The purpose of this short Bill is to amend the provisions of the Road Traffic Acts, 1961 to 1994, dealing with the imposition of consequential disqualification orders following conviction for certain road traffic offences. The Bill arises from a review of the operation of the drink driving and other enforcement provisions of the Road Traffic Act, 1994, which came into operation on 2 December of last year.
Before dealing with the specific provisions in the Bill, it would be helpful to outline for the benefit of the Seanad the developments which gave rise to the new proposals.
The principle of consequential or mandatory disqualification is that 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.
In 1994, a new Road Traffic Act was enacted following detailed consideration in both Houses of the Oireachtas. That Act was comprehensive in its scope and included a general updating of the law governing drinking and driving. It also included a range of new measures which had been recommended by an inter-ministerial group which had been looking at ways to reduce the cost of motor insurance.
Prior to the 1994 Act, legislation governing drinking and driving was set out in the Road Traffic (Amendment) Act, 1978. Under the 1978 Act, the maximum permissible blood alcohol level for drivers of vehicles was 100 milligrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood. A person found guilty of exceeding the blood alcohol limit of 100 milligrammes was liable at that stage to the following penalties: mandatory disqualification from driving for a minimum of one year; a fine of up to a maximum of £1,000 and imprisonment up to a maximum term of six months.
The new drink driving provisions in the Road Traffic Act, 1994, were introduced by the previous Administration as a road safety measure and were part of a much wider road safety campaign which has been ongoing since 1991. The new provisions reduced the blood alcohol limit from 100 milligrammes to 80 milligrammes, increased the mandatory disqualification period to two years and introduced a new requirement to pass a driving test before a licence is returned.
The 1994 Act did, however, give some discretion to the courts in this area. It allowed the court to apply a one year disqualification and to decide not to apply the driving test requirement where the court is satisfied that there are special reasons to justify such a course. The other penalties were not changed. The maximum fine of £1,000 and the maximum term of imprisonment of six months were not altered. Subject to those maxima, the level of any such penalty is entirely a matter for the court itself.
The drink driving and related enforcement measures of the 1994 Act came into operation on 2 December 1994. The commencement of the provisions coincided with the launch of the annual Christmas road safety campaign which traditionally involves intensified road safety publicity and enforcement.
The House will be aware that the new measures introduced last December had an immediate impact. In December 1994 there was a major reduction in road casualties, both deaths and injuries, compared with the same period in 1993. In December 1994, 28 people were killed on the roads and 729 were injured compared with 41 deaths and 965 injuries in December 1993.
While it cannot be claimed that the reduction in road accident deaths and injuries was directly or solely achieved by the new legislation, it is clear that a combination of the new legislation, the intensified enforcement and the publicity campaign had a very positive impact from a road safety perspective.
However, there was also a negative reaction to the Act. It is fair to say that the new measures were controversial and that they gave rise to significant media and public interest. There were claims that the new measures were placing the livelihood of those employed in the drinks industry at risk and that there was a negative impact on social life, particularly in rural areas. It was claimed that the penalties were excessive and, in particular, that a single minimum disqualification period, irrespective of the level of alcohol in individual cases, was unfair and resulted in penalties being imposed which took no account of the severity of the actual offence committed. The House will recall that there was a vigorous demand for change, but there was also a strong campaign seeking to ensure that the stringent measures were kept in place.
These developments were monitored and the Government decided that a review of the provisions should be undertaken. On 4 January last I announced that I would meet with a variety of interest groups to hear at first hand their views on the impact of the new measures. The groups I met included representatives of vintners, restaurateurs, hoteliers, the insurance industry, Mothers against Drink Driving and the Campaign against Drunken Driving. In addition to the oral submission, I received written submissions from a wide cross-section of opinion.
During the consultation process, a number of interest groups sought an increase in the blood alcohol level from 80 milligrammes back to the former limit of 100 milligrammes. The limit of 80 milligrammes now 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 the blood alcohol limit of 80 milligrammes in force since 2 December 1994.
All the evidence available to us indicates that the risk of accident rises 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 and it would be a negative step to amend the law to increase the limit. The Government has no intention of taking such action.
As part of the review, I also 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 so as to match the disqualification period to the gravity of the offence committed. Most of the interest groups which made written or oral submissions to me had argued strongly that such a system of graded disqualification periods would be more equitable and more likely to attract the support of the public, particularly the motoring public.
The desirability and feasibility of introducing graded penalties has been considered on a number of occasions in the past. I understand the former Minister considered the issue during the passage of the Road Traffic Act, 1994, but that he was advised, following consultations 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 have been advised that, on the coming into operation of the 1994 Act, the Director of Public Prosecutions has reviewed the need for that tolerance and that he 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 removes a major obstacle to the introduction of a graded system of penalties.
A further element of the Road Traffic Act, 1994, which I reviewed was the requirement to pass a driving test before a driving licence is returned following conviction for drink driving offences. The courts have had a discretionary power since the early 1960s to impose such a requirement, for example, where the court was of the opinion from the evidence given that the convicted person was not competent to drive. This requirement to pass a driving test, following conviction for certain offences, was made mandatory in the 1994 Act. 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 the provisions should be amended. Accordingly, such an amendment is before the House today.
I would like to outline details of the proposed amendments in the Bill. The changes to the disqualification requirements are set out in section 2. This section proposes to substitute two new subsections (3) and (4) of section 26 of the Road Traffic Act, 1961, as inserted by the 1994 Act. The new subsection (3) outlines the changes to the provision which currently requires persons convicted of certain offences to pass a driving test in addition to the minimum period of disqualification before the driving licence may be returned.
Under existing provisions, set out in the 1994 Act, the requirement applies where a person is convicted of any drink driving offence, of dangerous driving or of leaving the scene of an accident where death or injury was caused. The amendment now proposed will confine the requirement to resit a driving test to two serious offences — section 53, dangerous driving where death or serious bodily harm is caused, tried on indictment; and section 106, hit and run where death or injury is caused. The courts will retain a discretion not to apply the driving test requirement where the court is satisfied that special reasons exist to justify such a course of action. 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.
The new subsection (4) sets out the proposed new disqualification requirements for drink driving offences. Consequential or mandatory disqualification will continue to apply to all drink driving convictions, but the subsection proposes 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 a four year disqualification for second or subsequent offences are to apply. These include the old drunk driving offence, that is, 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. The Bill proposes that where people refuse to give a sample, the maximum penalty provision will come into force.
For the purposes 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 be drivers convicted with a blood alcohol level in the range of 81 to 100 milligrammes. This is the new offence category introduced last December. 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 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 a two year ban for a second offence in this category. A one year ban has applied since 1978 to all drivers with blood alcohol levels over 100 milligrammes. That is restoring it to the position prior to last December. The highest band will be 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.
I previously described these proposals as tough but fair. The three month ban for a conviction with a blood alcohol level between 81 and 100 milligrammes is a significant penalty, with the usual consequences including a motor insurance loading. At the other end of the scale, people with blood alcohol levels over 150 milligrammes will face an automatic two year ban. The provision in the 1994 Act which allows the court to impose a one year ban where special reasons exist is to be dropped. As a result, people with alcohol levels over 150 milligrammes will, in practice, be subject to longer disqualifications. The statistics of the Medical Bureau of Road Safety, which analyses the blood and urine specimens, show that 75 per cent of people who provide a blood or urine sample are in this top band. The import of the three bands are to make it less severe at the lower end, to retain the middle ban as it was prior to last year and to increase the penalty so as to make it more severe than the new legislation for those who are well over 150 milligrammes. People will welcome this as a tough but fair system.
Section 3 of the Bill contains transitional provisions and applies to offences committed since 2 December 1994, when section 26 of the Road Traffic Act, 1994, came into operation. Some drink driving offences committed since 2 December 1994 have already come to trial and persons convicted have been dealt with under the 1994 Act. Other offences committed in the same period have not yet come to trial, but when they do they will also be dealt with under the 1994 provisions. To do otherwise would introduce an inequality before the law, with harsher penalties applying simply because a case came to trial more quickly.
However, section 3 of the Bill before the House today will allow all persons who committed relevant offences since 2 December 1994, and who are dealt with under the 1994 Act, to apply to the court seeking to have disqualification orders amended so as to have the provisions in section 2 of this Bill applied to them. Transitional provisions on these lines are not strictly necessary. The penalties which apply to any offence are those prescribed in the law which is in force at the date of the commission of the offence. However, I believe that the transitional provisions in this section are desirable and that they will be recognised as being fair and equitable. I did not want a situation to exist where for a period of time between December 1994 and the passage into law of the current Bill, people would be dealt with more harshly for the same offence than they would subsequently. So the help of the Attorney General was sought in devising a mechanism where people can go back to the courts and have the provisions of this new Bill applied to them when it is enacted.
In drawing up the proposed changes in this Bill I was anxious to ensure that the efforts of my predecessor. Deputy Michael Smith, to whom I want to pay tribute, and the progress made in recent 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.
During my extensive discussions with all interested parties it became clear to me that various groups have a role to play in achieving the common objectives of allowing rural life to flourish and at the same time to ensure that our roads are safe. These proposals represent my best effort at striking that balance and I exhort all others to play their part in achieving this important objective.
Before concluding, I want to stress again that the new measures should not be interpreted as a licence to drink and drive. The purpose of these amendments is to ensure that penalties are appropriate to the offence. They are certainly not intended to give comfort or succour to the drunken driver. The penalties provide the basis for effective and ongoing enforcement of the anti-drink driving policies well into the future.
There is evidence that the majority of the public increasingly supports the notion of not driving after drinking. We will continue, through the ongoing national road safety campaign, to educate and inform road users of the dangers of mixing the two. However, if our road safety campaigns are to be effective we need public support, and it is essential that this support is not lost through measures which are perceived as draconian. I believe that public support can best be built on through a measured campaign which includes enforcement and penalties which hit hardest at the serious and persistent offenders. This Bill sets out to do that in the best way that I can see, and I commend it to the House.