Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 3 Dec 1991

Vol. 413 No. 9

Roads Bill, 1991: Second Stage (Resumed).

Queston again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I will recap briefly on the main points of my speech last Wednesday. I described the Roads Bill as the most comprehensive and far reaching legislation on roads to have been brought before the Oireachtas since the foundation of the State. The Bill has two main objectives, first to establish the National Roads Authority on a statutory basis and to update, strengthen and modernise the law relating to public roads.

Part III of the Bill establishes the National Roads Authority, who will have overall responsibility for planning and supervising the vital task of construction, improving and maintaining the national roads network. It will be the duty of the Authority to secure the provision of a safe and efficient network of national roads and they will have also important specific functions. The Authority will prepare medium-term plans for the development of national roads and will make provision for the preparation of road designs, maintenance programmes and schemes for the provision of traffic signs on national roads. They will secure the carrying out of construction, improvement and maintenance works on national roads. They will allocate grants for works on national roads. The Authority will have power to issue directions to road authorities and will also be able to carry out the function where the road authority fail or refuse to comply with that direction. They will promote the case for EC assistance and the provision of private funding for national roads.

The Bill also brings together the main legislative provisions governing the administration of public roads thereby providing in one enactment a modern legislative framework for the National Roads Authority and local authorities. Among the main changes in road administration are the following: the classification of public roads will be simplified into three categories, national, regional and local. There will be a clear definition of which authority will be responsible for each category. The power to abandon public roads and extinguish public rights-of-way is being devolved to local authorities. The concept of a protected road is being introduced as a halfway house between a motorway and an ordinary road. Local authorities will be able to provide motorway service areas and cycle-ways. Local authorities have been given improved powers to deal with dangerous roadside trees and structures, temporary dwellings and unlawful roadside trading.

When I finished speaking last week I had given a brief outline of the content of sections 1 to 19 of the Bill. I propose, therefore, to now continue, starting with an outline of section 20.

Section 20 will enable the National Roads Authority to give directions to road authorities to carry out certain statutory procedures, such as the making of compulsory purchase orders and motorways schemes, or to carry out works. Before issuing a direction which would require a road authority to materially contravene a development plan or a special amenity area order, the National Roads Authority will have to give notice to the general public and the relevant road and planning authorities and consider any objections or representations received. This procedure mirrors that for a material contravention of a local authority development plan. Under section 20 (5) the National Roads Authority will have a reserve power to carry out the functions specified in the direction when the road authority refuse or fail to comply with it. The Minister will have a reserve power to make regulations requiring the Authority to obtain his approval in specified classes of cases before it exercises these reserve powers.

Section 21 defines the role of the National Roads Authority in relation to EC assistance for national roads. The National Roads Authority will prepare documentation required to make applications for EC financial aid — both grants and loans — and will participate in the promotion of the case for EC assistance. As Deputies are aware, the operations of the EC Structural Funds in Ireland are now largely governed by the Community Support Framework concluded by the Government and the EC Commission in October 1989. Like all other agencies whose activities are supported by the Structural Funds the National Roads Authority will have to operate within the framework of this and any future Community Support Framework. In practice, the National Roads Authority will be responsible for preparing the national road elements of future operational programmes covering roads and other transport and will take part in the negotiation of those programmes with the EC Commission.

Section 22 enables the Authority to make recommendations on the content of local authority development plans and obliges the Authority to have regard to the effects of building a new road or improving an existing road on the proper planning and development of the local area in which the road is, or is to be, located. The National Roads Authority will have to consider the environmental effects of any works and have regard to the local development plan and any approved special amenity area order.

Section 23 gives the National Roads Authority an input into the traffic management functions of the Garda Commissioner and the Minister in addition to their own specific functions under sections 19 and 20.

Section 24 gives the Minister power to pay grants to the Authority. Section 25 allows the National Roads Authority to borrow up to £500 million with the sanction of the Minister and Minister for Finance. Section 26 empowers the Minister for Finance to guarantee borrowing, while section 27 is a standard provision enabling payments to be made from the Central Fund on foot of a guarantee. I should stress that these are enabling powers only. The National Roads Authority, in the first instance, will have to carry out an assessment of the scope for private investment in the national road network and in doing that they will have to take account of the availability of EC grant assistance and the limited scope for generating a roads cash flow, through tolls, to remunerate any private investment.

Section 28 provides for the appointment of the Authority, comprising a chairman and between nine and 13 ordinary members. Section 29 provides for the appointment of a chief executive, though the Minister will have the power under section 28 to assign the chief executive's functions to the chairman. Section 30 enables the Authority to employ their own staff, while section 31 empowers public authorities — that is, Government Ministers, statutory bodies or local authorities — to transfer staff to the National Roads Authority.

Section 32 contains a range of provisions enabling the Minister, the National Roads Authority, road authorities and public authorities to provide staffing and other services to each other. Section 35 contains standard superannuation provisions for staff of the new Authority.

Section 33 prohibits Members of the Oireachtas and of the European Parliament from being members of the Authority and provides for the secondment from employment of members of their staff while serving as Members of the Oireachtas or the European Parliament or nominated as candidates for election. Under section 34 members of a local authority may not be employees of the Authority unless their employment is in a class or grade exempted by the Minister. Elected members and staff of local authorities are not, however, precluded from being members of the Authority.

Sections 36 to 38 contain standard provisions requiring members and staff of the Authority to disclose a beneficial interest in any matter being dealt with by the Authority, prohibiting the improper disclosure of confidential information and prohibiting attempts to improperly influence members of the Authority or their staff.

Section 39 gives the Minister a general power to issue mandatory directions and advisory guidelines to the Authority. The Minister has a similar power for road authorities in section 15.

The Third Schedule, applied to the Authority by section 40, deals largely with technical and procedural matters.

Part IV re-enacts the main provisions of the Local Governments (Roads and Motorways) Act, 1974, with some additions and amendments. I shall not go through all the provisions in detail, but let me draw your attention to the most significant sections. Section 43 introduced the concept of a protected road which, as I explained earlier, is a halfway house between a motorway and an ordinary public road. The procedures for a protected road are flexible, allowing access to it to be banned or restricted and also allowing for a prohibition or restriction on its use by certain types of traffic.

Sections 48 and 49 deal with the environmental impact assessment of road projects. Environment impact assessments will be required for the construction of motorways and busways and for certain other types of road projects prescribed in regulations. It is my intention to make new regulations under this section prescribing those categories of road projects already covered by the existing environmental impact assessment regulations. Even outside the prescribed categories, the Minister will have the power to require the preparation of an environmental impact statement for any other proposed road development likely to have significant effects on the environment. Road authorities will also be obliged to carry out an environmental impact statement on any project they consider likely to have significant environmental effects.

Section 52 introduces a new power to provide service areas on motorways and protected roads. A road authority will be able to provide a service area itself or to enter into an agreement with a private operator to provide one.

Part V re-enacts the Local Government (Toll Roads) Act, 1979, with amendments. The main changes from the 1979 Act are the transfer to the National Roads Authority of tolling powers in relation to national roads, an explicit power in section 58 enabling a road authority with the approval of the Minister to revoke a toll scheme and, finally, a modernised procedure for the making of toll by-laws under section 59. Tolling powers for the National Roads Authority represent a logical extension of their overall responsibilities in respect of national roads and complement their borrowing powers under section 25. Since the development of national roads will be fully funded through the National Roads Authority, it seems only reasonable that they, rather than the local authorities, should be able to avail of any toll revenue from those roads.

I want to stress that the scope for tolling is very limited and any revenue obtained in that way by the National Roads Authority will be ploughed back into the national roads. I also hasten to add that the new power to revoke a toll scheme is not in any way intended to allow the National Roads Authority or road authorities walk away from the obligations under existing toll agreements made with private investors. The terms of those agreements will continue to apply.

Part VI contains a range of miscellaneous provisions — some new, some updated and strengthened.

Section 65 will give a new power to road authorities to provide cycleways. A cycleway is a road or a part of a road designed for the exclusive use of pedal cyclists or pedal cyclists and pedestrians. It differs from a cycle lane which is just a part of a road reserved for cyclists through the use of road markings.

Section 66 prohibits temporary dwellings on national roads, motorways, busways and protected roads and enables road authorities to remove and store them. This provision will only apply to about 6 per cent of total road milage and is justified by the strategic importance of those routes and the heavy traffic on them.

Section 67 strengthens the existing powers of road authorities under the Local Government Acts, 1925 and 1946, to deal with roadside trees, shrubs and vegetation and gives them a new power to deal with dangerous structures on or near public roads. A new statutory obligation is placed on landowners and occupiers to ensure that roadside structures, trees, shrubs, etc., do not present a danger to road users. Road authorities will also henceforth be able to take emergency action where there is an immediate and serious hazard to road users.

Section 68 is a new provision prohibiting unauthorised caravans, vehicles, etc., used for advertising or for the sale of goods or the provision of services on any public road. It also prohibits unauthorised signs and advertising hoardings. Road authorities will have power to remove and store any unauthorised caravan, sign, etc., and, as in section 66, there will be a procedure enabling the owner to recover it.

Section 69 replaces provisions in a number of Acts, primarily section 76 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963, relating to the extinguishment of public rights of way. This section also devolves the power to local authorities, with the Minister retaining a residual power of consent where a national or regional road is affected. The new powers also provide a greater degree of flexibility, for example, allowing an extinguishment to come into force on a specified date or when specified conditions have been met. At present an extinguishment takes effect on the day it is confirmed by the Minister.

Section 70 is a new provision requiring the organisers of prescribed types of road races to give one month's notice to the road authority and the local Garda superintendent. It also gives road authorities power to prohibit the holding of a road race, to prohibit it unless specified conditions, restrictions or requirements are met or simply to specify conditions, restrictions or requirements. Section 71 updates the powers to temporarily close public roads currently contained in section 35 of the Local Government Act, 1955.

Section 72 to 76 are procedural in character dealing with powers of inspection, the service of notices, offences and penalties and expenses of the Minister. Section 75 sets out the penalties for the various offences listed throughout the Bill.

The First and Second Schedules respectively deal with repeals and minor and consequential amendments.

I am sure from this necessarily brief review the House will agree that this is a comprehensive and important Bill which will provide a good foundation for the development of our public road network well into the next century. In particular, it will put in place a strong and effective National Roads Authority which will get on with the task of urgently upgrading the national roads in partnership with the local authorities. I approach the debate on this Bill with an open mind. I want, in conclusion, to assure the House that I will be listening very carefully to all constructive suggestions and criticisms made during our deliberations.

I commend the Bill to the House.

I should like to congratulate the Minister on his new appointment and on taking over this Bill from his predecessor. Deputy Flynn is fortunate that he has been relieved of this task because I had prepared some criticisms of his performance with regard to various disagreements I had with him in regard to the 1991 roads programme——

The Deputy should voice them anyway; the present incumbent inherits them.

——which the Minister insisted was being honoured, which I find is not now being honoured. In fact, I find he was mistaken in some of the allegations he made.

The quality of our national roads network is of fundamental importance to our economy. It is important vis-à-vis its efficiency and the competitiveness of our economy. Bad roads retard economic development. Indeed, it has been estimated independently that bad roads in Ireland add 20 per cent to the cost of rural manufacturing industry. Traffic congestion, bottlenecks and delays impose clear cost penalties on the Irish haulage sector because of the tachograph regulations. The accumulated cost of an inefficient roads network and a highly taxed haulage sector means that Irish transport costs are twice the European average. For example, it is estimated that, on averge, transport costs account for 9 per cent of export values, in other words, for every £100 of Irish exports, £9 are attributable to transport costs, double the European average of 4.5 per cent.

The credibility of the Government on the establishment of the National Roads Authority and providing that Authority with a statutory base is very weak. Fianna Fáil first promised this Bill in 1987, over four years ago. As of February 1989 the sixth draft of the Bill had been circulated. Over four years after it had first been promised it is now introduced in this House. That indifference and neglect is matched only by the Minister's successor's complete failure to provide adequate resources to bring our roads network up to a European standard.

In the operational EC programme for infrastructural development from 1989 to 1993 there was larger support than ever from the EC for funding for roads, up to 75 per cent of a route development made available. Given that these new resources were being made available, what did the Government do? They decided to cheat the Irish motorist and EC taxpayer by substituting EC resources for Irish Exchequer funding. In fact, the Exchequer will contribute only a net 17 per cent of the cost of this five year roads programme from 1989 to 1993.

Given the tax return on the construction work in the form of PAYE and PRSI from the works this programme will generate, they will actually make a profit on their investment given the low level of capital input. This means the Exchequer will have contributed less to the construction of national roads over the period 1989 to 1993 compared with the previous five years Exchequer funding. This five-year roads programme will result in 16 per cent only of the national roads network being upgraded. It is a matter of total frustration and annoyance to the Irish transport sector, industry, agriculture and tourism that road development is such a low priority with this Government.

Fine Gael believe that, until there is a single Minister and Department of Transport dealing with all aspects of road, sea and air transport, we will not have an integrated, efficient raods transport network. At present we have a Minister for the Environment, his Department and local authorities dealing with roads and traffic matters and some degree of law enforcement in relation to them. The Minister for Transport is responsible for aviation and shipping, for semi-State companies and certain haulage issues, such as licensing regulations and laden weights. The Minister for the Marine is responsible for ports, shipping and marine issues.

I might cite the example of Denmark where they reorganised their Government Departments to ensure they would have an integrated policy by having a single Ministry for Transport dealing with all modes of transport. Those working in and dependent on the transport sector here are confused and baffled by the lack of coherence at this level of inter-departmental responsibility. We believe there should be a single Minister, acting in a coherent manner, leading to the evolvement of an efficient integrated transport network, reducing our peripherality and heading to lower transport costs. We contend this lack of coherence is one of the fundamental flaws of this Bill, that is, the total omission of infrastructural responsibility for our railways as part of the functions of the National Roads Authority.

Fine Gael believe that the National Roads Authority should have responsibility for the upgrading and maintenance of the national network of roads and railway track. Rail transport is the only form of transport where the operators, Irish Rail, have to pay the total cost of the infrastructure, the permanent way. This costs over £44 million per annum. It is a disgrace that the EC operational programme for 1989 to 1993 provides not one penny for the railways outside Dublin, although resources under that programme amount to over £1 billion. The small figure of £36 million is to be used for rolling stock in the Dublin area. All road expenditure is on the basis of 75:25 and it is shameful that not one penny was applied for in respect of the railways.

I attended a public meeting in Galway last night. People there are wondering why it takes two hours and twenty-five minutes to commute to Dublin by train. It need take only two hours if there were continuous welded rail all the way. I understand it is provided from Heuston to Portarlington, but only 18 miles of the remaining 88 miles from Portarlington to Galway are done. This work could be done at a cost of £18 million or £1.8 million over ten years. To put those figures into context, it cost £35 million to build five miles of the Athlone by-pass, while it would cost £18 million to update 70 miles of track. That illustrates the value for money provided by the rail-ways. The Minister may say it is not a matter for his Department but it is a vital infrastructural and transport issue and it underlines the weakness of ad hoc planning in relation to transport. The lines from Ballina, Westport, Castlebar, Galway and Sligo to Dublin are being downgraded by stealth through lack of investment in the permanent way. Trains can achieve speeds of 90 miles an hour on continuous welded rail but not on jointed tracks. The proposed authority should be a national roads and rail authority and should come under the aegis of the Minister for Transport.

Under successive Governments from the thirties to the sixties policy in relation to the haulage sector was designed to safeguard the position of the railways. Many changes have taken place in transport liberalisation in recent decades, particularly the legislation in the 1980s to open up the haulage sector to intense competition within the private sector. This will be added to by cabotage in terms of international competition. We will shortly have a bus competition Bill which will open up passenger services to similar intense competition in terms of fares and the scheduling of routes. The original basis of the protective legislation in terms of haulage and passenger transport services was the protection of the railways. Now that these changes have taken place, there is a compelling case for more positive support in terms of infrastructural capital grant aid to the railway sector to ensure its survival. The Government cannot ignore this problem and express surprise in years to come over the time it takes to travel from Dublin to Westport or Sligo by train and the fact that fewer people are using the services. We will be tabling a series of Committee Stage amendments to ensure that the Authority is expanded to deal with the purely infrastructural requirements of Irish Rail. This would also include the possibility of the ultimate conclusion that the solution to Dublin's transport needs is the development of a public transport network, probably a light rail system, which could come under the aegis of a national roads and rail authority.

I now refer to the independence of the Authority. I am aware that one of the reasons for the delay in bringing forward this legislation has been the internal debate whether the National Roads Authority should be an executive office within the Department of the Environment under the control of the Minister, which would merely mean the renaming and reclassification of the roads division of that Department, or the establishment of a semi-State authority independent of the Department and the Minister for the Environment. It is absolutely vital that the National Roads Authority be an independent arm of Government, acting with the singular objective to expedite the upgrading of the standard of Irish roads to a European level. They should be free to articulate views in the way, for example, that the Combat Poverty Agency do. They should also be free from political interference in relation to the prioritising of route development. Because we now have a Minister for the Environment from Cavan-Monaghan rather than Mayo, we do not want to find that primary route development moves from the west to the north-east. This is no way to plan infrastructure. We need independence of action. Knowing the Minister's record of support for the health board in his own area, I have no doubt that he would not be behind the bush in looking after his constituency needs.

It is vital that the National Roads Authority do not become another layer of bureaucracy, wedged between the Departments of the Environment and Finance on the one hand and local authorities on the other. Such a buffer might only add to the bureaucracy delays and problems of the current road construction programme. To avoid such a dilemma, it is imperative that local authorities have a strong consultative relationship with the authority and that the Government allow them to do their job on an autonomous basis. We will be tabling a number of amendments because we believe the present draft does not allow sufficient consultation with local authorities and their engineering staff. We must ensure that in terms of maintenance, local authorities will not be in a worse position financially in carrying out their responsibilities. I am referring specifically to the maintenance of former national roads which have been downgraded or bypassed. The maintenance funding to date to local authorities in respect of national primary routes has been so low that they cannot attempt to maintain the hard shoulder of such roads. Deputy Howlin will verify that the Wexford county manager recently outlined to us that for some time it has been the case that the inadequacy of funds has prevented any work on the hard shoulders of these roads. It is an acknowledged fact of policy. If under this legislation local authorities are to be given added responsibilities and delegated to do certain work, it is vital that they are not made the scapegoats for financial cutbacks and that they be given adequate resources. In this area the independence of the authority is vital. It must be ensured that the position regarding shortsighted savings does not worsen.

The procedures for compulsory purchase orders do not take account of local residential or community views which may be expressed through local public representatives. I will be seeking to insert amendments so that in the first instance compulsory purchase orders will continue to be carried out by local authorities. Only in the event of a clear conflict of views between the local authority and the National Roads Authority would the matter be taken up by the Minister, who would have to sanction such a compulsory purchase order. It is vital that we do not have unaccountable bureaucrats determining in isolation the sensitive issue of compulsory purchase orders. The track record of local councils in this regard has been fair and reasonable, bearing in mind sensitivity to local needs and the requirements of progress.

What I am saying is that in virtually every conceivable case the acquisition of land for route development should be carried out exclusively by local authorities. They should be democratically allowed to carry out their role in this regard and only in an extraordinary dispute where the local authority are being totally unreasonable should the Minister, who is accountable to this House, as opposed to the National Roads Authority, who are basically accountable to nobody, take action.

I am deeply concerned, as are my party, about Part V of the Bill which deals with toll roads. Under the Minister's proposals, the National Roads Authority will have power to levy tolls on new motorways they build, and to levy tolls on new highways they will only need the approval of the Minister. The local authority will have no say in the matter. The National Roads Authority can decide to collect the toll themselves or sell the franchise to a private company. Income earned from the tolls can be used to repay finance borrowed for road construction which under the Bill they will be allowed to raise.

Fine Gael are opposed to such sweeping powers which, in effect, amount to the possibility of new and penal taxation. That is not to say we are opposed to tolls in principle. We believe tolls should be limited to roads where there is a private investment factor only. In cases where there is total public funding, tolls should not apply. Therefore, roads which are publicly funded by Irish taxpayers and the European authorities should not be used as a vehicle for raising new Exchequer revenue. If it is necessary to supplement the existing roads programme which is publicly financed with new roads which are privately financed, they can be the subject of such a toll.

I understand there are only two toll facilities in operation at present under the Local Government (Toll Roads) Act, 1979, namely, the East Link and West Link bridges over the River Liffey. In view of the fact that the Irish road user pays the highest rates of taxation in Europe, such a major departure from existing policy should be vigorously opposed. The figures are quite startling when one combines the revenue from VAT and excise duties on petrol and auto-diesel, with VAT and excise duties on the purchase of motor vehicles as well as other taxes. Including motor taxation, this amounted to a total taxation of £1,061 million in 1988; £1,221 million in 1989 and £1,280 million in 1990. Enough is enough. More tolls for publicly funded roads can only be an additional unfair burden on the Irish road user.

To put it frankly, Irish motorists pay £3.5 million every day to the Exchequer. To put this in context, the total requirement needed to bring our roads up to the European standard by the year 2010 would be £230 million per year. When one compares this to the figure of £1,280 million one can see that the Government are taking in huge resources from motorists. The Government should not introduce a new tax by the back door which would add to transport costs on our primary, inter-city and arterial radial routes at a time when there is a huge disparity between taxation on transport North and South of the Border. I should like to give some examples of this.

The VAT rate on fuel and vehicles in the Republic is 21 per cent and 15 per cent in Northern Ireland. The excise duty on vehicles in the North is zero while it is 6.5 per cent in the South. The rate of excise duty on a hectolitre of oil is approximately 10 per cent higher in the South than in the North. When one adds to this higher insurance costs and dearer prices for parts, one can see how the haulage sector in the South are being crippled by a loss of market share to Northern Ireland hauliers and they have to cope with the existing unfair competitive base. Goods are transported from the most southerly points of the Republic — Cork and Kerry — to Larne, across to Stranraer and then to the south of England. This is illogical and means huge losses to Irish ports, such as Rosslare, Cork, Dún Laoghaire and Dublin, in terms of the central and southern corridor. The Government have already taxed haulage transport out of existence and any proposal to introduce toll roads would not only make us uncompetitive in Europe but would add a further burden to the soft touch — the Irish motorist. This would be unacceptable. If the Government wish to introduce a supplementary programme over and above that set out by the EC, the Department and the National Roads Authority, for building more toll roads, then only a modest level of toll should apply. There would also have to be strict control of the toll and a local authority input. The proposal to repeal the Local Government (Toll Roads) Act, 1979, set out in Part V, goes too far.

I wish to refer to the funding of road construction in more detail. The Department of the Environment estimate that the total cost of upgrading our national roads network to an acceptable standard would be £3.3 billion at 1987 prices. At the current level of investment this would not be achieved for 30 years. This is unacceptable. A more reasonable target would be the year 2010, which is just under 20 years away. This would require an average annual investment of approximately £230 million per annum at 1990 prices. When the Government were negotiating with the EC Commission they did not honour their original application under the plan entitled "Ireland Road Development 1989 to 1993". This envisaged a total investment of £687 million, including an Irish Government commitment of £171 million. When the operational programme was subsequently published in 1990 the total was reduced to £518 million and the Exchequer's contribution was cut by £30 million. It is shameful that the Irish Exchequer funding position should have been reduced in these circumstances.

The whole purpose of getting this money was to bring us up to a European standard. If one compares the average funding for roads projected over the five year period of the current plan with the previous five years, one can see that total annual expenditure is projected to rise by 24 per cent. However, when one takes into account that EC funding is up by 78 per cent, one can see that net State expenditure is down by 19 per cent. This deceitful, shabby and cheap substitution of funds will mean that in years to come when people look back at our preparation for the Single European Market they will see that, instead of bringing our infrastructure up to an acceptable competitive standard, we diverted the funds for current purposes in a shortsighted and irresponsible manner. It will be seen that we shored up our budgetary position with EC resources instead of using them for the purpose of providing long term meaningful benefits.

In view of this lack of commitment it is important that there is now long term planning. This is at the core of whether the National Roads Authority will be successful. Fine Gael believe that a target date of the year 2010 should now be set to implement the roads programme outlined by the EC in 1989. Furthermore, it is vital that an interim target should be set for the necessary road development being achieved by the end of the next five year programme. The present programme will run to 1993 and the next five year programme will run to 1998. What we are saying is that 60 per cent of the EC target to bring us up to a European standard should be achieved by 1998 and the total programme should be implemented by the year 2010. This minimum target should be 60 per cent of the total programme.

There should be a clear signal from this House as to what the National Roads Authority are obliged to achieve. All the road maps and routes have already been set out. The design work in terms of what needs to be done is already in place, what we need is action and implementation. To make matters worse the former Minister for the Environment, Deputy Flynn, on 6 March 1991 outlined a list of new projects to commence at that time. He announced that £114.6 million was to be invested in major road improvement schemes. There was no breakdown of this figure for new starts. Reliable industry sources suggest that some £30 million of this £114.6 million was exclusively for new projects which were to commence for the first time in 1991. I regret to say that my allegations in September that the then Minister was not honouring his commitments of 6 March have since been confirmed, despite the Minister's denials. The Minister said at the time that my claims were absolute rubbish and that I had got it wrong again. I stand over my claim that no excavation work has commenced or will commence this year on the northern cross route linking the N1 and the N3, i.e., linking the western toll bridge and Dublin Airport. Neither the Portlaoise by-pass nor work on the Euro route at Kilpeddar, Glen of the Downs will commence this year. Despite the former Minister's bluster it is quite obvious that independent constituents of the road transport industry see through this waffle. I quote from the Alliance of National Road Users press release of 11 September in which they said they were: astonished at the Minister's blanket assertion that all eight EC supported projects due to commence in 1991 were on target. They went further and stated: "The Minister's remarks are not supported by the situation on the ground". The former Minister with his age old practice of bluster and bluff has been exposed yet again.

Clearly, we have a situation whereby we are not honouring our commitments. Further information has come to hand since. The northern cross route is at least eight months behind schedule. Construction has not yet commenced on any of the following projects: the £50 million Lucan-Kilcock by-pass; the £16 million Mullingar by-pass; the £29 million Portlaoise by-pass and the improvement work at Kilmacanogue and Glen of the Downs costing £8 million. The fact is that the Minister clearly set out on 6 March the programmes that would commence this year but that is all in ribbons. There is no logical or acceptable explanation in the context of delays or tendering that will satisfy a situation whereby even the most modest programme, agreed by the EC, is not now going to be implemented. It is no wonder we are being humiliated in Europe. I will go further and draw the Minister's attention to the report of the EC Court of Auditors which oversees Community spending. It has called into question the operation of a number of EC financed schemes in Ireland. I quote from The Irish Times of 28 November 1990 — the day after the annual report of the Court of Auditors was published:

... the court criticises agricultural schemes and projects financed under the Community's regional development fund, for "sloppy management", failure to correctly apply spending rules, and the "withholding of essential information" necessary to Brussels in order to improve EC schemes.... While recent reforms of the European Regional Development Fund — which, per capita, benefits Ireland more than any other EC member state — are “much vaunted”, according to the auditors, administration of the funds has “barely improved”.

Ireland is accused in the report of receiving funds "considerably higher than its quota" for regional development. The Government's use of EC moneys for the national roads development programmes has resulted in "no significant improvement".

The whole principle of EC funding is not to give money to the Paddys — the whole principle is one of additionality, to help poorer peripheral member states to reach European standards. Yet, in a shabby and cheap way we are substituting this Euro gravy to prop up our budgetary situation.

This is not only a tragedy of neglect because of the continuing horrific series of road accidents which are the result of an inadequate national road network, but is extremely grave in so far as the EC authorities are concerned. The EC Court of Auditors are not happy with the present Government's performance in terms of road development. I should like to quote from a statement from the CII on 23 August 1991 in which they say:

The CII roads policy committee strongly urges the Minister for the Environment to take all the necessary steps to accelerate the current roads programme, so that at least the approved EC assistance for roads, up to the end of 1993, will be drawn down.

When replying on Second Stage I would like the Minister to give a commitment that all the EC moneys will be drawn down for the period up to 1993. I know questions will be raised by the Court of Auditors and by the Commission in relation to the way we have failed to keep our promises. It will be impossible to argue for increased funding after 1993 from the EC Commission when our performance has been so pathetic.

I wish to turn now to the issue of non-national roads — the 94 per cent of roads about which the average resident and tourist has so many complaints. These roads are known as regional or local roads under the reclassfication in Part II of this Bill. It is the poor standards of these roads that have made Irish roads the butt of European jokes, not to speak of the constant problem of damage to vehicles. Frustration has turned to anger among Irish motorists on this issue to the extent that in the last local elections specific single issue candidates were elected to councils — not so far from the Minister's area — on the issue of the state of our county roads. Total road mileage throughout the country is 57,000. County or regional roads comprise roughly 53,600 miles of that total. Local authorities have been squeezed in their budgetary situations since the abolition of domestic rates in 1979. The domestic rates support grant from central government in lieu of revenue from household rates has not kept pace with local authority requirements or inflation. Local authorities faced with this position cannot reduce expenditure in many areas of fixed administrative overheads such as the running of the fire brigade service, housing administration, insurance and so on. Even though there has been some increase in the discretionary non-national road grants from the Department of the Environment to local authorities, the total level of expenditure on minor roads has not been adequate. The grant in 1991 was £68.13 million. Most local authorities are down to a resurfacing cycle of county roads of over 25 years, in some cases it is as high as 37 years. Essentially, this is a problem of resources. The present funding mechanisms are not working.

Fine Gael believe that a local roads fund should be established to maintain and improve non-national primary routes. This would be made up of receipts from motor taxation paid to local authorities. In 1991 revenue from this source to local authorities was £161 million. I understand that currently total expenditure on non-national roads for 1991 was made up of a total of £130 million — £80 million by way of grants from the Department of the Environment to local authorities and £50 million from the internal budgets of local authorities. If the grants system were to be replaced by allowing the motor tax receipts to be used in this way funding would be increased by some £31 million this year. I suggest we abolish the road grants for non-national roads, do away with that administration and use the motor tax receipts which would be spent exclusively on the basis of mileage. A minimum level of funding of £160 million is needed to resolve the problem that can only otherwise get worse as time passes. Savings made in the short term on the maintenance of our county roads will have to be paid for in years to come. The level of expenditure should be based exclusively and solely on mileage of county roads in each administrative area or county. Local authorities would not be allowed to divert such funding into other areas of their activity. Unless a political commitment is given for a new funding mechanism of this kind there will be no progress, only deterioration, on the issue. This is an area where radical reform is required.

After the abolition of rates in 1979 we had the domestic rates support grant. The previous Minister, Deputy Flynn, in the late eighties introduced the notion of discretionary grants for non-national roads. This has been increased dramatically to a level of £80 million, but it is still not enough. There is a huge variation in the quality of minor roads in different counties. We must have uniformity throughout the country and we must have quality roads. This can only be achieved with a proper resurfacing and maintenance cycle. We all know that dumper trucks putting a bit of tar and chippings here and there is not the solution to the problem of potholes. We need a new funding mechanism. On the basis of the principle that the user pays, there will be broad acceptance by motorists that the bigger the car the more one pays and that this money should contribute to the local authority setting up a local roads fund which will not be diverted to any other area.

When one takes into account the abolition of road grants and the £30 million that would normally go to the Exchequer from the local authorities, a total of £160 million will have to be paid by the Exchequer for roads. Unless such an investment is made some county councils will have to apply the abandonment clause in this Bill to some roads. Roads are capital assets which have to be maintained. If not, the strengthening work which will be needed in future will be even more expansive.

On Committee Stage, Fine Gael will submit proposals for a road audit of each local authority by the National Roads Authority. It is vital to have a cost benefit analysis as to the value for money being obtained by local authorities in their expenditure on roads. Such an analysis should be carried out on a biannual basis to show regional variations in contractors' prices and the relative merits and demerits of using private contractors as against permanent council staff. I do not have an ideological view on whether the councils should use their own resources or private contractors. If we were totally dependent on private contractors there would be a rip-off. The contractors would get together and agree not to compete on price. As against that, we can achieve better work practices and greater efficiencies if we have clear cost comparisons between private contractors and the cost of maintenance by local authorities. The objective of the road audit would be to arrive at uniform costings for each local authority in terms of strengthening and road surfacing works.

In my analysis of different counties with regard to road problems, grants and so on, not all the problems can be accounted for in financial terms. Although the mileage is the same for funding in each county we have a deplorable disparity in the quality of roads. At a recent meeting I was told that the number of engineers in one local authority exceeded the number of road workers. I do not know if that is true but an audit would highlight this and it would include the performance aspect, to ensure that roads are brought to an acceptable standard in each area. It is not good enough to leave comparisons as to the quality of our road network to a pothole competition on the "Gay Byrne Hour". We need an appropriate inspection process that would show up local authorities who are not doing their job properly.

We will also table amendments on Committee Stage to deal with the annoyance and irritation that many road users endure due to disruption to traffic from road openings. This applies particularly in metropolitan urban areas. I am referring to road works carried out by other than road authorities or local authorities, including the ESB, An Bord Gáis, work on water supplies and works done by other private contractors. We need order in this chaos where vital roads in our cities are repeatedly opened, causing delays, traffic congestion and hardship to motorists. We will seek a licence or permit system for such road openings which will have clear cost penalties for delays in completing the works or for a failure to replace the roadway satisfactorily. Ordinary motorists find nothing more frustrating than being stuck behind some little plastic tent erected by Telecom Éireann or An Bord Gáis reducing three lane roads to one lane of traffic so that people cannot get to work on time or keep appointments.

In Dublin, for instance we need a licensing system so that utilities cannot open up roads at will. Various authorities should have to work together when roads are opened and there should be penalties for delays. Companies should not be able to work at their leisure. They should have to pay a fine if the work is not completed quickly or if the road is not repaired properly. There is no reason the local authorities should have to bear the cost of replacing roads due to the sloppy workmanship of other State bodies.

In terms of road prioritisation and overall road strategy, it is imperative that we give priority to the roads that connect to our seaports. We are an island economy with a very high dependence on foreign trade. We export more than 70 per cent of everything we produce and we rely on seaports for the movement of 99.8 per cent of our overseas trade. Our dependence on foreign trade is higher than that of the UK, Japan or the US. Our dependence is the highest in the EC, except for Belgium and Luxembourg. Our European partners have a market on their doorsteps. They also have access to high speed rail, motorways and inland waterways to transport their goods while we are totally dependent on our seaports.

Following the opening of the Channel Tunnel in 1992 we will be the only country without a landlink to the European Continent. Road access to Dublin Port is poor, adding considerably to access costs while Belfast, Larne and Warrenpoint are served by ports and/or dual carriageway systems. Our principal ports of Dublin, Rosslare, Waterford and Cork should have the highest priority for haulage and tourism access to have the most beneficial impact on reducing our transport costs. One of the disadvantages Irish ports and Irish shipping services suffer relative to the services operated in Northern Ireland, and particularly through Larne, is the infrequency of sailings. Traffic congestion and failure to meet departure times on shipping schedules imposes huge cost penalties. Therefore the highest priority in terms of road development is our links into and out of our commercial seaports. This is absolutely critical.

In terms of competing demands, should it be political constituency pressure that determines on which routes the money is to be spent? I believe not. It is up to this House to state the priorities. Dublin Port, for instance accounts for 7.5 million tonnes of trade, or 40 per cent of all exports, and employs some 5,000 people within an 800 acre compound. Dublin Port is absolutely vital. One of the problems is that it is clogged up. One of the reasons people use Larne instead of Dublin Port — and the same would apply to Dún Laoghaire — is that there are may be one or two sailings a day by Sealink or the B & I Line whereas there is a sailing every half hour from Larne. If someone is trying to meet a 9 o'clock sailing here and gets stuck in traffic in the city centre they have to wait 12 hours for the next sailing. This causes huge problems for all the "just-in-time" modern concepts of the manufacturing industry which is to keep one's stock levels as low as possible and one's cash flow as tight as possible in producing a given product at a given time. I know from my own constituents the frustration of people in, for example, the mushroom business or the fresh fruit and vegetable business, who are trying to meet very tight deadlines for the Tescos and Sainsburys because of delays and holdups on our sailings. The first priority must be the roads to our ports.

In relation to Part VI of the Bill concerning the prohibition of temporary dwellings on national roads and other unauthorised activities on the side of the roads, I would like to make two points. First, I believe it should be an offence to have a wandering animal on a roadway. There have been too many horrific accidents, particularly from wandering horses, for this problem to be ignored any longer. The existing Animals Acts and the powers of the Garda and local authorities are inadequate, as are the penalties for such wandering animals which are extremely dangerous to the motoring public. I would like to dwell on this for a moment. Some areas have a more severe problem than others in relation to wandering horses.

The Island.

That is a problem on its own.

It is a local problem immediately adjacent to Deputy Yates.

That is right and it was adjacent to another Member of another House, but I will not go into that.

The fact is that if a horse, or often a herd of horses, is wandering along the M11 or the N17 and someone decides to drive them off the road and into a field belonging to an adjoining landowner, or lets the horses wander onto that land, if they come out of the farmer's land, he is responsible for any accident, even though he may never have known about it and was not negligent. Leaving aside the fact that in my own constituency there have been some horrific, totally unacceptable events, where small children in housing estates have been kicked and injured by wandering horses, we need to ensure that the law is strengthened in this area. On Committee Stage, I will ask the Minister to use this legislation to take very tough and rigorous action to ensure that, people who have no land and have no intention of taking out any land, let their horses run loose, there would be strict penalties for forfeiture for owners of such animals if they are found on a national primary route or any route, because not only is there danger to motorists but there is the crazy situation where innocent people can be found guilty if there is an accident. The people who own the horses know this well but they put these horses on to someone's land because they know that if the landowner puts them off he will be responsible if there is an accident.

Second, some flexibility is needed in relation to some of the prohibitions the Minister is providing for. There is a need to create a facility in this Bill where certain roadside trading, in limited circumstances, on a seasonal basis, would be allowed. I would envisage some regulations being introduced by local authorities on a permit basis that would allow people to, for example, sell strawberries, potatoes or other fruit or vegetables in season. This is the custom in my constituency of Wexford. I am sure anyone who has travelled from Dublin to Rosslare has seen very attractive displays well in off the hard shoulder, people minding their own business, and ample space for parking, but this is only for a couple of weeks in the year. Obviously, there would be a problem on high speed motorways and we should adopt a different attitude, but on the ordinary primary route that has a single carriageway there should be a facility where somebody could get a permit from a local authority. I have had a number of people in touch with me who feel that the powers of this Bill are too rigid, too inflexible and should allow for certain seasonal trade.

There are other small traders who are not really a road hazard selling vegetables and, in some settings, they can add to the amenity and the attractiveness of certain areas. Perhaps the Minister would consider allowing some flexibility by the introduction of a new section in this Part to encompass such activities.

In case I do not get back to it later, there is a section in the Bill which allows a new franchise to be set up for roadside activities. The Minister does not specify what he has in mind, whether it is to regulate this new development where chip vans are setting up on roads as fast food outlets. When one thinks about it one realises that it is nearly all articulated trucks that are parked beside these laybys because there is no place in towns for the drivers to park so that they can get something to eat. Is that what the Minister intends to regulate or what is proposed? This needs to be looked at and I would favour local authorities and public representatives on the ground being given responsibility in this area.

I would like to turn now to the membership of the National Roads Authority. It is not clear from section 34 of the Bill how the Minister proposes to fill the ten to 14 person membership. In order to ensure that this Authority has a certain dynamic, it is essential that road users form an essential part of any appointees. I ask the Minister to give a commitment to appoint representatives from some of the following organisations: the CII, the Irish Road Hauliers' Association, some agricultural interests, tourism interests, the SIMI, the Irish Ports Association and Irish Rail, local authority representation and perhaps a nominee of either or both the General Council of County Councils and the Association of Municipal Authorities.

The Minister made no reference to this in his speech and he seems to have total discretion in this matter. I believe that in terms of harmony with local authorities, they should have an avenue in which to have an input into the National Roads Authority. Most of all I believe this roads programme, roads construction and roads policy unit should be driven on a consumer/transport demand basis. The people who know best what is required are not in ivory towers, they are not designers or engineers but they are using the roads.

It is important that the staff of this Authority be of the highest calibre and the remuneration for the chief executive should be generous to attract such a person. I will also be seeking to include an amendment that any transfers of staff from either the Department of the Environment or the local authority to the National Roads Authority would be done without compulsion and that any such transfers would involve voluntary consent and the agreement of such staff. That is absolutely vital. We will be seeking to amend the Bill so that the consent of the staff or their trade union would be required. I do not believe we should get off on the wrong foot in terms of insisting that staff be transferred because they have a lifetime service in the roads section of the Department of the Environment or wherever.

The relationship between the Minister for the Environment and the Authority is unclear. I note that the Confederation of Irish Industry in their statement when the Bill was published referred to this point. I would like to refer to their press release in which the former Minister stated that the Authority will report directly to him. The Bill is silent on this point. Certain sections give the Minister huge powers in relation to the range of work of the Authority or works that he may remove from the Authority. Therefore I am seeking clarification as to what the role of the Minister will be in relation to the Authority. The Bill should be amended to establish that the Authority will report directly to the Minister.

We also envisage the Authority being independent in so far as they would be given a block grant and would decide, as they see fit, which route developments should receive priority. In this regard the inclusion of section 39 seems to be extraordinary. If we fail to get a satisfactory explanation we will seek to have it deleted. It seems to give the Minister the power to direct the Authority in relation to any of their functions as he sees fit. On an initial reading it seems, if the section is to be implemented fully, the Authority will be a mere puppet and it will therefore undermine their independence. Essentially, Fine Gael are in favour of the National Roads Authority reporting directly to the Minister, having autonomy in carrying out their functions, being adequately staffed with people of high calibre and having sufficient finance to complete the required investment programme in the shortest possible time frame.

It is obvious, given any analysis of the number of cars per population throughout Western Europe, with Ireland having an average of 4.7 persons per car as against the European average of 2.7 persons per car, that the number of cars in this country will continue to grow. It is vital that our roads be adequate to meet this increased growth. On this basis, Fine Gael will not oppose the Bill on Second Stage but we will be seeking on Committee Stage a commitment that the Government are prepared to ensure that this new Authority will have the resources to do their job effectively. We will be seeking to strengthen the Authority, where necessary, while allowing consultations with local authorities. Most of all, we will be seeking to give them a timetable within which to provide for this country a road network which is on a par with those of our European competitor countries.

I would like to respond briefly to some of the points made by the Minister and to raise some specific points which I would like him to take up so as to avoid unnecessary amendments. As I said, we will be tabling amendments to ensure that the definitions will encompass the activities of the rail service. In relation to the definition of "maintenance", which is defined in section 2 of the Bill — this is a vital issue — will the Minister say whether public lighting will be included, given that public lighting forms a vital aspect of road safety? If traffic signs and the design of roads are included so, too, should public lighting. The motions which have been passed ad nauseam year after year at the annual conferences of the Association of Municipal Authorities of Ireland and the General Council of County Councils show that they have sought continually the inclusion of public lighting on national primary routes, the 6 per cent of routes which will come under the aegis of this Authority.

Part II of the Bill, section 10, deals with the classification of roads and the assignment of functions, and provides for three types of road, national, regional and local. Would the Minister clarify whether a national secondary road will be considered a national regional road? The Minister should take the opportunity to upgrade a number of roads, given that the local authorities acquired properties along many roads even though they had not got the go-ahead from the Department because they had not been reclassified. Therefore, I would like the broadest possible interpretation to be put on a national primary road, and I ask the Minister to clarify where what is currently a national secondary road will fit in. I would also like the Minister to indicate by whom and on what basis the roads will be reclassified. Will it be done by the Minister or by the National Roads Authority?

Section 10 (2) (a) states that "the Minister may make regulations prescribing classes of public roads ... making provision for the assignment of responsibility for the maintenance and construction of such classes of public roads" and so on, but I think he should also make regulations providing for an assessment of the physical quality of national roads. I have received as I am sure the other spokes-persons for the other parties have, representations from engineers associations, including the association of county engineers of local authorities, seeking to ensure that they do not get a raw deal and be expected to do a job which is impossible within a certain budget. A new subparagraph (iii) should be inserted in subsection (2) (a) to provide that an assessment of all national roads be part of the work of the Authority.

I would also like the Minister to clarify the position in regard to rural areas. Work carried out in rural areas initially under a local improvements scheme often involves the district committees of the local authorities or the ward committees surfacing a route for the first time with a contribution from local residents. Will the declaration of a public road be made at that stage or at what point will a local authority be able to take a road in charge? Section 11 (5) states that a certificate of a roads authority that a road is a public road shall be prima facie evidence thereof. Does that mean a certificate will be issued after a local improvements scheme has been carried out?

I am very concerned about section 12 which deals with the abandonment of public roads. A new procedure is being put in place whereby it will be easier to abandon public roads. I do not know if it is Government policy to abandon public roads in rural areas or what the intention is but section 12 (2) (a) states that a road authority shall publish in one or more newspapers where the public road proposed to be abandoned is located and that if objections are made an oral hearing shall be held, to be conducted by a person appointed by the Authority for that purpose. I am not happy with this provision. It is all very well to have an oral hearing and to listen to someone's point of view but if at the end of the day, regardless of the objections made, they decide to go ahead with the plan, the procedure will be just a sham and a whitewash. Section 12 should be amended to provide that a decision by a local authority to abandon a public road would require a clear majority. It could well be the case that either a county manager, the National Roads Authority or some other faceless bureaucrat would decide at will to abandon roads with the idea that, having decided a few years ago that local authorities should no longer be responsible for hedge cutting, the people who use county roads should be responsible for them and that the local residents should get in touch with Roadstone and do the resurfacing work themselves. Certainly some whiz kid in the Department of Finance will think up that idea. Therefore there must be local democracy and the abandoning of a public road, should be a reserved function of local authority members. Only in exceptional circumstances should the Minister be able to over-ride it. I would like the Minister to indicate what exactly he has in mind.

I have also received representations from the same engineers' associations in relation to the amount of money to be set aside for roads which are to be downgraded; in other words what will the position be with regard to maintenance works on a residual road which was a main road before a by-pass was built? Will local authorities receive additional resources, because it is often taken for granted that they will maintain it?

Section 13 could be strengthened by making provision for additional consultations. It should be obligatory that consultations be held annually between the engineering staff of local authorities and members to ensure there is no misunderstanding over the amount necessary for maintenance works. Section 13 is quite explicit and states that road authorities, namely local authorities, can be burdened with this. It is envisaged that local authorities will be responsible for carrying out maintenance work. Therefore there should be an obligation on the National Roads Authority, before allocating finance, to consult to find out what will be required. That level of consultation is not built into the Bill.

The Bill refers to urban district councils — they are very dear to my heart — which I understand the Government intend to abolish. That is ludicrous, undemocratic and unfair. The Government intend to replace them, in the typical slavish pursuit of what they have done in Britain, by mock district councils which do not have a role or meaningful involvement, as opposed to the special needs of urban and municipal areas, which have stood the test of time for generations.

Hear, hear.

Throughout the Bill the almost extinct species of urban district councils are referred to. What will happen when they are abolished? Will the Minister clarify whether he intends on Committee Stage to completely redraft the Bill bearing in mind the whim of the Minister for Energy, Deputy Molloy, on the day?

We will be tabling amendments to try to set up the local roads fund. In relation to section 15, any amendment I might table which would be a cost on the Exchequer would be ruled out of order under the Standing Orders of this House. However, section 15 needs to be strengthened; it should specifically state, as part of the powers of the Minister, that he could issue directions and guidelines to a road authority and provide sufficient finance for such matters as the hard shoulder to which I referred earlier. As subsection (1) stands local authorities are vulnerable to being made scapegoats because of budgetary restraint.

In his speech, referring to section 17, the Minister said that any additional functions he might give to the National Roads Authority would be with the express approval of the Dáil and Seanad; I have read section 17 carefully and I cannot see any mention of the Dáil or Seanad. Where is it specifically provided for? Subsection (3) states that the Minister may make regulations providing that any function relating to national roads conferred on him or on a road authority under any enactment ... or on the Commissioner of the Garda Síochána under the Road Traffic Acts, 1961 to 1987 shall, where the Minister is satisfied that the function could be more effectively performed by the Authority, in lieu of being performed by him or by that authority or by the Commissioner, be performed by the Authority with effect from a date specified in the regulations. Is it envisaged that a new road traffic corps will be established in the functions of the Authority? It is certainly something worth considering but I should like to be told explicitly what new functions will be devolved in relation to the former functions of the Garda Commissioner. We will be looking for a timetable for the implementation of the roads construction programme.

There are omissions in section 19 which need to be addressed. At present they are listed from (a) to (g). Will the Minister consider on Committee Stage adding specific functions in relation to road safety, specific legal responsibility for training local authority staff in relation to the above function and a specific duty to comply with the harmonisation of EC road standards and markings? I am not an expert on engineering but I have been advised that one of the problems engineers face in relation to new road development is the carrying out of testing of soils and materials. This should be a specific function of the Authority, particularly in relation to bridge construction.

We are setting up a body which will not be accountable. For example, if it was decided that the Minister's Department, in conjunction with the local authority, acquired property belonging to a friend of Fianna Fáil, a Member of this House or whatever, and an outlandish price was paid for it, we could harangue the Minister in this House and raise it at local authority level. It strikes me that there are not checks and balances in the system in relation to the acquisition of property. Human nature being what it is, consideration should be given to tabling an amendment which states that the acquisition of land would not be at a greater value than a maximum value set out by the Valuation Office. They are the State body who have the expertise in relation to valuing property. I am talking about instances which would not involve compulsory purchase orders; some limit should be set to ensure that there is no room for abuse.

As I mentioned earlier in relation to acquisition of land in section 20, we will be seeking an assurance that any compulsory purchase order will have an element of consent by the local authorities. There must be local democracy at this level. There should be a specific requirement on the Authority in section 20 to liaise with local authorities on road plans. Section 20 (5) (a) states that subject to paragraph (b), where a road authority refuses or fails to comply with a direction under subsection (1), the Authority may, notwithstanding any other enactment and in any case in which it appears to it that the circumstances so warrant, decide to perform the function specified in the direction subject to such modifications (if any) as it considers appropriate. The word "it" should be replaced by the words "the Minister" because it is for the National Roads Authority, as I understand it, to give local authorities a kick up the transom and to assume their own role if they are not satisfied with their performance. Section 21 should also include the railways.

The road audit should be included in a separate section whereby it would be a direct function of the National Roads Authority to oversee, in a professional competent way, the value-for-money and performance of local authorities. There should also be a new section to deal with road openings.

Deputy Howlin will recall that in the Child Care Act discrepancies between "may" and "shall" featured very prominently. In section 26 I cannot understand why the Minister for Finance, after consultation with the Minister, "may" guarantee the funding. It should read, "shall" guarantee the funding. Section 28 deals with the membership of the Authority. I should like to see a specific mention of certain groups and I am open to suggestions as to which would be the most worthy. However, I do not think that political hacks should be appointed to the Authority. The Authority will be a multi-billion pound operation and, therefore, we must have people of the highest calibre and competence. There is also need to represent ports and other strategic aspects of our infrastructural development. In section 30 consent of the Minister to staff transfers should not be obligatory. Similarly in section 31 consent of the Minister should not be obligatory.

When the Department of Posts and Telegraphs ran our telecommunications and postal service, it was possible for employees or people involved with that Department to become Members of this House and of local authorities. Section 34 (2) provides that where a person is even nominated as a candidate in a county council election, that person would immediately be precluded from having any association with the National Roads Authority. Unless there is a very good argument why a person should not stand for election while he is an employee of the National Roads Authority, that provision is not necessary. We will be considering very carefully the penalties, terms of disclosure of interest and confidential information in relation to tendering and so on. We will be seeking a legal provision where a person would immediately have to resign his position on the Authority if there is breach of any of the provisions in these sections.

Section 39 gives extraordinary powers to the Minister to do as he sees fit. It provides that the Minister may give a direction in writing to the Authority in relation to any of the functions assigned to them by or under this Act and the Authority shall comply with the direction. It also states that the Minister may give policy, financial or other guidelines to the Authority in relation to the performance of the functions assigned to them. If a literal interpretation is taken of section 39, all the other sections would seem highly irrelevant in that the Authority would be a puppet of the Minister. It would be just a renaming of the existing roads section of the Department of the Environment. I will certainly be seeking to ensure that that provision is modified or deleted. While there should be general flexibility in order that we do not have to come back with new legislation every time extra powers are required, there is no need for the Minister to be able to wave a stick and give a direction to remove any of the functions of the Authority as he sees fit.

In relation to protected roads, I understand that the Local Government (Roads and Motorways) Act, 1974, is being amended. I would like a proper definition of a protected road, how it varies from existing roads and whether all public roads will be defined as protected roads. Section 43 deals with this matter, but it is not clear from that section what category of road is referred to.

In relation to the start-up time of the Authority I have referred to the fact that it took four years, from the time Fianna Fáil first promised this Bill, for the Bill to be brought before the House. There is a question as to when the Authority would come into being. I believe that a deadline of 1 March should be clearly set out in the legislation. I support all the aspects relating to implementation of European Directives on environmental impact assessments and so on. Section 15 relates to the acquisition of land and is a matter of concern. Local authorities should retain a reserved function in that regard.

I have received representations from the engineers' association that there should be a clear legal provision for lane rental for the period under which construction works are carried out. There is no legal provision for this at present. There should be a fixed period during which the part of the roadway on which the works are being carried out would be transferred to the developer or constructor. I referred earlier to the service areas which are dealt with under section 52 of the Bill. I would like to know what is included in this section. Are we talking about catering facilities, chip vans or other large vehicles? What exactly is envisaged?

We will be opposing nearly all of Part V of the Bill. Toll roads should not be a back door to new taxation given the existing appalling levels of VAT, excise duty and other taxation. We will be seeking to insert a new section to provide that it will be an offence if an animal, including a horse, is found wandering on the road, given the appalling accidents that result from stray animals, and the owner will be held responsible.

My party have taken a very constructive attitude to this Bill. We believe it has fundamental flaws. The opportunity has not been taken to co-ordinate transport policy in that there is no reference to one Minister dealing with all transport matters. Now is the time to do this. Roads, aviation, haulage, shipping and ports should come under one Department.

We need to refer to the decline of our railways and ensure that all future EC programmes include funding for rail-ways, unlike the present programme which does not provide one penny for railways outside Dublin. There should be a natural roads and rail authority to deal with that issue. There should be a clear timetable for investment and a programme should be set up to bring our roads up to European standards.

I have outlined in chapter and verse how the previous Minister and this Government have failed to do anything other than substitute EC funds to shore up their own budgetary position. They did not use these once-off funds to the benefit of a lasting infrastructure. Instead they breached the principle of additionality. We will be supporting the Bill on Second Stage even though there are fundamental flaws in it. At the end of the day we want to ensure that we have the most modern and up-to-date transport infrastructure and a competitive transport sector.

I join Deputy Yates in wishing the new Minister for the Environment well — I hoped he would be here today. There is a sense of déjà vu about the old team of Deputy Yates, the Minister, Deputy O'Hanlon, and me addressing this issue as we also spoke on Health for some time. I hope our achievements in the environmental brief will be more rewarding, from the Opposition perspective, although in the health area we had our moments. Perhaps the Minister of State will convey our good wishes to the Minister. I hope that in his very difficult brief he will meet with some success. In the initial week or two of his Ministry he has faced problems which obviously will have to be addressed — I am referring to the funding of local authorities.

The National Roads Authority Bill has been long promised and long awaited. Finally we have an opportunity to address the core issues of the main transport arteries. I will begin by quoting from the Programme for Economic and Social Progress agreed between the Government and the social partners in January of this year. The section headed “Roads and National Development” puts our position clearly enough. It states:

Roads are the predominant form of internal transport accounting for 96% of passenger travel and over 90% of freight travel. National primary roads which represent less than 3% of the road network account for 26% of road traffic; two-thirds of traffic on national primary roads being work-related. A review by the Department of the Environment estimated the long-term development of the road network would require an expenditure of approximately £9 billion, of which £3 billion related to national primary roads. Roads are one of the few remaining areas of our national infrastructure that are seriously deficient and because of their dominant role in internal transport, investment in them is essential to improving the competitiveness of the Irish economy vis-à-vis other EC member states.

It is a truism that Ireland is an island and during the course of 1993 when the channel tunnel is completed we will become the only remaining island nation in the EC. All other EC member states will have direct rail links with other member states for the conduct of trade, importing and exporting goods. It is quite clear that we will have to address this fundamental problem in the context of our rate of unemployment which stands at 265,000 people, one of the highest percentage rates of unemployment in the EC. People over the age of 60 years and those on training courses are discounted from the figure of unemployed so as to ensure we do not have an unacceptably high unemployment figure. There is a strongly held view that next year we will have an unemployment figure of 300,000 people and it is clear that we will need to have a very comprehensive solution to that problem. Transport is an integral part of that solution.

Access transport costs a huge amount of money and places an inordinate burden on the business community of this country. It has already been pointed out that we are a trading nation and are more dependent than countries like Britain, Japan or the United States on our export earnings. Access transport is a fundamental and crucial issue and was recognised as such in the National Development Plan which was submitted by the Irish Government to the EC in March 1989. I should like to quote the following extract from that document:

It is estimated that transport costs for Irish exporters to Europe account for between 9 per cent and 10 per cent of export sales values and that these costs are approximately twice those incurred by Community countries trading with one another on the European mainland. This cost penalty applies to the great bulk of Ireland's international trade not only exports but also imports of materials and capital goods.

Last week during the debate on the Maastricht Summit, we discussed the implications of the completion of the internal market and the next phase of European development and integration, where we move, as the Charter states, towards ever closer union. That ever closer union may well be a fact of life for the other member states but it is not a fact of life for us, hampered as we are by the very inadequate and costly access routes to our EC partners.

We will have to have very clear coherent policies if the objective of cohesion that we spoke about for two days last week, and which the Taoiseach has put as the foremost essential objective of our demands at Maastricht, is to be achieved. In a statement earlier this year, the EC Commissioner for Regional Policy, Mr. Bruce Millan pointed out as a result of studies carried out by his directorate in the Community that the average GDP per head of population ratio of the ten most prosperous regions in the Community is two-and-a-half to three times greater than the average GDP per head of population ratio in the ten poorest. There is a huge gap between the wealth of the poorest and the wealth of the richest in the Community. This gap is not narrowing; in fact, it is widening and many of the measures we will take will exacerbate this. What must be at the core of this debate is a mechanism in the transport field to offset that inequality.

We have to start on the basis that this legislation deals with one sector of the problem, namely road transport. We are not dealing with our national roads system in a comprehensive way but with 6 per cent of it to be exact. Of course this is a crucial 6 per cent, it is the life blood of our business community. It is the mechanism we have to get our goods to the ferryports and from there on to our markets abroad. We cannot deal with the problem if we talk in terms of road transport in isolation.

It has long been said that we need an integrated transport policy and not one that suggests that the high cost of transport and our isolation from the market can be addressed by solving the problem of road transport alone. That will not be the case. If we manage, as I hope we do, to have the best internal transport system in the world which will get our goods to the ferryports, we still need to solve problems in our ferryports and access difficulties from there on or we will still be at nought.

A number of issues need to be addressed and I hope they will be addressed in an integrated way. I had hoped for clearer proposals on an integrated transport policy dealing not only with the issue of our main national arteries but with our railway system. Those who listened to the radio this morning will have heard people express their frustration with our inadequate rail service. We have the ridiculous situation that on mainline routes there is a speed restriction to a maximum of 50 miles per hour. Indeed, in parts of the country tracks are being taken up to strengthen tracks on another route. The system is being cannibalised instead of trying to put into place a decent rail transport system. It would certainly be cost effective in terms of land usage and of its impact on the environment. Rail transport is infinitely more efficient and sensitive to the environment than road transport yet Government policy basically ignores the whole issue of rail transport. That is to our eternal shame.

No significant State funds or, more particularly, funds provided under the sub-programme on peripherality of the EC are being invested in our rail system. A transport solution that addresses roads in isolation is incomplete and unacceptable and will untimately fail to meet the real threats to this country. The real threat is that our life blood, our young people will be sucked out of this country into the heart of job rich wealthy Europe. That will continue at an exacerbated pace if we do not address the issues I have outlined.

The management of our national roads programme is important. The National Roads Authority were established on an interim non-statutory basis on 20 July 1988 and the promised legislation to put them on a statutory footing was promised a long time ago. I have said in the past that we have suffered greatly from a patchwork approach to our national roads system. We could all instance cases in which an efficient, progressive, development-led local authority that handled their road system well, were situated adjacent to a local authority that were not so good in that regard, resulting immediately in a bottleneck.

The analogy establishing a national artery of roads must be the national grid for electricity, the national gas pipeline or the efforts put in from the mid-1970s onwards in establishing a national telecommunications link. A telecommunications link was co-ordinated, resourced and was put up as a priority. In the mid 1970s Ireland moved from having one of the most backward telecommunications systems to one of the best systems in the world by having a co-ordinated interlinked system and a resource commitment towards achieving that goal. The roads system requires nothing less. It requires professional co-ordination and very significant sums of money in order to achieve that.

I have said that different bottlenecks cannot be allowed to thwart the objective of a smooth roads network. For example, those of us from the south-east know that until very recently it was very frustrating trying to travel from Wexford or Rosslare to Cork. There was a very good roads system for most of that journey, but there was a narrow band in the middle of Kilkenny county where the road was not a priority. The result was a horrendous road from New Ross to Waterford. That stretch of road was in the care of Kilkenny County Council and the road was not a priority for them — it was a link between Waterford, Cork and Wexford but since it was not a link for Kilkenny the county council neglected it for a long time. I am thankful that that problem has finally been remedied. Such bottlenecks occur throughout the country, and I believe there is a need for co-ordination and clear planning. Obviously, none of that work could be done without proper resources, either.

Deputy Yates mentioned the position in another EC country, Denmark. I should also like to comment on the position in Denmark because that country is a reasonable example for Ireland to study closely. I shall not deal with the integrated transport ministry Deputy Yates talked about but it is something I support very strongly. That is what I mean when I say Ireland needs an integrated transport policy led by an integrated transport ministry that knows what it wants to achieve and knows that it does not do that in isolation but in an integrated way.

I wish to talk about the way the roads system in Denmark is structured. Denmark is a small EC country like ours and it has many of the same problems in relation to resources. It is not gas rich or rich in other resources and it is a very large agricultural producer, like ourselves. Thus, Denmark is a good country to study.

Under the Danish Road Act, 1972, national roads were divided into three categories. Category 1 consisted of 4,600 kilometres of main roads, which included the motorways. That national road network is administered by the Road Directorate, which would be the equivalent of a National Roads Authority and which operates as an integral part of the Transport Ministry. The Roads Directorate has a statutory basis for its operation and for its financing. The second category of roads is 6,500 kilometres of regional roads, administered by 14 regional authorities. The 55,500 kilometres of local roads fall into the third category, those roads being administered by Denmark's 275 local authorities.

To go slightly off at a tangent, it is interesting that there are 275 local authorities, sub-regional authorities, in a country such as Denmark, which is geographically much smaller than ours. Note should be taken of that fact when the House tries to nobble some of our own small local authorities in other measures that have been threatened, or promised, will come before the House.

Each of the previously mentioned levels of public administration in Denmark is responsible for the roads network that is assigned to it within the mandate received from central Government. The responsibility of administration is properly resourced. Denmark provides a reasonable model for Ireland to examine. The National Roads Authority would have responsibility for the main artery roads and they would have proper resources to put the framework together; the regional roads would be the subject of the new regional authorities which will, it is to be hoped, be set up now that the Local Government Act is the law of the land, and county roads would be the responsibility of county councils.

I now wish to talk about county roads. The state of most of our county roads is nothing short of scandalous. The issue is horrendous, with engineers pulling their hair trying to put a patch together to make roads passable. In desperation, many local authorities have threatened to simply abandon county roads and put up a sign: "This road has been abandoned by your local authority. Progress at your own peril." The national roads issue needs to be rectified and, as I say repeatedly, it cannot be addressed in isolation. Transport must be the issue, and it must be addressed in an integrated fashion.

A cycle of resurfacing county roads that varies from 25 years to 40 years in some instances is completely unacceptable. The level of frustration among the general public is clear. Several counties indicated that the electorate would not stand idly by and allow communities to become isolated, to be physically cut off, or to be forced to take extraordinary, roundabout routes when trying to do their business and get on with their daily lives. The county roads system has to be examined.

It is interesting to look at the percentage of expenditure on roads. Under the EC sub-peripherality expenditure programme on all transport modes, 62 per cent of the money spent goes towards the national primary roads. The balance is divided between all the other kinds of transport, from regional airports to regional and county roads, with 13 per cent of the total going on non-national roads. That position needs to be remedied. We should remember the old saying, a stitch in time saves nine. The neglect of the county roads system will be extremely expensive in years to come because when the fabric of the roads is destroyed we will no longer be talking about the surfacing of roads but about building roads from scratch. Unfortunately, that is a problem now faced by many local authorities.

People should not have to hope that a representative from their local county becomes Minister for the Environment in order that their roads might be saved, which message came across this morning. Every county deserves to be treated in like manner.

I wish to make another point in relation to county roads. I do not mind being parochial on occasion and I think Deputy Yates shares a certain sense of frustration that County Wexford came at the bottom of the list of county road grants per kilometre—

And Mayo.

Last year Wexford county received fewer pounds per kilometre than any other county.

And Mayo and Offaly.

In fact, Mayo was not nearly as well off as Offaly. It is significant that the county of the Minister for the Environment was very close to the top of the list. Fair play to the man, but we all deserve to be treated in like manner.

That happens to someone all the time.

Wexford, as a county, has decided that county roads are a priority. Always we have funded them substantially from own resources, I might add own resources that were extraordinarily scarce, but we cannibalised and attacked other programmes so that we would have sufficient money to maintain our county roads at some standard. The principle seems to have been, the more money one spends on roads the less one receives from central Government. That is not a very good principle because counties who decided that as they were not receiving a sufficient grant from central Government, they would not spend money on county roads. Now it appears those counties are to be praised and rewarded for their inattention while counties that endeavoured, with totally inadequate resources, to maintain their county roads system are disadvantaged. I hope the Minister of State will take note of that and endeavour to do something about it. I had digressed slightly to deal with county roads.

I want to revert to the main focus of the Bill which is, of course, the main roads system. Under this Bill the National Roads Authority will have overall responsibility for planning and supervising, construction and improvement of the national roads network, not necessarily a bad thing. They will be required to have a plan for the development of national roads. Obviously, they will have to overcome any existing bottlenecks, and there are many. I hope when the National Roads Authority are established, they will have regard to existing bottlenecks and, rather than looking at grandiose plans for designing new roads from scratch, they will examine the current roads system and ascertain where limited expenditure can have tremendous results in terms of eliminating perhaps a few hundred yards of bottlenecks existing on virtually all our main roads. It should be a priority of the National Roads Authority to draw up a plan of action to eliminate narrow bottlenecks.

The National Roads Authority will have a number of other functions. One will be to promote the case for EC assistance, another, on the financial side, will be to borrow in respect of the national roads system and the third in the financial area — which will raise a few eyebrows — will be to take upon themselves the issue of tolling roads where they deem it appropriate. Let me deal with those three functions briefly.

The EC assistance requirement is a good thing in that it will mean somebody with a function, a clear view and singular responsibility, will be making a case to the EC for funding for the roads system, but it should not be by way of direct access. Obviously the National Roads Authority will have a role to play in terms of national roads but I contend their rate should be slotted into an integrated transport plan; it should not be the be all and end all in itself. The fundamental weakness of this overall strategy is that the roads system is supposed to solve our transport problems whereas I patently and clearly state that it will not. It is a mistake on many fronts — the jobs front, about which I spoke, the business front and the environmental front — to put all our eggs into this basket, as we have done for a very long time.

The EC plan on roads should comprise one segment of a jigsaw which includes a clear funding mechanism and lobby group for the railway system, for the development of our regional airports and for the development of our ports. It should be placed before the EC in a coherent, clear manner. The notion that we have a super strong lobby group for the roads disadvantages the other transport areas which is not in our national interests. In respect of borrowing I hope the National Roads Authority will not turn out to be another mechanism or vehicle for the Government to borrow money simply to avoid the odium of the State borrowing, it being transferred or converted to a State agency borrowing.

The serious reservation I have on the third front would be with tolling. We have a resistance to the notion of tolls, certainly on national routes; we have had no tradition of it in recent centuries. I predict there will be very strong resistance to the concept of tolling if it is taken from local elected members. That is fundamentally wrong, undemocratic and, I predict, will spawn public resistance. Again, it follows the pattern about which I spoke in relation to the Local Government Bill, indeed in relation to virtually every Bill with which we have dealt in recent years, which is to erode the job, functions and responsibility of local elected members because we are afraid of them. I do not think it would be appropriate that tolls be decided by the National Roads Authority. That should be a job reserved for local authority members, as it is at present. The Labour Party will viciously resist this proposal on Committee Stage should the Bill reach that stage. I contend it is a fundamental flaw of the Bill. I hope the Minister will think again because, if that proposal is carried, he will be giving a very large stick to beat anybody who wishes to toll any project.

I would be willing to examine the issue of tolling as it obtains in the case of the two bridges that exist. I do not think there is any public resistance to them because, first, they were a private venture and, second there are alternate routes, but, when one imposes a toll on a route to which there is no practical or convenient alternative, one is on a slippery slope to great resistance. Any decision in relation to that matter should be for the local elected councillors in the areas concerned. I want to give a very clear signal to the Minister now that the Labour Party will be opposing that principle on Committee Stage.

Another function of the new National Roads Authority will be in relation to signs. The issue of signs on roads is an important one warranting clear attention. Deputy Yates and I represent a county favoured with having a very successful port. Last year, for example, 1.1 million people used Rosslare Harbour, a significant number of those having taken the N11 to Dublin and the N25 to the West. In such circumstances, with a large tourist market, of course one will endeavour to arrest or attract some of those tourists into bed and breakfasts, local restaurants, cultural centres, shops etc. The plethora of signs on our national roads were a traffic hazard because people, trying to read the signs, were not paying attention they should have been as they drove their vehicles and, second, they were extraordinarily unsightly. By and large, Wexford County Council have eliminated that problem but, unfortunately, other counties have not been as efficient. There is need for a clear national policy on road signs, what is acceptable and what is not. We have guidelines in terms of new finger-post signs, which are colour-coded and, once people become familiar with them, are meant to be clear. I fear that regulation is honoured more in the breach than in the observance. There is a clear need to improve the whole sign mechanism, to co-ordinate signs.

There is a problem now with many towns which are by-passed. There are ring roads around many towns nationwide with many more planned, ring roads which are absolutely essential if traffic is to move with any degree of efficiency and if communities are not to be choked to death by fumes from vehicles back to back on narrow urban streets. Obviously, I welcome the many by-passes, nonetheless, there is need for a balance to be struck between by-passing towns and communities and starving them of any economic commerce. We need to devise a co-ordinated mechanism that allows the advertising of the existence of some of these towns and villages on a national basis.

I know other Members want to speak but I want to deal as quickly as I can with a number of other issues. What I am endeavouring to do is put down a series of markers and observations so that I can elaborate further on Committee Stage, but I hope these will be noted and addressed. The concept of protected roads is of their being a halfway house between ordinary roads and motorways. What exactly are they? The new categorising of roads is less than clear. I hope the Minister will say clearly how he proposes to designate roads. There is a number of roads which should be declared national primaries. Will the national secondaries become primary roads?

I welcome the putting of EC Directive 337 of 1985 on a statutory basis. The requiring of an environmental impact assessment in respect of any proposed road is welcome. It is already the practice but it is right to use this opportunity to put it into legislation. The Minister's predecessor had experience in his county of difficulties in securing community agreement on road plans. It is desirable to achieve consensus in these matters. I do not believe we can steamroll through a community at will. No Minister or authority should be able to do it. It is for the local elected representatives to listen to the views and wishes of the people they represent and to take a democratic decision. I hope the issue of the siting of roads will not be the exclusive prerogative of the Authority but that it will require a degree of consultation and the positive acceptance of the democratic local council who represent the people concerned.

I welcome the power in the Bill to provide cycle-ways. Although we have produced cyclists of world renown, we do not provide great facilities for them. Anyone visiting any other Community country will find great cycle-ways which enable people to cycle without the risk of being run over by a juggernaut. Holland is exemplary in this matter. I do not suppose we will get to the stage of having bicycle paths and routes exclusively for bicycles but we could go some way towards allowing people to cycle safely by providing cycle-ways, especially at a time when the value of cycling and exercise generally are greatly appreciated.

I welcome the prohibition on temporary dwellings in section 66 and the prohibition on the use of unauthorised vehicles and caravans for trading. I feel strongly about two issues in this regard. The first is the issue of professional traders. A number of people, who set themselves up as professional traders, operate from their vans. They do not pay proper taxes, do not pay wages or charges and contribute virtually nothing to the Exchequer at local or national level. They also compete with established traders. This is wrong and we must do something about it. A company in the north of my county who produce metal gates for farms are being put under severe threat by cowboy tradespeople selling substandard gates from the back of vans at crossroads. That company pay tax, pay their employees and their PRSI contributions and pay VAT, but obviously they cannot compete with traders who pay nothing and sell many gates at the side of the road for half price. We will have to address that issue. I hope this Bill will at least get rid of them from the national primary roads. It is not a solution but it is an issue which can be addressed at this level.

Another category of trader has been mentioned by Deputy Yates. I refer to those who sell seasonal produce such as strawberries, raspberries and new potatoes. It is traditional in certain parts of the country to see in early summer the strawberry sellers setting up. It adds a lovely ambiance and it is very pleasant for tourists to see fresh fruit, vegetables and honey on sale by the roadside. We need some mechanism to allow that to continue, as long as it is consistent with road safety. Sometimes it can cause a problem and I suggest we devise a licensing mechanism whereby the engineering staff of the local county council would approve a site on a straight stretch of road where cars could safely pull in. This would add to the ambiance of travelling in the summer. In addressing the problem of people setting up shop on the side of the road I hope we do not kill off such a desirable seasonal activity.

I welcome section 67 which devolves powers to local authorities to deal with dangerous trees and structures. I welcome the statutory obligation being placed on landowners to deal with this serious problem. In recent years we have had stronger winds and there has been a number of serious accidents and some fatalities because of fallen trees. Most county councils have carried out an inventory of dangerous trees and structures adjacent to our main roads system. That should be continued as a matter of urgency before we reach the heart of the winter.

Before the Bill is enacted we should signal to local authorities that this work should be done. The issue of cutting and trimming trees is important but it can be very contentious at local level. A landowner may be cantankerous about removing a dangerous bough overhanging a road. We must put safety first. Untrimmed shrubs at junctions can cause difficulty by obstructing the sight line but some truculent landowners will refuse to carry out the trimming, perhaps because they do not like the local authority or for some other obscure reason. We need to bring the forces of law to bear on people who in any way make our road system less safe than it should be.

I want to comment briefly on section 69 which relates to the extinguishment of public rights of way. I know that all the Minister wants to do in this section is modify the existing arrangements under the 1963 Act and devolve the function to members of local authorities. This is a good mechanism and I welcome it. However, I want to make one comment in relation to this issue. I have long held this view but I have not had the opportunity previously to voice it. Rights of way are a very important issue which has been very seriously neglected. In recent years we have lost access to a huge number of areas because landowners have built walls or extended gates thereby blocking off rights of way people have had for generations. Sometimes this is not noticed until a person who normally uses a right of way suddenly finds he cannot walk the path he has always walked. I use this Bill as a vehicle to make this very strong point. The right of access to places of interest which generations of people have walked and enjoyed is an integral part of our heritage. Unfortunately, these are increasingly disappearing.

We in this House have to make a start on this important issue and say we want those rights of way vindicated. I believe very strongly in this and I hope the Minister for the Environment will indicate to local authorities that they have a responsibility to act in the public interest to protect rights of way and that in any dispute or controversy their reponsibility is to protect the rights of the community. Too often due to a lack of resources, time and interest we do not take action and lose rights which as I have said have been enjoyed by generations of people. I hope that point will be clearly accepted by the Minister and that he will take some action on it. Maybe this will require amending legislation or tabling an amendment to this legislation in order to strengthen the hand of local authorities in relation to the vindication of that right. Those of us who live in rural areas are very concerned about the constant erosion of rights which once they are extinguished can never again be re-established.

Deputy Yates referred to the problem of wandering horses. As I commented when he was speaking, he has had a very direct and personal interest in this matter, but it is one that needs to be addressed. Some of the legal-minded Members of this House might agree that it is ludicrous to have a law which provides that a stray horse which wanders on to your land is your responsibility when he is wandering off it: if he wanders off your land into a car or, more tragically, into a child walking past, you are responsible. That is patently not fair and something should be done about it. There are insufficient pounds, insufficient resources and insufficient provision made at local authority level to tackle the problem of wandering horses which unfortunately is becoming all too prevalent.

I wish to comment briefly on the standing of the National Roads Authority. Deputy Yates referred briefly to this issue. Will the Authority stand as a corporate entity on a stand-alone basis or will they be a sort of division of the Department of the Environment? We need to know this. They should certainly be subject to the Minister but not subject as if they were a section of the Department. They should be subject to the Minister only in so far as he is subject to this House and we, as an assembly, can have questions answered and have our fears expressed directly to them. I think there is a growing frustration among Members of the House at the fact that when we establish an agency, body or semi-State sector we suddenly give away all our responsibility. How many times have we put down parliamentary questions only to receive a letter from the Ceann Comhairle stating that the question is ruled out of order because the Minister has no responsibility in the matter, that it is a matter for a certain agency? There is a democratic deficit, to use that much abused phrase in recent weeks, in relation to this issue. I hope that there will be accountability in relation to the actions of the National Roads Authority should it be established by this and the other House.

The National Roads Authority should have a clear policy role. They should also have a role, subject to the Minister, in relation to the operation and planning of national roads. I have referred already to the issue of compulsory purchase orders but I want to reinforce this point. Local authorities must have primacy in these matters. I do not believe we should give this responsibility to the National Roads Authority. As I said in relation to disputes we have all witnessed in recent years, we have to bring the community with us and the mechanism best designed to do this is the will of the local community expressed through the locally elected council. As a base, we should try to keep that as an acceptable principle. There may well be reasons when a local authority might be totally obtuse and obstructive and we might have to look again at the power given to them. Some residual power should lie with the Minister in such cases but as a rule and principle it should be a matter for local authorities to decide on the routes of roads, particularly those which involve the compulsory purchase of land.

I have already stressed the importance of transport and the need to have an integrated policy for growth. I should like to refer briefly to a submission to the European Commission by the Socialist Group of the European Parliament and the Labour Party members on Dublin City and County Councils last month on transport development for economic growth in Dublin. This tried in a coherent and clear way to put forward the policy options for a comprehensive and integrated transport policy for Dublin. We need to have this on a national basis. The needs of Dublin are certainly clear and we support the notion of a light rail system for Dublin city and not the butchering of Dublin to make way for the ever-increasing demands of motorcars. There have been some very welcome changes in attitude to this issue in Dublin City Council since the local elections and the change in personnel there. I strongly believe that we need an integrated national transport plan. We will not achieve this if we deal with roads in isolation. The needs not only from the perspectives of public policy, jobs and the economy but also from an environmental perspective, demand of us that we deal in a holistic way with this issue.

I have notes on a section-by-section basis which I will not use at this stage. I will reserve these for Committee Stage as it is important that other Members have an opportunity to contribute. Therefore, I give a guarded welcome to the Bill; I say "guarded", as I believe it has very serious flaws which we have to address. I have no doubt that the Minister will be true to his word in having serious regard for the wishes, observations and fears expressed by Members on all sides of the House during the course of this debate. When replying I hope he will show a willingness to accept fundamental change. I will be listening to his response to Second Stage with great interest.

The Bill deals with 6 per cent of our roads. The whole issue of a transport policy should not hang and rest on 6 per cent of our national roads in isolation from the rest of the roads system and in isolation from the rest of the transport options which are available. I hope the issue of local democracy I mentioned will be addressed and not further eroded as is intended by some of the provisions of the Bill. I hope it will be possible to build a consensus towards having a rational decent transport system that will benefit the whole community and allow Ireland to thrive in the integrated Community of tomorrow.

First, I thank Deputy Howlin for yielding right-of-way at this stage of the debate, and resisting the temptation to go through the Bill section by section, thus enabling me to make a contribution. He spoke eloquently about rights-of-way. Deputy Howlin, Deputy Andrews, and I am sure the Minister, will be interested to know that last night Dún Laoghaire Borough Council became the first local authority to adopt a plan on rights-of-way under the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963. That little piece of history has some relevance to the topic under discussion this evening.

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:

"Dáil Éireann believing—

(1) that the transport needs of the country require a co-ordinated national transport policy which would place greater emphasis on the development and promotion of public transport,

(2) that the priority should therefore be the establishment of a National Transport Authority rather than a simple Roads Authority,

(3) that the proposed National Roads Authority would severely diminish the capacity of elected local councillors and local communities to influence decisions regarding the development of roads, including decisions regarding tolling,

(4) that the proposed National Roads Authority will facilitate the privatisation of road maintenance with consequent job losses in local authorities,

declines to give a second reading to the Bill."

We are suggesting the Dáil decline to give a second reading to the Bill because as both previous speakers have said there are fundamental issues and flaws in this Bill which require to be addressed. The Minister in his opening remarks stated that the Bill had two purposes: to establish the National Roads Authority on a statutory basis and to update the law regarding public roads. In so far as the Bill is dealing with the updating of some of the laws in relation to public roads I do not think there will be a great deal of dispute about it. The main purpose of the Bill is to establish the National Roads Authority on a statutory basis and that has to be questioned from the point of view of principle and the fact that it is the core issue of the Bill.

Last week, Dublin City Council dropped their plans for the controversial Eastern By-pass. Yesterday Dún Laoghaire Borough Council initiated steps to drop the controversial St. Helen's motorway from their plans and earlier this year Dublin County Council decided against tolling the new Dublin Ring Road around the north-west and south of the city. If this Bill is passed the National Roads Authority will be able to override these decisions by the democratically elected councils. Under this Bill the National Roads Authority can, and probably will, build the Eastern By-pass, despite the objections of Dublin City Council and of local people. The National Roads Authority can, and probably will, build the controversial St. Helen's motorway which will destroy Booterstown marsh. The National Roads Authority can, and probably will, place tolls on the new ring motorway around the city. The National Roads Authority will not even have to apply for planning permission for the construction of new roads so that local authorities and local communities will have little influence on their actions. The National Roads Authority will be able to give instructions to democratically elected councils. The National Roads Authority will tee up the privatisation of road maintenance and probably cause thousands of redundancies in local authorities as a result. The National Roads Authority will be hand-picked by the Minister for the Environment and their term of office will be determined by the Minister. They will have no accountability to the Dáil, to local councils or to local communities.

This Bill will do nothing to tackle the appalling state of this country's roads. It will not fill a single pothole, repair a single set of traffic lights or reinstate a single footpath. Instead, it will turn the private road builders lobby into an arm of Government, it will give them easier access to EC Structural Funds, it will cut out what they consider to be irritating delays caused by local communities or environmental organisations raising their concerns about road projects.

The Bill provides a make-believe consultation with the public but the new National Roads Authority will have all the power. This Bill is an assault on local democracy. It is taking away the functions of local authorities to plan, design and maintain national roads and it gives the Minister for the Environment the powers to allocate any other road he wishes to the roads authority.

The Bill will allow the Authority to borrow up to £500 million — more than any other public organisation in the State. The Bill will undermine the rights of local communities and environmental organisations who up to now have been able, with some success, to lobby their local councillors about road plans. The local councils will no longer have the power and the National Roads Authority will not even have to apply for planning permission to build new roads. Surprisingly, this Bill has received little public attention so far. Perhaps councils, local communities and the environmental movement do not yet realise how draconian this proposed legislation is. It is one of the most anti-democratic measures to come before this House in a long time. If it is not stopped it will rob the people of whatever limited say they have over their local environment. This Bill is a road builders charter. In one go it sets aside over ten years of public controversy over major road plans, it upstages the debate about the balance between public and private transport and it endangers the interests of local communities, local authority workers and the public. In my view it is a Bill which should be faced up to on Second Stage. For that reason The Workers' Party propose that the Dáil should decline to give a second reading to the Bill.

The fundamental question that has to be addressed is, why do we need a National Roads Authority? Both Deputies Yates and Howlin in their respective contributions spoke about the need for an integrated transport policy here. That is a view with which I concur. We need an integrated transport policy. To give effect to an integrated transport policy we need a national transport authority who would have responsibility not just for the roads element of transport but for the other elements in the transport fabric — the elements which have been referred to already, air transport, sea transport, rail transport and so on. Instead what is being proposed is the establishment of a National Roads Authority, with very significant powers, who will have responsibility for roads.

At worst, the establishment of a national roads authority will erode the say of the public and of local authorities with regard to roads, it will clear the way for roads to be constructed against the wishes of the public, for tolls to be placed not just on new roads but on existing roads, and will clear the way for the privatisation of roads maintenance. At best a National Roads Authority inserts yet another layer of bureaucracy between local authorities who will at least continue to have some function in relation to non-national roads and the Department of the Environment who at the end of the day will have responsibility for the provision of finance. That, presumably, will add to administration costs, will delay the processing of applications for road funding and will do nothing to tackle the real issue that is, the state of the existing roads network.

There is a case for an integrated transport policy and for the establishment of a national transport authority to give effect to that policy. The fact that within the week the Maastricht Summit will take place was mentioned. We had a two day debate in this House last week on the implications for this country of the completion of the Single Market and the development of economic, monetary and political union in the European Community.

It has been stated that following the completion of the Channel Tunnel Ireland will be the only sea blocked member state of the European Community, the only member state without road access to the rest of the market. Emphasis has been placed on the implications of that for Irish industry and its competitiveness. It has been stated that transport costs contribute 9 per cent to industry's costs and that that is twice the average in the rest of the Community. That in itself is not a case for the establishment of a National Roads Authority. That is a case for addressing the difficulties in transport between this country and the rest of the Community rather than necessarily within this country. In that respect there are many issues which require attention, for instance, the problem of air transport. There is a big nettle to be grasped in relation to the Shannon stop over and so far the Government have shown a marked reluctance to grasp it.

Deputy Yates referred to the extent to which constituency and local considerations contribute to policy making in this country, before he went on to talk about strawberries and roadside trading and galloping horses in Enniscorthy. The Deputy is right in many respects. It seems that constituency and local considerations are preventing both wings of the Government from facing up to the issue of the Shannon stop over. The development of regional and local airports, shipping, and our peripherality and competitive disadvantage due to our transport system are, for understandable reasons, occupying the minds of the Confederation of Irish Industry. Deputy Yates quoted the CII to suit his argument; I will quote the CII in support of my argument. The CII Newsletter of 13 August 1991, under the heading "Shipping — the missing link in the transport chain" says:

The cost of transporting goods from Ireland to the main EC markets is, at nine per cent of export values, twice that of our international competitors. Policies have been established by the Government, and Structural Funds secured, for investment in transport infrastructure, particularly roads, ports and airports. The missing link is access capacity by sea. Vessels currently operating on the main routes are unsuited in size, cellular configuration and speed to match the needs of industry in 1991 and beyond.

It goes on to argue that:

investment in this area is an integral part of the transport infrastructure system linking Ireland with the rest of the Community in the same way that roads and rail-ways are regarded between continental Member States.

This country has a disastrous position in relation to shipping which arises mainly, although not exclusively, from the liquidation of Irish Shipping some years ago — a matter that has not been adequately explained or addressed. There is the question of port policy. If I may be forgiven for raising a constituency interest, there is considerable local concern in my constituency about the future of the car ferry at Dún Laoghaire. We are aware that in Government circles, there is a lot of discussion about port policy in the greater Dublin area and for some time now the Government have been pressed to address that question. Are they going to concentrate all the investment in the development of port facilities at Dublin Port, or work out a strategy which will provide for goods and freight to be moved through Dublin and passengers to be moved mainly through Dún Laoghaire? This is an area that should be addressed.

We also need to address the transport problems in Dublin, including the problem of roads which has already been mentioned. A few weeks ago we had a major consultancy report commissioned by the Dublin Transportation Review Group suggesting that the past two decades have been more or less wasted and that there is an urgent need to devise an integrated transport system for the traffic choked capital city. Again, the emphasis is on an integrated approach to transport. The report stated:

The vision must be a shared one and, therefore, needs to be established by consultation with Government and businesses but, most importantly, with the general public. Many cities have learned that even the best strategy will not come to fruition without a consensus of acceptance (among the citizens).

The emphasis in that study is on the need for an integrated approach to transport policy and on the need for consultation in order to bring the people with us.

Outside the Dublin area, there is the question of the balance between rail transport and road transport. There is a debate about the extent to which transport should be private or public and what mix is appropriate. Within that context roads are clearly important. I am not for one moment making a case against road improvements or road development. I go along with much of what Deputy Yates said in relation to the problems that have arisen, the delays and the frustration created by by-passing towns and the improvement of some of our main national roads. All these arguments do not justify the establishment of a National Roads Authority outside the context of transport policy. We cannot establish a roads authority and leave the rest of the problems without any authority or co-ordination, and apparently with little or no Government policy or action on them. When most people here address themselves to the problem of roads, their interest is primarily in the maintenance of existing roads or in upgrading non-national roads.

The pothole problem has given rise in one county to the emergence of a very significant political movement. The establishment of a National Roads Authority will not resolve the problem of potholes. What will resolve the problem of potholes is the making available of funds to local authorities to enable them to maintain the road network they have. It is significant that this debate is taking place at a time when local authorities are addressing themselves to their annual estimates.

Debate adjourned.
Top
Share