Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are related and may be discussed together.
Motor Vehicle (Duties and Licences) Bill, 2001: Report and Final Stages.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 3, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following:
"‘tertiary roads' includes roads in housing estates taken in charge by a local authority".
This amendment is one which we discussed on Committee Stage. It is an attempt to get specific recognition in the allocation of moneys from the local government fund which have been collected from the proceeds of motor taxation. It is necessary to divert funds to smaller urban housing estate roads which are now the worst in the country. In some cases they were not particularly well constructed and are now in a very dilapidated state.
I appreciate that in recent years some money has been made available by the Department of the Environment and Local Government to local authorities for a programme of improvement works for these roads. When the amount made available is set against the needs to be met it is not sufficient. In this amendment I am asking the Government to give greater priority to these roads. If this does not happen, we will soon arrive at a more serious situation which will result in greater costs to the State as some of the roads in question will have to be reconstructed.
It is likely that we will see increasing numbers of claims from users of these roads who have accidents, either as motorists, cyclists or pedestrians. There is a special case to be made for roads in urban areas on which there is very heavy traffic. These are the roads used by the majority who pay road tax, which is supposed to go towards the maintenance of the road network. While the Minister was not inclined to accept this amendment on Committee Stage, I hope he has reconsidered it and is in a position to tell us today that additional funds will be made available to local authorities to enable them to tackle the appalling state of urban roads in housing estates.
I support Deputy Gilmore's amendment. This is probably the most discussed topic in every urban local authority and if words were tar, we would have the best roads in the country. The reality is that the roads in question are in an appalling state. The amendment seeks to ensure there is adequate money available in the local government fund to maintain and, in some cases, reconstruct tertiary roads.
There is an increasing trend to dip into this ringfenced fund, which is supposed to finance the day-to-day work of local authorities and various initiatives to open up new land for building. This trend coupled with the backlog of work which remains undone for many years – since the cutbacks in the mid-1980s – and the pounding of all city roads, estates and otherwise, have resulted in their current poor quality and subsidence. It will be a very expensive job to repair them if immediate action is not taken.
These amendments are the same as those moved by the Deputy on Committee Stage. The effect of amendment No. 2 is to amend the Local Government Act, 1998, which establishes the local government fund, to give a particular priority to tertiary roads in the allocation of funds from the local government fund over and above other services such as housing etc. Amendment No. 1 proposes to insert a definition of "tertiary roads" in the Bill which would include roads in housing estates taken in charge by a local authority.
The Minister has spoken at great length on these amendments. The position is that State grants for non-national roads to local authorities are made from the local government fund. The maintenance and improvement of non-national roads in their areas are matters for individual local authorities to be funded from their own resources supplemented by State grants. The initial selection and prioritisation of projects or works to be carried out under the various non-national road grant categories are also matters for individual local authorities.
I am satisfied that the existing range and level of non-national road grants provide appropriately for the ongoing needs of the non-national road network. State funding for non-national roads in 2001 is £323 million which represents an 85% increase on the 1997 funding provision of £174.8 million.
The restoration programme in place since 1995 aims to restore all local and regional roads deemed deficient in 1995 by the end of 2005. The programme is undertaken on foot of multi-annual restoration programmes submitted by county councils. County councils have understandably accorded priority in the early years of the programme to regional roads and local roads on which there is heavy traffic. In recognition, however, of the need for class III local roads to receive meaningful attention in the meantime, a special allocation of £5 million was made in 1999 and again in 2000 to county councils for use on class III local roads only.
Section 13(2) of the Roads Act, 1993, places a legal responsibility on local authorities for the maintenance and construction of local roads in their administrative areas. While I am aware of the need for local authorities to maintain and improve all regional and local roads, I am not prepared to accept an amendment which attempts to give priority to one type of road over another. I do not wish to accept an amendment which would seek to give priority to one class of road over all other functions which local authorities are entrusted with carrying out, such as maintaining water and sewerage schemes, operating fire stations or landfill sites. The determination of such priorities is a local issue and should remain so. Local authorities should have as much freedom and discretion as possible in regard to the allocation of funds.
Local authorities have devoted most of their energy and resources to local and regional roads and not given the level of priority to urban road structures that the Deputies advocate they need. I accept that is the case and that there is much evidence of this. This is an issue that can be borne in mind when allocations are made in next year's Estimates. I hope the local authorities will respond with regard to choosing their priorities for investment in roads. There is an element of truth in the allegation that local authorities have ignored some of the urban roads and have allowed them to deteriorate despite enormous increases in the amount of funding being made available to them. As the restoration programme proceeds, many of the bad regional and local roads that carry heavy traffic are being repaired. In time there will be a better focus on trying to get these urban roads back up to proper standard. I cannot accept the amendment.
Is the amendment being pressed?
Yes. I wish to respond to the Minister. He has sought to represent the amendment as conferring priority on tertiary roads over every other function which is performed by a local authority for which funding is provided. That is not what the amendment proposes. The amendment says the Minister in allocating moneys from the local government fund should have particular regard to the need for local authorities to maintain tertiary roads. It is drawing attention to a problem which exists and there is a significant difference between drawing that kind of attention to the problem and seeking to give it the kind of overall priority which the Minister has sought to misrepresent the amendment as doing.
I am very disappointed to hear the Minister say that he is satisfied with the existing arrangements for the funding of tertiary roads and the existing level of funding for that activity. The additional £5 million to which he referred which was provided in 1999 and again last year, when spread over each of the roads authorities amounts to no more than perhaps – as in the case of my authority – £100,000, being the total allocation from that amount last year. As we know from the cost of road works, the cost of resurfacing roads and carrying out work of that kind, £100,000 is nothing, when compared with the amount of road that has to be provided for. We also have to bear in mind that the state of those roads is in large measure due to the fact that money was not available for this type of work until very recent times. We all know that the amount of money which was available in the Exchequer was at a much lower level some years ago. We are now in a position where there is a significant amount of money available, and that money should be applied particularly to those aspects of our infrastructure which unfortunately were perforce neglected over the years because of lack of money.
The Deputy is confined to two minutes speaking time but will have the right to reply in the debate on the amendments.
I thought I was replying.
I just wish to clarify that if the Deputy is now replying, there will be no right for the Minister to return.
I have no objection to the Minister replying if he wishes.
I have nothing further to add.
Then the Deputy is replying.
I am replying and I am very disappointed that with all the money available to the Minister he seems satisfied to preside over the continuing neglect of the roads in housing estates.
I ask for the amendment to be put to the House.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 2 not moved.
Amendment Nos. 3 and 4 are related and may be taken together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 6, line 11, to delete "section 4(1)" and substitute "subsections (1) and (1A) of section 4".
The intention of section 8 is to provide that when regulations setting fees for full driving licences are made by the Minister under section 5, the existing statutory provisions which they replace will be repealed.
The amendment I propose is a technical one to section 8 to ensure that all the necessary existing statutory provisions are repealed on the regulations coming into force.
I will withdraw my amendment in favour of the Minister's amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 4 not moved.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 7, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following:
"(c) electrically assisted pedal cycles shall not be considered as motor vehicles for the purposes of motor tax”.
We had an opportunity to discuss this amendment at the stage of the financial resolution and on Committee Stage. I move this amendment again because it is a small but symbolic expression of support for those who seek alternative means of transport and for those who have a concern for the environment. I hoped this concern would have been shared by the Minister for the Environment and Local Government. I hope to shame him into some kind of action. There are several thousand of these bikes in the country, many of them already being used on the roads. They are environmentally far preferable to other similar forms such as scooters and motorbikes. They use less energy, are certainly less noisy and cause less annoyance to the general public. They are safer than scooters, motorbikes and ordinary bikes. They have a cut-off maximum speed of 25 kilometres per hour. They are slower than the scooters used by children which are so popular at present. I fail to see what the Minister's concern is about the safety of them. I said on Second Stage that it is almost like requiring tax and motor insurance and a licence plate on a child's pram, it is that ludicrous a requirement. Every option should be given to the public, particularly in urban areas, to use any form of transport other than the private car. This offers an alternative to a wide section of the population. Both younger and older people can quite safely use these bikes.
The Minister said in the House earlier this year that he was sympathetic to this proposal and that he would give it consideration. It is now June and I hope for a more positive response or at least a promise of action sometime in the summer. I feel strongly about this issue.
This amendment, the intention of which is to exempt electrically assisted pedal cycles from motor tax, is a repeat of a Committee Stage amendment moved by the Deputy.
Since the early stages of this Bill, there has been a great deal of comment or debate on the question of taxation of these vehicles. Under current motor tax legislation, both here and in the United Kingdom, exemption from motor tax is generally confined to State-owned and emergency vehicles. I do not propose to depart from this principle. It is important to make it clear at the outset that all electrically propelled vehicles are at present liable to motor taxation and that I am not proposing to introduce any new tax on them. The tax of £22 could not be considered to be penal or unreasonable.
It is relevant to point out that apart from the motor taxation code, bicycles powered by electrical means are regarded as mechanically powered vehicles under Irish road traffic law. So the issue is wider than just the question of motor tax. Furthermore, the Finance Acts are also relevant in this context. Once a vehicle is registered by the Revenue Commissioners, liability for motor tax arises from the date the vehicle is first used in a public place. Electrical bikes are registered for vehicle registration tax. Motor tax is a tax on any mechanically propelled vehicle irrespective of how that vehicle is propelled. The money from motor tax is paid into the local government fund which is distributed to local authorities for use by them to provide a wide level of services to the community.
I also underline that in recognition of the fact that electrically propelled vehicles cause less damage to the environment at the point of use than vehicles powered by petrol, I am exempting all such vehicles from any increase in the rate of motor tax payable. That said, I make the point that while electrically propelled vehicles are Co2 free at the point of use, due to inefficiencies of generation and transmission processes on a life cycle basis, there is a question as to whether such vehicles have potentially higher Co2 emissions associated with them, especially as Ireland's power generation sector is the most fossil fuel intensive in the OECD. The House should be aware that in the United Kingdom, which has gone down the route of taxing cars primarily on the basis of CO2 emissions, a charge is retained for alternatively fuelled vehicles, such as electrically propelled motor cycles. However, as the Minister, Deputy Dempsey, pointed out on Committee Stage the characteristics of this type of vehicle are being evaluated in the Department with a view to the development of less prescriptive requirements under road traffic law on their use in public places. Such an evaluation will also have regard to the ongoing need to enhance road safety generally. In the meantime I do not propose to accept the amendment for the reasons I have outlined.
On each occasion when this matter has been discussed I have tried to point out that these are not mechanically propelled vehicles, they are assisted vehicles. That they are primarily a bicycle is what I cannot seem to get across. It is not the tax of £22 that is significant but rather that once they are taxed they have to carry number plates and insurance. This brings them into a category for which they were never intended. It is farcical to talk about the fossil fuel use for the small amount of electricity that these bicycles produce over their entire life because it comes into use only on steep hills or, perhaps, at the end of a long journey when one may be tired. I am concerned that the law is turning a blind eye to the requirement for motor tax, insurance and plates. It is a dangerous precedent where there is such a wide divergence between the law and the application of the law.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Bill reported with amendment, received for final consideration and passed.