Road Traffic (Speed Limits) Bill: Second Stage

Private Members' Business – in the Northern Ireland Assembly at 3:30 pm on 17 February 2015.

Alert me about debates like this

Debate resumed on motion:

That the Second Stage of the Road Traffic (Speed Limits) Bill [NIA Bill 30/11-15] be agreed.

Photo of Pat Ramsey Pat Ramsey Social Democratic and Labour Party

Unfortunately, my contribution had to be cut short earlier. I want to come back to an intervention that was made by Alastair Ross earlier in the debate. I want to quote from Rod King MBE, the founder and campaign director of the 20's Plenty for Us group. He commented:

"We are amazed and disappointed that the Institute of Advanced Motorists should make ... a woeful mistake in their conclusions from the DfT statistics. In fact, wherever 20mph limits have been piloted, on looking at the casualties in detail, councils have concluded that there was a positive effect on road safety and subsequently widened the implementation across most areas. Now 20% of the UK population live in towns, cities or villages where the Traffic Authority is convinced that 20 is plenty for most streets. The IAM conclusion is bogus and reflects a poor understanding of either the changing numbers and success of 20mph limits or basic statistics."

It is very clear that it is important to place that on the record.

Photo of Trevor Clarke Trevor Clarke DUP

I thank the Member for giving way. I was looking for an intervention before the Speaker called the business to a halt before lunch, and I know that the Member was minded to give me that intervention.

I want to put two things on record. First, your colleague John Dallat referred to the type of the debate and said that he was disappointed at how it was going. However, this is a debating Chamber and people can have different opinions. I do not think that the language from anyone from these Benches indicated that they did not support the Bill's going forward, although I think that there is work to be done. You will accept — sorry, through the Chair, the Member will accept that, when I had a private conversation with him, we said that we would support the Bill going to the next stage. It was also interesting to note from your comments that you recognise that amendments are required.

The other thing that I want to put on record is that you referred to my colleague, who is not in the Chamber at the moment, and said that you spoke to another body about statistics. Maybe you will want to go back to the same folks in relation to 2020, because that does not address the Department for Transport figures that show that there has been an increase in accidents where a 20 mph speed limit has been introduced.

Photo of Pat Ramsey Pat Ramsey Social Democratic and Labour Party

I thank the Member for his intervention. I stand over any of the comments, figures or statistics that I have tabled and can provide the evidence of those. It is important that a debate of this nature flows. What disappointed me is that I spent some considerable time addressing the Regional Development Committee, which you are now the Chair of, and the Environment Committee, and the level of questions and concerns was not even raised. In fact, if truth be told, I got a much more favourable response and encouragement.

I know that the former Chair of the Regional Development Committee, Jimmy Spratt, who is not in his place, made reference to a visit to Scotland. On many occasions in the House, we look to the Scottish Parliament for best practice. They have a good practice guide. I say to the Member, as the Chair of the Regional Development Committee, to take a look at the Scottish guide. I am going to quote some of it:

"The Scottish Government is also keen to see a transformation of our towns and cities to ensure people are prioritised over motor vehicles and increasingly choose to walk or cycle when they make short journeys. ... The Scottish Government is committed to protecting vulnerable road users such as pedestrians and pedal cyclists on our streets."

I will read three more short paragraphs. The Scottish model says:

"Introducing such speed restrictions will help us to reduce the number of accidents, casualties and fatalities on Scotland’s roads. 20 mph speed restrictions can also help promote ... travel choices and can result in improvements to both the local and wider environment. Inappropriate and excessive speed is a significant cause of death and injury on the roads. Travelling too fast for the conditions or excessive speed is reported in 13% of all reported accidents and 20% of fatal accidents. Transport Scotland and its road safety partners want to see all road users travel, not just within the legal speed limit at all times, but at the speed most appropriate for the conditions, taking into account other road users."

I am sure Members will agree that, over the past number of decades, we have seen a tsunami of an increase in vehicle ownership in Northern Ireland. In those circumstances, we have roads from 30 years ago that are not fit for purpose for the number of vehicles on them these days. I encourage the Member to look at the Scottish model. I am sure that the Committee and the Committee for the Environment will examine that as well.

I want to address the elephant in the room, as unpalatable as it might be to convert collisions and road deaths to financial figures. Doing so provides the best counterargument to those who cite cost as a reason to reject the legislation, so while it may leave a bad taste for some people, I ask for your indulgence. First is the cost of enforcing limits. As the PSNI agreed, enforcing 20 mph limits costs exactly the same as enforcing 30 mph limits. That is their language, not mine. Moving attention to the cost of changing road signage: in the last 10 years, Transport Northern Ireland spent £230 million on local transport and safety measures. Of that, £22 million has been spent on speed-reduction measures. We know what those measures are, and both Committees have raised traffic calming measures. We are all inundated with issues to address and take to the Department. Unfortunately, at times, it does take incidents of deaths before the criteria are met or the police are convinced that they are necessary. As we are seeking a phased-in, prioritised, community-requested approach, it is entirely feasible that the introduction of 20 mph would fall in line with scheduled maintenance works over a number of years, therefore minimising the effect on annual budgets. I repeat that this Bill offers a maximum return for a minimum outlay.

Road fatalities change lives. They destroy families. Families will be forever traumatised by the loss of a son or daughter or a father or mother on the road. There is no shying away from the fact that it is true to say that they have financial implications for the economy. I made the point earlier that, when Sammy Wilson was Minister, I recall putting a question on that to him. It was £1·6 million. Department for Transport figures suggest that the figure today is as high as £1·95 million per fatal collision. That figure includes police costs, administration costs, insurance and the cost of damage to vehicles and properties. The cost to the economy resulting from collisions and slight injuries ranges from £15,000 to £23,544.

I ask people who may be opponents of the Bill, how those figures would stack up against the cost of road signage.

Let us examine best practice in other jurisdictions. Edinburgh, Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester, Hull, York and Bristol have introduced them to great effect. At present, a total of 8 million people in Britain live in neighbourhoods that are governed by 20 mph limits. In Edinburgh, 60% of respondents to consultations were strongly supportive of these proposals. Evaluating the initial schemes of 500 roads, Bristol council discovered that 89% of residents were in support of 20 mph limits on residential streets. That is a huge consultation. Almost 90% of residents favoured that limit on Bristol streets. A total of 65% of Bristol roads saw a reduction in speeds. Over time, they were able to analyse and audit the speeds on those roads. The Bristol scheme will cost in excess of £2 million and will be funded by a local sustainable transport fund and the local transport plan. Bristol, however, has introduced a blanket ban. At this stage, I am certainly not seeking to do that.

The Bristol scheme was initially opposed by the business community. However, I say to the business community across Northern Ireland, particularly in Belfast, who may have a resistance to this, the scheme in Bristol proved that footfall increases as speed is reduced. More people want to get into the city centres as the car speeds are reducing. People feel a lot safer in the city centres. That is the evidence in Bristol. It will encourage more people into urban areas where they will spend more time and money. Footfall has risen by levels of 20% to 40% in some of the schemes that I have mentioned. Again, I say to Members that those figures are hard to ignore. Bristol also discovered that walking rates increased by 23% and cycling by 20%. Therefore, the evidence clearly suggests that these zones generate more walking and cycling while lowering incidents and accidents on the roads.

Hilden in Germany introduced a citywide limit, and the percentage of journeys completed by cycle rose by 23%. Put simply, more people cycle when convinced that the roads are safer. That has a knock-on effect on health — mental and physical well-being — and life expectancy.

Holland is clearly among the models of best international practice. I think the Minister will have knowledge of that. Holland has the highest percentage of journeys undertaken by cyclists.

Photo of Pat Ramsey Pat Ramsey Social Democratic and Labour Party

Probably. Of all journeys undertaken, 27% are completed by cycle, yet, and this is an important point, Holland reports the lowest cycle fatalities in Europe. So, there is a lesson there, in the country that is doing it right in encouraging more people into the use of cycles.

The public clearly support the Bill and want it to progress. The support has taken me by surprise. Not only have I been stopped in the corridors of this Building by Members from all parties, but the man and woman on the street stopped me, during the period when there was some engagement with the Committee, to tell me to support this move.

I want to move on to the PSNI, on which some Members made interventions. Clearly, the PSNI is the main player in enforcement and in dealing with the aftermath of every casualty and road fatality. Its feedback was overwhelmingly supportive. In fact, the PSNI assured me, as I said earlier, that I was pushing an open door as far as its support was concerned. That is straight from the horse's mouth.

I will not labour the point any longer except to take this opportunity to commend all those officers across Northern Ireland who, in the face of extreme and recurring carnage and tragedy, turn up to work every shift with professionalism, knowing that, that night, they might have to knock on someone's door to give them the awful news that a member of their family has been killed on the roads.

The PSNI's concern was also on a blanket ban. Allow me to reiterate that. The PSNI said that it was engaging in a bottom-up approach to social and road engineering. I am not interested solely in introducing lower speed limits when they are not requested by local communities. The success of this move depends on local communities, stakeholders, the police and transport providers, including public transport, believing and buying into the fact that new lower limits will improve their way of life.

Photo of Chris Lyttle Chris Lyttle Alliance 3:45, 17 February 2015

I thank the Member for giving way, and I commend him on his work and on the important public debate that he is generating on the issue. I seek some clarification. It is my understanding that the Bill, as it stands, proposes a blanket approach to the introduction of 20 mph sign-only speed limit streets on all residential roads in Northern Ireland. He is now talking about a bottom-up approach that also includes traffic calming measures, but I do not see that in the Bill. Perhaps he could take the opportunity to clarify that.

Photo of Pat Ramsey Pat Ramsey Social Democratic and Labour Party

I know that the Member is very supportive of this course of action. As I said to other Members during the consultation, in discussions in Committee and in today's debate, it would be wrong not to reflect on points that are made to me. I will reflect on the best course of action, including in my discussions with the Minister's office, on how this can be best delivered. It would be wrong of me not to take those points on board.

I have said that I will take stock after the debate and bring forward, if necessary, some amendments of my own, if that improves the Bill and I get buy-in from the Department that takes the lead on the issue. My overall desire is to ensure that we put something in place that will make a difference to people's lives.

Photo of Sammy Wilson Sammy Wilson Shadow DUP Spokesperson (Treasury)

I thank the Member for giving way. Does he accept that, if he goes along the route of the changes suggested by Mr Lyttle, so that it is not just about sticking up signs at the beginning and end of a 20 mph limit area, the Bill will become significantly different, especially its cost?

Photo of Pat Ramsey Pat Ramsey Social Democratic and Labour Party

Yes, and I am also mindful of that. During the consultation and when I briefed the Committee, a number of Members made the point that traffic calming measures are important for many parents in our communities. Ramps have the physical effect of slowing cars down. Thankfully, we have that engineering and design in most new development schemes across Northern Ireland, particularly in social housing, where they are designed into plans from the outset. It also happens in private housing. We have to look at that. It is not part of the Bill at the minute. The Bill does what it states.

I hope for and have a full desire to have road signage across Northern Ireland that will ultimately mean change. I say again that this is about transforming the culture that people have had for decades in Northern Ireland. It is about trying to ensure that, over the next number of years, we go into primary and secondary schools to teach the drivers of the future to slow down and about the impact that they have in their communities. It should also be part of the driving test. It is about buy-in.

Consensus is important. When the new councils are set up, it would be wrong of me not to have a further consultation with them and with the new community and public safety partnerships. I want to hear from communities that want to be talked to. Young people have a voice, and I want to hear that as well. I am trying to find a mechanism to enable young people to come forward so that I can hear that voice.

DRD has told the Committee that it will back the Bill but not a blanket position of 20 mph. The Minister believes that the idea is right but that we may have to work hard at ensuring that we get the implementation mechanisms right. I fundamentally agree. The Department's preferred approach, as communicated to the Committee, would be to enable the introduction of reduced speed limits but not to impose them. That is a matter for debate and for Consideration Stage.

The Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service said that it would support the speed limit reduction in smaller residential streets. It welcomed the move as the most effective means to reduce incidences of deaths and serious injury on the road. Sustrans stated:

"We support the Bill and any move to reduce death on the roads."

It went further:

"Road injuries are amongst the leading causes of accidental loss of life and disability worldwide."

According to the latest available figures, seven pedestrians and four cyclists were killed on Northern Ireland's roads in 2013. Additionally, 162 pedestrians and 42 cyclists were seriously injured. That was not 20 years ago; that was 2013.

Sustrans supports a 20 mph limit on residential streets:

"as a vital tool in achieving the cycling revolution and improving the safety and quality of life in urban areas".

I think that the Minister would probably concur with that, as I know that he has been very obviously promoting and championing it since taking up post.

Sustrans made this final point:

"We welcome the introduction of this Bill as a very important step to help to expedite the delivery of 20 mph as the default speed limit on residential roads. It is important to note that this Bill refers to sign-only speed limits, not traffic-calming measures. We suggest more thought needs to be given to its implementation".

That is what we are doing today, and, if the Bill passes its Second Stage today, it will be given further consideration at Committee Stage.

The Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People welcomed:

"the key proposal to introduce 20 mph limits in designated restricted areas, particularly in respect of its potential to improve children and young people's safety and reduce the number of casualties amongst this age group".

Another important group, Disability Action, told me:

"We support this campaign as a means to improve the accessibility of our streets for people with a disability, who are less mobile and would feel much more comfortable on the roads".

At consultation stage, the road safety charity Brake said:

"We really support this Bill. We have found that, even when there is no increase in enforcement activities, the average speed still reduces on 20 mph limit roads that are signed only".

I quote, as I have quoted all day, "This will save lives".

Photo of Chris Lyttle Chris Lyttle Alliance

I thank the Member for giving way and commend the work that he is doing. Does he accept that the evidence suggests that in a 20 mph sign-only street, the speed reduction, on average, is in the region of 1 mph? That, in itself, is, of course, to be welcomed, but it compares with an average 9 mph reduction in a street that contains traffic calming as well.

Photo of Pat Ramsey Pat Ramsey Social Democratic and Labour Party

That was one of the quotes that I was going to use. I welcome the intervention, and I agree with him.

The Northern Ireland Cycling Initiative agreed, stating:

"The public health benefits of more people walking and cycling, fewer injuries and what would be a more complete street environment would be an additional benefit of this legislation".

Cycling group C2C supports the Bill, and a number of councils that responded to the consultation very clearly support it. We received responses from councils across Northern Ireland, not least my own Derry City Council, along with Strabane, Dungannon, Banbridge, Lisburn and Omagh.

As I finish, Members, I appeal to you to have common sense. My entry point on this has always and solely been to prevent loss of life on the road, particularly the lives of children, and there is clear evidence for that. I am absolutely sure that the introduction of the Bill would reduce the trauma and awfulness that come to a family home following the loss of a child. Thank you for your support.

Photo of Trevor Clarke Trevor Clarke DUP

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate in my capacity as Chair of the Committee for Regional Development. I will also speak in my own right.

I immediately place on record that the Committee for Regional Development agrees with the principal objective of the Bill, which is to reduce the number of road accidents and fatalities. We had concerns that the Bill, as it stands, proposed a blanket approach to 20 mph, and I am pleased that the Member has said that he is amenable to amending that should it progress to Committee Stage.

The Department already has the power to reduce the speed limit to 20 mph, but that power is normally exercised on a zonal basis. One of the key elements of the zonal approach is the support of residents in the zonal area. This has been integral to driving through 20 mph initiatives in the likes of Edinburgh, Portsmouth and Bristol and in the 500 or more 20 mph zones currently in Northern Ireland.

In briefing papers that it provided, Sustrans welcomed Edinburgh's approach to 20 mph speed limits in residential areas and acknowledged that that had been done zonally, rather than by default. Key to the success in Edinburgh was the garnering of public support for the pilot schemes. The Department's pilot schemes have shown that not everyone is in favour of the 20 mph zones. Three out of the four completed pilots run by the Department received objections — namely, Belfast city centre, Merville Garden Village and Ballymena — and cannot be progressed until the objections are resolved or set aside. In addition, there were only 44 responses to Mr McDevitt's consultation, and those are unlikely to be a representative geographic or demographic sample. Therefore, we need to have a wider consultation, and I hope that we will when the Bill gets to Committee Stage.

Among the other comments and concerns that the Committee will need to explore is the statement in the DOE's road safety strategy 2020 that, in 2007, 79% of fatalities caused by speeding happened in rural areas. The Bill as drafted does not cover any rural areas, so Members may wish to explore that particular aspect.

Of course, a number of references have been made to the enforcement of the schemes. Without the possibility of better enforcement, they will not succeed.

In conclusion, the Committee feels that the principal objective of the Bill — reducing the number of fatalities — is a worthy one. However, it will require a great deal of more detailed information on how that might successfully be achieved.

If you allow me, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker, I will now speak in my capacity as a DUP Member. I want to put it on record that Mr Ramsey afforded me the opportunity yesterday to meet him, but, unfortunately, time did not permit that. I would have been interested in meeting him because it would have been fair to do so. We had only a brief discussion in the corridor on the Bill.

I will not be opposing the passage of the Bill to Committee Stage. Hopefully, my colleagues on these Benches will also support it so that we can see what improvements can be made to the Bill.

As elected representatives, we have all been involved in discussions in our various areas on speed ramps and in calling for better enforcement of speed limits by the PSNI. It is interesting that Mr Ramsey said that, with the police, he was "pushing an open door". However, where the PSNI is involved, it has been a revolving door, as whomever you speak to is here today and gone tomorrow. As a representative of South Antrim, where there have unfortunately been many incidents and many fatalities, I find that, when you speak to them, it is difficult to get the police to carry out enforcement. The Member is right. Whatever the speed limit, should it be 30 mph, 40 mph or, indeed, 20 mph, enforcement falls to the PSNI. If enforcement were carried out in a proper manner at present, there would not be such a requirement to reduce speed limits to 20 mph.

Reference was made to how much it will cost to implement the Bill. Mr Ramsey has changed the face of what he is suggesting. Perhaps the Minister will see fit to give us an indication of the cost. It will be interesting to find that out. I agree wholeheartedly with the Member's comment that one death is one too many. However, 2014 has recently ended, a year that saw the highest number of road deaths in many years. There has been no change in different areas as a result of those figures, and that is not because of higher speed limits; rather, it comes down to driver habit, and that is what I am most afraid of. In my area, we lobbied DRD officials, and they succumbed to pressure from public representatives to put in traffic calming measures. Where evidence of a high rate of violations was gathered by officials, traffic calming measures were introduced, yet one car was detected as travelling at twice the speed limit after measures had been put in place. That is one of the things that surprised me most. Therefore, we can put in place traffic calming measures and 20 mph zones, but, if we do not change driver habits, none of it will have any effect.

I take the Member's point about going into schools. He will meet no opposition from me on that. It is disappointing that DRD, or else DOE, has reduced its road safety budget. That is ill-judged. The more education that goes into our schools, the better. It is important to try to educate young people before they get behind the wheel of a vehicle.

I noticed an intervention or two from the Member's colleague on the Back Benches Mr Dallat. Let me remind Mr Dallat that, when he goes over the bridge heading from here to the M3, a 50 mph limit applies. On many nights, Mr Dallat goes past me, and you would not see him for dust. Maybe if this were to go into these zonal areas, Mr Dallat would need some sort of device on his car to get him to reduce his speed to 20 mph. I was not joking; that is true, but, on a more serious note, we cannot get away from the fact that far too many people are losing their life on the roads.

The only other thing that concerns me about this Bill is that we are focusing on urban areas. The highest number of deaths on our roads have been in rural areas, and, as someone who represents a rural constituency, I would not like to see a position where, although the highest number of deaths have occurred in rural areas, we are trying to address an issue that is urban-centric.

Photo of Daithí McKay Daithí McKay Sinn Féin 4:00, 17 February 2015

I support the legislation before us, and I certainly support ensuring that it goes to Committee Stage. As someone who has brought a private Member's Bill to the House previously and is planning to do so again, I appreciate that a lot of the work goes into it. To the former Member and to Mr Ramsey, I say that it takes a lot of time, work and effort. Thanks also to the staff who are involved in trying to bring this legislation forward. A lot goes on behind the scenes that many in the public do not realise. A number of years ago, I tabled legislation on the carrier bag levy, and the Member for East Antrim opposed that as well. I am sure that he is delighted by its success. The point about that is that the Bill that I brought to Second Stage was completely different from the Bill that came out the other end at Final Stage, but, at the end of the day, the policy objectives were still met.

(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Beggs] in the Chair)

I certainly welcome the approach by the proposer of the Bill that he is open to compromise, and I hope that other parties are open to compromise on this particular issue because it is vital to our communities. It always comes up on the doors of constituents, whether in estates or in rural areas. This Bill is focused on 20 mph zones. It is about urban areas, villages, towns and cities, and I wonder whether there is capacity in this Bill to look at the issue of rural areas. Maybe that is something that we need to look at separately, but there is a problem of people losing their life in rural areas, and those lives are just as important as those of people in our towns and cities. Of course, this kind of proposal will meet resistance from many quarters. As Members said, there was resistance to the smoking ban, to seat belts being made mandatory and even to drink-driving legislation. Of course, all those things were introduced, and, within a couple of years, they became normal practice and acceptable in society.

This particular issue was raised with me two years ago by a constituent in Ballycastle concerning the speed of vehicles in Leyland Farm and Leyland Meadows in the town, and the Minister will be aware of this case. Philip Robinson's daughter Maebh was almost hit by a Volvo estate that was travelling at an excessive speed in this residential area of some 100 homes. He has written at length about the need for a 20 mph limit in built-up areas and he refers to the fact that we live in a driving culture where 30 mph is considered a minimum speed. He is absolutely right. The first thought that will come into the head of the majority of people and, dare I say, Members when it comes to 20 mph limits is that that is so slow or, "I could not drive that slow or my car will conk out". That is the kind of reaction that you are going to get. People think that 20 mph is such an inconvenience to their daily commute.

Photo of Sammy Wilson Sammy Wilson Shadow DUP Spokesperson (Treasury)

The Member has cited a specific example, which is not always the best way of deciding what policy should be. Will he agree that, if a Volvo were travelling at excessive speed in a 30 mph limit, it would be likely to travel at excessive speed in a 20 mph limit? If he is using the example that he has given as justification for this Bill, it is a very poor argument.

Photo of Daithí McKay Daithí McKay Sinn Féin

It is a very good argument because it is proven. The proof has already been put on the Floor that, when speed limits are reduced, even without the environmental measures, the speed ramps and so on, average speeds come down. Therefore, the risks come down as well. We can argue about how much the risk reduces, but it does reduce, and it makes it less likely, to one degree or another, that a child will be hit in a residential area in Ballycastle, Antrim, Carrickfergus or elsewhere in our communities.

When I refer to the natural reaction of commuters and drivers, there is no immediate thought given to the safety of children in residential areas of reducing the number of people killed and seriously injured on our roads. As public representatives, we all know of cases where people have died on our roads; we have all been to the wakes and the funerals again and again. In my view, there is an opportunity to reduce the number of people killed or seriously injured on our roads. It will not deal with the huge problem of people losing their lives on our rural roads, but it will help to reduce the number of adults and children who are hit by cars, vans, buses and lorries in our villages, towns and cities.

The financial , as well as the personal, cost of road deaths is huge. There is a financial cost to the Bill, and the Member has already referred to that. Each death on our roads, in addition to the huge tragedy that it visits upon a family and a community, costs the economy some £1·7 million. That does not include the cost of the seriously injured. There are police costs, costs for healthcare, drugs, counselling, the Fire Service, insurance, the physical damage and the years of medical care that result from serious injuries. So, when you look at it like that, it is clear that the human cost and the financial cost are greater by not supporting the introduction of measures to reduce speed and to change how people behave on our roads.

The estimated benefit to London from casualty reductions in current 20 mph zones has a value of at least £20 million per year, according to the Assembly there. In our villages and towns, we have many young families of all shapes and sizes. As we know, many families live in homes with no gardens, and there is nowhere for children to play. You can shout at the weans, as we say, all you like about not playing in the street, but they will do it anyway. When your back is turned, they will be out on the road kicking a ball about. Many people who have gardens have not had them fenced off to the road at all. So, it is not right that in cul-de-sacs and estates vehicles can legally drive at 30 mph. It is too great a speed limit and increases the risk of a child losing their life.

Photo of Cathal Ó hOisín Cathal Ó hOisín Sinn Féin

I thank the Member for giving way. Central to the entire argument and to any amendment to the Bill is the definition of what constitutes a residential area and a built-up area, even the differentiation between urban and rural and the definition of through roads in some cases.

Photo of Daithí McKay Daithí McKay Sinn Féin

Absolutely. The Committee has a great opportunity to delve into those issues in detail because the definition has to be got right. There has to be clarity, and there should not be any opportunity for this to be defined in such a way that the Main Street in Dungiven, for example, would come under a 20 mph zone. There will be, and should be, exceptions for main thoroughfares through towns and settlements.

When we talk of our cul-de-sacs and estates, I think of Bamford Park in my home village of Rasharkin where there has been a campaign to reduce the speed limit to 20 mph. I know the area well, and if you were driving at 30 mph and a child were to slip out between the parked cars, they would not stand a chance. That is not tenable; it needs to change.

We were talking about traffic calming earlier and Transport NI. One of the inconsistencies that angers me is the fact that it has always been easier to get traffic calming towards the west than it has been in the northern area.

For example, there are road humps all the way through the likes of Ballinascreen and Draperstown, but when it comes to villages and towns in the area that I represent, there is fierce resistance to getting road humps down where they are needed.

Photo of Paul Frew Paul Frew DUP

I thank the Member for giving way. He raises the example of Dunloy. We have worked in partnership to make roads in Dunloy safer. When we were there on site, Roads Service personnel stated that it was actually safer in their eyes if they extended the 40 mph speed limit and reduced the 30 mph speed limit, if my memory serves me right. You and I could not get our heads round that, but they said that it was factually correct. How does that sit with the Bill?

Photo of Daithí McKay Daithí McKay Sinn Féin

I thank the Member for his intervention. I did not mention Dunloy specifically; I was thinking of other examples. Certainly, we have all been at site meetings and haggled with Roads Service officials as to what the best solution is. There is a need for greater traffic calming, especially in the estates around places like Dunloy, Broughshane, Glenravel, Ballymena town and so on.

Like I say, the Bill that is before us today needs scrutiny. It needs to go to the Committee and be amended. I think that its proposer recognises that as well. We have to get this right. That is especially true in some of the super-sized residential estates that we now have, where there are hundreds of houses in a single estate, with many branches of avenues, closes and parks. Because they are so large, there is more opportunity for vehicles to speed up and do 30 mph and beyond in those estates. It would take many, many years for Transport NI to introduce all the deterrents that we would like to see in different parts of our constituencies: ramps, mini-roundabouts, etc. A 20 mph limit, in my view, is a deterrent in itself. Yes, there are questions about enforcement and other physical measures to deter, but who here in this House, if they saw a 20 mph limit, would think that they would have to break that limit? No one, I would hope. Even if there were zero enforcement measures, introducing a limit that says that 20 mph is the law will ensure that the average speed of drivers will fall.

The Department for Transport's current guidance in England says that where average speeds are already around 24 mph on roads, introducing a 20 mph speed limit through signing alone is likely to lead to general compliance with the new speed limit. There will be enforcement. I will allow the Committee to delve into the issue of enforcement in greater detail. I mentioned this to a couple of Members yesterday when we were discussing the Bill: if the police are currently responsible for enforcing the speed limit, which is 30 mph today, on, say, five miles of road in a town, and the speed limit changes to 20 mph on that five miles of road tonight, the police would still have five miles of road on which to enforce the speed limit. The only difference is that they will have to adjust the numbers on their speed cameras. I do not accept that we should not strive to prevent people from getting killed on roads because the police do not have enough resources. That is not a good enough reason to kill this Bill. If there is an issue of resources, we, as elected representatives, should strive to address that.

Injuries are mainly fatal if a pedestrian is hit by a vehicle that is travelling between 30 mph and 40 mph. Pedestrians who are hit at speeds below 30 mph receive mainly survivable injuries. At a traffic speed of 20 mph, the pedestrian survival rate is increased to 97%, and 20mph limits are fast becoming the norm in many parts of Europe. Dublin City Council was the first local authority in Ireland to introduce a 20 mph or 30 kph speed limit, which has been enforced since 2006. This was introduced in the interests of road safety and to make the city centre more attractive to pedestrians and cyclists. The council now plans to extend this scheme beyond the city centre by introducing a default 20 mph or 30 kph speed limit to all residential areas in the city.

There were eight pedestrian fatalities in the Dublin city area between 2003 and 2007, and 224 pedestrians and 77 cyclists were injured. In September 2011, however, Dublin was reported to have the safest roads of any capital city in Europe. The gardaí chief superintendent Aidan Reid, head of the Dublin metropolitan area traffic corps, said that the 30 kph enforcement zone was a success. That was put down to enforcement, the ban on five-axle HGV trucks in the city centre and a huge increase in the volume of cyclists, which was down to the Dublin bike system. If the gardaí chief in Dublin says that it is enforceable in Dublin, I think that the PSNI should be equally capable of enforcing such a proposal in Belfast. Look elsewhere in the island and you will see that Cork county, Cork city, Clare and many other areas are introducing 30 kph zones.

In 2011, the European Parliament adopted a resolution urging local authorities across the European Union to introduce a 20 mph standard speed limit in residential areas. In Portsmouth, the 20 mph scheme has been well supported by local residents and appears to be achieving its primary objectives of reducing vehicle speeds and associated road casualties. Levels of pedestrian, cyclist and public transport usage have all increased there as a result. In London, as I said earlier, there are 400 20 mph zones, and those have reduced fatal and serious casualties by 46%. The number of people who lose their life and are injured reduced by 46%. Manchester City Council announced in 2012 that it will also introduce 20 mph limits. Liverpool also plans to impose 20 mph zones on 70% of its residential roads by 2016. The number of car-related accidents on Newcastle's residential streets in England dropped by more than half in some areas of the city following the council's introduction of 20 mph speed limits. This is happening all over Europe and all over these islands, and we need to make sure that we are not left behind.

British Government research shows that the most effective way of saving lives is to slow traffic, and, in trial areas where speed has been cut to 20 mph, the number of cyclists killed or seriously injured fell by 50% and by 60% among child cyclists. A Norwegian study found that a 10% decrease in the average speed would result in a 37·8% reduction in people losing their lives. The Grundy study, which was published in the British Medical Journal, found that a reduction to a 20 mph limit led to a 40% fall in casualties from collisions over a 20-year period until 2006.

Graz in Austria became the first European city to introduce a 30 kph limit in 1992, which was 23 years ago, and those limits cover approximately 80% of the city's road network. The main aims of the scheme were to improve road safety, reduce pollution and cut noise. The limit is in place on all residential roads, school zones and areas around hospitals, which equates to over 75% of the city's roads. Speed limits of 50 kph, which is 31 mph, remain on the through-roads through the city. They also found that, after two years, the majority of people who were against the proposal had changed their views, and support for the scheme is now widespread in the city. The result of that is that the number and severity of road accidents have been reduced by some 25%. The evidence is overwhelming.

As has been mentioned, what has greatly frustrated me, as a public representative, about my work on road safety over the years is the thresholds that have to be met in order for works to be done. I remember when we were lobbying for safety barriers on a fast road outside a village in my constituency and beside the road were a number of trees. It was a heavily wooded area and, given the speeds of vehicles and the shape of the road, the risk was very clear. However, it did not meet the threshold in place. A young man was then involved in a car accident in which he lost his life. The threshold was then met. The works were carried out, and there have been no serious accidents there since.

I applaud the fantastic work of Roads Service officials in significantly reducing the numbers of people who have lost their life on our roads over the years. They do over and above what is necessary to reduce the risk on our roads. However, I have absolutely no sympathy for the argument that the speed limit in residential areas should not be reduced from 30 to 20 mph because there are no accident statistics. Fathers, mothers, grandparents — all those living in these areas — see the risk, and the risk is always there because the potential for human error is always there.

According to the latest figures, 162 pedestrians and 42 cyclists were seriously injured on our roads in 2013. Seven pedestrians and four cyclists lost their lives. That is not good enough. A number of countries in Europe are looking at a zero tolerance approach. As much as humanly possible needs to be done to ensure that nobody loses their life on the roads. We are not there yet — far from it.

Photo of Chris Lyttle Chris Lyttle Alliance 4:15, 17 February 2015

I thank the Member for giving way. Would the Member accept that the debate is about not so much whether we reduce speed to 20 mph on residential roads as what is the most effective way of doing so?

Photo of Daithí McKay Daithí McKay Sinn Féin

We need to find the most effective way of doing so. There has been much discussion today of environmental zones as opposed to limits. Ideally, we want 20 mph zones to ensure that you do not have people speeding through the area regardless of the speed limit, as the Member for East Antrim argued earlier. But the fact of the matter is that the limit itself does deter people from going over it; it is as simple as that. There will always be people who break the limits regardless of what it is, but setting the limit in law will affect people's behaviour, particularly drivers' behaviour.

The Minister talked of bringing about a cycling revolution. The revolution is not here yet, but this will certainly help it on its way. Making our roads significantly safer will make it safer for people, especially children, to cycle. At the moment, roads and streets are far from safe and, in some cases, getting less so. Rolling out the 20 mph speed limits on streets where people live is a key part of the cycling revolution to which he refers.

The potential health benefits are huge as well. Recent analysis of cycle deaths in London found that virtually all fatal collisions occurred on roads with a speed limit of 30 mph or higher. Research in London also found that, of pedestrians hit at 40 mph, 90% are killed; of pedestrians hit at 30 mph, 20% are killed; and of pedestrians hit at 20 mph, 3% are killed. Therefore, reducing the speed limit and drivers' speeds towards 20 mph reduces the chances of people being killed on our roads by a huge margin.

The cost of road signage should be weighed up against the many benefits of 20 mph limits, which include boosting walking and cycling, in particular, but also related health and environmental benefits and the reduction in roads casualties. Streets with 20 mph limits have 40% fewer road casualties and the greatest reduction in numbers of young children killed and injured. Default 20 mph limits are also cheaper to implement and can reduce the need to spend on significant new infrastructure. The benefits of 20 mph limits reach far beyond road safety to increased social interaction and physical activity, along with improved air quality and noise levels.

Sustrans research has shown that parents are far more concerned about road safety than so-called stranger danger to their children, and speeding traffic is the most common concern in our communities.

Sustrans make a very important point: all the North will be doing is catching up with elsewhere, where 20 mph zones are already being rolled out.

The Institute of Public Health outlined the potential health benefits arising from the introduction of a 20 mph speed limit in residential areas. It points to increased safety for residents, pedestrians and cyclists. Slower vehicle speeds result in perceived and actual changes to the built environment, which generate opportunities for walking and cycling. Increased physical activity will help to tackle obesity, reduce the risk of chronic conditions, improve cardiovascular health, improve social cohesion among communities, improve mental health and well-being and reduce emissions that contribute to climate change and air and noise pollution. We have to recognise that the 20's Plenty idea fits well with the public health agenda, not like the nonsense that we have seen from the Tories across the water, such as cutting benefits from people according to their weight. We need to take that seriously.

People want and should be given better choices. A better urban and community environment will make it more likely that people will make healthy choices about their lifestyle. We need to do more to promote the health benefits associated with increased physical activity as part of efforts to reduce overweight and obesity levels and improve mental health and well-being. That is consistent with the Health Department's strategy to tackle obesity, which aims to empower the population to make healthy choices and reduce the level of harm related to overweight and obesity by creating an environment that supports and promotes a physically active lifestyle and a healthy diet. A number of factors can contribute and create barriers to participation in physical activity. Fast vehicle travel is commonly cited as a barrier to walking and cycling. In promoting cycling and encouraging greater uptake, safety remains a key concern. The NI cycling strategy outlines that it will examine the recommendations of the speed management review in Britain and, where appropriate, introduce further measures to reduce traffic speed in the North.

The introduction of 20 mph speed limits in inner south Bristol brought about a 12% increase in cycling and pedestrian activity and a 40% reduction in the number of cycle casualties in the first six months of the speed limits being introduced. Average speed reductions of 1·4 mph to 5·3 mph were reported across a range of roads in the area. Slower vehicle speeds are associated with increased opportunities for walking and cycling. According to the Health Forum in England, the associated benefits of walking and cycling include increased physical activity, encompassing weight reduction, reduced chronic conditions and better cardiovascular health, improved mental health and well-being, better social cohesion in communities and safer areas for children to play. We can see that the evidence speaks for itself.

Clause 1 concerns the speed limit on residential roads. The definition of a residential road has to be watertight; it has to address any possible anomalies. That should be discussed in detail in Committee. Some common sense has been shown in the Bill's memorandum, which states that the Department can apply 30 mph speed limits to residential areas if they are a main thoroughfare, but concerns about the definition need to be addressed through the Committee's scrutiny.

Clause 7 gives the Department two years to put the changes in place. The question is: how much will it cost? The Committee needs to establish what the projected costs are. Are the projected costs put forward by the Department accurate? Is two years enough? That is the key question that the Committee should consider. There needs to be discussion about what changes can be made at the edges of the Bill, but we would be missing a huge opportunity if the Bill were not to be introduced into law in one form or another.

Last month, Edinburgh's bid to become the first 20 mph city in Scotland moved a step closer when councillors approved a map of 20 mph, 30 mph and 40 mph limits for the city. The council said that it wants to dismiss a number of myths concerning that. Those myths are equally as applicable to here as they are to Scotland. Myth one is that slower speeds will increase congestion. The council does not anticipate any increase in congestion. In fact, research indicates that vehicles flow more smoothly through junctions at slower speeds.

Myth two is that slower speeds will increase emissions and worsen air quality. Research indicates that vehicles flow more smoothly through junctions at slower speeds. Additionally, as a result of reduced acceleration and braking, a 20 mph limit may help to reduce fuel consumption and associated emissions. Some environmental benefit from the change is expected from helping to unlock the potential for walking and cycling, as I mentioned earlier.

Myth three is that the 20 mph speed limit will not be enforced. The legal speed limit on all roads in Edinburgh is enforced by Police Scotland, which says that this will be no different. Whether a street has a 20 mph, 30 mph or 40 mph speed limit, the police will direct their resources to particular problem areas as they do currently, and drivers caught flouting the limit will face a warning or fine.

Myth four is that 20 mph limits in shopping streets will be bad for businesses. It is considered that businesses will benefit from the increased liveability that slower speeds foster in their area, with more people attracted to spend time in shopping streets where they feel safer and the environment is generally more pleasant. Opinion research carried out in the south Edinburgh pilot area found that residents felt that the new speed limit had had a range of positive impacts, the most often mentioned being improved safety for children and for walking and cycling.

Myth five is that the city would be covered in speed humps. The new limit will be introduced without traffic calming measures. However, if monitoring finds that speeds remain significantly above 20 mph on certain streets despite signage, speed-reducing measures on the roads concerned will be considered.

Another myth is that signs alone do not lower drivers' speeds. Evidence has shown that sign-only 20 mph speed limits can help to reduce average speeds and improve safety. Evidence from the pilot scheme in south Edinburgh showed similar results: average speed reduced by around 10% to just over 20 mph, and there was a larger fall of about 14% on roads that had higher average speeds before the limit was introduced. Of 1,000 people surveyed in the south Edinburgh pilot area, 79% supported the 20 mph limit and just 4% opposed it.

Roseanne Brennan lost her young son Jake when he was knocked down and killed by a car outside his home on an estate in Kilkenny last June. She is sleeping outside the Dáil in a bid to force the Government to reduce speed limits in housing estates. A couple of days ago, she launched 'Jake's Law' with my party colleague Mary Lou McDonald TD in an effort to reduce the speed limit in residential areas. To lose your son like that and go on and campaign for a law that would prevent another family going through the same trauma is an extremely courageous thing to do, and we should commend the Brennan family for that.

The speed limit in that estate in Kilkenny is 50 kmh, which is 30 mph, the same as applies in all our estates and residential areas here. It is too high for areas where our children live and play. Whether it is in the North or the South, it does not matter. We have to protect our children, our families and our communities.

Sinn Féin supports the Bill's principles and objectives and the approach of political parties in the House today. Some may have issues with it, but they are willing to take the Bill to the Regional Development Committee for further consideration and amendment, if necessary. Issues were raised about cost — the cost of the Bill can be counted in pounds and pence; the cost of not implementing it will be measured in lives.

Photo of Chris Lyttle Chris Lyttle Alliance 4:30, 17 February 2015

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this important Bill. I commend the proposer, Mr Pat Ramsey, for the work that he has undertaken to bring the Bill to Second Stage, and I acknowledge its initial sponsor, Mr Conall McDevitt, and the work that he did on it.

As an MLA , chair of the Assembly all-party group on cycling and member of the Regional Development Committee, I wholeheartedly support the objectives and principles of the Bill, which I understand to be to increase road safety on residential roads; to reduce collisions, injuries and fatalities on residential roads; and to facilitate an environment that enables active travel in our community. I will, of course, support the Bill's passage to Committee Stage for further scrutiny. However, the Assembly should not confuse robust scrutiny with negativity. Members raised significant concerns today and will want to raise them again at Committee Stage.

It is important that we improve our scrutiny of legislation and absolutely ask the questions that measure whether legislation will achieve what it states it wants to achieve. We need to ask what exactly the Bill is proposing, how it will do that and whether this is the best and most cost-efficient way in which to achieve its objectives — objectives that, I think, everyone in the Assembly gives support to today.

The Bill proposes to make law sign-only 20 mph speed limits on residential roads. It attempts to define "residential road". I would have liked to hear a bit more from the proposer on his definition. The Bill proposes a public information campaign, and I would like to hear more about what that would look like and how much it might cost.

The Bill sets out a power for the Department for Regional Development to exempt certain residential roads. I ask the Minister for Regional Development how many roads are likely to require exemption and how much that might cost. It is important that we look at evidence, as some MLAs have done, to see whether having sign-only 20 mph speed limits on all residential roads is the best and most cost-effective way in which to achieve road safety and active travel.

The World Health Organization states that speed is the single most important contributor to road fatalities. The Department for Transport states that someone hit by a vehicle at 20 mph has a one in 40 chance of being killed, compared with someone hit at 30 mph, who has a one in five chance of being killed. Those are startlingly different statistics that show the improvements that can be made.

I ask the proposer of the Bill and the Minister whether any evidence can be brought to bear to highlight how many injuries and fatalities we have each year on 30 mph roads compared with those on roads on which the Department for Regional Development has piloted sign-only 20 mph speed limits and 20 mph zones. That information would really help us draw out the potential benefits of the law being proposed.

In England, we have seen mostly 20 mph zones, which have indeed led to a reduction in injuries and fatalities among pedestrians and cyclists. In London, 20 mph zones have seen a 41·9% reduction in road casualties and a 51% reduction in child casualties, which is to be welcomed. In Portsmouth, a 20 mph speed limit has reduced road casualties by 22%. In Bristol, a 20 mph speed limit pilot has seen an increase in walking of up to 36% and in cycling of up to 37%. In Hilden in Germany, the introduction of 20 mph speed limits has seen cycling journeys increase by 23%.

The Commission for Integrated Transport stated that 20 mph speed limits have transformed streets:

"from being noisy, polluted places into vibrant, people centred environments".

Therefore, there is evidence to suggest that increased road safety and active travel are achieved by having 20 mph speed limits. However, there is also significant evidence to suggest that 20 mph zones can achieve that in greater measure, through speed limits, infrastructure, traffic calming measures and engineering combined.

In order to help our consideration of the proposals, I ask the Minister if it would be possible to take an opportunity today to provide the Assembly with a more detailed update of the outcomes that he has seen being achieved by the around 500 20 mph zones that have already been implemented by the Department for Regional Development in comparison with the five 20 mph sign-only speed limit areas he has piloted.

Photo of Sean Lynch Sean Lynch Sinn Féin

I thank the Member for giving way. I live in one of those housing estates that has been given 20 mph zones and traffic calming measures. I can say from experience that the traffic has reduced considerably. Would the Member agree?

Photo of Chris Lyttle Chris Lyttle Alliance

I am not clear if it is a 20 mph sign-only pilot area or a 20 mph zone. I take it from the Member's intervention that he believes that both measures would contribute to a positive outcome, and I agree.

As I said earlier, we have to ensure that, with limited resources, we achieve our shared belief in the objectives in the most effective way possible. That is why we need to get into the evidence.

The Department for Regional Development's Transport NI speed limits policy guide goes into significant detail in relation to these issues. It states:

"Drivers are likely to expect and respect lower limits" for a number of reasons: road function; road geometry; road environment; road density, and traffic composition. It goes on to state that without effective engineering changes to roads:

"actual ... speeds are unlikely to be reduced below the new limit."

It also clearly supports 20 mph speed limits and zones in situations where there is a particular risk to vulnerable road users, especially in residential areas and at schools. It states that there is clear evidence that reducing traffic speeds does indeed reduce collisions and casualties on urban roads with low speeds and that any 1 mph reduction in average speed can reduce collision frequencies by 6%. I think that those are all positive aspects of these proposals.

It states that 20 mph encourages:

"healthier and more sustainable transport" including walking and cycling. Again, I think that this is something that the Assembly should give its full support to.

It also states that 20 mph has environmental benefits, particularly because when drivers drive at a steady pace, they save fuel and reduce carbon dioxide emissions as long as they are not using an unusually low gear.

Based on these reasons, the policy encourages 20 mph zones or sign-only limits for residential streets, cities, towns, streets where pedestrian and cyclist movements are high, schools, shops, markets and playgrounds, and where they are not part of a major route.

It goes on to state that 20 mph zones reduce speed more than sign-only 20 mph limits, and that zones make up more than 90% of all 20 mph schemes in England.

I think the policy supports both types of 20 mph provision but is moving towards suggesting that the evidence shows that the package of measures is the most effective way of achieving the objectives we all wish to achieve.

The DRD Transport NI head of engineering services gave evidence to the Regional Development Committee — before my time on the Committee — and had helpful contributions to make. He said clearly that:

"speed limits should be set as part of a package with other measures to manage vehicle speeds and improve road safety".

He also said clearly that a:

"blanket approach ... to establish a mandatory, enforceable 20 mph speed limit on all unclassified ... roads will impose the limit without seeking support from those affected in any particular location".

He also said that:

"It is important to note the difference between what we term a 20 mph zone and a 20 mph limit. In our terminology, a 20 mph zone uses physical measures such as humps, chicanes and gateway features to achieve speed reduction. The 20 mph limits use traffic regulation orders, signified by the use of 20 mph signs."

He went on to look at research from the Transport Research Laboratory, which provides evidence to show that, whilst both approaches can bring about speed reductions, the 20 mph zone is the more effective of the two measures.

He also touched on PSNI cooperation with these approaches, saying that the PSNI was encouraged to support 20 mph sign-only speed limit pilots on the basis that there was no significant expectation of enforcement. The 20 mph zones are significantly more self-enforcing, reducing speed limits by around 9 mph, compared with the 1 mph of the sign-only streets. He also stated clearly that the Department for Regional Development did not necessarily need legislation to introduce a 20 mph speed limit in any street and was reluctant to adopt a blanket approach as opposed to a more targeted one.

Whilst I accept that Members are committed to looking at improving and changing the Bill at Committee Stage, which the proposer acknowledged that he is open to, I think that there is a fundamental concern. In essence, at its core, the Bill proposes a blanket approach. Once we get into amending it, I think that there will be a debate about whether the tools that we need to achieve some of these objectives are already available to the Department. We need to look more at how we ensure that those tools are being used as actively and robustly as possible to deliver what we want to see achieved.

The contributor to the Committee from the Department for Regional Development also said that, rather than having a blanket scheme, the Department's approach would be to test 20 mph sign-only streets and to increase their introduction through current legislation on a targeted basis. The responsible legislator in me wants to make sure that we are putting in place legislation that will achieve actual outcomes. If we are to take that approach, having only five 20 mph sign-only street pilots is quite a low provision from the Department for Regional Development, given its aspiration to deliver a cycling revolution. I would like to hear from the Minister about whether, given that he has the powers and tools already available to him to do this, he thinks that it is possible for him to significantly increase the provision that we have seen to date.

The Regional Development Committee also heard evidence from PSNI Chief Inspector Diane Pennington, who stated clearly that:

"although the police welcome any move or any change that has the intention and the effect of reducing casualties on our roads, we are slightly concerned about the blanket approach proposed in the Bill to do it on all unclassified roads."

We need to heed those concerns and to take them into consideration at Committee Stage.

There has been debate about the costs; there has been some dismissal of them, but we have to consider them. It is my understanding that DRD traffic calming for greater Belfast from 2007 to 2010 was around £500,000 per year. As a comparator, it is my understanding that around 400 kilometres of 20 mph sign-only streets in Portsmouth cost in the region of £573,000. My understanding is that there are around 4,300 kilometres of unclassified roads in Northern Ireland. An extrapolation of that would lead to sign only costing in the region of £6 million. I know that we heard quotes of £25 million to £30 million, but I think that for sign only, it would be more like an estimation of £6 million. That is still a significant amount of money and does not include the package of measures that so many people say we need to truly achieve the objectives that we want.

We can compare that with the £1 million per year that the Department for Regional Development and the Public Health Agency invest in the active schools travel programme. That delivers exceptional on-road cycle training for our young people and infrastructure improvements around schools. We have to acknowledge that the Minister has an extremely tight budget. I have not heard too many people today making any particular proposals as to where the extra £500,000 per year — £6 million in total — is going to come from. Perhaps the Minister can advise on that. We need to be realistic: we will have to allocate budget to achieve what is being proposed.

Other Members have touched on the significant support that exists for the proposal, which is true. A Sustrans opinion survey found that 70% of respondents supported a limit of 20 mph on residential roads. A Department for Transport poll found that 73% of respondents were in favour of 20 mph speed limits but that the priority, if necessary, should be areas where children travel or play, such as around schools. There has also been a NISRA/DOE road safety monitor 2014 survey, which found slightly different results in that 63% of non-drivers supported the proposal compared with 47% of drivers, 55% of people living in built-up areas and 44% of rural dwellers. That survey also found that 70% of people were in favour of the proposal of 20 mph speed limits outside schools. So there is significant support, and the proposals would contribute to key Programme for Government targets in relation to encouraging active travel, particularly to schools, and the Northern Ireland road safety strategy, which has a clear commitment to considering 20 mph speed limits for cycling encouragement and to improve cycling infrastructure.

In conclusion, if, on further scrutiny, we find that the proposals will reduce speed limits on residential roads, ensure fewer accidents and fatalities and encourage more people to walk and cycle for everyday journeys, thus improving our environment and public health, the Bill will indeed have the support of the Assembly. We need to take heed of what the evidence shows as being the best way of achieving those objectives in the most cost-effective way.

Photo of Tom Elliott Tom Elliott UUP 4:45, 17 February 2015

Firstly, I apologise to the proposer of the Bill, Mr Ramsey, for not being here for his deliberations due to Committee business. I know the principles behind it, and hopefully it will make some progress, particularly to the Committee, where a number of people have indicated they would like to see it given significant scrutiny.

I listened to Mr Lyttle indicating that quite a lot of the proposals in the Bill are already in place and that it was just a case of implementing them. At least, that is what I took from some of what Mr Lyttle said. To be fair, I would be surprised if there was anyone here who would not want to put in place measures that would help to save lives and make our roads safer. That is one of the key aspects of it. However, it cannot be carried out in isolation. Many good traffic calming measures have been put in place over the years, and this may be another tool in the box, but we need to be extremely careful about how it is implemented. The one significant aspect that I have not heard mentioned is driver attitude and the attitudes of people on the roads. One of the key issues is changing the practical attitudes of people and how they respect other road users, whether they are drivers, pedestrians or cyclists.

I have heard a strong case being made by Mr McKay and Mr Lyttle that the Bill will improve the use of our areas for cyclists and pedestrians. However, I am not so sure that the Bill will create huge areas of 20 mph speed limits. That is not the idea behind the Bill; the idea is to protect residential areas. We need to be careful that it is not just something that will help bring more pedestrians and cyclists onto the road in itself. It may contribute to that, but it will not do that on its own.

We have heard quite a lot of statistics here today. I will not rehash some of those, but it is clear that there is quite a lot of research in the area. I re-emphasise that I do not think that that research is based solely on the issue of reducing speed limits to 20 mph.

I talked about driver attitudes, and we need to be quite clear that, just because a speed limit is 30 mph or 20 mph, it does not mean that you have to drive at that speed. The speed limit on quite a lot of the roads that I will travel home on this evening is 60 mph. I would defy anybody in the Chamber to try to drive at 60 mph on those roads. It would not be safe. People need to get it into their mind that, just because there is speed limit, it does not mean that you have to go up to that speed limit. It is the same even if it is 20 mph. There are some areas in which it may not be safe to drive at 20 mph.

If you are to provide any type of traffic calming measures — to a degree, I would include a 20 mph speed limit as a traffic calming measure — you need community buy-in. The key aspect is getting communities to lead on the areas that they want that speed limit in. There may be some areas in which a 20 mph speed limit may not be appropriate, and it may not be helpful to have it there.

While I support the principle of the Bill — there is no doubt about that — and Mr Ramsey's key points behind it, it needs that scrutiny.

Photo of Paul Frew Paul Frew DUP

I thank the Member for giving way. I certainly agree with his sentiments. To cite some examples, if you are driving in a residential area, where there is a row of parked cars, it would be madness to drive at 20 mph. Also, if you are coming up to a school at 8.50 am, 9.15 am, 2.00 pm or 3.00 pm, it would be madness to drive at 20 mph. You would want to drive a lot more slowly. It might not be just a case of a blanket ban. It is all about habits and people driving appropriately.

Photo of Tom Elliott Tom Elliott UUP

I thank the Member for that. He makes a good point, particularly about schools. When children are getting out of or are going to school, it would not be appropriate to drive at 30 mph or even 20 mph. On the other side — I will only make a short point on this aspect — there are restrictions on HGV vehicles travelling on A-class roads, which, I think, might be 40 mph. It is not always safe for those vehicles to be driven on those roads at 40 mph. I have seen tailbacks of maybe 10 or 12 vehicles on the A4 when HGVs are being driven at 40 mph and the other vehicles cannot overtake. They almost take a chance to overtake in places that are dangerous, whereas they would not be tempted to do that if the HGVs were being driven at 50 mph. It is all about proportion, being responsible and driving to the speed that is safe at the time.

I go back to the issue of community buy-in. I do not know whether the sponsor of the Bill has looked at the potential of an opt-in system, whereby there is huge community support for 20 mph speed restrictions in that area.

The aspects on which the Committee could do significant scrutiny that have been mentioned are the costings and definitions. Those two aspects are critical to the proposals and to the Bill. I look forward to the Committee carrying out that scrutiny because it is vital. It is important that it goes through a wide range of exploratory measures and gathers the information and evidence that is out there, to collate good proposals and maybe make some amendments to the Bill that can help it in many ways. We want to ensure that the Bill is not looked at negatively. We want it to be looked at positively, and any proposals or amendments should also be positive.

Community buy-in and partnership has been central to developments in the past. Mr McKay, in particular, highlighted some areas in mainland GB where some good proposals had been put in place. I know that one of those is Cambridge, which is often held up as a real success story of community buy-in and proposals that have been done in partnership with the community. That did not just happen overnight. Those 20 mph limits were not put in place overnight. Pilot areas were developed, which were expanded over time to cover the majority and then all of the city. That is an important aspect and one that I would like to see explored more.

Apologies for referring to Mr McKay again, but he mentioned areas further west, such as Draperstown. Mr McKay, just to make you aware, in Northern Ireland, there are areas that are much further west than Draperstown, especially over in Fermanagh. Mr Lynch referred to a good example in his area, but we have good examples even further west in Northern Ireland as well.

I support the principle of the Bill and look forward to more scrutiny. We will see where that takes us.

Photo of Alex Easton Alex Easton DUP 5:00, 17 February 2015

I believe that the Road Traffic (Speed Limits) Bill has been brought forward by Mr Ramsey with the very best of intentions. There is no doubt that all of us in the House want to see safety on our roads improved to save lives or have one less person injured on our roads. That is what makes this a worthwhile cause to consider.

Research from the Department for Transport shows that, if a pedestrian is hit by a vehicle travelling at 20 mph, there is a 2·15% chance, or a one in 40 chance, of them being killed, or a 97·5% chance of them actually surviving. Compare that with a pedestrian hit by a car travelling at 30 mph. There is a 20% chance, or one in five chance, of them being killed, or an 80% chance of survival. That represents a 17% better chance of survival by reducing the speed limit from 30 mph to 20 mph and is why the Bill is worthy of discussion and being taken very seriously. However, we need to take a closer look at the practicalities of being able to take a blanket 20 mph approach across all 30 mph roads in Northern Ireland.

What do DRD and the PSNI have to say about it at this stage? When taking evidence at the Regional Development Committee from Chief Inspector Pennington, there was acknowledgement that there was concern about the blanket approach proposed in the Bill for all roads. The PSNI said that it would prefer that the model was a bottom-up approach coming from demand from the community, primarily in residential areas. PSNI surveys seemed to suggest that drivers in those areas tend to drive closer to a 20 mph speed limit than a 30 mph speed limit. I acknowledge that Mr Ramsey has said that he is going to look at the blanket approach and maybe curtail it.

Another area of concern from the PSNI was the ability to enforce such speed limits. Comments made by the PSNI were that it is seen as "excessive and over the top" and a challenge to enforce. That begs the question that, if this cannot be enforced across the whole of Northern Ireland, is a blanket 20 mph speed limit the answer, or should we consider the PSNI's preferred option of community buy-in? However, I agree with comments made earlier that, if the PSNI can enforce the 30 mph speed limit, why can it not enforce the 20 mph speed limit, if you are swapping one for the other? That is something that we need to examine.

In evidence from DRD, the issue of cost was raised, with a view that it could be anything from £6 million to £26 million, depending on what level it was implemented at and the different types of measures that would need to be put in place. DRD's preferred approach would be to enable the introduction of reduced speed limits but not impose them. There are questions around that as well.

The question that needs to be asked is this: why was there such a lukewarm response from the PSNI at the Committee? I accept what you are saying, by the way, but they were a bit less welcoming when speaking to us, especially over being able to enforce it. Maybe, Mr Ramsey, you will look at that for us, as well as at DRD's approach of introducing but not enforcing it, which was another issue of concern.

Obviously, the cost implications are an issue. Where is DRD going to get this money? Maybe the Minister will tell us when he gets up to speak, because I know that money is tight. If we go for the £6 million approach, where will you get that money? If you go for the full approach, where will you get £26 million? It has certainly been a struggle in recent Budgets. This is a big issue that we need to look at.

I stress to Mr Ramsey that I am not knocking his Bill; I am taking it very seriously. There are issues. Saving lives and preventing injury is very important. We all agree with that, which is why we need to consider the Bill seriously before we reach a conclusion. I am looking forward to the Bill coming to the Committee so that we can scrutinise it well.

Photo of John Dallat John Dallat Social Democratic and Labour Party

To my mind, the contributions to the debate in the afternoon have been a great deal more positive than those made earlier, and I am grateful for that. I single out Mr Tom Elliott, who said that, if there are to be amendments to the Bill, let them be done in a positive way. That is the right approach. He also mentioned attitudes. I know that he was not present when my colleague Alban Maginness spoke at length about attitudes.

Let me begin by thanking Pat Ramsey for putting in the time to bring forward the Bill. I know that, due to personal circumstances, it is very important to him. There are probably other Members who, due to their personal circumstances, know just how important the issue is.

As a former teacher who has worked in Donegal and Kilrea, images are etched in my mind for life of young people who needlessly lost their lives because of speed and in circumstances very close to their homes. In one case in Donegal, two little brothers lost their lives together. It is a serious subject, and I know that everyone in the Assembly will take it seriously.

I totally forgive the Chairman of the Regional Development Committee, who accused me of speeding on the M3. I am not taking him off my Christmas list for that; I know that the comment was light-hearted, and I accept it as such. Nevertheless, I do deny it.

Photo of John Dallat John Dallat Social Democratic and Labour Party

Mr Wilson, if you had come along on your motorbike, you might have been able to check it out.

The history of transport is fascinating. Young people really enjoy it, and I am glad that it is increasingly taught in schools. The story begins, of course, with the red flag Act, when someone walked in front of a steam engine and did not allow it to travel at more than 4 mph. We are talking about 20 mph, so perhaps we can consider that.

Any Act worth its salt will work when people are convinced that it is valuable and good. I know that 13 million people in the neighbouring island of Britain are already signed up to 20's Plenty-type schemes. The beauty about those schemes is that they are done by agreement. Edinburgh was mentioned. There are 20's Plenty schemes in Glasgow, where my daughter, Helena, lives. I have deliberately walked around them. You experience a sense of freedom in those areas. It was clear to me that motorists respected the wishes of the local community. The road signs, whatever their cost, were a symbol of agreement in the community that people did not want motorists speeding through their neighbourhoods.

The fact that we are discussing the Bill at its Second Stage will help to develop in people's minds a positive attitude towards what we are trying to achieve.

I do not want to repeat this, but, as I said earlier, millions of pounds and the energy of world leaders brought us to a situation of peace. Surely the fact that more people were killed on the roads during that awful period is an indication that we should be prepared to invest in road safety. We need to be mindful that, in recent times, fatal accidents have been on the increase again. Sometimes, I think that we get a false sense of belief that we are really improving. Dare I suggest that one of the reasons why people are not killed as often now is the vastly increased safety of the cars that we drive, which we tend to overlook?

Some time ago, I attended a cross-community service in the cathedral in Newry. It was an opportunity to see at first hand the grief of families who were absolutely broken by people who had killed their loved ones on the roads.

Today is one small step. As the day developed, it became clear to me that we are taking this seriously. It is a rare occasion when we can dispense with party labels, forget about the general election coming up and focus on something that might well allow the Assembly to be remembered for something positive.

Yes, there has to be enforcement, and I encourage people to research how the French Government tackled the problem. The number of people being killed on the roads there was absolutely disgusting, and the French Government were ruthless in what they did, but, at the end of the day, they dramatically decreased the number of deaths. Scandinavian countries have done it well and perhaps not so ruthlessly. Nevertheless, they have done it in such a way that the motorist understands that it is a privilege and not a right to be on the road. Where should that right be respected and honoured more than in our neighbourhoods and where our children are? Of course, remember the elderly people who are slow at crossing roads, and they, too, need to be kept in mind.

In conclusion, I thank Pat again, not because he is a member of the SDLP but because he is somebody who genuinely cares about a problem that is on our doorstep and is prepared to do something about it. By all means, Members, wherever amendments are needed or whatever you think necessary, do it, but I urge everyone in the Assembly to approach it, as Tom Elliott said, in a positive way, not in a way that might influence people not to take it seriously. This is one of the most serious subjects that the Assembly could ever discuss. I wish everyone well with their future contributions on this most important subject.

Photo of Sammy Wilson Sammy Wilson Shadow DUP Spokesperson (Treasury)

First, I have absolutely no doubt about the sincerity and motivation of the Member who proposed the Bill. Indeed, I remember how, when I was Environment Minister, he used to plague me with road safety issues. He was not always right. In fact, I remember that when we were deciding to stop funding the Road Safety Council, he predicted all kinds of carnage on the roads and all kinds of consequences of going down that route. It did not come to pass. Nevertheless, the one thing that I know is that, in the representations that he made, he genuinely believed that it was an issue that had to be dealt with seriously. Having said that, I have to add that we do not judge legislation on the passion that someone demonstrates when bringing it forward or the sincerity that is displayed. We have to judge legislation on whether it will achieve the objectives that are set out in it, how it will affect other issues and whether it is competent.

I know that this is not necessarily the Member's legislation. It was initiated by the former Member for South Belfast, who left the Assembly at a rate much faster than 20 mph. In fact, I think that he left it at about 100 mph. Nevertheless, Mr Ramsey inherited the Bill. However, it is deeply flawed legislation. Some of my colleagues have been a bit more gracious than I would be on the issue, saying that they are at least prepared to take it to Committee Stage, where it will be changed, altered, reconstructed or whatever other terminology has been used. I suspect that I will be in a minority in the Chamber, perhaps even in a minority of one, but my personal view is that the Bill is so flawed that it should probably have been strangled at birth. I say that not because I do not have concerns about road safety. In fact, I probably find that —

Photo of John Dallat John Dallat Social Democratic and Labour Party 5:15, 17 February 2015

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it appropriate to use a term such as "strangled at birth" in a debate on such a serious subject as road safety?

Photo of Roy Beggs Roy Beggs UUP

I will allow Mr Wilson to continue, but Mr Dallat's views have been expressed and are recorded in Hansard. The remark was made in the cut and thrust of debate.

Photo of Sammy Wilson Sammy Wilson Shadow DUP Spokesperson (Treasury)

If the Member is going to take exception to such a mild remark, I fear what he will think of some of the other things that I want to say later on about the Bill. He need not become all sanctimonious, as SDLP Members tend to do when they find that some of the things that they bring forward are either plainly stupid or do not measure up to proper scrutiny. That is the typical tactic from SDLP Members. It does not matter whether you are talking about the Budget or welfare reform: they get all sanctimonious on you, and you are not allowed to speak your mind on particular things.

Let me say that road safety issues, be they difficulties and dangers outside schools, in estates or in residential areas, are brought to me continually by constituents. In fact, I suspect that, if the Minister were to ask Roads Service officials in my area about the number of times, even within the past three months, that I have had them out on-site looking at road safety issues, he would find that I am probably one of the most prolific Members in the constituency at raising such issues. I know the importance of the issues to constituents, but the one thing that I do not believe it is right for a public representative to do is to bring forward legislation that is not going to be effective.

Let us look at the legislation on the basis of what we have heard so far from its proposer. We have no firm evidence that the Bill will achieve the objectives that it is designed to achieve. The proposer is not even clear about what kinds of roads he wants to see covered. In fact, he did not even know the extent of the roads that would be covered. He had no idea of the cost. We have had contradictory evidence as to the period over which the legislation would be introduced. On the one hand, his Bill proposes a massive advertising campaign, designed to tell people that, if you are driving through a residential area that has not been defined, the speed limit is 20 mph. On the other hand, we are told that that might not happen for more than two years, for six years or for as long as it takes to spread about the cost.

The other thing, of course, is that it does not actually address the main issue. We have had contradictory evidence. Mr Lyttle gave some figures that were slightly higher than the figures that were given by the proposer of the Bill, and do not forget that all of the conversation so far has been about the impact on pedestrians and cyclists. Mr Ramsey suggested that five pedestrians were killed, and Mr Lyttle has suggested that seven pedestrians were killed. We do not know whether they were all killed within areas where there is currently a 30 mph limit, a 40 mph limit or a limit above 40 mph. We do not have those figures.

Photo of Steven Agnew Steven Agnew Green

I thank the Member for giving way. Maybe he is getting to this, but he has made the sweeping statement that this Bill will not work and will not do what it seeks to achieve. Various pieces of evidence have been presented to the contrary to show that, where 20 mph speed limits have been introduced, they have reduced accidents and reduced deaths. Indeed, evidence has shown that hitting someone at 20 mph is significantly less likely to kill them than hitting them at 30 mph. Is he going to get to the point where he introduces the evidence that this Bill will not work, now that he has stated it so absolutely and so clearly?

Photo of Sammy Wilson Sammy Wilson Shadow DUP Spokesperson (Treasury)

Absolutely, I am indeed, if he has some patience. I was going to suggest, actually, that this Bill is so flawed that it probably sits beside the kind of manifesto that is put forward by his party. It does not go quite as far as wanting to ban people from eating bacon on a Monday to save the planet or not advertising for holidays that involve flying Spain in case you bring the Mediterranean to Northern Ireland through climate change.

Photo of Danny Kennedy Danny Kennedy UUP

You taught him.

Photo of Sammy Wilson Sammy Wilson Shadow DUP Spokesperson (Treasury)

I know. I have been reminded on many occasions that he was one of my pupils, but not all of my pupils were successes in life, unfortunately, and we have to live with the consequences.

[Laughter.]

Unfortunately, it has come to haunt me in this Chamber.

I want to come to the evidence, but I want to point out that, first, I believe that the Bill is flawed. Secondly, there are arguments for saying that, in some places, the speed limit ought to be reduced. I think that Mr Elliott made a really important point: the speed limit does not indicate the speed at which you must drive. I, too, have got some roads around where I live where the 60 mph limit is not appropriate, as I have found out on occasions when I have tried to abide by what I thought was the minimum speed limit but which was the maximum speed limit. Mind you, I do try to drive at the speed limit on them because I feel obliged on occasions.

The whole point is that we might think that we will solve this problem by simply saying to drivers, "There is a big round sign with a figure inside it", and think that, once we have put that up, we have solved the problem. However, drivers have to use sense. I know that, at times, it is not appropriate for me to drive at 20 mph in certain places, and you slow down to a lower speed. On other occasions, of course, it is appropriate. I think that an awful lot of driver experience has to be applied here.

When it comes to the issue of the speed limits, as Mr Lyttle has pointed out, the Minister for Regional Development already has the ability, where it is believed that there should be a lower limit imposed, for example, where there are community demands or where accident statistics and evidence are produced to show that —

Photo of Roy Beggs Roy Beggs UUP

Can I ask the Member to draw his microphone towards him so that what he is saying is picked up?

Photo of Sammy Wilson Sammy Wilson Shadow DUP Spokesperson (Treasury)

Where there is evidence that the current speed limit is not appropriate, the Minister for Regional Development has the power to reduce that.

Photo of Chris Lyttle Chris Lyttle Alliance

I thank the Member for giving way. Will he also acknowledge that I also said that it may be questionable as to whether the Department and the Minister are using that power enough currently?

Photo of Sammy Wilson Sammy Wilson Shadow DUP Spokesperson (Treasury)

That is an issue not for legislation but for public representatives to press officials. If the power is available to them and if there is a clear case that the power should be used to have that power exercised, it does not mean that we go for one-size-fits-all legislation where thousands of miles of road will have a limit imposed on them that may not necessarily be the kind of limit that is required. It is another reason why I really cannot understand where the Bill is coming from. If the Minister did not have the power to do it, I could understand why we needed to introduce legislation; however, if the Department has the power already, let it be applied in a particular way.

Photo of Edwin Poots Edwin Poots DUP

Will the Member give way?

Photo of Edwin Poots Edwin Poots DUP

Would it not be better if the proposed legislation was more comprehensive and looked at speed limits in general? While there is an acceptance that, in certain places, speed limits should be reduced, it is also reasonable to look at where you could raise speed limits. There is a perception that motorists are bad for the environment, so we will impose all sorts of taxes and new rules on them, here, there and everywhere, often willy-nilly.

I was in Germany two years ago, and was there again last year, where there are excellent road safety standards, but there is no speed limit on the motorways. When you come to the built-up junctions, there is a speed limit that people observe, and it works extremely well. If you go to England, you have a speed limit that is not applied. The police do not apply the speed limit; they allow the traffic to flow perhaps at 80 mph or more, but they do not pull people in for driving at those speeds. Should we not look at speed limits in a more comprehensive way?

My constituency is both urban and rural, and many people spend an awful lot of time in their cars. If some people had their way here today, they would spend an awful lot more time in their cars rather than doing other things in life. We do not need to punish the motorist continually. We need to ensure that if we introduce measures to reduce speed limits to apply road safety, we also look at other areas where we will not impact on road safety, but we could raise speed limits and do that in a very safe way.

Photo of Sammy Wilson Sammy Wilson Shadow DUP Spokesperson (Treasury)

The Committee might wish to consider that, as, I suspect, the Bill will go to the Committee anyhow. Are there inappropriate limits at the other end of the scale? The Member for North Down asked me what evidence I have that the legislation would not necessarily be effective. I must say that I am always wary about statistics because I know that, just as Members who have made the case for the Bill can abuse or be selective with statistics, I could be accused of doing exactly the same. For example, when Mr Ramsey was speaking about the evidence, he quoted from London. What he did not point out, though it has been pointed out to him by a number of Members since, is that the evidence from London was not based on the terms of his Bill; it was based on areas that were zoned, so there were other issues that accompanied the imposition of the 20 mph speed limit, such as traffic calming measures, narrowing of roads, chicanes and all the other things that roads agencies do. The Bill is simply about sticking up 20 mph signs when you enter those zones.

The evidence is comprehensive because it was carried out in Portsmouth a year after, so that people had time to get used to the changes in Portsmouth. The evidence that was produced there indicated that rather than speeds being reduced by a significant amount, average speeds were only changed by 0·9 mph. Rather than a reduction in the number of people who were either killed or seriously injured, that number went up by 2%. This was not some snap survey; it was carried out over a period of the year at, I think, 129 locations. It looked at the statistics for the whole area that was covered by the changes in Portsmouth. If we are looking for evidence on this, it would appear to be that where you have got only 20 mph limits being imposed and signage being put up for it, it will not be effective.

You have then got to ask, first, whether you raise false hopes; secondly, whether it is worth the disruption; and, thirdly, whether it is worth the cost. Before we get into the cost of one death and that we should not tolerate one death on the roads, if that were the case, even on Mr Ramsey's own statistics, we would ban cars altogether because at 20 mph, you still have a 3% chance of being killed. Do those 3% of people not matter? Where do you draw the line? Do we go back to the point that Mr Dallat referred to, where we get people walking in front of cars with a red flag to cut down the danger of being killed? If we are going to look at this in a serious way, we have got to get behind the rhetoric and the emotion and ask ourselves some of these serious questions.

All kinds of claims have of course been made about the impact that this will have. Mr Ramsey talked about tourists happily sailing around the countryside and through the towns on pushbikes. Mr McKay talked about children playing football in the street, liberated from the fear and worry of being knocked down. Elderly people will walk with great assurance around town centres, knowing that they will not be run over. I have got to say that if that is what this is being sold on, it does not even marry up with what is in the Bill. According to the Bill, the very areas that tourists would want to go around will not be covered. They are through routes, town centres and main thoroughfares. They will be excluded.

The reason why children do not play in the street and parents do not feel that children are safe to play in the street is not just because of the through traffic. I know that when constituents come to me, it is about the number of houses that were built in housing estates, especially in the 1960s and 1970s, when car ownership was not as prevalent and off-street car parking was not available. Where houses used to have no cars, they have now got two cars. It is the danger of children playing between parked cars. If you jump out from between parked cars and somebody comes down at 20 mph as opposed to 30 mph, you still have not got a chance. Let us not pretend that this legislation will result in children's happily being able to skip around the streets of our estates. It will not do that. Let us not sell it on that particular basis.

That brings me to the point about the definition of a residential street. In the legislation, it is where you have street lamps that are placed at 185 metres apart and the road has not been classified. Maybe the Minister, when he is summing up in his speech on this, will give us some practical examples of streets which are deemed to be not classified and the extent of the roads that will be covered by this particular situation.

Let me give you a couple of examples within walking distance of where we are today. There is the primary school down the Belmont Road. There are houses on either side of the road. The residential areas are not off the road but on it. Are we saying that that road would be covered by a 20 mph limit? Or would it be regarded as a classified road and therefore the very fear that people have, namely that children in a school are at risk, would not be covered?

I think of the village of Glynn, which you and I are both familiar with. There are houses on either side of the road there. That busy road through the village carries heavy traffic from Larne port down into Belfast. Would that be regarded as a classified road or a non-classified road? A Bill like this would certainly raise expectations that, in an area where there is not even a footpath outside some of the houses, people there might feel safer after this. I suspect that that road would not be covered by the Bill, because it is part of the A2 and therefore would not fall under this, yet there is a school on it and houses facing right out onto it with no footpath. If we are really selling this as a way of making it safer for people, let us be quite clear that the Bill is doing the job that it is designed to do. I do not believe that it is, and that is one of the reasons why I am particularly critical of it.

We come to the costs. I know that the Member has dismissed the costs of this. I do not want to sound cold and calculating about this, but, with all public policy, the cost has to be measured against the benefits that are obtained from it. In the part of Portsmouth that was covered, it cost just over half a million pounds just to put the signage up. Mr Ramsey is suggesting that, in light of the discussion that we have had and some of the points that people have made, he is now thinking that we ought to do this in zones, where you do not simply have the signage but have all the infrastructure of putting in traffic calming, to ensure that the figures that he quoted from London can be met. If that is the case, the costs will become significantly higher. Of course, there is another issue in that there might be greater resistance to it. Many constituents make representations to me in support of traffic calming measures, but many constituents say, "It was the worst thing that ever happened. We want those bumps removed because of the vibrations in my house and the noise of traffic bumping over them".

Photo of Tom Elliott Tom Elliott UUP

I totally understand what the Member is saying about the lobby to get traffic calming measures in place, particularly ramps, and the lobby to get them away. Will the Member accept what I said earlier in that that is why it is vital that there is community buy-in to any project, even the 20 mph limits?

Photo of Sammy Wilson Sammy Wilson Shadow DUP Spokesperson (Treasury)

You are exactly right, and that is the point that I was going to make. How can you get community buy-in if people do not even know what they are buying into? We are not clear about whether the Bill is simply about putting up signs or is about putting up signs, humps, chicanes and all the rest of the paraphernalia that goes along with traffic calming. I suspect that many people might have reservations if that is the road that you want to go down. Other people might welcome it with joy. That is why a Bill needs to be very clear. It has to have support. Mr Ramsey has talked about the widespread support for the Bill.

A Bill that, according to the explanatory note he has provided, got 41 responses — I suspect from the most vociferous of the lobby groups — does not strike me as one that has gained the imagination of the general public. We therefore need to question that.

For all those reasons — I could make other points, Mr Deputy Speaker — I do not believe that this is a good Bill. I suspect that it will go to Committee, but I hope that, when it does, the points that I have raised will be fully considered. Many motorists will be appalled at the prospect of large areas of Northern Ireland being subjected to 20 mph limits. I hope that we do not finish up with a Bill that for many people might be not a Road Traffic (Speed Limits) Bill but a horse-and-cart Bill. That would be a retrograde step.

Photo of Alex Attwood Alex Attwood Social Democratic and Labour Party

I acknowledge, in his absence, the work of Mr Ramsey, who has incurred both personal and political obligations, and Mr Conall McDevitt, the original sponsor of this legislation. I do not intend to comment further, other than to say that sometimes Mr Wilson's need for theatre results in words coming out of his mouth that would be better kept inside his head. In any case, I also acknowledge earlier private Members' Bills passed by this House: Mr McCallister's Caravans (Northern Ireland) Act 2011 and Mr McKay's Carrier Bags Act (Northern Ireland) 2014. Both Members will confirm that it was in part the weight of the Department behind the Bill that ensured the resolution of many issues at Committee Stage and thereafter before the Bill eventually received Royal Assent and became law in Northern Ireland.

I ask the Minister to confirm that the weight of his Department will be behind this Bill, because there are only 40 weeks left of sitting time in this mandate. Therefore, the passing of the Bill into law during that period, if that is the will of the Assembly, will require — partly, but not very much, for some of the reasons articulated by Mr Wilson on the Floor this afternoon, to which I will return — the weight of the Department and not just the personal and political weight of Mr Ramsey. I ask him this question: will the resources of the Department be fully pledged to ensure that this Bill gets to the far side of Second Stage?

Once upon a time, I was the Environment Minister and, as a consequence, Minister with responsibility for road safety. Some of Mr Wilson's comments would suggest that he is in denial that he also had that responsibility at one time. I remember one occasion when officials came in to see me following a public consultation about the driver training regime. I think that 24 or 25 recommendations had been tested through the public consultation, of which they thought four or five were feasible. I went home and thought about the recommendations before deciding that I did not agree. As a consequence, we took forward probably half or slightly more than half, if my memory is correct, of the recommendations from the public consultation. My one regret in that regard is that I was not even more radical than taking up that dozen or so recommendations, because I believe that some of the recommendations that I did not take forward at that time I should have taken forward.

Photo of Alex Attwood Alex Attwood Social Democratic and Labour Party

I will in a second. I acknowledge the Member who is about to speak because I think that that consultation was initiated by Mr Poots as my predecessor. In that regard, I give way.

Photo of Edwin Poots Edwin Poots DUP

The road safety branch of the DOE moves very slowly. I wanted to introduce a new driving test regime because the existing one is not fit for purpose. Mr Elliott, who is now absent, said that a lot of the problems on our roads relate to driver attitude, but we still have a driving test that is largely a manoeuvres test. It does not adequately deal with driver attitude and the risks on the road and it does not adequately ensure that young people are prepared for those risks. It forces young people to drive at 45 mph. I see them on the motorways, and they cause danger to themselves and other road users by driving at 45 mph and sticking rigorously to the law. Change is really needed. I encourage the Member's party to move forward more rapidly on that and to press the road safety division to bring those matters forward.

Photo of Roy Beggs Roy Beggs UUP

I draw Members back to this Bill rather than some other Bills.

Photo of Alex Attwood Alex Attwood Social Democratic and Labour Party

As Mr Poots spoke, the face of his colleague to his left, Mr Wilson, went even more beetroot red than it normally is. Very shortly, the man to the right of Mr Wilson will have an equally red face. Mr Wilson, as I will outline in a minute, tried to oppose the very thing that Mr Poots has argued for. The very thing that Mr Poots has argued for is currently before a Committee of the House.

Photo of Alex Attwood Alex Attwood Social Democratic and Labour Party

I will come back to that. I hope that both Members feel suitably embarrassed, one because he has been contradicted by his colleague and the other because he did not know that a Committee is looking at some proposals that were developed during Mr Poots's time as Environment Minister.

The point of all that is this: I do not know whether Mr Poots or Mr Wilson viewed the road traffic ads when they were produced by the DOE road safety branch in consultation with private consultants, but I did. They used to be shown in a cinema on the Dublin Road. When they were about to be put into the public domain on TV, we used to call in schools to view the new ads. Those ads, which have received multiple international awards because of their quality, tell the story about the threat to people on our roads, the reason why the Bill is before the House and why the Bill has to go before the Regional Development Committee —

Photo of Trevor Clarke Trevor Clarke DUP

Will the Member give way?

Photo of Alex Attwood Alex Attwood Social Democratic and Labour Party

I will in a second.

They tell the story of why the Bill is before the Committee in respect of road traffic limits. That narrative, those pictures and that experience — the silence of the schoolchildren when they saw the ads — was at a time when we had declining road deaths. Over two years, there were fewer than 60 road deaths each year in Northern Ireland, which is the lowest in recorded memory. On this island, North and South, we have a spike when it comes to road traffic deaths and serious injuries. In that context, having spoken to a number of the families and victims who were brave enough to tell their story in those advertisements on TV, I think that that is why the Bill has to be given every fair wind.

In passing, I refer to the fact —

Photo of Trevor Clarke Trevor Clarke DUP

I appreciate the Member giving way on that point. I draw him back to the advertising campaign. I think that most people gave the campaign a fair wind. You recognised that, statistically, there has been an increase in deaths. Many of us know people in our constituencies who have been affected by road deaths through their family or another connection. What alarms me most about the graphic nature of those adverts is the number of people who tell us publicly that they turn over to another channel when they come on. The impact that you are trying to achieve is lost because their graphic nature has the opposite effect — people turn away.

Photo of Alex Attwood Alex Attwood Social Democratic and Labour Party

Ask the people who produce those ads, track the audience response to them and monitor, in public attitude surveys, the response to those ads. There will be those who find the images so graphic and shocking that they turn over, but many will watch and learn. There are many reasons for the improvement in the figures for road deaths and serious injuries, and one of those is the power of adverts to drive home messages into people's minds and hearts. There may be anecdotal evidence that people do not like some of the ads, but there is empirical evidence that the vast majority of the population generally view them as making a necessary impact in their life and one that might result in a necessary change in their driving conditions.

It is reasonable to respond to what Mr Wilson said. All of this is in response to what he said, not that I want to be preoccupied by that, and I do not think that we should be. Nevertheless, I come back to the Bill by making this point: when, eventually, there was a discussion at the Executive table, at which Mr Poots and Mr Wilson were present, about the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill currently before the Environment Committee, it was Mr Wilson — this is relevant — who made the same arguments as he made today. What was the response of the Executive? I particularly recall the contributions of the First Minister, the deputy First Minister and the Enterprise Minister. The response of the Executive was unanimously, save Mr Wilson, to endorse the policy proposals. That should be our approach today. Whilst we are right to interrogate some of the issues that Mr Wilson raised, we should hear the voice of the Executive in a similar context in order to ensure that this Bill is given the full opportunity that it needs over the next 40 weeks of sitting time.

I make the point, however, that Mr Wilson said that reducing the speed limit from 30 mph to 20 mph would not give anyone hit by a vehicle a chance. Hansard will confirm that he said, "not got a chance". That is Mr Wilson's argument on the Bill: reducing speed by 10 mph does not give anyone a chance. If you speak to any individuals who, rather than going through the courts for a speeding offence undergo retraining through the education course, they will tell you about a film shown about the consequences of reducing speed by 10 mph on the risk of death and serious injury.

I know about that because I was in the audience not so long ago. I was apprehended for speeding, and I can remember the incident very clearly. It was the day that the Hallett report came out, and I was returning to my family up on the north coast when I decided to pass a vehicle. As I did so, I knew that I was going to pass the speed limit, but I did it anyway and was caught. I opted for the course and I remember that film. I remember, Mr Wilson, the consequences of reducing your speed by 10 mph.

Mr Wilson's contribution, some of which needs to be interrogated by the Committee, was enormously revealing. I do not deny that, if there is an evidence base, you need to interrogate it to come to the right policy conclusion. Mr Ramsey will accept that point, as should we all. This is why these issues should be interrogated by the Committee. One thing that we should not let go is Mr Wilson's comment as a former road safety Minister, senior politician and Member of Parliament.

[Interruption.]

It was shocking — you know where I am going with this.

He said that he found out to his cost when he thought that a speed limit sign was for the minimum speed limit, not the maximum. If that is the case, I am going to ring the police —

Photo of Alex Attwood Alex Attwood Social Democratic and Labour Party

I am going to ring the police before I leave here to say that they should follow Mr Wilson home, because he must be breaking the speed limit every time between here and Larne, or wherever he lives.

It may have been facetious, but it is not a serious contribution to make in a debate about a deeply serious matter, as outlined by Mr Ramsey in his opening contribution, as, no doubt, he will do again in his closing contribution. It is too serious a matter to be reduced to commentary about somebody being hit by a car at 10 mph less not having a chance of survival. It is too serious a matter to have comments made about signs being for the minimum limit not the maximum limit.

People should listen again to the contribution that Mr Ramsey made. You can challenge his evidence, but you cannot dismiss all of it. That should be the spirit in which the Bill goes back to the Committee. Remember what the Executive did: to a man and a woman, they endorsed radical proposals for a road training regime, with only one of its members — I will not name that person — saying no.

Photo of Steven Agnew Steven Agnew Green

It is clear that the Bill's intention is to reduce deaths and accidents. On that basis, we should welcome it. I welcome the fact that the clear will of the Assembly today is to take action to achieve those aims. It is one thing to will it but another to do it. The options, as they have come across in the debate, are an opt-in policy or an opt-out policy and whether we go with limits only or fully integrated 20 mph zones.

We have to start with the onus being on protecting life, and particularly on protecting children. The Bill will not do everything to stop deaths on our roads. People have mentioned other ways in which we should perhaps be tackling the issues, but that is not to take away from the Bill in any way. Just because it will not do everything does not mean that it does not have merit for doing something.

As a result of development, we have seen the loss of play spaces. I can think of plenty of examples in my constituency. There are whole housing developments in which there is no green space, with cars parked on both sides of the road — in older developments, certainly — on footpaths and in cycle lanes. Many residential areas are not safe for cycling, and they are certainly not safe for play. We need a better balance between the needs of pedestrians, cyclists and motor vehicles, and we should always bear in mind the needs of children.

As I said, we have the option of opting out or opting in. There is also the targeted approach that Mr Lyttle referred to. I will look in greater detail at the evidence, but, from what I have read to date and based on where my instincts lie, I am for the Bill as it stands. I know the practicalities of getting a Bill through. You have to listen to the will of the House and, of course, to the amendments that may come forward from the Committee.

There seems to be sense in the opt-out approach. We have the evidence that 20 mph speed limits work in reducing accidents and deaths, so the principle of implementing them would be sensible. To allow for unintended consequences, however, there should be avenues for opting out.

As things stand, it appears to be very difficult to get 20 mph speed limits in place. Although there are pilot schemes, I was told when I approached the Department that, if road humps are not already in place, 20 mph speed limits are not an option. I am not aware of that policy having changed. It may have done, but, when I last raised the issue with the Department, that was the response that I was given.

Whilst there is evidence that the more physical measures, the road humps etc, are very effective, there might be people who would be willing to accept a 20 mph speed limit but not the road humps. We have to have a more progressive approach in implementing 20 mph speed limits. I hope that, when the Bill comes out the other side of the Committee process, the very least it will do is make it easier to get 20 mph speed limits where, certainly, the will is there to do so. At this point, I favour an opt-out system rather than an opt-in system.

One of the reasons for this is that, if we have a demand-led approach, that could be more costly in having to assess each application or proposal individually, as opposed to what I believe would be a less onerous opt-out system. From a pragmatic point of view, if we agree that this is the direction of travel — pardon the pun — this would be a more effective way to do it across Northern Ireland. I also believe it would be a better way to do things in terms of resources. Once 20 mph speed limits are in place, if the evidence — as it has elsewhere — shows that they are effective, demand will increase, and the Department will find itself responding to many requests, including those from Members of the Assembly representing their constituents.

In terms of a targeted approach, I worry about how we would do the targeting. Would we be targeting accident hotspots? In that case, I come back to Mr McKay's point of waiting until an accident happens and then taking action. If we look at where there are more children, and I think there is merit in that approach, would there be resource issues in trying to identify those areas? The opt-out approach, as I interpret the Bill as currently written, is more favourable.

I would like to hear the evidence, from the Minister and/or the proposer, for 20 mph limits versus the more physical measures. It is clear from the evidence I have looked at that, where you have both, you have better outcomes. Where there is greater resistance to road humps and other physical measures, could a 20 mph speed limit be a suitable alternative, or are we saying that we need both? This is something that can be teased out during Committee Stage.

I do not think it is a valid criticism to say that, because we are having discussions about our options, people will be unclear and that it will not be effective because people will not know what they are getting — the Bill will be clear when it is finished. It is not clear at Second Stage because the Bill has to go through Committee Stage and amendments. If those who make that criticism are suggesting we change the legislative process, that is fine. However, it is perfectly reasonable that we still have questions at Second Stage. The principles are there, the evidence is there to back those principles, and I think that we should go forward on that basis. We should get the Bill right, rather than saying that it must be absolutely complete and clear at Second Stage. That is a weak argument and does a disservice to the Bill.

The issue of cost is inevitable. Mr Lyttle, through extrapolation from the Portsmouth model, suggested a figure of £6 million. Whilst there is no doubt that this is a significant sum, if we look at the many hundreds of millions of pounds we are spending, or are proposing to spend, on new roads to make traffic go faster, I think that £6 million is a modest sum to slow traffic down in residential areas with the intent of saving lives and reducing the number of accidents.

The evidence shows that these measures can make our residential areas better places to live. They will not address all the problems, including those that I raised, such as cars parked along our footpaths etc. There is no doubt that we need to look at our infrastructure. The acceleration in the use of the car has been so much that our infrastructure has been unable to cope.

However, this is a sensible measure that could tackle a very serious issue, which has been pointed out. It deals with deaths on our roads and on our residential streets, and the safety of our children. For that reason, I believe that 20 is plenty. I support the Bill.

Photo of Danny Kennedy Danny Kennedy UUP 6:00, 17 February 2015

I thank the sponsor of this private Member’s Bill and, indeed, all the Members who contributed to what was an interesting debate, even if passions were raised at times. I was impressed with the debate's overall quality and the desire to look at the issue in some detail and to attempt to get it right. That is when the House is at its best, and I thank all the Members who contributed. Some did so with passion, and very few contributed negatively. Robust scrutiny has been the order of the day, which is very welcome. Most people approached the issue positively. There were moments of either irony or black humour. Mr Attwood wants the police to follow Mr Wilson home to check on his speed, yet it was Mr Attwood who had to undergo the course on speeding. I was interested in that prospect.

However, I am more interested in the overall debate and what it means for this private Member’s Bill. I pay tribute to Mr Ramsey for his commitment to keep momentum and a profile going for the case for 20 mph limits. It is incredibly important that the arguments behind the Bill did not fall with the original sponsor, Conall McDevitt, when he stood down from the Assembly in 2013. I fully support the Bill's principal objective, which is to reduce the number of collisions and fatalities on our roads and to create a safer environment for all road users in Northern Ireland.

That said, the debate has highlighted significant flaws in the Bill's construction, and I think that we will all welcome the opportunity for it to go to its next stage for proper scrutiny, amendment, change and further reflection. Mr Ramsey outlined that clearly. Considering that my Department is a primary stakeholder in Northern Ireland's road safety strategy, along with the Department of the Environment and the PSNI and other emergency services, it comes as little surprise to learn that there is clear evidence that a reduction in the speed of traffic leads to a reduction in the number of collisions and casualties. Not only is the frequency of collisions reduced at lower speeds but, where they occur, there is a lower risk of fatal injury. Research shows that, on urban roads with low traffic speeds, a reduction of 1 mph in average speeds can reduce the collision frequency by around 6%.

Of course, many in the House will have heard my persistent promotion of cycling for reasons of quality of life and broader community benefits. Mr McKay does not yet believe that the cycling revolution is under way, but let me assure him that it is absolutely under way and continues to be.

Like a greater uptake in cycling, lower vehicle speeds can make a positive contribution to quality of life, retail and greater pedestrian activity. All of that sits very comfortably with healthier and more sustainable transport modes.

Over a number of years, my Department has invested some £230 million in local transport and safety measures schemes. Those schemes included the introduction of almost 500 20 mph zones, each designed to maximise safety benefits. As has been said, the Department has the power to bring forward those changes. Reviews of their impact have shown that those 20 mph zones have proven to be very effective at reducing vehicle speeds, as well as the number and severity of collisions. For me, it has been important to focus efforts on the reduction of vehicle speeds not just in urban and residential areas, where high levels of pedestrian and cycling activity occur, but near our schools, where our young people can sometimes be at heightened risk. As it stands, my Department has legislative powers to implement 20 mph speed limits on roads in Northern Ireland.

The current speed management policy, 'Setting Local Speed Limits in Northern Ireland', is based on a similar policy document produced by the Department for Transport for use in England. The policy encourages and supports 20 mph limits and zones in situations where there is a particular risk to vulnerable road users. When assessing the potential to introduce a 20 mph speed limit on a road, many factors have to be taken into account, such as average vehicle speeds, collision history, streetscape, community support and population mix.

Members might find it helpful if I provide, as Mr Wilson requested, a little background on the classification of roads. That plays an important role in how we proceed with the private Member's Bill. Roads are defined in the Roads (Northern Ireland) Order 1993 as motorways, A-class roads, B-class roads or C-class roads. The remainder are unclassified. The Road Traffic Regulation (Northern Ireland) Order 1997, in applying speed limits, defines certain roads as "restricted roads". Restricted roads have a system of street lighting installed, and the speed limit applying to those roads is not the national speed limit but a restricted speed limit of 30 mph. The Bill proposes to insert a new article 37B into the 1997 order, which would introduce "residential roads". In layman's terms, "residential roads" would be those roads that are presently known as restricted roads and are also unclassified. You will have a potential situation where, although most roads in town centres and housing developments will fall into the proposed category of residential roads, in a rural situation, where there is a linear development of, say, 10 houses, there will often be a system of street lighting installed. Consequently, you will find that a motorist could be expected to drop immediately from the national speed limit to a 20 mph limit, and then potentially have to quickly increase speed to 30 mph or other maximum limits. Those issues need careful further consideration. I know that the sponsor of the Bill realises that and is prepared to take that on board.

One of the most crucial features that was highlighted in the debate and one of the most crucial issues in relation to the whole issue is the need to ensure community support — local support — and the willingness of local populations to submit themselves to a reduced limit, not just in principle and on the good days when they leave home in good time but on the bad days when there may be temptation to go a little quicker. It is important that the Bill gets to grips with that issue and does not simply seek to impose reduced limits against resistance from those who live or attend school in an area.

Photo of Chris Lyttle Chris Lyttle Alliance 6:15, 17 February 2015

I thank the Minister for giving way and for his contribution so far. Just in case he is not going to return to it: he helpfully set out that reviews are showing that the 500 20 mph zones in existence are effective at reducing speed and collisions. Will he touch on the potential outcomes being achieved by the five pilot 20 mph sign-only speed limit streets?

Photo of Danny Kennedy Danny Kennedy UUP

I am grateful to the Member for his intervention. The Member will know that pilot studies are in existence, and I will address that point presently.

Our policy for road safety at schools builds on the success of demonstration projects at schools involving the installation of a package of measures, including part-time enforceable 20 mph limits. We are, as I just indicated, at an advanced stage of piloting some purely 20 mph speed limits without traffic calming measures, as envisaged by the Bill. Members will be aware that pilot schemes have been proposed and are envisaged for five sites: Belfast city centre; Merville Garden Village; Ballymena; Ballycastle; and Ballynahinch. The Ballycastle scheme, which was referred to in the debate by Mr McKay, has already been put in place, and work on the remaining schemes is progressing, including attempting to build local support. I have to say that there have been objections. There is a process for dealing with that, and my officials will continue to work their way through it. It is not straightforward. It is not a system that we can simply impose. That has to be the approach as we consider this legislation. There is no point having a one-size-fits-all approach. We need to bring communities with us and convince them that we should move by agreement as we seek to go forward.

I am encouraged by the current Environment Minister, Mr Durkan's, assessment of the impact of the Bill on road safety. Those views are broadly similar to my own on the issue. Minister Durkan has stated:

"we should actively consider introducing 20mph limits more broadly to where people live, particularly where vehicles come into close proximity to vulnerable road users such as children, pedestrians and cyclists."

He added:

"It would of course be vital to ensure that any such speed limits are suitable for the roads or areas for which they are proposed and, in particular, that they have the support of the local community, that any necessary or appropriate signage and/or other infrastructure is in place, and that limits are properly enforced." — [Official Report, Bound Volume 90, pWA249].

I largely agree with Minister Durkan in making those points.

I support building in a mechanism for community engagement and support, as has happened in many of the successful schemes in Great Britain; a bottom-up approach. On that, I am happy to offer assistance to the sponsor, Mr Ramsey. Mr Attwood sought assurance that my Department would fully cooperate or effectively take on, almost, the legislation. I am not saying that I am opposed to that, but it is not what I think is required. However, I say clearly that we will extend to Mr Ramsey the offer and opportunity to engage with my officials to see how we can strengthen this legislation.

The Chairman of the Regional Development Committee, Mr Clarke, and others raised the issue of resources. As presently drafted, the Bill would have very large resource implications for my Department. Members will know the very significant pressure that my budget is under. I could entertain you with that for a considerable period, but the hour is late. I will have to return to that on another occasion. Areas where the 20 mph limit would apply would need to be signed with 20 mph roundels. Similarly, leaving a 20 mph street and re-entering a 30 mph zone would require signage of 30 mph. Of course, estimating the number of signs that would need to be erected would be a very time-consuming exercise, not to mention the cost of providing those signs.

I want to look at the cost per kilometre. A scheme implemented in Edinburgh was, I think, mentioned earlier, and I think members of the Regional Development Committee, maybe not current but previous members, paid a visit to Edinburgh at some stage. The scheme there incorporated something like 40 kilometres of street at a cost of £214,000. The scheme implemented in Portsmouth, extending to 410 kilometres, cost £573,000. It has been said, and I confirm, that Northern Ireland has approximately 4,300 kilometres of unclassified urban streets. Therefore, if the costs of the Edinburgh and Portsmouth schemes are used as a benchmark, the estimated cost to introduce the speed limits in the Bill would range between £6 million and £26 million. Therefore, there are cost implications that cannot be overlooked, and we need to be aware of that.

Mr Lyttle expressed concern about the blanket approach; namely, that all residential roads would be covered and subject to the new limit. At this stage, it is not possible to estimate what roads or lengths of road are likely to be exempt. Of course, I have explained the dilemma that we would face, particularly in rural areas, on stretches of road which the Bill in its present form would appear to cover yet not do so in a cost-effective way or even in a proper traffic management way. We will need to continue to look at the outcome of the results from the pilot sites. However, not all of those have yet been implemented, of course, so the costs are something that we cannot be absolutely certain of at this stage. Our best estimate is that it will cost a considerable amount — many millions of pounds, which, frankly, the Department does not have.

I want to end on a positive note for the sponsor, because he has a lot to respond to; in fact, he is about to do that. It is important that we look at this. I can see the Bill, potentially, making a contribution to urban, residential and local areas for many years to come, not just through road safety but through a more active use of public space. My Department has polices in place to implement a range of speed-reduction measures at schools and in other areas where there are vulnerable road users present. However, I want to enable the introduction of speed-reduction measures in areas where there is local support for them and to do it with consensus, with a bottom-up approach, so that it is not felt that it is being handed down or mandatory in that sense. On that basis, I am content to support the Bill moving to the next stage.

Photo of Pat Ramsey Pat Ramsey Social Democratic and Labour Party

I commend, acknowledge and thank Members who took the time to participate in and make very useful contributions to the debate. Others, may I add, were not so useful.

Trevor Clarke, the Chair of the Regional Development Committee, quoted a range of areas that have introduced this scheme. The Committee clearly saw public support for it during its visit to Edinburgh. He was very keen to explore issues in rural areas, and, given that he is the Chair, I am sure that the Committee will explore that during Committee Stage. The Committee thought that the principal objective of the Bill was worthy and was content to move it forward. He talked about traffic calming measures in his area. I take his point and Alex Easton's that mixed messages were coming from the police.

I reiterate that I had a phone call with an assistant chief constable, and I had previously been in contact with a former assistant chief constable on those issues, and I stand by what I said — I will share the contents of a letter — that I was pushing an open door about taking the Bill forward. The Minister's latter point is a point that I myself made, as did the police: it is a bottom-up approach in bringing forward any legislation, and you bring people along with you. I always envisaged that as we progressed. Mr Clarke finally said that one death is one too many, and he is absolutely right. For me, the purpose and objective of the Bill is to save lives and to save the lives of so many children.

Unfortunately, Sammy Wilson has left the Chamber after his devilment during the debate, but we expect that from Sammy and can take it.

There were five deaths in 30 mph zones last year in Northern Ireland. That was clear from a question for written answer that I put to Minister Durkan only three weeks ago. The evidence is there that people across Northern Ireland drive with excessive speed and cause injury. In fact, one of the deaths not so long ago was on a one-way street, where excessive speed at over 30 mph killed someone. There were six deaths in 2012 on a single carriageway in a 30 mph zone, there were five in 2011 and five in 2013. There is consistency.

Photo of Trevor Clarke Trevor Clarke DUP

I appreciate the Member giving way. It is a very important subject, and, hopefully, no one is dismissing that. You quoted statistics from 30 mph zones. Do you have the figures to show the speed of the drivers who caused those accidents and how much over 30 mph they were doing? Some of us are concerned that, regardless of the speed limit — I know that your colleague referred to my colleague when he talked about the minimum — the difficulty is that a lot of those accidents happened because people were driving above the limit, so reducing the limit does not necessarily mean that it will address the issue. However, if the Member has statistics, it would be good to have them on record.

Photo of Pat Ramsey Pat Ramsey Social Democratic and Labour Party

I do not have them, but I am sure that the Committee, during its scrutiny of the Bill, will be able to determine that. I think that the police hold those records rather than any Department.

Daithí McKay acknowledged the contribution of Assembly staff in helping Members to bring forward a private Member's Bill, and that was important. We acknowledge their help and contribution. He used the word "compromise", and I have also used that word to try to ensure that we reach consensus on the Bill for the key stakeholders: the communities where people live. The police are vital. I said previously, and I will say it again, that the community and public safety partnerships across Northern Ireland, along with the new councils, clearly have a role in representing their constituents.

Many Members referred to the cost of deaths and also the cost of introducing the legislation, which we cannot ignore. Daithí cited a figure of £1·7 million. The new figure from Transport NI is that the estimated cost to the economy of a loss of life is £1·9 million in Northern Ireland. I met Daithí a few times to have this discussion. He is very supportive of the Bill and wants it to pass. It is a good extra point in favour of trying to reduce deaths and injuries on the road.

Chris Lyttle has just come back into the Chamber. He acknowledged the role of Conall McDevitt, who initiated the Bill prior to his untimely resignation from the House. I wanted to carry on his work. I supported Conall through the initial stages of the Bill, so it was not a huge difficulty for me to take it on. Chris talked about reducing deaths and injuries, which is important. He also referred, a few times, to the importance of improving Committee scrutiny and looking at the best and most cost-efficient way of doing this. Many roads will be exempt from the Bill, for example, and all these questions will be teased out at Committee Stage. Chris talked about the positive aspects of the Bill. He mentioned the differential in estimates, ranging from £6 million to over £20 million, given by the Finance Minister and to the Committee. Come Consideration Stage, that topic will be exhausted.

Tom Elliott, who is no longer in the Chamber, was responsible in making his comments. He said that the Bill must be seen as positive — he is absolutely right — and that there must be significant scrutiny of the Bill, which is important. He made the point — it is quite right — that he would be surprised if any Member of the House did not want legislation that could save lives. He made a point that I reflected on, though we did not use the same language, about changing attitudes. A cultural change is necessary throughout. I talked earlier about a generational change, but it will not take a generational change with education programmes in schools, youth clubs and communities to help. There has to be buy-in and stakeholder partnership.

Alex Easton talked about taking the Bill seriously and being responsible. He spoke of the loss of lives and said that enforcement was an issue. He talked, as Trevor did, about the mixed messages from the police. He also referred to the differential in costings that Chris Lyttle talked about. We have to find a definitive benchmark of the costings for signage alone and when work on that can be incorporated into routine work. As I said in my contribution, during planned maintenance, the signage would be changed anyway. We have to look at those elements as well.

John Dallat, as ever, spoke with conviction and passion about how important the Bill was. He gave a short testimony of his career as a teacher, and he talked about the loss of life of two children in Donegal, which is important to place on the record. Most Members will accept the difficulty that families face. John talked of the need to show more respect on the road, and I think that the need for that is obvious. We have all seen incidents of road rage, irrespective of where we live. John made the point that this is one small step and that we need to invest in road safety. He said that this was a most serious subject, and I would not be standing here unless I felt that it was so. I have a particular personal interest in this.

Sammy Wilson said that we should not judge legislation by the passion or the sincerity of the proposer. He said that the Bill was incompetent. I find it strange, I have to say, that Sammy, as a former Minister for road safety in Northern Ireland, is not in the Chamber. He was dismissive of the arguments made in the Chamber. In his own language, he was very "cold and calculating". He showed a level of arrogance in the Chamber that I have not seen in a while when we have been debating such a serious issue as this.

Alex Attwood talked about the importance of the Minister's role. He said that the Minister could bring the weight of the Department in behind the Bill. I am very content that the Minister has given me an assurance that he will work with me. I also want to work with your Committee, Trevor, to progress the Bill as best we can to ensure that we have, in the future, in Northern Ireland, a much safer environment, so that the next generation coming through — our grandchildren — will have much safer streets, and we will have saved the lives of young people. Alex conceded that, when he held the portfolio of roads Minister, he should have been more radical.

The advertising campaign came up. I must say that, from my constituency, the family of a young girl who had been seriously injured participated in the programme and got a lot out of it. I think that it did have an impact on people's lives. I think that, because of the drama in it, it had an impact on the way in which people are driving in Northern Ireland. It was real-life stuff. It talked about a consultant having to tell bad news to a family and about a mother and father losing a son. We need to see more of that. The Environment Minister has said that he may not be able to do it any more.

Alex was one Member who said that we need to interrogate the Bill, and he is absolutely right. It is my private Member's Bill, but I am very content that it be interrogated to the fullest to get the best out of it. The people who would see the advantage of the Bill are the next generation.

Steven Agnew made the important point that the onus has to be on protecting life, in particular saving the lives of young children and young people in Northern Ireland. I think that that is the will of the Assembly and that Sammy Wilson did a solo run, as he does on many other environmental issues. Indeed, within his own party, he probably did a solo run. Steven talked about being able to opt in or opt out, and we have to examine those options. I am on the same page as the Minister, in that we are getting to a time in which people want the legislation, have a desire for it and can see the benefits of it. I have absolutely no doubt that the evidence from Britain, particularly that presented by Daithí McKay, Chris Lyttle, Steven Agnew, John Dallat and me, is clear and obvious.

I was not going to go back over it, but I think that people should reflect on the debate. It was a good debate, and it leaves us well placed. There is a short period available, Minister, and I hope to engage with you and the Department and with any other Member. Some Members approached me before now to try to get another discussion on the best way forward. That is what I want. I am not for dismissing the important contributions that every Member in the Chamber has made. Some I may not have liked, but I respect what was said because of the importance of democracy and of standing here and having your point of view heard.

I have a few more points to make. Opinion research carried out in south Edinburgh on the 20 mph pilot found that residents felt that the new speed limit had a range of positive impacts. The most often mentioned was improved safety for children walking and cycling. The 20 mph speed limit encouraged more considerate driving, leading to safer streets for all road users, including motorists, cyclists and pedestrians. The lower speeds reduced the risk and severity of road collisions.

Reducing traffic speed helps make people more confident about being in their local streets and helps children and older people travel independently. That is the point that I want to finish with, because I missed it out in my opening comments. We have an increasingly older population, and those older people feel safe in their communities and want to walk to the shops themselves. If the Bill became law, we would see increased footfall in our communities. There would be increased financial transactions and increased health benefits to young and old alike.

To conclude, I thank all Members for their contributions. I look forward to a challenging period when the Bill is being discussed in Committee. I look forward to many amendments, some of which I will consider tabling myself. I thank for their support.

Some Members:

Hear, hear.

Question put and agreed to. Resolved:

That the Second Stage of the Road Traffic (Speed Limits) Bill [NIA Bill 30/11-15] be agreed.

Photo of Roy Beggs Roy Beggs UUP

I ask Members to take their ease for a few moments while we change the Table.

(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Dallat] in the Chair)

Motion made: That the Assembly do now adjourn. — [Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat).]