This Bill provides for increases in the penalties for offences under the Road Traffic Acts, 1961 to 1978. The penalties set out in the 1961 and 1968 Acts have remained generally unchanged since their original enactment, the main exceptions being those for drunk driving offences which were revised in the 1978 Act.
The fall in money values over the last 20 years has seriously lessened the deterrent impact of these monetary penalties. Accordingly, the Bill proposes to increase all of them to reflect current money values and living standards and to provide an adequate deterrent for some years to come. The existing legislation also allows for the imposition of prison sentences. These remain largely unchanged. Where changes are being made I will mention them when outlining the detailed provisions of the Bill.
The increased monetary penalties proposed in the Bill can be divided into three categories. The first involves the most serious road traffic offences, such as dangerous, drunk and uninsured driving. The maximum fine is being increased generally from £100 to £1,000 — that is the heaviest fine which the District Court can currently impose.
The second broad category involves the moderately serious offences. In general these have been punishable up to now by fines not exceeding £50. The Bill proposes to increase 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 third category relates to minor offences such as traffic and parking violations, not wearing a seat belt, speeding and so on. These are covered by the socalled "general penalty" laid down in section 102 of the Road Traffic Act, 1961, which relates to all minor offences under the Road Traffic Acts, and regulations made thereunder, for which no other penalty is specified. Section 2 of the Bill proposes to increase the maximum fine arising under the "general penalty" from £20 to £150, in the case of a first offence, and from £50 to £350 for second and subsequent offences.
With the exception of the amendments to sections 112 and 113 which were agreed in the Dáil, all the details of the proposed changes in penalties are set out in the Explanatory Memorandum, which I hope Senators will have found helpful. In broad terms section 2 increases the "general penalty" which I have already mentioned. Section 3 deals with penalties under the 1961 Act, section 4 increases those in the 1968 Act and section 5 is concerned with 1978 Act penalties. I am not going to give the Seanad the details of all the proposed increases which I have already summarised. Instead I will concentrate on some of the more important changes especially those differing from the general principles already set out.
Sections 3 and 4 provide for the transfer of offences relating to vehicle weights and dimensions from the "general penalty" category to that covering moderately serious offences. This will allow for the imposition of fines of up to £350 together with additional mandatory penalties of up to £650 depending on the excess weight a vehicle is carrying over the permitted level. The option of imprisonment for up to three months is also included. The proposed increases reflect the need for firm sanctions where breaches of the law may offer considerable commercial or financial advantage to hauliers. Permissible weights and dimensions of heavy goods vehicles were recently increased subject to additional controls over axle spacings and loadings. While these weight increases were justified on the economic grounds that they promote more efficient transport, I am concerned that infrastructural costs should not be increased because of damage to the road network caused by the failure of heavy goods vehicles to observe the revised regulations. I intend, in consultation with the Garda, to see that the new limits are fully enforced. As evidence of my intent in this area I have recently sanctioned the payment of grants amounting to £260,000 for the provision of additional weighbridges by local authorities at strategic locations and I intend to continue this programme in the coming years.
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 owner's consent or other lawful authority is being increased from the present maximum of a £50 fine or six months imprisonment or both to a maximum on summary conviction of a £1,000 fine or 12 months in prison or both. This removes the offence from the present moderately serious category and puts it into the serious category of offences. This is being done because of the growing problem of "joyriding" which has resulted in a number of tragic deaths of innocent victims and, indeed, of joyriders themselves. In addition, it is proposed to provide the option of trial by jury when conviction would attract maximum penalties of a £2,000 fine and/or five years imprisonment.
The penalty for unlawfully interfering with the mechanism of a vehicle is also being increased from the general penalty, that is a maximum £20 fine for a first offence and a £50 fine for a second or subsequent offence to a maximum fine of £350 or three months in prison or both. The opportunity is also being taken to extend the scope of this offence by removing the words "in a public place" from section 113 of the 1961 Act. 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 and gets over the anomaly whereby somebody can at present be prosecuted under this provision when he interferes with a car on the street, but not in the owner's driveway.
The penalty for dangerous driving resulting in death or serious bodily harm is being increased, on conviction on indictment, from a maximum fine of £500 to £3,000. The maximum custodial penalty remains at five years. On summary conviction, a maximum fine of £1,000 is proposed, compared with the existing maximum of £100. The maximum custodial penalty stays at six months. The provisions relating to mandatory disqualification remain unchanged.
The maximum penalty for uninsured driving is being increased from £100 to £1,000, while the maximum custodial penalty remains at six months. In addition, the consequential disqualification for a second or subsequent offence within three years is being increased from six months to one year.
The maximum monetary penalties relating to drunk driving offences, which were last set out in the 1978 Act, are being increased from £500 to £1,000, while the custodial penalties and provisions relating to consequential disqualification remain the same.
Having summarised the most important provisions of the Bill, I now want to make a few general points on related matters. Concern was expressed in the Dáil that the proposed increases in fines may be excessive, particularly in relation to minor offences covered by the "general penalty" such as illegal parking, speeding etc. I do not agree and I will explain why. Firstly, the levels of penalties proposed are generally less than would have been justified had full increases in the consumer price index been applied. The multipliers used are 7.5 in the case of the proposed £150 fine and 7 for the £350 fine compared with a multiplier of 9.5 if the Consumer Price Index were used. Also these penalties have to be set at a level which will provide an adequate deterrent and give the courts adequate discretion for some years to come. The proposed penalties are maxima. They represent the upper limits within which the courts will have to work in dealing with the vast range of road traffic offences coming before them each year. The purpose of the Bill is to provide an adequate and up-to-date framework for enforcement rather than to fix the fines which are actually going to be applied in each case. The courts encounter varying degrees of culpability in dealing with offences and it is important that they have at their disposal an adequate range of penalties to implement a fair and consistent sentencing policy. The proposed maximum fines will give them greater discretion than they have under the present limits to relate the penalty to the degree of seriousness of the particular offence.
In addition, while "general penalty" offences may be considered trivial, they have an important impact on general road safety. An Foras Forbartha's report on road accident facts, 1982 commented adversely on the high proportion of trucks exceeding speed limits, especially on approach routes to towns, and suggested 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 larger urban areas.
Another suggestion made is that there should be mandatory minimum penalties. For example, the Prices Advisory Committee report on motor insurance recommended that minimum penalties should be applied more extensively to offences under the Road Traffic Act. As I have already explained in the Dáil, I have not accepted this recommendation because of the difficulties which it would involve in regard to the courts' constitutional prerogative of administering justice. In 1983, some 416,000 road traffic offences, representing 57 per cent of all prosecutions, were brought before the District Court. Applying minimum penalties across such a wide range and diversity of offences would usurp the court's role in evaluating the degree of culpability involved in each case. Minimum penalties could also be unjust. For example, a minimum fine of £100 for insurance offences, as was suggested by the Prices Advisory Committee, would be very substantial and punitive for a person of limited means such as an old age pensioner. There is also the risk that minimum penalties might become the norm and thereby effectively represent maximum penalties.
The primary purpose of Road Traffic Acts and regulations and by-laws made thereunder is to enable our roadways to be used safely and efficiently and to a lesser extent to minimise the environmental inconvenience caused by vehicles. It is essential, therefore, that the enforcement of this legislation is not limited by the inadequacy of the sanctions at the disposal of the courts. A realistic level of fines must be maintained to provide proper support for the traffic wardens and the courts in their task of upholding road traffic law. I am convinced that the Members of this House, the general public and road users will support the proposed increases. Some statistics will serve to emphasise the importance of adequate sanctions and enforcement. Recent figures showed that 46 per cent of drivers killed in road accidents had a high blood alcohol level compared with 20 per cent of drivers in Britain. In 1983, the Garda took proceedings in the District Court for 10,222 drunk driving offences and 91,147 offences relating to insurance.
This Bill is only one of a number of measures I am taking in the road traffic area. A review of the Road Traffic Acts is also being undertaken by my Department with a view to preparing legislation to amend, improve and update the existing provisions in important areas — in effect, the present Bill, which tackles the most urgent problem of penalties is the first stage of the review process. As I mentioned already, revised regulations have been made governing the permitted weights and dimensions of heavy goods vehicles, additional weighbridges are being provided and measures to improve enforcement are being considered in consultation with the Garda. I announced recently that, subject to certain consultations, I proposed to make regulations requiring the fitting of laminated wind-screens to all new motor vehicles registered on or after July 1985.
In addition, I have developed a programme of road improvements aimed at eliminating major deficiencies in our road network within a reasonable period. This programme is being considered by the Government in the context of the preparation of the medium-term plan. Despite the present difficult economic situation, my Department will pay out £127.15 million in road grants in 1984, of which £101.65 million will be spent on road improvement and £25.5 million on road maintenance. These funds will enable significant progress to be made on the programme of road works outlined in the road development plan.
In conclusion I wish to thank the Members of the House for their attention and I look forward to the early passage into law of this Bill.
