Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)

At the outset I acknowledge the reduction in road deaths in recent years, and express my pleasure in that regard. I acknowledge the Minister's commitment and contribution to that as well as the input from the breathalyser legislation. There is a remarkable change in our culture and in our attitude to drinking and driving which I also acknowledge and welcome.

Second Stage is an appropriate time to introduce some cautionary remarks in relation to this legislation, however, to put matters in perspective, lest we get carried away. Looking at the study cited in the Library digest by Beirness and Simpson in Canada, and from personal observation, very few people are involved in serious road accidents with an alcohol limit below 80 milligrammes. In so far as they might be, the likelihood is that the other driver was significantly over the limit. All objective and empirical studies suggest the majority of people involved in fatalities and serious road accidents are over 150 milligrammes. Those are the facts and the legislation needs to be framed in that context.

We do not have a saliva testing process along the roadside for drugs such as cocaine, speed, cannabis etc. as they do in Australia. From anecdotal evidence and practical observation, I believe that many current accidents in Ireland have their origins there. I acknowledge the Minister's personal commitment to road safety, but I say to him that therein lies a major lacuna in our approach. The issue of speed is critical, and the statistics show that the majority of accidents occur late at night and involve young people, as well as speed and driving in excess of the alcohol limit and possibly drug limits. Those points are worthy of note in the context of the legislation. Perhaps if we implement existing law there might not be the same compelling case to be made for this legislation.

It will not be helpful to the process if in this House we display reactions to the proposed legislation that are not well thought out. We should not adopt a knee-jerk reaction to lowering limits, when there are far more complex issues to be considered.

To sound another note of caution, every Member from a rural constituency will point to the rural way of life and the problems experienced by single persons who do not have a social life, many of whom are prisoners in their own homes. While the reduction in the drink driving limit is meritorious, isolation in rural areas, with the decay of the pub as the focal social centre for so many who have no alternative, must be taken into consideration.

The Minister must keep in mind those counties in which there is no rail service or adequate bus network. Where I live in County Cavan many work in the chicken processing plant in Shercock or the engineering firm Pauwels. There is no public transport service available for the workers in these plants to get to work. They are dependent on the car. While people are opting not to drink and drive and use designated drivers, which all public representatives and professional publicans encourage, many who may have had a few drinks the night before are concerned that they will still be over the limit when driving the following morning. It is an issue that needs to be addressed. I know it is not politically correct to raise this issue but somebody must. There must be some advocate for the people concerned who are voiceless.

I hope the Minister will take these matters into consideration. They need a holistic approach rather than just taking one piece of the jigsaw in isolation. If we opt for the latter, it will only lead to human misery. I could spend an hour with narratives about individuals who live in isolated rural areas and have no social contact. This is an issue that needs to be addressed, as does the issue of road fatalities. A balance needs to be struck in this debate. I hope I have served my constituents properly by striking that balance.