Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 20 Jun 1984

Vol. 351 No. 9

Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill, 1983: Committee and Final Stages.

Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 2, subsection (1), line 23, before "penalty so provided" to insert "monetary".

Amendment No. 6 is cognate and the two amendments may be discussed together.

These amendments are of a technical drafting nature necessary to make the Bill clearer.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 2, between lines 26 and 27, to insert the following subsection:

"(2) Notwithstanding anything in the Road Traffic Acts in the case of the inadvertent non-insurance of a vehicle a person shall be liable on summary conviction to a minimum penalty of £100 and in the case of deliberate non-insurance to a minimum penalty of £350.".

Amendment No. 3 is related and by agreement it may be discussed with amendment No. 2.

This amendment proposes that in the case of the inadvertent non-insurance of a vehicle a person shall be liable on summary conviction to a minimum penalty of £100, and in the case of deliberate non-insurance to a minimum penalty of £350. Amendment No. 3 proposes that in the case of the deliberate non-insurance of a vehicle a person, on summary conviction, shall be automatically disqualified from holding a driving licence. The House will generally agree that the failure of so many motorists to comply with the law in regard to vehicle insurance has reached such proportions that it has become a great national scandal, particularly when one is aware that the number of uninsured drivers could be as high as 150,000. This has been estimated by the Automobile Association for the entire country. The scandal is compounded when one appreciates the number of accidents involving uninsured drivers. According to available figures, 62,000 cases of uninsured driving were brought before the courts and the further tragedy is that those who have suffered loss of limb and property must get compensation from the Motor Insurers' Bureau, and such compensation can be recovered only by increased premiums which have to be paid by those who abide by the law. I am sure the Minister is aware that the Prices Commission have made a recommendation along the lines of my amendments. Therefore, I hope the Minister will see his way to accept the amendments, which will impose severe penalties on people who will not insure their vehicles. Before I speak further I should like to know if the Minister intends to accept the amendments, or what is his attitude to them.

I hope to be able to persuade the Deputy that in refusing to accept the amendments I have a good reason and that he will agree the course adopted in the Bill is the right one. The report of the Prices Advisory Committee into the cost and methods of providing motor insurance recommended that the maximum penalty for uninsured driving should be increased from £100 to £1,000 and that in the case of deliberate non-insurance there should be a minimum penalty of £350 together with suspension of the driving licence, and that the minimum penalty for inadvertent non-insurance should be £100. These proposals have been given careful consideration. I have accepted the proposal to increase the maximum penalties, and this is provided for in the section. Therefore, I will explain further why I cannot accept the Deputy's amendments.

The amendment before us proposes not only to set a minimum penalty but to distinguish between inadvertent and deliberate non-insurance. Considering the principle of minimum penalties first, their introduction would be an unnecessary interference with the discretion of the Judiciary who under the Constitution are charged with the administration of justice. It could lead to injustice. A minimum penalty of £100 for a person of limited means, say an old age pensioner, a widow or somebody on social welfare, could be a very substantial and punitive penalty even where the offence had been committed through an oversight. I would be concerned also lest the proposed minimum penalty might in effect become the maximum penalty.

Though I understand the Deputy's concern to ensure that tough action will be taken against uninsured drivers, I am concerned that justice will be done. I am not convinced that the amendments would be for the best, for the reasons outlined. It is best that justices in the District Court would be allowed discretion to judge each case on its merits. In doing so, I am sure they will take account of the emphasis placed by the House on dealing severely with uninsured drivers when the circumstances merit it.

I appreciate the motives behind the Deputy's desire to distinguish between deliberate and inadvertent failure to insure but I would prefer to retain the existing provisions which allow the courts to judge the seriousness of offences on the facts of the case and to impose appropriate penalties. A maximum £1,000 fine and, or, six months imprisonment provide plenty of scope, and the introduction of the distinctions proposed might divert court proceedings into long arguments on whether an offence was deliberate. It could lead to challenges in higher courts on the niceties of definition. I would prefer that the District Court would decide on the facts and hand out penalties accordingly.

In the absence of a distinction between deliberate and inadvertent non-insurance, the only alternative in the second amendment would be to impose a mandatory disqualification for any offence relating to non-insurance. This could be unduly harsh. There might, for example, be extenuating circumstances especially where a person had allowed cover to lapse for a short period through an oversight. If either of these options is unsatisfactory than I suggest we retain the present provisions which give a discretionary power to the courts to impose disqualification. Section 27 of the 1961 Act empowers the courts to impose disqualification in addition to other penalties in connection with offences in relation to mechanically propelled vehicles or the driving of them. In addition conviction for a second or subsequent offence in a period of three years carries a mandatory disqualification of not less than six months increased to one year under section 3 (4). It should be pointed out that automatic disqualification for a first offence is limited in the existing legislation to drunk driving offences and to dangerous driving leading to death or serious injury or serious bodily harm. I am not convinced a sustainable argument has been made for extending the mandatory disqualification beyond the existing range of offences. I am satisfied that the increased penalty coupled with power to disqualify which, I am sure, the courts will use with due discretion in appropriate circumstances are a sufficient deterrent and deserve to be given a chance.

I am pleased the Minister has put on record his own views in this matter as to whether the types of checks proposed should be accepted and implemented and, in the light of the grounds he has mentioned, we will not push it to a vote. However this gives me the opportunity of highlighting the very serious problem of uninsured driving. There is an escalation in the number of persons driving uninsured cars and they constitute a very serious hazard on our roads. People who are unfortunate enough to be involved in accidents caused by non-insured drivers are at a very serious disadvantage and these drivers constitute a very serious burden on road users who are complying with the law and who are paying insurance. Insurance is extremely high. A sum of £1,000 for motor insurance has been mentioned. When one considers the fact that in 1983 there were 450,000 prosecutions under the Road Traffic Acts we have some idea of the magnitude of the problem. As I said earlier, 62,000 of those related to uninsured drivers. Practically 75 per cent of the workload of the District Court is taken up with cases under the Road Traffic Acts. I do not know whether this is the correct way to introduce penalties or whether some other way, such as the Minister is suggesting, would be more appropriate. The position is most unsatisfactory and if there are 150,000 uninsured motor vehicles being driven on the roads surely that is a situation that cries out for redress.

The Minister cannot just sit back and claim that these changes will in themselves bring about a major improvement in the presEnt unhappy situation. The penalties should be such as to make it prohibitive for anybody to bring an uninsured motor vehicle on to our roads. I doubt if these variations in penalties will bring about any major improvement. I am told that there are claims of up to £30 million compensation already as a result of accidents caused by uninsured drivers. I am informed the insurance bureau is adding £70 to each premium to meet the cost of these claims for compensation. The law-abiding motorist is paying for the damage caused by the uninsured driver. I do not believe any increases in penalty will act as a sufficient deterrent or make those people think twice before they take an uninsured vehicle on to the road.

I tabled a specific amendment, amendment No 7, but it has been declared out of order. Had that amendment been accepted I believe it would have acted as a deterrent because current insurance would have to be exhibited on the vehicle. Several Deputies have suggested that that would be the most positive step designed to bring about a substantial improvement. War must be declared on uninsured drivers. District justices on average fine the uninsured driver £50. The maximum fine was supposed to be £100 but in practice the level is invariably £50 so even if we increase the fines we have no reason to believe the courts will impose those fines and the result will be the penalties will not act as a deterrent. If one is only fined £50 and one's insurance costs £500 one will take a chance.

Insurance can be as high now as £1,000. Some young people would be quoted figures of that kind. They are not going to bother paying that sum of money to an insurance company. All they need do is hope that the Garda will not be as vigilant in this matter as some of us might wish and that they can get away with six or 12 months' driving without ever being found out. Even if they are found out, they are prepared to take that chance and pay the fine. If the courts were imposing fines of £50 up to now, are they going to impose £500 on average in the future? I do not know that — we shall have to wait and see. If those who are charged with decisions in our District Courts were to read the Dáil debates they would see that it is the will and wish of this House that they deal much more severely with people who are responsible for this offence of driving without insurance. I would urge greater severity in the imposition of financial penalties on these people.

I must express serious regret at the decision to rule my amendment out of order. All of us in the House would agree that if it was compulsory to display insurance certificates on one's windscreen that in itself would act as a very great deterrent because it would be easy to determine whether a person had or had not paid insurance.

I am informed that the courts do not normally impose a fine which they are of the opinion that the defendant is unable to pay. That puts us in the same position as the Minister has mentioned with regard to my proposal — it will be those of least means who will be the ones to suffer custodial penalties by getting jail sentences. The public want to see a greater crackdown on uninsured drivers and there is now an acceptance that our courts should administer short jail sentences more frequently in cases involving drunken, reckless and uninsured driving. It should not be the principle administered in our courts that those of poor means are the ones to go to jail. Short jail sentences have been shown to be very effective in other countries in regard to drunken driving. I have no doubt that they would have the same effect on people taking the chance of driving without insurance. There is an outcry from those complying with the law to the authorities to be more active in ensuring that all citizens comply with the law.

In 1982 there were only 38,209 uninsured drivers convicted out of the 62,000 prosecutions which were brought before the courts. Whether that was due to slipshod documentation on the part of the prosecution, or cases struck out on technicalities or whatever, it appears that only a little over half the cases brought before the courts resulted in a conviction of any kind. The average fine imposed, as I say, was only £50. There is clear evidence that the courts have been dealing extremely with our uninsured drivers up to the present. I am sure that all of us in the House would hope that in future, with the increased fine, the courts will take cognisance of the wishes of Parliament and the anger of the people against those who are flouting the law and in this way putting up the costs on the law-abiding citizens.

The Irish Insurance Association have recently given figures which show the alarming increase in the amount of outstanding claims against uninsured motorists. The graph rises very dramatically. I should like to put these figures on the record: in 1978 the figure was £4 million, in 1979 £7 million, 1980 £11 million, 1981 £18 million and 1982 £27 million. I am not exaggerating the seriousness of this problem when I state that it is a national scandal. Those figures well justify that statement.

I regret that the Minister has not found some other way, if not by way of my amendment, to introduce greater legal deterrents. I accept his point that the minimum penalty of £100 would be unfair to a person of very poor means who, through some mistake or other, had failed to insure his vehicle. However, if a person brings a vehicle out on to the road it is recognised as a lethal weapon and if he is in charge of it, the very least he should do before he goes on the roads with it is to make sure that he is insured. It is a very great crime for anybody to drive an uninsured vehicle and up to now the courts have not treated it as such.

I would not like to be accused of proposing something which would be a burden on people of small means, but if a person owns a motor vehicle, he must be of some means and insurance is part of the cost of motoring. The full cost should be taken into consideration before people decide to own cars and bring them out on the roads. Penalties must be taken into account when they decide to run a car and invest their own personal income in the purchase of the car and the purchase of fuel in making use of it. In making that decision they should be fully aware that any contravention of the laws of the land which apply to owning and using a vehicle extend to fines of a minimum of £100, as suggested in this case.

The Minister does not see his way to accepting this amendment today and I shall not push it to a vote. However, having the amendment down has given me the opportunity of highlighting the views of my party and of myself in this matter and of expressing my regret that the Minister has not taken some initiatives in introducing greater deterrents. The disc would have satisfied many in this House and it is very strange that in discussing a Road Traffic Bill an amendment requiring the placing of a disc on a windscreen should be ruled out of order and that we cannot discuss it as such.

Deputy Taylor wants permission to ask a question on the Adjournment.

Certainly, I shall allow him to come in.

I ask for permission to raise on the Adjournment the matter of the crisis in itinerant resettlement in Tallaght, County Dublin.

I support that submission.

I would like to support my colleagues Deputies Taylor and O'Leary. All four Deputies in the area are exceptionally concerned about the problem, which is now at a very serious stage.

I shall communicate with the Deputy.

I have said all that I wish to say on the section. Would the Minister please give us some indication as to his own views with regard to the disc? It may be ruled out of order at a later stage.

Deputies Molony and Enright.

I have very considerable sympathy for the amendment tabled by Deputy Molloy. I accept the Minister's response to it. It would be unfair to impose on the courts a very rigid position in which they would be obliged to impose a fine on somebody who simply did not have the money. However, I want to take issue with the Deputy on one other matter. He seems to blame the courts for the penalties which they have been imposing. The truth is that judges throughout the length and breadth of the country have been expressing frustration at the very restricted way they have to operate in the matter of non-insurance. The first body of people to highlight the outrageous fact that in this country at the moment about one in five drivers is uninsured were the Judiciary. If the blame lies anywhere, it lies with this House and with successive Governments who allowed this to happen.

A £50 fine was not much of a deterrent.

Fines of £50 will never solve this problem. I support the general thrust of this Bill in the sense that it will allow judges to impose substantial fines. However, if a person cannot pay an insurance premium of £600 or £700, there is very little point in fining him those amounts. As I know from my own experience in defending people in the District Court for non-insurance, generally they are young people who have no money or, indeed, may not have a job. Imposing a sentence of £600 or £700 carries with it the sting that in the event of the fine not being paid, they go to prison for a month or so. They will go to prison for a month because the truth is that these people do not have the price to pay insurance cover. Unfortunately this Bill does not recognise that fact.

I know that the Bill was indicated on Second Stage as just one in a series of measures which the Government propose, but frankly they and previous Governments have been lax in this. The matter is not being accorded the urgency which it warrants. A few weeks ago I asked the Minister for Industry, Trade, Commerce and Tourism some questions. His junior Minister came in to reply to them. When I suggested that the level of uninsured driving was somewhere between 20 and 25 per cent the response I got from that junior Minister was that I was exaggerating and had exaggerated on this issue for the last few months. I raised this matter consistently since last March and it gives me no pleasure to find that the Motor Insurers' Buraeu of Ireland now come out and say that in their estimation the level of uninsured driving is one in five. I estimated it was somewhere between 20 and 25 per cent, so we are not that far apart.

It is a national scandal that that is the case. What is even worse is that the establishment, the Government and the Civil Service, do not appear to accept that that is the position. Anybody who observes the level of accident claims being dealt with by the Motor Insurers' Bureau of Ireland, particularly the rate of increase each year over the last three years, has to recognise that the level of uninsured driving is at a far higher level than the Department accept.

Deputy Molloy gave some figures in relation to the amount paid out in claims. The estimated amount of claims which are not paid is even more significant. At the end of 1982 the estimated amount of outstanding claims to the Motor Insurers' Bureau of Ireland for uninsured driving was £27.6 million. Within 12 months that figure had grown to £42 million. Three years ago the Commission on Motor Insurance reckoned that over 10 per cent of the Irish driving population were uninsured. That rate of increase alone should have alerted Department officials to the fact that the level of uninsured driving was increasing dramatically.

The Motor Insurers' Bureau now accept that that figure is 20 per cent but it may be a bit more. It is certain that it is over twice what it is in the UK. The UK figure is quoted at 8 per cent. It is very interesting to note that there has been an increase there in the past few years of very significant proportions as well. In Germany the figure is 1 per cent so we actually have over 20 times the level of uninsured driving they have in Germany. There is clearly something wrong.

I believe this Bill will do absolutely nothing to deal with the problem. There is no doubt that the fines should be greater than they are because unquestionably there are some people who drive without insurance who could afford to pay a more substantial fine than the fines the judges can impose at present. It is naive to believe that this Bill will make any significant impact on the problem. The vast majority of people who are driving without insurance are people who do not have the money to pay for insurance.

I have quoted figures in the House on Second Stage of this Bill and I have had questions down about the matter but I cannot say I have got very far. I went through details of a survey I carried out for young people. There are approximately 18 insurance companies operating in the motor insurance field. I inquired through an agent what the cost would be for a 20-year old person to obtain motor insurance for what we described as a Ford Fiesta car three years old, valued at £2,000. Only one insurance company out of the 18 companies contacted would even consider covering them for insurance. The rest of them said they did not cover young drivers notwithstanding all the promises we have from the Department that there is no difficulty for young people getting insurance and they have all sorts of safety nets to ensure this does not happen. The one company who offered insurance was the subsidised one, the PMPA, who quoted £1,032 for third party insurance for a car valued £2,000. To suggest that a young person who puts together all he has to provide himself with a £2,000 car, frequently to get to work, could afford to pay £1,032 per annum in insurance premium is a joke. To push the thing further, to believe that you will stop that person driving by increasing the penalties for non-insurance from £100 to £1,000 makes a right farce out of it altogether.

I am not disagreeing with the Bill in principle. I believe it needs to be done but let us not cod ourselves that this Bill will solve the problem of uninsured driving. It will not. If we are serious about solving this problem we will take steps. I want to make a couple of suggestions to the Minister because there is something he can do. I want to make it quite clear I am not blaming the Minister for this for one second. There has been among the various Ministers and civil servants who have been in this Department a complete lack of recognition of the very real problem which exists and is now growing to crisis proportions in relation to uninsured driving.

I believe something could be done within this Bill. I cannot remember what the reason is but I know there is some reason why the disc proposed by Deputy Molloy and which was originally proposed by the Commission on Motor Insurance in 1981 is impractical. I gather there is some substantial reason why that is not on but there is no reason in the world why every driver should not be obliged to have with him or her, when driving a car, evidence that he or she is insured. The figures quoted by Deputy Molloy which indicate that about half of the people stopped for insurance and charged afterwards are acquitted in court on production of an insurance certificate is a fair indication of the lack of concern among the public in relation to the whole question of insurance. When people are stopped by a member of the Garda Síochána and are asked to produce evidence of insurance they have 14 days within which to produce their insurance certificates at a station named by them. I am always amazed that in 30, 40 and 50 per cent of cases people either forget or do not bother to produce their insurance certificates, the result being that all of the time of the court is taken up when those cases are ultimately thrown out. There is also the cost involved for the driver.

There should be a law whereby any person who drives without evidence of insurance on him or her could have the car he or she is driving confiscated. If this were done as a temporary expedient for a couple of years in order to bring home to our motorists the seriousness of this problem I believe we would get somewhere with it. It is a question of enforcing the law. That is something the Minister could consider doing in this Bill. He could bring in an amendment on Report Stage which would deal with that problem. I urge him to take a serious look at this. I have no objection at all if it is put down with a limitation of two or three years on it to see if it might deal with the problem.

The greatest proportion of uninsured people driving cars are young people. The reason there is such a significant proportion of uninsured young drivers is that they cannot get insurance. Young people are being discriminated against to an outrageous degree. I know it has always been accepted as reasonable by the Department and by previous Ministers that because young people have a record of more accidents they should pay a higher premium. That is all right within reason but the whole principle of insurance is that you spread the load over as many people as possible. They may regard that as an acceptable exception to that rule but at the moment, either because young people cannot get insurance at all, or because the premiums charged by the few companies who will provide insurance to young people, are so high, practically speaking, they are not being offered insurance.

That problem has to be tackled and this Bill will not do it. The only way to do it is to reduce the cost of insurance for young people. If that causes some interference by the Government and by this legislature into the free marketing operation of the insurance industry so be it. You cannot say to young people: "We are charging you £1,500 or £1,000 for your insurance premium because young people have a bad driving record" and expect those young people who have just acquired a licence to get experience anywhere. They will not get experience if they cannot drive the car. The problem has to be faced up to. We have 20 per cent of our drivers uninsured and, amongst them, a great number of young people who are being forced into the commission of criminal offences because we will not recognise that they have a very real problem in that they are not being accommodated within the insurance market.

I am completely fed up with the response I have been getting from different Departments. I am told on the one hand that we have a declined cases agreement and that young people will not be refused insurance on the grounds of age alone. I am told by companies that they would never refuse to insure people because they are young or because of their age alone. When you got a young person to approach an insurance company up to a couple of months ago you were told: "sorry, we do not deal with young people". I have a letter here from an insurance company. I will not put their name on record. I indicated in a question I put down in the Dáil some months ago that only one company in the motor insurance business would cover young people. This company would deny that. They claim they never refuse insurance. I have a letter from an inspector in one of their provincial offices headed: Re Motor insurance for Mary Blank who is the daughter of Mr. Blank who got the letter. Mr. Blank was written to as follows:

We refer to the above. We have referred the proposal form to our Head Office and we regret we are unable to quote due to the age of your daughter.

When I claimed in this House that that was the position with every insurance company bar one, it was not accepted. When I pursued it with supplementary questions a few weeks ago, I know I was irritating the Minister. I regretted that. I know his civil servants did not agree with a word I was saying. The reality is not being accepted within the Department of Industry, Trade, Commerce and Tourism. I do not know about the Department of the Environment. The Minister is here now, and I am hoping to get some action. Motor insurers are refusing young people the opportunity to drive with insurance because of high premiums. They are being refused insurance because the motor insurance industry does not want their business. That is the real problem. We are skirting around the issue. I am not against this Bill. It is important but it does not deal with this problem.

It is important that the merit of the amendment is not lost sight of because of comments relating to the availability of insurance for young or elderly drivers whom I would like to include.

Hear, hear.

It is very important that this amendment is seen within the context of the Bill as a means of highlighting the fact that non-insured cars are a serious problem. I dispute with the last speaker the suggestion that raising the fine would not act as a deterrent. I feel it would. I should like to see the fine much greater than the level at which it is pitched.

We cannot be so naive as to believe that people who can purchase a motor car and petrol cannot pay insurance. The one in five or the 20 per cent figure has to be critically analysed. Out of that 20 per cent a proportion of young drivers emerges and a proportion of elderly drivers emerges. That is not the entire problem. I am sure Deputy Molony realises that there is a practice whereby insurance is deliberately avoided by buying and selling secondhand cars very rapidly to stay ahead of the machinery which technically can catch people for registration and insurance.

I refer to the practice of buying a secondhand motor car and selling it within the year, and continuing on like that. This is rampant in Dublin. Anyone who feels that it is a question of not being able to carry the insurance burden is not putting the matter in perspective. There are some remedies which can be taken from a practical point of view. I would like to see whether insurance could be tied in with taxation on an annual basis to make it easier for people to cope with the problem of planned payments.

If insurance companies are discriminating against a particular sector of motor users, it should be possible within the EEC context to consider international coverage. Perhaps a person could buy a policy cheaper in Italy, or England, or Germany which would give international coverage. When one is going abroad it is not very expensive to extend the insurance cover. When there is a head office or a branch in another country this can be done by a stroke of the pen without incurring any other cost. The Minister should consider rationalising insurance on an international basis.

It should be mandatory to have a visual display of insurance cover on all vehicles. If Deputy Molloy's request to increase the fine were accepted in the spirit in which it is presented, this would underline the Minister's intention. I have no doubt that he is serious in his intention. It is a very difficult problem, but there would be no loss of face involved in recommending an increase in the fine. I remember when another Bill was going through, an amendment by the Opposition to increase the fine was accepted in that spirit. The House is united in addressing itself to the question of non-insurance.

I should like to speak briefly about insurance for the elderly. It is suggested that young people cannot get insurance because they are discriminated against and companies are not willing to insure them as first purchasers of insurance. How would the House feel about drivers with an excellent record of driving for 30, 40 or 50 years, and yet when they arrive at a certain stage, their policies are loaded purely on account of their age rather than because of a medical fitness test? That practice should not be accepted. I hope when the Minister is replying he will refer to elderly drivers and particularly those who have had a safe driving record over the years. They should not be loaded unnecessarily.

The nub of this matter is a commercial one. It is a question of insurance companies being in the market place for business. If there is open competition on an international scale, and if there is business to be sought, given the tight recession in which we find ourselves the insurance companies should be only too willing to get in there and quote at every possible opportunity. It will be necessary to have an obligatory fitness test for insurance, where the people most fit to drive will get insurance at the cheapest rate. The cost can also be borne almost as a purchase tax through the sale of petrol. There are many ramifications to the Bill. I appeal to the Minister, as a gesture of goodwill, to accept Deputy Molloy's amendment.

Two points have been made, one by Deputy Molony and the other by Deputy Brady, to which I should like to refer. I should like to be associated with the remarks regarding young people who have problems obtaining motor insurance. The premiums are so high that it is impossible for many young people to obtain motor insurance.

Deputy Brady spoke about insurance for elderly people. I know of a person over 80 years who has been driving for the past 40 years and who has an accident-free record. That person was requested by his insurance company to go for a medical examination by the local doctor who certified him fit to drive. Nevertheless, the insurance company refused to give him insurance cover. The man concerned is not well off and I made representations on his behalf to the company concerned. He has now to go to see a consultant surgeon in Ailesbury Road to find out if he will certify him fit to drive. That is ludicrous. The man has an impeccable driving record and he requires a car for travelling in and out of town. He is in good health, he has never had an accident and having regard to the care he takes in driving he is unlikely to have a road accident in the future. In my view he is being discriminated against in this instance.

An important matter and one where I consider there is a grave miscarriage of justice has not been mentioned in the debate so far. In my constituency in the past few years I have come across probably ten people who have received serious permanent injuries and who will never obtain any compensation. The interesting point is that they were travelling on vehicles that were insured. I am referring to pillion passengers on motor cycles.

The mileage on this section is getting excessive. I have allowed a lot of discussion on it. The emphasis is on non-insurance but the Deputy is talking about vehicles that are insured.

That is the point. In 80 per cent of cases a person travelling as a pillion passenger on a motor cycle is not insured. If he suffers permanent injuries following an acident he will not obtain any compensation unless he can bring a claim against the driver of the other vehicle. If the driver of the motor cycle hits a wall with no other vehicle involved and if the pillion passenger receives serious brain injuries he cannot claim compensation in at least 80 per cent of cases. The exception is the Norwich Union Insurance Company who provide cover for approximately 20 per cent of motor cyclists but this means that 80 per cent of pillion passengers cannot make any claims and get compensation.

We are talking about penalties and fines, not about the insurance involved in the case of unfortunate accidents. What the Deputy is referring to is a matter for the Minister for Industry, Trade, Commerce and Tourism.

I think some penalties should be imposed in the cases I mentioned. I put the question whether it is not necessary to impose a penalty on the driver of a motor cycle who carries a pillion passenger and who has not cover for that passenger? The existing situation cannot continue. In my view a minimum of 1,000 people have suffered permanent injuries but they have not obtained any compensation. It is essential that some kind of cover be provided for pillion passengers.

That has nothing to do with the Bill before the House. It is a matter for another Minister. The Deputy has made a passing reference to the problem and I would be obliged if he would come back to the amendments before the House.

The point I am making is in order.

There is an obligation to impose a penalty on the driver of a motor cycle who carries a pillion passenger where this person receives injuries and has no claim for compensation. If drivers of motor cars carried passengers who were not covered by insurance there would be uproar in the country.

This amendment is dealing with penalties and fines incurred as a result of non-insurance. You have made that point very often and I would be glad if you would return to the amendment under discussion.

I am happy to co-operate with you but the point I made is perfectly logical and within the ambit of the Bill.

You have made the point already.

An effort must be made to ensure that the penalty for anyone who permits pillion passengers to be carried on motor bikes is more severe.

Deputy Molloy made the point that district justices have been very lenient with some people who had not insured their vehicles. He said that, where a person with no means is brought before the courts, justices are faced with the choice of sending them to jail or not imposing a fine. In general the courts have made every effort to comply with the Road Traffic Acts. There are many instances where judges impose the maximum fines and, in many instances, even for a first offence, they have suspended people from driving.

And they have sent them to jail.

They have suspended them for specific periods on their own volition because they fully realise the dangers of allowing people to drive motor vehicles without insurance. It is necessary to allow judges some discretion because there are many instances of people who drive cars in exceptional circumstances without insurance. Perhaps the owner of a car becomes seriously ill and someone else in the house may bring him to hospital although they are not covered to drive. In a case like that there must be discretion to impose a reduced fine. To impose a mandatory, minimum penalty would not be the correct procedure to adopt. I hope that judges will go along with the Minister's general intentions to try to make it more difficult to drive without insurance and to increase the fines on people who do so. I am also pleased that the Minister is increasing the mandatory disqualification from six months to 12 months for second offences. That is necessary and desirable and will be of benefit in reducing the number of people driving without insurance.

Many speakers have mentioned the necessity for having motor insurance discs displayed on vehicles. However, the problem with regard to that is that the law at present requires the person using the vehicle to be insured, not the vehicle. Under the Road Traffic Act, 1961, the person using the vehicle must be insured or guaranteed. The vehicle cannot be used by people other than the owner unless they are insured or guaranteed and have the owner's permission. The fact that an up-to-date motor insurance disc is displayed on a vehicle is not proof of the identity of the person in charge of the vehicle, so that a person who takes a vehicle without the owner's permission displaying a disc would be regarded as driving lawfully by the Garda and there would be no questions asked. Of course if the vehicle had been stolen it would not be covered because the driver did not have the owner's consent to drive. We must amend our legislation to cover that point.

The passing of legislation in regard to drunken driving has resulted in a reduction in the number of road accidents and An Foras Forbartha statistics prove this. I hope the amendments before the House at present will mean a further reduction in road accidents.

Before we pursue the matter of insuring a vehicle, we should study the situation regarding taxation of a vehicle. I have come across a case to which I wish to draw the Minister's attention. A summons was sent to my home address from the Parking Fines Office in Coleraine Street, Dublin, in the name of a person c/o my home address. I know the person involved although he is not from my constituency and he did not have my permission to register his vehicle at my address. I intend to hand a copy of the summons to the Minister so that he can investigate the matter. I sorted out this matter with the fines section but I was amazed to discover that the vehicle was taxed by the taxation officer in Roscommon on the basis of the information given by the person involved. I was not informed by the Motor Taxation Office or the person that they were using my address for taxing the vehicle. The person is not from County Roscommon. I recall a person of that name but I have had no personal contact with the person concerned. The Fines Office are now unable to trace the person concerned because the address given was totally inadequate. The Minister might examine the matter of information given by individuals to the motor taxation offices.

That will arise later on in the section. We are now dealing with non-insurance.

In relation to insurance what I am saying is that our spokesperson has advocated the placing of a disc——

We are dealing now with penalties for non-insurance——

Yes, in the section as a whole——

We are at present dealing with Deputy Molloy's amendments Nos. 2 and 3 and the Deputy is pre-empting the balance of the section.

I should like to come back to——

The Deputy cannot come back to it.

If the amendments are dealt with——

When we come to the relevant part of that section.

Generally in relation to motor taxation the amendments put forward by our spokesperson should be accepted by the Government. There is a major crisis obtaining in relation to the non-insurance of vehicles. The points made by Deputies Molony and Enright in relation to the cost of motor insurance are very relevant. The Government should take more positive action to bring down the cost of insurance to young drivers.

That is a matter for the Minister for Industry, Trade, Commerce and Tourism.

Well, Deputies Molony and Enright dealt with the actual cost of insurance.

All passing references.

I am entitled to a passing reference as well. In relation to the amendments I can only support those put down by our spokesperson. Indeed, one amendment referred also to the displaying of a disc, but was ruled out of order. I would again ask the Minister to reconsider his decision to rule that out of order. I do not see any reason why the amendment put down by our spokesperson should have been ruled out of order.

I might revert to the situation regarding the overall question of penalties and fines because the question of the non-insurance of vehicles has reached crisis proportions at present. I believe that the cost of insurance to everybody has been increased because of the number of uninsured vehicles being used, the number of accidents in which they have been involved and the cost of which has been loaded on to people who have not been responsible for such accidents. That is why our spokesperson has advocated this strong line in relation to the non-insurance of vehicles. The point made by the Minister, and which was mentioned by other former Minister in this House, that the amendment put forward provided a disc for the display of——

They are amendments Nos. 7 and 8 on section 3. We are dealing with amendments Nos. 2 and 3 only.

I am dealing with amendments Nos. 2 and 3 in relation to fines——

The two amendments ruled out of order are Nos. 7 and 8 on section 3.

I am referring to the actual fines being imposed under amendments Nos. 2 and 3 put forward by Deputy Molloy. The reason people are not insuring their vehicles is the cost and, unless the Government move on that, this problem will recur constantly.

The one hope of devising a national insurance scheme for young drivers is through the PMPA, which is now a State-run and controlled insurance company and which, with the support of the levy at present, is being supported by every other insurance company and insured driver. I believe the PMPA could be given a certain allowance to devise a cheaper insurance scheme for younger drivers.

The debate has been interesting and wide-ranging over the whole of the insurance area. As you said, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, most of the comments made are more proper to another Minister. We are dealing here with increased penalties for certain offences under the Road Traffic Acts and therefore I must confine myself to that brief and also to the amendments.

At the outset I gave a full explanation of why I felt Deputy Molloy's suggestions would not constitute the best way to deal with the problem, that perhaps it would take away discreation from the Judiciary. That would not be good justice; it may be better law but I do not think it would be so good on the justice side. Therefore, I consider the proposals contained in the Bill constitute the better method.

The provisions in the Bill increase the maximum penalty for uninsured drivers to £1,000, a very large increase. Evidence we have suggests that when penalties are increased usually the Judiciary take due notice and have increased fines accordingly. This happened when stiffer penalties were introduced for drunken driving under the 1978 Act, when the then maximum went from £100 to £500, which was reflected in higher fines imposed by justices throughout the country. Bearing in mind the intense feelings of all Members of the House about uninsured drivers, the difficulties they are causing, their numbers and the fact that they are making everybody else's insurance more expensive, I am satisfied that justices will take note of what has been said in this House and will avail of the greater latitude the provisions of this Bill will afford them in the area of fines.

I might also point out that under the provisions of this Bill it is proposed to increase the period of mandatory disqualification for a second or subsequent offence within three years from six months to one year. Therefore we are not just providing that the fines be heavier but we are also increasing the mandatory disqualification period by six months which can be a very heavy penalty on somebody who is dependent on a car but who through negligence had not insured it.

I would prefer that the amendments would be withdrawn and that Deputy Molloy would accept the case I have made. We consider this to be the best way forward in this area. In any event, I would have to oppose the amendments, but I should prefer that they be withdrawn. Nevertheless I want to give the Deputy a small bit of information which may be of some help to him. While his amendment No. 7 has been ruled out of order — and other speakers mentioned that fact in the course of the debate — I might inform the House that I have been advised that section 11 of the Road Traffic Act, 1961, contains adequate powers to make regulations requiring the display of an insurance disc on vehicles. Following consideration of the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Cost and Methods of Providing Motor Insurance a statement was issued in October 1983 indicating the Government's intention to introduce a requirement on those lines. The preliminary views of the insurance company interests and of the Garda have been obtained and are being considered by my Department. As I indicated in reply to a parliamentary question on 15 May, further discussions have been arranged to finalise details of the requirements, including the commencement date. I shall be announcing the details of the scheme for having discs displayed on motor cars and vehicles generally in the near future. I hope that will ameliorate Deputy Molloy's attitude to these amendments and that he will see his way to withdraw them.

Could the Minister give the House his estimate of the numbers of uninsured drivers in the country? The figure I stated — an estimated 150,000 — needs some official confirmation as to whether it is a correct estimate and whether it would represent a loss to motor insurance of approximately £50 million. Can the Minister also tell the House what is the loss to insurance arising from the numbers of people uninsured?

I am very cautious about Deputy Molloy's demand for statistics. I do not want to come up with statistics here for which I have no basis and we have no basis in our Department for any statistics under the heading for which he has asked me. Therefore, I would not use this House to inform him and the rest of the country that there is a certain level of uninsured drivers that is known. I am afraid that that statistic is not known to us. Estimates could be made but I would not suggest that they would be even remotely correct.

It is surprising that the Minister cannot indicate what he thinks is the extent of this problem of uninsured drivers. That is very disappointing. I ask the Minister if he will reconsider his answer. Surely with the compilation of comprehensive information in regard to motor vehicles, the number of vehicles on the road and the number of people with driving licences and the Department's responsibilities under the Road Traffic Act in regard to uninsured drivers, that is not asking too much. Are we exaggerating the problem? Are the Motor Insurance Bureau of Ireland and the Automobile Association exaggerating the problem? What is the opinion of the Minister for the Environment and his Department? Surely they have something to say about this. The number of outstanding claims has been increasing at such a rate and now stands, if Deputy Molony's figure is correct — I have not the figure for 1983 — at £40 million. Surely that is a serious scandal.

That is not comparable with the figure the Deputy quoted.

This problem is massive and it is important that the Minister put on record what his views are in regard to the extent of the problem.

I am not in the business of giving misinformation, but I will give for the Deputy the number of offences on which proceedings were taken in the last, say, two years.

I have given that already.

This is the best estimate we have. In 1982 it was 62,264 for compulsory insurance offences and in 1983 the figure was 91,147. This is the closest indication of the level of the problem.

Deputy Molloy referred to the figure I quoted. He said that claims last year cost the Motor Insurance Bureau £13 million. That is correct. That was the value of the claims settled or dealt with in 1983. The figures that I referred to were calculated by the Motor Insurance Bureau as the cost of all outstanding claims notified to them. My purpose in quoting those figures was to show the rate of success. At the end of 1982 the value they put on all outstanding claims notified to them was £27.6 million. The value of all outstanding claims notified to them a year later was £42 million. As Deputy Enright pointed out, the accident rate has been dropping and that would indicate that the level of insurance is increasing rapidly.

I express sympathy with the Minister here. Obviously Deputy Molloy would like the Minister to give him the information he seeks, but it is impossible to assess precisely the number of uninsured drivers on the roads. The only way to check that is for every driver in the country to be stopped and his insurance certificate checked out. There is no other way to do it; you can "guesstimate" after that. A survey carried out by the Garda somewhere in the west showed the level of uninsured drivers as 22 per cent, an indication that the matter is serious. The level of prosecutions in the District Court is an indication that the matter is serious. The figure was accepted at 10 per cent in 1981. On that basis consider that the level of outstanding claims on the Motor Insurance Bureau is increasing. Recognising that the accident rate is dropping and considering that increase, it does not surprise me that the Motor Insurance Bureau, very much an establishment body not given to exaggerated claims in regard to any statistics, are now satisfied that the level of uninsured driving is of the order of 20 per cent. The situation has reached catastrophic proportions and must be dealt with.

I want to raise one further point on the section or it may be appropriate on the amendment. Perhaps the Minister will consider on Report Stage providing for a penalty of compulsory community service for a person convicted of uninsured driving. Jail might serve as a deterrent but expense is involved in maintaining people in prison. The effect of the section and particularly of Deputy Molloy's amendment if accepted——

That involves another Department, the Department of Justice.

The effect of Deputy Molloy's amendment if accepted would be that district justices would have to impose penalties of a certain amount and under the existing provision a person who fails to pay a penalty is imprisoned for a period of time. Judges will impose substantial fines even if Deputy Molloy's amendment is not accepted. Judges will have the power to impose fines of up to £1,000. If a judge imposes a fine on a man of straw, a person who has no money, of £500, £600 or £700, that fine will not be paid and the person will have to go to prison. That will be unpleasant for the person, equally unpleasant for the Minister for Finance who will have to pick up the tab for it, and for the taxpayer who is already overburdened. Perhaps the Minister will consider imposing a mandatory sentence of community service on somebody who has committed what is, after all, the violently anti-social offence of driving uninsured. That might be a solution to the problem.

I do not know why Deputy Molony rose to correct some figures which I gave when he merely confirmed the figure that I had already given. I mentioned that claims of £13 million were made each year against the Motor Insurance Bureau and I said also that the figures given by the Motor Insurance Bureau in regard to the number of outstanding claims against uninsured motorists was £27 million odd in 1982. I had not the figure for 1983, which he tells us has gone to £42 million. That amount in outstanding claims is clear evidence of the rapid increase in the number of uninsured drivers on our roads, claims jumping up from £11 million in 1980 to £18 million in 1981, £27 million in 1982 and now, if the figure is correct, £42 million in 1983.

The Minister's response has not indicated to us that he is alarmed as we and some Deputies on his own side of the House are in regard to this matter. The amendment which he has asked me to withdraw was recommended by a Government-appointed body, the Prices Advisory Committee on motor insurance. In their report they recommended the need for legislation of this kind. I am sure that the people appointed to that committee by the Government at that time would all have been very responsible, with wide experience of motor insurance and the operation of the Road Traffic Acts. Their opinion was that a mandatory fine of the kind mentioned in the amendment would be necesary to act as any kind of serious deterrent and that automatic disqualification would be warranted in the case of deliberate non-insurance. If the Government are not prepared to go so far at this stage, we will not push it to a vote; but if the amendment is not acceptable to the Government we would like to hear of some positive moves which would act as a serious deterrent. Therefore, I am pleased to hear the Minister confirm that, though my amendment in regard to the placing of an insurance disc on motor vehicles has been ruled out of order here, he is now of opinion that under the Road Traffic Acts he is empowered to make regulations enabling the compulsory carrying of insurance discs to be introduced. If that is so, all we can do is welcome that move and urge him to come forward with the changes and implement the new regulations as quickly as possible. We feel that that certainly will act as a major deterrent. I hope the Minister can do that at an early date. In view of the Minister's decision to introduce insurance discs I am withdrawing the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 3 not moved.

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 4, after line 8, to insert the following subsection:

"(7) The following subsection is hereby substituted for subsection (2) of section 112 of the Principal Act:

‘(2) A person who contravenes subsection (1) of this section shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £1,000 or, at the discretion of the court, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or to both such fine and such imprisonment;

(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding £2,000 or, at the discretion of the court, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to both such fine and such imprisonment.'.".

The purpose of this amendment is to increase the penalty for an offence under section 112 of the Road Traffic Act, 1961, where a person uses or takes possession of a vehicle without the consent of the owner or without other lawful authority. The maximum penalty for such an offence is a £50 fine or six months imprisonment or both. The amendment proposes to provide for a maximum penalty on summary conviction before the District Court of a £1,000 fine or 12 months imprisonment or both. This penalty is consistent with those for the most serious offences outlined elsewhere in the Bill. However, because the unlawful taking of cars is now a more serious and pervasive problem than was the case when the 1961 Act was introduced, it is proposed to provide also for the option of trial by jury for such offences. Conviction on indictment will attract the maximum penalty of a £2,000 fine or five years imprisonment or both.

We support the amendment. Undoubtedly the taking of vehicles without authority has become a very serious problem. In the earlier years it was more of a Dublin problem but unfortunately the epidemic has spread to the provinces also. The law needs strengthening in regard to this offence. Consequently, we welcome the Minister's proposal.

I should like the Minister to clarify the position in regard to the EEC Council of Ministers directive of 30 December 1983. I understand the directive was designed to secure more equal treatment throughout the Community for victims of traffic accidents, requiring member states to have compulsory motor insurance cover up to certain specified limits in order to make compensation available to innocent victims of traffic accidents which are caused by uninsured, stolen or unidentified vehicles. There is some confusion as to when the directive is to be implemented. I understand the directive requires that national laws be amended by 31 December 1987 and that the provision is to be in operation by December 1988. In reply to a parliamentary question recently the Minister indicated that there is an extension of four years in respect of this country. This would mean that we would not be required to have the legislation in operation before 1992. The Minister stated that he would be introducing amendments to this Bill to cover points in regard to compensation for damage to motor vehicles that have been stolen but he has not put forward any amendment on those lines. Perhaps he was mistaken on the occasion in question.

I, too, support the amendment but it is necessary also that the Minister play a part in trying in some way to coèrce the manufacturers of cars to make it very much more difficult for cars to be stolen. The Minister will appreciate that we support the amendment fully in respect of the imposition of fines. In many cases cars are being stolen by young vandals, vandals perhaps of a very strange kind because the practice in Dublin is merely to steal a car for the purpose of joyriding. This can result in tragic accidents, as was the case recently. In some areas of Dublin cars are being stolen and then burned. Apart from the imposition of fines the Minister should make it mandatory that certain types of locking devices are fitted to cars at the point of manufacture. This would be the best deterrent. Substantial amounts by way of claims in respect of malicious damages related to stolen cars are coming before the local authority in Dublin. In Cork also the figures are outrageous in this respect.

There are some cars that are very easily stolen and, strangely, these are usually the most expensive cars. The BMW, for instance, is regarded as a very easy car to steal because it is very easy to start whereas other cars which are difficult to start will not attract vandals. Perhaps the Minister will comment on the possibility of manufacturers being obliged to fit certain types of locking devices on cars. We are not talking about something that will be of any cost to this State but more about the manufacturers playing their part, fulfilling a social obligation in helping to come to grips with the whole problem of the stealing of cars instead of engaging in advertising which glamorises the fast driving of cars. This matter has been raised before in the House but the Minister has an opportunity now of doing something about it.

Obviously, all sides of the House are in agreement with this amendment. Regarding the point made by Deputy Molloy, in the course of discussion of another road traffic Bill to be brought before the House, the directive to which he refers will be considered but it cannot be considered in the context of this Bill.

In answer to Deputy Brady, it was stated in a press release of October 1983 that the Minister for Industry and Energy would be consulting with the motor industry on the possibility of securing facilities such as car locks. I am dealing here only with the question of penalties so I cannot take up the Deputy's excellent suggestion.

What is the date of the letter? Was it last year?

It was a press release in October 1983.

I am surprised that something more positive has not been done to make motor vehicles more difficult to start up and drive away. I should like to draw the Minister's notice to a device invented by two Galway men. It is a tube lock for a motor car which is linked to the brake and the gear stick. When it is locked with a heavy lock it is impossible to put the car into gear or release the brake. It is impossible to steal such cars. The tube lock can be purchased for £30. I defy anyone to steal a vehicle which has a Galway tube lock fitted to the brake handle and the gear stick.

We are only dealing with fines.

We have to suffer the high cost of compensation awarded as a result of accidents and damage to motor vehicles which are stolen. In far too many cases the loss to the nation has been one of loss of life. I remember some years ago people who were travelling from the west to the Fianna Fáil Ard Fheis had to pass a tragic road accident near Kinnegad where several young people were killed in one car. It was a BMW.

The Deputy has made the point.

The loss of life is enormous and the cost of compensation is phenomenal. Surely something more positive could and should have been done about this before now. The simple lock device designed in Galway is only one of a number of similar such devices which, if made compulsory, could eliminate the problem of stolen motor cars. I recommend that all owners of motor cars in the Dublin area who have to park in areas which are not secure should purchase a Galway tube lock. I guarantee their car will not be stolen.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 5:

5. In page 4, after line 8, to insert the following subsection:

"(8) Section 113 of the Principal Act is hereby amended—

(a) by the deletion in subsection (1) of ‘in a public place', and

(b) by the subsection of the following subsection for subsection (2):

‘(2) A person who contravenes subsection (1) of this section shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £350 or, at the discretion of the court, to imprisonment for any term not exceeding three months or to both such fine and such imprisonment.'.".

The purpose of this amendment is to increase the penalty for an offence under section 113 of the Road Traffic Act, 1961 for interfering or attempting to interfere with the mechanism of a vehicle while it is stationary or to get into or attempt to get into a vehicle while it is stationary. At present the maximum penalty is the general one in section 102 of that Act, namely a maximum of a £20 fine for a first offence; a maximum of a £50 fine for a second or subsequent offence or a maximum of £50 and/or three months imprisonment for a third or subsequent offence in any period of 12 months. The amendment proposes to increase the maximum penalty to a fine of £350 or three months imprisonment or both. This is in line with the penalty proposed in the Bill for moderately serious offences. The upgrading of the proposed penalty is a reflection of the fact that unlawful interference is now a more serious problem than when the original legislation was enacted. The opportunity is also being taken to extend the scope of this offence by removing the words "in a public place" from section 113 (1). This will mean that interference with the mechanism of a vehicle will be an offence whether committed in a public place or on private property. It gets over the anomaly that someone could be prosecuted under this provision where he interfered with a car on the street but not in the owner's driveway.

This amendment also deals with the problem of stolen cars. We support it. We recognise the necessity for it and hope it will in some way act as a deterrent to this epidemic which has struck Dublin and other urban areas.

There was a case in Dublin where somebody used a shotgun on a person who was stealing a motor car in the grounds of his home. I do not advocate that kind of deterrent. Can the Minister give a statistical breakdown on the number of cars reported interfered with in a public place and those within the confines of a private residence?

I welcome the amendment. This is an area where there was a void as regards implementation of the law. It would be helpful to know that statistic.

There are a sizeable number of traffic wardens on patrol in Dublin. Their job is to prosecute or put on-the-spot parking fines on illegally parked cars. Would the Minister think it a good idea if their duties were extended so that they could keep a more vigilant eye on cars? This would help to make it more difficult for people to steal cars. Traffic wardens are usually in the same area for a considerable length of time. They get a feeling for the area. They are watching motor cars and vehicles which are parked in public places. In many cases they see the owners leaving their cars. They would be the best watch dogs, so to speak, to counteract this type of crime. It is very difficult for a garda to spot a person getting into a car. It is very easy to do so as often keys are interchangeable. It is difficult to pinpoint that kind of crime. Traffic wardens who are on patrol all the time could be used to great advantage to make the law more effective. Perhaps the Minister will consider this.

In this amendment, the Minister stated that persons can be charged with breaking into a car on private property. Do I take it that under the present law nobody can be arrested for committing a crime of breaking into a car if it is parked on private property? I ask this question because only a week and a half ago a car was in the process of being broken into when the son of the owner of the car came home. He was a big burly chap and tackled the two people breaking into the car. He managed to detain them until the Garda were called. The Garda refused to arrest these people but warned the owner of the car that his son might well be taken to court for assault by the two people breaking into the car. Were the Garda correct in not arresting and detaining the two people caught in the act of breaking into the car because it was on private property? Is that the law at present?

To deal with the last question first, it is my understanding of the Road Traffic Act that this is not an offence. If the person stole the car in a private area it would be, but the act of getting into the car is not at present an offence.

I can give the number of offences in which proceedings were taken for stealing mechanically propelled vehicles and for unauthorised interference with them. In 1982 there were 4,395 offences proceeded with and 3,738 in 1983. Although the figure is down, I hope that means there has been a lessening in the number of offences.

Traffic wardens could keep a vigilant eye on activities in a particular area but unfortunately they are not in a position to take enforcement action. Nevertheless, they could, and usually do, act as a deterrent; but one of the problems is that they do not work at night.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 3, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Question proposed: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill."

In this section the Minister is introducing imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months in the event of the driver or owner of a vehicle contravening the maximum weight requirement and the maximum general fine has been increased to £350. I would like the Minister to give some indication why he considers it necessary to introduce imprisonment as part of the penalty for contravention in this case. If the Minister has knowledge of extensive contravention of the maximum weight requirement, would he tell us the extent of the problem as it affects our roads?

This section increases penalties under the Road Traffic Act, 1968, other than those covered by the general penalty. It also removes certain offences connected with weights of vehicles and the examination of vehicles from the scope of the general penalty and provides specific penalties for these. The creation of specific penalties for those offences, involving imprisonment for a first offence as an option available to the courts instead of or in addition to a monetary penalty, is necessary in view of the greatly increased number of heavy vehicles on our roads and the need to protect roads and bridges from damage caused by excessive loading, leading in turn to increased infrastructural costs.

A further objective is to ensure that the more liberal weight limits recently authorised are offset. These limits are economically justifiable on the grounds of more efficient transport of goods, but it is essential to ensure that breaches of the law which could offer considerable commercial or financial advantage should be discouraged. In addition, the section expresses certain vehicle weights in metric terms in line with the general Government policy on metrication.

What procedures are in operation to ensure compliance with the specified maximum weight requirement?

I am informed that there are special on-going discussions between the Garda and the Department in regard to enforcement under this section. These on-going discussions have not yet been completed.

Are we to take it that at present there are not any procedures whereby this requirement can be enforced?

Money is being provided for additional weighbridges where the Garda feel there is a need, because the incidence of this offence is increasing. It is hoped to have sufficient weighbridges in each country to make detection of this offence easier and to ensure that it is cheaper for vehicle owners to test their vehicle weights. These matters are being discussed at present. This section is very important and should be in situ while these discussions are taking place.

I asked this question because if a garda seeks to establish if the vehicle is within the required maximum weight it will be necessary for him to direct the driver to a location where there are facilities for weighing the lorry. This is why I wanted to know what facilities are in existence for complying with this requirement. The Minister is acknowledging that there are very few locations where the police may have vehicles weighed. If that is so, would the Minister give more information about what he intends to do about this? If a lorry driver driving west is stopped in Kinnegad by a garda who is of the opinion that the driver is not complying with the weight requirements, where would he direct the driver? If there is not a weighbridge within a reasonable distance this could involve an expensive delay for the driver and the lorry owner. Now that the penalties for this offence are being increased to include a term of imprisonment, I presume it will be obligatory on the State to provide adequate facilities throughout the country to enable the Garda to enforce these regulations without causing unnecessary and excessive expense to drivers who comply with the regulations.

I would like to support my colleague, Deputy Molloy. It is common knowledge that the law is being flouted in this respect on a daily basis. Many carriers openly admit that if they were to comply with the regulations they would be out of business. I remember attending a deputation from the carriers at the Department of the Environment and coming away quite depressed on two counts. First, it was openly acknowledged across the table that there was no way of complying with the axle tonnage laws being proposed; and second, and most seriously, the Department were concerned about the amount of irreversible damage being done to small roads, particularly small bridges and in urban areas the structural destruction of small homes by very large and heavy juggernauts which careered down side streets which were never intended to carry such traffic. The amount of damage being done to small houses by these juggernauts is appalling. All Deputies will have received complaints from constituents about damage of that kind.

I will take the Mountpleasant area in Dublin as an instance. It provides a short cut into which these giant lorries can go to avoid the main thoroughfares, and I doubt the practicality of identifying their weights from small signs on the trucks. Such lorries should be forced to carry recognisable weight signs so that people will be able to contact gardaí in towns and cities. I am not talking about small notices but about the need to have the weights displayed visibly so that some effort can be made to make the owners comply with the law.

There are two types of vehicles to which I would refer. One is used in the building construction industry and carries large loads of materials. The owners of such vehicles tend to comply with the law very strictly and I am not addressing my remarks to them. I am referring mainly to juggernauts which come from overseas with heavy loads or who take on loads here and move about openly, flouting the law. I particularly do not wish my remarks to be taken as directed at firms who comply with the law. Indeed some of them are very hard pressed to comply with the weight regulations. It is hard enough to get some of these vehicles through a road without talking of weighing them.

I suggest that the Minister would have to carry this a stage further. We must have visible weight displayed on such trucks so that people can protest to local gardaí. Some of these trucks are so unwieldy that when they hit icy patches of road they are lethal.

I support those who have spoken before me and join them in expressing great concern at the flouting of the law by the owners of overladen trucks which can do tremendous damage. I live in Celbridge and I have noticed many trucks definitely overloaded, but such observation would not stand up in a court of law. The Minister must make provision for the stopping of this by increased fines, or imprisonment if necessary. I would ask the Minister to consider the taking away of licences or, say, reducing the number of licences issued to offending hauliers: if one of the haulier's trucks has offended he should be made to lose one licence if his drivers are repeatedly breaking the law. The fine of £350 is too small to be a deterrent because if a driver is caught only once in 21 or 22 journeys the profits he would make out of overloading the truck would far outweigh the fine.

If such vehicles are owned by one company is it the company who will bear the penalty and will it be in respect of each offending vehicle? We need to be specific. Will we be imposing penalties in respect of each vehicle? An owner could switch one vehicle for another. Supposing he had three vehicles, AZW 123, AZW 124 and AZW 125, would there be only one offence or would there be three offences committed by the same owner? Would the Minister also tell us whether he is prepared to spend a certain amount of money to provide weighbridges at strategic points?

Is it the Minister's intention to provide sufficient weighbridges prior to the introduction of this section? Speaking about weights, the tendency is to treat lorries and trailers as one. I may have missed it, but is there provision to deal with this point — will it be the combined weight of trailer and lorry or will there be separate weights?

Section 4 deals with maximum actual weights. It deals with trailers as well as lorries. The provision of additional weighbridges would be necessary because under existing law a vehicle cannot be apprehended, shall we say, and taken to a weighbridge unless it was apprehended within five miles of such a weighbridge. Therefore, we will have to provide more weighbridges or deal with the distance a weighbridge can be from the scene of the alleged offence. In reply to Deputy Briscoe's point, penalties can be imposed for each vehicle and if there was suspected excessive weight all vehicles would have to be tested.

I should like to hear more about the weighbridges. Who will be charged with their provision? I would expect that it would be very costly to construct weighbridges of sufficient size to cater for these massive vehicles. I would be wary of the Minister's intention. He may decide to put further heavy cost on local authorities in view of the fact that the Government already are leaving local authorities short of funds to run existing services. Would the Department of Transport be responsible?

I am sure the Minister is aware that existing weighbridges will not be sufficient to cater for the types of trucks now on our roads.

I am aware of the inadequacy and the scarcity of weighbridges. I said earlier that if the section is to be put into operation seriously we will need more, larger and stronger weighbridges in many cases. It is my Department who will be responsible for paying for additional weighbridges.

I am not satisfied that the section will have any practical effect. Even if we are willing to increase the distance which a vehicle will have to travel to a weighbridge, even if it is increased by ten or 15 miles, I cannot see how this provision will work and I should like a re-assurance from the Minister.

I do not agree that vehicles will be able to move commercially around towns without using weighbridges. I would draw Deputies' attention to the big vehicles that go through the countryside to Rosslare. It would be impossible for them to get around this provision. Undoubtedly, it would be necessary to provide more weighbridges because the type of vehicles that will be using them will more or less be forced to travel on major roadways.

I cannot see this working at all. I suggest that weighbridges would have to be constructed on a national grid system so that they would be located at least 20 miles from each other. I accept one could see that system working out, but the first point would be to have an estimate of how many weighbridges would be needed. Secondly, on current costs if we take one weighbridge we can do a calculation then as to how many would actually be envisaged and what would be the cost.

Finally, I was rather taken aback that no reference was made to the destruction of property, both large and small. Constituents in the inner city here have asked me if a case could be brought against the Department of the Environment for destruction done to their homes, destruction substantiated by architectural reports and so on, where foundations have subsided and frontages have been damaged. At times the passage of a juggernaut can shake the whole house. I do not suggest the Minister can cope with all this but I would like him to take up the point with regard to the destruction of small homes and small bridges. I believe this whole matter was actually quantified by the Minister's Department and there are facts and figures available on the rate of destruction. Speaking from memory, I think in so many years time unless steps are taken a percentage of our bridges will become dangerous. I am not talking now of the principal bridges such as those across the Liffey or the Lee. I am talking about the smaller bridges all over the country which are not suited to the heavy traffic using them.

We are in agreement obviously on this and that is why we have increased the penalty for overloading. For a first offence it is imprisonment. The cost of a weighbridge would be about £50,000 and from memory I believe five could be supplied. The Garda have the right to make a spot-check and if they consider the weight is excessive they can require the driver to go to the weighbridge and have the lorry weighed. During the night huge trucks travel all over our main roads and travel within close proximity to weighbridges in the main towns of every country. I suggest the Garda should wait for the trucks to come to them rather than have the Garda go up the roads looking for the trucks. With the increased numbers of weighbridges provided over the years this increasingly serious problem will be resolved. We are introducing this section and we want it to be acted upon as quickly as possible. Possibly we are not geared to meet the problem now and so it is wise to take this matter into account.

Has the Minister any locality in mind for the construction of the first, second or fifth weighbridge he proposes to construct?

It has been suggested to me that this was in the Estimate. I have not got the Book of Estimates with me.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 5.

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 5, line 37, before "penalty so provided" to insert "monetary".

This amendment was discussed with amendment No. 1 earlier today.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 5, as amended, agreed to.
Section 6 agreed to.
SECTION 7.
Question proposed: "That section 7 stand part of the Bill."

Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 in the name of Deputy Molloy have been ruled out of order.

For some reason or other my amendment has been ruled out of order. I am sure the Minister will agree in relation to traffic accidents that there is a great danger to passengers in motor vehicles which do not have non-splintering type windscreens. There are plenty of statistics to show the seriousness of resulting eye injuries. Could the Minister give some indication whether he supports the proposal to make it compulsory, from a date to be fixed by the Minister, that all motor cars sold in this country be fitted with laminated non-splintering windscreens? I know that we cannot put this in the form of a motion, but could the Minister accede to my request?

I am in support of Deputy Molloy. The Minister has been very accommodating in relation to section 7 and I am quite sure that he is very concerned about this matter. That 100 cases of preventable serious eye injury occur here each year has been statistically recorded by an eminent eye surgeon, Mr. John Blake. There is incontrovertible evidence that toughened glass is causing this problem.

Is this a question which the Deputy is asking?

Absolutely. It is not quite understood that toughened glass, of its very nature, actually explodes on impact. Even if one is sitting in a car wearing a seat belt and travelling at 20 or 30 miles per hour a stone can hit the windscreen and cause it to explode, resulting in that person being permanently blinded. This can be easily avoided as Deputy Molloy has suggested, by the compulsory fitting of laminated windscreens. This is obligatory in the United States and many European countries. The cost is between £5 and £20.

Might I say that this is a very extended question?

It is important and I beg the Leas-Cheann Comhairle's indulgence on this. I have waited for many months to make this point. The Minister is concerned about the compulsory wearing of seat belts and about drunken driving, but this is one case where by a simple regulation, similar to that applying to a compulsory insurance disc, he would be preventing 100 cases of eye damage each year. The EEC supported the regulation seven years ago. Everybody with a knowledge of the subject agrees that it should be mandatory. It is a national scandal that this is not taking place here. I ask the Minister immediately to instigate a regulation making it obligatory for imported cars to have laminated glass windscreens.

This is not really relevant.

The Minister has been very accommodating.

So have the Opposition.

While accepting the Chair's ruling, I wish to tell the House that I am advised that section 11 of the Road Traffic Act of 1961 empowers me to make a regulation requiring the fitting of laminated windscreens to vehicles. The present regulation allows the use of toughened glass or laminated glass in windscreens and a review of the existing regulation had been previously prepared in view of the discussions at EEC level on the proposed directive on the subject. However, I have been recently informed that the prospects of an early adoption of that directive are now very slight. In addition, strong representations have been made to me by the medical profession in favour of making laminated windscreens mandatory. In the circumstances, I have had the position reviewed over the past few weeks and am glad to announce that, subject to certain consultations, it is proposed to make regulations requiring the fitting of laminated glass windscreens in vehicles first registered on or after 1 July 1985.

Excellent. I thank the Minister.

I want to thank the Minister for having made this decision which is, as he knows, in response to pressure from the medical profession and from the Fianna Fáil Party in previous debates in this House. I was then very critical that the Minister was not prepared to proceed to make his own decision. At that time, some months ago, he told me that he would not make a decision until the EEC directive on the matter was finalised. I thought that was a wrong decision and am glad that he has now changed it.

The Deputy makes it sound as if I did not do anything at all. I had to check out the EEC situation.

I am complimenting the Minister on making this change, which we consider to be very significant. It places an obligation on all motor car manufacturers to install laminated glass in cars which will come on the market for sale from whatever date the Minister has fixed. I would urge the Minister to introduce that new regulation as quickly as possible. The move from our side to have laminated windscreens fitted in cars has largely been motivated by Deputy Joe Walsh who had the unfortunate experience of being involved in a traffic accident in a car fitted with the old type toughened glass which shattered on impact. He suffered a very serious eye injury as a result and were it not for the expertise of the eye surgeon involved he would have lost the sight of one eye. He has been campaigning with the surgeon, John Blake, since then to have the fitting of laminated windscreen glass made compulsory for all cars. I am delighted that the Minister has now announced that he is prepared to do this and is empowered to do it under section 11 of the 1961 Road Traffic Act.

The House should know that the most serious eye injuries resulting from collision with the windscreens of toughened glass which shatter are usually caused when a car is travelling at moderate speed. Many people are not aware of that. Many of the accidents do not involve excessive speed. Those going at excessive speeds go through the windscreen so fast that the eyes do not have time to be injured. This is a very progressive step and I compliment the Minister on it. I look forward to the debate on the regulation.

May I also thank the Minister for giving the House this assurance? Where cars on the road at the moment have not laminated glass, the problem can be prevented by the wearing of some type of protective glass by the motorist. Corneal damage can be avoided in that manner. The Minister's regulation will apply only to new cars and at present 8 per cent have laminated and 92 per cent have toughened glass windscreens. The Minister could suggest the added precaution of wearing some type of safety glass.

I want to add a cautionary note for the Minister, that as from 1 July 1985 anyone having a shattered windscreen repaired should be allowed to replace it only by laminated glass non-splintering windscreen. In other words, the repairers should not be in a position to buy up stocks of the former type windscreen from the car manufacturers because that would not be contained in the regulation.

I want to give what I have as the present position in Ireland because I would not like to see every car owner descend on his local garage wishing to know if his car had a laminated windscreen. A recent review of the position in Ireland in relation to the use of laminated windscreens in motor vehicles has indicated that Ford, Toyota, Datsun, Fiat, Volkswagen, Leyland, Talbot, Vauxhall, Opel, Citroen, Peugeot and Renault fit laminated glass in the windscreens of virtually all new vehicles being marketed by them. Only in a few cases, such as Datsun and Renault for their cheaper models, and Leyland for the Mini, the Metro and the Acclaim, do manufacturers fit toughened glass in windscreens. The cost of fitting laminated windscreens is an optional extra and on new cars is about £40 to £50. About 90 per cent of new cars have laminated glass windscreens.

Will the Minister take note of my caution?

Question put and agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments and passed.
Top
Share