I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
The basic purpose of this Bill is to introduce new requirements relating to consequential disqualification orders for persons convicted of certain road traffic offences, particularly drink driving offences.
The Bill proposes to amend some of the minimum periods of disqualification which were provided for in the Road Traffic Act, 1994. It also deleted the requirement — introduced in the 1994 Act — that persons convicted of drink driving offences and therefore disqualified must pass a driving test before a driving licence can be reissued. The Bill also contains transitional provisions applying to people who have been convicted of certain offences committed in the period between 2 December 1994 and the enactment of this measure.
Before the Road Traffic Act, 1994 was enacted, there was a maximum blood alcohol limit of 100 milligrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood. Any person convicted of an offence of exceeding that limit was automatically disqualified from driving for a minimum period of one year. In addition, the courts had the power to impose a fine of up to £1,000 and to impose a term of imprisonment of up to six months. That law had the support of the vast majority of motorists who accepted that drink driving was a serious offence justifying stringent penalties.
The Road Traffic Act, 1994 introduced a number of important changes to our road traffic legislation, including a general updating of the law as it applied to drinking and driving. The new 1994 Act generated significant media and public interest. The debate which followed its commencement focused on three elements of the new law: the reduction in the maximum permissible blood alcohol level from 100 milligrammes to 80 milligrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood; the doubling of the minimum period of disqualification — from one year to two years — for persons convicted of drink driving offences; and the new requirement that a convicted person must pass a driving test before the disqualification is removed.
This Bill arises from a review of those three elements of the 1994 Act. Before dealing with the specific provisions in the Bill, I propose to outline briefly the developments which gave rise to these new proposals.
The reduced alcohol limit and the new disqualification provisions were introduced in conjunction with the annual Christmas road safety campaign. Because of the added risks associated with motoring during the festive season, the Christmas campaign normally concentrates on drinking and driving and it includes intensified enforcement measures.
The combination of the new more stringent laws and the extra publicity and enforcement had an immediate impact on driving habits and there was a noticeable drop in the number of road deaths and injuries in the month of December. In that month, 28 people were killed on the roads and 729 were injured, compared with 41 deaths and 965 injuries in December 1993.
The significant improvement in road accidents statistics, compared with the same period in recent years, cannot, however, be attributed to a single factor. The new legislation, with its stringent penalties and intensified enforcement, had a major impact, but I believe that the ongoing educational and publicity campaigns also contributed. Public attitudes have changed and I think the House will agree that, in recent years, the motoring public has shown a more mature and responsible attitude in so far as drinking and driving are concerned.
The Road Traffic Act, 1994 proved to be controversial and there was a strong demand for change. This demand came from a variety of sources: from vested interest groups, from media commentators, private motorists, and a range of organisations including groups representing motorists. The most persistent criticism of the new laws was that the penalties were excessive and, in particular, that the single minimum period of mandatory disqualification, irrespective of the level of alcohol found in drivers in individual cases, resulted in penalties being imposed which took no account of the severity of the offence committed.
In January last, I announced that the new drink driving laws would be reviewed and that I intended to consult with a wide variety of interest groups before deciding whether to propose changes. I met with representatives of the drinks industry, including vintners, restaurateurs and hoteliers. This group was naturally very critical of the 1994 Act and was most vocal in demanding change. I also met with representatives of the insurance industry which has a direct interest in road safety matters and meetings were also held with Mothers against Drink Driving and the Campaign against Drunken and Dangerous Driving. I received written submissions from a wide cross section of opinion. Following that consultation process, and in the light of the views submitted, the Government reviewed three elements of the 1994 Act.
The first issue was the new blood alcohol level of 80 milligrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood. This limit applies in eight member states of the European Union and the limit in the other states is lower. The Government is in full agreement with that limit. All the evidence available to us indicates that the risk of accident rises very sharply when the blood alcohol level exceeds 80 milligrammes. At that level, the risk of involvement in an accident is significantly greater than the risk of a driver with zero alcohol. Accordingly the Government has firmly decided that the alcohol limit of 80 milligrammes of alcohol per 100 millitres of blood introduced in December 1994 should be retained.
The second element of the law to be reviewed was the disqualification requirements. Having reviewed this aspect, the Government is satisfied that disqualification from driving is a suitable penalty for drink driving offences and that the principle of consequential or mandatory disqualification should be retained. Under this system, the courts must, on conviction for specified offences, impose a minimum period of disqualification from holding a driving licence; this has been a feature of our road traffic legislation for many years and experience shows it to be a very effective deterrent.
It is, however, valid to question the provision in the 1994 Act under which a single minimum period of disqualification is imposed, irrespective of the level of alcohol consumed. Accordingly, I sought advice from the Attorney General on the feasibility of introducing a range of disqualification periods to be linked to the amount of alcohol consumed in individual cases.
I understand the former Minister considered this issue but was advised, following consultation with the Office of the Attorney General, that there were difficulties arising from the operation of a tolerance which resulted in borderline cases not being prosecuted. However, I was advised that the Director of Public Prosecutions had, since then, reviewed the need for that tolerance and decided, on the basis of assurances given to him about the accuracy of analysis, to discontinue the tolerance and to prosecute borderline cases. The Attorney General has advised me that this decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions has removed a major obstacle to the introduction of a graded system of penalties and the Government has decided that the law should be amended to provide for such a system.
The third element of the Road Traffic Act, 1994 which was reviewed was the requirement to pass a driving test before a driving licence is returned following conviction for a drink driving offence. The courts have had a discretionary power since the early 1960s to impose such a requirement, but under the 1994 Act this became mandatory following conviction of certain offences. While it may have a deterrent value, the Government believes that an obligation to pass a driving test is not an appropriate penalty for drink driving offences and has decided that those provisions should also be amended.
The changes to the disqualification requirements, including the driving test repeat requirement, are set out in section 2 of the Bill. This section proposed to substitute two new subsections for subsections (3) and (4) of section 26 of the Road Traffic Act, 1961, as inserted by the 1994 Act.
Subsection (3) outlines the changes to the requirement to pass a driving test, in addition to the minimum period of disqualification, before the driving licence may be returned. Under the 1994 Act, the requirement applies where a person is convicted of any drink driving offence, dangerous driving, or leaving the scene of an accident where death or injury was caused. The amendment now proposed will confine the repeat test requirement to two serious offences, the first under section 53 — dangerous driving where death or serious bodily harm is caused — tried on indictment, and the second under section 106 — hit and run cases where death or injury is caused.
The court will retain the discretion not to apply the driving test requirement where the court is satisfied that special reasons exist to justify such a course. The effect of this change is that the requirement will not apply in the future to drink driving offences or to offences of dangerous driving tried summarily.
Subsection (4) sets out the proposed new disqualification provisions for drink driving offences. Consequential or mandatory disqualification will continue to apply to all drink driving convictions, but the subsection proposes different minimum periods of disqualification for certain drink driving offences depending on the level of alcohol found in the arrested person's breath, blood or urine.
The Bill restates the offences to which a two year disqualification for a first offence, and four years for a second or subsequent offence, are to apply. These include the old "drunk driving" offence, the offence of being under the influence of an intoxicant to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the vehicle. Those periods of disqualification will also apply to all offences of refusing to provide a specimen for analysis. Where a person refuses to comply with the law, maximum penalties should apply.
For the purpose of offences of exceeding the alcohol limit, the Bill proposes three different grades or penalty bands, each with a different minimum period of disqualification.
The lowest band will cover drivers convicted with a blood alcohol level in the range of 81 milligrammes to 100 milligrammes. This is the new offence category introduced in December 1994. There will be an automatic three-month ban for a first offence and a six-month ban for a second offence in this category.
The middle band will be for drivers with blood alcohol levels in the range of 101 milligrammes to 150 milligrammes. There will be an automatic one-year ban for a first offence and two years for a second offence.
The highest band will apply to drivers with blood alcohol levels over 150 milligrammes. There will be an automatic two-year ban for a first offence and four years for a second offence in this category.
Section 3 of the Bill is designed to deal with offences committed before this Bill is enacted. Drink driving offences committed since 2 December 1994 are subject to the penalties set out in the 1994 Act. I have been advised that it would not be possible retrospectively to apply the new provisions in section 2 to such offences. Some of those offences have already been tried and penalties have been imposed in accordance with the 1994 Act. Those which have yet to come to trial must continue to be dealt with under the 1994 Act; in other words all persons convicted of offences committed between 2 December, 1994 and the enactment of this Bill must be treated equally, under the law.
Section 3 will allow all persons who committed relevant offences since 2 December 1994 — who are dealt with under the 1994 Act — to apply to the court seeking to have disqualification orders amended in line with the provisions in section 2. While that may sound a rather complex transitional arrangement, I am advised it is the only way to achieve the shared objective that everybody is treated equally. The transitional provisions in this section are desirable and I am sure the House will agree they are fair and equitable.
This Bill has already been considered by Seanad Éireann where there was considerable support for its provisions. There was all-party support for the concept of grading penalties to match the severity of the offences and for the transitional provisions in section 3.
Some Senators, however, expressed reservations about applying an automatic driving ban to people convicted with alcohol levels in the bottom band. It was suggested that a fine — with the level being decided by the courts in individual cases — would be a more appropriate penalty and that disqualification from driving should apply only to the middle and top bands. I informed the other House that I could not agree to such an approach.
In drawing up the proposed changes in this Bill, I was anxious to ensure that the efforts of my predecessor, Deputy Smith, and the progress made over the last four to five years with our road safety campaigns would not be undermined. Statistics of road deaths and injuries in recent years have shown a steady improvement and we must continue to take firm action to secure the maximum level of safety for road users. We must, in particular, continue to promote the message that all drink driving offences are serious and that there is no such thing as a trivial or acceptable drink driving offence.
The proposals in the Bill are justified and strike a reasonable balance. I recognise that it is difficult to achieve a consensus, but I am satisfied this new Bill provides the basis for fair and effective enforcement of drink driving laws.
In particular, I am convinced that some periods of disqualification, however short, should apply to all drink driving offences. The three-month ban for a conviction with a blood alcohol level between 81 and 100 milligrammes is a significant penalty but it is also an appropriate one. At the other end of the scale, people with blood alcohol levels over 150 milligrammes will face a two-year ban — something which I am sure will receive widespread support. Statistics from the Medical Bureau of Road Safety, which analyses the blood and urine specimens, show that 75 per cent of the people who provide a specimen of blood or urine are in this top band.
As I said earlier, there has been a noticeable, and welcome, change in recent years in attitudes to drinking and driving. The majority of motorists now recognise that drinking and driving are incompatible and are adopting a responsible attitude. Unfortunately, there is still a minority who have yet to be convinced, and for these education and publicity programmes must be complemented by effective legislation which provides a real deterrent. It is important that the public supports the law. Some people did not support all of the measures in the 1994 Act. This Bill provides the deterrent required in a balanced, fair and equitable manner, and I commend it to the House.