noel Ahern in relation to Nordic countries. They have been well run by Labour Governments during the past 50 to 60 years and I like their culture.

I understand why gardaí, the Garda Commissioner or the Minister might consider it necessary to include this draconian provision. There have been many instances of people injuring other motorists and pedestrians. We all know of colleagues or friends who were seriously injured or killed by drunk drivers. Having regard to civil liberties, I might be prepared to make an exception in this regard. I understand the Minister's anxiety to deal with this matter under the Bill.

The Minister would be advised to tread carefully, in relating to proposals in this regard as a fundamental issue is involved. As Deputy Martin stated, this provision arises from a Supreme Court decision of March 1991 to the effect that a garda who entered a person's driveway and arrested the person under section 49 of the Road Traffic Act, 1961 was trespassing on private property and the person was not lawfully arrested. I do not know the details of the case but certain assumptions may be made. Presumably this was a case arising out of some form of hot pursuit, as it is called in another jurisdiction. It caused great difficulty in this jurisdiction as a former Taoiseach will acknowledge. One can imagine circumstances in which a person thought to be in breach of the provisions of the Road Traffic Act would manage to get through the gateway of their home or business premises and effectively give the "two fingers" to the pursuing garda. One can imagine the manner in which such a person may drive in order to reach their home or business premises to avoid the pursuing garda.

The proposal in the Bill is not to protect a driver in those circumstances. This provision is to protect people who are inside their homes behind locked doors. Under this Bill we are empowering the Minister and the Garda to break down the door or break a window or use whatever methods necessary to enter the house. That is a fundamental matter and, perhaps because of my experience and different background, I react instinctively against something of that nature. I am not suggesting that the Garda or other policing people of whom I am aware would act in such a manner. I would react instinctively to a suggestion that policemen could arrive at one's house, batter down the door without a warrant, go into the house and arrest a person or persons inside. That is an extremely important power to give to any police force.

The power sought is the authority to enter private property and is to be limited to securing an arrest under sections 49 or 50 of the Road Traffic Act, 1961. They are the sections under which it is required that a specimen be taken within three hours and where immediate arrest is needed to ensure that such a specimen can be taken within the time limits specified in the Act. I appreciate that, but suppose it is alleged that entry to the house is required to obtain a specimen and the gardaí have something else in mind.

It is not an impossibility, even in this democratic and sensitive society, that a garda officer would want to enter a house for reasons other than those provided for under this legislation. A garda might decide that if he managed to get into a house he might catch people committing some other crime or that he or she could arrest people in respect of other criminal offences. In legislation of this type we have a responsibility to protect people against such eventualities. For those reasons, I caution the Minister to tread carefully. If we give power to the Garda to enter private households — the English man is not the only one who considers his home to be his castle — that power ought to be carefully defined, given in restricted circumstances and force should not be used where a warrant is not required.

The Minister should consider this matter carefully before he proceeds. I accept that the powers of this legislation should apply in respect of the driveway of a house although as that is also private property it may have constitutional implications, but I would caution the Minister to be extremely careful in regard to powers to enter private households.

The Minister's proposal raises serious questions. I am sure we would all agree that there is a basic level of understanding in this regard and because of the way the law was flouted the Minister is seeking to give the Gardaí powers which he considers appropriate. On Second Stage I stated that the Garda should have increased powers, but we may be going too far in the circumstances. There is a major chasm between apprehending people on their property — in the driveway of their homes — and battering down the doors of their houses. Would many gardaí want to exercise such power?

In fairness, many gardaí would be reluctant to use such power except under extreme circumstances, but if they have the power it can be used and abused. I have the utmost respect for members of the Garda Síochána. They carry out their duties professionally, but it takes only one or two unscrupulous members to abuse a power and give the entire Force a bad name. I would not wish to give any member an opportunity to do that. Therefore, if the Minister insists on giving the Gardaí such powers he should at least insert certain safeguards although I am not sure that is possible. We are all delighted when a person who has transgressed the law is apprehended and brought to justice, but ramming the door of a person's home at 3 a.m. or 4 a.m. is a totally different matter. How does one address the problem of a drunk person who commits a crime, goes home to a family who are totally unaware of what is happening and an hour or two later the gardaí try to effect an entry to the house? That could end up with the family being terrorised and the sins of the father being visited on them. We are not talking about an individual, but about entire families being terrorised. I am sure that is not the intention, but it could be the end result. This matter must be examined further and I hope the Minister will agree to that before Report Stage.

Will the Minister indicate that he will withdraw this section and save us all a great deal of time and further discussion or is he sticking to his guns?

This section is an infringement on an individual's civil rights as enshrined in the Constitution. If we agree to this section it will give rise to an appeal to the Supreme Court at some stage and in the meantime cast doubt on the other provisions of the legislation. The legislation will appear flawed, and this section could damage the validity of the entire Bill. Deputy Keogh referred to the reaction of the Gardaí to this section. I discussed this matter with some gardaí last night and one of them felt very proud that a case in which he was in "hot pursuit" of a person was taken to the Supreme Court. The person involved had pulled into the driveway of another person's house and the garda arrested him in that driveway. The Supreme Court upheld the prosecution on the basis that the garda had to do his duty. However, he had severe reservations about entering a person's house as opposed to making an arrest at a person's car. He realised it would be an infringement on a person's rights.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
The Select Committee adjourned at 4 p.m. until 11 a.m. on Tuesday, 20 July 1993.
Top
Share