Amendments No. 1, 2 and 3 are related and may be discussed together.
Local Government (Toll Roads) Bill, 1978: Committee Stage.
SECTION 1.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I move amendment No. 1:
In page 2, line 27, to delete "footpath,".
On the Second Stage of this Bill I complained about the lack of information on the purpose of the Bill and the lack of a comprehensive introductory speech. As I did not receive such information in the Minister's closing speech it is necessary to go into the Bill fairly carefully in Committee and to try to ensure that it cannot be used in future for purposes for which it was never intended. We have had examples in the recent past of a proposal to use a Bill for an entirely different purpose from the one for which it was introduced. That is the reason I have put down those amendments to section 1, which is the definition section. A public road is given a very wide definition. It is wide enough to cover practically any thoroughfare, lane or way that may be travelled by the public. I assume it is not the intention of the Government to impose tolls on pedestrians, to charge people for walking on the roads although if the amendment was accepted it would be possible to charge pedestrians tolls unless a subsequent amendment which I have put down is also accepted. I would not like to think there was ever any intention of charging pedestrians tolls for using footpaths. I would hate to see the day when people would be charged for walking on the footpaths in rural towns or in places like Grafton Street. If the Minister says I am being unnecessarily fearful I should like to ask him what the object is of including "footpath" in the definition of "public road". As long as a footpath comes within the definition of a public road it follows that it can be subjected to tolls in a later section of the Bill. If it is not proposed to charge tolls now or in the future on footpaths, they should be removed from the definition of public road. I should like to know what the Minister's attitude is on this.
It is clear that if the definition of public road remains as it is and includes footpaths it will be legal for local authorities, with the permission of the Minister, to impose a toll on them. If the Minister says this is a matter for the local authorities, I would say that the Bill could be amended to provide that the making of a toll scheme would no longer be a reserved function but could become a purely administrative matter between the chief executive of the local authority and the Minister's Department. I am against giving the local authorities or the Minister authority which is unnececessary and absurd. It would be absurd to impose tolls on pedestrians for using footpaths whether in a country village or on a prestigious thoroughfare such as Grafton Street.
I hope the Minister agrees to amendments Nos. 2 and 3. Amendment No. 2 seeks to delete "footpath" while amendment No. 3 deals with that part of the definition of public road which includes "cycle track". I imagine the number of cycle tracks we have are limited. It is not reasonable to seek to impose tolls on cycle tracks. Another amendment which I have put down seeks to exclude pedal cyclists from tolls altogether. In order that amendments Nos. 3 and 5 would not be conflicting, it is necessary that the definition section be amended to exclude cycle track.
One of the difficulties we have about the Bill is that we do not know what it is about or when, or to what extent, it will be used. Its immediate use is probably to provide for tolls in respect of a bridge which is to be built over the Liffey. As I said on Second Stage, if that is what the Bill is for it would have been a simple matter to give the Bill the title of the surname of the man who proposes to build the bridge. We would know then what it was all about. However, we are introducing a comprehensive measure which will provide for everything from Mizen Head to Fair Head. I am against that because the Minister does not seem to be clear in his own mind about the situation. He has not studied the position of tolls on motorways or thoroughfares. We should be very careful not to give a blank cheque when, comparatively speaking, a few pence would meet the case.
Deputy Fitzpatrick is expressing unnecessary concern. What he proposes—the deletion of the words "footpath" and "cycle track" from the definition of "public roads"—would mean that road authorities proposing to provide toll roads could not provide such facilities as part of the road. They would be excluded from such a proposal. The Bill enables all possible facilities to be provided for the benefit of pedestrians and cyclists as the road authorities may see fit.
Under section 3 (3) the road authority can decide that pedestrians and cyclists may not be charged tolls for the use of that road. Under section 3 (3) (a) the road authority can decide that the toll road would be intended for use by pedestrians, other road users and cyclists while under section 3 (3) (b) they could indicate by exclusion of these types of road users that tolls would not be charged. The definition of "public road" in this Bill is the same as that included in the Local Government (Roads and Motorways) Act, 1974 and includes every conceivable type of road facility and appurtenances. To exclude any such facilities would limit the discretion of the road authorities as to whether they would wish to provide footpaths and cycle tracks or not. If the Deputy's amendment were accepted by me there would be no facilities for cyclists and pedestrians.
As regards the Deputy's statement that the Bill was introduced because of one proposal by one person, that is not so. The Bill provides for toll schemes in any part of the country. Without it we would not consider any such schemes. It is not to facilitate any one person.
It is good legislative practice to have the same definition of "public road" in the various pieces of legislation. To that extent I accept what the Minister said as being the correct procedure. Deputy Fitzpatrick is displaying very little trust in his Fine Gael colleagues in Cavan County Council or elsewhere when he suggests that they would propose to subject footpaths to tolls. I know he is expressing the fear that this Bill would enable certain local authorities to impose a toll. We must recognise that if certain responsibilities are devolved to local authorities they must be given the right to make stupid decisions as well as good decisions and hope that the electorate will exercise their judgment in subsequent local elections. My concept of devolped local democracy is that people should have the right to make mistakes and should be accountable for their mistakes. In regard to the second part of the definitions——
We will deal with the amendments first. I will give the Deputy an opportunity of dealing with the definitions on the section.
I support Deputy Fitzpatrick's misgivings because this year the Minister, in his wisdom or otherwise, has limited local authorities to a 10 per cent increase. Everybody knows that there will be a shortage of cash for necessary works such as footpaths and rights-of-way. Deputy Fitzpatrick asked if the floodgates would be open to private people to provide the necessary amenities for local authorities when local authorities have not got the cash to do the jobs. We would be naïve to believe that local authorities have sufficient money to carry out necessary works. In Kerry, where we had an increase of 10 per cent, the county manager said he was allowed 6.5 per cent in his estimate for a wage increase.
The Deputy is wandering.
I am not wandering. I am making the point that there will be a shortage of cash and that there will be a need for private people to do the work of the local authorities. The Minister has not allayed my suspicions about rights-of-way. It is unbecoming of the Chair to interefere with me when I am making a point.
The Chair is not interfering.
The Chair is interfering. I am entitled to make a point.
The Deputy can make his point later on the section. We are dealing with a specific amendment.
Local authorities will not be able to maintain footpaths and rights-of-way in a decent condition this year. Deputy Fitzpatrick is right to make the point that there will be a rush of speculators to do these jobs because there is a shortage of cash.
It is interesting to hear the two Deputies. On the one hand, Deputy Fitzpatrick is trying to restrict further the power of local authorities. On the other hand, Deputy Begley blames me for having already restricted them. Surely they are at variance with each other. If what Deputy Begley says is true, the local authority in Kerry must be different from other local authorities. If what he says is true, he should look at the structure of the local authority. There are two other reasons why the interests of the people for whom Deputy Fitzpatrick expressed concern are safeguarded in the Bill. There is necessary provision for a public inquiry in regard to any toll proposal. Furthermore, any such proposal has to be approved by the Minister.
(Cavan-Monaghan): The House should indicate how any legislation passed by it is used and the extent to which it should be used. If the House believes that pedestrians should be charged for using the roads or any part thereof now or in the future, it should say so. If the House believes, as I believe, that pedestrians should not be subjected to tolls, it should say so. As the Bill stands we are indicating that we do not object to pedestrians being tolled. We are saying that, as far as this Legislature is concerned, we do not object to footpaths being subjected to tolls. I object to that. We should spell out that we, the supreme authority, do not believe that people should be charged for using footpaths and we should put that into this Bill in black and white so that there will be no tinkering with it at a later date. The Minister said that if my amendment were to stand it would not be possible for a road authority to provide footpaths. I do not accept that and any reasonable interpretation of the definition without the word “footpath” could not mean what the Minister says it means. If the word “footpath” is removed from the definition, a public road would not mean a footpath and there would be nothing to prevent local authorities and the Department from building a toll road or using an existing road as a toll road. There would be nothing to prevent them building a footpath alongside it. However, it would be illegal for them to do so and they would not have the authority to impose a toll on it. That is the reality of the situation and there is no point in the Minister trying to say otherwise. A public road may be subjected to a toll. Any thing that is defined as a public road may be subjected to a toll. Any thing that does not come within the definition of a public road cannot be subjected to a toll. That is why I want to remove “footpaths” from the definition of “public roads”.
The Minister says, and I agree with him, that a local authority or he may decide that tolls will not be imposed on footpaths and on pedestrians. When passing this enabling legislation we should preserve the rights of pedestrians to use roads and footpaths in towns and cities without payment. It is the duty of this House to put it beyond doubt. When we are changing the approach to road finance and maintenance and payment of the cost of roads we should ensure that our citizens will not be charged for using the roads and footpaths.
Later on in the Bill the Minister is very keen to preserve the rights of the State, the rights of the Garda Síochána, of the Army and of the ambulance service, all of whom are State agents, but he is not prepared to preserve the rights of ordinary John Citizen, a humble man who does not own a car. He is prepared to leave him to the mercy of people whom he states will act with great wisdom. However, he is not prepared to leave to the tender mercies of local authorities or anybody else the cars owned or operated by the Garda Síochána, the defence forces, fire brigades or ambulances. Why the distinction? If he is prepared to leave one class of people to the discretion of those who are prepared to introduce and operate the tolls, why not do so in the case of other people? It is just as likely that these people would behave reasonably towards one section as they would towards another section.
The Minister cannot have it both ways. If he is satisfied that pedestrians will be looked after, why is he not prepared to adopt the same line with the other vehicles of State agencies that I have mentioned? We should spell it out that irrespective of what proposals other people may have we have no proposals, now or in the future, to impose tolls on the ordinary private citizens, the pedestrians. I am only asking the Minister to exclude them from the Bill.
We have had many examples of Acts being used for purposes for which they were never intended. If I were to develop that argument I would be ruled out of order but I mention now the imposition of duties legislation. This was introduced for the purpose of altering existing duties, either customs or excise, but it was used to impose totally new legislation which has split this country from head to foot. It has split the urban and rural people——
The Deputy is getting away from his amendment.
He is only making a point.
The Deputy cannot make a point by debating some other matter at length. The Deputy knows that.
(Cavan-Monaghan): The point I am making is that it is necessary when we send a Bill out of this House that we should state the purposes for which it should be used and for which it should not be used. I have given a clear example of the gross abuse of a blank cheque given by this House on a former occasion. I think that is a reasonable comparison to draw and a reasonable and valid argument to make within the rules of this House. All I am is asking is that we put it beyond doubt that pedestrians be put in the same category as Garda cars, fire brigades, Army vehicles and ambulances.
The elected members of the local authority are the people who are involved. In addition, there will be a public inquiry but the final approval must come from the Minister. Without including this in the definition of a road in the definitions section the local authority could agree to a scheme without the inclusion of these facilities for people, who could finish up without the facilities. The Deputy knows that a local authority will not want to charge tolls on pedestrians, no matter how much he says so in this House. To use the words of Deputy Quinn, if a silly decision is made by the elected members of a local authority the Minister can ensure that it is not put into practice.
I have listened to the argument put forward by Deputy Fitzpatrick and I fully support it in principle. However, I dislike the idea of having two separate legal definitions of a public road. The Deputy is a lawyer and perhaps he sees greater merit in that than I do. In view of the principle put forward by the Deputy, with which I concur, I ask the Minister to consider accepting an amendment under section 6, which section I believe it should be in, to include pedestrians in the categories of exemption. For example, for design reasons I can foresee that it might be necessary to include footpath facilities of one kind or another.
If one looks at the series of definitions that constitutes a public road, one sees there are all kinds of other things and I do not think they are there by accident. I can see all kinds of legal reasons related to accident claims and so on. In the definitions section there is reference to such matters as a roundabout, pole, bollard, wire, cable, sign, signal and so on. I think the word "footpath" should be included in that section. That is not to contradict in any way or to oppose the principle established by Deputy Fitzpatrick. The Minister has not responded to the fair criticism made by the Deputy. The principle established by Deputy Fitzpatrick should be established by this House. Personally, I should like to hear the Deputy elaborate as to why it should be established in the definitions section and not in the section dealing with exemptions. I agree it is a legal matter but my layman's guess is that the definitions section is not the place to include it. It should be included in the section dealing with specific exemptions.
(Cavan Monaghan): With regard to Deputy Quinn's difficulty about the definition of a public road being different in this Bill from some of the other Acts or Bills mentioned by the Minister, I respectfully submit that there is no necessity for any difficulty there. There may be different definitions of a road. The definition we are giving to a public road here is for the purpose of tolls. This is a definition of a public road for a new purpose and for a purpose of tolls. This is a definition of a public road for a new purpose and for a purpose for which it was not necessary to define a road heretofore. If I had time to research I am sure there are various definitions of different words for different purposes. We are defining a road here for the purposes of this Bill and for no other purpose. There will be a definition of a road for maintenance and for various other purposes that do not occur to me at the moment but here we are dealing with a definition for the purpose of tolls and for the purpose of this Bill. I see nothing objectionable in having a definition here that meets the requirements of this Bill. When we define a public road here it can be made subject to tolls later on. The neatest way of excluding pedestrians from this is to amend the title as well as accepting the amendment which I have later on in regard to the pedestrians. I feel pretty strongly about this because when the courts are interpreting this they will be guided by what we write into it not by what we say.
I do not accuse the Minister who must take responsibility for drafting the Bill, of this but there is a dangerous tendency when seeking the definition of anything to look back and get a definition somewhere else and put it in a current Bill. There are endless examples of that and while precedents are useful they are often a lazy man's way of doing a job. In my profession when I was active precedents were being used and extended from generation to generation where they were not necessary. Once in regard to a sale I remember getting requisitions on title, questions that the investigating solicitor puts to the vendor's solicitor about anything that might affect the property, and I was asked if there were any railway lines running over the property. Of course there was no railway line within 50 miles of the place, but this was following a precedent in some other requisition. That often happens. As Deputy Quinn said we look back and find a precedent or a previous definition and take it and write it into a current Bill.
A definition of a public road in some previous Bill is not relevant here where we are discussing the definition of a public road for the purpose of imposing tolls. The Minister during his contribution seemed to say that if we do not include "footpath" in the definition of "public road", then the local authority could not construct a footpath along a public road. I do not agree with that. If Dublin Corporation were mad enough to do so, what is to prevent them from imposing a toll on Grafton Street and leaving the footpaths toll free? There is nothing. If we were to remove footpath from the definition of public road, Dublin Corporation could impose a toll on Grafton Street and even if they went overboard they could not impose tolls on the footpaths on either side. The Minister should be man enough to say that he never intended to put tolls on pedestrians and that if this is causing trouble he will write it into the Bill. The Minister could not be advised that this would make the Bill any more effective. This definition of "public road" has crept into this because we are following an old definition that somebody who had a lot of time on his hands thought up a long time ago. This is a crazy definition of "road":
"public road" means any road, street, lane, footpath, square, court, alley or passage and any part thereof, the responsibility for the maintenance of which lies on a road authority, and includes any bridge, viaduct, underpass, subway, tunnel, overbridge, fly-over, pipe, arch, gulley, footpath, carriageway (whether single or multiple), pavement, railing, fence, wall, barrier, guardrail, margin, layby, hard shoulder, cycle track, island, median, central reserve, channelliser, roundabout, pole, bollard, wire, cable, sign, signal or lighting forming part of the road.
That is something that has been transplanted from one Bill to another. All I am asking the Minister to do is to exclude "footpath" so that the people may, not from any local authority but from the sovereign Parliament, have their right as pedestrians to walk the footpaths without a charge preserved.
If Deputy Fitzpatrick is to be consistent in his concern, since we are talking about definitions, by the same token his amendment to section I should also call for the deletion of "alley or passage".
(Cavan-Monaghan): I would respectfully agree with Deputy Quinn. I am putting down this amendment to establish the principle. I have not available to me either the time or the dictionaries that the gentleman who drafted this definition has. I suggest in my amendment that the thing should be taken back and that the Minister should bring in an amendment to make it clear that footpaths and other parts of roads exclusively used by pedestrians should not be subjected to toll. Indeed, a subsequent amendment which I have to section 6 will free pedestrians. In order to be consistent we must amend the definition section as well as section 6.
Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."
The Committee divided: Tá, 65; Nil, 28.
Tá
- Ahern, Kit.
- Allen, Lorcan.
- Andrews, Niall.
- Alyward, Liam.
- Barrett, Sylvester.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, Seán.
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Cogan, Barry.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Conaghan, Hugh.
- Cowen, Bernard.
- Cronin, Jerry.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Davern, Noel.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Filgate, Eddie.
- Fitzgerald, Gene.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom, (Dublin South-Central)
- Fitzsimons, James N.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Fox, Christopher J.
- French, Seán.
- Gallagher, Dennis.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Haughey, Charles J.
- Herbert, Michael.
- Hussey, Thomas.
- Keegan, Seán.
- Kenneally, William.
- Kileen, 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.
- Moore, Seán.
- Morley, P.J.
- Murphy, Ciarán P.
- Nolan, Tom.
- Noonan, Michael.
- O'Connor, Timothy C.
- O'Donoghue, Martin.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- Power, Paddy.
- Smith, Michael.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael J.
Níl.
- Barry, Peter.
- Barry, Richard.
- Begley, Michael.
- Belton, Luke.
- Boland, John.
- Bruton, John.
- Burke, Joan.
- Clinton, Mark.
- Collins, Edward.
- Conlan, John F.
- Cosgrave, Michael J.
- Creed, Donal.
- Crotty, Kieran.
- Deasy, Martin A.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom (Cavan-Monaghan)
- Gilhawley, Eugene.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Harte, Patrick D.
- Hegarty, Paddy.
- Keating, Michael.
- Kelly, John.
- Mannion, John M.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Donnell, Tom.
- O'Toole, Paddy.
- Taylor, Frank.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies P. Lalor and Briscoe; Nil, Deputies Creed and Begley.
Question declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 were discussed with Amendment No. 1.
Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 1 stand part of the Bill."
The next part of the section deals with the competent authority as distinct from the definition of the "road authority", which lists the council of a county, the corporation of a county or other borough or the council of an urban district. There should be some reference, in whatever from the Minister considers appropriate, to the role of a harbour authority giving a harbour authority such as the Dublin Port and Docks Board a legal say in the person or the organisation who would produce the explanatory statement or participate in defining the take and the split in terms of the tolls, and so on. I am open to suggestions as to how the harbour authority could be stitched into this definition.
An independent study of the most likely and opportune locations for toll facilities, including bridges, suggested urban areas where it would take a shorter time to travel from point A to point B. The four areas I mentioned in my Second Stage speech were Waterford, Cork, Limerick and Dublin. There are harbour authorities in each of those four urban areas. In this Bill we are talking about urbanised and built-up areas where the volume of traffic would be sufficient to sustain a return from an investment in toll facilities. The fear has been expressed, and it was mentioned in the newspapers last week, that because harbour authorities are not included in the definition the Dublin Port and Docks Board will consider in toto their position on the live proposals currently before them.
It is relevant to raise this matter because the Minister has stated repeatedly that this Bill was introduced in response to a request from the private sector to participate in investment in and the extension of our road system. If we are to believe the reports in the newspapers—and they are confirmed by conversations I have had—the net effect of the definitions in this section is to throw cold water on the only live proposal I am aware of which is before us at the moment and which has come from the private sector.
In view of the representations made to his Department and other Departments, in view of the public statements reported in The Irish Times last week and attributed to the Dublin Port and Docks Board, and in view of the fact that to my knowledge this is the only specific live response from the private sector the Minister wishes to facilitate with this Bill, does the Minister not consider that the definition of a “road authority” should include something along the following lines: a road authority means the council of a county, the corporation of a county or other borough or the council of an urban district or a harbour authority acting in conjunction with any of the aforementioned bodies?
I am not suggesting we should establish harbour authorities in their own right as independent road authorities for the purposes of this Bill. While they may own the land on either side of the river in a built-up area, putting a bridge on it would have an immediate impact on the road system in the surrounding area which would be the responsibility of the local authority and therefore the road authority. It would be bad practice to set up two road authorities apparently in conflict with each other.
If the purpose of this Bill is to respond to a request from the private sector, as we have been told repeatedly it is, and if what we read and hear can be assumed to be correct because of the absence of a definition of a harbour authority in this section, could the Minister not get over the difficulty of apparently establishing two conflicting road authorities in the one area by adding to the definition of a "road authority" a harbour authority acting in conjunction with any of the aforementioned bodies? I would leave the precise wording to the legal experts. Not including a harbour authority in the definition is counter-productive to the specific concrete response from the private sector the Minister appears to want to facilitate.
Deputy Quinn is saying they should be established as a road authority?
No, I am not. I do not think a harbour authority should be established as a road authority in their own right. I concede that unacceptable difficulties would arise from that. But in so far as they will have some role in this, and taking into account the benefits of a toll bridge shortcutting a long distance from one side of the river to the other, it will affect their traffic within their harbour area. Would the Minister consider that the definition of road authority should be extended to include a harbour authority acting in conjunction with any of the aforementioned bodies, but not independently—not simply adding on harbour authority to that list of bodies, but acting in conjunction with them?
First of all, with regard to protecting their rights, under the procedures for a bridge order, we would have to consult the Department of Tourism and Transport, which is the Department responsible for the harbour authority because of their rights within that harbour. Secondly, there is nothing to stop them being a party to an agreement—even the one to which the Deputy refers—which would ensure the protection of their rights. For instance, if they were to be permitted to charge tolls themselves, the Harbours Acts would have to be amended, and that comes under a different Department. But they are protected under this Bill in any scheme that might appear to infringe on their rights. Under the bridge order procedure they are protected in regard to their right to be party to whatever agreement would be reached by different parties—in this instance, Dublin Corporation and the company promoting this scheme. They are protected but they have no right, as a harbour authority to charge tolls and they cannot have that right to charge tolls themselves unless the Harbours Acts are amended.
(Cavan-Monaghan): Deputy Quinn's intervention has smoked out the Minister into discussing what this Bill is all about—a bridge over the Liffey.
The Deputy referred to a particular proposal and, naturally I replied to him.
(Cavan-Monaghan): And the Minister was prepared to discuss it on that basis. If we may develop that a little further, am I right in thinking that the Dublin Port and Docks Board are not satisfied with the proposals being made for the construction of this bridge? Am I also right in thinking that unless they are given some further authority they are not prepared to co-operate with the provision of the bridge in question, because that is my information?
Just to clarify the position, the harbour authority approved of the particular proposal referred to here and they applied for a harbour works order.
(Cavan-Monaghan): Did they approve of this Bill?
The two Departments have had discussions and it has been explained to them.
(Cavan-Monaghan): Is is acceptable to them?
Like Deputy Quinn, I read in The Irish Times that it is being raised again with the members of the board. They have already approved of this.
We are dealing only with the definitions at present.
Would that life were so simple we could confine ourselves to simple definitions. With due respect to the House and with no wish to delay it unduly, I would respectfully suggest to the Minister that the exclusion by way of definition makes all of the following sections totally meaningless unless the Minister subsequently can come forward and give us indications of what has been the overall response from the private sector.
In reply to the Minister's factually correct statement that the board of the harbour authority in question have approved the proposal, I want to say that the proposal was somewhat different from a simple matter of throwing a bridge across the Liffey. As a member who represents a constituency from which the bridge will spring over to the north side of the Liffey, my knowledge was that there would be a certain take-out, in terms of money, to three separate groups, of which the Dublin Port and Docks Board were one. If this definition stands, the road authority exclusively will be the body who will draft the explanatory statement, who will decide on the scheme of tolls to be charged, subject to the approval of the Minister, and all of the other provisions of this Bill. Because the harbour authority is in no way mentioned in section 1, as I understand it, it will have no say legally. The Minister correctly pointed out that there is nothing to prevent it from being a party to such a proposal, but there is absolutely nothing to ensure that it is stitched in, as of right, to be a party to it.
On either side of the river it is the Dublin Port and Docks Board's land. It is their thoroughfare. Under the Harbour Acts, with which the Minister is more than familiar, they have a statutory responsibility to ensure the efficient operation of the port and all that that entails. This proposal will certainly interrupt traffic in the Dublin port area because there is a fair amount of wharfage west of the proposed alignment of the bridge. If, on the one hand, this will disrupt port traffic and, at the same time, the Dublin Port and Docks Board have no legal guarantee of getting any return because of exclusion from this definition section—and it all hangs on the definition—then obviously what they agreed to before was an agreement on the assumption that there would be a certain percentage take for them.
By virtue of this definition—and again I am open to correction on this—is the Minister saying that the net effect of this will be that the road authority in the area, as defined in this section—which will be exclusively Dublin Corporation—will itself decide what the toll balance will be, that that explanatory statement will be published and the normal process followed, as indicated here? Further, conceivably as a result of this definition, Dublin Corporation will say "Fine, thanks very much. We will get a bridge over. We will decide what the take-out will be." The Dublin Port and Docks Board will get either nothing at all or a reduced amount relative to what they originally agreed and on which proposal the board took a formal decision in principle in favour. If that is the effect of this definition I suggest that the basis for the newspaper story last week is their reaction to a similar reading of the definition I am now putting to this House, and that their position is not in any way safeguarded. As the Minister has correctly pointed out, they are certainly not excluded, but that is a kind of double negative—their role, as such, is not guaranteed.
The legislation in relation to bridge orders and so on has nothing to do with the question of charging tolls. The whole purpose of this Bill is the charging of tolls. The Dublin Port and Docks Board, or any harbour authority for that matter, are a commercially operated authority which must generate sufficient income to maintain their services and so on. One of the attractions for the Dublin Port and Docks Board—and there was considerable debate among their staff on this matter—was the trade-off between the disruption of port river traffic and the revenue return they would get from the bridge. If, as a result of the definition in this section—and I am endeavouring to stick very closely to this point because it all hangs on this—the Dublin Port and Docks Board are excluded, there is absolutely no benefit to a harbour authority to participate in any toll scheme anywhere in the country. As I said on Second Stage—and I am sure the research carried out in the Minister's Department will back this up—this does not necessarily affect only the Dublin Port and Docks Board; it affects the other major harbour authorities who would, in theory, have the potential or possibility to operated a similar facility in conjunction either with the local authority or the private sector, which the Minister wishes to facilitate. Perhaps the Minister would confirm that my reading of the situation is correct.
Under the procedure for making a bridge order I could not make such an order within the area over which a harbour authority has jurisdiction without the consent of the Minister for Tourism and Transport. The question of a compensatory element for the harbour authority—whether it is Cork Harbour Authority, Limerick Harbour Authority or any other harbour authority—was raised. In the case of the Talbot Bridge there was a compensatory element for the harbour authority and that will have to be applied wherever a bridge is going to be, if it is within the area of a harbour authority. Furthermore, there is nothing to prevent the local authority and the proposers agreeing, where there is to be an open span on a bridge, that the harbour authority be made the agency responsible for operating that span. There is nothing to prevent the harbour authority being properly protected but I could not make a bridge order without the consent of the Minister for Tourism and Transport.
I can fully see that the Minister cannot make a bridge order but he could amend this legislation in order to ensure that the private sector, which he wishes to facilitate, can actually respond to this invitation to assist in the development of our roads structure. With due respect to the Minister we are not talking about making a harbour authority a road authority but about including them in the definition in such a way or form as the Minister may choose. Unless any harbour authority have some statutory right to draft the explanatory statement in the scheme of tolls, they are not going to be interested. There will be no incentive for them to facilitate the private sector in building bridges or indeed to facilitate a local authority in an urban area, perhaps Cork or Clare and Limerick City Corporation or Limerick County Council, to build a bridge with an opening span. So far we can only go on the response of the one harbour authority who are actually faced with the live reality of a proposal. Since this Bill has been published and discussed in this House the harbour authority have expressed considerable reservations and indeed indicated, if the press reports are correct, their unwillingness to proceed. That is the public surface of the iceberg. The Minister knows well that in his own Department and in the Department of Tourism and Transport there is a considerable file of representations arguing in very great detail the kind of criticism I make now. I do not know how many times or in how many different ways I have to phrase the question but the case rests on the basis that this will not facilitate the private sector which the Minister is claiming that he wants to help.
(Cavan-Monaghan): The reality of the situation is that we are now discussing the kernel of this Bill. We are now discussing the sole purpose for which this Bill was in-troduced. That is why I have been saying it is a pity that we did not introduce the Bill for this specific purpose and deal with it then. It is obvious now that the purpose of the Bill is to facilitate the erection and construction and operation of a bridge by private enterprise on the most profitable site in this island. That bridge is going to be constructed on land, the property of the Dublin Port and Docks Board, the harbour authority for the city of Dublin. It is only right that that harbour authority should have certain controls. This is not really enabling legislation because enabling legislation is to provide for something in the future that has not been foreseen. But this legislation is to facilitate a project which is fairly far advanced. That is why this House should be given more information about it. This Bill is to facilitate this bridge project which is very far advanced and in those circumstances it is a different situation from that which might arise if, for example, a bridge was being built over the Shannon in years to come. Then one would have these discussions and consultations between the Department of the Environment and the Department of Tourism and Transport. But it is different here because we know what it is about; we also know that the Dublin Port and Docks Board are not satisfied with the proposals that are being put to them or with the deal they are getting. Therefore I agree with Deputy Quinn that this is the place to iron out these difficulties. It is not every day that Parliament has an opportunity of dealing with real, live burning problems. We are now enacting a Bill to deal with the problem without dealing with the problem ourselves here. We should do that. This is a prestige site. It is the most profitable site in the whole island that could be offered for bridge construction subject to toll and I believe that the Minister should consult with the Dublin Port and Docks Board. He should have regard to them. Earlier he expressed faith in the local authorities to do the right thing; he should on this occasion consult with the port and docks board and write in black and white into this Bill what would satisfy them.
As far as the Chair is concerned at this stage we can consider the inclusion of harbour authorities in the definition section but we are getting into a specific proposal that is certainly not in this Bill and not before the House.
Let me repeat that this Bill was not introduced for the specific purpose of facilitating any one proposal. It is to facilitate any proposal throughout the country. Dublin is not the whole country and the Liffey is not the only river in the country. This Bill enables any road authority to consider a similar proposal. The fact that this proposal has been highlighted so much is because it seems to have got publicity. As I already said on Second Stage there are others interested in such proposals. This is not the only one and it is wrong for anyone to suggest that this Bill was introduced in a hurry just to facilitate that one proposal. A year and a half ago I stated that enabling legislation would be introduced in due course to enable toll schemes to be considered.
With regard to the question of consultation which Deputy Fitzpatrick mentioned, there have been consultations on a number of occasions between the two Departments, my Department and the Department of Tourism and Transport. With regard to the stand by the port and docks board it might be of interest for the Deputies to know that the Board have not yet considered this Bill and will not consider this Bill until tomorrow, despite the statements that are accredited to officials of that board.
On the question of definitions, do I take it from the Minister's reply to the debate on this part of the definition that at this stage he is not prepared to consider an amendment that would attach the words "harbour authority acting in conjunction with any of the aforementioned bodies"?
That is correct.
There is not before the House any amendment on that issue.
(Cavan-Monaghan): The Minister resents any suggestion that the Bill was introduced for a specific purpose. It is admitted that there is a proposal in regard to a bridge over the Liffey. The Minister concedes that but he has gone further and said that there are other proposals.
I have not said that. I said that other parties are interested.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I accept that but can the Minister give any indication regarding the location of these other inquiries? It would be helpful for the Dáil and the country generally to know if there are other proposals or inquiries.
They may not be considered on section 1.
Without wishing in any way to pry into what must for the time being remain confidential matters, can the Minister say whether there are other proposals or expressions of interest con-cerning areas where a harbour authority might conceivably have a road?
That is possible.
In view of the inadequate answer to my last question, would the Minister not agree that his refusal to consider any amendment to include a harbour authority can only be interpreted as a way in which the specific live proposal that has been referred to is to be excluded from serious consideration by his Department by virtue of the known response both publicy and, I suggest respectfully, privately to the Minister and to the Department of Tourism and Transport? Would the Minister not agree that there have been considerable representations and discussions between the Department of Tourism and Transport and the Department of the Environment on the one hand and the Dublin Port and Docks Board and that the matters I am raising are not unknown to the Minister? Would he not concede that by excluding from the categories of definition the harbour authority, the net effect of this section will be either to kill or to endanger seriously the one live concrete response that the private sector have given to the idea of investing in roads?
I would not accept that.
Would the Minister agree that there have been considerable representations on the lines I have suggested, that is, that the harbour authorities in some form or other should be included in the definition and that by excluding them the Minister is rejecting their representations?
There has been consultation between the two Departments. The harbour board meet tomorrow to consider the Bill, having approved previously of the proposals that have been mentioned. The statements attributed to any official do not necessarily represent the views of the harbour authority on the Bill until such time as they have met to discuss it.
The Chair must suggest again that the specific question of a bridge over the Liffey is not under discussion.
I accept that fully but I want all harbour authorities included. Should there not be included in this Bill which we are told is enabling legislation a provision to include harbour authorities? In this way, the Bill could be regarded as enabling legislation. As the Minister has admitted that there have taken place already representations and consultations on the lines I have suggested, would he not agree that by excluding harbour authorities he is making the legislation less enabling than it would be otherwise? I remind the Minister that he retains the power of overall approval and that the local authorities by virtue of their reserved function are the final body to make decisions in respect of schemes. I am simply asking the Minister to be consistent with his expressed views of attempting to respond to the private sector and attempting to make of this enabling legislation. If he refuses to allow the inclusion of the words "harbour authority" he is contradicting himself.
(Cavan-Monaghan): This debate becomes more unsatisfactory as it proceeds. We know now that there is a definite proposal for a bridge over the Liffey.
The Deputy has known that for months.
The Chair has pointed out that the question of a bridge over the Liffey is not before the House. We are dealing with the definition section and the question raised was whether harbour authorities should be included in that section. We are not dealing with one specific harbour authority.
(Cavan-Monaghan): But we know now about this specific proposal and we know also from the Minister that he is aware of other inquiries or other thinking about bridges although he is not prepared to let us have that information. That situation is unsatisfactory. However, it has emerged from what the Minister has said in reply to the point raised by Deputy Quinn that as soon as tomorrow Dublin Port and Docks Board will be meeting to discuss this Bill. Surely the Minister would like to have their views before concluding the Bill. If we had failed today to deal with the Bill as fully as it is being dealt with, it is possible that it would be put through all Stages today, although the Dublin Port and Docks Board are meeting tomorrow to consider it and presumably to make representations in regard to it. I suggest that the Minister withdraw the Bill or adjourn the discussion now until such time as he has the views of the board. It is rather highhanded that we should jump the gun and clear the Bill when the Board are meeting tomorrow for the sole purpose of discussing it.
I will not withdraw the Bill and I would remind the Deputy that the Dublin Port and Docks Board are not meeting for the sole purpose of considering this legislation. I understand that the Bill will be one of the items on the agenda. We are not legislating solely for the Dublin Port and Docks Board. The Bill will enable proposals to be considered in many parts of the country in respect of roads, bridges or tunnels.
(Cavan-Monaghan): But the point is that the Bill is to be discussed by the Dublin Port and Docks Board.
But they have nothing to do with this section of the Bill.
(Cavan-Monaghan): It has a lot to do with them.
I wish to introduce another element into this debate but I shall endeavour to stay as closely as possible to the word "definition". I invite the Minister to deny or confirm that the reasons why any "harbour authority" has been excluded by way of definition in this category concerns engineers. In each local authority the engineering sec-tion has produced a scheme of road proposals and road developments which have been incorporated in the development plans. That is the prevailing orthodoxy in terms of the kind of road development plan that is required for those areas. By definition, because that local authority does not have any role in the harbour area, those engineers at local and at departmental level have excluded from their overall calculations any consideration of a bridge in the heart of the harbour authority area. Consequently, if a harbour authority come up with a proposal for a bridge or toll facility which would plug into the overall road system of that local authority, irrespective of what other effect it may have, it may have the effect of invalidating or in some way significantly altering road proposals and improvements which the engineers would have proposed and sought agreement for from the local authority. That might make some of the calculations of those engineers redundant.
Given that background I suggest to the Minister that one of the reasons why the words "harbour authority" have been excluded from the definition is because of the success of the professional corps of road engineers in the local authorities, the Custom House and the engineering section in the harbour authorities. The alliance of those three groups of professional engineers has, wittingly or unwittingly, won a major success in having "harbour authority" excluded from this. If the Minister wishes I will be specific about the instances I am referring to. I suggest that the reason why "harbour authority" was excluded was because of the success and influence of the engineering group as a professional body. It would have been unknown among all professional groups ever to recant any of their mistakes or proposals. The exclusion of "harbour authority" in this definition is a monument to the power, influence and intransigence of engineers here.
That allegation has no substance whatever. I am satisfied that the interests of any harbour authority are protected with regard to compensation and otherwise in the Bill.
If harbour authorities are excluded from the definition, as is the intention, what is the statutory role and entitlement of a harbour authority in participating in or devising a scheme of tolls at the initial stage? Will the Minister indicate the legal entitlement for participation of a harbour authority?
With regard to the question of charging tolls I should like to state that harbour authorities cannot charge tolls without an amendment to a number of Acts.
I am aware of that. If a harbour authority have before them a response from the private sector which the Minister stated he wishes to facilitate what statutory right have they to participate in devising a scheme of tolls which would operate on a bridge within their territory?
There is nothing to stop them being party to an agreement with a road authority and the proposal concerned. I should like to tell the Deputy that a harbour authority do not apply for a bridge order; that is done by the road authority.
By the same logic there is nothing to stop me winning the Superstars competition or a gold medal at the Olympics but there is little probability that I will do either. We do not want to know what is likely to stop harbour authorities but what is likely to ensure that they have a right to be involved in the first place. What is the legal effect of this definition? Does it give the harbour authority the right by virtue of legisla-tion and not by a gentleman's agreement or trade-off between a road authority and the encircled harbour authority to participate in devising the scheme of tolls?
(Cavan-Monaghan): They have as much right as I have.
I have already answered the Deputy's question.
Is there anything to guarantee their right to participate?
I cannot make a bridge order without the consent of the Minister for Tourism and Transport.
Will a harbour authority, by virtue of this legislation, have any right to participate in the devising of a scheme of tolls?
The road authority involved will have to consult with the harbour authority.
Such consultations may not get off the ground if the harbour authority read from this legislation that they do not have a statutory right or guarantee to participate in the scheme of tolls. Is the Minister telling the House that a harbour authority can be consulted by a road authority and that the latter authority, through generosity, may give to the harbour authority some benefit by way of participation in the toll scheme? If that is his answer let him say so, but this is a guessing game. I want to know who drafted this legislation for the Minister who is seeking the approval of the House and who presumably fully understands all its implications. Am I right in assuming that if the harbour authority is not included in section 1, it will have no statutory right in legal terms to participate in a scheme of tolls?
No, the Deputy is not right. Under existing local government legislation the road authorities have to consult with the harbour authority. If that is not a statutory right, what is?
(Cavan-Monaghan): Consultation does not mean a lot.
I accept that and that that legislation simply covers the procedures with regard to the design, construction, erection and supervision of a bridge, but since there is no legislation covering tolls, obviously those statutory provi-sions cannot in any way extend to the question of tolls that would operate on such a bridge. My question is exclusively concerned with the definition and preparation of the toll scheme which the Minister referred to in the explanatory statement. I am aware of the legislation for bridge owners and of the interaction because I was in Dublin Corporation when the Memorial Road bridge was built and have some direct experience of what is involved. Presumably that still stands because there is no proposal to change it here. Therefore let us take that as read.
We are introducing a new element of tolls. I want to know if this legislation will give any harbour authority the statutory right to participate in the definition of the toll scheme. Either it does or it does not. In view of the Minister's earlier statement, I suggest that this is the main question that will be asked tomorrow when this matter is discussed in Gandon House. This is the major question and the Minister knows it.
I have already explained that the road authority will have to consult with the harbour authority under existing legislation and therefore consultation has to take place. In other words, there is no way they can be excluded from consultations. What Deputy Quinn appears to be really getting at on behalf of a person or persons attached to the harbour authority is whether a particular harbour authority should charge tolls. The answer to that question in a nutshell is that they cannot charge tolls without the Harbours Act being amended, which is a matter for another Department. It appears that they now want the right to charge tolls but they have no legal right to do so.
Deputy Fitzpatrick on section 1. We are having a great deal of repetition.
(Cavan-Monaghan): The Minister told us he cannot make a bridge order without the consent of the Minister for Tourism and Transport. If that order is obtained, is it necessary to get the consent of the harbour authority? From what the Minister said I imagine it is not. If the harbour authority own the land over which it is proposed to build a bridge, I assume they must consent to the building of the bridge, and that if they do not it would be necessary to make a compulsory acquisition order. Then we have to start all over again.
Here we are talking about a bridge—which we are not supposed to know it is proposed to build—where Dublin Corporation, the Dublin Port and Docks Board, the Minister for the Environment and the Minister for Tourism and Transport could be involved. If the Dublin Port and Docks Board were not agreeable it might not be possible to build the bridge. If there is, and we know there is, a specific project live and current, this is the place to deal with it.
The Minister said on a few occasions in reply to Deputy Quinn that there is nothing to prevent the Dublin Port and Docks Board becoming a party to a toll scheme agreement. The only thing to prevent them is if they are not asked to become a party by Dublin Corporation, the road authority. From what we know Dublin Corporation will be entering into a toll agreement with a private individual. Is that reasonable, seeing Dublin Port and Docks Board are so closely connected with this matter? It is clear that there is no obligation on the road authority to invite the port and docks authority to become a party to the agreement, and it is obvious that they will not do so. Therefore, the only part the Dublin Port and Docks Board will be able to play in a scheme for a bridge over the Liffey will be the role any citizen of Dublin will be able to play, that is by making representations or objections in reply to an advertisement which it will be obligatory on the road authority to publish under this Bill.
We are again discussing something that is not in this section or in the Bill. The building of a bridge across the River Liffey is not in the Bill.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I am talking about a mythical bridge.
We have spent the best part of an hour dis-cussing the building of a bridge over the River Liffey. I have said on numerous occasions that that is not in order. It is in order to suggest that harbour authorities should be included in the definition section but we have gone on to discuss the building of a bridge, the Dublin Port and Docks Board and Dublin Corporation. As far as the Chair is concerned this Bill is not concerned with that issue.
(Cavan-Monaghan): The Chair will concede that if the Bill goes through it will be possible to build a bridge over the River Liffey and impose tolls. If all I have said is true and correct, it is reasonable that the Dublin Port and Docks Board should be given an active role in any proposal to build a bridge over the Liffey.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
Business suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.