Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 15 Feb 1984

Vol. 347 No. 13

Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill, 1983: Second Stage.

Minister for the Environment (Mr. Kavanagh)

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The purpose of this Bill is to update penalties for the wide range of offences prescribed by the Road Traffic Acts, 1961 to 1978. These penalties still stand generally at the levels fixed in 1961 and 1968, the main exception consisting in drunken driving penalties which were revised in 1978. Custodial penalties for road traffic offences are immune to the effects of inflation and only very limited changes are being made to these in the present Bill. The fall in money values over the past two decades has, however, seriously eroded the impact of monetary penalties under the Road Traffic Acts and the Bill increases all of these.

It is well that the House should realise the extent of Garda and courts activity generated by the Road Traffic Acts. In 1982, the latest year for which full details are available, nearly 425,000 prosecutions were taken by the Garda for road traffic offences. This represents some 75 per cent of all cases brought by the Garda to the District Courts in 1982. If we add to this figure prosecutions relating to motor taxation and to the Road Transport Acts, which are roads-related but do not come under the Road Traffic Acts, then nearly 92 per cent of prosecutions before the District Courts are involved.

It is imperative that this wide area of law enforcement activity, and the system of on-the-spot charges which parallels it, should not be limited in the sanctions at its disposal to fines which have become trivial in relation to the offences involved. A realistic level of fines must be maintained to provide proper support for the Garda, traffic wardens and the courts in their task of upholding road traffic law, and I am bringing this Bill before the House to do this.

The importance of an improved law enforcement framework was emphasised by the Prices Advisory Committee Report on motor insurance published in December 1982. Arising from that report, the then Minister for Trade, Commerce and Tourism announced in October 1983 a series of steps decided upon by the Government, including the undertaking that fines for road traffic offences, and particularly uninsured driving, would be substantially increased as a matter of urgency. The present Bill fulfils that undertaking.

Before dealing with the detail of the Bill, I would like to comment briefly on the basic purposes of road traffic administration and of the place of enforcement within this. Road traffic regulation exists primarily to enable roads to be used safely and efficiently and to a lesser extent to minimise the environmental inconvenience caused by vehicles.

The safe use of our roads is self-evidently desirable: road accidents are the sixth highest cause of death for the whole of our population and the single most likely cause of death for all Irish people under the age of 35. The human suffering caused by death and injury on our roads is incalculable. In impersonal actuarial terms, however, road accidents are estimated to cost our community some £200 million per year at present prices.

Fortunately, there is an internationally known correlation between increased motorisation and a reduced rate of fatal and serious injury accidents per vehicle. Ireland has been benefiting from this: although the number of vehicles registered in 1982 was nearly three times the level of the early sixties, the number of fatal road accidents in that year was actually lower than any year since 1969. The rate of fatalities per 10,000 registered vehicles is now less than six compared with just over ten in 1961. There is no room however for complacency. An Foras Forbartha have estimated that road accident counter-measures, including enforcement, still have the potential to reduce the rate of accidents considerably and we must continue to work to this end.

The other fundamental purpose of traffic management is to rationalise the use of our roads and, especially in urban areas, to maximise their capacity. The physical mobility of Irish society depends almost entirely on our road system which carries some 94 per cent of all inland traffic. The vehicle population has trebled from the early sixties to its present level of around 900,000 and is forecast to further double by the year 2000. Effective traffic control methods are more than ever needed, then, to cope with increasing traffic and to get the best use both out of new and existing roads.

Traffic management is not a negative enterprise. It involves planning, engineering and educational inputs as well as those of regulation and enforcement. The programme of major and normal road improvements now in progress is enhancing both the mobility and the safety of the Irish road network. Traffic law enforcement, which the present Bill has been drawn up to support, is itself mainly positive in intent: its primary objective is to promote voluntary observance of the rules of the road. The Bill is concerned almost exclusively with increasing the maximum monetary penalties applying to offences under the Road Traffic Acts.

The only other matters dealt with consist in a number of new custodial penalties for heavy goods vehicle offences specified in sections 3 and 4 of the Bill and in an extension from six months to one year specified in section 3 of the period of mandatory disqualification from driving for a second or subsequent motor insurance offence within any period of three years. While disqualification is not a penalty in the strictest sense, the opportunity has been taken to include this particular provision. As regards increased maximum fines, with which the Bill is mainly concerned, it will be more convenient to summarise these broadly for the House than to follow the rather complex detail of sections 2 to 5 which is fully described in the Appendix to the Explanatory Memorandum which I have circulated.

The increased monetary penalties proposed in the Bill fall into three categories. The first involves the most serious road traffic offences, namely, those connected with dangerous, drunk and uninsured driving, and the maximum fine applying on summary conviction to all of these is being increased to £1,000. This is currently about the heaviest fine which can be imposed within the jurisdiction of the District Courts.

Responsible motorists, who form the considerable majority of the driving population, will not complain at these increases. Recent figures show that some 46 per cent of drivers killed in road accidents in Ireland had a high blood alcohol level compared to a corresponding 20 per cent of drivers in Britain. Claims made to the Motor Insurers' Bureau in 1982 as a result of accidents caused by uninsured drivers amounted to over £13 million. The reckless and anti-social pattern of behaviour indicated by these figures is unfortunately quite prevalent in our society. In 1982, the Garda had to take over 9,000 prosecutions against drunk driving and over 62,000 prosecutions in relation to insurance offences. The maximum fine for the latter, having stood at £100 since 1961, has long been outstripped by the cost of annual motor insurance cover and its increase to £1,000 is fully justified.

The maximum fine for dangerous driving not resulting in death or serious bodily injury is also being increased to £1,000. Where these do result, the offence must be tried on indictment and the maximum fine is being increased to £3,000 with the present five-year maximum term of imprisonment remaining unchanged. I should explain to the House at this point that the present Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill, 1983, which is otherwise comprehensive in its revision of penalties, does not deal with sections 112 or 113 of the Road Traffic Act, 1961. These are concerned respectively with taking a vehicle without authority and unauthorised interference with the mechanism of a vehicle.

The reason for not dealing with these provisions in the present Bill is twofold: penalties under section 112 of the Road Traffic Act, 1961, are already being increased by section 12 of the Criminal Justice Bill, 1983, now before the Dáil and, following on this, the Minister for Justice intends to move Committee Stage amendments to that Bill which will transfer sections 112 and 113 of the Road Traffic Act, 1961, from the road traffic to the criminal justice code.

The second broad category of maximum fine which the Bill is increasing relates to moderately serious offences under the Road Traffic Acts. In general, these have been punishable up to now by fines not exceeding £50; the Bill increases this maximum to £350. Careless driving, dangerous parking, driving a defective vehicle and most offences relating to the testing, certification and loading of heavy goods vehicles come within this second category.

The heavier fines which apply to heavy goods compared with other vehicle users are justified. As representatives of the road haulage industry will acknowledge, they reflect the need for firm sanctions where breaches of the law may offer considerable commercial or financial advantage. Permissible weights and dimensions of heavy goods vehicles have recently been increased in this country subject to additional controls over axle spacings and loadings. While these increases are justified economically on grounds of the more efficient transport which they should promote, I am concerned that infrastructural costs should not be added to arbitrarily by failure to observe the regulations designed for heavy goods vehicles. I intend, in consultation with other appropriate authorities, to see that they are enforced.

The third category of increase contained in the Bill is set out in section 2. This revises the amount of the maximum fine arising under the "general penalty" for road traffic offences from £20 to £150, in the case of a first offence, and from £50 to £350 for certain second and subsequent offences. The so-called "general penalty" is laid down in section 102 of the Road Traffic Act, 1961, for all offences under the Road Traffic Acts and Regulations to which no other specific penalty applies. Among the many offences covered by it are excess speeding, non-wearing of seat belts and most traffic and parking violations. The District Courts encounter varying degrees of culpability in dealing with these offences. The new maximum fine of £150 will give them much greater discretion than the present £20 limit to relate penalties to the seriousness of the circumstances involved.

While the road traffic offences belonging to this category may be trivial in the legal sense, they are far from this in their impact on general road safety. An Foras Forbartha's Road Accident Facts, 1982, comments adversely on the high proportion of trucks exceeding speed limits, especially on the approach routes to towns, and suggests that better observance of these limits would prevent many accidents.

An Foras have estimated moreover that as many as 50 lives could be saved annually by universal wearing of seat belts, yet the rate of wearing here is no more than one in two, compared with 19 out of 20 in the UK, where mandatory wearing was introduced only in January 1983. Four out of five car drivers and front seat passengers killed in Ireland in 1982 were not wearing seat belts at the time of the crash. Finally, proper observance of parking regulations would bring obvious benefits to the flow of buses and other traffic in our large urban areas.

The Prices Advisory Committee Report on Motor Insurance, to which I referred earlier, recommended that minimum penalties should be applied more extensively to offences under the Road Traffic Acts. This recommendation has not been followed in the present Bill because of the difficulties which it would involve in regard to the courts' constitutional prerogative of administering justice. Road traffic offences, as I have already explained, comprise some 75 per cent of all cases dealt with by the District Courts and present a wide variety of different circumstances. Applying minimum penalties across a wide range of these offences would usurp unduly the courts' role in evaluating the degree of culpability involved in each case. So-called fines-on-the-spot, incidentally, are not legally fines but a fixed payment in lieu of prosecution which a person may opt for in the case of certain alleged offences. The amount of these payments is determined in regulations made by the Minister for the Environment and is not appropriate to the present Bill. When the Bill becomes law I propose to review the fines-on-the-spot system.

The exclusive concern of the Bill is with revising penalties. I am well aware of the case for other desirable amendments to the Road Traffic Acts some of which arise directly from undertakings given by the Government in October 1983 on the Motor Insurance Report. I intend, therefore, to bring another Road Traffic Bill before the Oireachtas in the present year, but am seeking the speedy passage of this one for the reasons which I have been outlining.

I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Fitzsimons

The Minister can be assured that we will not delay the passage of this Bill through the House. We welcome much that is contained in the Bill. While we agree with it in principle we have some apprehensions, as in the case of the Criminal Justice Bill. We accept the Minister's statement that the level of fines has not kept pace with inflation. There is some concern that there is a slight chipping away at the rights of the individual and this again recalls the Criminal Justice Bill.

Much depends on the administration of the law and the dispensing of justice. One would hope that the principle of commonsense would prevail when this legislation is being administered. We have some apprehension because justices do not think alike in relation to the administration of the law and if that principle were applied more often the man or woman in the street would have greater respect for the law.

It can be said with some justification that this is another exercise in collecting revenue, that very scarce commodity. The Bill is related almost entirely to monetary penalties and we have no great objection to that.

There are three main aspects in this Bill as outlined in the excellent explanatory memorandum. I compliment the Minister and the civil servants on that document. We are all concerned about the numbers of uninsured drivers, drunken drivers and dangerous drivers. We must consider the reasons for these problems. I live 30 miles from this House and drive that distance on most days. I see such an amount of dangerous driving that it is incomprehensible that there are not more accidents. It behoves us with legislative responsibility to deter dangerous drivers. I wonder whether lenghtier disqualifications would have more positive effects than increases in fines and endorsements. We must have a deterrent and perhaps a longer disqualification would be more beneficial in enforcing the law.

The number of uninsured drivers is appalling. Why is this so? The answer is the high cost of insurance, especially for young people. This is very much in the area of commerce but it is undoubtedly true that the high cost of motor insurance premiums is due to the fact that awards made in court are in many cases far too high. Is the jury system the best system for such civil actions or should the decision rest with a judge alone? Awards should be realistic and in keeping with the rights of all parties. We know of awards that have been made from time to time which have caused insurance companies to increase their premium substantially. If you are a politician and you go to get your car insured you are regarded as a risk with the amount of driving you do in relation to coming to and from this House, looking after your constituency and all the meetings you have to attend. Some way will have to be found which will be mutually beneficial to the insurance companies and consumers of insurance. Legislators will have to find a way around this. I know this refers to commerce and trade rather than to the Department of the Environment but the cause of so much uninsured driving is the cost and unavailability of insurance for people, particularly young people, today.

I am sure most Members have come across constituents who come to them with the problem of trying to get car insurance. The PMPA tried to assist in this regard. They have that to their credit. With regard to insurance and the non-insurance of drivers while we have a tax disc on our cars which lets the Garda authorities, traffic wardens and the general public know if our cars are taxed why can there not be a disc on the windscreen of cars to indicate that they are insured and the duration they are insured for? I am subject to correction but I believe that system is in operation in some continental countries. I do not believe it would be very difficult to implement this. If one had to display an insurance disc on one's car one would not feel inclined to take that car on to the public road unless the disc was displayed on it. I would like the Minister to give some thought to this.

There is not a second car in my house and the cost of a second car is the main reason for this. It is amazing how many cars there are in the country when cars cost so much in the first instance and on top of that you have to add the cost of insurance, petrol and maintenance. My wife uses a bicycle to do her shopping. It would do no harm if we had a slogan in the Department of Environment that it is time to go back to the bicycle. It is important to have something like this in relation to saving energy. It is amazing how people can afford a second car. I know it is an essential in many houses to bring children to school and to do shopping. It all depends on where one lives. I am fortunate that I live in an urban area and I can get by with buying my wife a bicycle instead of a motor car.

I am very apprehensive about the provision in the Bill where the minimum fine for ordinary parking offences and small offences like the non-wearing of seat belts is being increased from £20 to £150 for a first offence. I do not agree with that. One of the problems for a car driver in this city and in every town and village throughout the country is the problem of where one can park one's car. It is very difficult to park a car in a legitimate parking area. I am sure almost every Member of the House has got a parking ticket at some stage. The suggestion now is that a person is fined £150 for a first offence and if one gets a second parking ticket there is a possibility that the fine could be £350 and for any offence subsequent to that another £350. We are going too far with that.

I have received parking tickets on several occasions and paid the fines. I had to accept that I was wrong. If one is wrong one should pay the fine. Many people have come to me, as they have come to other Deputies in the House, asking me to quash a parking fine. My reply is I could not quash it for myself and I would not do it if I could because if one is wrong one must pay the fine. I am questioning the severity of increasing the fine from £20 to £150. It is very difficult for a person coming into Dublin to find a space in one of the official car parks. It is almost impossible to park one's car near shopping areas without parking on a single yellow line or a double yellow line. I was talking to a man this morning who told me he had five parking tickets. When I told him if this Bill is passed what he would be paying for the five parking tickets he was astonished.

There are large shopping centres in many towns and villages throughout the country which have large parking areas. In the main streets of the towns and villages there are single yellow lines and double yellow lines and the small shopkeepers, who are the backbone of our community and are liable for rates and taxes of all descriptions, are suffering because there are very active traffic wardens about. I am not blaming those people because they have guidelines to follow from their local authorities. There are complaints in many areas that the traffic wardens are far too vigilant. The Minister should send guidelines to the local authorities.

The main point should be that the function of the warden is to keep the traffic flowing in the town or city and to use common sense. It should prevent what happens frequently and every Friday in every town outside every bank where people are trying to make their lodgments for the weekends or whatever have parked their cars and when they come out they find dockets on their windscreens. A butcher told me recently that a customer who used to spent £23 in his shop every Friday on one occasion was in the shop for a few minutes collecting a small parcel of meat and when he went out he found a docket on his windscreen. The butcher has not seen that customer since then. A person may be shopping and if he is not causing blockage and is not a traffic hazard the warden, the garda or whoever is involved should use common sense in the allocation of parking tickets. Recently in Navan we had a very well publicised, active trade fair and two people who got out of their cars to go into a shop to ask the way to the trade fair found when they came out that dockets had been placed on their windscreens. Is that what this is all about. The Minister should set a guideline based on common sense for traffic wardens, local authorities, district justices and gardaí in the interest of communication between the public and the authorities.

We all agree that the legislation regarding seat belts is proper if, as we are told, it saves lives and is helpful in traffic accidents. Some people dispute that, but I go along with the general thinking that it is only proper that we get into the habit of using seat belts. If one adopts that habit say every morning one will find it quite easy. However, people who suffer from claustrophobia, for example, have apprehensions about putting seat belts around them. They feel caught, tied. If a person can be fined £150 for not wearing a seat belt, then the Bill should contain some provision to allow the district justice to use his common sense and apply the Probation Act in the case of persons suffering from claustrophobia. I know of people who were victims in accidents where cars went on fire and they found it difficult to loosen their seat belts. Eventually they escaped and from that day to this they will not use seat belts. While in the main it behoves all of us to act as much as possible within the law and use safety measures, where people cannot bring themselves to do so because of circumstances such as I have mentioned, then that principle of common sense should be observed.

In regard to excessive speeding, I would say that not a Member of this House has not broken the 30, 40 or 50 mile speed limit. Considering the state of our roads it is amazing that speed limits are not broken more often. Of course when coming to a town or village where a speed limit applies it behoves us to comply with the law. One wellknown Member of this House always claimed that when anybody came to him seeking advice about a fine incurred for excessive speeding his reply was, "I have got those myself in my time and I paid them up and that is what you must do". He is right. It is not the duty of politicians to get people out of such situations, but here again common sense should prevail. Probably there is not a father in this country who has not broken the speed limit on his way to the maternity hospital at all hours, perhaps at midnight. I do not doubt that the Garda use their common sense in such cases. However, I must express some concern about the speed at which juggernauts which are such a feature of traffic today travel along roads which were not built to carry them. The speeds are frightening. I am a careful driver and frequently I am passed by these things which can blow you off the road. Some check-up should be provided to deal with them. Express buses travelling from the city to the furthest part of the country have a speed limit which they are supposed to observe, just as the juggernauts have, and which they do not observe. When a State body has to provide transport to, say, the Fanad Peninsula, then clearly the time factor should be considered within the legal situation.

In regard to wandering stock, while driving through Phoenix Park today on the way to this House I saw horses wandering all over the place. Especially at night these can be a danger and I do not know how we can control that. As far as I am aware if the driver of a car runs into an animal of any description — I am subject to correction on this — he is responsible. Wandering stock is prevalent all over Dublin and other counties. Some legislation should be introduced to protect the drivers of vehicles in this situation.

We are apprehensive about many other aspects of the Bill and we will deal with them on Committee Stage. While in general we welcome the principal of the Bill, we have some reservations about it. Of course, we will comply with the wishes of the Minister to have as speedy a passage of the Bill through the House as possible.

Mr. D. Andrews

Before the next speaker is called I should like to draw the attention of the Chair to the fact that the heat control in the Chamber is extremely oppressive. It is difficult to concentrate.

Mr. G. Mitchell

Hot air.

Mr. D. Andrews

I am referring to the climate, not hot air. Will the Chair issue an instruction to some person, or persons, in regard to the oppressive climate in the Chamber? I am sure the Chair will agree that it is difficult to maintain one's concentration in an atmosphere of such excessive heat. Surely there is some method in modern Ireland whereby one can switch on or off heat control. I can see that the present occupant of the Chair is restless and I know it is the heat that is at fault.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Conaghan)

I should like to assure the Deputy that the matter will be investigated. We appreciate the Deputy's concern about the excessive heat in the Chamber.

Mr. D. Andrews

Can anything be done about it?

Acting Chairman

I will have the matter investigated.

Mr. D. Andrews

I do not wish to leave the House during this debate but I am afraid I will have to do so because I cannot take any more of the heat.

Mr. G. Mitchell

I welcome the legislation under discussion and compliment the Minister on the way he has presented it. It is very clear. Before dealing with the provisions in the Bill I should like to make a few general observations. Some of the points made by the last speaker are interesting. Given that we do not have an underground system in Dublin or an efficient public transport system, it is inevitable that people will bring their cars, those who can afford to do so, to the centre of the city. That presents a huge problem especially when one considers the need to complete Dublin Corporation's plan for an outer and inner tangent road. I hope the Minister will insist that the eastern by-pass is proceeded with. The city needs such a by-pass. It is very important that it be completed for the proper control of traffic in the city. The inner tangent roads that have been completed in the city have meant a better distribution of the traffic crossing the Liffey from north to south. Heretofore about 80 per cent of the traffic crossed on two bridges but that traffic has been distributed now between four or five bridges with the promise of an additional toll bridge. I hope those developments will proceed speedily and will help ease the traffic problems in the city.

Mr. R. Burke

Does that include the road through Inchicore?

Mr. G. Mitchell

That is not in my constituency.

Mr. R. Burke

The Deputy's brother has a word in it.

Mr. G. Mitchell

I agree with the last speaker who said that discretion should be exercised by some of our traffic wardens when applying their energies. I am aware of a person who when he got a puncture in Cork Street drove to a filling station where he pulled in on the footpath and got assistance from an attendant to change the wheel. While the work was being carried out a traffic warden gave him a ticket. One week later another man told me that when he stopped his car at James' Street to help an elderly lady across the road he got a ticket. It transpired that the same earnest traffic warden was involved in the two instances. It can happen when people are too dedicated to their duties that they can create more problems than they solve. There was a similar problem at Inchicore where a traffic warden caused havoc with business life. Banks could not accept lodgments, licenced premises were not doing a lot of business and building societies complained also. The business people involved got together and pointed out that the person involved would have to be reasonable about this, that the system was supposed to be in the interest of the community but because of the way it was operated the community was suffering.

I hope the Minister asks the gardaí and the traffic wardens to use their discretion in Dublin city in applying the law. Any law needs the support of the people if it is to succeed and if the officers involved antagonise people they will not be too happy. The Minister gave some interesting statistics today. If one takes the number of traffic offences mentioned by the Minister and adds to that the figures for other offences under road traffic legislation one will see that 92 per cent of the work of the District Court is taken up by traffic matters. Is it any wonder that some of the more serious matters such as drug related crimes and crimes of vandalism and burglary are not being dealt with speedily because the entire system is being clogged up with traffic control matters? The Dáil Committee on Crime, Lawlessness and Vandalism should investigate this matter and issue a recommendation. Is it not time that we had a special court to deal with traffic offences so that all such offences can be taken away from the District Court? I accept that some of the cases involved are serious but the majority could be dealt with in a traffic court outside the mainstream of legislation.

There is little point in one having to wait to go to court to pay a fine for a parking offence. The chances are that the fine would be increased. Only in a few cases are they reduced. People should be encouraged to pay fines a short time after they commit an offence. In the Dublin area we have a traffic committee of Dublin Corporation, a traffic study group for the city consisting of representatives of Dublin Corporation, CIE and the Garda, a traffic study group for Dublin county under the local authority, a separate traffic arrangement for Dún Laoghaire, the Garda Commissioner who has statutory powers under traffic regulations, the transport task force, the Department of the Environment, and, to some extent, the Department of Communications, all involved in dealing with traffic problems. In fact, under the provisions of the Criminal Justice Bill the Department of Justice will be involved also. One of the reasons we are not being successful in dealing with our traffic problems and offences is because so many groups are looking after these matters. Many of these matters could be left to local authorities and it should not be necessary to involve the central authorities. For instance, I do not see any reason why Dublin city council could not decide tomorrow to introduce fines similar to those mentioned by the Minister. They should be given the power to deal with such matters. We should stop the nonsense of up to seven Government Departments, the head of the Garda force and other groups being involved. Local authorities should be given power to decide on parking regulations, the provision of double yellow lines and the amount of the fines. I accept that the Minister must update the law but for the future we should ask local authorities to decide on traffic offences within their areas and give them power to make the necessary by-laws. The extra tiers should be eliminated.

The Minister gave the House details of the number of people killed on our roads and injured in car accidents. It is interesting to note that in Northern Ireland more people were killed on the roads than have been killed in the troubles since 1979. It is extraordinary, bearing in mind the value we put on life, that that can happen. We all take this in our stride and we have not tried to deal with the problem. This legislation goes some of the way by introducing penalties. We will all be obliged to adhere to this legislation. Deputies and Senators are no different to the rest of the population. When this law is passed the community will have to take more seriously their obligations concerning traffic-related deaths and accidents.

Some of the main thoroughfares in this city have been turned into mini-Mondelo Parks. In parts of my constituency where there is a network of roads people deliberately steal cars and in many cases they drive past the gardaí looking for a chase. They drive into the housing estates and go skidding around corners hoping the gardaí will follow them. The difficulty facing the gardaí is that if they give chase these people might crash and kill somebody and the Garda car may do the same. I am very glad that the Criminal Justice Bill will deal with this problem because it has got out of control. During the Dublin West by-election a garda and I were crossing the road when a Volkswagen Golf car came skidding around the corner. There was nothing unusual about this. I am glad to see legislation is being stiffened and that extra penalties are being introduced to deal with people who steal cars and with the deliberate offences which endanger the lives of our citizens.

We import cars which cost in the region of £30,000 or £40,000 and in many cases they have Lego-type locks. These manufacturers should be obliged to put safety locks on those cars which will make it very difficult for them to be stolen. Fast cars are being stolen because the Garda cars cannot catch them. The manufacturers should be obliged to put decent locking devices on these cars to make it almost impossible for them to be stolen.

I had a particularly bad experience on one occasion. It was twilight. I was coming along a road and found a young man lying there with his forehead badly gashed, pumping blood, and a bicycle lying on the side of the road. He had come around the corner with his head down and had not seen a trailer parked without lights. Luckily he survived. If you drive along the quays or in certain areas in this city you will see a number of parked trailers left without lights, abandoned, punctured, with ripped tyres and so on. These trailers are left there and nobody does anything about them. The owners of these vehicles are registered and should be called to account for abandoning their trailers in an area where they could endanger the lives of our citizens. It is time we provided parking facilities for these trailers because if we do not, people will park their trailers all over the streets. The present situation is causing grave concern. Reports have been made of three, four or five abandoned vehicles and the owners are well known. Such people should be prosecuted for abandoning their vehicles in a dangerous way. I can tell the House that it is not a very pleasant sight to come across an injured person with blood pumping from his head.

In Britain they have the MOT where vehicles are tested for road worthiness after so many years. There are many vehicles in this city which should not be on the roads. During the period of Idi Amin, dictator of Uganda, I remember hearing of him pulling in beside a broken-down Volkswagen with two wings hanging off, a number-plate hanging off and a sign on the back saying "Ugandan Ambassador". That was supposed to be funny: but why are vehicles like that allowed on our roads? This would not happen in Germany or Britain. We accept vehicles on our roads which are obviously dangerous and which are so old that they should be on the scrap-heap. I cannot understand why we have not followed the principle enshrined in the British legislation which requires cars to be tested frequently. I hope the Minister will consider this and amend this legislation before it passes through this House.

The objective of this Bill is to make this country a safer place for all our citizens. We purport to be tackling this problem under this legislation and parts of the Criminal Justice Bill, but the reality is that we do not have an overall policy — our approach is piecemeal. We do not have a central reference as to the road-worthiness of cars. We do not test people properly before issuing driving licences. A person could be half blind or have a weak heart and still he will be given a driving licence. Our driving test is very unsatisfactory and must be scrapped. If there is resistance from any quarter it must be overcome. We must introduce a proper driving test. Nobody can defend the present situation where a person whose health is so frail that they could do themselves an injury can still qualify for a licence.

There should be some type of testing of people in that category before they do themselves and others grave injury. There are people driving around in cars who cannot differentiate between yellow and green lights, who cannot see traffic signs and yet they are issued with a driving licence. If the Minister and his Department are really serious about the whole area of traffic offences, about making our cities and countryside safer places in which to drive, then surely they have an obligation to do more than simply index fines. Why are we not tackling this area? Why are we not tackling the problem of unroadworthy cars? The whole of this problem needs to be examined in context and until we do so we will not be attacking the kernel of the problem. The Minister says that he intends introducing a further Road Traffic Bill before the end of the year. I hope he will consider incorporating those matters in that Bill.

The Minister referred to An Foras Forbartha in the course of his introductory remarks. I have serious misgivings about the standards being laid down by An Foras Forbartha. From my experience of local matters in Dublin Corporation I know those standards have been used, for instance, to deny proper traffic control systems in areas where they are blatantly necessary. I have one case in mind — I mentioned this probably three times before this incident happened and a couple of times since — where traffic lights were asked for on a roadway in Crumlin on which there had been a number of accidents, where there had also been a number of near misses, where at the crossroads three of the four walls of gardens had been knocked down at various times by people speeding along in cars, which had something to do with a difficult section of the road. Various tests were carried out by An Foras Forbartha, road checks, the accident record and so on. An Foras Forbartha came up with the conclusion that there was no problem whatsoever with that particular crossing. Local councillors insist that there is a problem there and they were so petitioned by local residents. On the day that the corporation eventually agreed that they would send the councillors' representations to the traffic study group there were three people killed and one person seriously injured in a car accident on that very crossing, that on a crossing we were told complied with An Foras Forbartha standards. I have always doubted the standard itself or its application and I have expressed that reservation publicly on a number of occasions. Certainly it was confirmed on that occasion.

If the Minister is serious about having our roads rendered safe he should ensure that the Garda Síochána perform their duty, keeping records in Garda stations of the number of accidents that take place. Whenever there is an accident the first thing anybody asks is: how many accidents occurred at that point before, or how many people have been killed there. When they check with the local superintendent he may well say — nobody — but all the locals will be able to tell one: yes, there were ten, 20 or 30 accidents there and that the Garda were called to the scene. Surely the least we can expect is that, if these standards are to be applied, they will be based on information scientifically collected. Surely also the agents of the State can take their responsibility seriously to ensure that what happened in the case of three of my constituents does not recur, in other words that the Foras Forbartha standard is scrapped or that all relevant information is kept up-to-date in the case of somebody wanting traffic lights provided at a certain point or whatever.

The overall thrust of the Bill is that to be severe, to penalise, to put in the boot is likely to lead to success in rendering our roads safer. To some extent that may be true but it does not entirely cover the situation. We must endeavour to get people to realise some of the things they do. There are responsible members of society who, through thoughtlessness or otherwise, park their cars in wrong places, do not or are somewhat late observing signals or whatever. Take the example of a person not wearing his or her safety belt, of minor indiscretions, say late signalling of turning left or right. Would it not be more beneficial had we the old courtesy type of cop service for that purpose? Rather than fining somebody on the first occasion would it not be preferable that they would pull somebody over to the side of the road and ask them: do you know what these laws are all about, you are supposed to signal in time, you should give way to somebody else on the road, or you are supposed to wear a safety belt. For minor traffic offences that would have greater effect and a person will remember next time round. But if people find tickets stuck on their windscreens they will go off and pay the fines, forgetting thereafter. But if, say, a courtesy cop takes the time to draw the offence to their attention there is a better chance of generally improving courtesy on our roads, improving safety of drivers and pedestrians and of reducing the number of offences. I hope that the Minister, together with his colleague, the Minister for Justice, will give consideration to that concept of the courtesy cop, particularly in urban areas.

I welcome the general approach to the Bill. I hope the Minister will bear in mind some of the contributions today when introducing Committee Stage and the further legislation he has promised later in the year.

Mr. Barrett

(Dublin North-West): I welcome the opportunity of making a brief contribution on this Bill whose main purpose is to increase penalties for offences. While we on this side of the House agree there is need to increase some of those penalties, I have certain reservations in relation to the increase from £20 to £150 for what might be described as a minor parking offence or an offence such as that of a person not wearing a safety belt and which appears to be much too severe. With regard to the wearing of seat belts it must be remembered that there are a number of people whose day-to-day work may involve them in deliveries of various kinds, in, say, milk deliveries. There are people who act as insurance collectors and many others who go from door to door. It can be a nuisance to such people to have to put on a seat belt each time. Yet, in accordance with the proposals here, a motorist who is not wearing a seat belt is liable to that fine.

I am aware that the ordinary parking meter offence in this city at present is £5. However, I do not understand what is meant in the Bill by a minor parking offence. I know there is a great problem with parking, that many motorists ignore the single or double yellow lines and continually park on them. There has been reference here also to parking tickets being placed on cars. We are aware also that this is the main function of traffic wardens. Perhaps the Minister would draw the attention of his colleague, the Minister for Justice, to gardaí going along roads placing parking tickets. This job should be confined to traffic wardens. I know that when Fianna Fáil were in office they increased their number and that there is a panel of them that can be called on to do the job. In the age in which we live, with the amount of crime being perpetrated in cities, it is an appalling waste of manpower to see a garda spending his day placing parking tickets on cars. Indeed this increased fine could be seen as a further penalisation of the already hard-pressed motorist. There has been mention already of the increase in road tax, in the price of petrol and indeed of insurance cover. It may well be contended that we have the highest cost car insurance cover in Europe.

Displaying of an insurance disc on cars has been mentioned, but the PMPA have for a considerable length of time followed the rule that where you insure your car with them they give you a display disc. Every other car insurance company should follow suit and, in fact, it should be obligatory. It would make it a lot easier for the Garda Síochána to identify the uninsured cars. The car can no longer be described as a luxury, it is a necessity.

The increase in the penalty for dangerous driving, has also been mentioned, but just driving along our roads can be hazardous. At times the roads resemble a battlefield. Many drivers ignore the white or double white lines and overtake at dangerous corners. Something should be done about this and I hope that the increase in the fine will help.

The number of defective vehicles on our roads is increasing. Many even break down and have to be towed away. One wonders how so many are allowed on the road. In Britain and other European countries such vehicles would not be allowed on the road. These countries have strict regulations and their motorists take a great pride in their cars. The Englishman spends a lot of time washing and polishing his car and there it is easy, unlike here, to identify number plates. Many of our number plates are obscured by grit and dirt.

Driving without a licence has become quite usual. The Minister is going to increase the fine for this offence from £100 to £1,000. This has to be done because it is very unfair that some should have to obtain a licence while others drive around unlicensed. The Minister is also going to increase fines from £100 to £1,000 for those who apply for a licence while already disqualified from driving.

The fine for driving while under the influence of drink is going to be increased to £500 and for a second offence to £1,000. Drunken drivers are a menace on the road and everybody would agree that something should be done about this, because a great number are killed by them. Much has been said about the number of innocent people who have lost their lives in the North of Ireland since the troubles started up there, but they do not compare in any way with the numbers killed on the roads in the South of Ireland through drunken driving. Our law with regard to this offence has never been seriously enforced. The Minister has given figures for prosecutions for drunken driving, but that is a very small percentage of those who drive while having a far higher level of alcohol in their blood than is allowed.

In the North of Ireland, the RUC have a policy of waiting outside licensed premises at night time. If a man who has drunk an excessive amount of alcohol attempts to drive a car, he is immediately taken into custody and the law is strictly enforced. However, in the Republic you can see the number of cars in the car parks of licensed premises and observe the number who spend the night drinking and come out to drive away, sometimes along a dark, country road. It would make you wonder that more people are not killed. Not only do they spend the normal length of time in these licensed premises, but we have a policy of issuing bar extensions, the number of which is increasing year by year. The English have strict laws in this respect and nobody is served drink after the prescribed time.

The number of disqualified people who are still driving is also increasing. Provincial papers report cases of this sort every week. The strange thing is that after being disqualified, these people can get back on the roads again in a few months, if they have sufficient money to go to court. If they have not, they can apply for legal aid and appeal the decision. Sometimes for a trivial excuse the original disqualification is removed. I recall one case where the excuse used was that the disqualification was causing severe hardship because the person involved could not drive his father and mother to Mass on Sundays. The Justice considered that the old man and woman should not be prevented from going to Mass, so the man got his licence back. The full length of disqualification, whether of six or 12 months, should be adhered to. Some of these people have been drunk in charge of a car and they should have remembered the threat and inconvenience of disqualification before they began to drive.

There is no mention in the Bill of the number of stray animals on our roads, which are a menace. The number of people killed or involved in accidents with such animals is increasing every year, particularly in the case of itinerants' horses. A number of my own constituents have lost their lives or been involved in such traffic accidents. A few years ago a young man who had served a number of years in the Defence Forces and served two terms in Lebanon on a peace-keeping mission was fatally injured in a traffic accident with an itinerant's horse on the Ballymun road while out visiting relations. In my constituency, in the Finglas area, we have many green places. One local farmer lets all his cattle out on to the greens and they obstruct traffic on the road.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

You are straying a bit yourself, Deputy.

Mr. Barrett

(Dublin North-West): I shall not go too far. Nothing has been done about this problem of straying animals. There is little the Garda can do because if they round up the animals and bring them to a pound they must provide food for them. There is a very small fine for this offence, so it is too expensive to implement. If a stray animal comes into your garden, if you drive it out and it is involved with a cyclist or motorist and serious damage is caused to either the bicycle or the car, the person who drove out the animal is responsible for the damage. There is no onus on the animal's owner. If the animal is injured the onus is also on the householder who drove out the animal to compensate the owner.

I am also concerned about the problem of unauthorised car park attendants on Dublin streets. I have brought this to the attention of several Ministers but I will mention it here again. These car park attendants are only there to make money and many unfortunate motorists have been tricked into believing the attendant will look after their cars. A case was brought to my attention where a man visiting his wife in the Rotunda hospital parked his car at Parnell Square and gave 50p to the attendant to mind it. He spent an hour or two in the hospital and when he came out neither the man nor the car were there. The Garda are aware of the problem but say there is nothing they can do about it. This would not be tolerated in any other city in the world. As Deputy Mitchell said, the buck is being passed from one Department to another. Dublin Corporation say they have no responsibility in the matter; they say it is the responsibility of the Department of Justice, who in turn say it is a matter for the Department of the Environment. I hope the streets will soon be cleared of these unauthorised collectors.

There is also an increasing problem with regard to cyclists riding unlit bicycles. It is compulsory to have a light on a bicycle but the law is never enforced. These people are not alone risking their own lives but the lives of other people as well. Many an unfortunate motorist has had an accident involving a cyclist whom he did not see. There is also the problem of cyclists on paths. When this is brought to the attention of the Garda they give a sympathetic hearing but that is all. They say that many of these cyclists are young children on their way home from school and that if you force them to cycle on the road they may be involved in an accident. I do not know what the answer is but many people are concerned about the problem.

There is great concern about heavy commercial vehicles parked after dark in narrow, unlighted roads. The vehicles have no lights on them and have been the cause of many accidents. I know this matter has come before the traffic department of Dublin Corporation. The corporation were asked to provide parks around the city for these vehicles, but so far nothing has been done. These vehicles are using roads which are not suitable for heavy traffic and there should be a limitation on the size of vehicles travelling on some of our roads.

I should like to thank the Minister for introducing this Bill and I hope it will have a speedy passage through both Houses of the Oireachtas.

Mr. Taylor

The purpose of the Bill is to increase the penalties for the offences under the Road Traffic Act, 1961. The intention is no doubt that the extent of offences committed under that will be cut down. There is a grave doubt as to whether that will happen and whether it will be adequate to increase the penalties and thereby achieve a reduction in the number and extent of road traffic offences committed. As far as I know it is rarely that even the existing maximum penalties provided for are applied. In the overwhelming bulk of prosecutions under road traffic legislation a penalty is imposed far below even the existing maxima laid down in the Road Traffic Act, 1961, as amended. That being so, simply providing for increases is unlikely to have much effect on the extent and numbers of offences committed under this legislation. A different approach will have to be made if we are to achieve positive results.

The major problem arises from the fact that our whole transportation system generally is geared far too much to private and road transport. We should ensure that there is a proper and efficient public transport system — fast, reliable, cheap bus and rail services catering for densely populated areas like Tallaght, which is awaiting its link with Bray. Until a reliable service is provided the pressure will be on people to bring their cars into the centre of cities to congest them, to create traffic jams, to give rise to all sorts of unlawful parking, unauthorised parking and dangerous parking — all the things the increased penalties provided for in this Bill are designed to avoid. I do not think that will work. It is like trying to hold back the tide. If the pressures are there to use private transport, which is the case largely because of the inefficiencies and inadequacies of the public transport system, it will not be possible to hold back that tide. The cars will still come in and willy-nilly commit the petty offences for which penalties are provided here.

We have to meet the problem and we have not done that. Juggernauts were referred to by previous speakers. They have become an increasing fact of life in our society. Our transportation of goods is geared to these juggernauts. Dangerous parking is laid down as an offence under the 1961 Act and the penalty for it is increased here. The parking of a juggernaut on any public road would meet the description of dangerous parking. It is impossible to park one of those vehicles on any public road anywhere in such a way that it could be regarded as safe. Yet they have to be parked somewhere. They have to be parked during daylight hours from time to time, and they have to be parked at night. In few areas, if any, do the local authorities insist on the provision of public parks where these vehicles can be put safely at night.

The drivers of these vehicles usually live in suburban estates. They usually make a start at 5 o'clock or 6 o'clock in the morning. Understandably, they park the juggernauts near the ordinary residential suburban estate where they live to be ready for an early start the next morning. There is nowhere in any of those estates that they can park those trucks with any degree of safety. The parking of them is extremely dangerous. An increasing number of the offences under this category arise out of the use of these vehicles, particularly when they are driven at night without lights — a very common offence — and a car coming up behind them can go underneath them causing serious injury to the driver. We have to direct our local authority arrangements to meet that problem.

We have come a long way from the very first Act ever passed dealing with motor cars which was the Locomotives Act, 1861. That included the generic description of motor cars. The preamble to that Act was quite prophetic. It said: "Whereas the use of locomotives is likely to become common on turnpikes and other roads...". In that Act the maximum lawful speed was fixed at ten miles an hour on the public highway and five miles an hour going through any city, town or village.

Mr. R. Burke

Pearse Street at 5.30 p.m.

Mr. Taylor

Exactly. It is observed there. That situation pertained in 1861 in a very different context and in many respects we have not geared our town planning and our road planning to meet the problem. Until that is done it will remain with us.

The question of the insurance of vehicles and prosecutions for driving without insurance was referred to by the Minister and by some previous speakers. This is a matter of the utmost importance and the emphasis given to it is well placed. Reference was made to the urgent need for a new scheme under which insurance discs would be required to be affixed to the windscreens of cars. I entirely support that view. It would go a long way towards dealing with the very wide extent of uninsured driving we are faced with at present and which the Garda, with the manpower at present available to them, seem to be quite incapable of controlling.

It is very important too that knowledge of whether a car is insured should be easily accessible to the public. While that might appear to be the case at present, the reality is that it is not. When a person is the unfortunate victim of an accident and sustains an injury, on occasion it can be quite difficult to ascertain (a) whether the car is insured and (b) if it is insured which insurance company carries the cover on that car.

It should be obligatory on the car registration authorities to note in their records the full particulars of the insurance when they register a vehicle. It should be obligatory on the insurance companies to provide a central computerised register and a simplified procedure whereby any member of the public could by means of a search ascertain whether a particular vehicle had insurance cover. This can be quite a problem in many cases where people receive injuries. I know the Garda are supposed to investigate these things and get the insurance details but, very often due to the pressures on the Garda, that is not done.

While another offence is referred to in the Bill and an increased penalty is provided for it, the penalty is not harsh enough. I refer to the offence of the hit-and-run driver. That offence is very much on the increase in our society, regrettably. All too frequently a person is left quite seriously injured lying by the roadside. The car driver, possibly drunk, drives off leaving the person lying there abandoned. Anybody who does that should be liable to a mandatory custodial sentence. It is the most unforgivable thing to do — to hit someone for six with your car and leave him or her lying on the roadside.

The unfortunate victim — and there are many of them — is doubly unfortunate. First, very often the motorist concerned is not traced. Secondly, the unfortunate victim is unable to get compensation for his injuries from any source. The Minister referred to the Motor Insurers' Bureau. Under the agreement, which has remained unchanged for some 40 years, the Motor Insurers' Bureau have a cop out. Under that antiquated agreement they are enabled to escape paying any compensation to the victim of a hit-and-run accident. That is scandalous, and the sooner it is remedied the better.

We have to look for new ways to try to control some of these offences, and particularly the persistent offence of driving an uninsured vehicle. A possible new method of tackling it which the Minister might wish to consider would be this. In the case of a person who has been convicted on two or three occasions of repeated offences of driving without insurance, it should be open to the District Court to make an order impounding the vehicle for a certain length of time, a month, two months or three months. In some circumstances that sanction might be found to be a helpful addition to the armoury.

Many of the range of these District Court prosecutions which the Minister analysed as occupying so much of the time of the District Court should be taken out of that ambit. The Minister said the courts have a role in evaluating the degree of culpability involved in each case. I can assure the Minister that very many of those cases are dealt with on a very speedy basis and a district justice may go through 60 to 100 cases in an hour. There is very little evaluation of the degree of culpability in those cases. It is more reminiscent of an administrative process than a judicial process. It would be a good idea to give some thought and attention to the question of expanding those offences that might more appropriately be dealt with on the fixed fine basis. This would take many thousands of petty cases of that nature out of the ambit of the District Court which is not geared to deal with them in the numbers that come before it.

Attention is given in the Bill to the increases in monetary fines. One factor that is not referred to in the Bill, although it should be a factor in the minds of district justices, is the financial position in life of the person who has to pay the fine. A fine of £50 on one person could be a very heavy penalty but could be a trifling matter to another. Some directives ought to be available to the Judiciary when the briefing scheme comes into operation. They should have regard to the status and position in life of the person on whom a fine is imposed.

Mr. R. Burke

I welcome this legislation. I am glad that the Minister recognises that any legislation can merely support the process of law enforcement. Without the co-operation of the citizens and the support of the Garda, as well as the constructive work of the judges, legislation on its own cannot solve the problem of road traffic accidents and offences. I am pleased that the Minister recognises the deficiency in existing legislation and I look forward to seeing the further legislation he has promised for later this year.

I now turn to the question of the uniformity of sentencing under road traffic legislation. The divergence in sentences from one end of the country to the other in the District Court and Circuit Court is undesirable and leads to a lack of faith in the law, as well as bringing the law into disrepute. The time has arrived when a general arrangement for uniformity should be brought into operation, whether through a training course for judges or some other means. As an immediate measure the Chief Justice and the President of the High Court, the President of the Circuit Court and the President of the District Court should hold urgent talks with the judges under their responsibility with a view to devising some system of uniform sentencing. We have a ludicrous situation at present.

To highlight the position I want to give the House a record of what I consider to be a scandal. No other word could fully describe the circumstances I will outline. The problem in relating this case is that the circumstances were so horrific and the family tragedies and agony of the parents so terrible that to continue to debate it could be seen as merely carrying on the torture of the parents. I feel it is important that this House be told of the case and this is the first opportunity I have had to place it on record. It is appropriate now because we are approaching the anniversary of the accident.

This accident took place on 19 February last year just outside Drogheda. It was a horrific accident in which five young people aged between 18 and 21 were killed and two others seriously injured. A truck hit a mini van in which the young people were travelling and the force of the impact drove the van approximately 90 feet from the point of impact. The case was brought to court and there was a jury trial. The driver of the truck was charged with dangerous driving causing death and with leaving the scene of the accident, as well as a number of other offences. The jury considered the case for a period of between two and three hours and brought in a verdict of guilty. The judge complimented the jury on their work and indicated that they could not have brought in any other verdict. He said it was as serious a case as ever he had before him. He also indicated that because he felt so strongly about the incident he would not pronounce sentence on that day in case he would impose too harsh a sentence. He put back sentencing for a number of weeks.

Eventually he pronounced sentence. He said he would base it on the fact that the individual concerned had no intention to kill the young people and said he would also take into account the condition of the road. My understanding is that there is no requirement to prove intent in a dangerous driving charge. If there was intention to kill it would be manslaughter. The jury had already considered the case and the road conditions were taken into account. They decided that the man was guilty of dangerous driving. That judge, having considered the verdict, merely suspended the individual from driving and bound him to the peace for a number of years. A financial fine was also imposed but not a prison sentence. A prison sentence would not have brought back to life one of those young people but justice demanded some form of prison sentence due to the loss of life of five young people and the terrible injuries suffered by the other two. This judge on the day the jury brought in their verdict decided he did not want to impose sentence because of how strongly he felt about the case, but then imposed this totally ludicrous sentence which brings the whole process of the law into disrepute.

I assure the House that the feeling in my constituency about this case is that respect for the law has been seriously undermined. This sentence was imposed last autumn and this is the first opportunity I have had to refer to it in the House. I am calling for some accountability by our judges. The President of the Circuit Court should call the judge in question before him and ask him to account for this judgment. The Minister should ask the President of the Circuit Court to make public the result of his hearing with this judge. It is necessary to clear the air about this case. It is a scandal in my view and in the view of many people in my area. I do not use that phrase lightly.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Allen)

Could we get back to the terms of the Bill?

Mr. R. Burke

Before the Acting Chairman came into the Chair I was making the point that the introduction of legislation and listing a series of fines is only one part of the whole process of law making. I appeal to the Chair to allow me finish this particular point. The problem will not be solved on its own by merely introducing legislation. It can only be solved by the Garda enforcing the law, respect for the courts and by proper judgments. The judgment and the sentencing in this case would not bring back those young people and would not have healed the wounds of the parents, the brothers and sisters of those young people and the community in which they lived but at least justice would have been seen to be done. It is necessary in order to have respect for the law that this judge is asked by the President of the Circuit Court to account for the judgment and that the President of the Circuit Court make public his decision on it.

Acting Chairman

The Deputy should confine himself to the terms of the Bill.

Mr. R. Burke

I have finished what I want to say on that aspect. With regard to the Bill before the House and the Bill which the Minister is preparing I feel it is time to give serious consideration to the imposition of mandatory custodial sentencing for drunken driving offences when there is a death. I know that a good case can be made that mandatory sentencing is not such a good thing but I feel it is time to give serious consideration to it, just as in the case made by the previous speaker for mandatory custodial sentencing for hit-and-run incidents.

Another aspect of the road traffic legislation is the civil area. I referred to the tragic case in my constituency of the five young people who were killed. There is also the civil action involved and the mathematical calculation of compensation. The actuarial method used for calculating compensation in civil cases is such that if a young person is killed the law says that the parents gain by the death of the young person because the parents have no longer to educate, care or clothe that young person. There is compensation for mental distress. The whole system of compensation for the death of young people should be looked at by the Minister. I am grateful to the Chair for allowing me to make the case about the particular judge. It is not my form to mention specific cases in the House but I feel very strongly about this case.

I would now like to refer to the wearing of seat belts. With regard to the figures given by the Minister, I do not accept that one in two use seat belts. That is a fairly optimistic figure. I believe that fewer than one in two use seat belts. We should see greater enforcement in relation to the wearing of seat belts, not necessarily through fines. Gentle warnings and advice should be given by members of the Garda Síochána. They have been very sucessful in relation to respect for pedestrian crossings. They have also been very successful with regard to respect for bus lanes. Motorists generally respect bus lanes. If the Garda put in a concentrated effort to protect the public from themselves with regard to wearing seat belts, a lot of good will be created. There should be some co-operation between the Minister and his colleague, the Minister for Justice, in relation to making a special effort about wearing seat belts. It is not just wearing seat belts we have to consider but the dreadful injuries caused to people who sit in the front of cars and do not wear seat belts. We should introduce a provision in our legislation that any parent who allows a young child to travel in the front seat of a car should be fined. It is ludicrous to take such a risk with a young child.

The Bill does not deal with car insurance, but when we are dealing with any Bill which deals with road traffic people will talk about car insurance because it is a very important aspect of the matter. It is time to take a fresh look at the whole car insurance market rather than tinkering around with existing methods of car insurance. We should have a look at the system of car insurance and the cartel in relation to it. There should be another inquiry into car insurance like the O'Donoghue inquiry in the sixties, in view of the extra cars and traffic generally on our roads now.

I welcome the Bill but I hope that those who are charged by the State with enforcing the legislation in our courts will take note of the general intention of this Bill which is to tidy up offences under road traffic legislation and that there be uniformity and accountability and some system of training for those judges charged by the State with enforcing the law. Having been a member of a Government I know that names come before those in Government for appointment as judges. When they are looking for appointment they are the greatest, most knowledgable people you come across. I wonder where that knowledge goes when they are sitting on a bench. From experience it is obvious that somewhere along the line from the time they leave the Cabinet table to the time they arrive in the District and Circuit Courts they lose a great deal of that knowledge. It is like sand going through fingers.

Mr. J. Doyle

Like other Members, I welcome the Bill, the purpose of which is to increase penalties for offences under the Road Traffic Acts, 1961-1978. These increases relate almost entirely to the maximum monetary penalties applying to road traffic offences. Enforcement of road traffic legislation is primarily a matter for the Garda Síochána but the belief long entrenched in the public mind is that enforcement of the traffic laws falls well short of being fully effective. Practices commonly observed such as the persistent leaving of cars on clearways and double yellow lines are not consistent with rigorous enforcement of the law. There must be a suspicion at large that a proportion of the prosecutions for infringement come to light only following accidents. I appreciate that the Garda are under certain constraints. For example, if check-points were to be established in Dublin rush-hour traffic the resulting traffic jams would cause intense public resentment, but I believe that the Garda are reluctant to prosecute for minor offences because of the trivial amounts of the fines. At present for lesser offences the norm is a fine of up to £20 for a first offence and £50 for subsequent offences. Some of these monetary fines have not been revised and have lost most of the deterrent effect which they were intended to have when introduced over 20 years ago. Whether or not this acts as a disincentive to bringing proceedings, it certainly diminishes the fear of prosecution on the part of the motorist and consequently enfeebles the law. A revision of penalties to a realistic level would appear to be a necessary step for that reason. Unlike Deputy Fitzsimons, I welcome the section of the Bill which increases the maximum fine attached to general penalties under the Road Traffic Acts from the present £20 to £150 in the case of a first offence and from £50 to £350 for the second and subsequent offences.

Many accidents are due to a momentary relaxation of vigilance or to bad judgment. These are accidents in the full sense of the word and we must accept that we will always have accidents of that nature, but there is plenty of evidence to show that deliberate law-breaking adds to the road traffic toll. The most serious of such cases is the scandalous flouting of the law in relation to drink and driving. In an unremitting stream of accidents the drivers concerned have more than the legally permissible amount of alcohol in their blood. These accidents occur mostly during the hours of darkness particularly on Saturday and Sunday nights. Taking the four years up to 1982, fatal accidents during the hours of 9 p.m. to 3 a.m. were no less than two and a half times the number that occurred between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m. when the numbers of cars on the road were much higher. Ireland has proportionately a higher night time accident problem than other European countries have. Six out of ten people killed in accidents are killed during these hours. While we cannot give a precise reason for this exceptionally bad record, we can be certain that alcohol impairment, fatigue and visual problems coupled with Irish social habits play their part. The number of cases of death and serious injury occurring especially on Saturday and Sunday nights as a result of drunken driving is little short of a national scandal. For this reason I welcome the proposal in the Bill which increases the penalty from £500 to £1,000 for driving under the influence of drink and I regret that the custodial penalty and disqualification penalty remain the same. Drunken driving is a most serious offence and should be dealt with accordingly.

Under this section of the Bill the permitted alcohol content in 100 mm of blood is 100 mg which is higher than in most countries. In Britain for example, the permitted level is 80 mg. The suggestion for some time past has been that 100 mg may be an acceptable level for drivers aged 25 years and over and a case has been made for a different level for younger drivers. It is significant that each year a large proportion of drivers involved in serious accidents between 9 p.m. and 3 a.m. are very young. The implication would appear to be that a differential in the levels of blood-alcohol content according to age should be fixed. I ask the Minister when he is bringing in the new legislation promised later in the year to decide the level of blood-alcohol content on age.

Still on the subject of driving under the influence of drink a problem which is yet statistically unimportant but which may become serious is driving under the influence of drugs and the Minister might like to take this into account in the new legislation.

Uninsured driving is so common on our roads at present that it has become a national scandal involving wholesale disregard for the law and causes grave injustice to those motorists who insure their vehicles and in doing so are obliged to carry the uninsured minority. Naturally no statistics are available of the number of people who drive without insurance. We have figures only for those who are prosecuted. In 1980 the number of people prosecuted for this offence was 50,500. In 1981 it was 47,600 and, according to the latest figures available, in 1982 the number charged with this offence was 62,264. I believe that people in the insurance business understand that last figure to be much higher but they cannot support that belief. Whatever the numbers, we know from experience that uninsured drivers imposed an extra £8.9 million in claims on insured motorists in 1981 and between £14 million and £16 million in 1982. One would imagine that the volume of prosecutions would be a greater deterrent to uninsured drivers, but obviously this is not the case. The reason why it has failed in the past is very obvious. The maximum fine prescribed by section 56(3) of the Road Traffic Act, 1961, for driving without insurance is £100.

There is also a provision for imprisonment of up to six months but I understand that the question of imprisonment seldom arises, and the fines imposed are often a lot less than the maximum. Deputy Taylor dealt with that issue at length. The result is that the penalty for being caught for driving without insurance cover is often between £25 and £50, in any event not exceeding £100. Since the annual cost of insuring a vehicle can be anything from £200 to £1,000 the risk of being fined carries little or no weight with a person prepared to neglect insuring his or her vehicle. I am pleased to note that there is provision in the Bill to increase the fine for such an offence to £1,000.

I am a little concerned that the Bill deals only with maximum fines. The reason most of the fines imposed are a lot less than the maximum is that under section 43(2) of the Administration of Justice Act, 1914, a court is required when imposing a fine to have regard to the ability of the person convicted to pay. In the past some district justices have taken a consistently indulgent view of traffic offences. I would be much happier had the Bill prescribed a minimum penalty. I accept that the Minister in the course of his speech told the House that there were constitutional reasons against that.

I would like if section 43(2) of the 1914 Act did not apply. My justification for seeking a withdrawal of the protection of that Act is based on the principle that a person who is wealthy enough to put a car on the road must be wealthy enough to pay the insurance cover for that vehicle. There can be no exceptions to that. A person driving an uninsured car is a menace to society and should be dealt with accordingly.

I am pleased to note that the maximum fine for failure to remain at the scene of an accident is being increased from £100 to £1,000, but that may not be high enough. Deputy Taylor dealt at length with that point. A person who fails to stop at the scene of an accident which he or she is involved in is guilty of a serious offence and should be dealt with accordingly.

It may be of some interest, and amusement, to the House to note that the fine for driving an animal-drawn vehicle while intoxicated is to be increased from £20 to £150. I note from the Garda report on crime for 1982 that no prosecutions were brought under that heading. The maximum fine for a pedal cyclist found in charge of his bicycle while intoxicated is increased from £50 to £300. The Garda report I referred to indicates that 11 people were charged with that offence last year. The offence is serious but the person involved is more of a danger to himself than to anybody else.

I should now like to deal with section 48 of the Road Traffic Act, 1961. For the offence under that Act the maximum fine has been increased from £20 to £150. Many defects make people unsuitable to drive a car and those who suffer from these defects should show a greater sense of responsibility in accepting that they may be a danger to the public if they drive. I have in mind those who suffer from epilepsy, heart complaints, diabetis or any handicap which may impair their judgment. I suffer, unfortunately, from one of those defects and that is why I mentioned this matter tonight. I find it a great inconvenience not being able to drive a car but, nevertheless, for the past 28 years I have felt it would be irresponsible of me to do so. I hope other people suffering from similar defects will feel the same.

Another serious defect that is often overlooked in road accidents — it plays a major part in some accidents — relates to the ability of the driver to see. Leading opticians have warned that poor eyesight among motorists is a serious factor that is sometimes overlooked in many accidents. The association of opticians have stated that there is widespread public ignorance of eye care. I understand that the association, at the request of the Department of the Environment, undertook a survey of drivers. That survey was carried out on the basis of a standard deemed necessary and desirable. They found that 29 per cent of the 6,000 surveyed did not meet the required standards which were not unreasonable. The Minister should take that into account when preparing the traffic Bill to be introduced later this year. That association made the reasonable request that drivers should be requested to produce a certificate before being granted a provisional driving licence to prove that they have passed a vision test. To date the Department of the Environment have not taken cognisance of that suggestion. Drivers are still tested by the placing of a number plate ahead of them during their driving test and that is most unsatisfactory.

Fines and custodial sentences are not the answer when dealing with people who drive without insurance, drive recklessly or dangerously, those who fail to remain at the scene of an accident or those guilty of other serious motoring offences. The only penalty is to take a licence away for a period. For some time in England the totting-up procedure of licence endorsements for driving offences has been replaced by a more discriminating system whereby drivers are given penalty points, varying in number according to the severity of the offence, and are liable to disqualification from driving for a period if they incur a set number of points which I understand amount to 12. Under the British Transport Act, 1981, there is a schedule of such offences and each offence carries a certain number of points. When people accumulate the 12 points they lost their licence for a period. We could incorporate into our scheduled offences such as parking in prohibited places like bus lanes, parking on double yellow lines or clearways, driving without seat belts and failing to remain at the scene of an accident.

It has been stated that the parking of juggernauts and large lorries on roadways is a serious hazard. At a recent meeting of a sub-committee of Dublin Corporation this matter was debated and the Garda informed members of the sub-committee that if such vehicles are parked on public roads that are lit there is no need for the lorries to display special lights. In my view lorries parked on public roadways at night should have a special type of lighting at the rear. A number of Deputies mentioned that the Judiciary failed to understand the necessity in some cases to pronounce severe sentences on those who drive while drunk, while uninsured or who fail to remain at the scene of an accident. I should like to impress upon the Judiciary that it is the view of this House that those who continue to break those laws commit serious offences and should be treated accordingly.

Mr. Briscoe rose.

Debate adjourned.