Amendment No. 44 is in the name of Deputy Gilmore. Amendments Nos. 44 and 45 are related and may be taken together. Deputy Gilmore is not present.
SECTION 33.
Amendments Nos. 44 and 45 not moved.
I move amendment No. 46:
In page 24, line 25, after "vehicles" to insert "and such bye-laws shall provide for the mandatory signposting of the above-mentioned ‘special speed limit' so as to notify drivers of changes in speed limits between the different functional areas of the council of a county or the corporation of a county borough".
This amendment is self-explanatory. We want provision made in relation to the devolution of power to local authorities for certain speed limit functions to ensure that local authorities have a say in relation to speed limits at all schools that are off the national primary roads. There have been particular problems in many areas particularly at 9 o'clock in the morning and again at——
The Deputy is on the wrong amendment.
I beg your pardon, Chairman. Amendment No. 46 deals with the need to co-ordinate the devolved function between different local authorities to ensure that if one is driving on a secondary or county road from one local authority functional area to another, the speed limit is either indicated as being the same, or that if there is a change in the speed limit, then there is an obligation to mark it clearly. This is an effort to coordinate the activities of adjacent or contiguous local authority functional areas. I wonder what the Minister has in mind to ensure that the driver is not left at a disadvantage. One could be driving quite happily at 50 mph on one portion of a country road that might have a better standard of upkeep and maintenance, yet on the same road one could move into another local authority's area which may have a 40 mph limit. The driver may not be aware of this unless we have some way of co-ordinating the activities of local authorities in relation to speed limit signs and speed limits. I am a bit concerned that confusion in the overlap of functional areas could occur.
I understand Deputy Doyle's concern. However, I do not think the amendment is desirable or necessary. We are very happy to transfer the obligation and function of management in relation to this matter to local authorities without any fear that the kind of situation Deputy Doyle outlined — and on the face of it it may seem realistic enough — can be overcome. There will be no new problems as far as county boundaries are concerned. Whatever speed limit sign is deemed necessary will be erected. Whenever you move out of a zone again a further sign will be erected. At present none of these problems has emerged anywhere across the country. We have this experience in the Department and local authorities have this experience, so they will be blending all that together. It is not as if counties will be acting totally independently of one another. Each one has to take account of these types of situations. The practice has worked well up to now and has presented no problems. The situation is further enhanced by the ability of local authorities to act faster and deal without any requirement for ministerial consent in the future. It does not change the overall responsibilities they have which they operate quite effectively.
As I understand it, local authorities could now operate independently though with the devolved functions. There is no obligation on them to co-ordinate their activities with neighbouring local authorities. I know it is unlikely to occur without some notification but I am indicating that there is no obligation on local authorities to move together on this.
In relation to sign-posting, I am somewhat assured by what the Minister says, if a procedure exists for ensuring that there cannot be two different speed limits in operation on the one county road, for example. I am not sure what that procedure is, and I have been a member of a local authority for 20 years. However, I will take the Minister's word that it is there somewhere in the Department's books.
Regarding mandatory signposting, in County Wexford if we were to put up all the signposts that are needed, such as speed limit signposts, and replace those that nearly come under the Derelict Sites Act because they are so tatty, we would need £60,000 to £70,000. The cost of signs and signposting is a source of amazement to me. Will the Minister take that into account in terms of the financing of local government and block grants in this area? Functions are being devolved and will there be the finance to go with this devolution?
Deputy Doyle, with all due respect, we are a long way from amendment No. 46 which stands in your name.
With respect, Chairman, we are not. Mandatory signposting is mentioned in my amendment.
Yes, but we are not discussing road allocations to various county councils. We are discussing the position with regard to mandatory signs. The Deputy is taking a little latitude and I would appreciate it if she would stay with the amendment.
I would like to know the Minister's view on whether local authorities are in a position to erect adequate signposting, to make good use of the very welcome devolved functions they are being given. The Minister knows the financial position most local authorities find themselves in.
As the Deputy knows, in all the road schemes for which I have responsibility for financing, provision is made for adequate signposting. I think she will accept that signposting in general and its style have considerably improved. I accept that there are still areas which need to be improved and there is a cost factor. I have to bear in mind pressure from Fine Gael in that it wants me to cut public expenditure as much as I can in dealing with these matters.
We are quite specific about where we want the Minister to cut it. If he has a moment I will detail it. Signposting is not on our list.
Deputy Doyle, the Minister did not interrupt you.
Chairman, if the Minister is provocative you must allow a response. Do not do the "holy Joe" just because you have had a summer holiday.
The Deputy made a point earlier in relation to fears as to whether there would be proper co-ordination. When I was replying on the last occasion I said we have not experienced any difficulty with the speed limit signs up to the present. These are submitted by the county systems to my Department and co-ordination has worked. It has worked well and there have been no problems.
They will no longer be submitted.
I do not have to get involved and the experience up to now is that our reliance on local authorities to do that has presented no problems whatsoever.
This is one of the most welcome parts of the Bill. As a member of a local authority for 26 years one of the problems we have had, in consultation with the Garda Síochána, is waiting for the Department to produce the statutory instrument bringing the changes into effect. We have such matters in the Department for almost three years, regarding the moving out of village boundaries and taking account of developments. It is a welcome devolution of power back to local authorities but local authorities will always do it in consultation with the Garda Síochána. That is how we do it in south Tipperary and I am sure Wexford do likewise.
It works well for the ploughing championships.
There was a five mile backlog this morning when one hit Clonmel.
It is a very attractive part of the country.
In the rain.
I wish to make a number of points about signposts in general. I understand that the department of psychology in University College, Dublin, carried out a study four or five years ago which indicated that large numbers of the public did not take any notice of signposts and those that did take notice were confused and drew wrong conclusions from them. Bearing that in mind, has the Minister any ideas in relation to how they might be improved?
I find myself in agreement with Deputy Ferris. I have also been a member of a local authority for almost 20 years. We, too, made recommendations to the Garda authorities and it was years before they were implemented. We found out then that more adjustments were necessary because further building had taken place on the road on which we recommended an extension of the speed limit. I welcome the devolved powers but finance must come with them. It is ridiculous to tell local authorities they can now put up signs if they have not got the finance to do so. We would have a major problem in Cavan because every penny we have goes to surface dressing.
The road has disappeared before the signs are put up.
The maintenance of signs around the country is deplorable.
Deputy Boylan, you are a long way from the amendment.
Not at all. It is part and parcel of what we are talking about. It deals with signposting and is as relevant as the statistic mentioned here by somebody about whether people are aware of signposts. How can people be aware of signposts if they cannot see them, if the signs are covered with bushes or green scum from weathering and are not kept cleaned? It is very important. I wish to clarify a point with the Minister. When he talks about devolved powers does he mean that local authorities will have powers for national primary and secondary roads? I wish to clarify that because there has been confusion——
If the Deputy reads the Bill he will see——
——over 20 years because of the laxity of the Department in spelling out clearly who can arrange——
The National Roads Authority.
——or set up speed signs or road signs.
I do not want to digress from what we are discussing but Deputy Doyle raised an important point about the financial implications. I welcome the devolution of powers, particularly regarding speed limits, but local authorities have experienced excessive delays in the past due to the amount of consultation that had to take place. In the past many powers have been devolved to local authorities, such as those in regard to abattoirs, courthouses and various other areas.
The Water Pollution Act.
Many of those functional powers were given to councils to strengthen their role but they have helped to dilute the economies of those councils. One can give powers but a parallel amount of finance is never provided. The Deputy is quite right to raise this caveat in relation to this and it is important to consider. Speed limits signs, etc., have a cost implication.
I presume Deputy Upton does not use studies as absolutes for everything that can produce results like those he outlined here. Seriously, when one considers speeding on the roads and the problems we have generally in getting the driving public to improve their behaviour, one has to accept that signs are ignored. It is up to the enforcement agencies to make sure that we get some change in that. Let us hope we will. There are some plans to step up that programme also. The argument is often made, when we are under pressure to devolve powers to local authorities, to ensure that the funds are provided with those powers. It is not the case here. For years, local authorities have had to provide those signs. The problem was that local representatives said they did not want to have to wait for years to go through the consultative process. There is no additional cost involved. What is involved is that they have the power to decide themselves to do whatever is necessary in this context.
In relation to Deputy Boylan's point, up to now one had to get ministerial consent and it was quite a tortuous procedural route to get agreement and sanction for speed limit and traffic management facilities for all roads in the country. Now local authorities will have the full power, with the exception of the national primary and motorways where ministerial consent will be required. For the remaining routes, authority and responsibility lies exclusively with the local authority.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 47:
In page 24, between lines 25 and 26, to insert the following:
"(b) The local authorities referred to in paragraph (a) shall, in particular, specify a special speed limit, in respect of all of the roads in its area of the kinds specified in that paragraph, which are located at or near schools within their functional area.".
This amendment is based on the dreadful statistics in "Road Traffic Facts (Ireland), 1992". There were 115 pedestrians killed in Ireland last year; that is 28 per cent of the total fatalities. Some 15 of the pedestrians were between the ages of six and 17. Some 17 cyclists, almost 50 per cent of the total, were in the same group. About 8.3 per cent of the accidents took place between 8 a.m. and 10 a.m. and 13 per cent took place between 3 p.m. and 5 p.m.
The purpose of this amendment is to enable local authorities to impose special speed limits in their own jurisdiction in an effort to improve safety when children are going to and coming from schools. The special speed limit might apply in the vicinity of the school from 8.30 a.m. to 9 a.m. and again in the evening from 2.45 p.m. or 3 p.m. until 4.30 p.m. or 4.45 p.m. Such a scheme would have a dramatic effect on safety near schools.
Unfortunately, the statistics do not show how many accidents happen in the vicinity of schools but when we look at the number of young people, be they cyclists or pedestrians, who have been killed, we can assume that a certain number of them were killed in the vicinity of schools. I know of serious accidents in those localities.
We propose, therefore, that local authorities would be able to impose this special speed limit during certain periods and it would be indicated by a flashing light in the vicinity of the school. This system is already in operation in the United States. I saw it operating and I was very impressed; it was most effective. I ask the Minister to accept this amendment and allow local authorities to create special speed limit areas near schools.
I support this amendment but I would like to extend it a little further. The powers of local authorities are restricted to certain areas and they do not have the necessary powers in relation to national primary and national secondary routes. This is understandable, but I will illustrate my point by way of an example.
On a national secondary route in my area there is a small village, Kilcornan. Over a period of time, they have asked for the imposition of a speed limit. They have done everything possible but permission has always been refused. They suggested the system used on the national road from Limerick to Galway where one sees, written in the middle of the road, a consistent three warnings: slow down; school ahead; caution. This has also been refused and traffic beacons have not even been considered.
There is much frustration at local level because a small school on a national secondary route cannot get the concession of a speed limit in that area which would last only for a short period of time. There appears to be an intransigence about allowing the speed limit. Maybe the authorities are looking at it differently; the slowing down of traffic may present an extra hazard.
When I read this amendment, I thought it was a good amendment. I will be interested in the Minister's view on the situation that exists on our national primary or, indeed, national secondary routes. There are small facilities along these routes — probably a school, a church and a supermarket — which one travels through very quickly but there are many attendant risks for the school-going community in those areas. There appears to be an intransigence on the part of local authorities and the Department of Environment about giving any concession and they may just provide a sign saying "Caution, Children Ahead" and nothing more.
The principle of this amendment is good. I do not know what the Minister will say about it or what the objection to it might be. We can all detail instances in our own areas where a speed limit at a school, particularly a national school, would be very important.
I can think of one location. It is a place called Brownsgrove which is just outside Tuam on the Tuam to Sligo road. We have spent many years asking the local authority in Galway, of which I am a member, to place amber lights at the scene. These can be seen at some schools together with signs requiring traffic to slow down. However, nothing has been done about it. If there was an official speed limit, such as that which Deputy McGrath is proposing, the issue may be taken more seriously. It is against that background that we should consider this amendment.
There is much merit in the amendment as there are certain dangers pertaining to schools that do not normally pertain elsewhere and there are risks particularly where young people and cyclists are involved. I would, therefore, be broadly in favour of the amendment but I ask if the power is already in the Bill to allow the local authority to impose a speed limit in these circumstances, to a degree at least?
There is a provision in the Bill which gives local authorities the power to impose special speed limits in built-up areas. If I understand the Bill correctly, there are certain situations where schools come within the overall provision. Perhaps the difference is in the time scale. If one wants to put a time scale on the special speed limit, that is where the difficulty may arise from the motorist's perspective who may wonder if the speed limit applies at 4 p.m. or 4.10 p.m.? I am just making that point——
A light would be flashing in the locality at that time.
The section seeks to devolve certain powers to the local authority. I am broadly in favour of the principle behind the amendment but I think a degree of the power is already in the Bill.
I support the amendment. I cannot understand the continued reluctance on the part of the Department to recognise valid complaints from parent groups who seek warning notices. There is one example of the successful use of an amber light near a school which is situated on the Navan to Kells road which is a national primary route. It comes on automatically at 8.45 a.m. and keeps flashing to warn motorists of impending danger and goes off at 9.30 a.m. It comes on again between 2.45 p.m. and 3.30 p.m. It certainly works.
Such schemes are more important now because there is a major cutback in school bus transport and children are brought to school by car or they cycle there. At every school there is a cluster of cars and bicycles and one sees the occasional school bus, generally in poor repair and without working lights.
Deputy Boylan, would you speak to the amendment?
This is happening and people are not aware of it. The children must be taken to school. The small schools have been closed and the children are brought to central schools located on poor sites which are dangerous. It is our duty to ensure that those children get to and from school in safety and we must listen to the valid arguments of parent groups who are only seeking to protect those children.
It is a good amendment but it mentions all roads in the area. The Minister said he is reserving to himself the right to deal with national primary routes and motorways. There are many schools on the national primary routes. In County Tipperary one finds them from the moment one enters the county along the main Dublin to Cork road, on this side of Cashel, in Cashel itself and also on the national primary route between Waterford and Limerick. There are many schools on the road but it is difficult to get any recognition from the Department that there is a risk which requires lights or some other solution.
I understand that flashing lights may only be erected by agreement with the school principals who have the responsibility of switching them on at a certain time before the school traffic arrives. Some schools are operating this system. However, the Bill gives the power to local authorities to deal with non-national routes on which there are many schools on those. This brings me to the cost factor about which we have been speaking.
They are very expensive.
They are expensive. We would have the power but would we have the money? We need a definition from the Minister of our powers in regard to schools located on national primary routes where there may be death traps.
The amendment states that the local authorities "shall . . . specify a special speed limit". We are endeavouring to strengthen or gently force the hand of local authorities to ensure — in as much as the devolved speed limit functions apply to the roads where there are schools — that the local authorities will act on their responsibility and immediately ensure that a proper speed limit is imposed and that the area is signposted for the traffic conditions that are likely to apply at 9 o'clock in the morning and at 3 o'clock in the afternoon, or at the relevant times for the school in question.
Traffic management outside our schools has been haphazard for too long. One or two schools have done exemplary jobs in this regard and we must commend the school wardens for their excellent work in ensuring that our children are as safe as possible when crossing the road to and from school. However, in many areas where this service cannot or is not being given we need proper traffic management. We need lower speed limits than those that apply on other stretches of the road and those limits must be signposted and enforced with vigilance by the Garda. If they are enforced over a number of weeks the word that one must be careful driving in that area would quickly spread. It is to strengthen the hand of the local authorities that the amendment states "shall" rather than "may . . . specify a special speed limit". This should not be left hanging any longer because there is too much at stake.
Careful study of the amendment shows that it is in many ways more restrictive than the section. I understand the thinking behind the proposition even though there is no reference in the amendment to the temporary system operating at special times of the day to which Deputy McGrath referred. International experience on the use of speed limits alone as a method of restraining traffic at schools or at other places — and it would be the experience of the Members here — is that it is not enough. I regret to say that, but it is the truth. It is emerging that traffic calming measures combined with lower speed limit signs achieve the best possible results.
I am considering bringing forward an amendment on Report Stage to give new general powers to local authorities to provide for traffic calming measures and to move, in conjunction with that, if the local authority so decides, on the question of lower speed limits because traffic in the vicinity of schools and other such places tends to travel at excessive speed, having regard to the safety of other vehicles and children. It will require a combination of the two methods to meet the wish of the House in this regard.
Local authorities have the power to make proposals in relation to any area and we want to see that happening in the future. Any so-called resistance in the Department of the Environment to proposals for speed limits alone which many people put forward as the solution is because they are not the solution. They create a feeling of safety, for those who believe in such signs, which is not real in terms of how traffic generally adhers to speed limits. I am anxious to improve traffic management and, indeed, adherence to the law by the public, particularly in relation to speed.
I take account of the fact that pedestrians account for a quarter of the total number of people killed on our roads and a significant proportion of the 10,000 who are injured. We need better solutions. My approach will meet the genuine wish of Members for improvements and will ensure that it is done with a well-tested method. International experience shows that speed limits alone are not fully effective but when combined with traffic calming measures they are the best solution. I intend to respond to that on Report Stage by giving powers to local authorities to introduce those calming measures and they can then decide on the appropriate speed limit to enjoin with that.
I am delighted to hear the Minister refer to traffic calming measures. I accept his point that it will be necessary to give local authorities more discretion in traffic management and traffic calming. I had intended asking the Minister whether local authorities had the discretion sought by the Deputies in this amendment because the substance of the Bill is to give as much autonomy as possible to local authorities, so I am glad to hear the Minister's reply.
In my experience on local authorities there is great difficulty in traffic calming and traffic management. Local authorities need the autonomy to be able to respond to the particular needs of areas without reference to the Department. I look forward to the Minister's amendment.
I am delighted with the Minister's response and I look forward to Report Stage. I forgot to mention during my earlier contribution that I fully appreciate the necessity for various calming measures in addition to speed limit.
On a relevant aspect to what we are discussing, I wish to highly commend both the Minister's Department and the Garda for the school warden system. That system has many advantages and it is right and proper that we should acknowledge it. I cannot understand why more schools are not involved in the sytem as, combined with the speed limits we are discussing, it would ensure that travelling to and from school would be much safer for small children from four years of age. It would be a very welcome step if the Minister's Department could extend the school warden system.
I welcome the Minister's comments and I look forward to his amendment on Report Stage. Would the Minister clarify if the local authorities, in this legislation, will have the power to introduce a temporary speed limit in the manner we have mentioned, during specific hours? Will we discover afterwards that they may not have such authority? They may have authority in relation to general speed limits which are operated on a 24-hour basis but I am talking about speed limits at schools during specific periods to be decided by the local authority. Traffic speed would be down to something like 15 miles per hour around schools. I accept the view of the Minister that traffic calming measures in addition to the speed limit are required. Would the local authority have the power to introduce a regime of this kind? Will the proposed legislation give them that power or may they introduce general speed limits? Would the Minister please clarify this?
The local authorities would do as the Deputy suggests. They would have the power to set lower speed limits but it would be on a permanent basis.
I put it to the Minister that what we are suggesting is that at these specific times, when schools are going to be used and used by large numbers of children — perhaps 600 to 700 children attending in any one day — special measures are required at those periods rather then having them extended over the whole day. I agree that a speed limit of 15 miles per hour over the whole day is unacceptable, but at those specific periods, when many parents are leaving children to school and children are alighting from buses and so on, I would like to see such speed limits in operation.
While awaiting the Minister's amendment on Report Stage, I ask the Minister to clarify the traffic calming measures being proposed. Are they road-writing, rumble strips or flashing light near a hospital or a school? Will the power be given to local authorities to implement these measures on the national and primary routes?
I welcome the Minister's statement. The Minister mentioned the local authorities in his response. We are concerned where the national primary and national secondary routes are not necessarily, as roads, the functional responsibility of local authorities I presume the scope of the proposed legislation extends to the national primary and national secondary routes.
Yes, it does.
The Minister therefore understands my remarks on the National Roads Authority?
I understand.
I agree Deputy Connaughton's remarks about the school warden system. It is an effective system. I believe it would be used much more were it not for financial constraints. In a school in my area I believe the accounts restrict the number of school wardens mainly due to financial constraints. I understand that the Minister would be familiar with this, but where it does exist it is an excellent scheme. The important aspect of the scheme is that given the way it operates and where children are invovled it imposes a discipline on them which I believe acts as an excellent foundation afterwards. I would encourage the scheme where possible and I believe that if the Minister examined the scheme it could be broadened further.
I will consider a number of these suggestions between now and Report Stage. I have some sympathy with and understanding for the case Deputy McGrath is making. However, I see some difficulties also because it is not only is the morning involved but also lunch time and afternoon. In addition, we do not want to create an idea that at specific times it is perfectly safe, given that children can leave the school and go home at different times. Nevertheless I wish to examine the proposal because, although there are all types of schools and different road problems relating to them, it may be feasible in some circumstances. I am not going to rule it in or rule it out as it is a suggestion I have not sufficiently considered.
Regarding traffic calming measures, these could be traffic signs, road markings, bollards, posts, poles, rumble areas, raised forward or modified road surfaces, ramps, speed cushions, speed tables or other similar works or devices. These could include islands, or central reservations, roundabouts, modified junctions and so on. A school on a national primary route presents a big traffic hazard and does not present an easy solution in the same way as a school in a built-up area may do so. Therefore, the county council will have the flexibility to introduce proposals from the engineering sector and the local community as to the best type of solution in any given situation. Ministerial consent will generally be required on the national roads but that is not a primary area where I want to retain consent. It might be an area where I would further devolve, even on national roads, as far as schools are concerned. However, I would like to consider that in a broader national context.
In giving planning permission for schools in the future an area for loading and off-loading, off the main road or any other road, should be part and parcel of the school concept. It is not good enough for buses and cars to have people pulling up their vehicles on the main road with children alighting.
The Deputy's remarks are not appropriate for this Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 48 has already been discussed with amendment No. 43. I call on the Minister to move amendment No. 48.
I move amendment No. 48:
In page 25, to delete lines 3 to 11 and substitute the following:
"(d) The council of a county or the corporation of a county borough may, in bye-laws under this section, provide that the motorway speed limit shall not apply to any specified motorway or part thereof within its administrative county by declaring the said motorway or part not to be a motorway for the purposes of this Act.".
This is a drafting amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 49 not moved.
Question: "That section 33, as amended, stand part of the Bill", put and agreed to.