Local Government (Roads Functions) Bill 2007 - Second Stage Debate - 15th November 2007

Local Government (Roads Functions) Bill 2007 - Second Stage Debate - 15th November 2007.
Senator David Norris: I shall not need the time allocated. While having lunch I noticed the Minister was here, realised I had glanced through the Bill and wanted to make just two or three points. The Minister is aware of some of them.
I welcome the Bill as tidying-up legislation. There seems to be a good deal of that at the moment, a certain amount of revenue gathering and sharing and divvying out, so to speak. A large part of this Bill is a divvying out exercise as well, or part of it. Senator Boyle referred to his anticipation of further legislation giving details in this area. I welcome the fact that overall responsibility for non-national roads is being transferred from one Department to another and tightened.
I understand, however, there is no provision in the Bill for the creation of overall national supervision in terms of factors, for example, such as speed limits. This urgently needs to be addressed. I say it again, knowing it will look somewhat odd on the record of the House, if anyone in future generations bothers to read them. I have said this on a number of occasions before but it is the first time I have had the opportunity to put it to the Minister and the particular group of distinguished civil servants accompanying him.
In terms of road safety, for example, we need to gain the respect of citizens. We will not do that by having a chaotic, unco-ordinated and irrational system. I shall give one example, as I did yesterday in the road safety debate. The road to Tallaght goes past the Square, a three-lane highway with a very fine surface and a 60 km/h speed limit. One moves from that to a winding country road where the limit immediately goes up to 100 km/h. How can we possibly expect the ordinary citizen to respect the road network when we have this type of lunacy? Every time I raise this I am told it is not a function of central authority but is under the control of a large number of different local authorities. This is wrong and that chaos can be addressed legislatively by bringing the whole matter of the setting of speed limits into the national arena. There should be national standards, as well, in terms of road surface treatment. The situation is serious and we have had two major fatal accidents because of inappropriate road surface treatment. In other words, while I approve of the general direction of the legislation, it is not going far enough because significant bits are left out.
Another hobby horse to which I wish to give a brief and life-enhancing gallop this afternoon is the question of motor vehicle taxation. I note that this again is being transferred from one section to another, becoming centralised and all the rest. The Minister is on record in the media as advocating an increase in taxation for larger vehicles. I understand the rationale for that varies, the principal one being that it means more lolly for the Government to waste. I must put my cards on the table, however, and admit there is a personal element to my argument. I cannot afford to drive a Ford or a Volkswagen. I got my Jaguar for €4,000 or €5,000 because it was old and no longer a status symbol. I buy the cast-offs of the rich, as a great many people do, because they can afford big comfortable cars-----
Senator Fiona O'Malley: The Senator could have got a Ford for €4,000.
Senator David Norris: Would I, honestly? My goodness, the things one learns in this House.
Senator Fiona O'Malley: He might not look quite so elegant, however.
Senator Jerry Buttimer: Senator O'Malley could be behind the wheel.
Senator David Norris: Many people buy old cars and then find the tax is very high. I pay about half what I paid for the car in tax and that is daft. To increase it further is not necessarily an environmentally friendly measure because, for example, I do not use the car all that much. I used to cycle to Leinster House until I was knocked off my bicycle in O'Connell Street, which is extremely dangerous, as we know. The improvements to the visual aspects of O'Connell Street have actually made it more dangerous, as witnessed by the bus crash the day before yesterday. Therefore I will not be cycling down O'Connell Street if I can possibly avoid it, especially because the compensation one gets for being knocked off is not all that great. The last time I got less than €1,000, and I am not risking my life for that.
A number of people have these large cars and not because they are antagonistic to green issues. In fact the green issues and the environment would be better served by putting a tax on petrol. The possession of a car of whatever size does not affect the environment. What does are the emissions. I am out of the country for four months of the year. For four months of the year that car is immobile and yet I pay this enormous amount of tax. I happen to love it and believe it will be a classic car if I can afford to keep it. We should look at the question of putting a tax on petrol rather than increasing motor tax on large cars because that is when the polluter pays. If one does a lazy accounting exercise and simply increases the tax on a car just because it is large, regardless of whether it is used, that is inefficient. If the tax is put on petrol every time a car is taken out of the garage, someone pays, but in proportion to the expulsion of fumes from the vehicle.