David Norris (Independent)

I welcome the Minister and this important legislation. When I was young, owning a car was a luxury and there were not many around. Now we must face the problem caused by a great increase in road traffic, which is not exclusively an Irish problem. Neither are road fatalities just an Irish problem, as evidenced by a report published today highlighting the problem on an international scale. It refers to an epidemic, especially in developing countries, and to the very large number of children and young people who are slaughtered in road carnage. I welcome the fact that the Minister addresses that in the Bill with serious intent.

We are becoming inured to the problem, to the extent that we assume there will continue to be slaughter on our roads, particularly at weekends and bank holidays. I recently filled in for the presenter of a radio broadcast and reported that Gay Byrne had said it would be wonderful if, over the bank holiday weekend, Irish people had become so alert to the dangers that they avoided fatalities. It would be marvellous to be able to come on air and report that nobody had been killed over the weekend. I thought that was the case, because I could see nothing in the newspapers about it. However, I was apparently wrong because somebody phoned in and asked whether I listened to the news broadcasts on the radio station on which I presented, whereby I would have learned of seven deaths over the weekend. I consulted with the Minister's adviser and was told it was true. However, because they happened in ones and twos nobody paid any attention. There has to be a pile-up with multiple fatalities before there is any real media coverage. That says something about the way our feelings have hardened, so that we accept as a matter of routine the fact that people will be killed. Each death, however, is a tragedy for the person concerned and for his or her family.

On the subject of broadcasting, I commend the Government on appointing a well-known broadcaster, who has great respect and commands a wide audience, to a position in this area. We must communicate at a popular level. I would like the popular, commercial radio stations, to which young people and teenagers — the audience most at risk — listen, to insert information on the subject on a regular basis.

The Minister talked about the implementation of a new system of speed limits. That is welcome but a more radical approach would be even more so. As the Minister knows, I harp on about this continually and eventually the penny will drop. To achieve greater standards of safety on the roads it is necessary to command the respect of the driving public. The present speed limits do not do that and cannot do so because they are totally incoherent and random. Last weekend I drove to Blessington for a 90th birthday party. When one reaches the well-known watering hole, the Old Shieling in Jobstown, one passes from a three-lane motorway on both sides, on which the speed limit is 60 km/h, or 35 mph, to a winding country road with a speed limit of 100 km/h. That is daft. Why would anybody respect that? I am always told such matters are in the control of the local authorities but it should be taken out of their control. There should be a national controlling body to oversee the relevant limits and make them consistent, coherent and worthy of people's respect. Then they should be rigorously enforced. It is not fair to enforce absurd limits which contradict reason.

Why is there no consistency in road humps? I invite the Minister to travel along Londonbridge Road. I travelled along that road at ten or 12 mph the other day and I still nearly lost the back of my large old automobile. The humps are not rounded but akin to cliffs, from one side of which a driver tumbles vertically. That is also absurd and there should be some degree of standardisation, so that people will have respect for the authorities.

Tackling drunk driving, which is still, regrettably, endemic, is one of the main features of the Bill. We cannot address the subject purely from the perspective of road traffic. Visitors to this country constantly tell me that drinking, including drinking to excess, is part of our culture. We have licensed every newsagent in Dublin to sell hard liquor, beer and wine, and that is a problem. Why has the Government failed to act on the recommendations of a report it commissioned? I can supply the answer myself. It is because of the extraordinary strength of the vintners' lobby. The Government should face up to that lobby in the way it courageously did on the question of smoking in public places. It has not shown equivalent concern about excessive drinking. Until we address it we will not solve the problem of drink driving.

Earlier today I was listening to RTE 1 and a light hearted show with a Polish theme. It was like an advertisement for vodka. The message sent by the show was that a person was neither fully alive nor capable of having a good time unless he or she was absolutely plastered. Why do we continue to do that, and to continue to permit such a high level of advertising? I ask that as a fallible human being who, at the moment, both smokes and drinks. To embed such an idea in our culture causes great problems.

The Minister is considering mandatory testing but seems to avoid the words "random testing". Various constitutional issues have arisen on the subject, one of which seems to suggest that if gardaí singled out one person from a group for a breath test there might be a constitutional requirement to test every member of the group, which would be a waste of time. However, if there is a suspicion in the minds of gardaí that a person is drunk, they should have the power to test that person. I hope this legislation gives them the power to immediately stop a person for that purpose. I am not a sneak and informers are not popular, even when they clearly should inform like Deputy Ferris in the other House. However, I have, on occasion, telephoned from my car, on my hands-free set and having pulled in at the side of the road, to give a registration number and other details to gardaí of cars which were being driven dangerously. I remember one man on the Navan Road weaving right across the double white line in the centre of the road. He was obviously very drunk or very seriously ill and, I understand, was subsequently stopped.

I have a problem with fixed charges and disqualifications. If a person bites the bullet on foot of an accusation of drunk driving, he coughs up €600 and takes his medicine in the form of a six month disqualification. That is fine. If a person goes to court, however, he faces more severe penalties. I know what the Minister is trying to achieve but I have a problem with this in principle because access to the courts is a right as a citizen. It is not appropriate that citizens should be penalised for exercising their democratic right to contest a case in court. Neither is it fair; if people are equally guilty, they should get an equal penalty. This level of discrimination is wrong.

Hands-free mobile phone sets are for the time being exempt from this provision. I agree with Senator Dooley and others that the use of mobile phones is a curse, not just in this country. The worst example of this I have seen was in Cyprus, a lorry driver on the road from Limassol to Paphos was steering with one elbow, his phone at his ear, while he extracted a hair from his nose with his other hand. It is a mercy he did not cross the reservation and plough into a line of traffic heading the other way.

I have not seen the same here but I have seen bus drivers using mobile phones while driving. I saw a woman the other day turning a corner with one hand on the steering wheel while on her mobile phone. It is endemic and is not gender specific, it takes in all classes and categories of people, including gardaí. On the radio programme I hosted yesterday, someone phoned in to say he was on the M50 and had seen a Garda car with the driver on a mobile phone while entering the roundabout. There is an exemption for people in the legislation, a legitimate defence being phoning an ambulance or the gardaí. The gardaí are probably more or less exempt but they should be careful and should be limited in the use they make of this. It sets a bad example if the gardaí are seen using their phones. People will think that if the gardaí can get away with it, so can they. It is a problem that comes back to the question of respect.

I want to introduce a subject that is not directly related to road safety but that has a bearing on respect in terms of road traffic: clampers. I notice that Galway has got rid of them. I initially welcomed them, and was pasted by my friends in North Great George's Street for doing so, but I am less anxious to support clamping now. This is related to the privatisation principle included in this Bill.

On two occasions neighbours of mine, one of whom is a distinguished solicitor, found their cars clamped although they had a perfectly valid ticket visible through the windscreen and were within their time limit. Photographs were taken but on both occasions the clampers refused to present the photograph to the driver and insisted upon clamping the car, telling the owners that they had no right to see the photograph. The car owners pointed out that the ticket was in the car and within the time. The clampers replied that the ticket could have been bought any time but that is not the case because the ticket displays the time of purchase as well. On both occasions, however, the car owners gave in and paid. That is not fair. It is also wrong to have cars removed from highways and dumped in residential streets, as happens regularly in my area.

There is a suggestion in the legislation and the Minister's speech that public vehicles are routinely tested. I do not believe that. If they are tested, it is done badly. My car was initially refused a certificate a couple of years ago because of the absence of a tiny rubber nipple in the boot. I constantly drive behind buses, particularly tour buses, that belch out black smoke. That does not suggest they are being looked after.

There is an accident waiting to happen in O'Connell Street. The taxi rank was successfully moved out and at least half of the drivers were happy with where they were relocated. A big bite was then taken out of the central reservation, the taxis were put back and a bus lane was added. Do people not remember the tragedy at the Clarence Hotel involving a bus? That will happen again in O'Connell Street.

Worse still, even though it is attractive, there is no visual distinction between the road way and the footpath in the plaza outside the GPO. That was done to create the impression of a square but it is very easy for foreigners, elderly people and daft old bats like me to wander out under a bus. The paved areas should be clearly marked. Local authorities have a terrible responsibility because several tragic accidents have occurred due to the application of inappropriate road surfacing material.

It is absurd, as people on all sides of the House have agreed, that driving instructors should take a day off to deal with the driving test backlog, thereby creating a worse backlog. It has implications for young drivers because those who have not passed their test are penalised by having to pay far higher insurance rates because they do not have a full licence. Why should young people be penalised in this manner? It costs them a great deal of extra money.

The way to get us to drive more safely is to give us all reason to respect the rules of the road. The notices at county boundaries which detail the number of fatalities on the county's roads, and those that tell drivers belt up or pay up, are useful reminders. On occasion, I have noticed that I have forgotten to put on my seat belt and the sign has reminded me. Such stark notices with sensible messages are effective.