We will now deal with section 31 and amendment No. 43 in the name of Deputy Keogh. Amendments Nos. 43 and 48 are related and will be taken together by agreement.
SECTION 31.
As we made good progress when this committee last sat, would it be possible to set a time limit to our endeavour to complete the Committee Stage this evening, if Members agree?
Does the Minister wish the committee to indicate a time at which we will conclude tonight, or to indicate a time at which we will conclude Committee Stage tonight? Could the Minister clarify what he has in mind?
The clarification involves both elements. The time at which the committee concludes will, hopefully, be the time at which it completes work on the Bill.
Does anyone wish to suggest what time we hope to be finished by?
I suggest we finish as soon as we have completed our business, and I hope that will not be too late. I hesitate to give an actual time in case somebody is in the middle of an important point when we reach the time suggested. I do not want us to force the conclusion of Committee Stage just because we have agreed on a nominal hour to get up tonight but at the same time I have no wish to be unreasonable. Could we let it run for a while and see what progress we make and maybe at that stage establish whether another half hour or an hour would conclude it?
It is agreed that we will finish Committee Stage of this Bill tonight. If the Minister has a problem with regard to time, if he has something else to do and if we can facilitate the Minister, I hope Members will do so.
That is fair and acceptable. There is no question of trying to force the Bill through, I wish to find out whether I could attend to some other matters later on tonight, and I would be happy if I could indicate to the people whom I have to meet later on whether or not it will be possible at some stage, within maybe three hours.
I hope we will be able to conclude inside three hours, but I do not think anyone can put a time limit on it.
I hope a couple of hours will suffice. The sooner we start the sooner we will finish. I move amendment No. 43:
In page 23, line 36, to delete "70" and substitute "60".
Many people would be aghast at the idea of reducing the speed limit on motorways to 60 mph. I know there is a subsequent amendment which requests that speeds be put in kilometres per hour, a point I raised on Second Stage. When I travel on the little stretch of motorway known as the Bray-Shankill by-pass I do not mind letting my car zoom up to the——
Exact limit.
——exact speed limit. Notwithstanding that fact, I know — and it is a serious point — that speed is one of the main causes of accidents. The Minister alluded to the fact that 80 per cent of accidents occur as a result of speed and drink combined. In the United States it is a well known fact that as speed is reduced, traffic accidents are reduced proportionately, and as speed limits are increased the same proportionality is observed in the increase in accidents. That is the reason I put down this amendment. I realise that we do not have autobahns. We are not like the Germans who go for a Sunday evening zoom down the autobahns. We should adhere to a lower speed limit than this; it would be safer. It would reduce the temptation for a number of people to travel at excessive speeds.
We all realise the danger of travelling at 70 or 80 mph and how difficult it is to stop at those speeds. In addition, when coming off the motorway onto a minor road, speed has to be reduced. I have often noticed when driving through the country that suddenly one comes across a speed limit of 40 mph when perhaps one has been going at 60 mph. This means one has to brake quite suddenly. There should be a more uniform speed limit on motorways and dual-carriageways. It would not be as bad to have suddenly to reduce our speed from 60 to 40 mph as for example, from 70 to 40 mph. I would ask the Minister to consider this amendment.
I said on the last occasion that I was not prepared to accept this amendment. A year ago we set the new limits at what we considered to be realistic levels having regard to our own experience and international experience. The motorways are dedicated routes, the design and build of which can cater for a higher speed than other carriageways, primarily because of the restriction of access to them. Any experience we have gained in relation to accidents indicates that points of access and turning points are areas where a considerable number of accidents take place. On these routes there is practically no such facility, so the speed limit is realistic in terms of our own experience and international experience. On that type of motorway it is possible to have vehicles travelling at a rate somewhat greater than on the other primary routes. I do not see that there is really a need to consider changing that.
Is the Deputy pressing her amendment?
No.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 31 agreed to.
Section 32 agreed to.