I am concerned as to the significance of declaring a road to be a national road. Section 2 provides that the Minister can declare an existing public road, or proposed public road, to be a national road or a motorway. We all understand what can happen when he declares a public road to be a motorway. From perusal of the Bill it seems to me that the national roads only come into operation for the purposes of section 11, for the purpose of the Minister giving instructions as to the management and co-ordination of national roads and motorways. I am wondering if national roads have any other significance. Will the Minister declare a public road to be a national road for any other purpose? Is anything else involved other than the fact that it will become operative for purposes of section 11?
Committee on Finance. - Local Government (Roads and Motorways) Bill, 1973: Committee Stage.
It would enable the Minister to give directions.
Amendments 1 and 2 may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 1:
In subsection 3 (a), page 3, line 22, before ", or" to insert "unless the construction, repair or maintenance is necessitated by damage caused by works carried out by a road authority under subsection (2)".
The purpose of the amendments is self-evident. They relate to subsection (3) of section 3. I should like to draw the attention of the House to the precise wording of subsection (3) as it stands. It seems to me to be fairly draconian. My first problem with regard to it is the use of the word "responsibility". In both sections (a) and (b) this word is used. The subsection lays down that the Act will not impose on a road authority any liability, duty or obligation to construct, repair or maintain fences or retaining walls which are the responsibility of any other person I am not quite clear what is intended by the use of the word "responability". How does the responsibility arise? Who will decide who is responsible for the maintenance, repair or construction of fences or retaining walls? Is responsibility there equivalent to ownership? At what point does responsibility move from a private citizen to the road authority? That is my first difficulty.
Apart from that aspect, it seems to me also that we should be careful here. This is a very important piece of legislation. As some of us said on Second Stage, it will affect the lives and property of many individuals in the future. We have to look ahead and try to envisage situations which will arise in regard to the lives and property of individuals and see that we frame this legislation in such a way that no injustices will be done. Once the Bill becomes an Act, the public authorities, the local authorities, take over and the individual private citizen will depend entirely for his rights on what we lay down in this piece of legislation. The local authorities, the road authorities, will have a very direct responsibility to provide motorways, and national roads, and so on. From time to time they may be faced with situations where they would like to do something to ease the position for a private citizen in regard to his property, but they will be prevented from doing so by the provisions of this Act as it will then be. This is the first point where this type of question arises.
The Bill, as framed, seems to me to go very far in absolving local authorities, or road authorities which we are dealing with in this case, from any sort of responsibility for constructing, repairing or maintaining fences. We have to think ahead. In many cases the need for these fences or retaining walls will only be brought about by the construction of a motorway. It seems to me that there will be a very big obligation on the road authority to see to it that the walls and fences along the motorways are maintained, and adequately maintained. That will be important both from the point of view of the rights and amenities of the landowners adjoining the motorway and also from the point of view of the motorway itself.
It would be very important from the safety point of view that the fences, and walls, and so on, along the verges of the motorways of the future should be adequately maintained. I am trying to improve the situation here somewhat by these amendments. I am trying to provide, by means of these amendments, that the road authority will not be relieved of the liability, duty or obligation to construct, repair or maintain these fences if the necessity arises from something they have done. In other words, it is necessitated by damage caused by works carried out by a road authority under subsection (2). I hope the Minister will see what I am seeking to do here and have sympathy with my objective and accept both of these amendments.
I understand what Deputy Haughey is saying and I appreciate what he is trying to do. Two points arise. One is that this does not apply only to motorways. It applies to all roads. I am sure he will understand that his amendments, therefore, are entirely unnecessary. The Bill, as drafted, does not change the status quo in regard to responsibility for construction, repair or maintenance of fences or retaining walls adjoining a public road which are the responsibility of any other person or body, or for the construction repair or maintenance of bridges, railway tunnels or railway crossings which are the responsibility of CIE. It does not change the position as it is at present at all.
Furthermore, the amendment would render the road authority liable for subsequent repair or maintenance of such fences, walls, bridges, et cetera, in any case where modifications or alterations carried out under subsection (2) would be held to have damaged such fences, walls, et cetera. It does not alter the status quo. The fact that it deals with motorways in addition does, perhaps, appear to confuse the issue. I assure Deputy Haughey that it makes no difference. The present arrangement has worked pretty well so far. As a matter of fact, some of us think it works too well and that too much money has been spent from time to time on walls and fences adjoining the roads.
The motorways are a special case. The Minister has not dealt with my point about responsibility. Motorways will be a very special case. One of the big points about motorways is that access to them will be controlled. From that of vehicles that will be allowed on them will be controlled. From that point of view, it seems to me that very definitely the road authority should be almost totally responsible for constructing, repairing and maintaining fences.
I want to try to establish from the Minister under what circumstances would the road authority not be responsible for the maintenance of these fences, retaining walls, and so on. Are there any circumstances, where a new fence or a new roadway is provided along the side of one of these new motorways, in which the road authority will not be responsible for maintaining those fences but the private landowner will? Will that arise? If that is so my amendments are very definitely necessary.
Let me say in support of Deputy Haughey's amendment that last week the Minister approved in principle a new bridge across the Liffey. Immediately after that we were told in the newspapers that people spoke in terrified terms about what would happen to their communities. If it were written into a Bill that the road authority must consult with all these people, there would be some safeguard, and the road could not be started before they had been consulted on the matter and made their views known. The Minister may say that any responsible road authority would do that anyway which they probably would. Could we have written into the Bill, as suggested by Deputy Haughey, this extra safeguard that they must be consulted?
There is a later amendment which deals with this point. The people who make statements which make them appear to be terrified would not be so terrified if other people did not give them the impression that they know what will happen and give them an entirely erroneous impression of what will happen. I met those people and I talked to groups of them. When they understood they would get full consultation before anything was done they were satisfied.
The section provides:
A road authority may do all things necessary or incidental to the construction, maintenance or improvement of public roads...
Would Deputy Haughey read that in conjunction with his amendment? He is talking specifically about motorways. He asked me under what circumstances would the authority not be responsible for a fence along a motorway. They would not be responsible for the fence after it was made safe. That would be the responsibility of the person living there, like a wall or a fence along a house. If the local authority were responsible for all the fences along every road, which would be the effect of this amendment, the local authorities would be in an impossible position.
Only the motorways.
That is not what the amendment says.
At present what the Minister says is quite true that the responsibility falls on the person who owns the land after the fence is put up. Would the Minister think it slightly unfair that if the fence is knocked through an accident on the road and — as could be proved in Galway recently — that the road authority is in no way responsible——
Of course, he is not.
I would like to have some assurance that if a motor way happened to run through my land and I had a fence which ran for a quarter of a mile perhaps along that motorway where there could be ten accidents in a week and the good fence such as the Minister is talking about — and they are good fences; they are provided by local authorities — was all demolished I would not be held responsible for repairing it. I do not think it is fair to the man whose land is inside it that he should be responsible for repairing the fence when he was in no way responsible for the knocking of it.
Deputy Callanan asks who should be responsible. The man who owns that land is not responsible; the man who knocks down the fence is responsible. If on a motorway it is knocked down by a car that is the position. Deputy Callanan and other county councillors would be the first to scream if there was a law that every fence that fell must be repaired by the local authority no matter who is responsible for knocking it. That is what the amendment says.
No. There are several aspects of this matter. The question of responsibility is important but what both my amendments say is that where some action of the road authority damages a fence or retaining wall then they shall not be relieved of the obligation, liability or duty of maintaining or repairing it. As it is, the section is blanket. It says that nothing in this Act shall impose on a road authority any liability, duty or obligation to construct or maintain a fence.... That is a blanket relief for the road authority. My amendment seeks that where something happens to the fence or retaining wall because of the action of the road authority, then — I do not even go as far as to say that they must repair it — all I say is that they shall not be relieved of any liability, duty or obligation to repair it. I think that is fair. If they do the damage they should repair it.
That is the position at the present time and will continue to be the position.
Then, accept my amendment.
It is entirely unnecessary. It would make it appear that it was necessary to put in this to have it done. If at the present time a local authority is doing any work along a road and they damage a fence or anything else they usually spend a lot of money repairing it.
We are not concerned with what they usually do. We are creating the legal position for the future and I want to protect the legal position of the individual private citizen along the motorway of the future. First, in view of the importance of these motorways both from the point of view of the motorway itself and that of the individual along whose land or property the motorway will run, I think from both points of view the road authority should be solely responsible for these fences or retaining walls. It is very important that they should be but particularly — and this is what my amendment is confined to — I think we should spell it out here quite clearly in the Bill and not leave it to custom or practice, as a legal responsibility that if the road authority does something which damages any of these fences, that authority will not be relieved of the liability, obligation or duty to repair them.
The Minister probably misunderstood me. It is true that if these people who hit a fence are caught they will have to pay but if an accident occurs and the fence is down the Minister will say the local authority did not knock it but if the local authority did not put the motorway through my land it would not be there. They are responsible in that way. This is why I think it essential that where no proof can be got against the person who destroyed the fence the owner of the land should not be responsible for the repair. We had a case of this in Galway county recently — not very recently; I do not think it was in the Minister's time. As the law stands at present, if you cannot get the culprit the person whose land is inside is responsible for repairing the fence. I think that is unfair.
The Deputy is suggesting that we should have another type of malicious injury, that no matter who the culprit is if the road fence is knocked down by a drunk charging along at 80 miles an hour in a car, the local authority, the ratepayers should pay for it and he should not be asked to do anything about it. Perhaps I am unfair to the Deputy who himself is usually very fair. I am sure Deputy Haughey will admit that what he suggests here does not refer to motorways alone but to all public roads. To put in the amendment as he suggests would be to write in that they would be responsible for all public roads. At present if a local authority is doing repairs or any work on any public roads and they cause damage, they repair it. That is and has been the case for years. If Deputy Haughey's neighbour does something which knocks the Deputy's fence it does not require to be written into any law that such a man must pay, I think it is unnecessary. I agree that it is right to bring the matter to the notice of the House but I would ask Deputy Haughey to accept that, as the law stands at present, the matter is completely covered.
The Minister states what is, in his view, the law at present. I should like him to elaborate the reasons for including this section in the Bill if the law is so clearly understood at present. What was the necessity to write in this section stating all over again what the Minister says is already law? That is one point. There is obviously a real need and a necessity for this section and I am sure the Minister will be able to elaborate further on that.
On Deputy Haughey's point, I think the Minister will accept that it is valid in that we are discussing under this Bill authorising the future construction of a new form of road known as a motorway. All of us have some experience of what is meant by a motorway. The power to control access to it will be exercised very rigidly and even the type of vehicles allowed to use the motorway will be limited. The general purpose of motorways is to provide a roadway which will be capable of carrying large traffic loads with greater safety and improving travelling time and road capacity. Generally speaking, they will be straight and they will remove many of the faults which one can see in our existing road system which developed over centuries and was never designed to cope with modern traffic.
When you are constructing these highways, acquiring land from landowners, completing the construction and leaving the site with fences along both sides of the road, I think in fairness to the landowners concerned and in particular, in fairness to those who will travel on that road it is absolutely essential to obtain maximum safety margins and ensure that all fences adjoining these roads be at all times properly maintained because if they are damaged they could cause a serious accident.
We know that accidents on motorways do not happen very often but, unfortunately, when they happen they seem to cause much greater destruction than accidents on the roads we know at present because of the high volume of traffic. They generally seem to involve a large number of vehicles. It is essential that access be controlled and most essential that fences along these roads be properly maintained at all times to avoid cattle straying across or other unauthorised movement along the motorways. It is not unreasonable to expect that the authority that constructs the motorways should be responsible for their maintenance.
The argument put up by the Minister is based on a false premise. The financing of the motorways, I presume, will be for the central Exchequer. I should like to take that a step further and suggest that the maintenance of those inter-county roads will be the responsibility of the Exchequer also. Repairs to fences, property and so on should be as well. For instance, there will be fly-overs which will be well above the level of the land. Surely if a heavy truck gets off the fly-over, damages the fence and damages property, it should not be the responsibility of the owner of that property. What is he to do? Is he to get a ladder, climb up and repair the fence of the fly-over? In the same way, there will be pedestrian crossings above the motorway. If damage is done to the pedestrian cross-over surely the person on whose land part of that cross-over is——
Who would own the cross-over?
Who owns the fence, in the first place?
For goodness sake, do not be making yourself more ridiculous.
If this is not a reasoned argument——
It is not.
The Minister is not the repository of all the wisdom in this House, although he seems to think so. I am making a case that if you are to be responsible for some repairs on land which is owned by a private individual why not be responsible for all the fencing? The motorway is a new concept in this country and people will be very much inconvenienced. If there is damage, how long can that damage remain and not be a hazard to people? Can we afford a situation in which there will be a legal wrangle as to who is responsible for the repair of the fencing? If the person responsible for the damage is not apprehendable or is not known, surely there will be a lot of litigation involved and eventually the local authority will be responsible because it will be regarded as malicious damage. There is a case to be made for the amendment.
We appear to be getting completely off the line. Deputy Cunningham says that the State would be responsible for the building of a motorway, which is a new concept. That is correct and nobody said it is not but this does not refer only to motorways. This refers to all public roads. The State is not responsible for all public roads at present and, therefore, the local authority will come in for the vast majority of roads. If Deputy Haughey's proposal were accepted it would mean that in certain circumstances all public roads would be affected by this. I am quite sure he did not intend this and I can see the point of the amendment.
Deputy Cunningham talked about fly-overs and pedestrian crossings. They would not be part of the fencing of a farm or a holding. They would be artificial creations which would be owned by the people who built the road. They would be part of the motor way. They must be. One might as well suggest that where there are overhead crossings in this city they belong to the people on either side of the street. Nobody would be so ridiculous as to suggest that. They belong to the corporation. If anybody were foolish enough to drive through the wall of such a fly-over, naturally the State would be responsible for the repair of it and I am quite sure they would try to collect from the person who did the damage, if they could, payment for it.
The simple facts are that as of now in countries where there are motorways, and while it is the first of its kind here it is not the first of its kind in the world, what we are suggesting here is what is operated. That is that where there is an existing fence responsibility for the maintenance of which rests on a private individual that will not be altered. Where the State or the local authority damage, by any work they are doing, this sort of fence the position has always been — and I shall go a little bit ahead because on another of Deputy Haughey's amendments I will be referring to this — the powers are regarded as being implied in the duty placed on them under section 24 of the Local Government Act, 1925 "to construct and maintain public roads" and the definition of "maintenance" contained in section 1 of that Act.
This is the situation and I would ask Deputy Haughey to accept that the matter is fully covered as it is. His amendment would not be acceptable. Possibly if he had another look at it and decided that it needed a further change he might get one of his colleagues in the Seanad to try to have it introduced. I would not be in a position to accept the amendment as it is.
The Report Stage is to come. I am quite prepared to admit that these amendments are not——
I would be glad if we could have the Bill today.
Is ceist eile í sin. My amendments are not as accurately drawn as they might be because we have not had much time to consider this Bill. We only had the Second Stage last week and it was only on Second Stage that we got from the Minister his ideas on all the things that were involved in the construction of these motorways. Therefore, my amendments, I am afraid, do lack the precision which I would like them to have. However, I do think that, framed as they are, they outline the dilemma with which this House, I suggest, is faced in this regard.
I said, on the Second Stage, that in this Bill, we in this House are called upon to discharge one of our best, and most fundamental, functions — that is, to try to lay down the rules of the game for the future. What local authorities, county engineers and so on, will do in the construction of these motorways or national roads in the future will undoubtedly have a very important bearing and effect on many private citizens. We owe it to those citizens to try to ensure that the construction of those roadways will be done in such a way that they will be able to look to this legislation for the protection of their rights. That aspect will come up under a number of different sections. We would be failing in our duty if we did not — as far as we could do so and as far as we could foresee into the future the problems and difficulties that will arise — safeguard against them as far as we can in the legislative provisions now before us.
I was going to raise with the Minister — on the section, as such, when we came to deal with it — what he is after in section 3. Perhaps if we could get that at this stage it might help us to deal more effectively with my amendments. It would seem to me that section 3 is seeking to do something we all thought was already there. Section 3, in effect, says that a road authority may do all things necessary or incidental to the construction, maintenance or improvement of public roads; not just motorways, as the Minister points out. Any of us in this House would have thought that road authorities already had that power but it seems there must be some need to make a clear statement of that power in this Bill. If that is so, perhaps the Minister would indicate it, that there is some doubt about the authority of road authorities to do these things. In particular, I can see that it may not have been absolutely clear up to now that a road authority had the power to do landscaping, planting and similiar activities of that sort in the interests of amenity and environment. It may be necessary to spell out that power specifically. But the section also spells out that the road authorities, in the future, may do all these things which are necessary or incidental to the construction, maintenance or improvement of public roads.
Perhaps, if the Minister would outline for us why it is necessary to spell out that power at this stage, then we would have a better idea of whether or not my amendments could be dispensed with. If the situation is that the law is quite clear and definite; that where a road authority, by their own action, interfere with a fence they are liable to repair that fence; if that is so, that is one situation. If that is so, I do not see any harm in spelling it out here in black and white in this Bill. We are simply re-declaring the law, because that seems to be what section 3 is doing anyway; it is re-declaring the law in so far as the powers of local authorities are concerned. And, if it is re-declaring the law in so far as their general powers are concerned, then there is no harm whatsoever, in fact it is desirable, that we should also re-declare the law in so far as their duty to construct, repair or maintain fences, where they damage them, is concerned.
If the Minister says to me: "Look, this has always been the situation; the local authority, if they have damaged a fence belonging to a farmer along the side of the road, always repaired that fence," that is all very well. The local authority may have always done so out of the goodness of their hearts but we are now spelling out clear legislative powers in this Bill. If we are doing that, I think we should also avoid the situation. It seems to me that section 3 would leave us in a situation where the local authority would be relieved completely of any responsibility for repairing a fence where they had damaged that fence by their own action. I think this is particularly important in the case of motorways. There should be a very heavy responsibility on road authorities to keep fences along motorways repaired. But, even in the case of ordinary public roads — and the Minister rightly points out to me, all public roads are concerned in this section — I cannot see how the Minister can object to our spelling out here, in the section, the fact that if the road authority damage a fence or a retaining wall they shall not be relieved of the responsibility of repairing that damage by this section.
First of all, might I say they have not got powers with regard to landscaping and planting now. Therefore, we are putting them in. I think Deputy Haughey's objection is mainly to subsections 3 (a) and (b) where he suggests that it is relieving the local authority of some responsibility they have at present. That is not quite so. The purpose of sub-section 3 (a) is to ensure that no additional obligation for the road authority in this regard will be read into the Act.
As I mentioned earlier, it is implied in the duty imposed under section 24 of the Local Government Act of 1925 — the question of maintaining and repairing would mean repairing fences damaged. This has been the law up to now and will continue to be the law. But what we do not want to happen is——
Under what provision is it the law?
The provisions of section 24 of the 1925 Act which, unfortunately, I have not got. And it has operated — as Deputy Haughey knows as well — that when damage is done to fences by a local authority, or even if it is suggested that they may have damaged fences, they have, in every case, repaired them.
But as subsections 3 (a) and (b) are now framed — if that obligation is placed on them by the 1925 Act, subsections (a) and (b) will relieve them of it.
No, it will not. As Deputy Callanan mentioned, if somebody crashed into a fence and knocked it down, that is not now the responsibility of the local authority or the State to repair it and it will not be, under this Act, but might be if Deputy Haughey's amendment was carried. What we are saying is — and listen to the wording carefully:
(3) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as imposing on a road authority any liability, duty or obligation to—
(a) construct, repair or maintain fences or retaining walls adjoining a public road which are the responsibility of any other persons, or
(b) construct, repair or maintain any bridges, tunnels, railway crossing or any other structure which by virtue of any enactment are the responsibility of a railway company or other person.
What Deputy Haughey is afraid of — and I can see his point — is that the original arrangement, under the 1925 Local Government Act, would be ignored now and, under this new legislation, we would attempt to enact this to mean that even though the local authority knocked down some of these things, because they belonged to somebody else, there would be no responsibility on the local authority or the State to repair them.
No liability?
Yes. I think Deputy Haughey is reading a little more into it than——
The Minister has put it very clearly himself.
Yes, I have put it fairly clearly. I intended to do that. I put the case fairly clearly so that the Deputy would understand exactly what was in his amendment. His amendment suggests that on every public road, if anything happens, the local authority or the State should be responsible for repairing fences. That just could not be and I think Deputy Haughey would be the first to accept that it would not be something which would be acceptable to anybody. There would be uproar in local authorities if it were found that we were imposing on them the liability to repair every farmer's fence.
May I suggest again to Deputy Haughey — he may consider that this requires amendment; he may, as he says himself, tighten up his amendment——
My colleague, Deputy Molloy — who has responsibility for this legislation so far as our party are concerned — was out of the House when the Minister suggested that he was going to seek the Report Stage now——
But Deputy Haughey was the only one who bothered with amendments and I thought he was the boss today.
There is no question of that.
The Minister published a Bill last week and already he has an amendment in himself.
I asked to take a Stage——
The Minister has an amendment in since.
A wrong word was put in. It could happen to a bishop.
I would not mind taking the amendments away if I had an opportunity to rephrase them and put them down on Report Stage. I had hoped for another couple of weeks between Committee and Report Stages. If the Minister has an overwhelming and pressing reason for getting——
I have no overwhelming or pressing reason. This Bill should have been introduced before now. I am not blaming Deputy Molloy for the delay. Work on a number of very important roads is being held up because this Bill must be law before the work can be started. This delay is unjustified. If Deputy Haughey insists on further time to consider the Bill, I will not oppose it.
I am surprised that the Minister should lay such emphasis on the fact that now great urgency attaches to this Bill and that there were certain matters appertaining to roads which were being held up because this Bill was delayed in the House. The Minister knows that the Bill, as it appears before us, was substantially available to him as far back as March, 1973. There were several opportunities for him to come before the House since that date of which he did not avail. It is asking a lot when the Minister stresses that now he has decided to bring in this Bill, he must slap it into top gear and slam it through the House. The 1925 Act is the basic Act as far as road law is concerned. In the intervening period there has not been any detailed debate on roads legislation. Any Acts passed since then have not had the same significance as the 1925 Act. A number of years have elapsed since a Roads Bill came before this House. We are making a significant change in this Bill. It is improper for the Minister to suggest that it should be rushed through the House. Last week he complained that he was not getting all Stages. Deputy Haughey has thought fit to try to improve the Bill by putting down amendments and the Minister has put down an amendment since we discussed the Second Stage. Therefore, it was a good thing that we did not let the Bill slip through last week.
We are discussing the first amendments to the Bill at this stage. We should see how the debate proceeds and make our decision at the end of each Stage. We should not be asked to commit ourselves in advance. I feel that the Minister has not given a full and satisfactory explanation as to the reasons why the amendments which Deputy Haughey suggested could not be accepted. If his reasoning in opposing the amendments has been given and he has nothing further to add, obviously it would be necessary for us to study in greater detail some of the references he made in order to see what the law is and whether we should not amend our amendments or introduce new ones at a later date. I would ask the Minister not to press us to make decisions about coming to a conclusion and to let the debate proceed in the normal way.
How ridiculous can Deputy Molloy get. He says that this Bill was available to me last March. He has spent time arguing why it should be changed and he wants further time to consider what amendments he may find necessary. Deputy Haughey put in amendments and had reasonable arguments why they should be carried. Deputy Molloy's arguments have no relation to what is before the House. My amendment concerned a printer's error. It was not my fault that the printers put in "employment" instead of "enjoyment". There was nothing I could do about that and I am trying to correct it now.
There was a conspiracy.
Yes, a conspiracy against Deputy Molloy. I would like to see this Bill through the House but, as I have already said twice, and I am sure it can be accepted, if Fianna Fáil are so anxious to have another look at the Bill they are entitled to ask that and I will not attempt to prevent them. I cannot accept this amendment as it is put down now and I may not be able to accept it if it is further amended.
Now that there is agreement between the two sides of the House that sufficient time will be given for proper assessment of what is proposed in the Bill and what may be proposed in the new amendments, might I ask the Minister if he is satisfied that the responsibility of the State or the local authority should be limited in regard to the fencing of our motorways to the same degree as their liability is limited to all other public roads?
Yes.
The Minister should take a hard look at this. I am not suggesting that he or his officials have not done so but——
We are following international practice.
Once in a while it might not be a bad idea to break with international practice. I am sure the Minister would be capable of doing that.
In conjunction with the considerations advanced by Deputy Haughey and others in their amendments, which perhaps do not fit into the pattern of things as the Bill now stands, I recommend that the Minister have a look at this point and disregard, if necessary, international practice and maybe even learn from international mistakes. The motorway as we envisage it for the future is a very different kettle of fish to minor roads, accommodation roads, main roads, public roads, county roads and arterial roads. The damage and dangers consequent on a fence broken by some unknown in the middle of the night are enormous. As a result, cattle may stray through the breach of such a fence, a fence which according to the law as proposed, would be the responsibility of the landowner. However, the landowner was in no way responsible nor was he even aware of the breach, nor of his cattle wandering on to the road creating a pile-up and great damage and even loss of life. This is a case where the local authority or the Government should take over. This matter should not be treated in the same way as a winding country road under the 1925 Act. This is not the same thing and, therefore, should not be treated in the same way. Other speakers referred to the legal wrangles which may emerge as a result of trying to apprehend the person who damaged the fence — I am talking about a fence rather than any other structure — identifying who did it, getting redress from that person to the degree that would enable the landowners to repair it or to pay for its repair.
What happens in the interim? Is the gap still to remain there? Is the particular land that is enclosed by this fence to be out of commission in so far as the farmer is concerned? Is he to be prevented from using it for his cattle, horses or sheep in the meantime? If he does use it will it be at his own risk completely though the damage done, and the breach in the fence through which his animals could stray and cause damage on the roadway, was no fault of his? Is the public to be put to this additional risk as a result of this?
Would it not be better that the local authority or whatever agency may be responsible, should, in all cases, be responsible for all repairs and that they should be in a position to sue the culprits who cause the damage? In order that the safety of the motorway should be maintained at all times surely it is more compact, explicit and clear, if one authority is responsible at all times to maintain this roadway, including the fences, in such a manner as to provide the greatest possible safety for the users of that roadway.
The Minister should look at this matter between now and the next stage, and, perhaps, in conjunction with, or in consultation with, those who are suggesting amendments of various kinds, bring in an amendment that would suitably cover this aspect in a wider manner than was suggested by Deputy Haughey. If this was done the necessity for other type of amendments, which only tend to confuse, as the Minister seems to think, would disappear.
This is a horse of an entirely different colour and should be dealt with in a different way. International practice and experience is a good thing to have as a guide but I believe it should be treated entirely different from what we have been doing since 1925. Safety on the road, and the usefulness of the new motorways, would be greatly enhanced if a single authority was responsible at all times for the most immediate repairs to fences or boundaries. That agency should have the right to sue those who cause the damage and recover damages where appropriate through the normal channels, in the courts if necessary.
It appears that a new concept in law is being suggested by Deputy Blaney, and others, that the State, or the local authority, should be responsible for fencing private property. It is possible we could go at it in that fashion but I do not think everybody would accept that. However, the situation is that it appears that everybody is not satisfied with the wording of this particular section. For that reason I agree to have a look at it before Report Stage to see if I can get an amendment which might be acceptable, if I think this is entirely necessary.
I feel sure that Deputy Haughey and the other Members who have spoken on this Bill appreciate the gesture of the Minister in agreeing to have another look at this section and there are a number of matters I should like the Minister to keep in mind when making his decision.
Is the Deputy speaking on the section or on the amendment?
On the amendment before the House.
It is usual that if the Minister agrees to have another look at a particular section it is accepted by the Opposition but if that is not to be done in this case I reject it now and let us have a vote on it. If Deputy Molloy wishes to draw it out we can deal with him.
I do not want the Minister to lose his cool on this.
The Deputy prepared the darn Bill and now he is talking about amending it.
Are the amendments withdrawn so that the section can be dealt with?
The comments I wish to make in relation to this matter can be made when the section is being put. I will make my comments then.
Can the Minister tell us the necessity for section 3? From much of what he has been saying up to now he has been indicating to the House that the law, as it stands, covers the position which it seems is deemed to be covered again under section 3 except, he says, for that part of subsection (1) of section 3 which relates to the undertaking of landscaping, planting or any similar activity in the interests of amenity and environment. The Minister says that local authorities did not have that power up to now and that he is writing this into this Bill in order to provide that power to them in the future. I find that difficult to understand because all of us are aware that from time to time local authorities have spent moneys on this type of work where they have carried out road works. We have all seen tastefully executed landscaping. We are entering into the realm of confusion here in relation to what powers local authorities did have up to now and what is new in what we are giving them under this section.
In considering this question of fencing on the motorways the Minister should also bear in mind a valid point, that the total mileage of motorways which will be constructed in this country over the next 20 or 30 years will be very small in relation to the total mileage of primary roads, national primary, national secondary and main roads. The actual cost which could arise out of the road authority taking the responsibility for maintaining these fences would never be great. One of the arguments in favour of motorways is the fact that access to them is controlled. Because it is controlled there is a much higher degree of safety for those persons travelling in vehicles along that motorway. The whole point of motorways is this question of control, and the Minister is seeking, in the Bill, strong powers to control these points of access.
I am sure the Minister, when he is re-considering this section, will bear in mind that if a breach in the fence takes place, by whatever cause or for whatever reason—some person, through an accident, may have driven his car off the road and breached the fence—there is then a new access point on to the motorway created by the misadventure of that person travelling on the motorway. If the whole validity of the argument in favour of motorways lies in the strength of the law in relation to the control of access, then surely the arguments we have been making are valid and worthy of serious consideration. We feel that provision should be made so as to ensure that when such a new access is made on to a motorway by way of an accident which allows for animals to wander through that access to the motorway thereby reducing the safety factor, the roads authority should be responsible for maintaining the fences along those motorways.
I do not wish to prolong the argument but every time Deputy Molloy gets up to make arguments like this I wonder if things have changed so much since he, according to himself, prepared this Bill. The things he sees so clearly now he did not see then, or was it because Deputy Haughey is a little more attentive now? With regard to the point of access, without going through a fence at all animals can and will go on to motorways. This is not a good argument. What we have to decide is a very clear principle and we are not talking about the ten or 15 miles of motorway that will be created-in the next few years. What we are talking about is motorways that will be based in this country long after all of us have gone from this House. Is the State being responsible for maintaining all fences along motorways? If that is what we are saying let us know exactly what we are facing and what is to be the likely cost in the years ahead. It is on that basis that I will be examining the matter.
The Minister has not replied to the point I made concerning the necessity for the section.
Local authorities had certain duties in respect of areas where road widening was taking place. For example, it was their duty to ensure that landscaping would be taken into account in certain areas but there was no authority for carrying out this work. Wisely, the Department of Local Government ignored the fact that such authority did not exist and allowed the work to be done. We are now writing the authority into an Act so that in future the work can be executed without anybody challenging the issue.
Those provisions are contained in subsection (1) but in so far as subsections (2) and (3) are concerned it seemed from what the Minister said that similar powers existed under the 1925 Act and that he was seeking such powers again in this Act. I thought he might give some explanation for that.
Deputy Molloy is confusing himself but I hope he will not confuse me. The situation up to now has been that local authorities have had this duty imposed on them by section 1 of the 1925 Act. They have carried out this responsibility in regard to the repair of fences. There is nothing to be gained from arguing the fine print of it here.
This is the fine print stage of the Bill.
Regarding what the Minister said concerning the onerous financial liability that he envisages if the section were to be changed so as to render the State or the local authority responsible for all fencing repairs, and so on, may I put it to the Minister, without recommending it to him, that the local authorities would be held responsible for the earliest possible repair of any breach of any fence? I stop there for the moment without saying to whom or by whom payment should be made.
The Minister indicated that in his reconsideration of the section he would have regard only to one aspect. Perhaps the Minister would give an undertaking to go a little further. There are two matters involved here and Deputy Blaney has referred now to a third but the two main items I see involved are, first, the separate question of the fences along motorways, the importance of having these fences maintained adequately and, whether, having regard to the fact that the local authority will have responsibility for managing motorways—putting up signs and having all sorts of running expenses—the taking on of the maintenance of the fences would be comparatively negative. That is an aspect that the Minister might consider. Motorways demand day-to-day positive management by the road authority and in future, perhaps, that would include the fences. I am putting this forward merely as one aspect of the section which the Minister should reconsider.
The other aspect concerns roadways in general: whether in his reexamination the Minister is re-declaring the law relating to the powers of road authorities in this regard and whether he should not also re-declare the law on the very specific aspect of the liability of the road authority to repair a fence where they damaged it. The Minister may say that that provision is in the law already but if he is re-declaring the law will he not consider re-declaring also that specific aspect of it?
Common law will cover that aspect in that the person inflicting the damage is the one responsible for repair or, else, for compensation.
When the opportunity arises it is good that a legislature modify the common law.
This sounds like gilding the lily. Again, regarding the question of fencing, I am sure everybody is aware of the tremendous cost of erecting fences. Other Members of the House as well as I have commented on the tremendous amount of money which local authorities have spent from time to time on the building of fences for people from whom a negligible amount of land was taken away because of road works. In some cases very expensive fences have had to be erected before permission to carry out the works concerned could be obtained. If we go further than that and say that the maintenance forever of all fences, whether good or bad, along a portion of roadway—all fences will not be new ones since some will already be in existence— will be the responsibility of local authorities and if we are to put a new fence along every portion of motorway there will be considerable addition to the cost.
I move amendment No. 3:
Before subsection (2) to insert a new subsection as follows:
"( ) Before making a scheme under subsection (1) a road authority shall have particular regard to the preservation of scenic and natural amenities and to the safeguarding of sports and recreational facilities and agricultural activities and for that purpose shall consult with An Foras Forbartha, Taisce and such other responsible authorities as the road authority considers necessary.
Whatever about the last two amendments I have no doubt but that this one will commend itself to the favourable attention of the Minister. My purpose in tabling the amendment is to endeavour to look ahead a little. Section 4 deals with the essence of the new motorway situation. It provides that the road authority may and, if the Minister directs them to do so, shall make a scheme for the provision of a roadway. On Second Stage I expressed some fears that I would have in this regard. Local authorities have their priorities. Engineers have their professional code of conduct and have their priorities. There is a great temptation for an engineer to put a roadway straight across the countryside, merely to draw a line between points A and B and say that is the corridor for a new motorway.
As administrators and as people who, perhaps, must take a broader view of the public good, we should lay down some principles along the lines whereby these schemes would be prepared. I would like to see a solemn duty being placed on the road authority or, if it happens to be the Minister, on the Minister, to have regard to environmental factors. I would think that in the case of most of these motorways several alternative routes could be considered. I want to enshrine in this legislation the principle that where possible the minimum interference will arise in regard to scenic beauty and the natural amenities of the countryside. I am quite prepared to accept that my amendment might possibly be improved in the wording. In fact, I have suggested that An Foras Forbartha and An Taisce be consulted. Other organisations might occur to other Deputies as bodies that might be consulted in this regard.
I am primarily concerned with the principle that this legislation should be binding for all time on road authorities and Ministers in the future in regard to this matter. More and more we are conscious of the need to preserve and protect what has come to be known as "the quality of life". Here we come up against the whole question of the kind of environment in which we are going to live. Whether we like it or not, motorways are going to come and we have a solemn obligation to see that in their construction we interfere as little as possible with the amenities and conveniences of all the people, but in particular of those who live in the area that will be traversed by the motorway.
My amendment would make it mandatory that in preparing a scheme the road authority would endeavour to preserve the scenic and natural amenities, if possible safeguard any sporting or recreational facilities, and have due regard to agricultural aspects. In other words, that they would interfere to the minimum extent possible with agricultural activities in the area of the motorway. I hope this mandatory principle will be accepted by the House because I think it is necessary. There would be a great temptation for local authorities and county engineers to take the most direct way, to construct a motorway in a straight line between points A and B. None of us would have difficulty thinking of the amenities, features and old monuments which, with a little thought, could be protected and preserved even though a motorway has to go through a certain area. I am sure that in every case there are alternatives, that with a little thought, imagination and foresight amenities could be preserved.
I thought this might be included in the terms of my amendment. Perhaps the Minister would consider if my amendment goes far enough to cover the question of re-siting. In some cases the construction of roadways has been quite barbaric. They have gone straight through and demolished important monuments and historic buildings. In other cases some county engineers have done brilliant work where they had to re-site monuments and buildings. If the terms of my amendment are not broad enough to include some principle in that regard, perhaps the Minister would consider that aspect. It is important that we place this solemn obligation on the authorities responsible to have regard to the general appearance of the countryside after the motorway has been constructed and, where possible, to preserve the original beauty and the amenities when they are preparing their schemes.
I would not be prepared to accept this amendment. While I can see the point behind Deputy Haughey's proposal, at the same time there is a section in the Bill that allows this to be done by whoever is carrying out the work. For the first time this matter can be dealt with. An Foras Forbartha and any other body who may be interested would be entitled to give their advice on the matter. The preservation of scenic and natural amenities are of such high priority that I do not think any attempt would be made to run a motorway through any district without taking account of those matters.
The road authorities have been given specific powers in this matter in the interests of the community and the environment. While I can understand Deputy Haughey's point of view—he made his point on Second Reading— in the drafting of the Bill care was taken with regard to this matter. I would ask the Deputy not to press his amendment because I cannot accept it.
What Deputy Haughey has proposed in his amendment is a very necessary part of any new legislation. Whatever may be the view of the Minister, that road authorities are not likely in the future to do these things having regard to public opinion in connection with the preservation of amenities, the best way of ensuring that no damage is caused to the environment is to provide that they must take steps not to breach these matters. There should be an obligation on them to consult An Foras Forbartha, An Taisce or any other bodies who might be interested. The obligation to consult these bodies ensures that those who are concerned with the construction of motorways are aware they are not just free agents so far as drawing lines across a map are concerned.
This poses the question as to whether a multiplicity of road authorities participating in the construction and maintenance of roadways is the proper approach and whether the problems which are likely to arise as a result of this proposed legislation would not melt away if we had a national road authority totally responsible for motorways in the future. I mention that in passing. I know it is probably moving away from the section but maintaining the natural scenic value of our countryside, through which new motorways may be driven in the future, is not helped by the fact that we will have participating in the construction of any worthwhile length of motorway several cooks preparing the broth, as it were.
Probably a great many of our difficulties would be solved to the satisfaction of everybody in the House, and ultimately of everybody outside the House which is more important, if we had one authority doing the job, and responsible for it, and taking the rap for anything about it that was not right. I am sure the Minister must have considered this. If we had a national authority operating on behalf of all the road authorities we would have a cleaner job and an operation which would be easier to handle. I have no doubt from past consideration of this matter, even in a broad sense, that it would be a far more economic proposition.
This amendment brings to my mind a discussion I had with an engineer on my first and only visit to Bunratty Castle. He was employed at the time by the local authority. Bunratty Castle was then a derelict building, practically in ruins. It was overgrown with trees, bushes and shrubs. The question of widening and reconstructing the road arose. The question was whether they should knock down Bunratty or bypass it. Three or four officials were discussing the matter. There was nothing in existing legislation to prevent Bunratty Castle being knocked down. However, after consultation and discussion, they decided to widen the road away from the castle.
This is an example of where a valuable monument could have been destroyed. It is not spelled out in any of our road legislation that buildings such as this should be preserved. This amendment seeks to put it beyond any doubt that buildings like Bunratty Castle, and other more important buildings, should be preserved. If this amendment is accepted no matter what authority or authorities will be dealing with the location of a motorway, they will be bound by legislation passed through this House which will prevent them from doing things that have been done in the past and can be done under present legislation. When we are legislating for this we should spell it out clearly.
The people Deputy Cunningham was talking to must have been very innocent, indeed, if they thought they could knock down Bunratty Castle if they decided to do so. They would not have been allowed to do it anyway. Deputy Cunningham knows as well as I do that you cannot knock down any of those monuments without the matter being brought to the notice of the National Monuments Commission. This is a point Deputy Blaney missed as well.
It was not a national monument. There were very few national monuments then.
This was 15 years ago.
I will explain something later to Deputy Haughey. The elected members of local authorities are the guardians of these things. If they do not guard them the responsibility is on them, not on the Planning Act. Many elected representatives may not know what they are entitled to do but, if any elected representative of a local authority allows a road to be erected in his county without having the matter brought to his notice, and discussed if he so wishes, it is his fault. He need not blame the county engineer or the county manager for pulling a fast one on him. I know of one road which would have divided a very large farm so somebody decided to change it from there and run it through six 15-acre farms. The little fellows did not count. The members of the local authority were alive to their responsibilities and they prevented that from happening.
I disagree with Deputy Blaney on the question of having a national organisation, a national motorway board, or whatever you like to call it. The Department of Local Government have overall control. The people who can really guard the areas they know well are the elected representatives. I said I would tell Deputy Haughey something. Where I live there is an old mound which nobody thought very much about.
It was not Tara, by any chance?
We think a lot of Tara. It was an old moate. Somebody started to dig clay out of the side of it and somebody was down from the National Monuments Commission within hours and a protection notice was put up. I asked why that was not done more generally and I was told it was done only when they were in danger. If somebody started to knock down Bunratty Castle he would very soon find he could not just walk in and knock it down whether or not it was in the way of widening the road.
For the first time we are giving certain authority to local authorities to protect this type of thing. This should be accepted by Deputy Haughey. I ask him to withdraw his amendment. I believe he is anxious to put in something which he feels is necessary. Do not forget that the local authorities and the planning authorities are responsible for planning in their areas. The onus is on them to guard the things the Deputy is anxious to guard in the Bill. I think we could safely leave it to them and I would suggest that Deputy Haughey should do so.
I support the motivation behind the amendment which is a serious attempt by Deputy Haughey to humanise parts of this piece of legislation. The Minister says that the local authorities are the community's safeguard against any over-interference by the road authorities in scenic or other amenities as listed by Deputy Haughey in the amendment. I should like to ask the Minister if it is not true that under this Bill he is taking the power to supersede the local authority and can make a scheme under this Bill if he is not satisfied with the local authority or if they have failed to comply with a direction from him in regard to the construction of a motorway. That being so, and these wide powers being taken by the Minister, I fail to see how, in all situations, members of the local authority are the final guarantors for the community that no interference will take place with important amenities. It is not a bad thing to put a provision such as this into a Bill which obliges officials working on the design and construction of motorways to heed the feelings of people.
Many people, I am sure, on both sides of the House have expressed the view that we should introduce a more human element into much of our legislation, pay more heed to the views of the community. I think that was one of the promises made by the Minister's party at the last election, that they would be open and would seek consultation in all matters seriously affecting the community. Such a provision in the Bill would go some way towards fulfilling that part of the promises of the Minister's party.
One can see several instances where a provision like this would be very helpful. In designing a motorway, as Deputies have said, the engineer will immediately start on the premise that the best way is the shortest way between the two points he has to connect. He will then examine the terrain and see the natural obstacles in his way which he will have to meet in his design. He will have to tailor the roadway to overcome some of these physical problems. There will be physical problems which he will not be able to overcome and he will have to design the road to go around them. There could be the temptation to bash on drawing these lines straight through what a local community might consider a very important amenity but which, to the person working in the office in the Custom House or local authority may not seem so important. When one considers every aspect of the matter one might fairly decide that the engineer was right and that the overall common good would only best be served by putting the road through such a recreational area but at least with this kind of provision the people interested in retaining their playing field or local amenity would have the right to be consulted and their amenity would have had to be considered by the engineer in making a decision. He would know, if it was so provided here, that he would be faced with having to explain why he wanted to go through it and could not find a way around it. It is not a world-shaking amendment but it adds that little cushion for the community against the impact of bureaucracy. I suggest the Minister should think again about whether he would allow it to go into the Bill.
Deputy Molloy continues to surprise me. Here, again, having shouted from the house tops about this being his Bill, on the fourth section in succession he finds everything wrong. In each case he would have the section drafted in another way. He is trying to have it both ways. I still believe the local planning authority are the people who would know best and would be most interested in protecting amenities. Having given the authority that is given to the previous section, I believe this will be done. The Minister would only override the local authority in the event of a disagreement between two local authorities or something like that but in the normal way he would sanction a local authority's recommendation.
I think it was Deputy Blaney who said there could be disagreement. There would not be much disagreement between local authorities because, as was rightly said earlier, the pace at which these motorways would be built will be slow. They will not be running from one local authority area to another very quickly. I do not think this problem arises at all. Deputy Haughey has made his point but I think the Bill itself contains sufficient safeguards and I would ask him to leave it as it is.
I shall make one very special plea to the Minister on this. This is by far the most important amendment that I have put down and if the Minister would accept it in principle I would, perhaps, be quite happy to withdraw my other amendments. I support fully what Deputy Molloy has said. I think the Minister is not doing either himself or Deputy Molloy justice in this regard. I have put a fair amount of legislation through the House in my time and even though I conceived the legislation and directed the drafting of a particular measure, on countless occasions I had need to change it as a result of what I heard in the House. Often, between the time when a Bill went through this House and the Seanad discussions I would change my mind about a particular provision and have regard to what was said about the measure in this House. Whether Deputy Molloy or anybody else was responsible for the original conception of this Bill does not mean that neither he nor I nor anybody else cannot put forward proposals which we would hope would improve the Bill.
I am making a special plea to the Minister to consider this amendment and I want to reinforce it by what Deputy Molloy said. We in Fianna Fáil, when in Government, had reasonable regard to our community responsibilities and sought, as far as we could, to consider the cultural needs of the people but whatever we could do, this Government certainly held itself out to the people during the election campaign and afterwards as being the Government of enlightenment which would have a whole new approach, particularly to social matters. Here is an opportunity for them to measure up to that claim. We are making a very reasonable suggestion that they so frame this piece of legislation for which they will be responsible, as to ensure to the greatest possible extent that the beauty, charm and amenities of the country will be preserved. I do not want the Minister to confine his thinking solely to ancient monuments; some of us on this side may have been responsible for that, but there is much more than monuments and historic buildings involved— woods, rivers, trees and even, as Deputy Molloy pointed out, agricultural activities. All we ask is that there should be written into the Bill this directive principle. We are not placing any financial obligations on local authorities but merely asking them to have regard to the desirability of preserving so far as possible the natural beauty and amenities.
The Minister should keep in mind that in section 3 he is giving very specific powers to road authorities. In section 3—and we are all agreed on this—he is for the first time giving them clear, definite authority to do all things necessary for, or incidental to the construction, maintenance or improvement of public roads. To my mind that would include knocking down Bunratty Castle or any other castle if the county engineer decided in the interests of road safety that is the way the motorway should go. Having regard to the very strong powers which he is delegating to road authorities in section 3, he should certainly favourably consider including this directive principle in section 4.
In section 6 the Minister is taking to himself in his official capacity the right, the duty, the obligation to hold public inquiries into matters relating to the scheme. I submit that it would be a very logical buttress to the concept of the local inquiry to have this subsection in section 4. It is something which could give very real focus to a local inquiry if the local inquiry concerned itself with whether or not the road authority, in preparing the scheme, had regard to the consideration set out in my amendment.
The Minister said by way of reply that he did not think my amendment was necessary. He did not say that it would do any harm to include this principle in the Bill. He has not pointed to any difficulty which it would cause. If that is the case, then he must include it. If he has not argued that it would cause any difficulty or inhibit the local authority in any way and if his only argument is that it is not necessary then he must, as a reasonable man, include it. I do not ask him to include it in its present form. Deputy Molloy, Deputy Cunningham and myself, and our colleagues on this side of the House, would be quite satisfied if the Minister would say: "I am accepting the principle of the amendment. I accept that good Government, the sort of good Government to which this wonderful new Coalition is wedded, demands that some sort of directive principle of this sort be enshrined in this particular piece of legislation." If it is not going to do any harm, if it is not going to cause any serious difficulty in the making of these schemes, then he should accept it.
We can gain a great deal here from English experience. The Minister himself has referred to international practice. I have, over the last three or four years, time and again noticed in the English newspapers instances of where barbaric damage has been done to the beauty of the countryside in England by the way in which roadways have been routed. I am quite certain that nobody did that deliberately. These things happened because there was no mandatory principle in the legislation which obliged the people concerned to have regard to the sort of considerations which are enshrined in my amendment.
I make this very special plea to the Minister. Every Minister coming in here has a certain parental pride in his piece of legislation and is reluctant to admit that it is not as perfect as he thinks it is. I know, there was nobody more guilty of this particular sin than myself in my day and, therefore, perhaps I am all the more competent to speak from this side of the House. I would appeal to the Minister to recognise that this will be his piece of legislation. In the future people will forget how this piece of legislation came into its final shape. All they will see is a piece of legislation. I think Deputy Tully, Minister for Local Government, will be able to look back with much greater pride on this Bill if he includes this directive principle in it.
Deputy Haughey has made a very strong plea. First of all, he need have no fear. I will not let Bunratty Castle be knocked down even to widen the road. The parenthood of this Bill seems to be in doubt. Deputy Molloy had been claiming that it was his until he came here this evening and I realise that he did see most of the heads of the Bill. Perhaps I have been unfair to him in that he did not see any more than that and that a considerable amount of work was done which he did not see. We will say no more about that aspect.
What point is the Minister trying to make?
The point I am trying to make is that Deputy Haughey said that every Minister had a pride in his own Bill. Deputy Molloy has been trying to take responsibility for this Bill since it was introduced and we have had a number of swords crossed over that. I am now saying that I am aware that Deputy Molloy saw most of the heads of the Bill before it was prepared, full stop, so, therefore, perhaps I am wrong in blaming him for objecting to certain sections as it went along.
I said that the Bill was in the process of preparation when I was in the Department. That is all I said. The Minister is the one who did all the talking about it.
The Deputy has been claiming it was his all along. Since he knew so little about it I was doubtful. I am now prepared to concede that I was wrong to blame him for knowing so little about it because he did not see the darn thing at all.
I cannot accept the amendment as it is but if Deputy Haughey will agree to withdraw it, I will have a look to see if I can find some form of words which will fit in to do that, that is, if it will not do harm. I do not want to write into the Bill something which will create a situation such as we have in regard to certain lanes down the country where six farmers want to repair a lane and the seventh fellow to be awkward will not agree to sign the document. I do not want to write something in which will mean that discussions and disputes can go on for years when the job should be done. If there is a danger that this amendment would create such a situation, I cannot include it but if I can write something in which will do what is suggested in a way which will not be objectionable I am prepared to do that.
I move amendment No. 4:
In subsection (3), page 3, line 32, to delete "may submit the scheme" and substitute "shall submit any scheme".
This is very much a drafting amendment. I must confess that I cannot understand the way subsection (3) is drafted at the moment. It seems to me that it should be mandatory on the road authority to submit any scheme they make to the Minister for approval.
May I shorten the proceedings by saying that I accept the amendment?
I move amendment No. 5:
In subsection (1) (a), page 3, line 39, to delete "publish in one or more" and substitute "publish on at least three occasions in one or more national and local".
This is more than a mere drafting amendment; it has a certain significance. I do not know whether the Minister would consider that he would have any great difficulty in accepting it.
I would, actually. It is not in accordance with standard practice. There would be difficulty and I would ask Deputy Haughey not to press it.
I certainly shall not press it to the point of division but I shall make a very brief argument in its favour. Section 5, as it stands— in subsection (1) (a) compels or lays down that a scheme by a road authority shall be published in one or more newspapers circulating in the area to which the scheme relates. In other words, the road authority must put a notice in a newspaper giving notice that the scheme has been initiated under this Act. It must indicate the times at which, the days on which, and the place where a copy of the scheme and the map referred to therein may be inspected. That is a very reasonable provision. The only quarrel I have with it is that it does not go far enough. This is a very important matter. This sort of scheme is going to be much more important than anything in the nature of a planning appeal, planning notice or anything of that sort; it is going to be equivalent to a compulsory purchase order. The initiation, the acceptance and the adoption of the scheme will be equivalent to the making of a compulsory purchase order. From that point of view, the scheme has a very important legal effect and legal implications. It is equivalent to the establishment of a compulsory purchase order in regard to the properties concerned.
Is Deputy Haughey dealing with No. 5 now?
Yes, No. 5.
I thought that would have been more proper to No. 6 or No. 7.
Yes, but I am saying that this is a scheme for the construction of a motorway and the adoption of a scheme for the construction of a motorway will be equivalent to the making of a compulsory purchase order for the lands involved. Is that not so?
Yes, it will, but the owners of the land involved would be the people who would be really concerned, and there is a way in which they will be dealt with in the next two.
Yes, but here we are concerned with the giving of notice of the scheme.
——only to the public.
——to the public and to the property owners.
No; if Deputy Haughey goes on to subsection (1) (b)——
Yes, but it is all involved; what is involved is the giving of notice to everybody concerned.
——except the property owner.
——including the property owner.
Well, the property owner is specifically notified by letter but the general public would be notified by one advertisement in the paper.
The general public would be notified by advertisement and also the property owners. As I understand it — traditionally in legislation of this sort — everybody is put on notice. First of all, general notice by means of public advertisement and, secondly, where one's property is specifically involved, by means of direct personal notice. From the point of view of the general public I think it is not enough to publish it in a local newspaper in the area concerned. As subsection (1) (a) is at present framed, the road authority would discharge the obligation placed on it simply by putting one notice in one local newspaper. I suggest to the Minister that that is not enough; it should certainly be published in some national newspaper which is circulated in the area concerned. Many people do not take a local newspaper; whatever about the number of insertions, my amendment predicates putting it on at least three occasions in a newspaper. But, whatever about the three occasions — I do not think one is enough; I would strongly urge three occasions—I certainly do not think it is enough to put it in a local newspaper. Preferably I think it should be put three times in a national newspaper and the local newspaper. But, if one must be dropped, then I would certainly drop the local newspaper. I think it essential that it should be in both.
Deputy Haughey should not press this one. I think he went a little bit off beam. I do not agree for one moment that in a country district, if something appears in a local newspaper affecting themselves or their neighbours which is unknown to them — it is, of course, true that national newspapers may not find their way into many houses in country districts; we are dealing mainly with motorways in country districts——
You could have a person living in Dublin or in a city who has a vital interest in a particular area and the local newspapers——
Well, the interest would not be terribly vital if they were not aware of the fact that something was happening there. What has been the practice, in both the Housing Act and the Planning Act, is introduced in this Act. I think it unreasonable that Deputy Haughey should suggest that there should be a difference in this case and establish a whole new precedent. I am sorry; I cannot accept it; I do not think it is reasonable. With regard to the question of the owner of the property, he is notified by post. We are talking about the neighbours who might be interested one way or the other. Perhaps if a motorway runs fairly close to their land, they may have a complaint. But, in this particular subsection, this amendment is dealing with those who would not be directly affected but who might be interested parties because they lived in the district. The notice in the local newspaper is the precedent which has been handed down here. I do not propose to change that precedent.
The Minister has suggested that because this contravenes the common practice it should not be pressed. The Minister will be aware that the law relating to the publishing of notices — where persons are applying for planning permission — has met with some criticism. I suppose it is always difficult to find the perfect system. People seem to be very adept at finding ways in which they can circumvent things to their own advantage, such as publishing a notice in Irish at the bottom of a page in The Irish Times for a site in Connemara where very few people read The Irish Times, although, I must say, the readership is growing down there.
It does give us an opportunity to talk about the difficulties in this type of thing. A lot of people will be concerned to know about the proposal in addition to those who are owners and who will, of course, be consulted directly or served with a notice direct, as is stated in subsection (1) (b) of section 5. There could be some merit in improving the practice as laid down in the Planning Act, and other Acts in relation to the publication of public notices. If they are obliged to publish once only, would the Minister consider changing the law there and asking them to publish twice? I think it would be difficult for the Minister to accept in toto the amendment as put down by Deputy Haughey; it would certainly be a bonanza for the national newspapers who guaranteed two repeats of special advertisements. Their rates, of course, are high and it might involve quite an amount of money, over a period of a year, which might not be spent to the very best advantage. But once in the local newspaper might not in itself be adequate. There are hundreds of people who could be interested in this development other than those whose houses are involved. We have already elaborated on the Second Stage about the disturbance to house owners caused by the proximity of motorways, the continuous traffic and noise thus created; the discomfort from excessive exhaust fumes emitting into the air and the many other disadvantages of roads being in close proximity to residential areas. Obviously, many residents would be anxious to know if a motorway was going their way; persons with land and houses whose amenity would be seriously interfered with should be given adequate notice of the road authorities intention in relation to the line which they hoped to take with these new motorways.
Although Deputy Haughey's amendment might be going too far, would the Minister not consider that two publications might be a compromise and an improvement in the situation to the benefit of all concerned? We are anxious to ensure that full and proper notice be given to anybody who might be affected.
An improvement should be made in the proposed legislation which gives the local authority the option of publishing a notice once only. I agree with Deputy Molloy when he says that three times in national and local papers might be too much. The Minister would be wise to improve the Bill along the lines of "more than once". It would then be left to the discretion of the local authorities whether they would publish the notice three times or, indeed, more often. Each individual case, depending on its location, is different from the other. I suggest that the Minister accept "more than once" and then leave any further number to the local authority.
We are making a song and dance about nothing. This section says "one or more". It also says "publish in one or more newspapers circulating in the area to which the scheme relates...." We are all talking about local papers. It was felt by some local authorities that the national paper is a better medium to deal with these plans. Section 6 also provides for public inquiries. How could anybody suggest that all these things could happen and somebody could be left out and not know?
The Minister would be amazed.
I have lived all my life in the country. Country people do not miss very much.
It applies to the city as well.
It is not so in the city.
May I give my personal experience in this regard? In pursuance of the Minerals Development Act a notice appeared of the intention of the Minister for Industry and Commerce to provide a prospecting licence in relation to my land. I did not see it. This notice appeared in a national newspaper. It was also deposited in the local Garda station. In spite of that, I was not aware of it.
Did they serve a notice personally on the Deputy? That is not provided for in the Act.
They do not have to in that regard.
They do in this.
As Deputy Molloy pointed out, there could be people vitally affected by the motorway who would not fall to be served with a personal notice. Power has been taken to dispense with the serving of personal notice in certain cases. In those circumstances, it is all the more important that the Minister elaborate in some way. I agree with my more experienced colleagues that maybe perhaps I am going too far, but I think the Minister should undertake to elaborate a little.
I have been co-operative on the other amendments but this is ridiculous, and I am afraid I would not be prepared——
The Minister is proposing that it would be an undue burden on the local authority to publish this notice twice or in two different newspapers?
If we are to do that, then we must arrange that all the Acts, including housing Acts, be treated in the same way. The Deputy is trying to establish a precedent and I am not prepared to accept it. What has been done up to now was accepted by the Fianna Fáil party when it was in Government and by us. We will stick to that.
We never introduced legislation dealing with motorways. Has the Minister any idea of the mental anguish and upset caused in cities in other parts of the world where local authorities were proceeding with the acquisition of land for motorways? I resided in a country where this happened. The debate that ensued was fierce and the feelings of the people in whose area the motorway was planned ran high. As we know from our history nothing excites the emotions of our people as much as land. In these cities nothing excited the emotions of the people as much as interference with the amenities they enjoyed through the acquisition of vast tracts of residential and commercial areas going through city centres. Anything connected with interference in the ordinary enjoyment of life and environment is a very serious matter. In future years when such legislation is being implemented and people are fighting it, as indeed they will, we on all sides of the House will expect that the decision in the end will be the one best suited to the common interest of all. There will be those who feel that they are being seriously affected. Anything suggested to ensure that adequate notice is given to the community and everybody is fully aware that it is proposed to do these things and are allowed time to prepare their case for the hearing is praiseworthy. The Minister feels that because an existing practice has been passed down through various Acts there is no need to change and he is not prepared to create a precedent. That is his entitlement. If the Minister is satisfied that the existing practice is perfect, is the most suitable and will meet the needs which will arise in this type of case, then he need not accept the amendment. I suggest that it is a good amendment and would be an improvement. Therefore, he should reconsider his views on it.
As Deputy Molloy knows, what was put in the original Bill was one insertion. The reason given was that it was common practice.
May I take the Minister up on that point? I distinctly remember putting a Charities Bill through the Oireachtas. I had in the Bill an obligation to publish a notice in the three national daily newspapers. In the Seanad somebody pointed out to me that there was the Cork Examiner. I included the Cork Examiner. That meant there were four national newspapers.
I have only experience of local government planning——
I am giving the Minister information in regard to another experience.
I accept Deputy Haughey's comment but I consider one insertion is sufficient. I am sorry if the Deputy feels there should be more but that is as far as I can go with this and I am not prepared to accept this amendment.
I move amendment No. 6:
In subsection (1) (b), page 3, line 45, after "serve" to insert "either in person or by registered post".
I have no doubt that these amendments will recommend themselves to the Minister.
This can be tightened up and, for this reason, I would like to have another look at this.
I move amendment No. 7:
In subsection (1) (b), page 3, to delete all words from and including "whose" in line 47 down to and including "enquiries" in line 49. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 8:
To delete subsection (2).
It is clear what I am seeking in this amendment. I want to delete sub-section (2) of section 5. This sub-section, in my view, could lead to serious trouble and many difficulties. It could certainly lead to persons being wronged. For that reason I would like to see the Minister deleting that sub-section which states:
Whenever the Minister is satisfied in relation to a notice required to be served pursuant to subsection (1) (b) of this section that—
(a) reasonable grounds exist for dispensing with the service of the notice, and
(b) the dispensing with the service of the notice will not cause injury or damage to any person, he may dispense with the service of the notice and every such dispensation shall have effect according to the terms thereof.
Apart from the possibility that people could be seriously injured in their rights and in their property by this dispensation I can also foresee it giving rise to very serious problems, and litigation of all sorts.
I do not think the Minister should persist with this. If the local authority complies with the provisions of the section as laid down in subsection (1) then they have done their duty and no difficulty will arise. It is not fair, just or, indeed, practicable to dispense with the notice as is proposed under subsection (2).
The trouble is that if we do what the Deputy is suggesting a roadway could be held up forever. There must be some way in which a decision can be taken so that a local authority can legally go forward. In the compulsory purchase order regulations this is the situation and the position regarding dispensation with notice must be retained in accordance with the usual practice which maintain in relation to compulsory purchase. It must be retained because it is necessary in the same way as it is in compulsory purchase orders.
If this is taken out and somebody turns up 20 years afterwards the local authority would be liable. If it is acceptable in compulsory purchase orders is there any reason why it should not be acceptable now in view of the fact that this is the same type of legislation?
Is it exactly the same as compulsory purchase orders?
Yes, it is exactly the same. It would make the Act impossible to work if it was not done.
Would the Minister explain to me subsection (2)? Subsection (2), as it is framed at present, provides that if the Minister is satisfied in relation to a notice required to be served he can dispense with the requirement to serve the notice?
Yes.
I could see that where a person would say he never received that notice the proceedings would be invalid, but surely there is a difference in the two situations. In one regard the Minister dispenses with the requirement to serve notice at all and the other situation is that even though the notice was issued the person did not get it. Surely it would be sufficient, from the Minister's point of view, if he stipulated that provided the notice was duly issued in accordance with the provisions of the section then non-receipt of the notice would not invalidate the proceedings.
That would leave another loophole which would make it worse. Supposing somebody was living in a district and after some time left that district but still owned certain property there the onus is on the local authority, and will remain on the local authority, to try to find that person but if somebody went away completely——
Could the Minister give an example?
When the Bill was passed here dealing with commonage for the purpose of acquiring forestry land it was accepted then because there were instances where people, after getting married, moved away and their children were scattered to the four winds. In cases like that it is impossible to trace them. Reasonable grounds must exist for the dispensing of the notice. The Minister must be satisfied that (1) reasonable grounds exist for the dispensing of the service of the notice and (2) that the dispensing of the service of the notice will not cause injury or damage to any person. Those two provisions are an adequate safeguard and for that reason I ask Deputy Haughey to withdraw his amendment. I do not think it is reasonable to press in this particular case.
I can see the necessity for the right to dispense with the serving of the notice because all sort of obstacles could occur and development could be seriously interfered with. The Minister has stated that the wording of the section is identical to the wording of the Act empowering the making of compulsory purchase orders. Do I take it that there is no change proposed here and that this is just a re-enactment of the same wording?
So I am told.
Some difficulties did arise in the acquisition of land for housing and some changes were introduced in the 1970 Housing Act in an effort to overcome problems similar to this. Are there two separate CPO systems involved?
In the event of there having been such an amendment made, and I am not aware of such, I will ensure that this is altered for the next Stage of the Bill.
The Minister has undertaken to have another look at the other provisions, and in the light of that I withdraw my amendment.
I move amendment No. 9:
In subsection (4), page 4, line 42, to delete "the only" and substitute "a".
Subsection (4) envisages a situation in which the owner of land has only one means of access to any public roadway from his land but is deprived of that one means of access. The section provides that the road authority cannot deprive him of that only means of access unless and until they provide an alternative means of access. That is not going far enough. If the owner of land is deprived of any means of access to a public roadway he should be provided with an alternative means of access. As the section is framed, it is only in a case where he had merely one means of access that the road authority would have to provide him with an alternative. That could give rise to severe injustices. There could be a situation where, because of the location of a particular farm, there would be means of access to two different public roads both of which would represent very considerable convenience to the farmer in that one means of access would be to a public road in one direction and the other to a public road in another direction although in the second case the means of access might not be nearly as important as the first. Therefore, it is my view that a farmer should be compensated in any case where he is deprived of any means of access to a public road. There should be an obligation on the road authority to provide him with an alternative.
Deputy Haughey has made his point but I would refer him back to the comments made on an earlier amendment. We are talking here about motorways. What the Deputy is saying is that for every door that is closed another should be opened. That is not reasonable if we are talking about a motorway. It may be possible that the farmer would not want the additional access provided. Indeed there may be compensation granted for the closing of other means of access. There is no point in talking of a motorway if there is to be an exit from every field of every farm.
I am not seeking access to motorways. I have a case in mind of a farm from which there are two exists to roads going in different directions. If the farmer concerned were to avail of one of these exits in order to get to the city of Dublin he would be involved in an extra 30 miles travel. As the section is framed, the road authority could close the most important of his means of access and there would be no obligation on them to provide an alternative because the farmer would still have a means of access to a public road.
I am wondering what country the man is living in.
It is not too difficult to envisage the sort of situation I am describing.
I could not envisage any such situation.
There could be a very small and relatively unimportant access at one end of the farm and merely because that was the means of access that was not interfered with the farmer would not be entitled to be provided with an alternative means of access to the access that would be closed and, consequently, much hardship might be caused him. The purpose of my amendment is to endeavour to ensure that for every means of access to a public road that is closed an alternative would be provided but not on to a motorway.
We are talking here about motorways.
Section 4 refers to access to public roads.
This, again is the result of the drafting which uses the words "public roads". However, the Bill is designed to deal with the question of motorways but a certain amount of confusion is being caused by the phraseology. It is as a result of an inquiry that the Minister may decide whether there should be more than one public access. If Deputy Haughey succeeds in having his amendments accepted, the result would be that there would be means of access from many fields on to motorways.
The Minister misunderstands my point. Subsection (4) is specific. It deals undoubtedly with the construction of motorways but refers to access to public roads. It deals with a situation where, in the construction of a motorway, the access by a farmer to a public road is interfered with. If that were the only means of access to a public road, the road authority must provide an alternative. I am concerned in relation to a situation that could arise whereby a relatively unimportant and inconvenient means of access from a farm to a public road would be interfered with. As the section stands, the farmer would be provided with no alternative but would be relegated to using the remote and inconvenient means of access to the public road. Where any means of access to a public road is blocked or stopped, the road authority should, in all fairness and justice, provide an alternative to that means of access. In other words, if a farmer has two means of access, he should continue to have two means of access. I am sure that any farmer here would agree with me.
In certain circumstances that might be an impossibility.
It is the question of the interpretation of "public roads" that is important.
Unfortunately, Deputy Allen was not in on the earlier discussion but I wish he had been because his argument would have been of great assistance when I was endeavouring to prove the point that it was public roads that we were talking of. I have no wish to have legislation enacted that would interfere with existing means of access to roads other than motorways but we cannot make provision whereby a farmer who loses one means of access is entitled to be provided with another, whatever may have been the nature of the original one. Subsection (4) reads:
In any case where the closing, stopping up, removing, altering or diverting of any means of access pursuant to subsection (3) of this section results in the owner of any land being deprived of the only means of access from that land to any public road....
The key phrase there is "the only means".
Deputy Haughey's amendment would mean that in any case resulting in the owner of land being deprived of a means of access from that land to any public road, an alternative means would have to be provided. That applies to all public roads, including motorways. I think Deputy Haughey will agree that it would be ridiculous to put in a section here providing that if one means of access to a motorway is closed another must be opened.
But not on to a motorway.
A motorway is a public road.
This section is framed quite definitely to envisage a situation where a farmer has only one means of access to a public road.
I accept that after discussion it appears the matter requires further consideration. I promise to give it that consideration.
I move amendment No. 10:
In subsection (4), page 4, line 45, after "public road" to insert "agreeable to the owner".
I am endeavouring to protect individual property owners; I suppose mainly we are concerned with farmers in this matter. I am suggesting that the alternative to be provided by the road authority must be acceptable to the owner; in other words, it would have to be agreed between them.
I am sure Deputy Haughey has heard the expression "a contrary old fellow". I am afraid this is a situation that person would be waiting for. We have enough trouble with the contrary old fellow who will not allow the roadway into his own and his neighbours' farms to be repaired just because he wants to be contrary. If this amendment were accepted he would have the last word, he would have to be satisfied. If that were the case it would mean that motorways would not be built for indefinite periods.
The country is full of contrary Fine Gael farmers. Would the Minister consider inserting "until a reasonable alternative means of access"?
I should prefer the wording as it stands.
I have some experience in this matter. I think there should be some system of arbitration. With regard to the national primary road from Dublin to Galway, a case has been going on since I became a member of Galway County Council seven years ago. In one instance the county council raised the road outside a house and the main entrance was taken away. As a consequence the man had to take a sharp turn at the entrance because the road was elevated at that point. There was a disagreement between himself and the council officials. The argument is still proceeding but I consider that if a system of arbitration were available the matter could be dealt with. The matter should not be left entirely to the officials of the county council. I should like to have some safeguards for the owner.
The man concerned must not be too contrary and the new entrance must not be too bad; otherwise he would not have waited for seven years.
He is probably a Fianna Fáil farmer.
He is not, but I am interested in fair play.
This surely is a matter with which legal people would be delighted to deal. I am surprised somebody has not tried to take the matter to court before now.
I agree that if the Minister were to accept my wording "agreeable to the owner" that could give rise to difficulties. Unfortunately, probably there are contrary owners. Perhaps my amendment is going too far, but the Minister could meet the point of view of Deputy Callanan and myself by considering inserting in the second last line of the subsection "until a reasonable alternative means of access to a public road has been provided".
Who decides "reasonable"? I am sure the man Deputy Callanan referred to considers he is reasonable and obviously the county manager thinks he is being reasonable. Where do we go from there?
We get an independent arbitrator.
We might lay down by direction that there would be some way of settling. There are a number of points in this matter about which somebody must make a final decision and possibly this might be a way of dealing with it rather than inserting something that will tie us.
I will gladly withdraw my amendment because I think it is going too far. However, I would urge the Minister to consider, between now and Report Stage, inserting some word such as "suitable" or "reasonable".
I will have a look at the matter but I cannot give any guarantee to the Deputy. I will try to see if there is some other way.
Perhaps the Minister, or someone in his Department, would be the arbitrator. The matter I mentioned previously has been going on for seven years and I have been trying to arbitrate between the man concerned and the county engineer. If there were an arbitrator in this case the matter could be settled.
I think Deputy Callanan's point is met because the Minister must approve of the scheme.
The Minister must approve of the scheme eventually. He will have to say if it is reasonable.
May one appeal to the Minister?
Not in the case the Deputy has mentioned. He should not come to me about it tomorrow.
I move amendment No. 11:
In subsection (5), page 4, line 52, to delete "employment" and substitute "enjoyment".
This amendment is necessary because of a printing error.
I move amendment No. 12:
In subsection (5), page 5, to delete lines 1 and 2.
I think the wording in subsection (5) "Provided that in assessing compensation regard shall be had to any new means of access provided by the road authority" could give rise to serious difficulties. There are two separate matters involved. There is inconvenience, disadvantage or injury to the farmer or landowner for which he is entitled to be compensated. On the other hand, he is entitled to have the alternative means of access provided because a means of access was taken away from him. The two matters should stand separately and should not be confused in the assessing of compensation. The assessing of compensation should be directed specifically towards whatever damage, loss or inconvenience the farmer or landowner has suffered without regard to the provision of a new means of access.
I think Deputy Haughey is suggesting that the farmer should have it both ways. He wants a new means of access and he gets it, and he wants compensation and he gets it as well. We have to protect the public purse here. The section provides:
Provided that in assessing compensation regard shall be had to any new means of access by the road authority.
If he gets his new means of access surely he cannot claim he wants compensation as well.
It depends on where it is.
If a new means of access has been provided and if he can make the case that it is not a suitable place, that is provided for. He cannot completely ignore the fact that he has got a new means of access and apply for compensation on the grounds that he has been prevented from having that means of access. I am not prepared to accept this amendment.
The Minister realises that what will be involved here is that the road authority will deprive the farmer of a particular means of access to a public road and will provide an alternative means of access. That is fair. We are all agreed that if a farmer is deprived of one means of access he should be provided with an alternative means of access. The very fact of changing the means of access will use up some of his land apart from anything else.
He can use the other bit that was closed up.
Not necessarily. That might have been taken away. It seems to me that there are two separate considerations involved. One is the obligation to provide an alternative means of access and the other is to compensate him for being, as the section says, "disturbed in his enjoyment". There is compensation for disturbance and compensation for inconvenience and compensation for loss on the one hand and, on the other hand, there is the obligation to provide an alternative means of access. It seems to me that there are two completely separate aspects, that they should be regarded separately and that the provision in the first two lines on page five confuses the issue and could lead to a person being very badly treated.
We have a situation where somebody has a means of access and for some reason—perhaps because something is to be put there—it is decided that it cannot be left there. Therefore another means of access will be provided. Will Deputy Haughey explain to me in what way there would be a substantial loss to the farmer because we had to move ten, 20, 30 or even 50 yards up the road?
I could visualise it being 100 yards.
It is easy enough to say that no matter what happens the farmer must get extra money but the State will pay for the new means of access and the Deputy is saying that in addition to that he should get compensation.
I am giving way to Deputy Cunningham but before I do so I want to say that it could be a nice tree-lined avenue which was being discarded or abandoned.
It all depends on what the Minister means by "means of access". Does it mean an entrance? Suppose a farmer has to forego an entrance plus an avenue which is tarmacadamed. This entrance plus the roadway or laneway or avenue is closed up to provide for a motorway. Something equally as good must be provided. Will the local authority provide a gateway and a tarmacadamed avenue to the house? Will they do all that and, taking it a step further, will they compensate the person for having to abandon an area of land which was tarmacadamed and which it is impossible to reclaim as agricultural land?
The Opposition completely misunderstand the section. It says:
Provided that in assessing compensation regard shall be had to any new means of access provided by the road authority.
It does not say that if a new means of access is provided no compensation will be paid. What it reasonably says is that if a new means of access is provided regard must be had to that in finding out what compensation, if any, is due for the closing up of the old way. That is fair. There is nothing at all wrong with that.
It does not answer the specific question.
The Deputy did not ask a specific question. He asked a hypothetical question. He asked whether compensation would be given for a hypothetical tarmacadamed driveway.
We will make it a concrete driveway instead of a hypothetical one.
If a new access is provided that must be taken into account. If the farmer is to get £100 compensation and the new entrance cost £50, he cannot hope to get the new entrance and £100 as well. Account will have to be taken of whatever the new means of access cost. That is fair enough.
It is very interesting how circumstances change things and individuals.
I noticed that.
I can visualise Deputy Tully as a county councillor in Meath fighting very hard and very fiercely on behalf of a constituent who was disturbed by one of these motorways going through his farm. I can see him arguing very strongly that the fact that his means of access to his farm had been changed resulted in serious disturbance for which he was entitled to be fully compensated——
I would find it very hard to make that case.
——and at the same time that the man was entitled to be provided with an alternative means of access. Would the Minister see the matter outside this aura of office in which he is now immersed and consider that we are arguing in the main for the ordinary small farmer? There are two situations. In one case the alternative means of access is provided by the road authority in accordance with the provisions of this Bill. Fair and just. Once that has happened a new situation prevails and the assessor is asked to decide to what extent this man is entitled to compensation because of this change which has taken place. It seems to me that there are two entirely separate circumstances and separate considerations. It is wrong to mix them up together the way these two lines in the section propose to do. I think the Parliamentary Secretary agrees with me.
That is not what he has been saying.
I thought he was urging the Minister to accept the amendment.
He was saying that in 1½ hours it will be 10.30 p.m. and you can go home.
We will finish shortly.
Deputy Haughey knows quite well that when he was on this side of the House he was very good at making arguments as to why amendments could not be conceded under any circumstances. I have not adopted that attitude. I have been reasonable with him on his amendments to the Bill. He is arguing something which is absolutely ludicrous. He is saying that if somebody gets a new means of access which is paid for by the road authority, this should be completely ignored when compensation is being assessed, if compensation is claimed. I do not think he would do that himself. If he were on this side of the House he would not agree to it.
In actual fact by being put into this section this proviso safeguards the landowner. As section 6 is drafted if we had not got the proviso it might mean that where an entrance was put in which was not as good as the one which was there before—like the case mentioned about the avenue—a person might be precluded from obtaining compensation to make up the difference. Prior to this the position was that where compensation was being assessed under the Acquisition of Land Act, which is dealt with in the next subsection, if an arbitrator directed remedial work to be done the award could be set aside. There is a case actually on record in the High Court where an ex-President, Mr. Justice Davitt, set aside an award of Colonel Winters, who was then the official arbitrator, on this very point. I suggest that, in fact, this is in ease of the person whose lands are being acquired because it uses only the words "shall have regard". That means it may be in ease of the amount of compensation. You take the whole global picture, as any arbitrator must do on the acquisition of lands and this provides that the fact that an entrance is built does not preclude the claimant from getting compensation even for that entrance if it is not up to standard. If that proviso was not there it could be interpreted that any claim under that heading was precluded.
I am talking about case law and my experience of dealing with these matters and arguing these cases before the official arbitrator. That is why I was very glad to see that and it is why I was a bit perturbed to see that Opposition Deputies think it should be removed. I should much prefer to see it there if I were acting for a farmer.
I do not agree with Deputy Esmonde on that. The Minister is not being reasonable with me. I am not seeking benefit for myself as a parliamentarian. I am trying to see that we in this House protect the rights and interests of many small farmers who will in future be affected by this legislation. We must try to lay down fair and just principles by which they would be compensated for the disturbance which these motorways will cause to them. The fact that a motorway comes along causes serious dislocation to a man's farming activity. In many cases it will seriously interfere with farms that have been in the same family for generations. The farmer involved is entitled to be compensated for that disturbance and distress arising from the fact that the farm which he now farms, as did his father before him, has been seriously interfered with as a farm. He is also entitled, if one means of access is taken away from him, to be provided with an alternative.
My simple appeal to the Minister is not to confuse these two things and to admit that a farmer is entitled to an alternative access to the public road if one means of access is denied him and, on the other hand, is entitled to be compensated in a fair and just way for the disturbance this change causes him.
There are a couple of arguments to be made against what the Deputy said. First, when amendment No. 3 was being discussed Deputy Haughey said that was the important one which he really wanted and as far as the others were concerned he could withdraw them straight away. Now, this is so important that we have been arguing about it for 25 minutes. I am not prepared to accept the amendment. Deputy Esmonde says that, if anything, it strengthens the claim of the farmer. It says that (a) he is entitled to claim compensation and (b) that when such compensation is being claimed he must have a complete account of what money was spent under the new circumstances.
I cannot see how that strengthens his position.
If it was not there, there would be no question of compensation being paid and he might just get his access and no more.
Deputy Esmonde referred to the provision under which the farmer can claim compensation. Does this mean that he has to take the State to court? Does the arbitrator come in? It is no use having a provision under which a small farmer would have to take the State or a local authority to court.
It is dealt with by the arbitrator.
That is what I want to know, because no small farmer could face the State to get his rights in a court action.
I move amendment No. 13:
In subsection (6), page 5, to delete all words from and including "but" in line 7 down to the end of the subsection.
This amendment is put down because the existing wording of subsection (6) causes me very serious disquiet. I should like to hear from the Minister what is the reasoning behind the insertion of these words "but subject to the proviso that the arbitrator shall have jurisdiction to make a nil award" I find it difficult to see the reasoning behind the insertion of those words. It seems to be tantamount to an encouragement to an arbitrator to make a nil award. I should have thought that the power to award nothing or one-farthing or substantial damages is entirely within the competence of an arbitrator in the normal way and that there is no need to encourage him in this way to make a nil award.
I shall just throw the question back at Deputy Haughey and his colleagues: if that is so, why did they include the exact words in the housing code? This is nothing new. I am repeating what is in the housing code and Deputy Molloy must be aware of this. This is in the existing housing code and, therefore, if a farmer gets a new access the arbitrator will be asked to judge if there is a claim for compensation; he can give a cash award or he can say that the new access is sufficient and give a nil award. If it was not necessary it would not have been provided for.
This is not confined to access.
I am just going back to the original. No matter what it is, this is existing law and if we cannot stick to the precedent which is laid down for us——
We are making the law.
Yes, but you made the law before and, as the Deputy himself said, it is amazing how things change when you move across to the other side of the House. Apparently, he can see things now that he could not see when he was here. In fact, I am writing into the legislation what the Opposition, when in Government, put into it themselves. I think it was a good idea.
Why?
Let the Deputy tell me why; I do not know.
If the Minister wants to debate the Housing Act let him bring a Housing Act in here and we will debate it and see what is suitable and what is not. We are not debating the Housing Act; we are debating the Motorways Bill and we are only concerned with what is in this Bill and with what language is used in relation to the provisions in this Bill. I want the Minister to justify to me the inclusion of these words in this section of this Bill. I see no need for them. I see a danger that they are tantamount to encouraging an arbitrator to throw out the case and make a nil award. If the Minister can persuade me that is not so, I shall withdraw the amendment.
If it was so it would not have been put in by Fianna Fáil when they were in office because they never did anything like that.
That is not a valid argument. This is the Minister's legislation and it is dealing with motorways.
I am sorry; I think this is going a little bit over the top.
It will be too late to be sorry when this is on the Statute Book.
I am sorry that I cannot accept the amendment. That is by way of simple courtesy to Deputy Haughey because he has made a strong argument for it. I regret I cannot accept it. I do not think it should be accepted.
Would the Minister not agree that there is an implication or an innuendo in it of encouragement to the arbitrator to make a nil award?
No, there is not. The Deputy is giving the arbitrator very little credit. He is suggesting that he would be so weak-minded that just because it is stated here that he is entitled to refuse to make an award if he feels a farmer is not entitled to it, that this means he should not give an award whether the man is entitled to it or not. I would not accept that any arbitrator would do that.
Is the Minister arguing that he is including it simply because it was in some other legislation and he wants to follow precedent and be consistent?
I feel it must be considered necessary or it would not have been introduced.
Is that the only reason?
That is the only reason why it is there.
In other words, if it was good enough for Fianna Fáil it is good enough for the Minister?
If it was good enough for Fianna Fáil then, and they could not find any argument against it then, I did not think they would have the hard neck to argue against it now.
And that is the only reason?
That is the only reason it is there.
In other words, if it good enough for Fianna Fáil it is good enough for the Minister.
If it was good enough for Fianna Fáil I did not think they would have the hard neck to start arguing against it now.
Would the Minister not think they would have had a reason for putting it in?
Does section 7 deal with the compulsory purchase order already made in regard to the provision of a motorway to Dublin Airport?
Yes.
Is section 7 agreed to?
Deputy Haughey's question has not been answered.
I said "yes".
In regard to the CPO for the motorway from Santry to Dublin Airport, can the Minister tell us what stage the proposal is at now; has he any time scale for commencement, construction and completion?
It has been quite a long time in the Custom House. It must have been an old friend of the Deputy's when he was there. This Bill will enable an inquiry to be held. The advice I got was that the inquiry could not be held until we got this Bill through the House and that is why I asked for all Stages.
Section 7 is retrospective to deal with this motorway.
How is it retrospective?
I gather that this is already planned.
What is planned?
The motorway in question.
That is not before us at all. The inquiry has not been held yet. How can it be retrospective then?
But the order has been made.
But the inquiry has not been held.
The CPO has been made.
By the county council but the inquiry has not been held and it cannot be held until this Bill is passed. There is no question of retrospection.
I understand the purpose of the section but has the planning of this been carried out? Do we know exactly where the road is to run?
I am sure Dublin County Council must know where they propose to put the road, otherwise they would not be imposing a CPO.
The Minister is aware of the set-up regarding this road?
I have an idea of where it is going but I could not point it out to the Deputy now. If he would like to come to my office tomorrow, I shall show it to him on the map.
Correct me if I am wrong in saying that the road is planned, the roads leading from it are planned and have been planned for some time and it cannot go through due to certain happenings until this legislation is passed. Am I right?
Yes.
Can the Minister give us any indication of the time scale? I know he cannot anticipate when the inquiry will be held but is it a two, three, four or five year projection?
If we get the inquiry some time early this year as we hope to now——
If we pass the Bill this year.
If you do not hold it up for another couple of years.
If you are still in power.
We will be in power for the next 20 years anyway. You can just sit back. If we get it some time before the summer, I would imagine that it will be possible to plan it and start it, at the very latest, early next year.
This time next year then.
The inquiry the Minister is referring to will be an inquiry held under section 6.
It will be under the new legislation.
Last week on Second Stage I raised the question of planning permissions in relation to section 8. When I had made my contribution it being about 12.45 p.m. I decided to go to lunch. The Minister came in and accused me of running away.
I do not think we should go back to Second Reading speeches. This is Committee Stage.
I have before me the Minister's statement. I would like to be able to quote from it.
The Deputy will have to relate his remarks to the section under discussion, section 8.
Yes, section 8 deals with planning.
I submit that he is in order. I would like to hear him out.
What the Minister said deals with planning. It deals with the abolition of planning permission granted for the purpose of allowing a motorway or motorways to be constructed. I asked some questions and the Minister accused me of running away and not waiting for the answers. I did not know when the Minister was going to reply. He accused me of a number of things. He has admitted in reply to my question on section 7 that this motorway is planned, delineated and the extensions from it known, mapped by Dublin County Council. I was in the position that a certain planning appeal came before me. I studied it. I went into it fairly thoroughly because there was an industry involved in whatever decision I might take. Dublin County Council refused planning permission for the construction of this project for a number of reasons. It would create a traffic hazard being in close proximity to the proposed new road, the one to which section 7 relates. It was also in close proximity to the existing road and it was on the site of a connecting road. The advice I got, which corresponded with the advice of the local authority, was that it was going to be expensive to reroute the road. The Minister accused me of sitting on it and doing nothing about it. This is not true.
I will repeat that in a few minutes.
It was always possible, and I am not quite sure whether it was conveyed to the person involved, that a temporary permission might be granted. But while there was no decision, while the order which was there, put before me for signature, was for an absolute, outright refusal, I was amazed and surprised to find that the Minister granted full planning permission. He says, in reply, that Dublin County Council and the road section of the Department agreed that the location, the route of the road could be changed at no extra cost to the ratepayers, even at a saving to the ratepayers.
I am afraid the Deputy is embarking on what is tantamount to a Second Reading speech. It is difficult to relate his remarks to the section under discussion here.
I am asking some questions.
We cannot have a Second Reading speech on Committee Stage.
The Deputy is leading up to nothing. He got caught last week; he is trying to wangle his way out of it now and he is not going to get the chance.
I did not get caught last week.
The Deputy got caught badly last week.
I asked some questions which the Minister did not answer.
The Deputy did not ask questions; he made some charges; then he scooted out of the House and did not wait to hear the reply.
We have here the granting of a planning permission which, under the provisions of the Bill we are now discussing, may have to be revoked.
This section deals primarily with access to motorways and should be confined to that.
Which deals with access to motorways?
This section with which we are dealing.
No, it deals with the revocation of planning permissions.
That does not give a licence for a Second Reading speech.
I say that this is going to be a very important aspect of the Motorways Bill if planning permissions up and down the country are going to be set aside.
I am afraid we cannot have a debate on planning matters, as such. We cannot have a general discussion on planning at this juncture.
I am referring to one only in order to illustrate what may happen in other cases.
The Deputy got his answer last week. Dublin County Council and my officials agreed that the new road could be changed, that it would not be necessary to close down an industry. The Deputy had not got the intelligence to go to the trouble of checking and finding out what could be done. He merely put it on a shelf and left it there. That is what happened.
No. When a planning case is on appeal to the Minister Dublin County Council have no right to interfere unless they are asked by the Minister. Is the Minister saying now that he asked them to change their minds?
No. I asked the officials to find out if an alternative could be found. They came back to me with an alternative; that is what was granted and the Deputy would not do that——
I asked, yes.
We cannot waste the time of this House on an argument on a planning application. The Chair finds it out of order.
Allow me to tell the Minister what I did.
There is no purpose in having an argument.
We know what the Deputy did.
I asked the officials of the road section of the Department of Local Government and the planning section to contact Dublin County Council. Dublin County Council told me, through the officials——
I am sorry. I have given the Deputy a lot of latitude. I have cautioned him. I have advised him. He is embarking upon a Second Reading speech and raising something again which he mentioned on that Stage. We must get back to the section under discussion—section 8—and I will not permit of any extraneous matter being brought into it.
Will the Chair allow me to finish the sentence?
I have given the Deputy a lot of licence.
Will the Chair allow me to finish the sentence?
The Deputy may finish the sentence and get off the subject completely.
The people whom the Minister says advised him in a certain direction are the same people who advised me that it was going to cost hundreds of thousands of pounds to do this and my word is as good as the Minister's.
Back to section 8 please.
I am prepared to stand over the statement I made last week. They gave me the information and I made an order; there are no hooky files in my section.
I am telling the Minister what I was told by the same people.
Section 8.
Section 8, subsection (3) reads:
Where a scheme is made by a road authority under section 4 of this Act, the planning authority for the area to which the scheme relates shall serve notice on all persons who have been granted planning permission for development (which has not been commenced or has not been completed) on any land affected by the scheme.
I wonder if the Minister would care to elaborate to the House how it is to be determined whether or not a development has commenced. I can visualise able barristers arguing as to whether or not a matter had commenced at a certain time or date. Does he intend at any stage introducing some new method which would determine exactly when a development had commenced and, under this measure then, that they would be free from the provisions of this section which, of course, allow the Minister to suspend or abolish planning permissions which have already been granted? One can see that there could be a lot of argument about this commencement date.
A little over 12 months ago Deputy Molloy introduced a very good provision—the question of the value of houses for sale. He introduced a very good provision in February last which was that, on four houses or more, there had to be a certificate of valuation received——
——and I specified exactly what the commencement was.
Yes. The commencement date was in February. The result was that the spec builders went out all over the place and put in foundations, literally hundreds, some say thousands, of them. The reflection of it is in the number of houses which were supposed to have been started at a certain period last year.
Only in the last quarter.
I would not like to see the same thing happening again. I hope to be able, by order, to make an arrangement which will say when work commences. It will be a question of fact; either work has commenced or not. I am sure Deputy Molloy will appreciate that if a builder goes into a field putting in foundations that does not mean that work has commenced if he is prepared to leave it there and abandon it. I assume that, unless there is substantial work done, it will be accepted that work has not commenced. This is something which has got to be tightened up. It is not really a part of the Bill. I quite agree that it is an important thing to be sure that we know exactly what we are doing when the Bill is to be put into operation. I can assure the Deputy that this will be looked after to ensure that the proper regulation will be made. It will be a question of fact and the whole thing will be to decide when does work commence. This is something we have got to ensure.
In other words, the Minister is informing the House that he intends introducing an order, when the Bill becomes an Act, which will specify, in sufficiently elaborate terms, and allow a reasonable person to decide whether or not a development has commenced.
That is right—any reasonable person.
Would the Minister say if outline planning permissions come under the provisions of this section?
Any planning permission. If planning permission comes under the section, surely outline planning permission would come under the section.
Take the case of a motorway in a docks area—where one would have exempted development given to a port authority—how would he get around that? It is an exempted development but how would the Act deal with these people if one wanted to curtail their power?
It is very difficult to know in the case of a hypothetical question. The Deputy might as well ask: supposing a motorway ran through the Mansion House what would the Lord Mayor say?
The Minister is being facetious now. Let me give the Minister an example.
Deputy Moore is being facetious.
I am not being facetious.
This Act will give authority for a motorway to go where it should go.
In the south city area a motorway may well go through the dock area. However, the port authority have got exempted development. What does the Minister do then?
The question is answered in the section where it says that any development can be superseded by this Act, if necessary.
Is this a special category?
Yes.
The Minister, by order, may prevent development by revoking a planning permission at the appropriate time. There are many exempted developments which do not require planning permission. There could be a situation in which the Minister would, because of his powers under this section, revoke planning permission. At the same time, there could be a neighbouring farmer who would be in the process of erecting farm buildings which are exempt from planning permission. He could proceed with his building. In the other case, proceeding with the development would be negatived by an exemption order. Did the Minister provide for cases where exemptions from the Planning Acts existed?
Deputy Cunningham suggested that the Act will give authority to have planning permission revoked for the purpose of creating a motorway and that there should be some special power in respect of people who have not got planning permission and as the Deputy said, do not require planning permission whereby it will not be possible to put motorways through their land because they do not need planning permission. I want to make this clear before a motorway is built there will be a public inquiry. It will be a lengthy job I am sure. It will be some considerable time before work can start. A person knowing there is an inquiry and the prospect of a motorway running through part of his land who deliberately builds and ignores the fact that the motorway is likely to affect it will not be entitled to compensation. He will be author of his own misfortune. Clearer than that I cannot go.
This section does not say that at all.
The Deputy is like the man who wanted to have no birthdays——
We are all stupid over here. The Minister has said that so often tonight that he should put an answering phone at his side and when Deputies on this side get up to speak the phone could be switched on to say that we are stupid, we are all wet and we know nothing. That would save the Minister a lot of trouble.
At some stage during the procedure envisaged in this Bill the Minister will say: "All planning permission over a certain route is out". There may be a man building without planning permission. What does one do with him? There is no provision in this Bill for him.
If he builds without planning permission after he knew the motorway was being built, on his head be it. If the building is already there, he is in a different position altogether.
Could the Minister tell us the reason for subsection (2)?
Subsection (2) states that permission shall not be granted for access to a motorway. When the motorway is erected somebody could apply for permission to go on to it and this would negative the whole thing.
Why does the Minister think it would negative the whole thing?
Every time an additional access is made to a motorway it interferes with the efficiency of the motorway.
Safety and efficiency.
Yes, with the safety and efficiency of the motorway.
Why did the Minister adopt as a policy recently that planning permission would be allowed for the creation of new accesses along the national primary roads which already exist?
There is a difference between national primary roads and motorways.
Until motorways are built motor vehicles must travel on the national primary roads when travelling between the major centres of population. If this principle is deemed to be good when a motorway is in existence, in other words, if it is wrong to allow numerous accesses to a motorway because, as the Minister says, it would reduce its efficiency and safety factors, then surely that same principle must apply to the roads which are performing the functions of motorways at the present time, namely, national primary roads. Why is it that the Minister, on the one hand, stated that it was all right for the local authorities, for him and for his Parliamentary Secretary, when deciding planning appeals, to allow new accesses to be created to the national primary roads? There is no harm being done there. Yet the Minister subscribes correctly to the theory that they are harmful to the creation of motorways. He knows that they are also harmful to national primary roads. He has relaxed the planning law and, therefore, reduced the safety factor on our roads.
I am delighted the Deputy raised this point because it gives me an opportunity of making an interesting comment. Motorways are different from national primary roads. Motorways have different speeds, only certain types of vehicles are allowed use them and there are many other rules which do not apply to national primary roads. The Parliamentary Secretary and I will give, in certain circumstances, authority to build houses on national primary roads where there are lay-bys, or where turns have been taken out.
Deputy Molloy should remember that I am now in the Custom House and the files are available to me. I do not mind who sees the files when I go. I will stand over every decision I give. I will stand over every decision which my Parliamentary Secretary will give. There is no question of hiding anything. If Deputy Molloy wishes to raise matters like this on the Bill, then he must take the reply. The 13th of March was his last day in office. It was on the 13th of March that he gave permission for the erection of a house and a hatchery on a national primary road near Limerick and they were not justified.
The Minister has not answered my point. I hope he will clarify a statement which issued from the Government Information Service and which was projected in the newspapers as meaning that from that point forward the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary were prepared to grant planning permission creating new accesses to national primary roads. That was a major change in policy.
I do not remember the details of the two cases on the 13th March. The Minister says he has the files so I would have to ask him to show them to me before I would be satisfied. The Minister should accept this. As far as I, and my Parliamentary Secretary, were concerned we were very conscious of the necessity to maintain that principle, and it was largely maintained. If there was one, two, three or four over a period of three or four years the Minister will find that that principle was applied fairly, and fairly strictly as well. I was surprised that he should deem that this was an area in which he should change policy. Many people were concerned that the Minister made that statement encouraging persons to apply, encouraging local authorities to grant permission and, in consequence, increase the number of accesses on national primaries thereby reducing the safety factor and efficiency of such roads.
I am sure Deputy Molloy's memory is not as bad as it appears to be. I only referred to a couple. There are quite a substantial number, and I am not blaming Deputy Cunningham because they were directions. Deputy Molloy dealt with them and they were national primaries. While he was telling the world at large that they could not build along national primary routes it was all right for some to do so. Some people, it appears, were more equal than others.
I am not accepting that.
It is so. Deputy Molloy claimed he was quoting what was issued by the GIS with regard to the national primaries but he only used what he thought would appear nice in the newspapers.
I am not interested in the newspapers.
The Deputy is interested in trying to put across the idea that this Government are doing things which he did. We are not. That sort of thing is not done here any longer. We have said openly that there are certain circumstances in which it is all right to give permission on national primaries. There are such circumstances where they are as safe as if they were on some of the back roads and the by-roads. That is the situation.
The Chair would like to point out that we are dealing with motorways and not with access to primary roads.
I should like to ask one question of Deputy Molloy. Would Deputy Molloy clear the House about the Oranmore thing in which he is involved? The Deputy should wash his hands of that. McInerneys, with whom he is fixed up——
The Deputy is talking through his hat. Nobody listens to him anymore.
The House is dealing with access to motorways.
This was an access to a main road in which McInerneys were interested.
Access to motorways was mentioned in a paragraph of a circular sent to all local authorities, the paragraph to which Deputy Molloy has already referred.
Deputy Molloy did not quote it. He said what he thought was in it and I said that what he had stated was not correct.
Last week I quoted what was in the circular because I had a copy of it.
The Deputy was perfectly entitled to have a copy of the circular. I am not a bit ashamed of what was in it, because I think it was a good idea.
The circular was not very direct about this matter.
I was direct a moment ago.
I did not say the things the Deputy would like me to say; the Deputy could not catch me out on it.
Does the Minister deny that it was suggested to local authorities that they should be less strict on the question of building along roads?
Yes, that was suggested.
Therefore, we are on the same wavelength?
I do not know what wavelength the Deputy is on.
I am on the ribbon building wavelength which is mentioned in the circular.
The Deputies should confine themselves to motorways.
The Minister has no authority. It is illegal for a local authority, in my view, to contravene their development plan if their development plan contains an embargo on access to national primary roads.
The Deputy is going back to the national primary roads but the section deals with access to motorways.
The Deputy does not know what he is talking about.
We are trying to prevent access to motorways but if the Minister continues to do what he outlined recently in a circular sent to all local authorities asking them to break the law by contravening their own development plans, we will be playing ducks and drakes with the provisions of this proposed legislation.
A Daniel has come to judgment.
I should like to draw the Minister's attention to the wording of sub-section (2) in regard to animals. It is clear that the intention is that there should not be any animals on the motorways but I am wondering if the wording is effective enough. First, it does not make any reference to the ownership of the animals. It simply says that persons in charge of, or having control over, animals shall not permit them to be on the motorway. I am putting the point forward for consideration by the Minister.
The Deputy will find that this is the best description that can be given. If it stated "owners of animals" then the owners would be entitled to allow somebody else to go out on the motorways with the animals. The persons in charge of the animals can be pinned down. "Having control over", we assume, means either the person driving the animals, the person leading them, or the owner. I understand those three categories are covered by the wording that is there, and I am satisfied that it is the best we can get.
I move amendment No. 14:
Before section 10 to insert a new section as follows:
Where by reason of the construction of a motorway or by any other action taken in relation thereto either by a road authority or the Minister a farmer is deprived of ready access from one portion of his farm to another the road authority or the Minister (as the case may be) shall provide an underpass or other suitable form of access for the farmer concerned.
I am concerned here with the situation which can be multiplied throughout the country where we will have cases of motorways going through the middle of farms. Most farms consist of a unit with, in the centre, a farmhouse and farm buildings. We will have many situations where the motorway will cut off portions, in some cases substantial portions, of a farm from the centre of that farm. In such cases it will be necessary for the farmer almost daily to take animals from one part of his farm to another. In the new situation which will develop in many cases he will have to take his animals across the road or motorway.
I can see this causing serious hardship and disruption in the case of many farmers and I want to know from the Minister if he has adverted to this type of situation and if he can foresee difficulties arising in any cases. Would the Minister not be prepared to consider the suggestion I am putting forward in this amendment? I am suggesting that where a motorway or, indeed, any other action taken by a road authority in regard to a motorway, deprives a farmer of ready access to portion of his farm, there should be an obligation on the road authority to provide some means of access from one section of the farm to the other.
I am suggesting that there should be an obligation on the road authority to provide a suitable underpass or some other suitable form of access. This is a serious aspect of the whole situation.
I am prepared to accept that the Deputy has a point. However, this amendment is not perfect and if he withdraws it I will have an amendment introduced to deal with his point.
This is very serious.
I have conceded to Deputy Haughey. The Deputy should not spoil it.