Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 20 Feb 1974

Vol. 270 No. 7

Committee on Finance. - Local Government (Roads and Motorways) Bill, 1973: Report Stage.

Minister for Local Government (Mr. Tully)

Let me say that we had quite a helpful discussion on Committee Stage. Some of the points made were new to me; some were of great assistance. The proposals made from the other side of the House were pretty useful. I gave Deputy Haughey a guarantee that I would look at a number of the amendments suggested because it was agreed that we could not accept them as they were and that it would be necessary to deal with the Bill in a different way. The wording in the Bill, perhaps, and in the amendments was a little loose.

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 3, to delete lines 20 to 22 and substitute the following:

"(a) construct, repair or maintain fences or retaining walls adjoining a public road which are the responsibility of any other persons and which do not form part of a motorway, or."

An amendment was put down by Deputy Haughey. It would have meant, in effect, that responsibility for fencing and retaining walls adjoining all public roads would eventually pass to local authorities. I promised to look at the section and see if specific provision could be made to make road authorities responsible for fencing and retaining walls on motorways. The Bill, as drafted, would enable local authorities to assume this responsibility as the local authorities could constructively take the walls to form part of the motorway. The amendment I now propose would relieve adjoining landowners from liability for fences and retaining walls on motorways. I consider that this provision can be defended on the grounds of road safety and prevention of unauthorised access to motorways.

On the last occasion I feared that we might reach a situation where too much responsibility for the maintenance of fences would fall on local authorities. This amendment prevents that except where motorways are concerned and I agree that, since the only access to motorways should be from lesser type roads, responsibility for maintaining the fences should be part of the whole motorway plan and should be borne by the local authorities.

Mr. Haughey

I have no option but to thank the Minister very sincerely for this amendment which meets the situation adequately. It deals exactly with the sort of argument we were putting forward on Committee Stage. It represents a very considerable improvement from our point of view in the provision of the section.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Tully

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 3, between lines 31 and 32, to insert the following subsection:

"(3) Before making a scheme under this section, a road authority shall have regard to the preservation of scenic and natural amenities and, for that purpose, shall consult with such bodies as the road authority considers necessary."

An amendment on these lines was pressed very strongly by Deputy Haughey. He emphasised in particular the preservation of scenic and national amenities. The amendment I now propose goes a reasonable distance towards meeting his point. He asked that particular regard be given to scenic and amenity aspects, but legal advice is against conceding "particular regard". If we have to have particular regard to sporting and recreational facilities and agricultural activities I must again resist it, because it could hold up the whole thing. For instance, there are other things such as hospitals and school buildings which rate higher in my reckoning than sporting and recreational facilities. If we mention agriculture where does industry come in? I do not think we should mention any organisation. I think my amendment covers what we require although it does not go the whole way Deputy Haughey wanted. I got the Deputy's point and I think my amendment sufficiently covers what we both think would benefit.

Mr. Haughey

I think it does and again I have no hesitation in accepting the Minister's amendment and welcoming it. I think it is quite sufficient, now that we have all had time to look at the situation. It is sufficient for the Minister to provide, as he is doing in the amendment, acknowledgment of the principle and we could not possibly look for anything more than that. Indeed, if I was sitting down, in the light of the discussion on Committee Stage, to frame my own amendment I would almost certainly have come up with something akin to this.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Tully

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 3, between lines 36 and 37, to insert the following subsection:

"(5) The Minister, when approving a scheme submitted to him under this section, may, in any case where he considers it reasonable to do so, issue a direction to the road authority to provide for any person who, by reason of the construction of a motorway, is deprived of reasonable access from one part of his property to another, a suitable alternative means of access, and the road authority shall comply with any such direction."

Deputy Haughey proposed that a new section be inserted before section 10 to provide that a farmer would not be deprived of ready access from one portion of his farm to another and that he should be provided with an underpass or other suitable form of access. Deputy Haughey withdrew his amendment on the understanding that I would have a look at it and see if provision could be made to deal with cases of deprivation of access from one portion of a farm to another.

The amendment which I am now proposing is provided as an additional subsection to section 4 and it will enable me, when approving a scheme under that section, to issue a direction at the same time to the local authority to provide a suitable alternative means of access in any case where, having considered the evidence given at the public local inquiry into this scheme and the report of the inspector at that inquiry, I consider it reasonable to do so. It may be necessary to provide similar facilities in regard to the severance of a farm. The amendment is as far as I would be prepared to go on this. Of course, until proved otherwise, we assume that the local authority will behave responsibly and reasonably.

Mr. Haughey

I welcome the amendment. It seems to me to go as far as the Minister could be expected to go, in anticipating and dealing with the difficulty which we foresaw might arise in certain cases. The Minister has found a very suitable solution in that he is reserving to himself, on appeal as it were, the right to issue a direction to the local authority. On reflection, I think that is possibly the best and most flexible way of dealing with this situation. This could be a complex matter in certain areas but the fact that the Minister has this reserve power of direction will ensure that local authorities are very alert to the problem and will seek to solve it, first of all, at local level. That is, perhaps, the ideal way of dealing with it. The fact that the Minister can give this direction will, I hope, ensure that the local authority will try to avoid any necessity for an individual citizen to have to go to the Minister and endeavour to deal with the problems encountered in the preparation of the scheme. I am quite happy with the amendment proposed by the Minister.

Amendment agreed to.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 in the name of Deputy Haughey appear to be related amendments and perhaps they could be discussed together. The Chair might mention that we are on Report Stage and the mover of the amendment may reply to it. Other speakers may only speak once.

Mr. Haughey

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 3, to delete all words from and including "whose" in line 47 down to and including "enquiries" in line 49.

Mr. Tully

May I point out that my amendment No. 6 is another way of dealing with the matter. Perhaps we might discuss this amendment with the other two as otherwise we will be repeating the arguments.

Mr. Haughey

I do not think we need argue very much about it. I did not wish to appear ungracious in leaving these amendments down on the Order Paper but I did so in order that the Minister would have an opportunity of explaining to us what his thoughts now are on this whole question, his approach to it and how exactly he hopes to solve it by means of his amendment. I left my amendments down for the purpose of hearing from the Minister.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is it agreed that we deal with amendments Nos. 4, 5 and 6 together?

Mr. Haughey

Yes.

Mr. Tully

Amendment No. 4 was withdrawn on Committee Stage when I indicated I wished to have another look at the section. The procedure provided for in subsection (2) is standard procedure.

Mr. Molloy

It is very difficult to hear the Minister.

Mr. Tully

I am sorry. That is an unusual fault with me. The procedure provided for in subsection (2) is standard procedure, somewhat similar to that contained in the Housing Act, 1966. I considered the matter further and I introduced amendment No. 6 which makes detailed provision based on the Housing Act, 1966, in relation to serving notice. Therefore, I am not prepared to accept Deputy Haughey's amendment. Amendment No. 6 is a completely new provision based on the Housing Act, 1966. If Deputy Haughey has a look at it he will appreciate that this meets completely the points which he raised on the last day.

Mr. Molloy

Paragraph (b) of the Minister's amendment states that notice shall be served by leaving it at the address at which the person ordinarily resides or in a case in which an address for service has been furnished at that address. Is this a new provision in Bills governing the issue of such notice that this section authorises a new method of serving notice merely by leaving it at an address at which a person ordinarily resides? Obviously the Minister will appreciate that this may not be a satisfactory manner in which to serve a notice and it may happen on occasions that the person for whom it is intended may never receive it. The Minister, therefore, would not know if the person had received it. I do not think that would be a good practice. Would the Minister say if this is a new provision, whether similar provisions have been included in former Acts and is he satisfied that it is a fair way to issue a notice?

Mr. Tully

This is verbatim from the 1966 Housing Act. There is nothing new in it. Deputy Molloy should look at the other ways. It shall be served in some one of the following ways:

(b) By leaving it at the address at which he ordinarily resides or, in a case in which an address for service has been furnished, at that address;

(c) by sending it by post in a prepaid registered letter addressed to him at the address at which he ordinarily resides or, in a case in which an address for service has been furnished, at that address;

(d) where the address at which he ordinarily resides cannot be ascertained by reasonable inquiry and the notice, is so required or authorised to be served, in respect of any land or premises by delivering it to some person over sixteen years of age resident or employed on such land or premises or by affixing it in a conspicuous position on or near such land or premises.

This is exactly what is in the 1966 Act and I think it is fairly complete and it does protect, as far as can be done. There will be cases when it will not protect but that will not be the fault of the authority.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 5 not moved.

Mr. Tully

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 4, between lines 14 and 15, to insert the following subsections:

"(3) Where a notice is required or authorised by this Act or any order or regulation made thereunder to be served on a person, it shall be addressed to him and shall be served on him in some one of the following ways:

(a) where it is addressed to him by name, by delivering it to him;

(b) by leaving it at the address at which he ordinarily resides or, in a case in which an address for service has been furnished, at that address;

(c) by sending it by post in a prepaid registered letter addressed to him at the address at which he ordinarily resides or, in a case in which an address for service has been furnished, at that address;

(d) where the address at which he ordinarily resides cannot be ascertained by reasonable inquiry and the notice, is so required or authorised to be served, in respect of any land or premises by delivering it to some person over sixteen years of age resident or employed on such land or premises or by affixing it in a conspicuous position on or near such land or premises.

(4) Where a notice is required by this Act or any order or regulation made thereunder to be served on an owner or occupier of any land or premises and the name of the owner or of the occupier, as the case may be, cannot be ascertained by reasonable inquiry, it may be addressed to ‘the owner' or ‘the occupier', as the case may require, without naming him.

(5) For the purposes of this section, a company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1963, shall be deemed to be ordinarily resident at its registered office, and every other body corporate and every unincorporated body shall be deemed to be ordinarily resident at its principal office or place of business."

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Haughey

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 4, line 42, to delete "the only" and substitute "a".

I do not think I need delay the House very long on this. I made the case as strongly and comprehensively as I could on Committee Stage. The amendment relates to a situation where a farm or other property has one or more means of access to it. As the Bill stands in such a situation the road authority are quite entitled to block up, remove or stop any one means of access and provided any other means of access to the public road existed the farmer or property holder would have no remedy. I felt that the road authority should be compelled to replace any access which they removed or interfered with. That would be achieved by substituting "a" for "the only" in line 42. I still think I have a very valid point here and I am sorry the Minister apparently has not yet put down his own amendment to deal with it. Perhaps he is quite satisfied with my amendment and we will hear from him in a moment that he is accepting it. If that is so I shall be very happy indeed. I would urge him to consider the case I have in mind. I elaborated on Committee Stage on this point. I indicated that you can have a farm of land where the closing of one means of access, even though another existed, could result in considerable inconvenience and hardship for a farmer. I had hoped to rectify that sort of situation. I still press my amendment on the Minister.

Mr. Tully

I am sorry that I cannot accept the amendment. Section 6 (4) as drafted imposes a prohibition on a road authority from closing or stopping up the only means of access which a person has from his land to any public road until an alternative means of access to a public road has been provided. Deputy Haughey wants to impose the obligation that for every access to a public road or roads that has been stopped up an alternative means of access shall be provided. I will be forgiven for repeating what I said the last day, that it appears as if he wants to be as they say God is, that He never closes one door but he opens another.

Mr. Molloy

That is reasonable and just.

Mr. Haughey

It is a reasonably well established old philosophy.

Mr. Tully

It may be all right when God is dealing with it but I do not think we should write in that wherever an access is closed another one must be opened. We all know of farmers and others who have more than one access and one would do but because there were, for instance, two or three fields at one time and now there is only one the other two accesses are never used. They are there just because they were there and were not doing any harm. Deputy Haughey would suggest that they must all be replaced and that would cost money but probably would not mean a thing to the owner of the property. I do not believe it would be right to impose this as mandatory on the local authorities. At the same time, this does not mean that the road authority will act unreasonably or unjustly and there may be cases which would call for more than one alternative means of access to a public road and where it must be done. When I am approving a scheme if I consider it correct, or if my successor considers it correct, we can provide for more than one means of access to a public road. I think it is reasonably dealt with and I would ask Deputy Haughey to accept that I am as interested as the next in protecting the rights of the property owner, the farmer and the private individual. I do not think we should go too far with it and in my opinion Deputy Haughey's amendment would go too far.

Mr. Callanan

Did I hear the Minister say that you can provide more than one?

Mr. Tully

Yes, the Minister has a right——

Mr. Callanan

The road may go straight through a farm. There may also be a river flowing through the farm and the replacing of one means of access would not be sufficient. The farm could be cut in two and there would have to be a second means of access. I take it there can be more than one means of access?

Mr. Tully

Yes, if he considers it reasonable, and all Ministers for Local Government are reasonable.

Mr. Molloy

Most have been.

Mr. Tully

By tradition.

Mr. Callanan

The farmer will feel entitled to one for each one closed and it is hard to blame him.

Mr. Tully

I think we are going too far with that.

Mr. Haughey

I am still recalcitrant and I still think I have a point. However, I can see that there are safeguards from the point of view of the individual landowner. I suppose he has a safeguard at local level through his representatives on the council and then I suppose he has the ultimate remedy of recourse to the Minister who can direct certain things. I suppose these are reasonably adequate fall-back safeguards. In these circumstances reluctantly I withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Haughey

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 4, line 45, to delete "an" and substitute "a reasonable".

The House will recall that, on Committee Stage, I argued as cogently as I could for the insertion of the words "agreeable to the owner" in subsection (4) of section 6 where it deals with the provision of a new access to a public road by a local authority. I had in mind—and I think it was Deputy Callanan who was very much in agreement with me on this—the sort of situation where the road authority, in pursuance of its obligation, would eliminate an existing means of access and purport to provide a substitute but where, because of the nature of things, the substitute would not be adequate, would be unsuitable or inconvenient from the point of view of the farmer or landowner. We could all fairly readily visualise that sort of situation arising—where the local authority or road authority could provide an alternative means of access which, on paper, would comply with the provisions of the section but, in actual fact, would not really compensate the farmer or landowner for the means of access which had been eliminated. I was anxious to spell it out in the section that the new means provided must be acceptable to the owner. It seemed to me that that was a reasonable sort of provision. But the Minister for Local Government, with very great cunning, evoked for us here in the House the spectre of a contrary Fine Gael farmer—not a Labour or Fianna Fáil one, I might point out— somewhere who would be totally unreasonable and who could never be satisfied, to whom we would, in effect, be giving the power—if my amendment were acceptable—to hold up the development for all time.

I saw the force of the Minister's argument in that respect because I readily admit that such contrary Fine Gael farmers do exist here and there throughout the country. In an endeavour to compromise and provide something which would meet both our points of view, I decided to put down this amendment—mainly to delete the word "an" and substitute it with the words "a reasonable" so that it would now read:

...shall not close, stop up, remove, alter or divert such means of access until a reasonable alternative means of access to a public road has been provided.

I think that would be acceptable to the Minister. It seems to me that it would provide a via media between both our points of view: on the one hand, the individual farmer or landowner would have the protection of the word “reasonable” and, on the other hand, the road authority could not be held up indefinitely, because the word “reasonable” has a very definite meaning and connotation in legal terms and it would be a matter of fact whether or not the alternative could be regarded by reasonable men as reasonable. Therefore, I strongly recommend the alternative to the Minister for favourable consideration.

Mr. Molloy

I should like to support Deputy Haughey's amendment and ask the Minister if he can see his way to accept it. The wording that Deputy Haughey seeks to include at this point in the subsection is that a reasonable alternative means of access to a public road be provided. In suggesting that the words "a reasonable" be included, he is putting forward a very reasonable amendment to the subsection. One can imagine situations arising, under the subsection as it stands, where many farmers would be completely dissatisfied with the alternative access provided by the local authority and would have no comeback. I think the inclusion of those words would strengthen the hand of the farmer in seeking from the local authority that the alternative means of access to be provided by them was a means of access which would be suitable to his needs, provided it was deemed to be reasonable. The subsection is a bit bald as it stands. It gives a local authority the right to provide an access and leave it at that, and the owner of the land who has been interfered with has very little comeback. A kind of "take it or leave it" sort of attitude seems to emerge from a reading of the subsection and it does not seem to be asking a lot to have the words "a reasonable" included before the word "alternative".

Mr. Callanan

I can speak with some authority. I have been seven years with Galway County Council. A national primary road went along beside a man's farm; the county council did provide an alternative entrance for him. But what did they do? They had to elevate the road outside his premises; they shifted it way up; now he has to take a very sharp turn at the end of the elevated part of the road. No man would accept that. There has been argument going on ever since between the man and the engineering staff in an effort to reach agreement. Deputy Molloy knows the spot fairly well between Aughrim and Cappatagle—on the national primary road—where one can see that entrance still there. It is a common disgrace on a public road. If you have not some reasonable way of giving a farmer a chance of putting up his case for at least a decent alternative to an entrance that may be closed, I think this amendment should be accepted. I do not think it would be reasonable at all to leave it to officials to say merely: "Here you are; we are giving you this but take it or leave it." The case I have just instanced remains unsettled with Galway County Council after seven years. We cannot get the officials to come and put a reasonable entrance into that man's premises. I would ask the Minister to take that into consideration.

Mr. Calleary

Like Deputies Haughey and Molloy, I should like the Minister to accept this amendment because—as cited by Deputy Callanan—there are a number of cases in Mayo in which the county council have provided alternative means of access but which could not be called reasonable by any means. It is very difficult for a man to gain access to his land when the only means of access provided by the county council is a passage with a one in two rise.

In addition, if the Minister did accept this amendment, it could be used possibly as an esteemed selling point to farmers in an area. It might stop a lot of objections to the Minister and would help to facilitate the speedy passage of any particular scheme by a Minister. I, too, would ask him to accept the words "a reasonable". The Minister has great experience of farmers and he should know the position. I think the Bill would be the better for the insertion of those words.

Mr. Tully

The position is that with regard to this word "reasonable"—which one of my colleagues used here recently and about which he was taken to task by a lot of people, including Deputy Molloy, for saying that any reasonable man would accept something—we now seem to have the country full of reasonable men who would be prepared to accept something only if they considered it reasonable.

I have quite a lot of experience of local authorities. I am amazed to find people with experience of local authorities talking, for instance, about having to accept what the officials decide. Any good local authority representatives who blindly accept what the officials decide, if the elected representatives think it is wrong, need to have somebody tell them their rights. They do not have to accept them. I am amazed that the county council to which the Deputy referred should have put in such an entrance to a farm. The county council members, if they were doing their duty, should have insisted on a proper entrance.

Mr. Molloy

The Minister has obviously never met the Galway county engineer.

Mr. Tully

County engineers are paid officials of a local authority. If what Deputy Molloy and others say is correct, what is the point of local elections? Where does local democracy come in?

I cannot understand how so many people are afraid of county officials. If an official does something which they consider wrong, why are the public representatives afraid to say that it is wrong and take the necessary steps to have it righted?

Mr. Callanan

We are doing our best. We are not engineers.

Mr. Tully

It is not a good best if the dispute is still going on after six years. "Reasonable alternative" means that a reasonable means of access must be provided before the rural authority can close the only existing means of access. What will happen if Deputy Haughey's proposal is accepted? We are talking mainly about farmers but there will be other property owners looking for a means of access. All they have to do is be awkward. It does not matter whether they are Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil, Labour or do not have any politics if they are awkward. Unfortunately, we all have experience of these awkward people who believe they are making themselves important by objecting to progress being made and thereby holding up the scheme indefinitely.

Mr. Haughey

Will the Minister accept the amendment?

Mr. Tully

No, it would not clear the air. If I accept the amendment——

Mr. Molloy

What harm will it do to accept the amendment?

Mr. Tully

——what we are saying is that somebody must determine what is a "reasonable way", the landowner, the property owner or the local authority. Deputy Haughey said that this was something which in law could be proved. Would he care to define what is a "reasonable access"?

Mr. Haughey

The man on the Clapham bus.

Mr. Calleary

An independent engineer.

Mr. Tully

I have a more independent way of dealing with——

Mr. Haughey

"Reasonable access" is something which any reasonable man would regard as reasonable.

Mr. Tully

The farmer who is reasonable does not consider it right and the engineer who is also reasonable considers it is right. What happens? This could cause endless trouble. We would be including a built-in provision to hold up those schemes. I want to see the schemes proceeded with and, if a dispute occurs, the last word will be with the Minister for Local Government. His would have to be a reasonable judgment. Much as I would like to, I could not accept Deputy Haughey's amendment. To do so would be inviting trouble from those who have already made up their minds that motorways will not go within 50 miles of their property. Evidence can be found in newspapers and public statements. If we want motorways we must define everything that is contained in this Bill. If a dispute occurs, the matter can be decided by the Minister for Local Government. We will have to introduce something along those lines with regard to entrances to lanes, et cetera where one unreasonable person holds up numerous very worthwhile schemes. Therefore, I would not be prepared to accept the amendment. The section with a proviso that the final say is with the Minister for Local Government is the best way to deal with this.

Mr. Callanan

May I ask a question? Will the local authority be the arbitrator?

Mr. Tully

The last word will be with the Minister. Any reasonable man will accept that.

Mr. Calleary

It depends where one is sitting.

Mr. Haughey

I cannot say that I am very disappointed because the Minister is doing so well in meeting the Opposition point of view on other matters. I do not want to appear captious on this issue.

I am disappointed that he is now forcing himself into the position where he is rejecting the word "reasonable". If he thought some more about it he would find that position indefensible. I remember from my law student days that the word "reasonable" had a very definite connotation in law. The man on the Clapham bus was supposed to epitomise what is reasonable. I am sure in our case it would be the man on the Donnycarney bus. Lawyers accept that there is a subjective standard of reasonableness. I should have thought that this was a very fair compromise of wording for the Minister to accept, that the local authority must provide a reasonable alternative. The adequacy of the reasonableness could be left to be determined in the light of the particular local circumstances in each case. I note with regret that the Minister does not feel inclined to accept this amendment. I urge him when he goes with the Bill to the Seanad to have a further think about this.

I agree that the fact that ultimately sanction rests with the Minister is a safety valve or fall back. On the other hand, I do not think we should frame legislation on the basis that it will be all right because there will be a reasonable Minister and he will give a reasonable decision. From the point of view of the Minister and his Department a case could be a very miniscule matter, but it could be a very important matter from the point of view of a humble individual citizen. It need not necessarily be a very large landowner or a big farmer who is involved. It could be a very small farmer or as the Minister said, somebody with a house or cottage along the projected motorway. It could be very significant to him and have an important bearing on his convenience. From that point of view I should have thought that if we put in the word "reasonable" it would compel both sides, the individual citizen affected and the local authority, to be sensible and come up with a reasonable alternative. The Minister has been so forthcoming in other aspects I am disappointed that he has not been equally forthcoming in this respect. I will leave the matter at that with the wish that the Minister will, between now and the time the august upper House are given this Bill, have another look at the particular wording.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Tully

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 5, line 24, after "notice" to insert "in the prescribed manner".

Following discussion on Committee Stage I agreed to have a look at this particular subsection. The original subsection (3) read:

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 planing permission for development (which has not been commenced or has not been completed) on any land affected by the scheme.

I have inserted, after "notice" the wording "in the prescribed manner". This has a particular connotation and, I believe, it is the best way to deal with it. The question of when work commences has caused a lot of trouble under previous schemes in the Department of Local Government and other Departments. Deputy Molloy and I are aware of a particularly worthwhile regulation which was introduced by him with regard to the value of houses and how people attempted to beat that by laying foundations and leaving them there. Whether that was commencing the house or not it was accepted by the Department that it was, in fact, commencing the construction of the house. I do not think that should have been accepted as such. The result was that people got away with something.

Deputy Haughey and Deputy Molloy were anxious that something like this would not happen again. Deputy Molloy queried when would works commence. The question of how commencement should be interpreted for the purpose of section 8, subsetion (3) will be dealt with in this amendment which enables me to make regulations prescribing the manner in which notice will be served, regulations which will, in any event, be laid before this House. I will take the opportunity in these regulations of providing an acceptable definition of "commencement". As of now I have not a cast-iron or foolproof definition of "commencement". Like so many other words, it is not an easy one to define and it is not easy to define when something commences. The fact that this will be laid before the House is a guarantee that the Members of this House will have the right to say what they think on the particular arrangement before it is operated.

In my view this is the best way rather than attempting to tie it up in some manner in this section and finding afterwards that because there was a leak in it there was no way in which it could be dealt with. Reluctantly, because I am not very much in favour of legislation by ministerial regulations, I do this. I am doing so because I believe it is the best way in this case.

Mr. Molloy

Can the Minister give any indication of the type of controls or definition of "commencement" to be included in the regulations? The Minister must have something in mind.

Mr. Tully

I have tossed around half a dozen different ideas in my mind. If it was simply a question of deciding when a building commences that could possibly be defined easily enough but it may not be a building, it may be a golf course, a garden or a glass house. It may be something that is not at all similar to a building. We have to get some wording which will be wide enough to cover all these things and yet be precise enough to say that this prevents the sort of abuse of which we had evidence before. I ask the House to accept this and if I can at all I will give further particulars of what we propose in the Seanad. I hope by then to have the necessary wording. In any case, the regulations must come before this House.

Mr. Molloy

I should like to express my appreciation to the Minister for having come forward with this amendment because, as he now agrees, it is necessary that some method be laid out by the Minister which will enable the authorities involved to decide when a building has commenced.

Mr. Tully

Not alone a building.

Mr. Molloy

Development, something for which permission has been granted under the Planning Act. Under this section very extensive powers are given to the authorities. In fact, authorities can suspend planning permission already granted or revoke planning permission if a scheme under section 4 of this Bill is approved or it can modify a permission which has already been fully granted. This is probably the first time that such provision has been provided in any Act interfering with legitimate planning permissions granted already. I am aware that local authorities have power to revoke but, as we know from experience, this only happened in exceptional cases. In this case all permissions lying in the way of a proposed motorway can be fully revoked.

The anomaly arises in as much as section 8, subsection 3, applies only if the development for which permission has been granted has not commenced but if it has commenced this section cannot be operated. The word "commencement" has a very great significance in this section. As we on this side of the House have pointed out, much of what we have been discussing here may only affect a small number of persons but those persons can be seriously interfered with in their way of life and in the quality of life which they enjoyed and the environment in which they lived. Their lives can be seriously disrupted through the carrying out of construction of a motorway. Though the number may be small we are speaking on their behalf.

A person having such planning permission revoked could find that his plans for the future are seriously interfered with. It is important, if that power is being given, and if it does not apply if development has commenced, that persons should be able to decide for themselves under the manner prescribed by the Minister whether they had commenced and were relieved from this section.

The Minister has given us an assurance that he will publish the regulation. If we do not like it we will have the opportunity of debating it in this House within the prescribed period. I am thankful to the Minister and we agree to the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments and received for final consideration.