Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 7 Feb 1974

Vol. 270 No. 2

Local Government (Roads and Motorways) Bill, 1973 : Second Stage.

Minister for Local Government (Mr. Tully)

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The explanatory memorandum circulated with the Bill covers its main purpose and scope. I would like to emphasise that the Bill, while proposing to broaden the general road powers of local authorities, to confer on them powers to construct, maintain, and improve motorways, and to empower me to take steps for the co-ordination of works on national roads and motorways, is merely an enabling measure.

The provisions of the Bill do not seek to set up special financial arrangements under which programmes for motorways and national roads could be launched. The financing of such programmes must continue to be contingent on the amounts which the Government may, from time to time, decide should be made available either for these specific purposes or for roads purposes generally. This is not to say that the Government are unmindful of the needs of the roads system.

As Deputies will be aware from my speech on my Department's Estimates, an additional £4½ million was made available for the roads programme this year over and above what was provided by my predecessors last year. This is a generous and practical demonstration of the Government's recognition of the need for substantial investment in the improvement and maintenance of our public road network. I am sure there is little need for me to remind the House of the heavy growth in the volume of traffic using our roads in recent years and of the serious problems which this growth has created. Within the ten years from 1963 to 1973, the number of vehicles using our roads has increased by 69 per cent from 382,038 to 646,205. The greater bulk of all travel for agricultural, commercial and social purposes is now effected by road and the provision and maintenance of a safe and efficient road network is essential for such purposes. At the same time we have not managed to keep pace with the demands of this increasing traffic and, as a result, our existing road network has been operating under severe limitations.

Sections of our important national network, particularly on the approaches to towns and cities are critically deficient both as regards pavement and capacity and the extent of the problems posed by traffic congestion on most of our urban and city streets needs no elaboration. This situation is the source of serious economic loss to the community resulting from traffic accidents, time lost through traffic congestion, extra fuel consumed and losses resulting from wear and tear on vehicles and parts.

Apart from the scarcity of financial resources, there have been other constraints inhibiting the pursuit of an effective and progressive roads programme. The law relating to public roads has not been reviewed in any detail since 1925 and, as a result, the powers of road authorities are defective and inadequate in a number of important respects. The present Bill, which I hope to follow in due course with a comprehensive measure, is the first step in remedying this situation.

I am confident that the wide general power which section 3 of the Bill proposes to confer on road authorities, that is, to do all things necessary for or incidental to the maintenance, construction or improvement of public roads, will be welcomed by road authorities as it will enable them to be more flexible and effective in their efforts to provide a reasonable level of service to road users from the aspects of safety, convenience and amenity. In effect these provisions should mean the end of the doctrine of ultra vires in so far as road authorities' activities are concerned. A major defect in existing roads law is the absence of power to build a motorway. This type of facility is accepted in all developed countries as the proper means of dealing with heavy traffic volumes with maximum safety. In fact, the stage has already been reached where, due to the volumes of traffic being carried, the need to plan for the provision of such facilities on certain sections of our road network has been established. A motorway has two essential characteristics, for example, it is limited as to use since only vehicular traffic of specified classes may use it and access to it is prohibited except at recognised properly designed junctions or interchanges. All our public roads are “all purpose” roads which may be used by all classes of traffic, including pedestrians, cyclists, and animals and, in addition, under the common law, all landowners have a right of access to or from the adjoining public road from any point on their property. There is no provision in existing roads law which would enable road authorities to deal adequately with the problem of control of access for the purposes of providing a motorway. Accordingly, the Bill makes specific provision in this regard in sections 6 and 8.

One particular motorway project which is at present in issue is the proposal of the Dublin County Council for replacement of a section of the Dublin-Belfast national primary route (N.1.) between the city and a point beyond the airport for which land reservations have been made by the council. A compulsory purchase order which proposes to authorise the council to acquire the necessary land for the project was made in 1971, but cannot be dealt with until the present Bill has been enacted.

Other motorway proposals will be developed by road authorities from studies and surveys which have been completed or which are at present in progress. In this connection, Deputies will be aware that the Government have recently given approval in principle to a proposal for the provision of a motorway bridge across the Liffey. This bridge and approaches is one of the key elements in the comprehensive programme recommended in the Dublin Transportation Study to meet the projected needs of the Dublin region over the next 20 years. While the bridge and its approaches can be regarded as a self-contained project which would independently afford substantial improvement of traffic flows in central city areas, its actual benefits will be much wider as it will also provide access to the proposed new roads to Dublin Airport and the west and to a new Fairview by-pass. In addition, surveys in relation to the Dublin-Kilcock road which are at present being undertaken by the road authorities concerned, may lead to the development of motorway proposals for sections of that road.

I should now like to refer to the question of co-ordination of works on national roads and motorways. As time goes on such works will tend to be larger in scale and increasingly complex. In some cases it is foreseen that schemes of road improvement on these roads will traverse the areas of more than one road authority. It will be clear that proper co-ordination of all stages of the formulation, planning, and execution of the works is essential so that the best return will be got for the expenditure in terms of economy, efficiency and uniformity.

The provisions of sections 11, 12 and 13 of the Bill will enable me to take steps to achieve these desirable objectives. I would emphasise, however, that it is my intention to resort to these powers only after consultation with the road authorities concerned and, with particular reference to sections 12 and 13, where I am satisfied that a conflict of views or interests at local level cannot be settled by agreement. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Molloy

I am in what is now becoming the usual position of being asked to comment on legislation that was in the process of preparation at the time I left the Department of Local Government. From the studies I made of the whole roads problem while in the Department, I realised that the law dealing with public roads, including that dealing with the powers, functions and duties of road authorities, is very complex, as the Minister tried to indicate in his introductory speech. It is a patchwork of common law on the one hand and statute law on the other. From my investigations into the law in connection with this matter, it was obvious that there was need for a revision and the introduction of modern legislation to consolidate all the roads law. In fact, the statute law ranges back as far as 1836 and, although there have been some amendments made from time to time, inevitably there are still gaps. As we know, doubts have arisen from time to time regarding the real authority of the Minister and local authorities in relation to matters arising from the construction, maintenance and improvement of roads.

The inadequacies in the existing legislation arise chiefly in relation to the powers of road authorities. There are certain important powers about which doubts have arisen, such as the powers to provide dual carriageways which have already been challenged; there are certain other powers also in doubt, including the power to build motorways which it has become obvious in recent years are becoming a necessity in some areas. Because of this doubt it was necessary to introduce legislation to clarify the situation.

I wish to put on record that the Fianna Fáil Government recognised many of these difficulties as far back as 1969. At that time a major decision was made instructing the Minister for Local Government to carry out a thorough review of all roads law and to prepare a comprehensive roads Bill which, as well as providing the additional powers that would be required, would also remedy the defects in the existing law and effect a measure of consolidation. As the Minister has rightly pointed out, a difficulty arose in Dublin where the county council had issued a compulsory purchase order for the acquisition of land to enable them to construct a motorway on the Dublin-Belfast road between Santry and the turn-off for Dublin Airport. A doubt arose in relation to their legal powers to acquire land for the motorway. At that time it was decided by the Fianna Fáil Government to proceed with the preparation of a shorter Bill that would confer adequate powers on the road authorities to enable them to construct, maintain and improve motorways. It would also enable the Minister to issue certain directions to the road authorities in relation to the co-ordination, planning and execution of works on national roads and motorways.

It was our intention to proceed with the general roads Bill referred to by me as a follow-up to the shorter roads Bill. I am pleased to note the Minister has stated that is his intention also and I look forward to the opportunity to discuss the whole question of roads policy in the not too distant future. However, although I look forward to the opportunity for a comprehensive debate on this matter, the Bill provided the Minister with the opportunity for some elaboration on the Coalition Government's policy in relation to roads generally. I do not think the Minister availed of this opportunity in his introductory statement and I do not know whether he intends to do so before the debate concludes. I would encourage him to elaborate a bit more on his intentions.

There are many aspects of road policies on which the Government have been so far very silent. One is the question of road reclassification. I hope the Minister will avail of this opportunity to try to tell us where exactly the Government stand on this matter. Our national roads have already been designated and the national primary and national secondary routes have been established. I should like the Minister to tell the House whether it is his intention to classify the roads which it was intended to form into a regional network. I am sure the Minister is aware that quite an amount of consultation has gone on between the Departmental officials on behalf of the Minister and the various local authorities. This happened prior to the selection of regional roads. I hope the Minister will let us know whether it is his intention to proceed with the classification of regional roads, as it was intended.

It is significant that in his four page introductory speech the Minister left possibly the most important powers in the Bill to a brief paragraph at the end. It is true to say that the Minister is taking unto himself quite elaborate powers under sections 11, 12 and 13 of the Bill. However, we can come to that in detail during Committee Stage.

When the Minister approves a scheme under section 4 (3), modified or otherwise, the relevant subsection states that the scheme shall have the same effect as if it were a compulsory purchase order under section 10 (1) of the Local Government (No. 2) Act, 1960. At this point I should like to ask the Minister to explain whether the procedures in relation to the making and the approving of that scheme will be in every way identical with the CPO process. I hope the Minister will elaborate on that.

One of the aspects of this Bill which will raise great difficulty and public concern is the whole question of compensation and under section 6 (5) it is indicated that persons who claim to have suffered some disturbance or depreciation in value will have the opportunity to claim compensation. I should like the Minister to elaborate more on this when he is replying— whether the system of claiming compensation will be exactly the same as that under the CPO process, whether, if agreement is not reached between the authority and the individual, and if it goes to an arbitrator, it is present day market values that will be paid in relation to land that is being acquired. Where houses are concerned, where a person's residence is being interfered with, if he is obliged to leave the area, will the Minister assure the House that such a person will be fully compensated by way of the construction of a completely new house at an alternative location with similar amenities?

It has been the experience in England and in other countries where motorways have been constructed, especially where they have gone through urban areas, where they are interfering with dwellinghouses, though some householders are not directly in the line of the proposed motorway but their houses are very close to and adjacent to the motorway, because of the density of traffic and the consequent noise and fumes and other disturbing features caused by the high volume of traffic, the amenities they enjoy in that environment are seriously deteriorated. Some people who find themselves in such circumstances may not consider that they would wish to live in such conditions and decide to move, even though the house might not be demolished. I should like the Minister to give an assurance that persons who find themselves in such circumstances because of this Bill will be compensated. I hope also he will give some idea of the machinery through which compensation will be assessed in such cases.

It is easy for us to pass legislation like this. It seems short, necessary and worthwhile, but it can have very serious effects on the lives of certain individuals in its implementation. Now is the time for us to give assurances to such people that they will be fully and fairly dealt with under any steps taken following the enactment of this Bill.

Under section 8 (3) and (4) the Minister is asking for authority to revoke planning permission if it is found that it exists in respect of ground to be included in a scheme. Again, I ask the Minister to give an assurance as to the exact machinery to be employed to assess compensation to people who have legitimately received planning permission and who find that permission subsequently revoked under this section where a scheme is being made. There is also the difficulty in relation to persons who have outline planning permission but had not proceeded to the stage of applying for full planning permission. They may find their outline permission has been revoked. When it comes to assessing compensation for those persons I should like to know whether there will be any distinction between the value of the outline planning permission and of the full planning approval. I should like to get from the Minister also the amount of the compensation to be paid. Is it to be based on the market value of the property in respect of which planning permission has been given at the time at which the scheme is made? These are very important and pertinent questions and we cannot be expected to accept the Bill in toto without assurances on such matters.

The Minister dealt very quickly with sections 11, 12 and 13. Under these sections completely new powers are being taken by the Minister. At the moment, confusion between the common law and statute law raises difficulties but I wonder is it necessary to seek such sweeping powers in the future to overcome the difficulties which are there at present or which can be anticipated. Under these sections it is clear that the Minister can authorise that a scheme be drawn up. One of the sections provides that if the Minister finds that a local authority are not complying or are refusing to comply with a direction from him, he can draw up a scheme himself with effect similar to CPO. The section says that following consultation the Minister can draw up a scheme. That is a very sweeping authority. If the Minister so wishes, all of the roads constructed under this Bill could be carried out under his direction, under his instruction, without the participation of local road authorities in any way whatsoever. Consultation can be a very nebulous thing. The Minister can consult but he need not be satisfied after consultation, which need not take very long, and he can decide to proceed in his own way.

In being asked to accept this Bill, I think the public should be aware and the members of the local authority should be aware that the Minister for Local Government is seeking supreme powers in relation to the construction of motorways and national roads under this Bill so that they will not be under any illusions as to what his intentions are. The whole question of whether it is proper and correct that the Minister should have these powers, or that he should, in fact, establish an authority to carry out the planning, designing and construction of these major highways, is a matter on which the House is entitled to some explanation from him. I am sure he is aware of the document published by the Civil Engineering Contractors' Association, which was prepared by the Construction Industry Federation in October, 1973 entitled Building a National Road System—a New Approach. I should like to quote from page one of that document and when the Minister is replying, perhaps, he will let us know where he stands in this matter:

At the present time most of the thirty-one local authorities (Dublin Corporation being the main exception) carry out the work of road construction on a piecemeal basis by the system of direct labour whereby each local authority employs its own work force to carry out the work which is designed and supervised by its own engineering staffs. The building of modern roads, however, and in particular the construction of a national highway network, is a massive undertaking in both civil engineering and administrative terms requiring the most sophisticated design and planning techniques and a high degree of skilled execution. Within the present system, however, planning tends to be on a county rather than a regional or national basis which seriously inhibits the achievement of optimum standards of design and alignment in the overall route. We believe that the requirements of national route planning, design and skilled execution of the work can best be achieved under a national roads authority which would be responsible for the planning, programming and design of national highway routes.

I would like some clarification from the Minister whether this Government favour a national roads authority or whether they favour the continuance of the existing system where each local authority is a roads authority in its own right and performs these functions under the overall general direction given by the Department of Local Government but where most of the planning and execution of the work is under the control of the local authority and the county engineer is the person mostly involved in overseeing the construction. There is a very big principle involved here.

It is obvious in the Bill that the Minister is seeking power which would enable him to establish a roads authority but he is not making it very clear whether, in fact, statutory responsibility for roads, which is at present vested in road authorities, will be affected in any way by this Bill. The Minister was rather cautious in his opening statement when he dealt with the question of finance. I suppose he got good warning from his colleague, the Minister for Finance, not to create the impression abroad that unlimited finance would be available immediately to undertake the immediate construction of a motorway on a massive scale. It is a wise precaution to include it there but it would have been more helpful if the Minister had given us some indication of the Government's policy in relation to the future financing of roads.

I understand some EEC regulations may have some influence on our method of road financing in the future. I hope the Minister in his reply will indicate in what way and when, if ever, the EEC regulations will affect the financing of road construction in this country and whether any approaches have been made by his Department or any member of the Government on behalf of his Department to secure special funds from the EEC for the construction of motorways in particular. The investment in roads is very important. I agree with most of the other sentiments in the Minister's statement about the capacity of our roads and the substantial increase in traffic. It is obvious that a heavy investment is needed and it is obvious from what he said that this legislation is needed if rapid progress is to be made. I believe we could make a very strong case to the EEC to obtain money from the regional fund or the social fund for the construction of roads.

This would help to open up the undeveloped parts of the country where we experience great difficulty in attracting new industry. It is my belief that a proper road network into the west of Ireland would contribute more to the industrial development of that area than any other single measure the Government could take. I am happy to see the Minister acknowledging that work is continuing on the surveying and designing of the first section of such a motorway to the west on the Kilcock/Dublin stretch. I hope he will give us some indication of the time scale he has in mind in relation to the construction of these motorways. I realise from the time you make a decision to construct a motorway until the first vehicle travels along it 15 to 20 years can elapse. Therefore, it is important that we should make positive decisions now if we are to see a good road network in a reasonable length of time.

The acquisition process can be very lengthy and can involve the Minister or local authorities in complex legal action which can delay his best intention. Delay in designing these roads and deciding where exactly they will be is not to the advantage of the country. I hope the Minister can give us some indication of the time scale of these motorways and where he sees the priority. There is mention in the Bill of the short motorway in the Dublin area from Santry to Dublin Airport. That seems to be the only positive decision so far so I hope the Minister will give us a clear indication of his intentions when he is replying.

Mr. Malone

I would also like to welcome this Bill and, like Deputy Molloy, I would like clarification on a couple of points. The Bill is designed to speed up the construction of roads and motorways and in that regard it can be seen as the answer to an engineer's prayer. However, from the point of view of the landowners, where land acquisition will take place it requires, as Deputy Molloy said, some clarification as to how this will be achieved. Up to this when a local authority embarked on a new road scheme it was open to the engineers involved to approach landowners and make as good a deal as they could with as many of them as possible although there may have been one or two who held up a particular scheme pending a compulsory purchase order.

I should like to know from the Minister when a scheme is being drawn up, under this Bill, is the power to approach landowners and purchase the land in advance to be abolished or will this system continue? I can see considerable difficulties from the financial point of view if the old provision is done away with because once the notice appears that a scheme has been drawn up you could get a lobby of farmers involved who would come together on the site, decide what their price would be and would not depart from it. It is essential that the compensation for land, especially in the case of a motorway, is very carefully looked at. If you take the section which deals with the positive exclusion of access to motorways you can find a farmer with a substantial farm with a motorway going through it. His farm can be left in very small pieces over a couple of miles of road without any means of access to the land. This point is as important as that made by Deputy Molloy about houses where planning permission already exists.

I reside in a county which carries the bulk of the traffic west and south. The necessity for very quick action in the provision of motorways in such an area is very apparent. In many counties the local road work force would be incapable of carrying out the jobs which are urgently needed. I should like to hear of any proposals the Minister might have in his Department or of any recommendations to local authorities for carrying out major schemes. Part of the Naas-Dublin dual carriageway was constructed under contract but nevertheless it is true to say that we have not got a contract system as such whereby a contractor can be called upon, or tenders invited from such people, to construct major road works. This will continue to be the case unless there is some system whereby there will be a continuation of work when one scheme is finished and the contractor will not have to disband his work force and have his machinery lying idle waiting for another job. It is advisable that a key work force be adequately maintained with sufficient work. There is work on roads for a great many years before they even reach the present day required standards.

Realising how congested our provincial towns are with traffic, one can realise the glaring necessity that they be by-passed. A short time ago if one mentioned by-passing a town he would not want to be a candidate for the local authority. There would be an outcry that business would be lost. We are rapidly approaching the time where business will be lost due to the fact that people in the hinterlands are unable to find parking facilities in the town due to the volume of traffic. Consequently, the business done by passing traffic, which was considerable a few years ago, is now non-existent.

During the weeks when we were supposed to have had a petrol shortage, it was evident that there was no reduction in traffic. Speed may not have been so great but the volume of traffic seemed to me to be as great as ever, and it is rising every day.

I should like the Minister to clarify these points in his reply. I hope that Deputy Molloy's forecast of what can happen from the point of decision to the point of actually using the motorway—that it could be as long as 20 years—is without any foundation. I hope we will see a vast improvement, which is so urgently necessary, taking place as soon as this Bill passes through the House.

Mr. Cunningham

I should like to discuss this Bill as it will affect planning and development. This is provided for in section 8, which I will discuss later. The long term provisions of this Bill are very much for the future. It is no harm for a Government to try to visualise what the motive power will be in the next ten years, or how much of the conventional motive power will be then available, because we must remember that by the time the full provisions of this Bill are in operation it will have cost the State many millions of pounds. There is a short-term need for some of the provisions of this Bill. This is a Bill which, with additions which may be made from time to time, will give this country the means for a proper transport system. What will that transport system be? What will the motive power for that system be? Will it be petrol or oil? If not, there is a very large question mark indeed. That is a problem for the Minister. He may wish to refer to it.

I should like to refer to the distribution of motorways and major roads of all kinds. The economy can be affected by ministerial or governmental decisions. I should hate to see a situation with Dublin as the main centre of radiation, that is, that all motorways will lead from Dublin to the remoter parts of the country. Again we have to look to the future. Will any provision be made for Belfast as a link-up for trade and commerce, especially to the northwestern counties, Mayo, Sligo, Leitrim and Donegal? This must be kept in mind when spending money on motorways or any other form of transport for passengers or commerce.

There are ports in the west which could be developed. An airport could be located in the north-west. The point I am making is that we have reached a stage in Dublin where we must look at the wisdom of large expansion, populationwise and otherwise, at the expense of the country. This is something which needs to be chalked up with a view to keeping an eye on it when we are talking about motorways.

In section 8 there is provision for dealing with planning permissions granted whether or not work has started. Of course, the same applies to projects, even if they have been started and completed, where compensation must be paid. But, in this field of existing planning permissions, whether they be outline or full, there are some question marks. For instance, at what stage does the Minister revoke planning permission granted? Will it be when a scheme has been drawn up by the local authority, by two local authorities, or in default by the Minister? At what stage is the planning permission revoked? And, if a planning permission will not be revoked until, say, ten years time, in cases where the roadway or motorway is being used, is it only then that it will be revoked? If, say, a person has outline planning permission, can he get full planning permission in the meantime? I should like to hear more about this because a circular by the Minister to local authorities on the operation of their planning regulations said that while many development plans contained provisions against ribbon building— that is building along main roads or other roads—it was the Minister's view that such clauses should not prevent a liberal approach to individual cases.

I do not think the planning authority have any function whatsoever. If they have a county development plan and this makes provision for non-interference with roads, they cannot grant planning permissions which contravene their own county development plan. It is only the Minister, on appeal, or the Minister, at the request of the local authority, who can alter the county development plan. Therefore, this seems to be cutting across the provisions of this. In other words, if a local authority apply to the Minister for permission to contravene their county development plan—such a plan may include certain provisions regarding buildings, commercial or otherwise, housing along the major roads, and so on—in keeping with the sentiments of his circular and if he gives them permission to contravene their plan, this may be cutting right across the provisions of section 8 of this Bill.

When I was dealing with planning in the Department of Local Government I had occasion to refuse planning permission on a number of occasions along the routes of proposed roads. This was done because it would cost a large sum if there was any interference with the granting of planning permission, if there was any interference with the course of roads proposed for the future such as are envisaged by this Bill. I remember distinctly two cases. There was the case of Rolon Caravans, where the road or proposed motorway went through the site of the proposed factory. The advice given by the roads people and the Department of Local Government was that it would cost hundreds of thousands to deviate from the course which the Department officials had planned for that road. All the advice available in the Department of Local Government was "No. It is going to cost many hundreds of thousands to give that planning permission." Although I was anxious to encourage industrial development and although I was urged by Deputies of all parties, including the Fianna Fáil Party, I did not grant planning permission. But the present Minister for Local Government did. Why? What were the considerations? Did he go against the advice of his own officials, the same officials whose advice I relied on and took? Incidentally, the firm has now gone out of business, unfortunately. The property, according to The Irish Times of 16th January, 1974, has been purchased by Euro Estates and is a very valuable property because it has full planning permission without any conditions for industrial commercial development. I hope the Minister will tell us why. These are the matters that the Minister and members of his party and the other parties forming the present Government, when over here, made allegations and innuendos about to the effect that we were misbehaving when over there.

Mr. Tully

I hope the Deputy is not alleging that I was misbehaving. If he is, let him come out and say so.

Mr. Cunningham

I am asking the Minister to state why he granted planning permission.

Mr. Tully

I would suggest that is not in the Bill. If Deputy Cunningham cares to put down a question I will answer him.

Mr. Cunningham

This is a proposed motorway.

Mr. Tully

I will answer his question.

Mr. Cunningham

All right. That is why I want to know.

Mr. Tully

The Deputy should not judge me by his own standards. That is what he is doing.

Mr. Cunningham

I am not prejudging this.

Mr. Tully

The Deputy has prejudged it. He made a statement a minute ago suggesting certain things and I will answer it when I am replying.

Mr. Coughlan

Go back to Oranmore. What happened there?

Mr. Cunningham

Nothing. This is a proposed motorway provided for in this Bill. At some future date, I suppose the Minister will have to compensate Euro Estates if they do not go ahead, or the local authority, I presume, will have to compensate them. If they propose to develop this industrially or commercially, will they be allowed to do this? At what stage can the Minister come in now and say: "Look, there is section 8. You have to be compensated. We are going to prohibit the development now"? This is the reason I am asking the question. I am not alleging anything and far be it from me to allege anything sinister. I just want to know why the transaction took place.

Then we come to another similar transaction on the other side of the main Dublin-Belfast road. I have not got the reference but I think it is The Irish Times. It says, “Boland Estates Limited.”

Mr. Molloy

It is not Kevin Boland.

Mr. Cunningham

It certainly is not.

Mr. Tully

It could be.

An Ceann Comhairle

Let us have no reference to personalities, especially to people outside the House.

Mr. Cunningham

He is inside this House actually. There was an application for planning permission for the commercial development of 55 acres, I think.

Mr. Tully

What relation has this to the Local Government (Roads and Motorways) Bill?

Mr. Cunningham

It is a proposed motorway the same as the Minister has in the Bill.

Mr. Tully

I would suggest that what Deputy Cunningham is talking about——

Mr. Molloy

The Minister is getting too touchy. When something is being said which he does not like he tries to get the Chair to protect him.

Mr. Tully

I know about Rolon Caravans. I do not think Deputy Cunningham can show that what he is talking about can be affected by the Bill. He should put up or shut up.

Mr. Cunningham

It is directly affected. I will send the map across to the Minister if he would like to have a look at this plan. Property is being sold by Messrs. Boland. I did not grant planning permission for it because I was advised by the officials of the Department that it contravened everything, roads and development plans. The same applies to the caravan site where the Minister granted permission. It is right up against the motorway and in the course of another motorway which will connect with the Ashbourne motorway, which is also proposed. The reference is to a 55 acre site at Santry. It goes on to say that one of the biggest single property deals ever on the Irish market is due next Thursday—I think it is today—when Boland Sales Limited, the Clondalkin auctioneers, sell by public tender 55 acres of light industrial land at Swords Road, Santry, and the land comes with outline planning permission for industrial development.

Mr. Tully

Is it zoned for light industrial development?

Mr. Molloy

Be careful.

Mr. Cunningham

It has outline planning permission.

Mr. Tully

Let the Deputy be careful.

Mr. Cunningham

I was advised that it could not be granted.

Mr. Tully

I will explain when I am replying. You cannot blame me if one of my predecessors was inefficient.

Mr. Cunningham

The price expected is £2½ million. These two cases were in front of me when there was a change of Government. On any criteria which could be applied by anybody dealing with planning permissions, the permission sought could not be granted. That permission was granted by the Minister.

Mr. Tully

What did the Parliamentary Secretary do with that application at that time? You sat on it because you had not got the courage to deal with it.

Mr. Cunningham

No.

Mr. Tully

Do not talk to me. You did not have the guts to deal with it.

Mr. Molloy

The Minister is looking for a way out.

Mr. Tully

Like thousands of others it was put on the shelf.

Mr. Cunningham

I did not sit on it.

Mr. Tully

They were hot potatoes.

Mr. Cunningham

Why did you grant it?

Mr. Tully

I will tell the Deputy when I am replying.

An Ceann Comhairle

Let us have orderly debate.

Mr. Cunningham

According to the provisions of the Bill the Minister is seeking to put through, planning permissions already granted could be abolished. This is a sad state of affairs. In the case of Rolon Caravans I had an estimate and if the road were diverted away from the site of the proposed factory or commercial development it would cost the ratepayers of this city a very large sum, running into well over £250,000. This is the advice I got from the people in the roads section at the time. This should not be done and it was not done.

Why did I not sign the order that was ready for refusal? There was a possibility that if the company wanted temporary accommodation to deal with a problem they could be granted permission for five or six years. The advice I got was that this road development would possibly take about 12 years. I was toying with the idea of suggesting that temporary permission would take the company out of a spot until such time as they found alternative accommodation. I did not get around to that. It would have been feasible to grant temporary permission for five or six years or anything up to ten years. I am surprised that the Minister did not grant that kind of permission.

Mr. Tully

Why did you not grant it?

Mr. Cunningham

I did not get around to it.

Mr. Tully

You put it on the shelf. You did not have the guts to deal with it.

Mr. Cunningham

I did not put it on the shelf.

An Ceann Comhairle

I do not think we can have orderly debate by cross-questioning.

Mr. Tully

Sorry.

Mr. Cunningham

There was a change of Government and the Minister went over there and granted planning permission. Why?

Mr. R.P. Burke

The need for legislation to improve our roads is evident to every man, woman and child who travels on our roads. The fact that existing legislation did not permit the purchase of land and the construction of motorways is the reason for the introduction of this Bill. I regret that in introducing it the Minister made no attempt to say where the vast sums of money necessary for the construction of motorways will come from. He made a point of saying that the provisions of the Bill do not seek to set up special financial arrangements under which programmes for motorways and national roads could be launched. When will we hear of the financial arrangements for the construction of motorways?

Mr. Tully

Not in 12 years, as Deputy Cunningham says.

Mr. R.P. Burke

I am sure the Minister will have an opportunity to reply.

Mr. Tully

I sure will.

Mr. R.P. Burke

The scale of the problem can be seen if one looks at the plans for the construction of motorways in County Dublin. The Dublin transportation study mentioned by the Minister in his opening statement envisaged the construction of what they call a motorway box around County Dublin: an outer ring road, a motorway going from Baldoyle through Santry, across into Blanchardstown, joining the new towns of Blanchardstown, Clondalkin, on into Tallaght and right around the southern suburbs. There will be other motorways heading north, west and south coming off that. By the time we get around to the construction of this motorway the estimated cost will be only a small part of the actual cost; according to 1973 prices, the cost of this ring road and the other roads I have mentioned is £60 million. If you multiply that by the requirements of other city areas and the rest of the country you can get some idea of the scale of the problems.

The introduction of enabling legislation is fine, but the Minister has a responsibility to say where the money is coming from, when it is coming, and when construction of these motorways can commence. I am in the fortunate position that my area is the only one mentioned in the Bill as definitely getting a motorway. The section mentioned is the area Santry to the airport. I welcome this move, but I feel sorry for other Deputies in whose constituencies motorways are needed and for which no provision has been made by the Minister. I would like to see some provisions being made for other motorways as soon as possible.

There are some sections of the Bill I would like to go through. Section 6, subsections (5) and (6) deals with compensation being paid for the acquisition of land for motorways, but I would ask the Minister if he would be good enough to reply to a few points I wish to raise in this connection. One is the problem of people who are not necessarily affected by the purchase or construction of the motorway but who happen to live near it and who will suffer inconvenience due to noise and so on from the extra traffic passing in proximity to their homes, something which is recognised worldwide as being, to say the least of it, undesirable. I should like the Minister's assurance that compensation of this type is covered under section 6 or somewhere else in the Bill. As far as I can see, this section merely covers compensation for purchase of the land.

Another compensation problem is that in relation to the farmer owning, say, 100 acres. If a motorway is planned and is constructed through his farm, is he merely paid for the section of the land that is being physically used for the motorway or is he compensated for lack of access from one side of the motorway to the other because, quite properly, the Bill provides that there should be no access onto the motorway and that it should not be used by farm animals, by cyclists, et cetera? How does the Minister see this problem of compensation for a farmer whose farm could be destroyed or cut in half by a motorway?

As I said earlier, section 7 relates to the compulsory purchase order which was initiated by the Dublin County Council for that section of the motorway from the city boundary at Santry out to Dublin Airport? The need for this is evident to the Minister because, like myself, he travels this route frequently. The means of access to the city from the airport is appalling. The first piece of roadway that any traveller to this country sees, that section of road from the airport to the city going through Santry, is a very bad advertisement for the standard of our roads. There are constant traffic jams. The road was never built for the traffic it is taking and its surface is always broken up and no matter how much repaving is done it is impossible to maintain a proper surface on it. If the Minister would confirm the CPO and provide the money for this motorway we would be able to get this project going in County Dublin soon.

Another advantage of this undertaking is that it will be the first section of the new motorway to the North. In days when we talk about unity and about communication between Dublin and Belfast, surely the first form of communication should be a proper road network, and a proper motorway from Dublin to Belfast should be a priority of this Government. I was told the Minister would give urgent consideration to co-operation with the Dublin County Council, with the Meath and Louth County Councils with a view to constructing this motorway to join up with the M1 coming out of Belfast. This would be a form of practical co-operation between North and South.

Section 8 of the Bill deals with the revocation or suspension of planning permission. I would like clarification from the Minister with regard to the compensation to be paid in such cases. Take the hypothetical case of a housing estate of 200 houses. Planning permission is given; construction is started. At a later stage the Minister or the council decide they want to build a motorway in close proximity to the site. What is the situation in regard to revocation of part of the permission if work has commenced? What is the situation in regard to compensation to people who may have moved into the houses quite close to where the motorway is to be built? This is the sort of question it is necessary for the Minister to answer, so that the people will know exactly where they stand in regard to the sweeping powers the Minister is taking unto himself in this Bill.

One of the things that I welcome particularly in the Bill is the fact that access to the motorway will be restricted, unlike the situation on the dual carriageways. It is important when thinking of the construction and planning of motorways that we should never again make the mistakes made on the stretch from Dublin to Naas which probably has had more fatal accidents per mile than any other stretch of road in the country. It was built when it seemed to be the thing to do. As a dual carriageway it was a compromise between the roads we had and the motorway. It has resulted in a number of ghastly accidents and many deaths. When the Minister eventually provides money for the construction of these motorways, the fact that access to these roads is being controlled, the type of vehicle and people to use them, is one of the most desirable sections of this legislation.

The Minister is taking sweeping powers in sections 11, 12 and 13 and, as Deputy Molloy mentioned, the Minister merely gave himself eight lines of a four page speech to deal with these sections. In my opinion these are the most far-reaching sections of the Bill.

Mr. Tully

As Deputy Molloy drew up the Bill he should know all about it.

Mr. R.P. Burke

Like his colleagues, when it suits him the Minister says we are responsible and when it does not——

Mr. Tully

You are hoist on your own petard.

Mr. R.P. Burke

The Minister will have his opportunity to reply. There is much to recommend sections 11, 12 and 13. There is much to be said for co-operation, for having a national road authority, but there are also many things against this. The Minister says that under these powers he can instruct or appoint authorities to construct a motorway if he finds he is not getting co-operation from a county council and he merely has to consult with the county council and tell them what he is doing. Consultation is a much abused word. In practice representatives of the county council could be brought to the Custom House and told: "We are building the motorway from point A to point B whether you like it or not" and that is a form of consultation. Under sections 11, 12 and 13, as I see it, that could be done.

There is much to be said for having a single agency building all the motorways because you have the problem of over-worked engineers in many counties. They have enough difficulty in trying to keep up with minor roads without becoming involved in major motorway construction, but this is something that needs more explanation than eight lines of a four-page speech on three sections of a Motorways Bill. It needs clarification and it should be discussed with all local authorities concerned. The manner in which the Minister is dealing with it is, to say the least, inadequate. I hope he will contact county councils and local authorities generally and seek their views on these sections. Even if it could be done on a regional basis rather than a county basis and if these motorways were to be planned by representatives of county councils going to a regional body to discuss these matters rather than having it all done through the Department, it might be a good idea. While much could be said for and against I feel the Minister's treatment of the matter was inadequate.

The need for the Bill is shown by the figures the Minister himself quoted. We see the increase from 1963 to 1973 during years of expansion under Fianna Fáil when the number of vehicles using the roads went up from 383,038 to 646,205. The need for the Bill is also evident to anybody who travels our roads. If you go from Dublin to Galway you find appalling delays between Lucan and Kilcock. If you are unlucky enough to get behind a truck you will not be able to pass it until you get beyond Kilcock. This sort of thing is not economic in a country attempting to expand industrially and sell its goods abroad: we need proper road communication.

The Minister should have taken this opportunity to tell the House how he proposes to finance the type of legislation he is introducing. He did say that the present Bill, which he hoped to follow in due course with a comprehensive measure, was the first step in remedying the situation in regard to the construction of roads.

The principal things I should like the Minister to clarify are the matter of financing and the question of the compensation to be paid to people unfortunate enough to live in close proximity to motorways and also how the farming community will be compensated for the division of their lands.

Mr. Tully

Is the Deputy sure he has not left out anybody?

Mr. Haughey

Like other Members who have contributed to this debate I welcome this legislation and I commend the Minister on bringing it before us and wish him success with it. Despite the fact that it is only a 17 section Bill and that we are taking it in a valley period—Thursday morning—it is a very important piece of legislation. The Minister is one of the few members of the present Administration who seem to be getting on with the job and doing things. Perhaps we disagree with some of the things he does and would prefer that he would do some things differently but at least to me and I think to many others on this side of the House, he gives every indication that he is doing his best and dealing with matters as they come before him unlike many of his colleagues who seem to regard their Ministerial offices simply as vehicles to promote their own personal prestige.

This is an important piece of legislation and it gives us an opportunity of discharging one of our very important functions. In dealing with it we face one of the very real problems of our time—how to provide for and achieve progress and at the same time protect our environment on the one hand and the rights and amenities of individuals on the other. In its own way this small Bill is a classic example of the modern dilemma and I hope the House will deal with it in that way.

We must have motorways as the Minister and Deputies have pointed out. If anybody is in any doubt about the need for progress in this area he has only to try to get out of Dublin to the west of Ireland on a Friday evening or come into Dublin from the west on a Monday morning. Most of us in this House are conscious of the situation that prevails on the Dublin-Maynooth-Kilcock road. That sort of situation is repeated around the city but the western road brings home to us particularly vividly the problem which is arising in this matter of access to Dublin city. Indeed, this type of problem arises around the country in regard to other cities and towns also. We must have up-to-date modern motorways if we are to cope with the situation that is inexorably developing. I agree also with what Deputies Cunningham and Molloy have said about this Bill having an important bearing on decentralisation. All parties in this House are committed firmly to the need for decentralisation. It is an essential part of any sensible decentralisation programme that there be easy access to Dublin from the different parts of the country and particularly from the west of Ireland. The situation has developed that a large volume of our import-export trade is channelled through the port of Dublin. That being so, it is essential from the point of view of industrial and economic development, and indeed the convenience of private citizens, that there be an adequate road system in and out of Dublin city, particularly to the west of Ireland.

Let me digress for a moment and say that I believe a great deal more could be done in and around the city in trying to encourage diversions off the main arteries. There are some alternative ways in and out of Dublin —for instance through the Minister's own county—which are not as fully availed of as they might be. If somebody were to give more attention to that aspect, to inform road users of the alternatives to encourage their use, perhaps here and there and carry out minor works which would make these alternative routes more attractive, some relief of the congestion could be achieved. It would however at least be only temporary and there is no doubt that motorways are the solution.

The Minister is fortunate in that we on this side of the House propose to take a very constructive and helpful approach to this Bill and to anything else that he will attempt in this field. One recalls that in our day we were often subject to very destructive criticism in this regard. Great public agitation was fostered over the Bray road. It is easy to create agitation and to whip up opposition to things that are really necessary in the roads situation. The Minister can be assured that we on this side of the House are conscious of the problems and of the needs that exist. He can be assured of a helpful and constructive approach by us to anything he tries to do.

This Bill directs our attention to the modern problem of achieving progress while, at the same time, trying to preserve the quality of life. When we come to the Committee Stage we can go further into the detailed provisions and see whether we can improve them in the various ways which have been mentioned by some of my colleagues, particularly in regard to compensation. On this Second Stage I should like merely to mention some broader aspects. I would like to have seen some directive principles written into the Bill. I would like to have seen directive principles written in in regard to conservation. I am not sure to whom the directive principles should be addressed, whether the Minister should bind himself in his official capacity or whether the directives should be addressed to local authorities; but enshrined in the Bill there should be some mandatory provisions that in the construction of motorways the general beauty, attractiveness and amenities of the countryside should be preserved to the greatest possible extent. Trees and other physical features should be subject to the minimum interference.

Mr. Tully

Deputy Haughey will include existing industries in that, I am sure.

Mr. Haughey

Perhaps industrialists are quite capable in this context of looking after themselves and protecting their interests. I am concerned with the general appearance of the countryside and to see, if possible, enshrined in the Bill some directive principles to the effect that in the construction of motorways regard must be had to the appearance of the countryside before and after their construction. Engineers are very fine people. They have their own priorities. There is a very natural tendency and temptation for an engineer to draw a straight line across the map. I have seen that happen. That is the simplest thing for an engineer to do and it is probably in keeping with his training. However, there are other considerations and I would like to have seen in the Bill some reference to the preservation of the beauty of our countryside.

I would also like to have seen, in regard to compensation, some directive principle that a broad view be taken. Here we can learn a great deal from the English and continental experience.

As Deputy Ray Burke has pointed out there is more involved in the construction of these roadways or motorways than strict compensation for the property acquired. The construction of a roadway or motorway will often have an important and significant impact on the lives of a lot of people who live in the vicinity of these proposed motorways. I should like to give the example of a stud farm. I am aware of a case where very serious problems have arisen in regard to such a farm. If a road or motorway is run through the middle of a stud farm, and indeed this applies to many farms, strictly speaking one could consider that the owner of the particular farm is only entitled to be paid a reasonable rate for the actual land taken for the provision of the roadway. However in the case I have in mind, a stud farm, the farm is a unit, an entity with its own centre of activity and the construction of a roadway through it will completely destroy its viability. Therefore, it is very difficult to see how the proprietor of that particular establishment can be compensated for what is about to happen. We can, as Deputy Burke has pointed out, have situations— reports of such have indeed appeared in the newspapers—where persons whose property is not physically involved in the construction of the motorway are nevertheless vitally affected by it. People who live in close proximity to the proposed routes of motorways or who have amenities or facilities adjacent to them can be adversely affected by the advent of the motorway though in fact their property may not be directly involved in the construction.

I would like to have seen some direct principle enshrined in the legislation compelling the Minister or the local authorities or whoever is concerned to take a broad view of the implications of the construction of these motorways from the point of view of compensation to the individual citizens concerned. What we do in this piece of legislation will affect the lives and the property, the amenities and the facilities of many private individuals in the future. It is only the Members of this House who can, by foresight in the framing of this legislation, protect the private citizen, and it is our duty to do so. It is our duty to make provisions which will ensure that local authorities in the future, pursuing their own priorities as they must, will not be able, inadvertently or otherwise, to tread on the rights of private citizens.

I hope that when we come to the details of the individual sections we will discharge fully the obligation placed on us in this regard to try to ensure that while these necessary motorways are provided this will be done with the minimum of inconvenience, not to mention hardship, for our citizens along the routes involved. The need for these motorways is self-evident, and we all agree with the Minister in that. I am not sure, however, if it would not have been better to entrust the job of the construction of motorways to some sort of central authority, perhaps directly under the auspices of the Minister's own Department.

I can see the dilemma the Minister was presented with in this regard. I can appreciate his anxiety to get on with the job and, if possible, to be ahead of events—to get the machinery moving now, to have decisions taken now, and to get the preliminary details over with so as to ensure that motorways are there when they are needed. To that extent there is a great temptation for him to avail of the machinery that exists in the local authorities who have the staff, the expertise and the machinery to do this job. However, there is a danger that in being left to local authorities it will suffer the disadvantages of a piecemeal approach. Strictly from the long-term administrative point of view a central body would have been a far better solution, but then the setting up of such an authority and the creating of all the new machinery it would need would undoubtedly take time. I believe the Minister has therefore opted for the machinery in the local authorities because it is already in existence.

If the decision has been taken not to set up a central authority because it would delay matters, then I go along with the Minister to leave the job to the local authorities. However, if that decision has not been finally and irrevocably taken, perhaps the Minister would consider whether at this stage the establishment of some central authority which could do the job comprehensively would be a better solution. I readily confess that I have not access to all the detailed arguments which the Minister has in that regard and if he has decided that the local authority's way is the quickest and best way of doing this, I accept that decision on his part.

When we come to discuss this legislation on Committee Stage I will endeavour to be as constructive and as helpful as possible in regard to the different provisions. My main contribution at this stage is to ask the Minister to consider whether he should not have clearly and unequivocally written into the Bill certain mandatory directive principles along the lines I have set out.

Mr. O'Brien

I, too, welcome this Bill. It is a measure that is long overdue. It has been the practice here for many years to engage outside agencies to draw up reports in relation to road building. While much of the material produced provided good reading and contained a fair degree of sense our particular needs were not always taken into consideration and because of this there was a tendency to shelve these reports.

This Bill will give more autonomy to local authorities and, consequently, will result in decisions being made with less delay than has been the practice up to now. Now that we are a developing nation and are members of the EEC it is all the more important that we have first-class motorways. Other speakers have referred to this need in the context of decentralisation, but if there should be decentralisation—and we all hope that there will be—the likelihood is that Dublin will remain the largest port area of the country. It is essential that we have adequate motorways to allow for the movement of merchandise to and from the country but it is important also that due attention be given to such aspects of road building as landscaping. The entire work of creating a motorway should not be left solely to engineers. While these people do a good job in so far as construction is concerned, they tend to overlook other aspects that are very important also. Therefore, it is important to have planners and people who are experts in landscaping. So far the roads that have been built here are very dull. That is not the position on the Continent where trees and shrubs along the motorways lend a very pleasant and fresh appearance to the environment. I hope that the necessary steps will be taken here to ensure that this aspect of road work is not overlooked.

I am not very happy with some of the developments taking place in Dublin. I refer in particular to the new road at Macken Street. The plans would seem to sound the death knell for the villages of Ringsend and Irishtown. At least it would seem that these villages would be almost doomed to extinction. Regarding the development of roadway in the Sandymount beach area I suggest that this development be taken into consideration in terms of the proposed plans for Dublin Bay. We must preserve the quality of our towns.

We have available to us the Travers Morgan plan for local authorities. In many ways this is a good plan but some aspects of it cause me some anxiety, for instance, the proposal for a major roadway through the Liberties area of Dublin. If this project is undertaken it could cause some trouble in that it would result in the uprooting of a vast area of Dublin.

The problems that apply in respect of motorways in Dublin apply also to any other part of the country. In roadway construction towns should be avoided. In the past there was a widely held opinion that to by-pass a town was to allow that town to die. However, that has not proved to be correct. On the contrary those towns that have been by-passed have expanded in growth.

It has always been my impression that society is intended to conform with roadways rather than that roadways should conform with society. In any new thinking I would hope that the quality of society would be taken into account. I would hope, too, that when major road programmes are being put before local authorities there would be consultation prior to any action being taken. The road proposed for the Macken Street area is causing some concern in so far as there is a fear that there may not be adequate consultation. It is my belief that there will be consultation before any final decision is taken. However, it is important to ensure that where possible the needs of the community are catered for. Any project that has not the goodwill of the people in the area concerned may be the cause of much dissension.

In Dublin one of the major failings in development work has been the slowness of the local authority in regard to road development. As far back as 30 years ago people were refused permission to build because of projected road widening work but that work has not yet been carried out. The result of this has been that a major part of the city has been left to decay. It was a fallacy to think that wide roads were necessary within the city area. Motorways must be built around towns and cities and not through them so that we minimise the amount of traffic entering cities and towns. One step that could be taken in this direction would be to limit car parking facilities within any new office block development area and also to provide more pedestrian ways within our cities. There is a tendency today to develop vast shopping areas outside cities and this results in centre city areas being neglected. A good transport system is essential in any city. It is essential particularly in the context of road development. We must preserve our city as a living entity and that can be done by restricting traffic inflow as much as possible. Obviously, allowance must be made for the servicing of shops, industries et cetera but we must limit the number of private cars entering the city. An effective transport system can work very effectively if we limit the transport coming into the cities and have car parks on the main roads outside the cities. There should be efficient bus services carrying traffic to the inner portion of the cities. There should be pedestrian walks such as we have in parts of Dublin. If Dublin traffic was managed in this manner Dublin would soon have a new look. It is rather tatty at the moment.

Decisions are now being taken to improve the roads. We will go ahead and develop the roadways in order to facilitate the transaction of business.

Mr. Crowley

It is with a certain amount of frustration that one stands up to speak on anything to do with roads, especially when one comes from my county where we have a chronic shortage of adequate roads. I know that colossal demands will be made for funds for new roads and there is a limited amount of finance available for this type of development.

I also welcome this Bill and concur that we have in Deputy Tully one Minister who seems to be doing his work in the Government. I know he is applying himself to his job in a very conscientious and thorough fashion. Those of us who knew him when he was in Opposition recognised at a very early stage that he could only operate in such a manner. I concur in the main with the views expressed in the Bill. One may have some reservations about the vast powers given to the Minister in this Bill. During the debate on the Committee Stage we can discuss ways and means of assessing how these powers will operate and whether any alterations will be necessary.

I come from Bandon, County Cork. In west Cork we produce a vast quantity of beef. As a consequence huge lorries travel along the roads from Skibbereen, Dunmanway and Bandon to Cork thereby causing severe congestion on the Bandon to Cork road. This road is probably the second busiest road in the county but it has never been classified as a national primary road. On several occasions the Cork County Council have submitted schemes to the Minister looking for a dual carriageway from Cork to Bandon. At a later stage in the discussion perhaps the Minister will give his views about the reclassification of the road I have just mentioned. Many other roads seem to be in need of reclassification also. As a result of legislation passed by the Dáil the reclassification of a road may not be very important. Powers are being granted to the Minister, and he may have power to allocate substantial sums of money for the improvement of these roads.

In my constituency we face huge problems involving the development of the refinery in the Bantry area. The type of transport that will be necessary between Cork and Bantry boggles the mind. The roads at the moment are totally inadequate to cater for the type of traffic expected. With the imminence of the establishment of the refinery in the area road development should be a priority.

I welcome the opportunity of mentioning these facts because there has been so much discussion in relation to the planning permission for the refinery. My opinion is that unless the road network is improved considerably the refinery will not be able to operate in the area.

Other speakers mentioned the need for further clarification in regard to the type of compensation that will be offered to people whose land will be taken. That may not be an insurmountable obstacle. There is already a system in operation which, while it may not please everybody, gives fair compensation to people whose land is taken over by local authorities. There are other people who may not seem to have a case for compensation and who have not been provided for in any Bill. These people are entitled to have their cases carefully considered. They are the people who like to get out to the quiet, peaceful environment of the country and to build houses off lonely laneways. Some of these people may suddenly find themselves, because of a decision made by a local authority, living virtually on the edge of a main thoroughfare, the quality of their lives being thereby seriously affected.

Deputy Haughey referred to stud farms. What he said would apply equally to all sorts of farms where, because of noise or vibrations caused by heavy traffic going over roadways, cattle or horses might abort.

Mr. Tully

Even geese could be affected.

Mr. Crowley

The Government could very well do with a few of the golden eggs which would help to solve their problems.

Mr. Tully

Deputy Lemass did away with them all yesterday.

Mr. Crowley

Deputy R. Ryan, the Minister for Finance, would be anxious to have some golden eggs, anyway. I do not think he would mind if all the Government Ministers were as conscientious as the Minister for Local Government, and if the same vast amounts as were spent on the Government Information Services were put into other projects rather than allotted to enhancing the images of some Ministers.

Mr. Tully

I suppose even a Swedish firm could do it for a few pounds cheaper.

Mr. Crowley

The sums of money that have been spent could have built a few roads and improved some of the roads in my constituency.

Mr. Molloy

Or built the bridge at Kinsale.

Mr. Crowley

This may not be an opportune time to talk about the bridge at Kinsale. Since Deputy Molloy has left the Department very little has happened there.

Mr. Tully

What happened before that?

Mr. Crowley

There was a lot of action. The bridge would have been built by now. This Bill has social and environmental as well as economic aspects which have been lucidly stated by previous speakers. There is one aspect we cannot afford to neglect in relation to road building, namely, a reduction of the carnage on our roads. We should try to include as many safety regulations as possible. I have been reading some of the reports of An Foras Forbartha on this aspect and they make grim reading. It is important that the Minister spells out the type of constraints that will be put on the building of the roads. I refer to access points. No matter where the Minister may build roadways he will find the necessity for access points.

Mr. Tully

What about a bridge?

Mr. Crowley

While a bridge or a tunnel may be thought to be the answer, I cannot see it being a practical proposition. If a bridge or a tunnel is thought to be the answer it will be necessary to build them every mile, especially in rural areas. The type of bridge that may be cheapest and ideal for pedestrians may not be suitable for rural areas; for instance, one can visualise the difficulty in taking cattle from one side of the road to the other on a bridge such as that at Fairview.

In other countries there are severe restrictions and this is right. No matter how much we speak about the quality of life, if there is not life there cannot be quality. I would urge the Minister to ensure that the question of safety is the primary aspect in the building of roads. All of us are aware of the appalling accidents on the dual carriageway from Dublin to Naas. Unless we provide roads with sufficient safety standards there will be further carnage on the roads. Consequently, the Minister has a tremendous responsibility to ensure that our roads are the safest that can be built.

There has been some talk about a central authority for roads and a good case can be made for this type of authority in that there is a co-ordinated administration and system of road networks. However, the question arises as to how county council workers would be affected if a central authority takes over this kind of work. While the number of such workers may be diminishing, they still constitute a fair work force in the country. They are entitled to know how their future may be affected by the establishment of such an authority. It is only natural that there would be certain reservations if the functions were taken over by some kind of agency or by firms who may be established specifically to do road building.

Other speakers have referred to the necessity for a proper road network in relation to industry and this is so obvious it does not need re-stating. If we are to preserve the population in rural Ireland, the Minister must give priority to the building of a proper road network to serve the remote areas. We know there will be demands in Dublin, Cork city and other cities for improvements and they are legitimate demands. Nevertheless, not only do we have an economic but also a social obligation to ensure that industry is not prevented from going to rural areas because we are not able to provide a proper system of roads for the transportation of goods.

Previous speakers referred to sections 11, 12 and 13 and, on first reading, these sections appeared to confer tremendous powers. I find it difficult to visualise cases where local authorities will be in such direct conflict with the Department of Local Government in relation to road building. It may happen, and perhaps some amendments may have to be submitted to protect local interests, but I imagine in the vast majority of cases there will be complete unanimity in approach on this subject.

In section 12 it is stated that the Minister may, by order, compel or require the road authority to comply with such direction in a satisfactory manner and he may specify the manner in which such direction is to be complied with. The Minister could quite easily get over the objections that may be raised to these powers if he were to confer those rights on the elected representatives in the local authority.

In his recent paper on local authorities, the Minister stressed the vital importance of elected representatives. We fully agree with him but if the Minister found that the elected representatives on a local authority were in conflict with a ruling of his, then I think he should be very reluctant to enforce such a ruling. That would be a constraint that would make most of us feel happy. We might not always have Jimmy Tully as Minister for Local Government—other less conscientious people might be in that Department— and it is therefore important that some restrictions be put on the powers demanded in this section. All in all, this Bill has the support of all of us, no matter on which side of the House we are.

I consider that the preservation of our environment is very important. In road building you could have the bulldozing of, perhaps, some valuable trees. As much as possible, local authorities should be instructed to ensure that all other avenues are explored before any trees are cut to the ground.

Somebody referred to the landscaping of roads. In this country we do not have to take road landscaping too seriously because we have a beautiful countryside in its natural state. In the past someone described some of our roadways as being green tunnels— you could not see over the hedges. If people are able to see into the countryside from our new motorways, I think that will be landscaping enough. I would not be in favour of involving the State in too much expenditure on this kind of thing. Our natural landscaping is far superior.

The Bill does not deal specifically with some of our smaller towns and the need for an overall plan for relieving congestion. Nevertheless, if in the building of these motorways we do not make some provision to relieve congestion in some towns there will be tremendous economic loss to these communities. It is part of good planning for the Minister to ensure that a serious attempt at congestion relief will be made. In this day and age it is important that as many regulations as are necessary will be enforced to ensure that our roads are the safest that can possibly be built. In section 9 the Minister has this very important aspect in mind.

However, we will run into more problems in rural Ireland. If, for instance, pedestrians, pedal cyclists and persons using vehicles other than the classes prescribed, use certain roadways, I can see a tremendous number of problems arising. I know what the Minister has in mind and why he has it in mind. He is right, but I think we would be unwise to enact legislation which could not be enforced easily. It would have the effect of a certain loss of respect for the law. If we are to prohibit a cyclist from cycling on a road and if this is to be done on a fairly regular scale, unless we can prosecute that man and see that he is brought to justice for his offence, our laws will be the subject of a certain amount of disrespect. These are only small things and as far as I am concerned I welcome the whole thinking behind the Bill. I agree with the Minister on the necessity for having some such legislation enacted.

Minister for Local Government (Mr. Tully)

First of all, I should like to thank Deputies, with one or two exceptions, for the way in which they have received the Bill. Although some of their comments may not all have been well informed, I am quite sure they were well intended. I was a little surprised at how critical Deputy Molloy was of a Bill which I understand he considered to be his brainchild. However, I suppose that is what moving around this House does. He asked me a number of questions which I will attempt to answer. He is aware, of course, that the answers to some of them are not ready now and could not be for some time.

I should like particularly to refer to Deputy Cunningham's charge. I refer to the rather serious charge he made in relation to the Bill—it had very slight relation to it but he succeeded in getting it in and I ask your permission, Sir, to deal with it now— and the planning permission which Rolon Caravans got for what he alleged was the site of the motorway. Rolon Caravans were in operation at Santry and employed a very big labour force making caravans and so on. In August, 1972, an application for planning permission to extend the factory was on Deputy Cunningham's desk—he was the Parliamentary Secretary who had responsibility for dealing with planning appeals.

Mr. Molloy

When was the appeal lodged?

Mr. Tully

The appeal was on his desk in August, 1972.

Mr. Molloy

When was it made?

Mr. Tully

The Deputy can find that one out for himself. I am just telling him what the situation was. Deputy Cunningham admitted that he had got advice and that the advice was that it would cost a lot of money to move the site of the road but that there was a possibility that permission could be granted—if I remember him correctly—up to 12 or possibly 16 years which the man could continue his factory. I think it would have been eight to 12 years. Deputy Cunningham apparently did not bother very much about it. He said he did not give a decision, that he just left it there. This happened in many other cases—he put it away on a shelf to gather dust until I came on the scene.

When I came along I found that there was such a recommendation and I asked that the matter be looked at again. I found that Dublin County Council, in consultation with the officials of my Department, were prepared not alone to alter the site of the road but were willing to do it and it would cost less eventually because of the type of land that would be acquired. By doing this they would (a) prevent the destruction of this firm and the consequent dismissal of a substantial number of employees, and (b) they would release on the other side of the road an area which had been zoned for light engineering by the same local authority. I, therefore, gave the planning permission.

Deputy Cunningham should be a little careful about these things. If he wants to make charges he should be prepared to substantiate them. His obvious intention was to get in here and make a charge which he thought would stick at least over the weekend before I could get an opportunity to refute it. I want to say that as far as I am concerned, the planning appeals section, dealt with in the main by my Parliamentary Secretary, Deputy Begley, is open for all to examine. They will find no "hookey" decisions there. They will find no "hookey" decisions taken by me. Deputy Begley referred to me for a second opinion. We stand over the things we do and we are not ashamed of the things we do. It ill becomes somebody like Deputy Cunningham who, as I said, had not the courage to deal with this matter but left it to one side until I took over, to try to cast a slur not alone on me but on my Parliamentary Secretary and indeed on the firms concerned. The fact that permission was granted to people on the other side of the road was incidental to the whole decision.

Dublin County Council decided it was possible to move the road without any extra cost—as a matter of fact it would reduce the costs—and there was no question whatever of refusing. In fact, to show how Deputy Cunningham was attempting to blacken somebody here he did not mention the owner of the farm being sold but mentioned the auctioneer in an effort to blacken a Member of the Oireachtas. I am sure Deputy Molloy would not stoop to this. I was surprised that anybody in this House would attempt to make a charge like that and then run away. He went out of the House pretty soon afterwards.

Mr. Molloy

He did not run away.

Mr. Tully

He got out pretty quickly. He did not wait to hear what the explanation was. I want to put it on the record. That is the story of Rolon Caravans. The fact that subsequently, for other reasons of which I am not aware, the factory closed down and was sold had nothing whatever to do with it. The decision was given on the facts as they then were and there is nothing underhand about it. It is only fair to everybody concerned to say that this is what happened. I may add that the 120 or 130 appeals per month which were being dealt with by Deputy Cunningham, when he was Parliamentary Secretary, have now been stepped up during last month to 590. Perhaps if he spent a little bit more time looking after that part of his business he might not have to come in here as an Opposition Deputy to try to throw a slur on these people. I do not want to say anything more about this but I think it is only right that this matter should be clarified.

Deputy Molloy asked about regional roads and what was happening. We have reclassified a number of roads and we asked the local authorities some months ago for their comments and their recommendations for the classification of regional roads. We are awaiting their recommendations. I suppose we will have to send a request to all of them to send the information in as quickly as possible so that a decision can be taken. That was a fair question and I am not objecting to it.

Deputy Molloy also asked if it would be the same authority under this Bill as under the CPO. The answer to that is yes. Section 4(3) gives the same relevance as the CPO and with regard to compensation it is the same. The Kenny Report may have some bearing on it. If the land is in a designated area there can be a limit on the price. That is one of the things on which it may have an effect; otherwise the CPO regulations will operate.

Mr. Molloy

They may not get the market value by way of compensation?

Mr. Tully

They may get the market value but not an inflated value. If somebody buys land in an effort to try to re-sell it and make a lot of money on it, he will not get that money back. If that person considers that is market value, it is his hard luck.

Mr. Molloy

I presume the Minister will come to the case where planning permission was revoked.

Mr. Tully

This is an entirely different matter and is something that will have to be dealt with. I would prefer to deal with it at a later stage. I want to make it clear my opinion is that, where CPOs are concerned, I do not believe somebody who has applied for outline permission for land for a certain purpose should get any consideration when a CPO is invoked. It would be wrong if they did. If they have plans to proceed with houses that is a different thing altogether.

I am sure Deputy Molloy is aware that there is a new planning Bill which will be before the House very shortly. It will deal with the limited time over which planning permission will operate. I am sure the Deputy will agree with this because people have got planning permission and have sat on it for years while the value of the land was growing and growing. I do not know whether he noticed that he asked a very significant question when he asked me whether there would be a different value on outline permission and on full permission. This is one of the things which has caused all the trouble in this country with regard to housing and planning permission. We all know that land is land until planning permission goes on it. It then gets an inflated value because somebody has succeeded in getting planning permission. It is on the planning permission that people buy, not on the land. I do not think that is a good idea and I will do what I can to prevent that sort of thing continuing.

Mr. Molloy

Is the Minister saying that permission to develop the land will not be taken into consideration?

Mr. Tully

This is something which must be gone into and Deputy Molloy must know the answer to that one because it was considered by his Government at the particular time.

Mr. Molloy

I am not interested in that. I am only interested in the Minister's answer now. He is in Government now and we want to know what his actions will be.

Mr. Tully

Let me say that in the main I am accepting the recommendations which were there. Deputy Molloy knows the answer to that one now and I will be giving him full details at a later stage.

Mr. Molloy

The Minister is saying nothing.

Mr. Tully

Deputy Molloy spoke about supreme powers and all the rest of it. These are things which he suggested. I do not know what he finds wrong with them now that he did not find wrong when he was in office.

Mr. Molloy

The Minister has an extraordinary way of answering a debate. I asked for elaboration on these points. I did not say whether I was for or against them.

Mr. Tully

The Deputy must be for them or he would not have suggested them.

Mr. Molloy

I want to know what the Minister's thinking is now. I do not know why he is suffering from this inferiority complex.

Mr. Tully

I am just throwing it back to Deputy Molloy that it is not just good enough to come into this House, to make a comment and try to criticise things which he thought were so good when he was a Minister that he wanted to have them written into a Bill.

Mr. Molloy

Let the Minister tell us what his views are.

Mr. Tully

If my views were not what they are the Bill would not be here. I will give the Deputy chapter and verse when we come to that. I was going to ask to get all Stages of the Bill today but I understand from some of the references made here that will not be acceptable.

Mr. Molloy

That should be fairly obvious. We cannot give the Minister all Stages today.

Mr. Tully

Why not? It is your own Bill and now you want time as if you had not seen it.

Mr. Molloy

We expect to get some elaboration on the Minister's thinking.

Mr. Tully

The only reason why a Bill is referred from a Second Stage to later Stages is that the Opposition may claim that they have not had an opportunity of fully studying it. Deputy Molloy now comes along and with a Bill which he wants to claim as his own says he did not know what was in it. That is the only reason why he is not prepared to give all Stages today.

Mr. Molloy

That is not the situation.

Mr. Tully

It is like a lot of other things. When Deputy Molloy was Minister he did not seem to know a lot about what was happening. While I was flattered by Deputy Haughey's compliments and also by those of Deputy Crowley I would point out that my colleagues work equally hard in this Cabinet, as they probably know. However he made the comment about the question of landscaping and that there should be some effort to preserve the amenities of an area. Section 3 (1) of the Bill provides for this and I think he will find that as far as the administration of this is concerned there will be a definite effort made when the roads and motorways are being built to ensure that there will not be damage done to environment where it can possibly be avoided. It was wrong to damage the environment. This was done in the past. Certain areas were despoiled because proper care was not taken and I do not want to see that continuing.

The Deputy also referred to the question of the farmer who gets his farm divided in two. I think it was Deputy Malone who referred to the farmer who owned both sides of the road over an area of a couple of miles. He certainly would have some farm and if it was divided in two there would still be two very big farms. If land is being divided by a motorway Deputy Crowley felt it would not be possible to build either the flyovers or the tunnels under such a road in order to allow traffic from minor roads or animals to cross. This has happened all over the continent and in England. It was done very effectively. Therefore, he need have no worries about that. It will be possible to have this sort of thing looked after.

Deputy Molloy was interested in the question of compensation. I gave him a partial answer a few minutes ago. Deputy R.P. Burke seemed to want everybody to get everything he possibly could and still wanted motorways and roads to go ahead. He queried where the money would come from and then he started to enumerate all the people who live near motorways or roads, all of whom should be compensated in some way. I am sure he felt like an old man who lived about one mile from me who 60 or 70 years ago, prevented a bridge being built across a river. This bridge would have been very useful now. At that time it would have cost £100 now it would cost £250,000. He objected because passing cars would annoy the family. His house was built more than half a mile from the road and the cars were drawn by horses.

I am sure Deputy R.P. Burke feels that people living that far from motorways should be compensated. If everybody said that he was being annoyed or that his quality of life —which is the "in word" at present —was being affected and that he should receive compensation, the bills for building roads and motorways would skyrocket so high that it would be difficult to even start them. The same thing applies to suggestions made by a number of people, including Deputy O'Brien and Deputy R.P. Burke, about the question of houses which might be damaged.

Suggestions were made that a number of houses in Dublin city would be destroyed by motorways, ring roads, et cetera, I want to assure the House that good houses will not be destroyed by motorways, except when there is no other way of getting around the problem. If that has to be done, those who are affected will get compensation. I have no hesitation in saying that they will be looked after. To say that because there is a proposal, to build a major radial road or a ring road in Dublin, whole areas in the city will be wiped out is too ridiculous to require an answer. That was said when the proposal was only suggested.

This will appear in tomorrow's newspapers and some people will say: "It was agreed in the Dáil that whole areas will be destroyed by motorways." The motorway at Sandymount is to be built as far out as possible in order to avoid interfering with houses. People try to get things both ways. It gets tiresome when those who should know better use such an argument.

Deputy R.P. Burke spoke about the Dublin-Belfast road on which he and I travel fairly often. This road is bad. I blame Dublin County Council for not making the necessary efforts up to now to do anything about the Dublin-Belfast road, the Dublin-Navan road and, indeed, all major roads. The major roads leading from Dublin are a national disgrace. Something is being done now about them. I gave £1,250,000 extra in this financial year to Dublin in an effort to have something done about them. This is only a drop in the ocean because there are so many bad roads around Dublin which require an enormous amount of money to be spent on them. Deputies who were then on this side of the House now talk about something being done about these roads. This is ridiculous because if these roads had been tackled properly, and if the amount of money needed had been made available years ago, or if the local authorities had pressed for that money, the job would have been a lot easier than it is now. I gave £4,500,000 extra to the country in an effort to improve roads. This is still not enough or even nearly enough. We will have to find much more money for this purpose.

Deputy Molloy raised a fair question. He asked: what about financing? From what he said it appeared that he was fairly well briefed on this. Road authorities are at present receiving 100 per cent recoupment for the cost of improvements to national roads, including bridges. I expect that the same principle will apply to motorways and bridges forming parts of motorways. It would be unrealistic to suggest that this money could be taken out of the Road Fund. The necessary amount would not be there. Therefore, alternative sources must be found.

As Deputy Molloy suggested, a possible additional source for motorway projects would be the Regional Development Fund of the EEC. They have been approached and I expect that this will result in certain moneys being made available. Of course, we can borrow money. It is possible that there will be allocations from the capital budget or loans from the European Investment Bank or commercial lending agencies. No decision has been reached on how the major financing will be done. We can take it that it will not be possible to finance these works in the normal way because the amount involved is colossal. It has been said in this House that the amount of money required would be tremendous. Deputy R.P. Burke started to add millions and millions and by the time he had finished he had convinced himself that there was not a hope in the world of doing anything. I agree with him that the amount of money is very big and that with every year which passes the amount required will be greater. That is why we are determined to make a start as soon as we possibly can. We cannot start until this Bill goes through the House. Therefore, I would ask the Opposition to ensure that it is not held up unduly.

Deputy Haughey referred to stud farms. I agree that it is a serious matter for a person with a stud farm if a major road or motorway goes through that farm. A stud farm would be absolutely useless in such conditions. If roads and motorways are to be established we must have full consultation with those who will be affected. It is not good enough, as apparently happened on occasions, for somebody to draw a line on the map and say that is the way the motorway will go and then, without consultation, to have a CPO put on somebody. It could and did occur that in some cases big farmers who would lose a single portion of their land if the motorway went a certain way were, in fact, able to ensure that the line was drawn outside their boundaries. In one case six 15-acre farmers had their land cut up. I would not have that under any circumstances. It is wrong.

The farmers and everybody else are entitled to be consulted. Special interest should be taken in the small farmer who is trying to make a living out of his land. He should not be walked on because his neighbour who has more land and money may be able to influence those who are considering the matter. Therefore, my officials will continue to consult with the local authority engineers and the people concerned when such work is being planned. I think this must be done.

We have heard discussion as to whether or not there should be a general road authority or whether the local authority should continue, and we had a quotation by Deputy Molloy from a group of interested people who felt that this should be done in such a way that certain contractors should be able to contract for and do all this work. They have a point of view but I stated, immediately after that, that the one thing I will not agree to— and it was, I think, mentioned in their statement also that they were interested in doing this—is to put in jeopardy the livelihood of thousands of road workers by handing over the entire road system of this country to a national road authority or to contract work. I make that very, very clear; I will not agree to that under any circumstances. I think it would be wrong, socially wrong. I think those people, who are employees with pension rights and have been doing a damn good job for very low pay for many years, should not have their jobs jeopardised. I want to make that very clear so there will be no doubt about it.

In fact, we already have such a national road authority—the officials of the Department of Local Government —who are, I consider, perhaps the best civil servants in this country and are doing their job fairly well. They have been overseeing this sort of thing. While discussion has not been finalised as to how this will be worked out, I feel they will be quite capable of ensuring co-operation between local authorities without any major row; that where a road, motorway, main road or arterial road, call it what you like, is going from one local authority boundary into another there will be the necessary co-operation to ensure that it be carried out in the proper way and that there will be no hitch as a result. In addition to this, the engineering staffs of the local authorities are at a very high level. I feel they will be able to carry out this type of work and ensure that it is done properly.

We have had a number of examples of this. At the present time, we can see where this work has been carried out throughout the country. I see no reason why further delays should occur while we set up some type of major road body, which would only hold the thing up and would cost a lot of extra money. One thing I do not like is the system we had here over a number of years where every new body set up to do work being done by somebody else before that resulted in a lot of extra cost and, very often, not so much efficiency. I am very sure that my recommendation will be——

Mr. Molloy

Give a few examples.

Mr. Tully

Deputy Molloy, I am sure, does not have to get any examples. He was long enough in the job I am now doing to have had a damn good look at them. Sometime he might like to go back over his notes and see where something like this happened.

I am anxious that the Bill should go through as quickly as possible. I will give the fullest information I can to the House on any issue they want to raise on Committee Stage. I will also ensure, as far as I possibly can, that the necessary money required for the financing of the schemes will be made available in good time, and fairly quickly, and that we will not have to be waiting for many years to get started.

As Deputy Molloy is aware, the Dublin one should be under way fairly quickly. I quite agree with Deputy Crowley when he says that Dublin is not the only place concerned; we will have to look at major roadways all over this country. In some places efforts have been made but in others they have not. Deputy Crowley was a little off beam when he referred to the fact that the Dublin one only was mentioned and that we were not mentioning anything else. I think he should know that the reason the Dublin one was mentioned was that the forward planning was done there. I would suggest that other local authorities, if they want to have something done about this, should prepare their planning, they should let us know what they want to do. If they do this, they will be getting to the head of the queue; if they do not do it, then they do not have anybody to blame except themselves. But there are a number of roads: people have come into me—local authority representatives and others—to discuss roads in their areas; the question of by-pass roads and the question of where there should be a major change in the road system. Again, I want to assure those people, and the House, that I consider that money spent on this type of work is money very well spent. Where we have towns being cluttered up, because of too much major traffic being directed through the main streets, an effort should be made to try to have a road system devised which will relieve this situation. There are one or two cases —I think Waterford is one example— where a very slight change could help to remedy the situation. Wexford is another; Drogheda has done something about this; they are preparing or are about to start a by-pass road——

Mr. Kenneally

Carlow is one of the best now.

Mr. Tully

Carlow, Athlone, most of the old towns with the narrow streets, through no fault of the present local authorities, are in that situation. But there is no point in sitting there, looking at it and complaining that the Government are doing nothing about it. The initiative must come from the local authorities. They should prepare and, if it cannot be done this year or next year, they are at least getting closer to the point where something will be done if they bring the matter to the notice of the Department of Local Government. That is very worth while work they could do. I would appeal to local authorities to ensure that this sort of thing is done.

Again I would say thanks to the Deputies who have given their attention to the Bill, who even went to the trouble of reading the notes. As far as I am concerned, whatever information I can give them I will give on the next Stage. I would like to take the next Stage, if the Opposition are prepared, as early as possible next week, say, Wednesday or Thursday, if at all possible, because I want particularly to get this Bill through the House.

There were quite a number of points made in this debate which were made as if this was the major Bill. Comprehensive legislation will have to be introduced. We cannot do certain things under this Bill; this is an enabling Bill which will allow certain things to be done. In order to do other things there will have to be specific Bills introduced which will allow us to do these.

Incidentally, one point about the Dublin situation I should like to mention and which I almost forgot is the fact that I had some people who apparently were not aware of the fact that the plans must be published. They must be given an opportunity of giving evidence at an inquiry before the thing is finalised. Some people seem to imagine that the Government or the local authority can simply ride rough-shod over them when they want to do something. The position is that, after the publication of the plans, they will get an opportunity of deciding. But I would appeal particularly to Members of this House not to go off half-cocked. It may be all right for the representative of a resident's association or somebody who feels interested to say that they are disturbed about something or other. That may be all right. It is not all right when a Member of this House, whether on this side or the other side, makes a statement in public which may get him a few lines in an evening paper to the effect that he is opposing this or that. If we go around opposing everything without even taking the trouble to find out what is contained in it, then there will be no progress in this country, no matter what Government are in office. I would appeal to Members to show a little more common sense when they are asked for a comment from somebody who, rightly, feels entitled to get information which will make a headline for him.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 13th February, 1974.