Under this Bill the Minister takes unto himself the power to remit penalties under the Road Traffic Act and there is a Government amendment in connection with that matter which reads as follows:—
In page 7, Section 23, after sub-section (4), to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
(5) Where a disqualification for holding a driving licence under the Road Traffic Act, 1933 (No. 11 of 1933), is remitted, in whole or in part, under this section, notice of the remission shall be published as soon as may be in Iris Oifigiúil.
If the Minister is given the power which this Bill seeks to give him, it is a foregone conclusion that there will be an annual stream of applications for the remission of penalties as a result of legal proceedings. In other words, it will be more or less an advertisement, if you like, to people who are driving cars to the effect that, even if they are caught, it is not as bad as it was heretofore—"even if we happen to be caught we can always appeal to the Minister." I submit that that is a most undesirable situation. We do not have to go back very far in the political history of this country to see the pressure which has been put on Ministers from time to time in connection with various matters. Anybody who knows the country and country conditions must agree that when people have a certain amount of drink taken they get ideas into their heads.
A man who, in his sober senses, would not admit that a Minister could be influenced, would, if he had a few drinks taken, immediately come to the conclusion that he is the Minister's best friend and that all he has to do is to write a letter to Deputy MacEoin, or whoever may happen to be the Minister at the time, and that the matter will be all right. If you like, the two matters are intermingled. I think I am correct in saying that a lot of the accidents which occur take place late at night. As we are discussing the two amendments, I suggest that road houses, if you like to call them so, or public houses, are breaking the law in supplying drink to people after hours, and that, in turn, has a direct bearing on the other question also. I do not want to suggest for a moment that the attitude of this Government or of previous Governments with regard to clemency in major matters, such as manslaughter and so forth, should be changed. However, the line which is being taken in this Bill is a very drastic and dangerous line—that, under Section 23, the Minister has a right to remit the sentences imposed by the judges. This situation is far more serious now than it was when the original Act was introduced in 1933. At the present time, the number of cars has increased beyond all possible imagination from the time that the Bill was introduced. There are so many cars, in fact, that parking space can hardly be found for them even in provincial towns. There must be approximately four times as many cars on the road now as there were at the time the original legislation was enacted.
There is also another matter which has a bearing on this amendment and that is, that, unfortunately, there is more drink being consumed in the country now than there has been. Possibly there is more money in circulation. Anybody who reads the papers will see that more accidents have taken place over the past two, three or four years than have taken place in, possibly, three times that period heretofore. If the Minister has the power to remit sentences, there is no question but that pressure will be brought on the Minister. I would appeal to the Minister to accept this amendment. In the Dáil, the Minister said that he himself did not want the power. If he does not want the power, he now has an opportunity even at this eleventh hour of getting rid of that power. I think the Minister was very sensible when he said that he himself did not want the power.
In connection with offences of this kind, there is not the possibility, or if you like, the probability that there would be a miscarriage of justice. If a man is found driving a car under the influence of drink, he is picked up by the Guards and taken to the barracks. There is no question about his identity. The man in many cases will have a driver's licence and there are other ways by which he can be identified, so that there is no question of an error being made on the question of identity. The next question to be decided is whether or not he is under the influence of drink. I understand that, in the case of a man being charged for driving a car under the influence of drink, a doctor is called in at the earliest possible moment. Notwithstanding what has been said for and against the medical profession, privately and publicly in the last week or two, I have the greatest possible respect for the members of the medical profession in this country and I think it is out of the question that any doctor would alter his opinion one iota even, if he were called in to give evidence, in the case of his best pal, so that there is no danger whatever of the question of a miscarriage of justice in so far as the medical evidence is concerned.
In other countries if a man is found having taken any drink whatsoever, his licence is taken from him and he is open to be penalised in various ways. He does not have to be under the influence of drink. I think that is the case in Sweden and Denmark, some of the Scandinavian countries, where if a man is held up for his driver's licence or because of some accident and the slightest smell of alcohol is got from him, he is taken before a doctor. If any sign of alcohol is found at all in his system, he gets the full rigour of the law. I think that that is swinging the pendulum too far in the other direction. I myself have been accustomed to taking a drink for a long number of years—I suppose 30 years— and I am sure there are several people here who have also been accustomed to taking a drink. That is a very different matter from a man driving a car under the influence of drink. I think we are all inclined to read the newspapers casually and if we see that somebody has been knocked down by a motor car we say: "That is too bad", and it is left at that. If we could imagine that some member of our own family had been knocked down by a motor car driven by a man under the influence of drink I think we would take a very different view of it. If that man were convicted for driving a car under the influence of drink, the only remark any of us would be likely to pass would be that he got off too lightly.
We are here discussing a Bill and in that Bill we are asked to pass one particular section which, in actual fact, overrides the authority of the judge. These are statutory cases, where there should not, in my opinion, be any authority on the part of any Minister to remit the penalties. The power, as I said in the earlier stages, was conferred on the courts and rightly so in my opinion. The suggestion here is that that power should now, for all practical purposes, be taken from the courts and put in the hands of the Minister. That is what it actually means. The judge can pass a sentence all right. The Minister himself said he remit. The Minister himself said he did not want the power. He said he would think the matter over and that he would consider, I think I have the quotation here, bringing in a suitable amendment in the Seanad:—
"I undertake to have the matter carefully examined and to bring in an amendment in the Seanad, if necessary."