Road Traffic (Fixed Penalty – Drink Driving) Bill 2017

expectationlost

the DTTAS plans for the Road Traffic (Fixed Penalty – Drink Driving) Bill 2017 http://www.dttas.ie/press-releases/2017/cabinet-approves-legislation-brought-forward-minister-shane-ross-ensure-all

which will get rid the ability for a first time offender found driving at between 50mg -80mg to avoid a driving ban.

now this was put in to appease FF'ers now some other FF'ers are shouting about 'what evidence' getting rid of this is based on and Ross rightly points out

There is the same evidence there has always been. They are over the limit. All we are doing is applying the same level and punishment of disqualification to them as to everyone else.

There is evidence to suggest that the ability to drive is impaired in anyone with a blood alcohol concentration over 50 mg.

https://www.kildarestreet.com/committees/?id=2017-02-08a.886#g992

The general scheme or heads of the bill havn't been published yet but any evidence for the bill is usually published along side that but presumably the evidence for impairment at 50mg was presented in 2009/2010 when this level was put into law.

Road Traffic Bill 2009 which became the Road Traffic Act 2010
http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=13174&&CatID=59&StartDate=01%20January%202009&OrderAscending=0

a summary of the regulatory impact statement is at the bottom of the explanatory memorandum http://www.dttas.ie/sites/default/files/node/add/content-publication/Road%20Traffic%20Bill%202009%20Explanatory%20Memorandum.pdf

Option 4 — Reduce the BAC level to 50mg This is the advice
of the Road Safety Authority (RSA), and its Policy Advisory Panel,
in relation to the most appropriate BAC level to deliver the optimum
road safety dividend.

and Noel Dempsey said

I take my advice on limits from the Road Safety Authority

https://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2009-07-09.459.0#g468.2 this is where it was discussed during the passing of the bill https://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2010-02-17.519.0&s=50+mg+speaker%3A98#g520.0

the RSA Policy Advisory Panel is the official conduit of advising on legisation http://www.rsa.ie/en/RSA/Road-Safety/Campaigns/Current-road-safety-campaigns/Drink-Driving/Drink-Driving-Limits-and-Recommendations-/

What is the evidence to support this change?

The literature on the effects of alcohol on driving is very extensive and very consistent; alcohol in almost any amount impairs driving or driving related skills. Moskowitz & Robinson, 1988, reviewed 177 studies and Moskowitz & Fiorentino, 2000, reviewed 112 studies in reports by NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) in the USA.
Analysis provided by the Policy Advisory Panel to the RSA indicates that between 5 to 10 lives and 50 to 100 serious injuries could be avoided annually. When this is combined with other enforcement activities, particularly a reduction in average speed across the road network, the figures for lives saved and serious injuries prevented will increase (RSA, 2008).

and their is research biblography below it http://www.rsa.ie/en/RSA/Road-Safety/Campaigns/Current-road-safety-campaigns/Drink-Driving/Drinking-and-Driving-Research---Bibliography-/

the 2007-2012 Road Safety Strategy briefly mentions the aim of reducing the BAC http://www.rsa.ie/documents/road%20safety/rsa_strategy_eng_s.pdf

but I havn't quite found exactly what advice/evidence was given to the minister for the 2009 bill.

Mebuntu

All of the opposition to this Bill stems from the fact that people in this country appear to be incapable of having a good night out (or even an ordinary night out) without alcohol consumption.

The Bill should be extended to include anyone driving using a mobile phone.

ED E

See lots complaining that this will destroy "rural culture". If your culture revolves around a pint, you're an alcoholic.

blackwhite

I'm still struggling to understand the rationale that graduation of penalties depending on the level of the offence (and this goes for speed as well as drink driving) is somehow seen as a negative by our lawmakers.

That doing 80km/h in a built up area is not punished more harshly than 130km/h on a MW; or that a BAC concentration of 160mg is treated the same as a concentration of 81mg really makes no sense at all.

I'm fully supportive of strict enforcement - once a limit is defined it should be enforced at that limit, not some arbitrary tolerance above that - but saying that a once you are over it doesn't matter by how much is also lunacy.

Surely there would be more logic in something like:
50-79mg - 9 points plus fine (which will result in plenty getting a ban anyway)
80-99mg - 3 month ban, fine, plus 6 points - if 6 points pushes the person over 12, then the resulting ban is added to the 3 months
100-119mg - 6 month ban, fine, plus 6 points
120-129mg - 9 month ban, fine plus 6 points
130mg-149mg - 12 month ban, fine, 6 points
150mg+ - potential for custodial sentence, 12+ month ban, fine, 9 points.

magicbastarder

might be worth posting a poll to see what people's experience is in relation to how many times they've actually been breathalysed. i've never been; again, it's all well and good passing laws when the main issue is lack of enforcement.

blackwhite

magicbastarder wrote: »

might be worth posting a poll to see what people's experience is in relation to how many times they've actually been breathalysed. i've never been; again, it's all well and good passing laws when the main issue is lack of enforcement.

I think I've been breathalysed about 3 times in the lat 10 years.

On top of that, I've twice been at a MAT checkpoint early on a Sunday morning (headed to the golf course both times), where I've been asked a question or two and then sent on my way without being actually tested.

plodder

magicbastarder wrote: »

might be worth posting a poll to see what people's experience is in relation to how many times they've actually been breathalysed. i've never been; again, it's all well and good passing laws when the main issue is lack of enforcement.

Me neither and been driving for thirty years. Passing ever stricter laws just penalises the people who are law abiding. It makes no difference to the people who are over limit, but not being tested and caught.

I also agree with post #4. What is the problem with graduated penalties? 50-80mg is not even illegal in the UK.

expectationlost

plodder wrote: »

Passing ever stricter laws just penalises the people who are law abiding.

huh?

plodder

expectationlost wrote: »

huh?

You can increase the penalty or reduce the limit as much as you like, and some people will comply because it's the law, but many won't, because without effective enforcement they will believe the risk is worth taking.

expectationlost

plodder wrote: »

You can increase the penalty or reduce the limit as much as you like, and some people will comply because it's the law, but many won't, because without effective enforcement they will believe the risk is worth taking.

how is that penalising law abiders?

plodder

expectationlost wrote: »

how is that penalising law abiders?

Not penalising in a legal sense, but the law is supposed to apply to everyone, and if it's not consistently enforced then people who comply with the law are penalised in the sense of being at a disadvantage, in terms of paying for taxis etc as compared with those who just ignore the law and drive regardless.

expectationlost

plodder wrote: »

Not penalising in a legal sense, but the law is supposed to apply to everyone, and if it's not consistently enforced then people who comply with the law are penalised in the sense of being at a disadvantage, in terms of paying for taxis etc as compared with those who just ignore the law and drive regardless.

but if you drinking you pay for taxi no matter who else doesn't obey the law.

Shedite27

Won't be properly enforced anyway. Been driving 20 years and never brethalised.

Might as well make it the death penalty

plodder

expectationlost wrote: »

but if you drinking you pay for taxi no matter who else doesn't obey the law.

Yah, I think I've explained the point as best I can.

Carawaystick

expectationlost wrote: »

There is evidence to suggest that the ability to drive is impaired in anyone with a blood alcohol concentration over 50 mg.
https://www.kildarestreet.com/committees/?id=2017-02-08a.886#g992


but I havn't quite found exactly what advice/evidence was given to the minister for the 2009 bill.

There's no evidence in that link.

The reason for the let off for first time offenders was to get the reduction from 80->50 through the Dáil.

expectationlost

Carawaystick wrote: »

There's no evidence in that link.

The reason for the let off for first time offenders was to get the reduction from 80->50 through the Dáil.

sorry didn't wrap the quotes around that line properly, that is another quote from Shane Ross, his point is that the evidence for setting the limit at 50mg was I presume presented for the 2009 bill, I just can't find it.

n97 mini

blackwhite wrote: »

I think I've been breathalysed about 3 times in the lat 10 years.

So was I (3 times), but strangely enough it was only when I owned one particular car over for an 18-month period, a Honda Integra. A boy racer favourite, but not a drink driver's. I'm still confused about that. (Zero every time, btw)

There are pubs dotted around the country with car parks that are well occupied by closing time, but I've never seen a checkpoint set up to test those drivers. Maybe having 6 pints and driving 2 miles home is still ok.

There was a small rural village I used to drive through. On a Saturday night the roads would be packed with cars.

Heading in for overtime at 6am on a Sunday, not a car in sight.

Without enforcement across rural areas this is a gesture only

expectationlost

Shane Ross spoke on RTE Radio http://ift.tt/2lCaE29 .mp3

He reffered to the type of stats that are in Table 28 which breaks down the fatal collissions where the driver had btw 21 -50 and 51 - 80 mg BAL http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Press%20Office/Fatal%20Collisions%202008-2012_Alcohol%20as%20a%20Factor.pdf from http://www.rsa.ie/en/Utility/News/News-2016/Alcohol-a-Factor-in-38-of-Collisions-Between-2008-and-2012/ although he said of 286 alcohol fatalities 19 were with driver with a bac 21-50 and 16 51-80, so he says 12% of fatal accidents, had a BAC below 80 but above 20. [the table actual says 17 and 8]

Says all they get is 3 penalty points and a fine, but do they not get other charges?

Although he might be saying that people in general who could be impaired and potentially involved in fatalities only get 3 points and fine.

Davidth88

I'll be honest I have never driven after drinking . My thoughts would be even if you had 1 pint then you were in a total accident which maybe wasn't your fault and you killed someone... would you forever be worrying about if you hadn't had that pint would you have been able to avoid the accident.

The lack of enforcement here is a joke . I was going to work on the Lucan bypass at 23 30 on a Sunday night and there was the garda speed van .( well known spot for them in the 80kph area anyone who knows the road wouldn't speed )... those resources would be much better used checking for drink drivers rather than trying to catch people on a safe open dual carriageway doing 95kph.

I would have had a lot more respect if they were checking for drink driving tbh

Mongfinder General

A breathalyzer should be fitted to every car in the country. If you're over the limit, the car doesn't start. End of story.

If you get somebody else to blow into it and you're caught drink driving then you and that person should be summarily pistol whipped by the cops. However, another method could be to stall the engine after 5 minutes of driving when the car stops at a set of lights. If that person isn't in the car with you when it stalls then you're screwed.

expectationlost

I've been driving for 100 years and driven 8 millions miles and ancedote blaa, ancedote blaa, ancedote blaa.

so annoying the dept of transport page was changed http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62803369&postcount=13

Roadhawk

I would just like to give my tuppence worth on this topic...

I think there should be a blanket ban on driving any vehicle after the consumption of alcohol. Any reading above a natural blood alcohol level should be deemed as drink driving. There should be zero tolerance in punishing those who drink and drive. A 3 month ban minimum, 9 points on the license and a €1500 fine for first time offenders. A 5 year ban minimum, €3000 fine and a possible custodial sentence for second offence.

There is no plausible argument that anyone can provide to promote driving after the consumption of alcohol.

Shedite27

Roadhawk wrote: »

I would just like to give my tuppence worth on this topic...

I think there should be a blanket ban on driving any vehicle after the consumption of alcohol. Any reading above a natural blood alcohol level should be deemed as drink driving. There should be zero tolerance in punishing those who drink and drive. A 3 month ban minimum, 9 points on the license and a €1500 fine for first time offenders. A 5 year ban minimum, €3000 fine and a possible custodial sentence for second offence.

There is no plausible argument that anyone can provide to promote driving after the consumption of alcohol.

There's no plausible argument to promote drink driving, however there are plausible arguments against what you're proposing.

Roadhawk

Shedite27 wrote: »

There's no plausible argument to promote drink driving, however there are plausible arguments against what you're proposing.

If you are referring to the harshness of the penalties proposed I think you are wrong. The penalties should be ridiculously harsh to show Johnnie public how serious it is because at the moment drink driving rampant.

expectationlost

Ross at press conference for a bill he hasn't published even the general scheme of http://www.thejournal.ie/drink-driving-law-shane-ross-3239004-Feb2017/ wtf?

is he trying to use the public to avoid having to deal with Fianna Fail

expectationlost

in committee Robert Troy seems to be trying to say that because it could take an average of 9 months for court cases to happen its better that a fine and points punishments is used instead as that can be dealth with in 6 weeks. https://www.kildarestreet.com/committees/?id=2017-03-01a.316#g345 he is saying that people will be driving around haven driven over the limit for up to 9 months so its better they are punished sooner for this, but with a fine and penalty points you'll still be driving around unless it pushes your over the 12 point limit?

Roadhawk

expectationlost wrote: »

in committee Robert Troy seems to be trying to say that because it could take an average of 9 months for court cases to happen its better that a fine and points punishments is used instead as that can be dealth with in 6 weeks. https://www.kildarestreet.com/committees/?id=2017-03-01a.316#g345 he is saying that people will be driving around haven driven over the limit for up to 9 months so its better they are punished sooner for this, but with a fine and penalty points you'll still be driving around unless it pushes your over the 12 point limit?

On the spot bans should be issued from the Gardai...sorted!

ED E

What I'd like to see:
1. MITS test gives indication
2. Taken to station on suspicion
3. Blood/Urine Test
4. If still over car is impounded until case processed.

Sam Russell

ED E wrote: »

What I'd like to see:
1. MITS test gives indication
2. Taken to station on suspicion
3. Blood/Urine Test
4. If still over car is impounded until case processed.

5. Driver banned until case in court.
6. Case in court within 48 hrs, or next sitting day if later. It can be done for serious crimes - this is a serious crime.
7. Licence impounded from driver until case.

Victor

Sam Russell wrote: »

5. Driver banned until case in court.
6. Case in court within 48 hrs, or next sitting day if later.

Some countries do this. It may be an issue with blood or urine samples though.

Sam Russell

Victor wrote: »

Some countries do this. It may be an issue with blood or urine samples though.

The test at the Garda station is sufficient evidence accepted by the court for conviction. That is, a breath test is all that is required - blood or urine test are not necessary (as I understand it).

Having the court case immediately will reduce the chances of the drunk consulting a weasel to get off.

FishOnABike

Roadhawk wrote: »

I would just like to give my tuppence worth on this topic...

I think there should be a blanket ban on driving any vehicle after the consumption of alcohol. Any reading above a natural blood alcohol level should be deemed as drink driving. There should be zero tolerance in punishing those who drink and drive. A 3 month ban minimum, 9 points on the license and a €1500 fine for first time offenders. A 5 year ban minimum, €3000 fine and a possible custodial sentence for second offence.

There is no plausible argument that anyone can provide to promote driving after the consumption of alcohol.

But what is a natural blood alcohol level? How much is in that trifle you had for desert an hour ago, the mouthwash you rinsed your mouth with, the over the counter medicine you took for that tickly cough, etc... Or even https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto-brewery_syndrome a natural level could be an almost permanent state of intoxication.

The law sets limits beyond which a person is judged unfit to drive. It would be far better to have a graduated penalty system ranging from a fixed charge penalty to a custodial sentence and with the resources to ensure it is effectively enforced with our current limits than to introduce artifically low limits just to be seen to be tough on drink driving.

To get drink drivers off the road you either need to catch them in the act or increase the chance of them being caught so that they don't drink or use alternative transport because they get to the point where they don't think the risk is worth it. I wouldn't be bothered trying to appeal to their conscience.

Most cases you read in court reports are multiple times the current limits. Reducing the current limits won't have any effect on these drink drivers, more resources and more effective enforcement will.

magicbastarder

FishOnABike wrote: »

How much is in that trifle you had for desert an hour ago

are you saying this would be considered an exception? it doesn't matter if you consumed alcohol from a beer bottle or from a trifle.

FishOnABike

magicbastarder wrote: »

are you saying this would be considered an exception? it doesn't matter if you consumed alcohol from a beer bottle or from a trifle.

No, I'm saying a zero or impractically low limit, just to be seen to do something and appear tough on drink driving, would have no real impact on road safety. What would, is more resources and rigorous enforcement so the the probability of getting away with drink driving is very very low.

Victor

FishOnABike wrote: »

Or even https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto-brewery_syndrome a natural level could be an almost permanent state of intoxication.

If you suffer from an 'almost permanent state of intoxication', you shouldn't be driving.

Bray Head

Victor wrote: »

Sam Russell wrote: »

5. Driver banned until case in court.
6. Case in court within 48 hrs, or next sitting day if later.

Some countries do this. It may be an issue with blood or urine samples though.

These are probably not in common law systems.

It would probably be unconstitutional to deprive someone of their licence without due process in Ireland. For many people their driving license is their livelihood. To take it away would be an infringement of property rights. This is why a taxi driver awaiting trail for assault of a passenger can still pick up fares.

On the other points, graduating the punishment by level of intoxication does indeed make sense. The problem is with the implementation. Any measuring systems (either for breath and blood) is imperfect. If you had narrow bands you would eat up time and resources with people challenging tests to try and get themselves into a lower bracket with a lower penalty.

Sam Russell

Bray Head wrote: »

These are probably not in common law systems.

It would probably be unconstitutional to deprive someone of their licence without due process in Ireland. For many people their driving license is their livelihood. To take it away would be an infringement of property rights. This is why a taxi driver awaiting trail for assault of a passenger can still pick up fares.

How could it be unconstitutional if the case is brought to court within a day or so? For serious crimes, and this is a serious crime, accused are detained in custody until the remand hearing and can be denied bail. It has nothing to do with property rights but providing due process is followed, where is the harm?

blackwhite

Sam Russell wrote: »

How could it be unconstitutional if the case is brought to court within a day or so? For serious crimes, and this is a serious crime, accused are detained in custody until the remand hearing and can be denied bail. It has nothing to do with property rights but providing due process is followed, where is the harm?

Imposing a punishment without any conviction is the issue.

Remand or holding someone before charge are very specifically not for the purposes of imposing punishment on the accused.

If the person is subsequently acquitted, is the state going to have to compensate them for loss of earnings, costs of taxis/public transport, and anything else for the few days they were barred from driving?

magicbastarder

Sam Russell wrote: »

For serious crimes, and this is a serious crime, accused are detained in custody until the remand hearing and can be denied bail.

i think you're being a bit elastic with the use of the word 'serious'. it's a facile argument to make that all crime is serious, but i don't think drink driving and the sort of crime where someone is denied bail are that easily comparable.

Sam Russell

blackwhite wrote: »

Imposing a punishment without any conviction is the issue.

Remand or holding someone before charge are very specifically not for the purposes of imposing punishment on the accused.

If the person is subsequently acquitted, is the state going to have to compensate them for loss of earnings, costs of taxis/public transport, and anything else for the few days they were barred from driving?

magicbastarder wrote: »

i think you're being a bit elastic with the use of the word 'serious'. it's a facile argument to make that all crime is serious, but i don't think drink driving and the sort of crime where someone is denied bail are that easily comparable.

If you both are suggesting drink/driving is not a serious crime, then I'm not sure what can be said. In 40% of road deaths, alcohol plays a part, and the proposed new law is an attempt to reduce drink driving.

If you are stopped, tested and fail, you are taking to a Garda station where you are tested on an evidential tester which is accepted by the court as proof that you are guilty of the offence.

Do you think you should be allowed out of the Garda station to drive home?

The main point I was making was that the case should be in court as soon as is practical, namely next morning. If an adjounment is requested by the accused, it should be granted only on the basis that the inevitable ban starts then. Delaying such cases for up to six months is just ridiculous.

blackwhite

Sam Russell wrote: »

If you both are suggesting drink/driving is not a serious crime, then I'm not sure what can be said. In 40% of road deaths, alcohol plays a part, and the proposed new law is an attempt to reduce drink driving.

If you are stopped, tested and fail, you are taking to a Garda station where you are tested on an evidential tester which is accepted by the court as proof that you are guilty of the offence.

Do you think you should be allowed out of the Garda station to drive home?

The main point I was making was that the case should be in court as soon as is practical, namely next morning. If an adjounment is requested by the accused, it should be granted only on the basis that the inevitable ban starts then. Delaying such cases for up to six months is just ridiculous.

Where did I suggest drink driving isn't a serious crime?

Please don't resort to putting words in my mouth - that's pretty sh***y debating.

Drivers being prevented from driving away until their BAC levels have dropped is a direct action in response to a clear threat to public safety.
Once the person has sobered up, you're moving into a situation of imposing punishment without any conviction.
We have far too many instances of drink-drivers getting off because of some procedural error as it is. Throwing in a nice way for them to claim compensation afterwards won't help matters.

magicbastarder

Sam Russell wrote: »

If you both are suggesting drink/driving is not a serious crime, then I'm not sure what can be said.

you are likening drink driving to the sort of crime where someone is denied bail because they're both 'serious'.
i am saying that someone caught over the limit is not as serious as someone being denied bail because they've just committed a gangland murder. you can twist that whatever way suits.

Victor

If there are legal obstacles, they should be looked at.

Note that many drink drivers would actually like an intervention. One consistent comment from prosecuted drink drivers is that it saved their job / relationship / life (drinking being the problem from their side). Leaving them continue as normal may be doing them a disservice.

plodder

Sam Russell wrote: »

Delaying such cases for up to six months is just ridiculous.

Is there any evidence that people caught drink driving, repeat the offence before their day in court? It sounds unlikely to me. The experience is the kind of wake-up call that people would take seriously.

Except maybe, among those who already have multiple convictions, probably driving bans already and who are basically beyond the law, but people like that are a small minority (I hope).

expectationlost

FishOnABike wrote: »

But what is a natural blood alcohol level? How much is in that trifle you had for desert an hour ago, the mouthwash you rinsed your mouth with, the over the counter medicine you took for that tickly cough, etc... Or even https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto-brewery_syndrome a natural level could be an almost permanent state of intoxication.

The law sets limits beyond which a person is judged unfit to drive. It would be far better to have a graduated penalty system ranging from a fixed charge penalty to a custodial sentence and with the resources to ensure it is effectively enforced with our current limits than to introduce artifically low limits just to be seen to be tough on drink driving.

To get drink drivers off the road you either need to catch them in the act or increase the chance of them being caught so that they don't drink or use alternative transport because they get to the point where they don't think the risk is worth it. I wouldn't be bothered trying to appeal to their conscience.

Most cases you read in court reports are multiple times the current limits. Reducing the current limits won't have any effect on these drink drivers, more resources and more effective enforcement will.

the limits aren't being reduced, the punishment is changing.

FishOnABike

expectationlost wrote: »

the limits aren't being reduced, the punishment is changing.

My post was in response to a post which suggested "Any reading above a natural blood alcohol level should be deemed as drink driving." and also the proposed effect of substantially changing the current graduated penalty system.

expectationlost

the committee stage admendments http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/bills/2017/10817/b10817d-dcn.pdf

SECTION 1
1. In page 3, to delete line 10 and substitute the following:
“1. (1) The Road Traffic Act 2010 is amended in section 4 by the substitution of the
following for subsection 5:
“(5) A person who contravenes this section commits an offence and is
liable on indictable conviction to a fine not exceeding €10,000 or to
imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to both.”.
(2) The Road Traffic Act 2010 is amended in section 29—”.
—Robert Troy

and the bill https://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/bills/2017/10817/B10817d.pdf section of current law http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2010/act/25/section/29/enacted/en/html#sec29

(5) A person who has been served with a fixed penalty notice and has paid the fixed charge, is not eligible to be served with another fixed penalty notice within the period of 3 years from the appropriate date relating to the endorsement of penalty points on the entry relating to the person or the date of commencement of the disqualification, whichever is applicable, following payment of the fixed charge in accordance with the notice.

so is Troy trying to add a fine and/or imprisoment as an option here or get rid of the disqualification bit?

ED E

plodder wrote: »

Is there any evidence that people caught drink driving, repeat the offence before their day in court? It sounds unlikely to me. The experience is the kind of wake-up call that people would take seriously.

Except maybe, among those who already have multiple convictions, probably driving bans already and who are basically beyond the law, but people like that are a small minority (I hope).

They do it even after their day in court, plenty of instances of double and triple convictions. No reason to believe they stop in the interim.

expectationlost

report stage amendments for road traffic bill,by Troy, including reflective clothing and MPD, and lesser punishments for drink driving then are in the bill. Im guesing alot of this will be ruled out of order https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/bill/2017/108/dail/4/amendment/numberedList/eng/b10817d-drnl.pdf it also looks like, Ross is changing bill to add to stuff re learners drivers http://www.oireachtas.ie/ViewDoc.asp?DocId=-1&CatID=139 its his privilege as Minister