David Norris (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I will leave it like that. I welcome the Bill as I would welcome any measure that reduces road fatalities. There is some misunderstanding about the legislation, however. It has been suggested that it represents a reduction of the alcohol limit when, in fact, it does not. It is simply the case that it changes the penalties. A privilege has been extended to particular drivers who are first-time drink driving offenders over the 50 mg limit but below the level of 80 mg per 100 ml of blood in that they were allowed to receive penalty points as an alternative to disqualification under section 29 of the Road Traffic Act 2010. This mitigation is being removed by the Act, which is reasonable. However, I ask the Minister what evidence there is of people between 50 mg and 80 mg of alcohol per 100 ml of blood being involved in fatal road crashes. There may very well be such evidence, but I have not heard it and would like to know what is there.

We are getting very close to a situation in which one glass of wine puts one over the limit and I do not know why, in a sense, we do not go the whole hog and provide that one cannot take a drink and drive at all. That appears to me to be the logical step if there is evidence. The Bill proposes to replace the penalty points with a three-month disqualification where the person pays a fixed-penalty notice, which is appropriate in view of the situation. I queried with someone how many accidents were caused between the 50 mg and 80 mg level and I was told that, in fact, accidents did not so much involve the people who had one glass of wine, but rather people who had hangovers. If one goes out on a real booze up, one will still have a residue of alcohol in one's system the next day. I wonder if there is any way to differentiate between people who are suffering from a hangover as opposed to people who have taken a couple of glasses of wine and are over the limit.

Another matter addressed by the Bill is the question of learner drivers driving without an accompanying qualified driver. Although they have been required to have an accompanying person since 2007, the practice of driving unaccompanied continues apace. I refer to the Clancy amendment. It is the most horrifying thing for a poor unfortunate man to lose both a wife and a child to what I believe was an unaccompanied driver. It is a shocking thing to happen and I cannot comprehend the grief which that gentleman must have experienced. I note that the provisions of section 41, which allow An Garda Síochána to detain a vehicle in certain circumstances such as where it is untaxed or uninsured or the driver is disqualified from driving, will be extended to permit the seizure and detention of a vehicle driven by an unaccompanied learner. In that context, I raise with the Minister the question of Lucia O'Farrell who has raised with me over a number of years the tragic death of her son, Shane. He was killed when he was flung onto the road and the driver continued on and concealed the car. That driver was a drug addict who had more than 40 convictions. Not only that, this person had only one hour before been stopped by gardaí while driving a vehicle which was untaxed and uninsured. Nevertheless, they let him go on his way. I would like to be reassured that these matters will be addressed by An Garda Síochána and not just by legislators. Gardaí must take this on board in circumstances in which a young man who had a brilliant legal mind and who was an athlete of considerable talent should be flattened on the roadway in this manner. I would like the Minister to take up actively a full independent inquiry, as sought by Mrs. O'Farrell, into the circumstances of that death.

Another thing that occurred to me during the discussion today was the situation mentioned by Senator Rónán Mullen whereby a person might accidentally forget to renew his or her licence. In the old days, one used to get a reminder that one's licence was expiring. I would like the Minister to ensure that people get a reminder, which is not much to ask given that we have to pay a hefty fee for a driving licence. I do not think I am allowed to get one anymore because I have got so terribly old, but I used to get a ten-year licence. At the end of ten years, one does not realise one's licence is gone. I ask the Minister, therefore, to provide for a situation whereby one gets a reminder automatically that one's licence is expired. It is not too much to expect.

The Minister referred to recasting the provisions in law to reflect more appropriate legal language. He said we all know legal language is not the same as everyday language and that sometimes a provision which seems clear in lay terms needs to be refined to ensure the intended effect in law is created. That is fair enough and it is a good point. However, I ask the Minister to ensure that the law is understandable by ordinary people. Last night, we had a situation with the Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017 which contained a disastrously drafted section. The language of the provision was opaque and stylistically it was horrible. Grammatically, it was completely and utterly wrong and no one in the House seemed to know what it meant. We need to be able to know what legislation means. It should not be beyond the wit of man to construct something that is both legally accurate and appropriate and understandable by the ordinary citizens of Ireland.