There is the Dublin to Kinnegad road which would have gone one part of the way to Castlebar at one stage. No doubt there will be an orientation northwards, given the present Minister for the Environment. There is always a tendency for roads to follow the direction of the Minister for the Environment of the day. I sometimes wonder whether the people who draw up the roads plans are not frustrated when they find that the road plans follow the occupancy of Ministers for the Environment. There is no doubt that some of the national roads need a good deal of improvement works.
A certain amount of funds have been made available for this country to tackle the question of peripherality. There is an assumption underlying this Bill and the establishment of a National Roads Authority that the problems of this country's peripherality can be addressed mainly by improving the road network within the country. That is not a sound assumption. I do not think it is wise that 75 per cent of the funds which have been made available to Ireland from the EC for peripherality should be invested in the development of roads within the country at the expense of developing sealinks, air links and links with Britain and mainland Europe. There is an overemphasis on spending on roads which needs to be questioned. The Bill before us and the National Roads Authority will help to consolidate that. What is being put in place is a body which will strengthen the case for additional investment on roads within the country and will strengthen the case for roads to get as large as possible a slice of the EC Structural Funds, perhaps at the expense of other areas of transport.
It is remarkable that in the whole operational programme on peripherality where over £400 million is being spent on roads — total investment on the whole programme is £800 million, £515 million of which comes from the European Community — that not a penny is being spent on the development of sea passenger facilities at a time when another EC programme deals with the need to improve tourism into the country. The other question that arises in relation to the assumption that continued road building is a good idea is that it does not necessarily deal with our current traffic problems. Indeed, there is a considerable body of opinion that the more you build roads the more you will find cars to fill them. That is not by any means an exaggerated claim. At a conference in May 1991, organised by An Taisce, a number of experts in this area commented on this matter. For example Professor Tony Ridley of the Transport Engineering Department of the Imperial College, London stated:
We may not agree with the work plan of the European Commission's drive programme ... which stated that it is no longer economic to continue to increase the capacity of road systems by building more roads. But it is undeniable that to increase capacity at a rate which will match forecast increases is no longer a policy option.
He went on to say:
Regardless of how much new infrastructure can be put in place it is clear that civil engineering is not going to "solve" the problems of transport.
Closer to home, Dr. P.J. Drudy a transport economist made the case that the more new roads are constructed, the more we will find people who will use them, and that that is perhaps not the best solution from an economic point of view. He stated:
Even if road construction were to reduce congestion in the short run, the increased traffic generated must lead to an increase in pollution levels, noise, visual intrusion and traffic hazard.
He continued:
The fundamental point being made here is that the provision of more road space on its own is unlikely to resolve the traffic congestion problem. This simple fact is now widely recognised and urban authorities around the world are taking other measures, including an emphasis in public transport provision, to deal with this issue.
There is a considerable body of argument to support the view that it is unwise for this State to commit such a large proportion of EC funds to road building at the expense of other areas of transport. There is also a strong view that we need an integrated approach to transport which would combine roads, public transport, rail and other elements and that what we need to give effect to that is not a roads authority which will fight the corner of the roads lobby, but a national transport authority which will see the problem in its overall context.
At present two layers of Government are responsible for road policy, road development and maintenance — the local authorities and the Department of the Environment. Even when this Bill is passed local authorities will be at least responsible for non-national roads and they may well be involved in a contractual way in some of the work relating to national roads. We will still have the Department of the Environment involved because the Bill gives various roles and responsibilities to the Minister for the Environment. In between, will be slotted a national roads authority. One scenario is that the national roads authority will be given many of the powers currently held by the Minister for the Environment and powers currently held by the local authorities, in which case very significant powers will have been placed in the hands of an unelected body. That is probably the most likely scenario. The alternative scenario is that the National Roads Authority will not be given those powers and three layers will continue to relate to each other — the Department, the National Roads Authority and the local authorities. In that case the National Roads Authority will just become another layer of bureaucracy between the local authorities and the Department of the Environment. The confusion that that is likely to give rise to is evident if one looks at some of the sections of the Bill.
Section 13 (1) states that subject to Part III the administration of the maintenance and construction of all national and regional roads shall be the function of the council or county borough corporation of that county, but section 17 (1) (a) states that overall responsibility for the planning and supervision of works for the construction and maintenance of national roads will be the responsibility of the National Roads Authority. Who exactly will be responsible? Section 17 (2) adds additional powers to the National Roads Authority. It states:
The Minister may, by regulations, assign to the Authority such additional functions in relation to the construction or maintenance of national roads as from time to time he considers appropriate.
In that the Minister is coming into the picture. Many of the functions proposed to be given to the National Roads Authority are functions which are being performed by the Department or the local authority. Section 18 talks about the preparation of road plans by the National Roads Authority. Already, the Department of the Environment produce road plans and a while ago, in a lighter moment, we saw how road plans can sometimes be sidetracked if a Minister wants to advance one part of it as against another.
Virtually all the specific functions being given to the National Roads Authority are being performed by either the local authority or the Department. Preparing designs, construction or improvement works, programmes of maintenance works, schemes for the provision of traffic signs and the maintenance of traffic signs and so on are already being performed, in relation to the overall national roads plan, by the Department of the Environment or by the local authorities. Why are the National Roads Authority being given functions which are being performed by the Department and the local authorities? Section 19 deals with the specific functions of the Authority and this is one of the most alarming sections of the Bill. Section 19 (5) states:
Development consisting of the carrying out of any works by or at the direction of, or on behalf of, the Authority under this Act in relation to the construction or maintenance of a national road shall be exempted from development for the purposes of the Act of 1963.
In other words the National Roads Authority or any agency acting on behalf of the National Roads Authority will not have to apply for planning permission for the building of a road and to carry out any works in relation to a road. If we read that section in conjunction with sections 20 and 22 which deal with the directions the National Roads Authority may give to a local authority, we get a clear picture of what is intended. Section 20 (2) states:
Before issuing a direction under subsection (1) in relation to any works which would, in the opinion of the Authority, if carried out require a road authority to contravene materially a development plan or a special amenity area order, the Authority shall—
It goes on to give a procedure whereby the Authority will publish a notice and allow people make representations to them about the contravention of a development plan or of a special amenity area order. Section 22 makes another reference to development plans and states that the Authority may at any time make recommendations in writing to a planning authority as to the content of that authority's development plan and any such recommendations shall be considered by the planning authority.
What all of that means is that where a local authority are considering a road development and include that proposed road development in a development plan, the National Roads Authority will have the overall responsibility for the construction, design, etc. of that road. Under section 19 the National Roads Authority will not have to apply for planning permission, so the question of the local authority's development plan will not arise in that context. If the proposal from the National Roads Authority would contravene the local authority's development plan, the local authority will not have to go through the normal procedure for the contravention of the development plan which would require the publication of a notice, the receiving of submissions and, critically important, a decision by the elected members of the local authority to contravene the development plan. That will not happen in this case because a different procedure is provided for here, that is, that the National Roads Authority will publish the notice itself, give a month for people to come in with their submissions and then the National Roads Authority, not the elected members who made the plan, will make the decision as to whether or not the work should go ahead.
Thirdly, the belt and braces section there is section 22. Under this if the National Roads Authority feel, for example, that a provision in a development plan might be a little embarrassing or a little bit awkward, they can make a recommendation to the local authority. There is nothing wrong with the National Roads Authority making a recommendation to a local authority. That is perfectly in order. What I find alarming is the provision that "the local authority shall consider that recommendation", which would appear to put a certain amount of very gentle pressure on the local authority to comply with it.
What all of that means in practice is that, for example, the decision that was made last week by Dublin City Council to remove from its development plan the proposal for the eastern bypass could be overruled by the National Roads Authority. Once this Bill is passed the National Roads Authority can carry out the work without having to apply to Dublin Corporation for planning permission. Secondly, it can bypass — you will pardon the pun — the provisions of the Dublin Corporation development plan. Dublin Corporation will not have any function in the matter at all under this. What will happen is that the roads authority can, in the case of the eastern bypass contravening the new development plan of Dublin City Council, publish a notice saying they are going to build the eastern bypass and give the public a month to make their submissions. After that the National Roads Authority can make their decision.
The same procedure would apply in relation to Dún Laoghaire Corporation if it decided to remove the St. Helen's motorway. The same position applies in relation to Dublin County Council if it decides on a particular line for the south-eastern motorway — and there is a lot of controversy in that part of County Dublin in relation to the south-eastern motorway and some concern on the part of a number of residents associations about where it might go and so on. All of that will be considered by Dublin County Council when they come to making their development plan. Despite all of that, if the National Roads Authority want to go a particular way, then under this Bill the National Roads Authority can do that. The elected representatives of the people are being taken out of the picture as far as road design and road provision are concerned. Very few issues have aroused the kind of public passions and have mobilised people on committees and in groups in recent times as have proposed road plans. Up to now the public could exercise its voice by influencing the people that it elected and who were accountable to the public on local councils. That will not be possible under this Bill.
Section 21 of the Bill deals with the publication of programmes for EC assistance. Again there are two points to be made in relation to this. The first is that at the moment the Department of the Environment prepare the plans for EC assistance for road works, but there has been criticism of the way in which this country has applied for EC assistance. That criticism has come from two quarters. It has come first from the European Commission and, second, from community organisations here which have criticised the lack of democratic involvement in the decision making process which resulted in the programmes for EC assistance. Another criticism is the lack of any regional approach to it. On the eve of Maastricht, the principle of subsidiarity is one of the buzz terms being kicked around. There is no sign of subsidiarity. The principle of subsidiarity is dead in this country and will be buried by the time this Bill is passed. What is happening here is that, instead of allowing regions to evolve their plans and programmes for EC assistance, the National Roads Authority, which will not be an elected body at all, will be responsible for deciding the programme that will go for EC assistance. Whatever criticisms we may have had about it up to now — and it has been raised in this House on a number of occasions — if this Bill is passed what we are doing is building into legislation a provision whereby applications for EC funding for roads will be evolved and developed by the National Roads Authority.
There are various other sections of this Bill under which it appears that the National Roads Authority will have considerable power. For example, under section 23 it appears they will have powers to make recommendations or certainly influence the Garda in particular ways in relation to traffic matters. They will have extraordinary powers to borrow up to £500 million. There is no other organisation in this State, no commercial semi-State company or no local or public authority which will have the power to borrow that amount of money; and, remarkably, that borrowing will be State guaranteed under section 26.
Part VI of the Bill deals with the problem of tolling. The intention of the Department of the Environment with regard to tolling is already well known. In 1989 the Department of the Environment, without any authorisation or any approval from the elected members of Dublin County Council, advertised for tenders for the tolling of the Dublin ring road. Not alone that, the Department of the Environment entered into an arrangement with a French-American company to offer them the franchise for the tolling of the Dublin ring road. The Department of the Environment issued instructions to Dublin County Council to proceed on foot of that to erect toll plinths on the ring road. All of that was done without Dublin County Council making a decision, as is their entitlement to do and as is in their power to do under existing legislation. In fact, when Dublin County Council realised what was happening they announced that it was not their intention to toll the Dublin ring road and issued instructions that the toll booths which were being erected should be removed.
The problem now is that the Minister wants to toll the Dublin ring road. Dublin County Council, which under existing legislation have the power to make the tolling schemes, have clearly declared their intention not to toll the Dublin ring road. The Minister needs to get around this problem. He has found that the way to get around this problem is to take the power to introduce a tolling scheme away from the local authority and give it to the National Roads Authority.
What section 5 means, in practical terms, is that the Minister is going to toll the Dublin ring road. If one wants to use this road when it is completed, from Bray to the Belfast road, at the airport, one will have to pay a toll, not just to go over the bridge — there have been few objections from the public and this is generally accepted — but to use any section of it. This will be the only major city, certainly the only capital city, where a relief motorway around the capital city will be tolled. One certainly pays tolls on some of the major auto routes on the Continent but when one gets close to a major city there are no tolls and the reason is that the purpose of the motorway is to keep traffic out of the city areas. The purpose of the motorway being built here with substantial public funds is to keep traffic out of the city but what happens? The Minister for the Environment wants to toll the road which will have the effect of driving traffic back into the city.
There is no point arguing that it will not have this effect because the people of Ringsend would tell us — I am sure Deputy Doyle would confirm this — that in the case of the East Link bridge commercial trucks come up the quays, go over Matt Talbot bridge, go back up the south quays and up through Ringsend in order to avoid paying the price of two pints to cross over the East Link bridge. The fact is some traffic deliberately avoids paying tolls by using various rat runs. If the Dublin ring road is tolled it will have the effect of driving traffic back into residential areas and the villages of south-west and north Dublin, even though the intention is to remove traffic from those areas.
The purpose of Part V of the Bill which deals with tolls is to get around the problem where a local authority clearly have no intention of tolling a ring road. It has been decided that the way to get around this problem is to remove the power from the local authority and give it to the National Roads Authority. The matter may not end there, however. I remember there was controversy some years ago when the Department of the Environment wanted to toll the Naas by-pass. As I read Part V, the National Roads Authority will not be confined to tolling new roads; it will be open to them to introduce tolls on existing roads. It is possible, therefore, that the Naas by-pass, the Newbridge by-pass, when built, or any other similar road could be tolled by the National Roads Authority and the elected local representatives of the people in those areas will have no say in the matter because the power is being taken away from them.
Who will be the members of the National Roads Authority? Under section 28 (1) the members of the National Road Authority will be hand-picked by the Minister for the Environment. It will consist of up to 14 members whose term of office, under section 28 (2), will be determined by the Minister for the Environment. If he likes them he may leave them there for a long time but if they make a decision which displeases him he will be able to remove them. Under section 28 (1) (b) the chairman of the National Roads Authority can also be the chief executive of the Authority when he would certainly have extraordinary power. The chairman of the National Roads Authority if he was to be appointed chief executive also of a body who will have the power to borrow up to £500 million and all the powers contained in the Bill could end up being a far more powerful figure than the Minister for the Environment.
There is no indication in the Bill who will be the members of the National Roads Authority, or from what interest groups they will be drawn. This is in contrast with the Bill introduced by the same Department which established the Environmental Protection Agency and which sets down that the members of that agency will be drawn from various organisations. For example, it establishes a panel the members of which will have the responsibility to recommend nominees to be appointed to that agency. One would have expected that there would have been some indication of the way in which members would be appointed to a body with this kind of power and what interest groups they would represent. Will all 14, for example, be representatives of the construction industry? How many will represent local authorities and will local authority members also be members of that body? The Minister will have discretion to decide who the members of the National Roads Authority should be.
There might be some tolerance in allowing a Minister that degree of discretion when establishing a body who would not have the power this body will have but this will be an extremely powerful body. Despite that, there is no mention of accountability or of the way in which the members will be selected.
As I mentioned at the outset, The Workers' Party have tabled an amendment to the Bill to the effect that the House should decline to give it a Second Reading for the reasons I have stated. What we need is a transport authority. The problems associated with road maintenance and construction need to be addressed. However, I do not think that this is the way to go about it. It has been proposed that we establish a body who will have extraordinary powers and who will very often, over-ride the democratic wishes of local people and local authorities but I think the House should reject that proposal and that the Government should come back with a Bill to establish a National Transport Authority who could tackle in a comprehensive way the problems associated with transport both internally and those clearly being encountered in relation to our peripherality within the European Community.