Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)

There are lessons to be learned from his two predecessors. However, I wish him well in the job and look forward to interacting with him in the coming months. I would like the Minister to clarify the status of the Bill in his summing up. While I welcome the Bill, it is not clear whether it represents the road traffic legislation the previous Minister, Deputy Cullen, promised would be provided before the end of last year. In the middle of last year, we spent a considerable amount of time debating the Road Traffic Bill 2006 and several issues were raised by the Opposition, as well as by the Minister, which were not addressed in the legislation. During the course of the debate, the then Minister promised a second road traffic Bill before the end of last year. That did not materialise, which leads me to presume that the legislation before us is intended to be that Bill. While it deals principally with open-road tolling and other matters, there are a number of miscellaneous matters but these are not as comprehensive as promised or required. Does the Minister intend to bring forward further road traffic legislation this year?

The main purpose of the Bill is to provide for open-road tolling, which the magnitude of the problem on the M50 demonstrates is desperately needed. The need for open-road tolling on the M50 has been obvious for a number of years. While I welcome the fact that we are making provision for it, we must ask why we have waited until now. It has been known for ten years that the port tunnel would open and spew several thousand additional heavy goods vehicles on to the M50 daily. Conditions on the M50 were becoming increasingly difficult generally, and in particular at the toll bridge, and we knew the problem would be very much exacerbated by the opening of the port tunnel. Anyone with sense knew open-road tolling should be put in place before the tunnel opened, but unfortunately that did not happen. While there is no use crying over spilt milk, the delays and hardship motorists encounter on the M50 would have been avoided if there had been proper planning in the Department of Transport. It is important to make that point.

It is unfortunate that the Government made an agreement with NTR that open-road tolling may only be implemented from 2008. While I welcome the fact that the contract has been bought out by the Government, early control of the West Link bridge should have been achieved in the negotiations. From the opening date of the port tunnel to the time when open-road tolling is put in place, in August 2008 at best, traffic congestion will not have been properly managed as required. The NRA, Dublin City Council or an agency of the Department of Transport could have managed traffic congestion better by varying toll rates to encourage vehicles, especially trucks, to use the West Link during off-peak periods very early in the morning or late at night. The failure to secure flexibility through early public control of the West Link in the negotiations with NTR was a missed opportunity. I do not know why an earlier date could not be secured. Ordinary commuters are paying the price for the Government's failure to move sooner.

I am interested to learn from the Minister what measures are in place to ensure that tolls are not flouted by non-national drivers. Will Northern registered drivers be able to avoid paying tolls for substantial periods? In the context of speed cameras, it is common on the M1 to see Northern registered cars ignore the speed limits when they cross the Border to the South. The same is true for southern drivers who go North. Nothing can happen to these drivers if they break the speed limit as there is no mechanism in place to enforce the law on either side of the Border in respect of drivers from the other jurisdiction. We were promised by the Minister's predecessor on a number of occasions that this matter would be taken up in the Council of Ministers and with the North-South body, but nothing has happened. This will be a frequent problem and a source of great annoyance among drivers in the South who will be obliged, rightly, to pay tolls or will be subject to the enforcement mechanisms to deal with those who seek to avoid payment.

Non-national drivers, especially Northern drivers who are very welcome as they come here in increasing numbers, should pay their fair share. If they do not, there will be significant public annoyance as southern taxpayers subsidise toll charges for northerners and other non-nationally registered vehicles. Has agreement been secured to provide the authorities with national driver files in other European member states and with Stormont to ensure mutual observation of rules? Fines and penalties are regularly flouted by drivers from other jurisdictions, but the Bill is silent on the issue and the Minister appears to have no proposals to deal with it. It will become a growing problem and a source of great annoyance to taxpayers.

Will a mechanism be put in place to deal with repeat offenders for non-payment of tolls? In Holland, a system exists whereby fines and penalties can be applied if a driver is later stopped for other offences or checks, but I am not aware of such a system here. It is a system we should consider. While I appreciate fully the need for strict enforcement, however, is it appropriate that drivers should face fines of up to €5,000 and-or a term of imprisonment of up to six months for failure to pay a toll charge? While I believe in strict enforcement, six months' imprisonment is somewhat over the top given the nature of the offence.

Significantly, the Bill lacks provision to regulate number plate providers, which failure may render the legislation in general useless. I raised the matter during the debate on the Road Traffic Bill last year when the UK Government saw fit to extend regulation to this area. Certain disreputable operators provide false number plates, meddle with existing ones or switch them between vehicles, but there is no regulation of such activity. This behaviour will increasingly become a problem in the context of open-road tolling and should be attended to by the Minister.

A question also arises of the need to provide authority to the Minister, the NRA or some other road authority to implement group incentive and discount schemes for certain categories of vehicles or times of the day. I wish to know what will be the proposed locations for the use of tolls. I am not happy that responsibility for yet more toll by-laws will be devolved to the National Roads Authority, a body largely unaccountable to the public and public representatives. While in theory its representatives can be called before an Oireachtas committee, the reality is that at most they will come before the Joint Committee on Transport once a year. There is no effective ongoing accountability. All legislative functions should be performed by the Minister until there is proper public accountability for such organisations.

I share the concern expressed by Deputy Olivia Mitchell that recent years have seen a definite trend on the part of Governments to offload responsibility for the democratic accountability of public bodies. Increasingly, we see this responsibility shifted through legislation from the Minister to the State agency concerned and it is extremely difficult to demand or ensure ongoing accountability. I would like to see this trend reversed or at least halted. The impact and powers of this House are reduced if it is not possible to obtain answers from State agencies on a regular basis.

To some extent the Minister covered the practical operation of an open-road tolling scheme. Will he arrange for a briefing document to be provided for Opposition spokespersons and the Joint Committee on Transport? A great amount of detail must be examined more carefully. Given the experience and difficulties we encountered with speed cameras and the low level of enforcement against transgressions picked up by speed cameras, I am concerned about the robust nature of the scheme proposed.

We all spoke about the need to establish an open-road tolling scheme as quickly as possible. However, it must also be done properly. My main criticism is that nobody started to work on the project until quite late in the day. We should have prepared for this five, six or seven years ago once work on the Dublin Port tunnel was under way. The Minister has stated it is expected to be in place by August next year, sooner than recommended. I do not complain about the fact that it is coming. However, a balance must be struck between speed and ensuring the system is robust and will operate satisfactorily.

I must express concern about a point made by the Minister. With regard to the trial period, he stated, "Overall this will be done in one year less than the Conference of European Directors of Roads recommends as a realistic implementation timetable for such a project." The Conference of European Directors of Roads is an important body which establishes time limits in respect of what is achievable on a realistic basis. It states open-road tolling cannot be introduced within the period in which we will do so.

I hope this measure will not be rushed. The timescale from the early days of examining various systems, seeking tenders and designing the spec to operation is extremely short and a year shorter than that recommended. There is a reason the Conference of European Directors of Roads recommended a certain period. I hope we will not cut corners which will end up costing us dearly. It is not necessarily a boast to be able to state what the Minister did. For this reason I would welcome clarification on the practical implementation of the scheme and ask for a briefing paper to be made available on its details.

I have experience of the Eazy Pass scheme but not of any of the other similar schemes. I presume they all operate on the same basis. The Minister stated, "As an incentive registered users will be offered a discount on the standard toll rate." This seems sensible and should happen. One wonders why Eazy Pass does not offer an incentive scheme. We could have streamlined the operation of the West Link before now by having more people use Eazy Pass. Of course, there is no incentive for them to use it because there is no discount on toll costs. Will the Minister spell out what is proposed with regard to discounts?

What are the Minister's views on how Eazy Pass operates? It is unnecessarily restrictive. To establish an Eazy Pass account one must lodge a sum of €80. As the toll bridge is used the account balance is reduced. Once it has decreased to €20 the account is automatically topped up to €80. This figure is excessive. Many are not in a position to make such a commitment and keep topping up the account to the level of €80. It is not necessary when one considers how people top up mobile phones. One can top up by €10 and perhaps €5. Why must one top up to €80? It is a disincentive. We face a situation from the middle of next year where the vast majority of drivers will need a tag on their windows and we should seek to make it easier for them to do so. I do not see why one cannot top up to €10.

I will now discuss the issue of the use of PPPs. This is an issue I raised frequently with the Minister's predecessor and I will raise it with the Minister again in due course. Everybody discusses the great success of the PPP system of procurement for motorways and there was great success in recent years in bringing in motorway projects on time and under budget. However, there is not sufficient scrutiny of budgets. Everybody is delighted to see a road project completed sooner than expected and under budget. However, the budget is not adequately scrutinised in the first place and there is little transparency with regard to the costs involved.

All motorway projects are costed in tens of millions of euro. The programme is costed in billions of euro. Any slippage in respect of value for money means huge expense for the taxpayer. Often in the rush to welcome the opening of a new motorway, particularly if it is on time or under budget, the fact that we are not clear on whether the taxpayer received value for money is masked. All one can do is examine the price quoted by the private consortium for the PPP and compare it with the cost of procuring a motorway in the conventional manner.

I do not know how many comparative studies have been done of the cost per kilometre of procuring a motorway under the two options. I have seen few but often this is the figure which is compared. Perhaps the PPP price looks better. However, the payment of tolls for 30 years is not factored in to the original cost of the contract and while it might look like a good price initially, we should factor in the tolls to be paid by the public. It is a substantial cost to the taxpayer and must be included in the cost of the relevant section of motorway. I would like to see further study on that because it will be some time before people are able to make up their minds on whether we are getting value for money. If I continue to be a member of the Joint Committee on Transport, that is an issue to which I would like the committee to apply some of its time in the coming year. I appreciate a certain amount of work has been done by the Comptroller and Auditor General from the point of view of accountability in respect of keeping to the original budget but the comparative figures have not been adequately considered and I would like to see that done.

On motorway design, section 8 allows the Minister to change the status of dual carriageways to motorways. That is sensible if applied with due diligence. Missing from the Bill is a further improvement in standards for motorways and dual carriageways. For example, one of the candidates for designation as a motorway will surely be the N2 to Ashbourne, which already has a speed limit of 120 km/h. However, much of that road is unlit. I was surprised to receive a reply to a parliamentary question some months ago informing me there are no regulations governing the lighting of carriageways where a 120 km/h speed limit applies. That is nonsensical and needs early attention. While it seems sensible to designate the N2, which is a dual carriageway, where one can drive up to 120 km/h, it has implications for learner drivers. This is a huge issue and is one of the failures of the Minister's predecessors in that they have not tackled the issue of the long waiting lists for driving tests given that there are more than 400,000 learner drivers on our roads.

This means that learner drivers will be able to drive at 120 km/h on dual carriageways. They are not allowed to drive on the motorway but if they drive on a dual carriageway where there is an increased speed limit they can drive at 120 km/h. Much of the M50 has a speed limit of 100 km/h. I am not sure if the public is generally aware that when the upgrade works are completed the speed limit for the entire M50 will be reduced to 100 km/h. The rule applying to learner drivers is that they cannot drive on motorways but they can drive on dual carriageways. In effect, that means a learner driver is allowed to drive at 120 km/h on a dual carriage but not on a motorway where the speed limit is 100 km/h. It has implications and I am not sure if that aspect of the change in the speed limit has been thought out. Given the large number of learner drivers it is not right that a person who has never sat a driving test, or has sat a driving test and failed, is allowed, under our law, to drive on a road at 120 km/h. That is a serious mistake.

Section 10 provides for the National Roads Authority to make provision for service areas, which is long overdue. One has to ask why such areas are only being provided now given that we are several years into the motorway programme. It is patently clear that what is needed on motorways is an adequate number of service areas. It is not clear whether the service areas will include lay-bys and rest areas for motorists, particularly drivers of heavy goods vehicles. A serious problem with road safety is that a considerable number of truck drivers drive in excess of the time period allowed. The difficulty on our motorway system is that there are no rest areas for them at present. Therefore, there is always the temptation to go that extra 100 km to get to the next town to take the break when they feel tired. Given that such a facility is not available, it is remiss of the Department and previous Ministers not to have provided for it sooner.

The parking provisions deal only with the Croke Park type issue. While this is a valid issue in terms of sports stadia there is a need for greater flexibility to be given to local authorities to deal with the increasing parking problems in our cities and major towns. Under the law, it is not possible for a local authority to designate streets for "residents only" parking. That should be possible. My colleague, Deputy Stagg, raised this matter with the former Minister for Transport, Deputy Cullen, on a number of occasions and he gave an undertaking to deal with it, but unfortunately he has not done so and is tackling only the single problem around sports stadia. I appeal to the Minister to allow that type of flexibility.

For example, people park their cars outside neighbourhood shops in the morning and board a bus into town to get to work. This is a common feature of which many backbenchers will be aware, particularly in the Dublin area. That means all the parking spaces on a particular road or in front of shops are occupied for the entire day so that there is no casual parking available. The Minister needs to give flexibility to local authorities to allow them to designate certain areas for residents or one-hour parking, or whatever suits the particular circumstances in the local area. Local authorities are best placed to decide what suits a local area. I ask the Minister to consider allowing that flexibility to local authorities because it is an increasing problem in many areas. I see no reason he cannot do that.

Other anomalies need to be addressed arising from the definition of a public road. In recent months several anomalies have come to my attention in respect of estates that are not yet taken in charge by local authorities. We all know how long the taking-in-charge process can drag on. I was surprised to discover that the full rules of the road do not apply on roads which are not yet taken in charge by a local authority. This is incredible and it is causing huge difficulties. For example, if an estate has not been taken in charge, the Garda cannot enforce the law in respect of speeding. This is a very serious problem in housing estates. If a developer puts down double yellow lines during the course of the building of the estate the Garda cannot enforce those double yellow lines because the estate has not been taken in charge and is not a public road. Similarly, the standard urban speed limit of 50 km/h cannot be applied to a road that has not yet been taken in charge. We must have a law that addresses these anomalies and offers the same level of protection on these roads to all users, irrespective of whether the estates are in public or private charge. I will table amendments on this issue on Committee Stage.

I have raised the matter of footpaths by way of parliamentary question and I will table amendments on Committee Stage. For example, there are public footpaths, public rights of way, which are privately owned and there is no provision for the local authority to tackle that issue.

There are two other issues that could have been dealt with in this Bill, such as the blood-alcohol limit, which was promised, particularly for learner drivers. There is no provision for the regulation of tinted windows despite the fact that they make the enforcement of the law impossible in respect of the use of mobile phones. Given that that should have been done, I will table an amendment on Committee Stage. There is no provision to change the default speed limit on national roads. The Minister will discover very soon within the Department the urgent need to consolidate road traffic legislation because the Garda and everyone else finds it extremely difficult to tackle it.

I wish the Minister well with the Bill and I look forward to tabling many amendments on it.

See this speech in context