Noel Dempsey
Question:25 Mr. Dempsey asked the Minister for the Environment the present position regarding his review of the Road Traffic Acts. [5084/95]
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Review of Road Traffic Acts.
Micheál Martin
Question:48 Mr. Martin asked the Minister for the Environment the present position regarding his review of the Road Traffic Acts. [4250/95]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 25 and 48 together.
The review of the drink driving provisions of the Road Traffic Act, 1994, has now been completed and I have decided, with the approval of the Government, to propose amendments to the Act to introduce graded penalties for drink driving offences. A new Road Traffic Bill to give effect to the changes will be published as soon as possible.
The amendments agreed by the Government will involve changes to the disqualification requirements which apply to drink driving offences. These will include different minimum periods of disqualification to be determined by the level of alcohol in the driver's blood or urine. It is not intended to propose any changes to the blood alcohol limit of 80 milligrames which, in common with a number of states, is the highest in the European Union.
In summary, the proposed minimum disqualification periods are for a blood alcohol level of 81 to 100 milligrams, three months for a first offence, and six months for a second; for a blood alcohol level of 101 to 150 milligrams, one year for a first offence, and two years for a second; and for a blood alcohol level of 150 milligrams or more, for a "refusal" offence, and for the old "drunk driving" offence, two years for a first offence, and four years for a second.
The changes which have been decided on should not be interpreted as a licence to drink and drive. The Government is committed to a firm course of action to secure the maximum level of safety for road users. The measures proposed are designed to link the penalty to the severity of the offence, not to give comfort or succour to the drunken driver. They will provide the basis for effective and ongoing enforcement of our anti-drink driving policies into the future.
While the Minister supplied me last night with most of the information in this reply, he should have done the House the courtesy of waiting until today to make his announcement. This side of the House supports the Government's view that there should be no place for drink driving in this country. Does the Minister accept that many people will consider yesterday's announcement a row back on a previous Government decision and that it will send wrong signals to the public? To many it will appear that the Government has gone soft on the drink driving issue. Will the Minister comment on that matter?
In relation to the issue of discourtesy, the Deputy is aware the Government meets on a Tuesday and I felt it necessary to make the announcement as soon as possible after the Government made its decision. This was common practice when the Deputy and I shared a Cabinet table and I did not intend to be discourteous to any Member of the House. In fact, I ensured that the Deputy and the spokesperson for the Progressive Democrats were notified of the details of the changes in advance of a public announcement. In the context of a row back on this issue, I stated clearly at the outset of my re-evaluation of the Road Traffic Act that the fundamentals of the Smith Bill would be preserved, namely, the new limit of 80 milligrams and the genuine tough approach to drink driving which command public support. The one issue which I said would be, and was, subject to review was that of grading penalties, an issue which the former Minister, Deputy Smith, considered reviewing. I believe the people will support and regard as fair a system where the penalty fits the crime, where the more one drinks the greater the penalty one faces. Under existing law, when one reaches the 80 milligram limit the same penalty applies, regardless of the amount of alcohol consumed. That is bad policy and I am glad to be in a position to recommend changes in this regard.
My comment to the Minister related to his discourtesy to the House. I acknowledged his courtesy to me and to the spokesperson for the Progressive Democrats.
Does the Minister not accept that the six months suspension for a person caught a second time driving with an alcohol level of between 81 and 100 milligrams will send out wrong signals? I accept that the penalties should be graded but does the Minister not agree that the penalty for a second or third offence should be much more severe than a first offence?
The guidelines I put forward are minimum. It will be open to judges to evaluate the evidence given to them and to impose a more severe penalty if they think fit. If the details of a case warrant it, a judge can impose a ban from driving for five or ten years or even for life. It has, however, been the practice that the minimum penalty set out in the law is the one generally imposed by judges.
We can discuss the details of the Bill when it comes before the House, but I wish to make one further point. A disqualification from driving for less than a year cannot be petitioned during the course of that year whereas disqualification for more than a year can. A penalty of one year can be reduced to six months, whereas a penalty of three months is three months and a penalty of six months is six months. I did not want to propose grading which could overlap, in other words, where a person could be disqualified from driving for one year but get the licence back in six months while at the same time a person disqualified for six months must face the full penalty. That technicality can be teased out when the Bill comes before the House. I have put forward my best shot at a fair and tough regime and I will consider amendments from the Opposition during the debate on the Bill.