Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent) | Oireachtas source

Obviously, I share the House's wish to get this important Bill finished. Every day that it is delayed there is the potential for loss of life but I do not want to make it bad legislation by rushing it through. We have debated quite a lot of this previously but there are important issues here, particularly in this amendment.

Deputy Munster's request is reasonable. I will certainly ask for a report on this after one year, if this amendment is withdrawn or if the Bill goes through in its present form. It is fair enough that we should look at how it is working and whether the options are being exercised by the local authorities on 20 km/h. I would certainly be happy to do that. I am not sure what sort of report would do. I might ask the Road Safety Authority or someone to do it. I will talk to Deputy Munster about it afterwards, if she likes. We will find an independent body to have a look and report to us on how it is working.

I also welcome those long-time crusaders in the Gallery who crusaded for road safety for so long and their interest in this Bill. We all agree that speeding is one of the main causes of death and serious injury on our roads. Tackling speeding means setting appropriate speed limits for all areas, enforcing those limits and, above all, getting the message across to all drivers of the risk they pose to themselves and others by speeding.

Deputy Munster is proposing to make a speed limit of 20 km/h mandatory in housing estates. What I have proposed in the Bill is different, as Deputy Munster acknowledges. The Bill gives local authorities the option of imposing a 20 km/h speed limit where they believe it is appropriate. I appreciate the motivation behind Deputy Munster's amendment - we are on the same page - but I do not agree that her amendment is the way to go forward at present. I certainly will look at it and report back within a year. There are several reasons for this. First, we have what I think is a sound principle in law, as it currently operates, that local authorities decide what is the appropriate speed for a given road in their area. These roads can vary enormously, with visibility, straightness and other factors which affect the question of what is a safe speed. While the law sets blanket limits for motorways on the main national routes, this is because all of these roads are built to defined standards. The variety of roads covered by local authorities means that each road needs to be looked at in its own terms and the law has always rightly conferred this task on the local authorities.

Deputy Munster may argue that she is applying this specifically to housing estates. This brings me to the first of a number of additional reasons I believe that it would be a mistake to put the amendment the Deputy has proposed into law. Definitions in law are notoriously difficult to make precise, particularly in road traffic law. The definition of "housing estate" in Deputy Munster's proposed amendment is problematic. As proposed, a "housing estate" is defined as "an area consisting of a self-contained group of dwellings with a single or multiple entry points for mechanically propelled vehicles". This would definitely not work. It could mean both an apartment complex or Dublin's North Circular Road.

Next we come to the question of where the Deputy proposes to make the amendment. Section 9 of the Road Traffic Act 2004 deals with special speed limits. These are precisely the kind of optional speed limits on which local authorities can decide to which I referred earlier. At present, the default speed limit for roads under local authority jurisdiction is 50 km/h, with authorities allowed, by section 9, to apply special speed limits of 40 km/h or 30 km/h. My proposal, as stated in the Bill, is to add the option of a 20 km/h limit. I note in passing that Deputy Munster's amendment would keep the 30 km/h limit but drop the option of a 40 km/h limit. In any case, Deputy Munster's amendment, if accepted, would include a mandatory 20 km/h limit as one of the optional limits in section 9. This would, obviously inadvertently, be confusing if not contradictory. We would have legislation that would state that among the options for a local authority was a mandatory one. I need hardly point out that this would make the operation of section 9 completely impossible since it would become contradictory. The net effect would be that local authorities, quite unintentionally, would not be able to use section 9 and all roads in their areas would have to be left at the default speed limit of 50 km/h.

Finally, one key issue which was highlighted by the Jake's Legacy campaign which the amendment does not address is the question of what happens where developments have not yet been taken in charge by the local authorities, and Deputy Munster referred to this. This is a matter currently being examined by my Department in consultation with the Attorney General's office and I look forward to it being properly addressed when that process is concluded.

See this speech in context