Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 7 Mar 1979

Vol. 312 No. 6

Local Government (Toll Roads) Bill, 1978: Committee Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That section I stand part of the Bill."

Deputy Fitzpatrick was in possession on section 1.

(Cavan-Monaghan): On the definition section, Deputy Quinn raised the definition of “road authority” and made the case that a harbour authority where it existed and where it was relevant should be involved in conjunction with the county council or corporation as the road authority. Deputy Quinn made the case very fully and it appeared from what he said and from what the Minister said that the Dublin Port and Docks Board have a vital interest in a proposal that might be put forward under the Bill. It also tran-spired from the Minister's intervention that the Dublin Port and Docks Board are meeting tomorrow and that an item on their agenda is a consideration of this Bill. The Minister and his Department might have received representations from the Minister and the Department of Tourism and Transport and from the chief executive of the Dublin Port and Docks Board. However, as I understand it the ordinary members of the Dublin Port and Docks Board are meeting tomorrow to consider this Bill and will presumably express views on it. It would be reasonable for the Minister to adjourn consideration of the Bill in the House until the Dublin Port and Docks Board have had an opportunity to consider it and to let their views be known.

The Minister told us that he could not make a bridge order without the consent of his colleague, the Minister for Tourism and Transport. That is quite clear, but I do not think he must get the consent of the harbour authority. The Minister also said that the road authority could not proceed with the erection of a bridge without consulting the harbour authority and that that is laid down in another statute. That may be so but many statutes make it obligatory on the performing authority to consult another authority but do not make it obligatory on the performing authority to be guided by the authority they are obliged to consult. Therefore, his process of consultation has no teeth and has no effect.

I was very impressed by the case made by Deputy Quinn that the harbour authority should have some real involvement in a bridge which is to be erected on a river which is of immediate concern to them and is used by them as a harbour authority.

Is section I agreed?

(Cavan-Monaghan): There is one other thing apart from that. Is the word “toll” defined somewhere? It is certainly not defined in the Bill.

Toll is a well understood term and was considered by the parliamen-tary draftsman to require no more elaborate definition. The same definition is used in the Toll Statutes in the UK. The Chambers Dictionary's definition is that it is a tax for the liberty of using a bridge or a road.

We have probably exhausted the section but now that we have reconvened after the adjournment the Leas-Cheann Comhairle will recall that on those occasions Deputy Fitzpatrick and I were attempting to establish the rights of harbour authorities under this Bill. We should have a clear statement on the Minister's interpretation of the role of a harbour authority. He said no harbour authority would be prevented from participating in the formulation of a tolls scheme. I invite him to deny that, if this section goes through the House unamended, no harbour authority will have the statutory right to participate in the drawing up and designing of the tolls scheme as set out in the Explanatory Memorandum. It should be clearly understood from what the Minister has said directly or indirectly that no harbour authority will have any statutory role to play by virtue of this section.

The Minister repeatedly refused to accept any amendment which would include a role for the harbour authorities, not as a road authority but as an adjoining or conjoining road authority. Contrary to the assertion that this Bill will enable local authorities to do such things, and contrary to the assertion that it is intended to facilitate the private sector, it does the direct opposite. The Bill is not what it appears to be. It does not facilitate the private sector as the Minister would argue. On the contrary it will kill the one specific, hard-edged proposal from the private sector. It will also have the conscious effect of burying the one proposal from the private sector to which the Minister appears to be committed. I am asking the Minister to deny formally that this Bill will kill and is designed to kill the response from the private sector with regard to building a specific bridge in a specific area.

I deny the allegation. It is not sponsored for that purpose.

I am glad to hear the Minister being so positive in his assertion. If the desired objective of the Bill is not to kill that initiative, can the Minister explain to me why he has not seen fit to include the harbour authorities in the definition section in whatever form of words he chooses to select, in order to allay the known fears of the harbour authorities, the known fears in public print vide The Irish Times of last Friday, and the private fears as expressed in representations to his Department and to the Department of Tourism and Transport?

I have no evidence of fears on the part of any harbour authority. There is evidence only of fears at official level and there have been ample discussions between the officials in the Department of Tourism and Transport and my officials. We are satisfied that the interests of the harbour authorities are protected in this Bill.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill."

(Cavan-Monaghan): Very briefly I want to relate section 2 to the point I was making this morning with regard to the definition of a public road which includes a footpath or a cycle track. Because a toll road means a public road, section 2 gives power to impose tolls on footpaths and cycle tracks. That is what I wanted to avoid this morning. I know the Minister will say tolls may not be imposed but this Bill gives authority to impose tolls on footpaths and cycle tracks. I object to that.

It is a pity the Minister would not come in here with an open mind on these matters and be prepared to accept reasonable arguments and write reasonable safeguards into the Bill. Future councils and road authorities will read this Bill and say the Parliament which passed it anticipated that tolls would be imposed on pedestrians, on footpaths and on cycle tracks. I want to protest against that.

This section gives the basic power to set up a tolls scheme. What Deputy Fitzpatrick is referring to can be dealt with on section 3.

(Cavan-Monaghan): I agree with the Minister but I want to point out section by sec-tion that we are saying tolls may be imposed on pedestrains, on footpaths and on cycle tracks.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill."

Section 3 is a long section. I should like clarification on how the Minister and his Department envisage this scheme functioning. Subsection (3) provides a number of specifications of what a toll scheme shall do. In paragraph (a) it is stated that it shall specify the public road or proposed public road in respect of the use of which the road authority concerned proposes to establish a system of tolls. Paragraph (b) says that it shall indicate the classes of vehicles and other road users for whose use the toll road is intended. This would enable a local authority to eliminate pedestrians, cyclists and so on. Paragraph (c) say that a toll scheme shall indicate the classes of vehicles for which the toll will be charged. Paragraph (d) provides that a toll scheme shall include an estimate of the amounts of tolls, that is, the price. Paragraph (e) provides that a toll scheme shall specify such other information as the road authority may consider appropriate "or the Minister may direct". Bear in mind the last clause. The meat is in paragraph (e).

I should like to know what, by way of example, might the Minister "otherwise direct"? He has taken certain powers and the first four provisions in subsection (3) refer to the roads, the classes of vehicles and the tolls. Presumably the cost of the toll would be some function of the cost of the capital installation of the toll road facilities. Those first four categories make a certain amount of sense. They are a rational follow through to the decision to establish toll roads, but there is a fifth clause which provides that a toll scheme shall specify such other information as the road authority may consider appropriate or the Minister may direct. Perhaps we could have some information on what the Minister might in a general sense consider necessary to direct in certain circumstances.

The subsection provides for the giving of such other information to be decided by the road authorities or by the Minister in the light of the circumstances or of any particular proposal as may be considered appropriate or reasonable and also in the light of experience gained from the operation of any existing scheme or schemes. Naturally, experience will provide more information.

Sometimes I have difficulty with "official" English but, not wishing to be smart in any way, I should like the Minister to explain what is meant by this provision.

After a toll scheme has been in operation for some time there would be likely to be further information in regard to the scheme that should be made available to the local authority who, in turn, would make it available to the Minister.

We have a proposal here that a local authority draft a toll scheme, designate the roads and designate by whom the roads are likely to be used. Also they are to designate the categories of vehicles that are likely to be used on the roads and the charges. But I am at a loss to understand paragraph (e) which provides that a toll scheme shall:

specify such other information as the road authority may consider appropriate or the Minister may direct.

It might be provided, for example, that driving was prohibited on the road at night in a built-up area or on bank holidays or religious holidays. That sort of problem would rest with the local road authority in drafting a scheme, but under the draft legislation the Minister will have the power to direct certain other information as being a part of the road scheme. Presumably in drafting that provision the Minister had regard to one or more than one theoretical possibility whereby he would need to be in a position to direct other information. I am seeking an example of what other information might be required.

Any further information that would be gained from the experience of operating the scheme. Surely that answers the point.

But can the Minister give us an example of what might be involved or are we merely including in the Bill cumbersome and unnecessary subclauses? Is the Minister aware of what exactly the provision means?

(Cavan-Monaghan): It is the blank cheque procedure.

As a nation we do not have any experience of toll roads but surely we will gain and learn from the experience of operating them.

If it is a question of the Minister reserving the power to return again to this enabling legislation in order to cope with the unforeseen, I am quite happy but I wonder at the logic that enables him to include that provision in this section while excluding from the definition section a reference to harbour authorities.

(Cavan-Monaghan): Paragraph (d) of subsection (3) provides that a toll scheme shall:

include an estimate of the amounts of the tolls that it is proposed to charge in respect of the use of the toll roads by such vehicles and other road users.

That seems to provide for tolls being charged on people other than the users of vehicles, but can the Minister say what exactly is meant by an estimate of the amounts of the tolls it is proposed to charge? Is it an overall estimate of the amount that will be collected, or is it an estimate of the toll that will be provided for each vehicle? I am wondering why this form of language is used here, because I know that another section will provide for bye-laws and that the bye-laws will spell out the amount of the toll in each case.

The final question regarding any proposal is the level of charge and one can only make estimates as one goes along of the charges that would be approved.

(Cavan-Monaghan): Am I right in assuming that the estimate in this case will not bind the authority in respect of the drawing up of bye-laws? The drawing up of a scheme is to be a reserve function and the local authorities will have a say in deciding on the estimates? But are we to take it that the drawing up of the bye-laws which will spell out the tolls will not be a reserved function?

They will be a reserved function.

(Cavan-Monaghan): I am glad to have received that information. Can the Minister as-sure me that the drawing up of the bye-laws is a reserved function?

That is so. The drawing up of bye-laws, by reason of the Acts referred to in Deputy Fitzpatrick's amendment No. 4, is a reserved function.

(Cavan-Monaghan): That is not spelled out in section 5.

It is already a reserved function under the Acts referred to in the amendment—the County Management Act, 1940, the Cork and City Manage-ment Act, 1929, the Local Government Act, 1930, the Limerick City Management Act, 1934 and the Waterford City Management Act, 1939.

(Cavan-Monaghan): It is already a reserved function under the Acts mentioned?

It is. They are section 16 (2) of the County Management Act, 1940; section 8 (1) (b) of the Cork City Management Act, 1929; section 51 (1) (b) of the Local Government Act, 1930; section 12 (1) (b) of the Limerick City Management Act, 1934, and section 11 (1) (b) of the Waterford City Manage-ment Act, 1939. For that reason it is not necessary to spell it out. It is already a reserved function.

The Minister has indicated that it was the Government's intention in the last 18 months to introduce such enabling legislation and I should like to know if the Government have a view about a common policy with regard to tolls? Do they envisage a completely open-market situation whereby each road authority would establish its own toll level relative to the capital cost and the subsequent equation that would arise from that? Subsection (4) (b) states:

(b) A road authority may at any time make and submit to the Minister a toll scheme amending or revoking a toll scheme made by it that is in force.

It is under this that a road authority may want to increase the price of the toll charge and I should like to know if such an authority will be subject to the National Prices Commission?

The charge can be changed under the bye-laws.

I accept that, but subsection (3) (d) states:

(d) include an estimate of the amounts of the tolls that it is proposed to charge in respect of the toll road . . . .

That is part of the scheme. If, for example, Kildare County Council decide that the toll for the Kildare by-pass, which is probably the most viable by-pass in toll terms at present, was not high enough and required extra revenue, would that scheme be subject to any kind of price review? Is the Minister the sole arbiter of what is considered reasonable?

If a new scheme is instituted where an existing scheme is in operation, it will have to go through the same procedures, public notices, inquiries and so on.

Subsection (4) (b) states that a road authority may at any time make and submit to the Minister a toll scheme amending or revoking a toll scheme made by it that is in force but there is no indication in that subsection that the revising or amending of an existing toll scheme is subject to the same procedures as an original scheme.

It is subject to the same procedures.

Any amendment would have to go through the publication of notices and so on?

If that is the case and since inflation is, unfortunately, for any Government governed by the politics of the Ayatollah, will any road authority anxious to change the toll charge have to publish the draft amendment?

So they simply apply to the Minister for permission to increase the charge?

This is done under the by-laws. It is a reserved function. A toll scheme does not fix the charges.

(Cavan-Monaghan): If it is a toll scheme it is a reserved function and must be dealt with by the elected members and go through the usual procedures such as advertising, receiving of representations and, if necessary, holding a public inquiry. I should like to know if a proposal to revoke a toll scheme is a toll scheme within the meaning of the section?

A toll scheme revoking a toll scheme must go through the same procedure.

(Cavan-Monaghan): It probably is, but I suggest that between now and Report Stage the Minister seek further advice on this. The section states that the making of a toll scheme is a reserved function, but I wonder if a court would interpret the revoking of a toll scheme as being similar to the drawing up of a toll scheme.

I will have a look at this matter between now and Report Stage.

I would like the Minister to clarify a point. Subsection (5) says:

An explanatory statement relating to a toll scheme shall include—

(a) information in relation. . .

I want to establish that the initial proposal which will come from a local authority to the Custom House will re-quire by way of reserved function the consent of the members of the local authority. Is that a correct reading?

The elected members.

Question put and agreed to.
Section 4 agreed to.
SECTION 5.

(Cavan-Monaghan): I move amendment No. 4:

In page 5, between lines 45 and 46, to insert the following subsection:

"(4) The making of bye-laws under this section by a road authority shall be a reserved function within the meaning of the Cork City Manage-ment Acts, 1929 to 1971, the Local Government (Dublin) Acts, 1930 to 1971, the Limerick City Management Acts, 1934 to 1971, the Waterford City Management Acts, 1939 to 1971, and the County Management Acts, 1940 to 1972.".

The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the drawing up of by-laws fixing the charge for the amount of tolls is a reserved function. The Minister told me I need not worry about that because all the County Management Acts make the drawing up of bye-laws a reserved function. These bye-laws fall into that category and will become a reserved function. Therefore I withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That section 5 stand part of the Bill."

We rushed through section 4 but there was not much of consequence in it. All it provided was for the public to call for a public inquiry. The Minister must have regard to any objections raised but since this enabling legislation will never be implemented, this is an Alice-in-Wonderland exercise.

On section 5 I want to ask a question about the increase in the toll charges. If a local authority wish to increase their toll charge from 30p to 40p to whom do they apply? On what basis will the Minister for the day grant that increase?

The local authority make the by-laws and I give my consent. Toll charges are increased under the by-laws.

I appreciate that. Unfortunately inflation is not partisan with regard to the Government of the day. Let us live with the reality that inflation will be here for some time. If a local authority wish to finance a toll facility, borrow and calculate their toll charges to service that loan and then find, because of inflation that they must increase their toll charges, from whom do they get permission? We have been assured that this is a reserved function. Therefore does the application for an increase in toll charges go before the Minister or his successor or is it referred to the National Prices Commission? In other words is there any cost control element in this?

The National Prices Commission do not enter into it. The bye-laws would not take effect until they have been submitted and confirmed by the Minister for the Environment and require a month's notice in the press which allows for an inspection of the bye-laws by the public.

Let me construct a hypothetical situation. A local authority, who have to suffer under the rigours of the Local Government (Financial Provisions) Act, calculate their financial figures for the year, including the revenue from their toll road, and subtract the amount due to the participating component of the private sector. They come up with an amount which in the view of the county treasurer is necessary to meet their overall requirements, but because of increasing capital interest charges during the year, they are required to raise additional sums of money. They apply to the Minister to increase the toll charge, they meet all the requirements in terms of notification and so on, but in the event of the Minister of the day saying "no" to an increase, what happens?

The Minister is saying that every road authority has total autonomy to devise a scheme of toll roads under this legislation but any change or increase in the amount of the toll charge will require the Minister's approval. Is that right? If Deputy Fitzpatrick and I were members of the same local authority and applied for an increase in toll charges because the interest charges on our loan increased from 13 per cent to 15 per cent, and that changed the nature of the long-term requirements of the money we borrowed, under subsection (2) we have to come back to the Minister for approval. What guarantee is there that the road authority will get a response within a certain amount of time or what room for manoeuvre do they have in the event of such a thing happening?

They require my consent to the bye-laws under which they make the changes. The change in the parking meter charges is a typical example.

If at first the authority establish the toll road charge for the Naas by-pass at 40p, and within a certain period they decide that because of X, Y and Z factors the charge should be increased to 60p, 70p or 80p, does the Minister not have any say in that?

That is correct. The Deputy realises that a local authority will not set exorbitant charges which would mean that the toll facilities would not be used by many people. Any price increase is bound to be reasonable.

I cannot understand the Minister's desire to facilitate the private sector, which appears to be contradicted in section 1, his desire to facilitate local authorities to initiate these schemes and at the same time totally abdicating responsibility for any kind of monitoring system in subsequent toll charges. We could end up with arbitrary increases in tolls which would bear no relation to the cost of servicing the capital and interest. In this legislation there is total absence of any relationship to a national roads plan or of cross subsidisation between one local authority scheme and another. It is so naïve that it is frightening.

What the Minister is saying is that once a local authority get permission to make a bye-law to administer a toll road he will not have any say in regard to the toll charges. If that is so, this is enabling legislation of enormous proportions which has no regard to other cost factors within the economy. For instance, a local authority who get themselves into a traffic jam, like Nass, could find themselves in a bonanza position because of juggernauts, and they could boost their road toll facilities and make more revenue from them than the cost of servicing capital and interest. This is extraordinary economic philosophy from a Minister who has told us he has been considering this Bill for 18 months.

(Cavan-Monaghan): There is no assurance that the local authority will get a penny of this revenue. The Minister will be look-ing at section 7.

Am I right in thinking that under subsection (2) any subsequent increase in toll rates will be determined by the market from the point of view of the local authorities?

In section 8 the Deputy will find I can direct which way the extra money accruing from toll charges will be spent.

(Cavan-Monaghan): Does the Minister intend that toll revenues will be held and used by the local authority? It is obvious from the entire Bill that it is the Minister's intention there should be power to impose tolls on pedestrians because the section uses the phrase “in relation to vehicles or other users”. It is a great pity the Minister did not confine it to vehicles. Can the Minister explain subsection (3), which refers to the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878, in the con-text of bye-laws.

The by-laws have to be published and submitted to me for confirmation.

(Cavan-Monaghan): If the Minister does not give his consent to the tolls on the grounds that they are either too high or inadequate——

They can be modified.

(Cavan-Monaghan): Then it is the Minister who makes the bye-laws?

I give consent to them; I do not make them.

(Cavan-Monaghan): I am not familiar with the 1878 Act. The Minister may approve of by-laws and presumably he can refuse to approve of them, but can he approve of them subject to modifications?

(Cavan-Monaghan): That means that, if a by-law went to the Minister proposing to charge a toll of 20p, he could say “That is not enough. We will make it 50p.”

No. That would be an amendment. In reply to the Deputy's earlier question, section 219 of the 1878 Act provides for the making of by-laws under the common seal of a local authority and for their amendment or repeal by a subsequent bye-law. It requires that bye-laws shall not be repugnant to the Act under which they are made or to the Constitution of the State. Section 221 requires the submission of the bye-laws to the Minister and their approval by him.

(Cavan-Monaghan): Therefore the Minister can either approve of the by-laws or refuse to approve of them, but he cannot amend them.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 6.

(Cavan-Monaghan): I move amendment No. 5:

In page 5, line 48, after "am-bulances" to insert "and pedestrians and pedal cyclists and invalid carriages or vehicles specially constructed or adapted for use by physically handicapped persons and vehicles occupied only by persons entitled to free travel".

The section proposes to exempt vehicles belonging to and used for official purposes by the Defence Forces and the Garda Síochána and fire brigade vehicles and ambulances. In drawing up the Bill the Minister went to considerable trouble to ensure that discretion would not lie with local authorities in regard to the charging of tolls on vehicles belonging to and used for official purpose by the Army and Garda or in respect of fire brigade and ambulance vehicles.

Does that need re-drafting? It says,

"Vehicles belonging to and used for official purposes by the Defence Forces and the Garda Síochána".

The vehicles would not belong to the Defence Forces or the Garda Síochána; they would be owned by the Minister's Department or a Department of State. Anyway, the intention of the Minister in drafting the section is to ensure that the Defence Force vehicles, Garda Síochána vehicles and fire brigade vehicles shall not be charged tolls. I accept that, but I want to provide also that other vehicles shall not be subject to tolls and that it be specifically written into the section that they shall not be charged tolls. The classes of people I want to exempt are pedestrians, pedal cyclists, invalid carriages, vehicles specially constructed or adapted for use by physically handicapped persons and vehicles occupied only be persons eligible for free travel. I submit that this last is a reasonable category of people to exclude and it is just as reasonable that we should write their exclusion into the Bill as to write in, as we have done, the exclusion of the Defence Force, Garda Síochána and fire brigade vehicles.

We have a group known as the Irish Wheelchair Association who are doing very good and charitable work in the interests of a particularly deserving section of the community, and we go to considerable trouble to meet their reasonable demands. In and around Leinster House certain alterations have been made so that people confined to wheelchairs can drive their wheelchairs into Leinster House without going up steps, and it is accepted policy that public buildings have facilities for wheelchairs and vehicles used by physically handicapped people. That is as it should be. Before car tax up to £16 was abolished the Motor Taxation Acts had the provision that vehicles built, altered or adapted for use by physically handicapped people were not charged road tax and I think they also received an allowance of petrol at a reduced charge without the element of tax. Therefore, over the years we have recognised the requirements of physically handicapped people who rely on vehicles in place of their legs and who cannot conveniently, or in some cases at all, get around without the aid of special carriages or specially adapted motor vehicles. I ask the Minister to write into this Bill that invalid carriages and motor vehicles specially constructed, altered or adapted for use by the physically handicapped people are excluded.

There is an unanswerable argument in favour of that. It is no good for the Minister to say that the local authorities in drawing up their schemes or in drafting their bye-laws can make provision for this. That is true, but we here should give the headline. We should set the example. When we call on the private sector to make provision in building their places of recreation, shops and places of business, to provide for handicapped people, they will not take us seriously unless we take this golden opportunity of doing something more than paying lip-service to this category of people. We would be lacking in our duty, and no amount of off-pushing or passing the buck or saying that it can be done by the local authority or somebody else is enough. The same argument would apply to the Garda Síochána vehicles, the Defence Force vehicles and the ambulances, but the Minister has seen it necessary to put that beyond doubt and to write their exclusion into this section. I am asking him to write in the same exclusion in respect of invalid carriages and vehicles specially constructed or adapted for use by physically handicapped persons.

I ask the Minister to exclude also two other categories. We have provided free transport under Social Welfare and other Bills for people over 66 years of age. Indeed, if the Minister's colleague was worth his salt he would have reduced that to 65 years of age in the budget, but he did not do so. At any rate, people of 66 and over are entitled to free public transport. Also people in receipt of certain categories of pensions, such as disabled person's allowance and invalidity pension, are also entitled to free transport. I am asking the Minister to exclude from tolls vehicles occupied solely by such people and to write that into this Bill. There would be no difficulty in identifying these people. They have to be identified if they are availing of public transport, and they are identified by the production of their old age pension book, disabled person's allowance book or whatever other entitlement document they have to the qualifying pension or allowance.

I am asking the Minister to do something now which he can do without messing around with the whole Act, and that is to exclude pedestrians. Surely it is not our intention to charge a toll to pedestrians. If it is not, what is the objection to writing that into the Bill and to indicating that this is a Bill for vehicles, not a Bill for pedestrians? Not alone do we think in this House that you should not impose a toll on pedestrians but we are not going to give the machinery to impose such a toll. There is no use in this blank cheque business or buck passing. We should write into the Bill here and now that we are not going to impose a toll on pedestrians either on footpaths or roads.

Finally, it is not the intention of this House to charge a toll to pedal cyclists. I have specifically written pedal cyclists into the amendment. We should not impose a toll on them but we should give the lead. It is unreasonable that handicapped people in handicapped carriages should be charged a toll and we should say this. I am sure we think it unreasonable that people who are entitled to free transport and who are driving on a public road should be charged a toll and we should say so.

They would be on buses.

(Cavan-Monaghan): They may be driving their own cars.

On free transport?

(Cavan-Monaghan): No. I am talking about private cars. I do not accept that they are not entitled to have private cars. People who enjoy free transport on a bus from Dublin to Cork may have private cars. We should write into the Bill that if they are in their own cars they should not be charged a toll. I am sure we believe that pedestrians should not be charged a toll and we should write it into the Bill. We should do the same with regard to pedal cyclists. I would be glad to hear the Minister's view on this. He has apparently come into the House un-prepared to yield anything. He is apparently saying: “Here is the Bill and as far as we are concerned you can charge handicapped people, pedestrians, old age pensioners and anybody you like a toll.” I do not accept that and I do not believe that is in keeping with our social policy. In recent years our social philosophy has been towards providing those people with the little privileges they have and that I am now asking for them.

Nobody is depriving those people of the privileges the Deputy mentioned. The main point in section 6 is to exempt vehicles which are being used for security purposes and emergencies. It is left to the discretion of the local authorities to make whatever other exemptions they feel they should make. A circular went out from my Department before this Bill came in here asking local authorities to make provision for invalid people and they have done so. I have complete confidence in the elected members of local authorities to make those exemptions at their discretion, even those the Deputy has mentioned. I would not have complete confidence that they would go as far as exempting a person entitled to free public transport when driving a private car because that person could be driving a car belonging to another person. This is entirely up to local authorities.

Let us take parking meters, for example. Invalid cars are exempt under the bye-laws because Dublin Corporation thought fit to exempt them. The same applies to pedestrians. This section exempts security vehicles and emergency vehicles. The elected representatives of local authorities have discretion to make whatever other exemptions they think fit. I am confident that they will exempt people, such as invalids, who are entitled to be exempt. I leave the matter to them.

I wish to support Deputy Fitzpatrick's amendment. This section highlights the cursory and casual manner in which the Bill was drafted. Any public servant in the Department of the Environment who is handed the brief to get the parliamentary draftsman to draft that particular section would be embarrassed. It underlines, as well as the amendment tabled by Deputy Fitzpatrick, the fundamental nonsense of this Bill.

We will now have a situation where the Minister's car will be exempt from paying a toll charge when crossing the bridge, which presumably is to be built by Roadstone. I presume that Roadstone lorries will get a special exemption as part of the contract they will sign with Dublin Corporation. Surely we are bordering on the verge of the absurd. I am a member of Dublin County Council and the chairman of the South County Committee of Dublin County Council. As a member of a local authority I can see the absurd joint meetings we will have between Dún Laoghaire Corporation, Dublin County Council and Dublin Corporation when we face Roadstone across the table and say: "What about CIE buses? Will we charge them a toll to cross the bridge?"

You must be farcical councillors.

We are not. I do not know about Dublin Corporation but Dublin County Council and Dún Laoghaire Corporation are very responsible. We will say that the Minister's car, Garda cars, health board ambulances from the Eastern Health Board, the Southern Health Board and the Western Health Board which cross this new bridge will be exempt.

The poor toll clerks will have a difficult job. We will have the Dublin Fire Bridage from Tara Street going across the bridge 30 or 40 times a day and they will be exempt. Presumably the fire chief's private car will be exempt as he follows the fire brigade across the bridge provided he can be identified in time. The B+I lorries will have to pay a toll. Aer Lingus vans will have to pay a toll. We give a £40 million subsidy to CIE and then we charge them a toll on each of their major container lorries coming out of the North Wall to cross the Liffey. We pay the money on a contractual basis to a private enterprise company, presumably Roadstone, who have made approaches to the Minister on this matter. He has not disclosed the other interests.

Let us take the situation where the Minister says that ambulances will be given an exemption. Will the Gleeson Ambulance Service in Stillorgan, a private enterprise profit-making ambulance service, get an exemption and the Eastern Health Board ambulance have parity with them? What about the Waverley Ambulance Service, a private ambulance service? Will there be special exemption for them? They will then charges patients a high fee to bring them to hospital plus the toll charge.

I believe the Minister has exposed the fundamental inadequacy of this Bill. Once he starts making exemptions and starts building into legislation special exemptions he will never know where he begins and ends. It is rather like the 2 per cent agricultural levy. We knock out the pig farmers, the liquid dairy farmers and certain crops and before we know where we are we have a cumbersome system of administration of the 2 per cent levy, which will be impossible to administer. The Minister passes the buck to the local authorities and tells them they will have to add on any additional toll exemption categories that they wish to have.

I can see a situation where at our first meeting every Dublin Corporation refuse lorry will have to be exempted. Will we have to pay Dublin County Council for picking up refuse? Will we be paying Roadstone 25p or £1 a go for crossing the river Liffey on a bridge built by them at the expense of the taxpayers, with a nominal contribution by them, and they would rake off a £½ million a year profit for the next 20 years? Is the Minister out of his mind? I have no objection to toll bridges as such——

What is the Deputy objecting to?

I am objecting to the fact that the Minister is giving a ripoff from the ordinary people, including pedestrians, disabled drivers and so on, unless we get special exemption as local authorities, to a private company to build a bridge across the river Liffey.

Nonsense.

It would not be difficult for Dublin County Council, Dún Laoghaire Corporation and Dublin Corporation jointly to raise from public capital £5 million, £10 million or £15 million and build the bridge employing public contractors and if necessary we could charge a toll. But Fianna Fáil have agreed to allow a couple of private entrepreneurs with £8 million or £9 million to build the toll bridges. Deputy Fitzpatrick has been trying to build some sort of safeguard into this ludicrous legislation for disabled persons, pedestrians and a lot of other groups who should get exemption.

I cannot see this working. I have been on toll roads in America and on the Continent and I know how they operate. However, in the Irish situation—particularly in the Dublin traffic situation where there has to be about six rows of traffic lights, and we would spend about 70 per cent of the money collected from tolls trying to administer a very com-plicated system, with traffic backing up on to the quays—I cannot see a system like that operating.

Deputy Quinn has been reasonable and fair in relation to this. If on an emergency basis we have to build bypasses, river bridges or ferries and have to use a toll system it must be under the rigid control of the local authority and must not be operated on a joint venture arrangement where the public are bled pink by entrepreneurs who have an inordinate say in the provision of the facility and in the arrangements for its operation. The Minister should have another look at this.

I am tempted to put down an amendment exempting all CIE buses and local authority transport fleets because we in Dublin County Council will have to spend another note down to the Custom House showing the charge in 1981 for toll purposes. An additional £50,000 subvention from the Department of the Environment will have to be trotted up to us in O'Connell Street because we would have to charge it up. Fianna Fáil rampaged about this type of circular payments during the term of the last Coalition Government, this system of robbing Peter in one Department to pay Paul in another. It is ridiculous. To what extent will there be a degree of exemption? I can see total chaos in the greater Dublin area with fire brigade crews flashing their exemption passes, Garda drivers and a fleet of Army people coming up to a Special Criminal Court sitting, flashing their exemption passes——

The Deputy must think it is the Chinese army, it is going on so long.

I can add to that. There will have to be an exemption for Dublin Corporation who employ a fleet of 500 or 600 vehicles and Dublin County Council who employ over 2,000 people, many of whom drive trucks, will also have to have an exemption. Aer Lingus will demand an exemption. B+I will demand an exemption and CIE will have to get an exemption. In the end, half of the population of Dublin will be crossing the notorious toll bridges holding up their special exemption passes. That is the kind of lunatic legislation proposed for toll users. By the time we are finished we will have to give exemptions to blind pedestrians and one-legged pedestrians. We will have to categorise them too, since we cannot give an exemption to all pedestrians. I do not know what the Minister will produce by way of toll legislation. It is blatantly obvious from this section with the exemption from tolls now built in, that the farce is about to explode. The Minister should certainly have a second look at this Bill.

I nearly missed the introduction of this Bill earlier on because the Minister introduced it in one of the most rapid introductions in the history of ministerial presentations here, in ten minutes flat. I listened in my room to the debate this morning and the more it progressed the more obvious it became that the Minister has not a clue about the operation of toll roads. I suggest that the Minister go to France——

I have been there and have been on toll roads.

——and to the US to have a look at the way they operate their system and try to translate that to 300 yards below Butt Bridge and try to build a bridge from Ringsend across and see how it operates. There is only one conclusion to come to, that is that Dublin Corporation and the local authorities should build another bridge without the aid of this outrageous legislation across which we could have free access.

Dublin traffic is moving slowly enough at present without every unfortunate pedestrian and motorist coming from the north side to the south side having to stop every day and put in his token and his 50p or 20p to get across. The system was envisaged by the Minister and by some of the well-heeled entrepreneurs who have nothing to think about but how to spend the £10 million or £15 million in their pockets. The Minister has been taken for a bit of a toll ride on this section. The sooner he realises he is dealing with a farcical Bill the better for the House.

I hope there are not too many members like Deputy Desmond on Dublin County Council. He suggested I should have another look at the Bill. I suggest he should have his first look at it. Obviously he has no idea whatsoever of what is involved in the Bill. Otherwise he would not have said some of the things he said. If the proposed bridge which he mentioned is to be cluttered up with traffic, pedestrians, and other people trying to get across it, we can only assume that the other bridges will fall into the Liffey and disappear.

Deputy Desmond made allegations about people who are supposed to be involved in the proposed bridge. He said it was a commitment given by Fianna Fáil at election time, or words to that effect. That is not so. I did not know there was such a proposal anywhere until I became Minister. This much I do know. The same people were in consultation on more than one occasion with my predecessor who is a party colleague of his. Apparently that is something Deputy Desmond did not know.

They got short shrift. No better man than Deputy Tully.

Did they? The Deputy should read the Bill. He should have his facts before he throws around wild allegations about members of local authorities. What the Deputy said here today is an insult to members of local authorities. He showed complete lack of confidence in their ability to decide who should and who should not be exempted. They have been doing that for many years.

Not on roads.

They have been doing it in regard to parking meters and many other facilities and services which come under their jurisdiction. They have not acted farcically as the Deputy alleged they will do in Dun Laoghaire or Rathdown. They are sensible people with a commonsense approach to matters such as this. I am confident they will exempt those who will be entitled to be exempted. I know the way they will approach it. In this section I am exempting security services and emergency services. That is the purpose of this section.

If a member of the Garda Síochána, say a member of the Special Branch, is using his private car in the course of his duties, will it be exempt? If he has to cross this notorious bridge 50 times a day doing routine surveillance or routine operations in plain clothes, will his car be exempt? He might be following a security truck. Does the Minister think he should be exempt?

Only cars owned by the Garda Síochána.

(Cavan-Monaghan): I do not think the cars are owned by the Garda Síochána.

They are.

(Cavan-Monaghan): The Minister for Finance is the owner for the purposes of the Road Traffic Act.

Cars owned by the State then.

I asked the Minister that question and I got a rather il-luminating reply. The Minister says ambulances are exempt. Are private ambulances run for private profit exempt, such as Gleesons' ambulances of Stillorgan who do quite well and charge people a fair fat fee for bringing them to hospital?

It is defined in the section if the Deputy would bother to read the Bill.

I am not sure about that.

I am certain.

It refers to fire brigade vehicles and ambulances.

I know what a fire brigade vehicle is and I know what a fire brigade ambulance is. I presume fire brigade ambulances are exempt.

An ambulance is defined.

I am interested to know whether a private ambulance will be exempt.

Will the Deputy read subsection (2)?

The purpose of Committee Stage is to find out what is in the Minister's mind. I regret if the Minister finds that difficult. Will a public service taxi vehicle carrying people to hospital be exempt? Hundreds of them are used by the health boards in Dublin to take patients to hospital. The Minister may say that is a matter for the local authorities. As members of Dublin local authorities we will have to decide what exemptions we will give. I can see us exempting about 30 per cent of the vehicles in Dublin city. The Minister said he is devolving that power on us. I can see us receiving representations——

The Deputy is not a member of the local authority who are involved in the proposal he has been talking about.

I should imagine that if this thing develops there will be a joint committee in operation between the Dun Laoghaire Corporation, Dublin County Council and Dublin City Council. My constituency has the highest number of cars in the country per capita. My constituents are enormously interested in this magnificent solution to Dublin's transportation chaos. Already in the local elections campaign the reaction of the car owning population in Dublin to this toll road proposition is overwhelmingly vicious. In the local elections the Minister's candidates will have a hard job if they have to say to people: “If you want to cross the Liffey it will cost you 20p a time and another 20p to come back again”.

The Minister is on a loser in relation to this proposition. I cannot see Dublin Corporation, Dublin County Council or Dún Laoghaire Corporation going ahead with it. The Minister says it is an enabling proposition but I cannot see them responding to the nonsense proposed in this Bill particularly in relation to the Dublin area. The Dublin Port and Docks Board have to be sorted out as well and, as the Minister knows, to do that you would want to be up at about 3 o'clock in the morning and not to go to bed until about 2 o'clock the following morning, and you would want to do that for about ten years.

The exemptions proposed by Deputy Fitzpatrick are eminently reasonable. They have exposed a fundamental flaw in the Bill which shows up the undesirable nature of this type of legislation which deserves the most strenuous opposition in this House.

(Cavan-Monaghan): I and my party voted against the Second Reading of this Bill because we were not satisfied we had got an adequate explanation from the Minister as to its purpose and its inten-tions. However, the Government by virtue of their majority of 20, carried the Second Stage.

Nearly 40 today.

(Cavan-Monaghan): We are now stuck with the Bill. We are discussing an amendment in my name to add certain categories to the exclusion provisions in section 6. I am particularly surprised and saddened that the Minister would not yield even in regard to the carriages and motor cars of physically handicapped people. It is sickening, I would even say it is nauseating, to hear Members of the Government at every available oppor-tunity making speeches in support of this category of persons and exhorting the private sector to make provision for them in their shops and in their cinemas, in their places of entertainment and their places of business.

Having regard to what the Minister said, it is a bit of make-believe, a bit of window-dressing, to see a couple of steps outside Leinster House changed to accommodate those people. It was done because we are ashamed when those people come here in vehicles and we would be exposed to the public if we did not make some cosmetic improvement outside this building to facilitate them. For many years after coming here I advocated that public authorities should facilitate handicapped people by reserving a quota of jobs for them in the public service. I understand that this is being done now to some small extent but it is not before time. The people who have to go through life with their handicaps should be able to avail of a charter that would make life easier for them. We made provision for them in respect of tax on their vehicles. It was necessary to write that provision into an Act of Parliament. We made provision for them, too, in respect of a pay-back of tax on petrol but here we have a golden opportunity of recognising the plight of these people and of giving a lead, of giving an example to other people whom we exhort to facilitate the handicapped. But the Minister is not prepared to yield one iota in respect of what I am seeking. I am satisfied that section 6 is another precedent taken from some Bill or perhaps from some British Act and incorporated into this Bill. This is the lazy way of dealing with it but why can the Minister not open up his mind and listen to reasonable argument? It is not unreasonable to ask him to exclude this category of people from the tolls. By not doing so he has illustrated a miserable approach. Without wishing to be emotive I re-echo what Deputy Tully said—that the Minister excludes his car but will not exclude the cripple's carriage. I am sorry to have to say that but that is the situation. We know that ministerial cars are Garda cars on duty and these are exempt but the unfortunate person in a three-wheeled car will have to pay the toll. That is not the sort of example that we should be giving either to the private sector or to the public authorities to whom we are appealing to cater for the mentally handicapped. The Minister should be man enough to accept the amendment. Perhaps the exclusion of this category in the first place was an oversight but the Minister now has the opportunity of putting the matter right. It is not as if there were some vast principle involved. It is merely a question of decency, of recognising that these people are not as fortunate as the rest of us.

I have received a good deal of correspondence from people representing the wheelchair category and I have always promised them that if the opportunity arose I would ventilate their grievances here. The Minister has nothing to lose by accepting the amendment and the Bill would be all the better for its inclusion. In addition, the Minister would be giving concrete evidence of the concern of himself and of the Government for the less fortunate among us. I have no objection whatever to the exclusions specified in the Bill. The Minister seemed to think that ambulances were confined to health board or State ambulances but the reference is to ambulances. I do not object to that but I object to the Minister coming in here with a closed, selfish mind, not being prepared to yield or to say he will look at this matter with a view to dealing with it before the Bill is passed. There is more involved here than ensuring that the physically handicapped are exempted from the provisions of the Bill. There is involved the question of establishing that our Parliament recognises the handicaps of these people and is prepared to write into every Act of Parliament possible a direction to the general public to have regard to the shortcomings of the handicapped. This Bill affords the perfect opportunity for such a display of concern. I expect that the general public would be astonished and shocked to know the length of time we have had to spend discussing a matter of this kind.

All I am asking is that in addition to excluding Garda vehicles, defence force vehicles and ambulances, there are excluded also carriages or motor cars that have been adapted specially for use by the physically handicapped. I am sure that any rational section of the community would agree with me.

Any rational section would include local authorities.

(Cavan-Monaghan): I am sure that the Minister would consider a local authority to be irrational if they did not exclude from the tolls provision Defence Force vehicles, yet this category is written into the Bill. In other words, the Minister is not prepared to rely on the rational approach or on the common sense of local authorities in this instance. The Minister for Defence, the Commissioner of the Garda Síochána and the health boards are well able to fight their own corners. They are well able to pay for the services but the unfortunate handicapped person who may be poor as well as handicapped has not that power. He is not in a position, as is a Minister, to walk across the corridor to the Minister for the Environment asking that certain vehicles be excluded. The Minister for Defence, for example, only has to lift the intercom and talk with the Minister for the Environment, telling him that Defence Force vehicles should be excluded specifically from the provisions of the Bill. The Minister for Justice can do likewise in respect of Garda cars and the same applies to the Minister for Health is respect of ambulances. It is not good enough to leave those who are least well able to protect themselves to the mercy of other people. Though local authorities could be expected to be charitable and humane and to protect the physically handicapped, we should have a written declaration of our concern for those people. It is not enough for Ministers and politicians on suitable occasions to exhort other people to make provision for the physically handicapped in public buildings and other places. When an opportunity occurs to write a mini-charter on their behalf into an Act of Parliament it should be done.

I support Deputy Fitzpatrick in challenging a division on this section because I can see many complications arising in relation to it. We have not received any answers to the questions we put to the Minister. We wanted to know whether the Minister would favour excluding certain categories. Local authorities are not given any guidance with the exception of being told that they can categorise certain exemptions if they wish. A person amusingly said to me recently that it was good to die on the south side of Dublin because when one went on one's last journey to Dean's Grange it was not necessary to pay 50p in toll charges to cross the Liffey in a hearse for the last time.

Does the Minister favour exempting vehicles of disabled drivers? What will local authorities do when every category imaginable approach them for exemptions? Every undertaker in Dublin will want his fleet exempt on the grounds that if they are not they will have to increase their charges. What is the position in relation to CIE vehicles? If they are not exempt bus fares will rise.

We are reaching the stage of repetition. All this has been pointed out on many occasions.

What is the position in relation to the enormous fleet of vehicles of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs? This must be one of the biggest public service fleets operating and I should like to know why they are not worthy of an exemption when Garda vehicles are. Whether it is an undertaker's hearse, or vehicles of disabled drivers, gardaí, the Defence Forces, CIE, Dublin Corporation, Dublin County Council, Dublin Fire Brigade, Eastern Health Board or the Rotunda Hospital they will all have to be given an exemp-tion from this notorious toll charge. We will also have to exempt vehicles of the Office of Public Works bringing material and other objects to this House.

The Minister is proposing something ludicrous which does not deserve support. He has only had the gumption to exempt the Army and Garda but left it to local authorities to add on the 30 or 40 exemptions which will have to be given. The question then arises: "Why a toll charge in the first instance and why this kind of proposition which people find so objectionable?" In the election campaign literature we will be circulating in the Greater Dublin area we intend stating that we are totally opposed to any toll bridge being erected in Dublin. The ordinary people driving cars are entitled to cross the River Liffey without having to pay Roadstone or any other private entrepreneur 20p or 50p for the privilege of travelling across their own river. Local authorities have the money, the expertise and the competence to build such bridges. If they have to charge a toll they may do so, but we will not give so-called private entrepreneurs a handy rake-off like the Fianna Fáil Party are doing as part of their ideological nonsense about the role of private enterprise.

(Cavan-Monaghan): Deputy Desmond has made another good argument for including my list of exemptions. Local authorities will have so many demands for exemptions that, in all probability, they will not grant any of them.

Molly Malone will cross the bridge for nothing.

(Cavan-Monaghan): In all probability the deserving category I mentioned will be subject to toll charges.

Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 40; Níl, 72.

Tá.

  • Barry, Peter.
  • Begley, Michael.
  • Belton, Luke.
  • Bermingham, Joseph.
  • Boland, John.
  • Bruton, John.
  • Burke, Joan.
  • Clinton, Mark.
  • Cluskey, Frank.
  • Collins, Edward.
  • Conlan, John F.
  • Corish, Brendan.
  • Cosgrave, Liam.
  • Creed, Donal.
  • Crotty, Kieran.
  • Deasy, Martin A.
  • Desmond, Barry.
  • Enright, Thomas W.
  • FitzGerald, Garret.
  • Fitzpatrick, Tom.(Cavan-Monaghan).
  • Flanagan, Oliver J.
  • Gilhawley, Eugene.
  • Griffin, Brendan.
  • Harte, Patrick D.
  • Hegarty, Paddy.
  • Keating, Michael.
  • Kelly, John.
  • Lipper, Mick.
  • McMahon, Larry.
  • Mannion, John M.
  • Mitchell, Jim.
  • O'Brien, Fergus.
  • O'Donnell, Tom.
  • O'Keeffe, Jim.
  • O'Toole, Paddy.
  • Ryan, John J.
  • Timmins, Godfrey.
  • Treacy, Seán.
  • Tully, James.
  • White, James.

Níl

  • Ahern, Kit.
  • Allen, Lorcan.
  • Andrews, David.
  • Andrews, Niall.
  • Aylward, Liam.
  • Barrett, Sylvester.
  • Brady, Gerard.
  • Brady, Vincent.
  • Briscoe, Ben.
  • Browne, Seán.
  • Burke, Raphael P.
  • Calleary, Seán.
  • Cogan, Barry.
  • Collins, Gerard.
  • Conaghan, Hugh.
  • Connolly, Gerard.
  • Cowen, Bernard.
  • Cronin, Jerry.
  • Daly, Brendan.
  • Davern, Noel.
  • de Valera, Síle.
  • de Valera, Vivion.
  • Doherty, Seán.
  • Fahey, Jackie.
  • Farrell, Joe.
  • Faulkner, Pádraig.
  • Filgate, Eddie.
  • Fitzgerald, Gene.
  • Fitzpatrick, Tom. (Dublin South-Central).
  • Fitzsimons, James N.
  • Flynn, Pádraig.
  • French, Seán.
  • Gallagher, Denis.
  • Walsh, Joe.
  • Walsh, Seán.
  • Wilson, John P.
  • Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
  • Herbert, Michael.
  • Hussey, Thomas.
  • Keegan, Seán.
  • Kenneally, William.
  • Killeen, Tim.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Lalor, Patrick J.
  • Lawlor, Liam.
  • Lemass, Eileen.
  • Lenihan, Brian.
  • Leonard, Jimmy.
  • Leonard, Tom.
  • Leyden, Terry.
  • Lynch, Jack.
  • McCreevy, Charlie.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • MacSharry, Ray.
  • Meaney, Tom.
  • Molloy, Robert.
  • Moore, Seán.
  • Morley, P.J.
  • Murphy, Cíarán P.
  • Nolan, Tom.
  • Noonan, Michael.
  • O'Connor, Timothy C.
  • O'Hanlon, Rory.
  • O'Kennedy, Michael.
  • O'Leary, John.
  • O'Malley, Desmond.
  • Power, Paddy.
  • Reynolds, Albert.
  • Smith, Michael.
  • Tunney, Jim.
  • Woods, Michael J.
  • Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Creed and B. Desmond; Nil, Deputies P. Lalor and Briscoe.
Amendment declared lost.
Question proposed: "That section 6 stand part of the Bill."

(Cavan-Monaghan): I suggest that subsection (1) needs redrafting: It states:

Vehicles belonging to and used for official purposes by the Defence Forces and the Garda Siochána, and fire brigade vehicles and ambulances shall be exempt from payment of tolls.

The Defence Forces and the Garda, as such, do not own the motor vehicles referred to. The vehicles used by them are the property of the Minister. Under the 1961 Road Traffic Act, if a person is injured by one of those vehicles it is either the Minister in charge of the Department or the Minister for Finance who is sued. It is only a drafting matter and I suggest it be looked at.

I do not think the Minister clearly un-derstands that he is exempting all ambulances. I do not object to that, but I wish to point out that earlier the Minister told Deputy Desmond to read the Bill so that he would know what he was talking about. There is nothing in subsection (2) to identify health board ambulances from private ambulances. It states that "ambulance" means a mechanically propelled vehicle which is outwardly identifiable as and is used exclusively for the carriage of sick, injured or disabled persons. "Fire brigade vehicle" has a funny definition:

"fire brigade vehicle" means a mechanically propelled vehicle used for the purpose of fire-fighting or rescuing persons or property from danger or for both such purposes.

A vehicle not necessarily having anything to do with a fire brigade could fall within that definition.

In my opinion the section as it will leave the House is a bad one. It contains very few exclusions. It does not exclude a number of deserving categories, those set out in my amendment. Local authorities may be so afraid of opening the floodgates, mentioned by Deputy Desmond, of applications for exclusions that they will simply rely on the statutory definitions of "Garda,""fire brigade" and ambulances in general. If that is so, as a country we will suffer and as a people we will appear callous, hard and cruel.

I do not like to draw comparisons between Ministers, but it is a pity all Ministers do not come in here prepared at least to listen to argument in support of amendments that do not propose to do violence to the principles or the machinery of Bills. Who am I to be giving lectures to Ministers? On their heads be it if they come in here unprepared to listen to reasonable argument.

Question put and agreed to.
Section 7 agreed to.
SECTION 8.
Question proposed: "That section 8 stand part of the Bill."

(Cavan-Monaghan): The section enables the Minister to make regulations as follows:

(a) for the purposes of this Act and for enabling this Act and any scheme under section 3, or agreement under section 9, of this Act to have full effect, and

(b) providing for the application of any moneys accruing to a road authority from the operation and management of a toll road.

I should like the Minister to tell us his thinking behind this. If tolls are going to private individuals who construct roads or bridges or who operate them under agreements, I presume the agreements will decide where the tolls will go. But if such structures are operated by local authorities will the local authorities collect the tolls and apply them as they do any other income such as house rents, weighbridge charges and revenue from other services, or does the Minister intend that this money will go to him just as the Road Fund revenue did?

The more one delves into the provisions of this Bill the more they resemble another form of road tax. Even the very term "toll", which is not defined in the Bill, we find defined in Chambers' Dictionary as a tax for use of a road. This provision is giving the Minister authority to say how the tolls will be disposed of and how they will be applied. That smacks of a road tax which the local authority collect as agent for the Minister for the Environment and duly remit to him for disposal as he thinks fit.

Section 8 (2) provides that regulations shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas, and that is a satisfactory arrangement. I should like to hear the Minister on the other points I have raised.

Section 8 (1) (a) mentions in particular the matters of toll schemes under section 3 and agreements with private persons under section 9. It may be desirable that the Minister should make regulations in regard to the publication and public display of toll schemes. This type of scheme is a new field for local authorities and for the Minister. The intention is that the need for making regulations under this paragraph would be left open for consideration in the light of experience of the application of the provisions of the Bill. With regard to subsection (1) (b) it is envisaged that any dues collected will go initially towards defraying the cost of construction, maintenance and management of toll roads, the latter function to include expenses and, of course, the collection of tolls. In the event of a surplus it is desirable that the Minister should have the power to determine how the proceeds might be disposed of.

In the case of an agreement with a person under section 9 under which that person might be entitled to retain part of the proceeds of the tolls, the intention is that the regulation under this Bill would apply only to the net proceeds which would accrue to the road authority after the private entrepreneur had deducted the amounts due to him under the terms of his agreement. As the Deputy said, subsection (2) of this section provides that the usual safeguard, whereby either House of the Oireachtas can pass a resolution to amend any regulation which the Members consider unacceptable, gives the same right.

(Cavan-Monaghan): The Minister says that it is desirable that he should have power to give directions as to disposal of any sur-plus tolls which the local authority might have. I should like him to say why he thinks it is necessary to have such authority or to vest such authority in the Custom House. I take it that he does not have the same authority in regard to many other sources of income of the local authorities. I presume that there is a general statutory obligation on a local authority to account for all income that they receive. What is the objection to this income falling into that residue and being disposed of in accordance with existing statutes or existing auditing procedures and regulations?

The Minister already has this power under different headings. One simple example is the parking meters. By regulation my predecessor had the power to decide how any surplus would be disposed of. The same applies to income from housing, and there are a number of headings in the Local Government Acts which ensure that the Minister can decide how surpluses are disposed of to ensure that they will not be disposed of in a way that was never intended. This power to make regulations and to decide on these matters is quite common in local government. It is nothing unusual.

(Cavan-Monaghan): The Minister has in-troduced the subject of parking meters, and this is the most comparable source of income that we could get. Is there a specific direction as to how that money is used and, if so, how is it used? What is the direction?

It hardly arises under this Bill.

(Cavan-Monaghan): The Minister has men-tioned it.

I accept that the Minister mentioned it.

There is a regulation under which the Minister can decide on how it is disposed of.

(Cavan-Monaghan): Will the Minister let me in on the secret? Has he decided, and what direction has he given?

Any moneys to date derived from that source would go, first of all, to meet the costs of the parking meter scheme, and then any surpluses must be applied in capital for roads pur-poses.

(Cavan-Monaghan): Could we have an under-taking that this will be applied in the same way?

Any Minister would want to do that.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 9.

(Cavan-Monaghan): I move amendment No. 6:

In page 7, between lines 10 and 11, to insert the following subsection:

"(3) An agreement under this sec-tion shall provide for its termination when the other party has been reasonably remunerated for any capital moneys expended by him on the road.".

Section 9 authorises a road authority with the consent of the Minister to enter into an agreement with another person, presumably a private individual, under which upon such terms and conditions as may be specified in the agreement the person agrees to do a number of things; to construct or maintain a road or to construct or maintain a bridge. In return it is visualised that the person who enters into that agreement with the road authority will collect the tolls and recoup his expenditure in that way. The section also provides that the agreement may contain a condition providing for its duration and for its termination or suspension and for matters connected with or incidental or ancillary to or consequent upon the expiration of the agreement or such termination or suspension.

I am not against private enterprise being brought into the operation of toll roads or toll bridges, subject to what I am going to say now. Private enterprise should not be brought into this activity on a once only basis. If private enterprise come into this sort of operation it should not be to skim off the cream and leave the skim milk behind. If private enterprise come into an operation like that they should take some of the rough with the smooth. For example, they should not come in on a basis that they would lose money, but if private enterprise come in and are given a choice site, the most profitable site in the whole island, then, having entered into that contract, they should enter into another contract perhaps in regard to some other part of the country where a bridge or road would be necessary and where the profit might not be as great but where on the overall they would show a profit. That is a reasonable proposition but, as far as we know, what will happen here is that private enterprise will be offered a contract to erect a bridge in a position where not alone there cannot be a loss but there will be a very handsome profit. Since there is nothing in the Bill to ensure that private enterprise will take the rough with the smooth or will do a less profitable job as well as the most profitable job, I want to put a condition into this section that protects the public sector. The amendment which I propose to write into section 9 is to add a subsection before subsection (3). The new subsection would read:

An agreement under this section shall provide for its termination when the other party has been reasonably remunerated for any capital moneys expended by him on the road.

That is a reasonable amendment and a reasonable safeguard for the State. I would prefer if we knew a lot more about this Bill. I would prefer it if the Minister had come in here and told us that after consultation with the private sector he had quite an elaborate scheme of bridges and roads throughout the country, and while he might not spell out the individuals or companies concerned he would spell out the locations. That is not the position. The Minister came into the House either without any information, without any research into his proposal or with the determination that he would not impart this information to the House. I believe that the Minister has not sufficiently studied this and that while he has some sort of general idea in the back of his head that the Bill will be used for other sites at some indefinite time in the future, its main object is to provide for one operation in this city, which consists of a bridge across the River Liffey in the most profitable site in the whole of the country.

No risk is being taken by the private sector. There is no reason why the public sector could not do the work as quickly as the private sector and have the benefit of the profits from it. If the argument is that the bridge is badly needed and the State has not the funds to do the job and cannot get them without letting other roads run down or neglecting something else, that may be an argument for giving this valuable contract to the private sector. If that is the case the public sector need some protection which should be written into the Bill. The protection to the public sector should be that the agreement entered into in this once and for all operation should contain the clause which I propose, that is one providing for the termination of the agreement when the other party have been reasonably remunerated for any capital expended by them on the roads.

It may be argued that that is not elaborate enough, that nobody would enter into that type of agreement, but the House knows what I have in mind. If that needs improvement the Minister's draftsman could draft a better subsection. We want to make sure that we will not hand over a licence to the private sector to print money. If we entered into an agreement with a private individual to build a bridge across the Liffey without a protective clause in it for the public sector we would be issuing a licence to the contractor to print money because he would have a gold mine. I do not believe that is what we want.

There could be other instances throughout the country where such an exercise would not be so remunerative but we have not heard of any of them from the Minister. He has led us to believe that there are soundings but they have not come to fruition. I do not believe that an agreement should be entered into in a wave of euphoria and enthusiasm for this scheme. I want to emphasise that I am not against the concept of building a bridge but when we are changing the whole policy in relation to this the public sector need protection as well as the private sector. I am asking the Minister to write the necessary protection for the State into the Bill.

It is already written in in subsection (2) (b) where it states that an agreement may provide for its duration and for its termination and a local authority ensures that the public are protected from what Deputy Fitzpatrick is afraid of in any agreement. I would like to emphasise for the umpteenth time that this Bill is not brought in to facilitate any single company, individual or proposal. It is a proposal which has got a lot of press coverage. There has been interest in other rivers. The Liffey is not the only river in Ireland. We have the upper and lower Shannon, Cork city and many other areas which may lend themselves to this type of proposal. This should not be confined in the narrow-minded way that has been going on between the two parties in regard to the Liffey. This enables us to have such a scheme in any part of the country or to entertain a proposal for such a scheme in any part of the country. It is a matter of conjecture whether this proposal, which has been referred to so often here, will be the licence to print money.

Progress reported: Committee to sit again.
Top
Share