I agree with Deputy Gregory that enforcement is without doubt the key issue for road safety.
I thank Deputies from all sides for their positive and constructive contributions to what has been an open and interesting debate. The overall welcome for the Bill reflects an acceptance by Members that legislation on issues such as speed limits should be the subject of fairly regular review by the Oireachtas. It is important that our system of speed limits, which is the central component of this Bill, should be seen to be reasonable, appropriate, flexible and geared to the promotion of road safety.
The debate raised many issues, some of which are not directly addressed in the Bill. However, they show that Members of the House are concerned about road safety in all of the issues and policies that contribute to its promotion. In the time I have available today to respond to the debate, I will concentrate on issues that have a direct relevance to the Bill, but I am conscious of the other matters that have been referred to and will note them in the development of policies in those areas.
Deputy Shortall raised the general issue of court challenges to the Road Traffic Acts and suggested that this revealed flaws in the legislation. The Deputy is correct in suggesting that road traffic legislation is the subject of very frequent challenges. The loss of a driving licence as a result of a conviction for a traffic offence is something that many people will challenge, particularly those who depend on driving for their livelihood. Such challenges are not unique to this country, and in the particular area of drink driving the challenges both here and in other jurisdictions have been vigorous and numerous. The House will be aware of the completion of a number of cases in the High Court relating to the operation of the evidential breath testing system. In all of the challenges to date, the High Court has supported the legislation and the system operated by the Garda. The most recent decision of the High Court is the subject of an appeal to the Supreme Court. If a decision of a court suggests there is a difficulty in any element of the road traffic legislation, my Department will proceed, along with the office of the Attorney General and other Departments, to address such difficulties, if necessary through the promotion of amending legislation.
A number of Deputies raised important issues regarding speed limits generally. I acknowledge the important point made by Deputy Olivia Mitchell that there is a tension in the application of speed limits between the need for national standardisation and the need for local flexibility to cater for particular needs. This is the essential dynamic that provides the background to the proposals in Part 2 of the Bill. The introduction of penalty points for speeding offences more than two years ago resulted in an enhanced focus and awareness of speed limits. The proposal in the Bill, which encourages a greater involvement for the public in the process that leads to the application of speed limits locally, will provide for a more general acceptance and support for speed limits. Deputy McHugh referred specifically to the requirements on local authorities to advertise proposals to make speed limit by-laws. The Bill provides that where a county or city council proposes to make by-laws, it must publish a notice of the proposals in at least two daily newspapers published and circulated in the State or in the area to which the by-laws relate. Given that the public will be afforded an opportunity to make its views known on the speed limit proposals, it will be in the interest of the councils to ensure the broadest scope for the dissemination of information on making by-laws. Speed limit proposals for specific areas will have an effect on national roads and this must inform the approach of the local authorities in meeting their responsibilities under the legislation. The guidelines that will be made available to local authorities will refer in particular to this matter.
Deputy Olivia Mitchell referred to the definition of a built-up area provided for in the Bill. The purpose of including the definition is to bring greater clarity to the current position. Under the existing Road Traffic Acts, the built-up area speed limit only applies within the boundaries of cities and towns where there are urban authorities. The proposals in this Bill do not change that position. A number of Deputies referred to speed limits on regional and local roads. Section 6 proposes that the default maximum speed limit on regional and local roads will be 80 kph. This represents a reduction of more than 10 mph on the present general speed limit of 60 mph and reflects the recommendation made by the working group that carried out a review of present speed limit structures and policies in 2003.
I am aware that the National Roads Authority's accident data for 2002 indicate that there is a very high rate of fatal and injury accidents on two-way single carriageway roads. Those roads, the vast majority of which are regional and local roads, account for nearly 80% of fatal and injury accidents. The percentage of fatalities that occurred on rural roads has not been below 65% in any year since 1991.
Deputies Crawford and McHugh expressed concerns that the maximum limit of 80 kph would be too restrictive on some regional roads. While national roads come under the remit of my Department through the National Roads Authority, regional roads and local roads come under the remit of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. The road engineering advice from that Department is that 80 kph is the most appropriate speed limit for the vast majority of the regional road network which covers more than 11,000 kilometres, and that a maximum speed limit of 80 kph represents the best road safety match for at least 90% of more than 11,000 km of rural regional roads. Road safety would be best served by setting the default speed limit at 80 kph since it makes it an easier task for local authorities to make special speed limit by-laws to apply a higher limit to superior standard regional roads where warranted, rather than to apply a blanket higher limit across the network in primary legislation in the anticipation that by-laws would subsequently be made to apply a lower speed limit across 90% of the network. Deputy Deenihan suggested that the built-up area speed limit should be 40 kph as opposed to 50 kph. However, the standard speed limit in built-up areas throughout Europe is 50 kph and we should be consistent.
The debate gave rise to some very interesting comments on the process for the changeover to metric speed limits. Deputies Mitchell, Shortall and Crawford referred to the provision of traffic signs to support the new speed limits. The general policy principles that underpin the proposal to introduce metric speed limits have been in the public domain since October 2003. Based on those principles, it was prudent to make the appropriate arrangements to ensure that the traffic signs needed to support the changeover will be ready at an early date.
This has been done. The majority of the 58,000 signs which are required have been supplied to the various local authorities so they can be put in place before 20 January 2005. The progress that has been made in planning the changeover does not restrict the role of the Oireachtas in examining and determining the overall legislative framework for speed limits.
Deputies Olivia Mitchell and Shortall spoke of the need to inform drivers of the change to metric speed limits when they cross the Border. The provision of information to people arriving in the State has been considered in depth by the changeover board. The board, as part of its consideration, has engaged in a significant and fruitful engagement with the authorities in Northern Ireland where imperial speed limits will continue in place. A series of information traffic signs pertaining to metrication is being prepared for long-term deployment. When the signs are being provided, there will be a particular focus on the Border region, ports and airports. The signs, which will complement the normal speed limit signs that are provided at Border crossings and other points of entry, will advise motorists that speed limits are set in kilometres per hour.
Deputy Olivia Mitchell also queried the timing of speed limit by-laws. Section 12 will provide appropriate arrangements to ensure that existing by-laws will continue to have effect under the metric system. This is necessary to provide that local authorities will not be able to make new by-laws until at least two months after the changeover date.
I have indicated that approximately 58,000 new metric speed limit signs will have to be provided by 20 January 2005 to serve the public road network of approximately 97,000 km. This considerable logistical challenge, which involves 34 county and city councils and the National Roads Authority, is being co-ordinated by the metrication board. It is proposed that the "on the ground" changeover process of replacing imperial signs with new metric signs will commence at least three days before 20 January. It is inevitable that motorists will encounter metric and imperial speed limit signs at various locations while they are driving during the three days in question. A public information and awareness campaign will focus on heightening awareness of speed limits during this period, to avoid confusion while the new speed limit signs are being erected.
I assure Deputies that this matter has been considered at length. While I was keen for the shortest possible changeover, I also knew I had to be realistic. The changeover period will be confined to the three days preceding 20 January. Extra care and patience will be required on the roads while the full changeover process is taking place. The erection of 58,000 signs is quite a significant undertaking, but I have been assured that they will be put in place by 20 January 2005, when the new metric system will be initiated.
A number of Deputies spoke about speedometers in vehicles. The Society of the Irish Motor Industry and the Department of Transport have been considering the progression of the metrication of speed limits since early 2003. The society was represented on the working group that conducted a review of speed limit structures and policies in 2003 and it has recently participated in the metrication board. I commend the society on its support in the pursuit of the overall proposal. Not only has it actively contributed to the board's deliberations, it has ensured that the vast majority of vehicles entering our market from 2005 will have speedometers which are metric only or predominantly metric. I thank the society in that regard.
There are no plans for a programme of retrofitting metric speedometers in vehicles which are currently in use. There is no one-size-fits-all template that could safely address all the various types of speedometer in use. As part of the public information programme that is being developed, information packs which will include a simple conversion table for drivers will be distributed.
The need for a comprehensive public information and awareness programme has been raised by a number of Deputies. I confirm that the changeover to metric speed limits will be supported by a major nationwide integrated public awareness programme, involving television, radio and press advertising. A lo-call 1890 number will be available for queries and questions. Information will be available soon on a dedicated website.
Deputy Eamon Ryan suggested that the proposed new 30 kph speed limit should be used on a broad basis in urban areas. He sought clarification from me about the provisions to be contained in the guidelines, which will be issued to local authorities in respect of this matter. As Members are aware, the new speed limit structures proposed in the Bill will see the retention of two fundamental provisions that apply at present. The speed limit in built-up areas, which will be 50 kph, will continue to apply on a default basis. Elected members of city and county councils will be empowered to replace default speed limits by means of proposals for the application of special speed limits in by-laws.
The deployment of the 30 kph speed limit will be a matter for elected members of local authorities. It is reasonable to expect that the limit will be applied in places where it can deliver the greatest benefit to all road users, especially pedestrians. That principle will be reflected in the guidelines, which will be informed by the experience of other countries which have used 30 kph speed limits. The United Kingdom's experience has shown that the use of a 20 mph speed limit without appropriate traffic calming measures has had negligible effects on achieving reductions in the speed of vehicles. The guidelines will put a specific emphasis on the deployment of the 30 kph limit. They will place particular attention on the use of the 120 kph speed limit on dual carriageways on national roads. The guidelines will offer comprehensive advice on the appropriate deployment of speed limits and the making of speed limit by-laws to local authority members and officials, the National Roads Authority, the Garda and all interested parties and individuals.
All Members are aware that local authorities can, for safety purposes, bring traffic almost to a standstill if they are doing specific works in a built-up area. I agree that we should give them certain powers to ensure they can continue to do so. Many speakers mentioned that they are conscious of the problems associated with places where children congregate, such as schools. They have argued that provisions such as traffic calming measures should be available in such areas. It is a matter for local authorities, however. It is obvious that we do not want such powers to be used widely. There may be specific difficulties at places of access to and exit from schools. It would be no harm to empower local authorities by giving them the opportunity to consider such issues, at least. It makes sense that such provisions should be made so that the matter does not have to be dealt with in legislation by the House again. Members were right to raise issues of this nature. Members of local authorities are in the best position to deal with such matters, on the advice of the Garda and local authority officials.
Deputy Olivia Mitchell referred to the possible introduction of road markings to indicate speed limit zones. Last year, a working group conducted a comprehensive review of speed limit structures and policies, including signposting policy, in the context of the signposting of speed limits. The group was asked to consider a number of proposals for new approaches to speed limit signage. A road marking system that involves coloured and coded on-road markings to denote various speed limit zones was considered. Having examined the proposals, the working group indicated in September 2003 that it felt there was no compelling argument for changing the current approach to speed limit signposting. It decided there was a clear case for ensuring that the signposting of speed limits should reflect current common international approaches.
The working group advised against the adoption of complex signage proposals which deviate substantially from current national and international practice and experience. It argued that the limited proposals for changes to speed limit signage recommended in its report were consistent with such an approach. New signage proposals, which have regard to the new speed limit structures proposed in this Bill and have been formulated in light of international practice, are being considered. The proposals will address issues such as the deployment of alternative speed limits at single locations in certain circumstances.
As a former Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, I am aware of the issues involved. Mr. John Bowman once said to me, while he was wearing one of his other hats, that he thought I could introduce another colour of box, other than the yellow box, for traffic control purposes, for example to deal with Luas junctions. I am making my officials uneasy because I am speaking from the top of my head. I understand the point made by Deputy Olivia Mitchell. I do not think one should have a black and white view of these matters.
Everyone's view of our role is that we should consider everything continually to enhance pedestrian safety in built-up areas and the smooth operation of different modes of transport as they interact. We must be careful that we do not confuse people by an over-elaborate system of warnings. A balance must be struck, but there is some merit in certain issues.
I am aware that other colleagues would like to speak, but perhaps I might first deal with one or two other issues. Deputy Olivia Mitchell raised the issue of age thresholds and penalties regarding driving certain vehicles. A person must be 17 to obtain a provisional licence to drive a motor car. However, a person can get a provisional licence for a small motor cycle, that is, under 125 cu. cm., at 16 years of age, which is the minimum specified in the EU directive on driving licences. If the ban on the supply of mechanically propelled vehicles were pegged at under 17 by the Bill, it would prohibit persons from supplying motorcycles to persons aged 16. I appreciate the points raised, in particular by Deputies Olivia Mitchell, Shortall, Broughan, Eamon Ryan and Curran, regarding the penalties proposed for this new offence. I will re-examine the issue with a view to presenting an amendment on Committee Stage. Making it a criminal offence to sell vehicles to people under 16 is one of the most fundamental issues in the Bill. We are well aware of the consequences of that practice, and this provision is a good safety measure as much it is common sense.
The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government is actively engaged with the Society of the Irish Motor Industry, the Irish Motor Vehicle Recyclers' Association and the Metal Merchants' Association of Ireland with a view to developing a voluntary, industry-led, producer responsibility initiative to implement the requirements of Directive 2000/53/EC on end-of-life vehicles. The directive incorporates several significant requirements, including measures aimed at ensuring that ELVs may be deposited free of charge by their final owners at authorised treatment facilities and then dismantled, treated and recovered in an environmentally sound manner, meeting the recovery and recycling targets by average weight per vehicle, achieving an 85% rate of reuse or recovery by 2006 and a 95% rate by 2015, and preventing waste from vehicles.
Deputy Shortall raised an issue relating to end-of-life vehicles, and I know that Deputy Olivia Mitchell is familiar with the issue. Enabling provisions to facilitate implementation of the directive were incorporated in the Protection of the Environment Act 2003, which I steered through the two Houses. It is intended to make regulations as soon as possible fully transposing the directive's provisions and facilitating its implementation in 2005. Pending making the regulations and the commencement of the free ELV take-back scheme required by the directive, adequate powers are available to local authorities under the Waste Management Act 1996 to deal with abandoned or dumped vehicles.
Deputy Crowe asked about the scope of the functions relating to the fixed-charge system that it is proposed to outsource. While the Deputy will appreciate that the provision in the primary legislation should establish the policies and principles, section 17 does not set specific parameters to provide that outsourcing relating to the fixed-charge system will be limited to functions regarding administrative matters that support the system. Currently, as Deputies know, the Bill deals simply with outsourcing the administration of the penalty points system, and we should take it from there.
I have covered most issues. There is a range of questions to which I am sure Deputies will return on Committee Stage. Almost all Deputies are concerned and recognise that enforcement is a key issue. We are certainly working closely with the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. There is a very important role for the Garda in being visible. The public must understand the system, as we know from the first implementation of penalty points. The great drop in the number of fatalities on the roads has been marvellous. We must return to the issue of awareness regarding enforcement. The Garda computer systems must be up and running, and I look forward to that happening. I urge the implementation of all systems for which they are responsible, and I am confident they will facilitate all the road safety needs outlined in the legislation.
I thank Deputies from all sides once again for a very good and constructive debate on all the issues raised. If I have omitted any issue, as I probably have, I will deal with it directly on Committee Stage. I commend the Bill to the House.
