Roads Bill 1991: Second Stage (Resumed).

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

Debate resumed on 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.

—(Deputy Gilmore.)

Mr. Dukes

Before moving the adjournment of the debate I had reached section 43. Lest I get myself into trouble with the Chair I wish to say something about protected roads, the title this section bears. I find this to be a very curious kind of animal. I looked at the former Minister's introductory remarks on Second Stage to ascertain what he had in mind by the term "protected roads" and I found the following remarks in the Official Report of 27 November last, at column 1310-11:

.... the concept of a protected road is being introduced in addition to the re-enactment of legislative provisions for motorways and busways. The protected road is intended as a "halfway house" between an ordinary public road, which has very limited access control or traffic restrictions, and a motorway, to which all access from adjoining lands is prohibited....

I wonder why there is need for this kind of "halfway house" between an ordinary public road and a motorway. For example, am I to conclude that a dual carriageway is a protected road? To cite the one I know best, is the Naas dual carriageway to be regarded as a protected road? Is there any particular significance in identifying that class so that the various conditions that are set out in subsections (2) and (3) of this Bill can be applied to it? I may be wrong, but as far as I know the conditions set out in subsections (2) and (3) do not actually apply today to the Naas dual carriageway. Perhaps some of them should, and if it is proposed that they should, then I would like to know.

I must say the concept of a protected road is a nice little exercise in language. I wonder what other kinds of protections may be envisaged. When I was speaking earlier about motorways I omitted to mention that I would hope that the Minister and his Department and the proposed new roads Authority would pay particular attention to the need for fencing motorways. I gather that the Ceann Comhairle has allowed my colleague, Deputy Allen, to talk to the Minister this evening about the problems of wandering horses. I myself had an encounter with a wandering horse one night some years ago. Luckily I did not suffer any damage. However, I was Minister for Finance at the time and the State had to put a new roof on the car. Indeed, shortly after we had hit the horse and killed it, another driver, a lady this time, ran straight over it and injured herself, not too badly, but she was extremely stunned. However, it was a wandering horse on the Naas dual carriageway at night. It caused mayhem for a while and luckily no one was killed in that incident.

The same problem arises with the stretch of dual carriageway that now goes across the Curragh where Kildare County Council have done an extremely effective job of fencing and putting grids on the access roads to that carriageway. However, from time to time fences get broken and sheep wander onto the roads, and that is extremely dangerous. That is an aspect of motorway planning that should receive very close attention. Our motorways should be protected roads in a sense different from that envisaged in the Bill.

In section 44 there is provision for all kinds of prohibitions and restrictions of access and so on. It is provided in subsection (1) (c) that planning permission or a decision to grant planning permission shall not be regarded as having been given for any development of land where such development would affect materially the exercise by the road authority of the rights proposed to be compulsorily acquired in relation to land under a scheme made by a road authority under section 45 of the Bill. That seems to envisage the kind of case that we saw for so many years in the Clanbrassil Street area of Dublin where all development was stopped because there was a road plan by the local roads authority which they intended to get around to at some stage, and since development was stopped the area generally decayed. This has changed quite a lot in recent times but I would hope that our National Roads Authority would not act under this subsection in a way that would replicate that kind of problem to any great extent around the country.

Again it comes back to both the financial planning framework that we have for road projects and to how they are phased and how they are proceeded with because it is extremely bad that we should have either uncertainty or a freeze on activity for a long period. It would be dangerous and totally undesirable to have a situation all around the country where development was frozen for a long period in the expectation of a road project coming on-stream and finding that that road project did not go ahead for many years. We should not encourage such as a situation but should prevent it as far as possible.

Again, there are interferences which are provided for in section 45 in respect of various planning permissions. I find another concept in subsection (4) (c) (1) that is a little difficult for me to seize. It speaks of planning permissions proposed to be revoked or modified under a scheme made under this section and the extent of such revocation or modification. I can understand the concept of the extent of a modification but I am not sure that I can understand the concept of the extent of a revocation. It seems that something is either revoked or it is not. If it is revoked in part, then it is modified.

However, I wonder are there degrees of revocation that the Minister and his Department envisage.

You will be delighted to hear, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, that there is a whole swathe of sections here about which I do not propose to say anything because I think they are rather well drafted. They have to do with the holding of public inquiries, environmental impact statements and environmental impact assessments. The only question I have, Sir — and I referred to it earlier — is why do we have this procedure for road plans and developments by public authorities generally when we have a totally different system for developments by private agencies? It seems that this system may be unnecessarily cumbersome, and although it is not peculiar to what is being provided for in this Bill, this Bill does give us an opportunity to look at it. I would like the Minister to take a little time to outline for us what he believes the advantages of this procedure are over the normal planning procedure that the rest of the world and the private sector generally have to go through.

Section 51 deals with the control of works by a State authority and so on. I have only one small quibble with that. I find that in subsection (2) (c) it is provided that the Authority or the Minister may, at their or his discretion, cause an oral hearing to be heard. Oral hearings have a very important part to play in all of this procedure because they provide the only forum in which members of the public can feel that they are directly involved in the process. I know there are entitlements built into this Bill for objection or representation, although I have asked the Minister to specify for us who may object. Oral hearings have a particular place in the process because they provide the only opportunity for the ordinary public to be involved in a way they can appreciate. I am not suggesting that I want oral hearings about every single objection, but there are a great many cases where I believe an oral hearing could help to clear the air, allay fears and remove objections.

My question is, are there any guidelines as to the exercise of this discretion by the Minister or by the Authority, or is it to be another one of all these decisions that are made by the Minister with his advisers without ever having to account for the reasons to anybody else? I do not ask the question in a hostile way but I would like the Minister to indicate if there are any practices or guidelines. I would like him to indicate also if he would consider, as a general rule, leaning more favourably towards the idea of having oral hearings, especially for the bigger cases. I know that in all the motorway cases where an inquiry has to be held there is public involvement, although I think it would be fair to say that many people feel those inquiries do not make much difference. This view may be mistaken in many cases but it is the popular view. That is not the matter we have to talk about now. However, a more frequent use of the oral hearing procedure would help to inform the public and assure the public that their concerns are being taken into account. Since the Taoiseach has recently said he wants to have a more open form of Government, it is a sentiment and an aspiration that could usefully be brought into legislation of this kind.

Section 52 deals with the provision of service areas to motorways and protected roads. I should like to ask a question about planning principles. Are there any guidelines as to the frequency of service areas on motorways or on protected roads? I know there are fairly strong guidelines regarding the number of junctions and the number of access and entry points. I gather that the general practice is that they should be at least eight kilometres apart. Are there any guidelines of that kind in relation to the provision of service areas? It is not, perhaps, so much a problem in this country as it may be in others. I am sure the Minister has had the experience of driving long distances on motorways in continental Europe and there are times when the pressure of events gets to the point where one wishes there was a service area nearby for one reason or another. There appears to be fairly liberal provisions in most of the member states of the Community in relation to the frequency of service areas. Are there any such guidelines here?

There is a provision here also that allows a road authority, with the consent of the Minister, to provide or operate service areas. Is that a new power which is being given under the terms of this Bill, or does it already exist? I do not have any position on principle on it. If a road authority feel they can make some money out of running a service area then the best of luck to them. I am sure there will be the usual arguments from people in the private sector. I suppose on the whole we could expect this is a power that would be very little used by road authorities because they would prefer to have private investment in that area.

I note that the Authority may, with the consent of the Minister, provide guidelines in relation to the provision or operation of these service areas. Perhaps that will give the Minister an opportunity to tell us what he has in mind in terms of those guidelines.

Part V deals with toll roads. This is an area where it would be helpful to have a much more comprehensive statement of the Minister's policy approach to toll roads because there are a number of things that seem to be overlooked in the argument about tolling. There have been arguments here about tolling the Naas by-pass. There was a particularly difficult argument about the tolling of the new high level crossing of the Liffey at Strawberry Beds and there was an argument about tolling other sections of that particular road. If memory serves me well, a toll plaza was built at one stage, apparently without authorisation, and it had to be removed at some considerable cost to the taxpayer — something in the region of £100,000 was spent on building and taking away this toll plaza.

We need a debate here about the policy and the philosophy of tolling to give us some idea of the circumstances in which a toll can reasonably be applied. I do not know whether the Minister has any ideas about this because, if so, he has not told us and if his predecessor had such plans he did not tell us either. It seems there are some simple principles one can set up. For example, a facility like the East Link bridge or the high level crossing of the Liffey, which saves people much time and a long circuitous route which would be the alternative route, is an obvious case for tolling. I do not think there is much argument about that. The argument becomes a little more complex when you look at tolling sections of roads. There was a fairly extensive debate about a proposal to toll the Naas bypass in my own constituency. If I appear to make many references to my own constituency it is only because most of the motorways in his country happen to pass through my constituency or most of those which are currently planned, apart from the Dublin ring road. It does not do us much good in terms of the provision of county roads as we are very badly treated by the Minister in relation to funding for county roads, but the motorways are located there.

There was a fairly extensive debate about the idea of tolling the Naas bypass. In the end Kildare County Council — I think quite sensibly — decided against it on the grounds that the tolling operation would not succeed because the route was too short, the alternative routes were too easily available and did not create a huge time penalty for travellers and there was a desire to have several access points onto that bypass. That seems to suggest that if we are to apply tolls successfully a number of conditions would have to be met. First, the toll portion in question would have to be of a reasonable length and I think it should be at least 20 miles long to make it worth while. Second, alternative routes should be considerably longer or much less convenient. Third, there should not be high frequency of access points on the route.

One can see those principles in operation on motorways that are tolled in other countries. In France, for example, you will find that on all tolled roads there is a considerable distance between access points; they are certainly much further apart than eight kilometres which is the practice here. More frequently you will find they are anything from 40 kilometres to 60 kilometres apart. That means there is a substantial saving in time compared to alternative routes. Once you are on the motorway and if you pay the toll you will stay on it for quite a while.

There is another consideration also which has to do with the density of the road network and the density of population. Even though we have a much lower density of population in the country generally than any of the other member states of the European Community, we have a higher density of road network. We have more roads per square kilometre of land area than almost any other member state in the European Community. We are used to having a very wide and diverse road network. Those are not the conditions that make for easy agreement on tolling a new road and that is something we will have to bear in mind in looking at proposals for tolls.

In practical terms it would be worth while to impose a toll on a road if we had the mythical one I talked about earlier which went from Newlands Cross to Portlaoise. That would be a stretch of road that would be well worth tolling and it would be a viable proposition both for the authority providing the road and maintaining it and for people travelling on it. The proposal to toll the Naas bypass was definitely a loser on all counts, both on policy terms and in terms of practicality. I may be wrong about all these things. They are the simple observations of an ordinary traveller who also has an interest in getting value for money out of public expenditure. If I am wrong about that I would like to be told how, where and why I am wrong. Above all, I would like to hear from the Minister his policy approach to proposals for tolling a facility of this kind. It is not possible to infer what his policy approach would be from a consideration of the relevant sections in this Bill.

Section 59 (3) and (6) give the Minister more power to get his finger into the pie. For example, subsection (3) provides that bylaws — these are bylaws for tolls— shall have no effect unless and until the Minister approves them. Subsection (6) (a) provides that the Minister may by order—this is one of those passive orders so far as I can remember—approve the bylaws with or without modifications, or he may refuse to approve them. Therefore the relevant authorities, who will consult with the Commissioner of the Garda Síochana and so on in drawing up toll bylaws, may find that the Minister, without telling them the reason can come along and approve the bylaws with or without modifications or that he may refuse to approve them. It is not stated on what basis the Minister may modify or approve them or indeed refuse to approve them. Again, no guidelines are given for the edification of the public or the legislator as to what kind of considerations will move the Minister to make any of those decisions.

Section 61 deals with agreements for financing, maintenance, construction and operation of toll roads. This area has been the subject of much discussion in the past. I might add that it is a very vexed area. I hope I will not break any confidences when I say that I had proposals put to me at one stage for a toll operation. In effect the proposal amounted to a suggestion that the State would provide 80 per cent of the capital, that private enterprise would provide 20 per cent of the capital but that they would also have access to revenue from the tolls for a period of 30 years. I should say that that was one of the very early proposals put to me and neither the State nor the private sector had any geat experience of the operation up until then. Indeed, at that time there was only one toll scheme in operation.

It seemed to be a very bad deal for the State and that the kind of return the State would get on its money, both in terms of the benefit of the project itself and the financial return that would come from it, did not justify an agreement to the deal put up. Eventually it was withdrawn because I objected to the terms. It did not prove possible to have the terms modified to make them acceptable to me.

I gather that further proposals have been made in the meantime — some years have passed since then — but none of them has become a concrete proposal except one. Of course, I was under a lot of pressure at the time to agree to what was being put forward as a very creative way of funding part of the public capital programme. The conclusion I came to at the time was that for what is was going to cost the State it would be cheaper for the State to borrow money directly on the gilt market rather than enter into this type of agreement. Rightly or wrongly, that always seemed to be a reasonable test of whether we should regard a project as being attractive, because I could not justify either to myself or to anyone else a proposition that in order to have a "creative" approach to these problems I should end up paying more for the project than I needed to pay when I could have resort to funding through the gilt market.

All these considerations will apply when we come to look at agreements for financing, maintenance, construction and operation of toll roads. There will always be a temptation and a great deal of pressure on the Minister to look at innovative proposals for financing these roads and always a temptation for the Government to accept proposals that amount in one way or another to off balance sheet financing of a part of the public capital programme. It looks nice on the accounting side and it may have a cosmetic effect on the Exchequer borrowing requirement in any given year, but it does not have any real effect for taxpayers because at the end of the day what we have to look at is the bottom line and what it is going to cost the State.

Some of the ideas and projects which are put forward amount simply to a device for deferring the shouldering of the cost by the State. I think that they have to be looked at with a great deal of suspicion, because there is usually a very rosy view of the way interest rates and rates of return are going to change in the period between the construction of the project and the time the State has to take it over, typically 20 to 30 years down the road. They have to be subjected to rigorous analysis because, wherever the burden may seem to lie in the short term, at the end of the day it falls on the State and there is no way out of this unless of course we find cases where particular pieces of infrastructure or facilities will be provided by private enterprise and constructed and maintained wholly by private enterprise without recourse to the State. I am not aware of any such proposal. On the face of it such a proposal would seem to be much more attractive than any of the mixed financing proposals that I have seen and read about.

I am sure the Minister will have plenty of advice which will echo much of what I have to say and that he will get plenty of advice to ignore it, but I hope that he resists it. Having said that, whatever conclusion he comes to in particular cases, I wonder if the Minister would consider publishing the terms of such agreements. I may have missed it, but it seems there is nothing in the Bill that would require him to do so. A good deal of the State's financial activities takes place more or less in the background and it is not specifically or explicitly published, but in respect of most of the financial activity of the State there is a way of actually finding out what is going on, how much the State is paying for its money and how it goes about getting it. Apart from anything else, the financial sector in this country is so small that the word gets around fairly quickly. In any case the State is such a big operator on the market that it is very difficult for the State to do anything without it being noticed.

The situation may be a little bit different when we talk about the activities of a roads authority under an agreement made on the lines of the specifications of this Bill. It would be useful, and certainly helpful in informing public debate, if agreements of the kind envisaged were published. I see no reason they should not be. People talk about the need for commercial confidentiality. That is clearly very important when we reach the stage where a project goes to tender, where people are competing for the work, but once an agreement is made it is a perfectly legitimate object of public concern and the Minister should consider publishing these. In case the Minister gets the idea that I would single out himself or his Department or the new National Roads Authority, I can assure him that I would not, because I think the details of the financial dealings of the State, particularly in relation to major infrastructural programmes, should be published far more. Apart from anything else, the public and this House need to know what the basis of these agreements is so that we can form an idea as to whether policy is getting us good value for the taxpayers' moneys.

Part VI of the Bill, which is headed "Miscellaneous", deals with a number of peripheral but nevertheless important issues, the first of which is cycleways. I am glad that provision is being made for cycleways and I am sure that this will be welcomed all around the country. I expect to hear one of the spokespersons of the Green Party claiming credit for cycleways because they seem to think they are the only ones who ride bikes. Perhaps if they rode bikes a bit more they would know more about what is going on around them. However, I am delighted to see that the good sense which has caused councillors of many parties to urge that cycleways be provided has finally arrived and is now incorporated in this Bill.

I hope cycleways will be provided widely throughout the country, not because I have a romantic idea that cycling is a pleasant activity, is good for us and has nice associations, but rather because it forms a part of traffic planning in towns and cities which has been very much neglected. If we encouraged people to use bicycles far more we could help to solve some of the problems of congestion and pollution in towns and cities. Let nobody tell me that we do not have pollution in our towns. It is not only in Dublin that there is serious pollution from traffic. If you stand in the main street of Naas on a Saturday afternoon when it is busy you will get a fair amount of what ordinary people call pollution — it smells like hell — from traffic going by. That is pollution, whatever the air quality measurements may say.

I am delighted to see provision for cycleways in the Bill. Perhaps the Minister will indicate whether he will suggest guidelines which might provide, for example, that where possible cycleways will be totally separate from roadways. Obviously, in a city it could be difficult to do that in many areas, but it is a matter at which we should look because motorists and cyclists are a mutual danger to each other a lot of the time and it would help with traffic management and general comfort if cycleways were where possible separated from the roads and carriageway.

Section 66 deals with temporary dwellings on national roads, etc. It refers to the protected roads mentioned in section 43. I have a question in regard to that, largely one of definition. Does this prohibition of the erection, placing or retention of temporary dwellings on national roads, motorways, busways and protected roads apply before the roads are categorised or afterwards? I gather that the problem being dealt with here is one we have seen quite frequently, where members of the travelling community see a nice new section of roadway completed but not yet used, move in and occupy the area. I do not know whether this section of the Bill could apply in that case because it seems to me that until the road is finished it will not be categorised. I suspect that perhaps the Bill may not deal with the manifestation of the problem most frequently seen and may deal with something else which is less of a problem but which nevertheless should be dealt with.

Section 67 pulled me up with a bit of a start because it seems to provide substantial powers for roads authorities to require owners of land or buildings in the vicinity of roads to do many things. Section 67 (2) (a) provides that the owner or occupier of land shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that a tree, shrub, hedge or other vegetation on the land is not a hazard or potential hazard to persons using a public road. Who decides whether it is a hazard? My conclusion from reading the Bill is that the roads authority in question decide whether it is a hazard. That leads to certain things because subsection (2) (b) provides that where the roads authority have come to this conclusion they may serve a notice in writing on the owner or occupier of the land on which such tree, shrub, hedge or other vegetation is situated requiring the preservation, felling, cutting, lopping, trimming or removal of such tree, shrub, etc. on the grounds that they are a traffic hazard. It seems that the roads authority decide whether these things are hazards and order the owner of the land on which is situated the tree, shrub, etc. to have it lopped, felled or any of the other things proposed in the section. I wonder if we need to give a roads authority such a substantial power. I may be wrong, but I do not think they have that power at present. I can see that hedges by reason of their height might create traffic hazards at bends or corners, but I am not too sure whether that is always the case.

It is the practice over much of the country — there is a lot of it in my constituency and in the Minister's constituency of North Tipperary — for farmers to trim their hedges from time to time. Some of them do it for practical reasons, some do it for aesthetic reasons — although these days they cannot afford to do much for aesthetic reasons. In the course of doing it they destroy the natural habitat of a good many species, particularly birds. There is enough pressure on the environment already without road authorities coming along and in the name of traffic safety requiring owners or occupiers to carry out all these functions. I wonder if that power is not excessive. At the very least, I should like to have some idea of what may lead them to decide that a particular tree, shrub, etc. is a hazard or a potential hazard and, if so, what to do about it.

Of course, the landowners may object to this and bring a case to the District Court, which is provided for later in the section. However, subsection (5) (b) provides that no appeal shall lie to the Circuit Court from a decision of the District Court under this section. Why? I do not know whether there is justification for closing an avenue of redress which people normally had. Are there any precedents for saying that there shall be no further jurisdiction and, if so, what are they? I know that going to court is expensive and tedious and I do not think that people would resort to it often. However, I wonder if the principle is so important that we should say there is no appeal from a decision of the District Court, particularly since later on in subsections (8), (9), (10) and (11) there are powers for the roads authority to carry out the works themselves or to have them carried out at somebody else's charge where the landowner in question refuses or fails to carry out the work. Are all those powers needed? Would a smaller number of powers secure the aim which the Minister has in mind in making these provisions in the Bill?

Section 68 deals with unauthorised signs, caravans and so on on public roads. I am given to understand that one of the objects of this section is to regulate street trading and markets. Like many other Members of the House, I have had representations about this from people who like the idea of this section and from those who do not. I dislike this section. There are a number of places — not as many as there are elsewhere — where street trading in various forms has been a long tradition or has grown up in recent years. Indeed, street trading in Dublin has always been a very vexed question. However, I like street trading and street traders because they bring a bit of colour to our towns and cities which otherwise would be lacking. They bring character to shopping which otherwise would also be lacking and I cannot for the life of me see that they do any long term damage to settled traders.

In my own town of Kildare, for example, there is a market every Thursday morning in The Square. It is a very lively place. It causes dreadful traffic congestion. People like to park as near to the market as they can get. The Square is an important parking place in Kildare and when it is occupied by stalls cars cannot be parked there, leading to more congestion. Even without the bypass, that extra bit of congestion on a Thursday morning is a small price to pay for the extra life it brings to the town. I enjoy markets. The market held in Athy on Tuesdays may be less lively than the one held in Kildare, but nevertheless it adds colour and life to the town. Although some of my neighbours have spoken to me about it, I am not convinced that a street market of that kind interferes with settled traders or takes any business away from them. I believe a market is far more likely to increase the amount of business in a town than reduce it. If the intention of this section is to restrict those markets, then I oppose it; I do not like the idea.

Markets have many other advantages. People will allege that traders in these markets are trading unfairly and operating in a grey area half way into the black economy. Quite frankly, I regard that as a problem for the Revenue Commissioners and the other people who are supposed to regulate the way we pay our taxes. While it may be true, I do not think the allegation that a number of these people have a slightly cavalier attitude to paying their taxes is a good enough reason to interfere with street trading. I hope the Minister can assure me that it is not the objective of this section to crack down on street trading. I should like to see street trading encouraged for the sake of the colour and variety it brings into our lives.

I have to say — there might be one or two examples of this in the Minister's constituency which he might look at — that markets are a great place to canvass during elections. It is a delightful experience to canvass people in a market. I am not saying that it is worth keeping these markets for this reason only but it is a side benefit.

Mr. Ferris

Street traders are rarely on the voting register.

Mr. Dukes

No, but their customers are. That is the point. One will also meet people from a long distance around a town. The market in Kildare is perfectly located and people from all over the county come into it. Indeed some people from outside the county also come into that market. Now that the Deputy has reminded me, I ought to say that markets are a great venue for social intercourse. The market held at Brownstown on the Curragh on Sundays — this has been contested by local people — has become quite famous. I have met people from as far afield as County Tipperary at that market. Some people go to the market four or five times a year, not necessarily to buy things but for the crack. They like the atmosphere, meeting people and sauntering around looking at what is available and what people are selling and buying. These markets are an addition to our cultural life. They do not cost the State anything and I would hate to see this section of the Bill being used to adopt a more restrictive approach to these markets than was the case up to now.

Minister for Education (Mr. Smith)

The Deputy can be assured that his electoral considerations will be uppermost in my mind.

Mr. Dukes

I would never doubt you, Michael. I can tell the Minister's colleague, the Minister for Social Welfare, and Deputy Seán Barrett that he is worried about me. I am delighted to hear it. I could do with a bit of goodwill from the Minister because the constituency boundary changes which his mob have imposed on us mean I will be in serious problems at the next election — I will lose more votes as a result of that piece going out of the Kildare constituency than anyone else. Therefore, I am in great need of the Minister's solicitude. I should like to be back here after the next election.

Mr. Smith

If the Deputy is getting down to the details of his electoral prospects in the context of this Bill I do not see any reason for him to be fearful.

Mr. Dukes

I am delighted to hear it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I do not see any great relevance in this.

Mr. Dukes

That is that you might call an unsolicited testimonial. I will put it on my election literature.

This brings me to section 9, which deals with signs. It contains certain restrictions in this respect. Section 9 (b) provides that this section shall not apply to a sign which relates to a Presidential election, a general election, a byelection, local election, referendum, etc. The provisions in relation to signs do not apply to elections. I wonder if the Minister might go a little further and give road authorities the power to designate sites for advertising during the elections as specified here and ban this pole plastering with election posters which takes place. This would be an excellent idea. One hesitates to say that this is done in other countries, but it is. To my knowledge during elections in France and Belgium sites are designated for use by political parties: they can put their posters on these designated sites but not elsewhere.

This might turn out to be better for parties and the electorate than the present practice where people shin up poles as far as they possibly can so that the other mob will not be able to pull down their posters. Because they want to make sure that the poster will stay on the pole they put it as high up as they can. Sometimes they wrap two posters back to back around a pole and staple the edges together. As a result the posters are so far up the pole and so bent and curved that the potential voter cannot read them. The people who put up these posters go away thinking they have done a great job for their candidate when all they have done is put up the posters so high on the pole that nobody can read them. The more creative people stick posters on each side of an old bread tray and fix the tray perpendicular to a pole. That is a different job altogether. Perhaps the Minister will look at the issue of putting up posters during elections. The Bill will give parties seven days after an election in which to remove posters. Perhaps the Minister could do something creative in regard to this issue which would help to tidy up the countryside during the course of elections.

Section 69 deals with the extinguishment of public rights of way. The Minister's predecessor when introducing this Bill said nothing at all about this issue. Although I like the "extinguishment" I am suspicious of the concept. "Extinguishment" is a grand word; it seems to be very old fashioned and has a great ring to it. This section proposes that local authorities can decide to extinguish a public right of way for their own good reasons. I should like to know why local authorities should extinguish public rights of way. It seems that it would be more in keeping with the duties of local authorities to provide and open up rights of way rather than extinguish them. I should like the Minister to say why he believes there should be a lengthy and separate section in the Bill dealing with the extinguishment of public rights of way. As I said, it would seem to be more appropriate for public authorities to open rights of way rather than extinguish them.

Section 70 deals with road races. While I am delighted that this section is included in the Bill, it seems to take a rather grudging approach to the organisation of road races. There are great cyclists in my constituency and people are very fond of cycle races. From time to time roads are closed to facilitate cycle races, foot races and other kind of races. Over the past ten or 15 years public roads have rarely been closed for motor racing, apart from rallying. A year or two ago there was a debate about the possibility of starting an Irish Formula One Grand Prix, which I would dearly love to see. It was proposed to close some roads in Dún Laoghaire to facilitate the race. Of course, there were the inevitable local objections to this proposal. People have a perfect right to do this, but I think it is an awful pity. I must confess to a secret passion for motor racing and I would love to see a Formula One Grand Prix race being held in Ireland. I hope the residents of Dún Laoghaire who objected to this race will think again. One thing is sure — I know Dún Laoghaire very well because I lived not far from there for a few years — that no Formula One Grand Prix race could ever be held over any conceivable course around Dún Laoghaire unless the surface of the roads was made the subject of major improvement. Far from objecting to the idea of holding a Grand Prix there, it would be very much in the interests of the residents of the Borough of Dún Laoghaire to agitate for it to be held because their roads system would be improved to a greater extent than they are likely to be for a long time under present policies. I hope I do not sound frivolous in saying that. I am quite serious about it because I would like to see a more open approach to the idea of closing roads from time to time in order to hold races of that kind. The framing of sections 70 and 71 suggest that a restrictive view will be taken of this rather than an open view.

Section 73 deals with the service of notices in relation to a whole series of matters. I would like to know how subsection (1) is to apply. It provides that whenever the Minister is satisfied in relation to a notice required to be served under this Act that reasonable grounds exist for dispensing with the service of the notice, and the dispensing with the service of the notice will not cause injury or damage to any person, he may dispense with it. I would like to know how the Minister is going to come to that conclusion. On what basis will he decide that he is going to dispense with the service of a notice?

As a matter of general principle in all the issues and policy areas that are dealt with in this Bill we should adopt the principle that the more the public knows about it the better. We should be very reluctant to find a reason for reducing the amount of public information given. That is probably a principle that should be applied to the activities of agencies such as the Roads Authority and of local authorities generally. I am glad to be able to say that to the Minister for the Environment.

I have had occasion to speak recently in this House about a case which involves local government, although it is not directly the Minister's business. It was the case of water contamination in Naas, a problem which has been resolved. Remedial action appears to have been taken and we are being assured that it will not happen again. However, there is an absolutely inexplicable reluctance on the part of the local authority and the health authority in question to tell the public in any detail what happened, how it happened, why it happened, what the results were and what is being done to prevent it happening again. I have asked the Minister these questions in the House and I have been told that the Minister has no power to compel a local authority to issue any such report. The Minister for Health has told me that he does not believe he is entitled to publish a report provided to him on a confidential basis by a local authority. He may be right, but that flies in the face of the opening of blinds, of the open Government the Taoiseach talks about, and more importantly it flies in the face of common sense.

In Naas and the surrounding districts people believe that something important is being kept from them. The longer these reports remain unpublished the more suspicious people will be. Perhaps they have a right to be suspicious — we do not know — but as a matter of general principle for the assurance of the public and for the benefit of public authorities who should be getting good advice from outside, we should adopt the principle of making as much information as possible available to the public rather than taking the view which seems to underlie section 73 of this Bill that we should find reasons for reducing the amount of information given.

I would like to thank you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, and the Minister for your patience in listening to these considerations about various aspects of this Bill. I am not being rude when I say that it is vain to expect the Minister to answer all these questions, but I would like him to address some of the issues of principle in relation to the main sections that I have dealt with. This whole operation is so important for transport planning, infrastructural planning, economic development and the environment that we should ensure that on Committee Stage we deal properly with the issues which will have the most intimate affect on our people.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy does not have to apologise to the Chair. He enjoyed the open road because he obeyed all the orders of the debate. Deputy Mattie Brennan might be happy to know that there is no road without a turning.

Mr. M. Brennan

I am sure Deputy Dukes' very lengthy speech will be the longest speech on the Roads Bill whereas my speech will probably be the shortest. I intend to make only a few points. First, I congratulate the new Minister for the Environment and wish him every success in his new portfolio. He has done an excellent job in every portfolio he has held and I am sure he will do the same in this case.

I hope that when money from the Structural Fund is being distributed a considerable amount of it will come westward. I welcome the introduction of the Roads Bill, 1991. It is a step in the right direction. The Structural Fund from the EC is very important. In the previous speaker's excellent contribution he referred to the roads, by-passes and motorways in his constituency, but we could do with some of them in my constituency. At present there are plans before the Department for a dual carriageway from Sligo to Collooney. For the last number of months I have made representations to the Minister for the Environment for the carrying out of an environmental impact study of the area. Perhaps the Minister would ensure that such a study is completed as soon as possible. It can then be sent to Sligo County Council who will submit it to the Department of the Environment for funding. The road from Collooney through Ballisodare into Sligo, is a bottlekneck. The proposed by-pass would improve greatly that part of the Dublin-Sligo road from Sligo to Collooney. Therefore, I would appreciate it if the Minister would ensure that the environmental impact study is completed as soon as possible.

Sligo city in my constituency has rightly become the capital and the most important administrative centre in the northwest. It has sea and air links with other Irish cities and with Britain and Europe. There is an urgent need to develop and expand both these facilities. There has been much talk in recent times about the Sligo railway line which links Sligo with Dublin. That railway line needs to be upgraded, and thankfully money is being provided for that purpose. The result will be to take a lot of traffic off our roads. The policy in Europe at the moment is to build railway lines to take more traffic off the roads and to help alleviate pollution of the countryside.

There is evidence of great need to develop, improve and extend the national primary road that links Sligo with different cities where the major industrial and commercial centres and the major seaports are situated. The Department have a plan to develop the Curlews bypass, which would link Castlebaldwin in County Sligo with Boyle in County Roscommon. The present road through the Curlews is narrow and winding. Roscommon County Council rather than Sligo County Council are designing the bypass because most of the road is in County Roscommon. Drivers of articulated trucks and bus drivers who travel to Dublin every day tell me that negotiation of the Curlews, particularly when the roads are wet or frosty, is almost impossible. The sooner that the new bypass design reaches the Department and funding is made available for the project, the easier life will be for bus drivers and for the drivers of the articulated trucks that transport products from the meat factories in the industrial centre of Sligo to Dún Laoghaire and other seaports in order that our lamb, for example, arrives in France, Italy and other parts of Europe.

Those involved in agriculture and associated industries need modern, well-built, well-serviced and well-maintained roads to transport their product to processing centres and to areas that have a consumer demand. Those involved in industries other than agriculture need the same high quality roads and ease of access to their markets. I again ask the Minister to do everything possible to ensure that the necessary funding is provided to carry out the two projects to which I have made particular reference, the Collooney-Sligo bypass and the Boyle bypass. A massive amount of Structural Fund aid is needed for those projects.

The bishops are holding meetings all over the west of Ireland, the theme of which is "Develop the West Together". Quite recently I attended a meeting of MEPs, TDs and Senators, chaired by Bishop Conway of Elphin. The meeting discussed the infrastructure and the roads and particular mention was made of the road from Sligo to Collooney and the Curlews bypass. If our roads have not improved within the next few years it will be very difficult to expect any industry to come to set up business in Sligo. The meetings on the development of the west of Ireland called by the bishops are extremely valuable. The bishops are very concerned about the number of people who are leaving the west. They see the numbers attending rural churches diminishing as the number of people living in rural Ireland gets smaller. The bishops feel that better roads in the west of Ireland would attract more people to live there and would encourage more people to set up industries.

I have mentioned several major roads but I should also like to point out that the development, construction, expansion and improvement of county roads is a very vital part of social life in rural Ireland. We cannot overlook the lesser roads, which are equally important to those who reside in rural areas. People who live in rural areas have to go to their local town or village, their local school and their local shop and they need better roads. People who live on county roads are as much entitled to a good road leading to their house as anybody else. Thankfully, Minister Flynn, some four years ago drew up a plan to improve county roads under the road strengthening grant. I hope that the new Minister for the Environment will continue to make substantial allocations of moneys for county roads.

Deputy Dukes talked about the overgrowth of hedges. At present our county roads are affected by overgrown hedges. Because of agreement with the unions, local authorities — the Sligo County Council in my own area — are able to employ people on the social employment scheme to do the necessary work. Those people might be farmers in receipt of reduced unemployment assistance and they get very good money for joining that scheme. I have always praised the setting up of that scheme, which was set up under a Labour Government. Minister Bertie Ahern continued the work of the scheme when he became Minister for Labour. The social employment scheme enables wonderful work to be done in the villages and towns of rural Ireland. Some of the unions disagree with work that is being carried out, but those who work under that scheme are very happy to be employed and they earn at least three times as much money per week on that scheme. They work one week on and one week off and they feel better for being at work during the day. They have a sense of dignity and they enjoy being able to work. More money should be made available so that the local authorities can employ increased numbers of people under the social employment scheme. Unfortunately, there are now fewer people employed by the local authorities than ever before. I feel that that is a result of the derating of all private dwellings some years ago — perhaps that was a bad decision. Some Minister and some Government will have to decide to bring back some kind of rate in order to ensure that local authorities are properly funded to maintain our county roads to the required standard.

Many people come to holiday in rural Ireland and they expect to travel on good county roads. I say to the Minister present and also to the Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications that a considerable amount of money is needed — from whichever source — to boost county roads, which are tourist roads leading to our mountains and lakes. I know many of those roads. The road from Collooney through Coolaney, Cloonacool and on to Ballina by the Ox Mountains is a scenic route along which French, German and other tourists travel. These roads need to be improved. If the local authorities do not have enough money to improve these roads money should be made available from the tourism budget to upgrade them. The drive from the Ox Mountains to Lake Easkey and out by Lough Talt and down to the sea at Enniscrone is through one of the most beautiful parts of Ireland. Perhaps I feel like that because I come from that part of the world. If we put more money into that type of road it would be a step in the right direction and would encourage tourism. We have a rail link and airports in Sligo and in Knock. All we need is tourists, but to encourage them we need better roads. If money continues to be made available from road strengthening grants for these areas it will be a step in the right direction.

With regard to the section dealing with miscellaneous matters, I fully support the decision to make it an offence for anyone to erect temporary dwellings on our roads. We are too painfully aware of the disruption caused by these dwellings. It is disgraceful to see such large dwellings in places where there are no facilities for the people. Very often the children from these dwellings are a menace to themselves and to other road users when they run out on to the roads. What makes matters worse are the huge piles of scrap alongside these dwellings on the sides of our roads. I know of a fatal accident which occurred involving a young travelling child on one of our roads. It is a pity that had to happen and I would ask the Minister to ensure that these people will not be allowed to live on our roads. Temporary dwellings should be removed.

I have noticed that the first ten or 12 miles of the road from Dublin to Sligo has been greatly improved but after that the road has not improved very much. The roads in Meath and Westmeath are quite good, but there is a bottleneck in Mullingar. When will the Mullingar bypass be started?

Mr. McGrath

It started last week.

Mr. M. Brennan

It is great if it started last week because it is a step in the right direction. The roads are good in County Longford and I compliment Leitrim County Council for the number of miles of national primary roads they have completed in recent times. I hope that in the next couple of years we will have substantial allocations for roads to make sure the roads I mentioned earlier can be maintained and completed.

The previous speaker referred to street trading, but I do not agree with him on it. In Tubbercurry we have street trading the second Wednesday of every month. The whole town is taken over by street traders and the shops could close down for that day. These people sell everything and anything. They probably pay their car tax, but I wonder do they pay tax on anything they sell. Neither do they pay any rates. They are damaging the shopkeepers. A section of each town should be set aside for traders rather than having them parked all over the place on fair days.

Mr. Ferris

Deputy Brennan's identification of the beautiful roads in Sligo only reminds me of the Seanad campaigns. The Minister will know the roads from his escapades on the Seanad trail. Those roads have been travelled successfully by all of us because there was always generosity from the people of the Sligo area for those of us who are forced to call on them for that purpose.

I congratulate the new Minister on his appointment. In my short intervention last week with regard to the appointment of the Cabinet I identified Deputy Michael Smith's appointment as one which we welcomed. Recently on my local radio station Deputy Smith said that this appointment was one of his greatest challenges. From my experience of Deputy Smith I know he will approach this serious new challenge with a degree of expertise and authority and with a certain style with which he is blessed. His experience as a member of a local authority will stand to his credit in the Department. The Deputy knows the importance of the major input into our roads structure from county councils since the first county council was established in 1899.

I would be unhappy if I thought the establishment of this roads Authority was a reflection on the competence or experience of local authorities in how they managed their responsibilities for the provision of national primary, secondary, county and non-route roads. As a member of a local authority the only fault I found with membership and/or responsibility for roads was that of funding, responsibility for which was always placed firmly on local government but, of late, on the Department of the Environment. People located in Dublin, through Government and the appropriate Department, dictate the level of activity to take place on roads in each constituency. As the previous speaker said, from the date of derating of property in local authority areas the amount of money made available to local authorities was reduced to such an extent that the only funds now available to them for expenditure on any roadworks within their jurisdiction are those from rates on commercial premises and from local authority charges. This means very little work can be undertaken on county or minor roads, local authorities being totally dependent on central funds for the allocation of block grants or for any specific proposals to tackle a problem we all encounter in our constituencies, that of maintaining roads at the standard we would wish.

I hope the establishment of the National Roads Authority will not be viewed as a reflection on past performances of local authorities. Once established I hope there will be consultation with local authorities, drawing on their wealth of experience gained over many years by their staff and members, particularly in their communications with landowners on all aspects of land acquisition for the purposes of road construction.

I hope, within the powers being given them in this Bill, the National Roads Authority will draw on that vast experience all of us gained as members of local authorities and, indeed, that of their staffs. I am thinking of staff at county engineer level and the engineering structure and the expertise available to local authorities generally.

I note there is provision in the Bill for the transfer of some categories of local authority staff. Will the Minister define more clearly the staff he has in mind, what procedure will be followed and the rights of such staff in any transfer from a local authority to the National Roads Authority? For example, I would like to think there will be consultation with staff representatives with a view to protecting any rights they may have, such as pension, superannuation and so on, or indeed their existing salary structures.

One reason for the establishment of the National Roads Authority may well be to enable us avail of EC Structural Funds for the development of transport under various EC-designated headings, particularly "peripherality".

It will clearly be seen that we are placed at a considerable disadvantage vis-à-vis other member states, including Britain, who in the near future will be linked to the Continent by the Channel Tunnel leaving us alone, an island State, on the periphery of Europe. This makes it more important that our roads infrastructure, linking our airports and ports, major towns and cities and industrial areas, are allotted as much money as possible to ensure their efficacy.

The document published by the National Roads Authority, under the heading of roads infrastructure, estimates that £670 million will be required. If one adds that amount to the sub-regional development one arrives at a total of £818 million of which 63 per cent will be available from EC funding and the remaining 37 per cent from our own resources. Of course the latter may not all come from the Exchequer or the public coffers. We may well be coaxing the private sector to provide self-financing toll roads in which people who have been involved to a limited extent can invest.

In their document, published almost 12 months ago, the National Roads Authority identified this EC operational programme as constituting the most comprehensive, up-to-date policy statement of the Irish Government in relation to the development of our roads network. This is contained in the document entitled "Operational Programme on Peripherality, Roads and Other Transport Infrastructure, Ireland, 1989-1993". I am referring to that document because I intend to identify some aspects of that programme of interest and concern to me representing South Tipperary. This operational programme, published in 1990, is one of a number submitted by the Government to the EC Commission, constituting part of the National Development Plan 1989-1993, of March 1989. The operational programmes were contained in the Community Support Framework — CSF — agreed between our Government and the Commission on 31st October 1989. Each operational programme was subsequently negotiated in detail, within the CSF and the EC Commission, on Monday, 13 August 1990 in a press release confirmed approval of this operational programme on peripherality.

One task to be undertaken by the National Roads Authority, especially in the programme published by Government to which I referred, will be seen clearly from maps Nos. 5 and 6, one of which refers to Euro and national primary routes and the other to motorways, dual carriageways and single carriageways. On those maps the constituency of South Tipperary is identified as an area to be straddled by some of these national primary routes. Deputy M. Brennan, who followed Deputy Dukes, commented on the number of roads to be built in County Kildare. I might remind both Members that South Tipperary, and indeed the Minister's constituency of North Tipperary, contain many national primary roads running from where our boundary joins County Kilkenny, at Urlingford, until it leaves the county of Tipperary on the Mitchelstown/Cork road, all national primary routes as is the portion of road joined at the Limerick border at Oola and Two Mile Bridge at Carrick-on-Suir, also a national primary route, between Waterford and Limerick city. If my constituency is to survive and prosper it must be well serviced by national primary roads. It is essential that the National Roads Authority, the Minister and the Department clarifies the new Euro route to be chosen and identified on map No. 6.

With the assistance of European funding we invested recently approximately £12 million on a by-pass of Cahir a beautiful scenic town, blessed with the Swiss Cottage, Cahir Castle, the river Suir and many other attributes. The town straddles the two junctions from Waterford to Limerick and Cork to Dublin. We provided a by-pass of the town to speed up the flow of traffic without doing damage to the town's infrastructure, thereby ensuring people could visit the town and park their cars there without being frustrated by passing traffic such as juggernauts and the like. Despite the fact that this new by-pass is successful, it could have been more successful if Iarnród Éireann had agreed to allow a wider bridge at the entrance to the roundabout, which has been the scene of many accidents. If that bridge had been the width of a proper carriageway then one would not approach this roundabout coming from Dublin into what is in effect a tunnel. This, unfortunately, was foisted on us by Iarnród Éireann who would not allow the width of bridge over the railway that would have allowed a proper view of the roundabout. The exit on the flyover at the Cashel side of this and, indeed, the new renovated exit and entrance into Cahir, is now proving successful. What concerns us is the doubt as to how the road will now proceed. The Minister in a recent radio interview said that there was some doubt about it. At the moment we are proceeding through Portlaoise, with the main national primary route dual carriageway identified as far as Portlaoise. We are at present at The Curragh. However, when we get to Portlaoise there is some doubt as to whether we are to proceed with parallel dual carriageways, one leading to Roscrea and Nenagh into Limerick or whether it will proceed to Cork just north of Cashel. If this is the case we need to know soon because Tipperary town and the town of Cashel are both identified as being in need of being by-passed for the survival of the shops and houses that are on the main streets of these two towns.

I know that by-passing Tipperary town might be ten, 12 or 15 years down the road because it is on the national primary route between Waterford and Limerick. However, Cashel is on the road between Dubin and Cork and the local authority have taken steps to identify a route and have frozen development in the belief that this would be the route of the continuation of the national primary dual carriageway between Dublin and Cork. Now there is some doubt about this. The sooner it is cleared up the better for all of us. If the dual carriageway is to be continued from Portlaoise to just north of Cashel and then diverted towards Tipperary to Limerick, then the Minister's area will be by-passed in that procedure. If the reverse happens, it will mean a disturbance of the normal flow of traffic to Cork. These are not worries that I have invented. These are replies that have been given at local authority level to members who are questioning what exactly is happening to these two proposed by-passes in Tipperary town and in Cashel.

This is one of the first questions this new Authority will have to ask themselves because what I have outlined is not what is identified in this operational programme on peripherality. It certainly leaves an element of doubt in people's minds. I know it will be four or five years before we get to that stage but we need to plan. We should not freeze areas which are suitable for planning if, in the final analysis, they will not be used.

That begs the question that if we proceed down this Map 6 Euro route then the Minister's road and the road in my area will be developed to and through Cashel, but the road between Cashel and Tipperary town will be left as a disaster area. It was the scene of a tragic accident last weekend. It has been the scene of many tragic accidents over the years and this is a road that has been estimated by our engineers as costing some £14 million to upgrade. It is a very important and busy link but still it is only a national secondary road. I doubt that that road will come within the jurisdiction of the National Roads Authority which might confine itself to all these national primary routes. If that is the case the Minister's decision on the primary roads will affect the final decision that we, as local authority members, will have to make vis-à-vis the link road between Tipperary town and Cashel.

This brings me to certain sections of the Bill itself. We state these reservations to be helpful so that the Minister can raise questions in the Department and lay down guidelines for the new roads Authority. There are certain questions we must ask ourselves as to what consultations will take place in regard to this new roads Authority. I note with reservation that under section 34 the Minister will preclude members of the local authority from being involved in the roads Authority. In the past corporation and county council workers were precluded from being members of their own authority. Fortunately, with some progressive thinking, particularly on the part of the then Minister for Local Government, Mr. Tully, some of this prohibition was removed. We should start from the premise that we should not have to apologise for being elected to local authorities or the Oireachtas, provided that election does not interfere with the discharge of our public duties in a manner seen to be totally impartial. In section 34 (1) (c) the Minister may, by order, designate a class description or grade of employment to which the provisions of this paragraph shall not apply. I am asking the Minister to make that exclusion as liberal as possible so that we will not preclude people who work with the roads Authority from becoming members of their own local authority. There is nothing incompatible about this.

Deputy Dukes raised the question of Members of the Oirechtas becoming members of the Authority. We had this debate in relation to various pieces of legislation. The parliamentary draftsmen are beginning to learn that one cannot automatically exclude people from membership just because they have been nominated for the Seanad. They may not necessarily be elected. We would accept that once they are elected they should be precluded. In regard to the non-Oireachtas nomination procedure, which can happen in the Seanad, people could be nominated against their will, or without their knowledge or approval and this would preclude them from being on the Authority. We came up with a wording which would provide that this exclusion would apply only if, on being nominated, they accepted the nomination or if elected. Otherwise people would be precluded; this has happened on various bodies, for example, An Foras Talúntais, ACOT and other bodies where people who were nominated to those bodies lost their place on the board, but were not elected. One wondered at times why they were nominated and if there was an ulterior motive. We just want to protect the rights of certain people to be nominated. If they are elected it is a different story.

Membership of the Oireachtas would be incompatible with membership of the roads Authority but membership of a local authority would not be. We should not exclude certain categories of employment. Reference has also been made in section 19 to certain powers which would be conferred on this new Authority. Some of these powers are powers that are already held by local authorities. Deputy Dukes obviously was not aware of some of the powers local authorities have, for instance, the power to serve notice on people in regard to cutting hedges, removing trees, and compulsory acquisition of land in the common interest, no alone for housing but for roadworks. Section 19 (1) will give the Authority powers to do any or all of the following:

(a) prepare, or arrange for the preparation, of designs for constuction or improvement works,

I suggest there should be the closest possible consultation between the new Authority and the existing staff of the local authority because many of these designs have already been carried out, unless there are major changes in funding. They may:

(b) prepare, or arrange for the preparation of, programmes of maintenance works,

Our only problem at present is that we do not have funds to carry out the maintenance works. I hope when the Authority are set up more funds will be available and that Irish motorists will not be second-class citizens vis-à-vis our European counterparts. They may also:

(d) secure the carrying out of construction or maintenance or the provision of traffic signs.

(e) allocate moneys and make payments in relation to construction or maintenance works, or in relation to any other function assigned to it by or under this Act,

(f) with the approval of the Minister, specify standards in relation to construction or maintenance works.

These are all wide-ranging powers but they should not be carried out in isolation without consultation with the expertise already available to members and staff of the local authority.

We already have the power under the Planning Acts to carry out environmental impact studies. This matter is dealt with in section 48. There is always a debate taking place as to whether environmental impact studies are carried out by independent people or people with a vested interest. I know that the attitude of An Taisce and others who are prescribed bodies, under the planning Acts, is that local authorities and people we employ to carry out environmental impact studies are biased. To maintain this Authority in the manner in which they will be set up under the terms of this Bill, it is essential that any studies they carry out be seen to be as independent as possible. Many of these environmental impact studies will be in built-up areas, particularly in Dublin city and elsewhere, where the impact of a motorway on residential property and people living there has a tremendous environmental impact. It is essential that these studies be carried out by independent people. We have had very competent, independent people in this country over a number of years who are capable of carrying out these studies. The most efficient and economical way is to avoid objections and High Court injunctions which seem to be the norm nowadays for any proposed development in any particular area. Perhaps the Minister will address this issue in the new Planning Bill.

It is amazing that people who have no immediate concern with a development or who live many miles away from it, have the constitutional right to object to a development in a particular area simply because they may be part of an environmentalist lobby group or some other such group of people who have designated themselves as the responsible authority for the whole of Ireland. People can name themselves as objectors and yet live hundreds of miles away from the scene of the development.

There are many other sections in the Bill which I want to mention briefly. We have a problem with the movement of uncovered offal trucks on our public roads. The fact that offal can be transported in uncovered trucks creates an extraordinary environmental problem from a smell and an animal health point of view and from a human health point of view. This is an area of responsibility which is not within the remit of the local authority but rather it is within the remit of the Department of Agriculture and Food. In spite of repeated representations from my local authority to the Department of Agriculture and Food identifying the offending lorry no action has been taken by the Department of Agriculture and Food to curtail it despite the fact that we gave assurances to people that if they could identify the offending vehicle we would take action. The Department of Agriculture and Food have almost to be brought to a public inquiry before they will take action about anything. That is a fact which can be seen from another location.

There is also a problem about dangerous trees in regard to which we have certain powers. We have a major problem in regard to trees which are identified by the local authority as being dangerous. They are marked for the information of the landowner. Following some extraordinarily difficult winters involving storms and tragedies involving falling trees, we felt obliged to be of assistance to landowners to identify the trees which we considered to be potentially dangerous. That is as far as we can go on the legislation. We do not have the power to remove the tree: we can identify it and request its removal but the landowner does not have to follow our advice. The only problem is that if the tree we have identified falls by accident — God between us and all harm — on anybody passing by in a storm, it does confer some responsibility on the landowner.

I would like to see — with caution — some powers given to local authorities which would allow them to remove dangerous trees and yet ensure that the tree was dead and was a danger from that point of view. Unfortunately, we have identified trees which are perfectly healthy. People have used the mark on the tree to sell and knock down matured trees without any provision for replanting or otherwise. This is an area we will have to address as part of ensuring that the national carriage ways are free of obstruction and are safe for people to use.

I welcome also the provision of cycle lanes in the city and the closing of roads for sporting purposes. These are all necessary provisions within the Bill. I accept that we cannot have footpaths on dual carriageways but we can have footpaths on scenic parts of national primary roads. We have a long tradition where people walk in some of these areas on Sundays. Funding should be available to us to pipe the drains at the side of national primary roads, cover them in and make footpaths for people who enjoy walking where there is a certain amount of activity and which they want to do in safety.

Another problem, which is touched on in two sections, is the question of roadside traders and itinerants. I agree with the Minister, Deputy Brennan, when he said places should be designated in urban areas for street traders. It is a matter for the local authority to adopt a by-law to ensure that identifiable places are made available for street traders, particularly in marketyards. They are very successful in Tipperary town and people are expected to pay for the facility of using the space identified for them. Of course, those people will require a trader's or a hawker's licence. If they are involved in the sale of fast food or other such provisions which are mentioned in this Bill as being prohibited, they will have to comply with public health authority regulations. At present they ignore most of those regulations and set up, using a hawker's licence. However, they do not present us with the biggest problem. That is presented by itinerants, or by those who are reputed to be itinerants, who trade on the side of the road. They arrive in an area with the most extraordinary range of products, including farm machinery and farm gates, and set up on the side of a roadway in a dangerous manner. They interfere with local residents in many ways, which I could not even begin to identify here. We will have to take action.

It should be possible to take action under this legislation to ensure that when the local authority meet their statutory responsibilities to provide serviced halting sites for those who have nowhere to go but who at the same time are not applicants for housing, they do not have their power usurped by itinerants indiscriminately parking their caravans on the periphery of urban areas in zones where parking is prohibited by law. We have found, even when we take action and go to court in an effort to have these people moved on from public amenity areas or from areas where they pose a danger to passing motorists, that judges are very reluctant to make such an order. This makes the task of local authorities almost impossible at a time when they are trying to be progressive and provide halting sites for these unfortunate people.

Many of these people do not want to be housed and have not applied for housing. Even where a halting site is provided they tend to move on again. This is fair enough but they should not be allowed to park indiscriminately on national primary roads, national secondary roads or county roads. They are a major nuisance. I have always advocated to farmers and others that they should not do business with these people because if there was no business for them they would have no incentive to stay around. I hope the Minister will confirm that this legislation confers powers on him to ensure that people in this category will not be allowed to misuse our roads, in the interests of road safety, good planning and the proper management of our road network. It should be said that these people are not homeless and they are not in need of a home because most can be traced back to individual mansions and housing which is adequate both for themselves and their families. They just want to be able to do business and park wherever they want to.

Our party spokesperson, Deputy Howlin, will want to debate the Bill section by section on Committee Stage. The Bill is welcome provided it is to be used as an instrument to allow us benefit from the Structural Funds. I can assure the Minister that members of local authorities and, indeed, their staff at executive and engineering level will want to be involved and to co-operate with this Authority in making sure that the investment that we have put into our road network during the years will not be forgotten or neglected by any new Authority who may have no responsibility to anyone apart from the Minister. That would be a pity because hundreds of local authority members have always been available to meet deputations, to make resolutions and bring forward notices of motion to ensure that a proper road structure is provided for our people, including the agricultural community, to make certain that country areas survive and everyone is not shepherded into towns and villages and that there is free movement of traffic between our ports, industrial areas, major cities and airports.

This is major legislation and it has taken us 12 months to get this far. We hope when it is finally passed, with amendments, that many of our concerns will have been addressed. Again, I wish the Minister well in his new Ministry.

Mr. Callely

I wish to congratulate Deputy Smith on his recent appointment as Minister for the Environment. I have no doubt that he will prove to be a very effective, efficient and good Minister. I wish him well.

The Roads Bill, 1991, is both comprehensive and far-reaching. I concur with many of the sentiments expressed by many of those who have participated in this debate. Members expressed the desire that the National Roads Authority should be put on a statutory basis to plan, maintain and develop our road network and outlined the benefits that would accrue as a result.

Before I became a Member of this House, in my previous employment as a sales representative, I visited each county in Ireland at some stage. I am very familiar, therefore, with our road network. Each local authority do a good job in their own way but it was easy to recognise when one came to a bridge which marked the county boundary if there was a dispute over who was in charge of the bridge. Even though the road on either side of the bridge may have been in good condition the difference in quality could be seen as one crossed the bridge. Given the cost involved, local authorities argue over who is in charge. The proposal that the National Roads Authority take over responsibility for our road network is indeed a step in the right direction. I will take the opportunity on Committee Stage to make various points but at this stage I would like to focus on a number of issues.

I would first like to deal with the question of road planning, maintenance and construction. It is usual for people living in our capital city to find that maintenance, repair or construction work can take a number of weeks to complete and that it is carried out during normal working hours with the result that great disturbance can be caused not only for road users but for business houses. When I travel abroad I am surprised by the amount of work that can be done outside peak hours. I hope, therefore the National Roads Authority will take on board the suggestion that any maintenance, repair or construction work on our roads in the capital city should be carried out outside normal working hours.

I would like to mention service areas on motorways. If we are to build a network of motorways, it is very important to ensure that those who use the motorways do not have to come off them and that service areas be provided. I am pleased that the section dealing with service areas provides that the local authorities will be able to utilise these service areas or contract them out. That is a step in the right direction and is to be welcomed. The port relief road has been the focus of attention by members of the Dublin local authorities, in county and city councils, by members of the Authority and by the general public. Some people may recall that a route was developed years ago called the Eastern bypass which also received much attention. Recently, when contesting a local election, I met people who wished to see the port relief route being developed and those who objected to it. When I was canvassing I listened to both arguments. I was aware that a feasibility impact study was being undertaken at a cost of approximately £400,000 which was paid by the Department of the Environment for Dublin Corporation. A certain amount of pressure was put on various individuals and political parties. I believe that if we had spent £400,000, and if we are three-quarters way through the study, it would have been sensible and wise to wait for the results of the study for the port relief route before we made any decisions whether it should go ahead.

Dublin Corporation have a draft development plan; the last development plan was adopted in 1982. In the draft development plan for 1987, which has recently been agreed, the port relief route is mentioned. Because of pressures from various political parties in Dublin City Council, at the whim of one motion the port relief route was dropped from the draft development plan. I am sure that when the Minister gets an opportunity he will be discussing this matter in greater detail and negotiating with Dublin Coropration on the feasibility impact study, its findings and cost. It is regrettable that a group of people can come in to a meeting of the city council, after four years of work on a draft development plan, and cause one route to be taken out of the plan. It is regrettable because the taxpayers have paid £400,000 for the feasibility impact study.

I hope that when we talk about draft development plans, various local authorities around the country will be involved and that the National Roads Authority will work with each and every authority. I also hope the Minister will ensure that what happened in Dublin City Council will not happen again. I should also like the Minister to clarify the position in relation to the port relief route for Dublin city port. As I live on the north side, I am aware of the port's difficulties in trying to attract new business, mainly because of the infrastructure in place at present. We need a relief route and the one proposed took into consideration green spaces on which there was no development and the existing roads network. It was designed in a "cut and cover" way and there was no demolition of any residence. The land to be used was undeveloped, green space. It was an ideal route to bring port traffic direct from the airport motorway to the port and there was a further link from the port to the south side.

It is necessary, in the interests of development of Dublin Port, that we have a route, agreed by all sides, which will take into consideration the impact study and the environment. We should also recognise the employment which could be created in the port area. Because we do not have a proper infrastructure to service the capital city there are bottlenecks throughout the city; we have problems with what is termed by local authorities as "rat running". Residents associations are complaining because they want roads blocked or ramps to stop "rat running". Large commercial vehicles take up space and block roads and indeed use roads which are totally unsuitable and not designed for the type of traffic which they must bear, mainly to avoid congestion in the city centre. Will the Minister clarify the position in relation to the infrastructure necessary to service the capital city and how the recent motion in Dublin City Council on the port relief route will be addressed?

I should like to see cycle lanes further developed in the capital and in the Dublin City Council area because they have proved extremely successful. However, we have a chequered approach to cycle lanes; a cycle lane can run for one, two or three miles but then it merges with the road. I should like to see an overall development which would provide a clear run to the city centre from the north, south and west of the city. There should be a similar approach in regard to bus lanes; it is farcical to see bus lanes running in certain sections of the road but then merging with the road proper, causing traffic jams. If we are to encourage people to use public transport we should ensure that the bus lanes have a clear run and that they are free flowing.

I should also like the Minister — although it is not in the Bill — to look at the very successful DART in Dublin city. Some of the DART stations cannot cope with the number of people parking because the roads network does not facilitate the level of traffic it is taking. This does not encourage people to use the DART. The provisions of proper parking facilities and greater accessibility to DART stations for motorists would lead to a big increase in the number of people using the DART. This would help to reduce the number of motor vehicles which have to travel through the city centre unnecessarily.

I welcome the Bill. As I said, there are a number of points I wish to raise on Committee Stage. I should like to refer to section 10 in the hope that the Minister will take up my point when he is replying to the Second Stage debate. Section 10 (1) provides:

(a) The Minister may by order classify any existing public road or any proposed public road as a national road.

(b) The Minister may by order classify any existing public road or any proposed public road as a regional road.

Most of this section indicates that the Minister will make these classifications. What is the point in setting up a National Roads Authority if the Minister can make these classifications? Will he make these classifications on his own or in conjunction with the roads Authority? Perhaps the Minister would consider giving this function to the roads Authority?

As I said, I welcome the Bill and hope it has a speedy passage through the House. Having listened to previous speakers, I believe it will be enacted speedily. The Bill can only enhance and assist overall development in Ireland.

Mr. McGrath

First, I should like to congratulate the Minister for the Environment, Deputy Smith, on his appointment. I know he will bring a fresh approach to that Department. I hope he will move away from the parochial approach which existed in that Department in the not too distant past. I do not think there is any need for me to elaborate on that point.

The Bill proposes to set up a National Roads Authority on a statutory basis — I welcome this proposal— and sets out the functions of the Authority. One of the most important of these is the provision of a safe and efficient network of national roads. This brings me to the condition of our roads. Motorists are often disappointed at the patchwork quality of our national primary roads. I live in Mullingar, which is 50 miles from Dublin. There is a reasonably good road connecting Mullingar to Dublin. However, there are some tremendous bottlenecks in various villages and towns along the way. The bottleneck from Kilcock into Dublin is being relieved at present. I welcome the commencement of work on the Maynooth bypass. This is a great development which will greatly enhance the approach roads into Dublin. However, it will only add to the patchwork quality of our national primary routes. While there are a number of miles of excellent roadway on any route, motorists can suddenly get caught in traffic jams. Perhaps the National Roads Authority will help to rectify these problems. I hope they will have a reasoned approach to the development of our roads and will continue the work already being undertaken. I look forward to the development of the dual carriageway from Dublin to Kinnegad, which will ultimately be continued to Mullingar. This will be a tremendous development for the midlands.

The quality of our roads is interlinked with our economy. A good roads infrastructure is tied very closely to a good economy. It is particularly important that the roads infrastructure in rural Ireland be of a very high quality. If we want to keep people living in the country we must provide jobs for them. In order to attract factories and industry into an area we must be able to compete not only with seaside towns and cities in Ireland but with towns on the European mainland and in Britain. The quality of our roads will be crucial in attracting industry into rural areas.

The preliminary census figures for 1991 show that County Westmeath has the third highest migration rate in the country. I was both startled and frightened to discover that we are third behind Counties Leitrim and Longford because in the past County Westmeath could not have been considered as a county which had a migration problem. The reality is that people are leaving the area at an alarming rate. For example, villages in north County Westmeath have become almost ghost towns due to the high rate of emigration. The development of our national roads would help to stem the flow of people from those areas.

I am disappointed that the National Roads Authority will not be a national transport authority as I believe our rail network also needs to be developed. It would make much sense to upgrade the rail link from Dublin to Mullingar which is used by 55 commuters every day. Unfortunately this service is very erratic, to say the least. For example, those commuters were late arriving in Dublin on six occasions last September. I imagine that their employers were not too happy when they turned up late for work six times during one month.

The functions of the National Roads Authority should have been extended to cover our rail network so that roads and the rail network could have been developed together. Experience in other countries has shown that the wider we make our roads the more traffic we will attract on to them. The better our roads network, the more heavy goods traffic will use it. Our railway network could carry much of the heavy goods traffic at competitive rates. A portion of the money which will be spent on improving our roads could be used to develop our railway system so as to help relieve the traffic on our roads. If this were done people in rural towns such as Mullingar, Kinnegad, Delvin and Enfield could commute to Dublin on a daily basis.

The development of national roads in my area to date has been reasonably good. For example, the Athlone bypass was recently completed at a cost of £35 million. This is a tremendous development which enables commuters to bypass Athlone, a major bottleneck in the past. Work has recently commenced on the Mullingar bypass. It is expected that this development will be completed in the not too distant future.

Serious consideration needs to be given to the development of the N52, a very important national secondary route. The volume of heavy goods traffic on this route is particularly high. The quality of the roads on the Westmeath section of the N52 is appalling. It is frightening to see schoolchildren walking along narrow roads with such a heavy volume of goods traffic. I would appreciate if greater importance could be attached to the N52. A tremendous volume of traffic is generated by the industries this route serves, particularly the cement industry, Gysum Industries and so on and therefore it deserves to be upgraded.

The previous speaker mentioned the importance of providing service areas along national primary routes. There is provision for that in the Bill. I am concerned about this matter particularly when I think of towns such as Kinnegad, a small town on a national primary route which survives entirely from passing trade. There are 110 employees in one hotel in that town, depending entirely on a passing trade, on buses, cars and tourists that stop in the area. It is proposed to by-pass that town in the not too distant future. If we provide service areas on our motorways I wonder whether small villages and towns that are totally dependent on passing trade will survive. That is a question that should be taken into account when the allocation of service areas comes up for consideration.

Another function of the National Roads Authority is the preparation of road designs. The Roads Authority will have power to appoint staff for this purpose. What will be the link between this Authority and the present local authorities who design and do the groundwork for roads? Will local authority staff be seconded to the Roads Authority for short periods or will permanent staff be assigned to the Roads Authority who will travel the countryside designing and overseeing the development of roads? This is also a cause for concern. Will we lose some of our best staff from county councils to the Roads Authority? Will local authorities engineers no longer be involved in the design and building of roads, resulting in the loss of vital local knowledge?

How will the local authorities fit in with the National Roads Authority? The Authority will consist of between ten and 14 members. Will there be representatives from local authorities on that Authority or representatives of the engineering federations, of county engineers or county managers? Will the various transport associations be represented on the Authority? The Minister will make the appointments, but to what extent will he include the various interest groups in the membership of the Authority? It is very important that all the groups be included. There must be a link between what has happened in the past and what will be done in the future. Because of the importance of the quality of our roads to the infrastructure and the economy, the various transport organisations must also be involved.

Another function of the Authority will be to secure the carrying out of work on national primary routes. No doubt most of the work will be allocated to private contractors and grants will be given to carry out the work. The Authority will also issue directives to local authorities to carry out work that needs to be done. I wonder what will be the consequences of that. If a local authority decide in their wisdom that a road should take a particular route but the Authority decide otherwise, what will happen? I know that the Authority may impose their will on a local authority but nonetheless local involvement is very important.

In the last couple of weeks an announcement was made — I do not know whether the Minister had a hand in it but I assume he did — as a result of objections to the route of the proposed by-pass at Mullingar. The Minister, having listened to the objections of the local residents, refused the compulsory purchase order for certain sections of property there, and this is to be welcomed. The Minister or his representatives, having come to the area and heard representations from the local authority and the residents in the area, were in a position to decide that the plans were not suitable for the locality. I hope that the Authority will operate a similar procedure so that people on the ground will have a say in what happens to their environment, which is very important.

One of my final points relates to the section which provides for the control of temporary dwellings on the sides of roads. This is a particularly important feature and the sooner it comes into operation the better. A few months ago a group of travelling traders arrived in the scenic village of Milltownpass, County Westmeath, and took over a stretch along the side of the road, setting up their caravans there. They had perhaps 25 caravans, not small but highly luxurious ones worth thousands of pounds. They stayed in the locality for about a week and operated from there into the surrounding countryside. They were supposedly selling furniture and various goods but to a certain extent they were more involved in intimidating people into buying what was put in front of them, which was quite frightening. A certain aspect of their method of work is to see what is available in the locality.

Unfortunately the hands of the local authority are somewhat tied in matters such as these. The cost of getting court injunctions to move these caravans is prohibitive and the time factor is also against them. Westmeath County Council accrued expenses in the region of £5,000 or £6,000 in an effort to move these people on. In many such cases they may move a couple of hundred yards down the road, with the result that the local authority have to go through the whole process again, which is very unsatisfactory. After a number of days the caravans moved from Milltownpass to a village on the northern side of the county, leaving behind them a terrible mess.

I welcome the section in the Bill which will control temporary dwellings. I hope the Authority will have power to take immediate action in such circumstances so that the local people do not have to put up with the intimidation, discomfort and worry of an invasion of their areas of the nature I mentioned.

I welcome the Bill, although I am disappointed that it does not make provision for rail and that it does not establish a national transport authority rather than just a National Roads Authority.

Mr. Pattison

A Leas-Cheann Comhairle——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is Deputy Hogan giving way to Deputy Séamus Pattison?

Mr. Pattison

What is the position?

Mr. Hogan

What is the order?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Hogan did not offer. Ordinarily the position is that provision is made for a succession of two Fine Gael speakers before another Labour Party Member is called.

Mr. Hogan

Could we seek the agreement of the House to divide the time if that is necessary?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

No. Deputy Hogan will exercise his own discretion in so far as he knows that on a Second Stage debate time cannot be divided. If he concludes and there is no Member offering apart from Deputy Pattison, then Deputy Pattison will be called.

Mr. Hogan

How much time have I left?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The debate will continue until 7 o'clock.

Mr. Hogan

I could give way to Deputy Pattison in time for him to make an adequate contribution.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy cannot do that. The Chair must recognise that a member of the Government may come into the Chamber and offer to speak in the debate, in which case the Chair would call him or her.

Mr. Hogan

In recent years there has been growing criticism, extending to the point of derision, about the state of our road network. Irish motorists are completely frustrated at the delays experienced on our national intercity routes and are outraged at the unacceptable level of potholes throughout the country. The Republic of Ireland is fast obtaining the reputation among tourists of having the worst roads in Europe. There is the constant problem of damage to vehicles, and the problem has worsened in the past four years to the extent that frustration has turned to anger. It is about time that a Bill such as this came before the House so that Members are able to examine the problem and try to find new ways in which to gain additional resources with which our important road network may be built up.

The road network is one of the most important infrastructural assets of any state as it underpins the effectiveness and efficiency of the transport sector. In Ireland transport costs represent 9 per cent of total product costs, a cost that is, unfortunately, twice that of the European average. In order to develop a modern, efficient economy, with vibrant subsectors of agriculture, tourism and forestry as well as thriving rural communities, it is important that our problem of inadequate roads be rectified.

The provision of national roads to date has been overtly bureaucratic and politicised. Poor quality roads retard economic development in every sector, which is why this evening the House is about to set up a new authority under this Bill, the National Roads Authority, to seek to deal with the appalling problem. The interim authority has been established since 1988, but it is only now that it is about to be put on a statutory footing.

Any analysis of the basis of the problems relating to regional and county roads shows that local authorities have been squeezed in their budgetary provisions since 1979, when domestic rates were abolished. At that time it was promised that a grant from central Government in the form of a domestic rate support grant in lieu of revenue received from household rates would match the previous level of income from rates. However, in the past 12 years the domestic rate support grant has been eroded in real terms. Local authorities faced with that concern could not reduce expenditure in every area, as there are often fixed administrative overheads involved in the running of a local authority. That has meant that elements of discretionary spending, such as expenditure on roads, have suffered greatly. The Government introduced discretionary grants in 1989 to remedy the serious deterioration of the non-national routes. Allocations of about £68 million were made in 1991 to rectify some of the difficulties on the regional and county roads. While those grants are based mostly on mileage of minor roads and while the grant has been increased, the funding has obviously not been adequate to meet the difficulties that have been encountered.

The problem of the necessary improvement of our roads is essentially one of resources. Adequate resources for roads must be provided by local councils out of their overall budgets and adequate resources must be given to local authorities in order to carry out the necessary works. That has not been happening through the years, in spite of an improvement in structural aid from the European Regional Development Fund.

From the perspective of the user paying for the service, in no area of expenditure is there a better case for investment than on the roads. In the Republic of Ireland we have one of the highest rates of VAT and excise duty on petrol and auto diesel. We have very high VAT and excise duty on the purchase of motor vehicles as well. In 1990 taxation from petrol amounted to £473 million, the total taxation on auto diesel was £175 million. VAT receipts on all motor vehicles was £471 million and road tax — not to talk about what has happened in the 1992 budget — came to £161 million. The total amount of revenue from those sources to the State are simply enormous — a total of £1,280 million in 1990 — yet there are still inadequate resources for road improvement and road maintenance programmes.

Another major development in recent years has been the receipt of increased resources from the European Community. Many national primary route developments in the operational programme from 1989-93 received support to the extent of 75 per cent of the cost of works. When one bears in mind that road development attracts Exchequer revenue on the basis of VAT at the rate of 21 per cent and further taxation from PAYE and PRSI on labour content, it is obvious that for a 25 per cent investment by the Irish Government the Exchequer gets an excellent rate of return, not only in terms of infrastructural improvement but also financially. It is therefore inexcusable that the Government have reduced their level of support to national and primary development by 19 per cent in this operational programme in comparison to the previous five-year expenditure plan.

The Department of the Environment figures show that State expenditure on the improvement of national roads for the period 1988-1993 compared to the 1984-1988 period has increased by a total of 24 per cent. However, when one takes into account the fact that EC grants increased by 78 per cent in the latter period, it can be proved that the Government have simply substituted Exchequer funding with EC finance. It is a principle of EC funding that member states operate the principle of additionality whereby their funding would be a stimulus to greater State investment. The present Government's breach of faith in reducing their own funding will be viewed very seriously by the EC Commission and may result in serious damage being done to the case of Irish road funding after 1993. It is obvious that if we are to bring our national road network up to EC standards of speed and efficiency, the total cost will be about £3.5 billion. There is an unavoidable capital investment required in national and non-national roads. It is patently clear that the existing approach is not adequate and that new measures are now required at a political level to ensure that the problems are resolved.

From an administrative, engineering and investment point of view, it is essential to clearly separate national roads from non-national roads. There has been a considerable slippage in investment on the original 1989 roads plan. The present Government had stated that £687 million would be spent in their 1989-93 plan. That figure was subsequently reduced to £580 million. Fine Gael believe — and, indeed, I believe — that the target date for upgrading the national network should be brought forward to the 2005 to 2010 period so that we can plan for the investment and the improvements required to bring our road network up to European standards.

In addition to setting up a National Roads Authority, it is about time we decided to establish a better financial basis for local and county roads. It is clear that we are not getting adequate resources at local level to carry out important work for people living off main roads, people in rural communities who have to depend on minor and county roads to go about their daily business. We should establish a proper roads fund so that we can maintain and improve non-national primary routes. It is disgraceful that motor taxation collected by the local authorities as agents of the State finds its way back to the Exchequer. This money could be used by local authorities to improve non-national routes. In 1991, £161 million was collected in motor taxation but local authorities got nothing from motor taxation or licence fees. Will the Minister consider setting up for local authorities a national roads fund from the receipts of motor taxation and licence fees so that they will have adequate funding to maintain non-national roads?

The impact of political strength on the quality and financing of our roads has been colossal in the past four years. Since 1987 we had no ministerial representation in counties Wexford, Waterford, Carlow and Kilkenny. It is worth comparing the financial allocations to counties like Mayo and Westmeath during that period. The imbalance in the allocation of resources to these areas is disgraceful. For that reason alone it is no harm to establish an independent National Roads Authority so that resources from European development funds can be evenly spread to develop and improve our roads network.

I wish to draw the attention of the new Minister for the Environment, whom I sincerely congratulate on his appointment, to some projects in my constituency. We in Kilkenny have been the Cinderella when it came to funding in recent times, particularly funding for primary routes. The access routes to ports like New Ross and Waterford can only be described as dirt tracks. Such standards were adequate in earlier years but are not adequate for routes required for the efficient transportation of our goods to the European Community. The road out of Kilkenny to the west is equivalent to a county road. By-passes at Callan and Thomastown are urgently required. They have been promised for many years but nothing has happened yet. If something does not happen soon with regard to providing these essential by-passes the buildings in these towns will come under severe pressure.

The extension to the Kilkenny city ring road is long overdue, in order to open up the industrial estate on the edge of the city and facilitate the development of the Pocock Valley area of the city. A new inner relief road is urgently required in the city over the River Nore to alleviate traffic problems. There is an appalling situation in the north of the county where a bridge at Castlecomer has now deteriorated to such an extent that it is on the verge of collapse. I know the Minister has designs for a new bridge at Castlecomer. I would urge him to make the money available this year to provide for the new bridge. If the bridge collapses, the north end of the county would be cut off from routes to Carlow and Dublin. Some money was spent by the Department in recent years to shore up a structural fault on the bridge but painting over the cracks is no longer the solution. A new bridge is required.

Kilkenny County Council have been very patient having regard to their inadequate resources for road improvements. This will have to change if the citizens of Kilkenny are to enjoy the same benefits as their neighbours in Tipperary from now on.

Under the operational programme from 1989 to 1993, over 60 per cent of funds, or £500 million, has been spent between the local authorities of Dublin and Cork. I hope the £6 billion investment from the Regional Funds and from Structural aid, which will form the basis of the programme from 1993 to 1997, will lean more towards making provisions to improve the roads network in the southeast, particularly Kilkenny.

Part III of the Bill refers to establishing a roads Authority and its functions. I have difficulty in wholeheartedly supporting this concept of a National Roads Authority. As a member of Kilkenny County Council, I feel that the role of local representatives is being seriously diminished by this Bill. We saw the establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency and now we are establishing a National Roads Authority and the role and power of local representatives, local engineers and planners in relation to these important aspects of life are being seriously curtailed and in many instances are being eliminated. The diminution of the power of local representatives to represent their local communities by giving complete discretion to an Authority which did not have to seek election and which is only answerable to the Minister is a disgrace. Local authority officials will be the agents of the National Roads Authority and the Authority can either accept or reject local authority proposals in relation to, for instance, road designs.

We are removing the input of road users to the improvement of roads. I will illustrate my case. The Minister will be aware that there is some controversy in the Department about the provision of an overhead bridge and a bridge to carry cattle across a new national route from Waterford to New Ross, the N25. The Minister will be aware of continual representations going back as far as the public inquiry of 1984 as to how important these bridges would be in facilitating road users, people in the community and members of the agricultural community who were experiencing a difficulty in bringing livestock and heavy machinery across that important route. Road improvements should not mean that communities are worse off. In the instance of the improvement of the route from Waterford to New Ross the residents of Glenmore in south Kilkenny are not better off. Their parish has been cut in half, traffic is faster and they are unable to cross the road safely or bring livestock or machinery across it. The price paid by the people of Glenmore for progress has been a faster route through their community at the expense of safety. That is disgraceful. It is something which a National Roads Authority might not look benevolently upon, apart from the considerations of the engineering section of the Department of the Environment.

Will the Minister sympathetically consider the provision of an overhead pedestrian bridge at Kill Hill in Glenmore to facilitate people travelling to and from the GAA field, their places of worship and recreation, including students travelling to and from the local national school? It would ensure they are safe crossing that busy route. The Minister will be aware that this was the scene of a tragic accident some weeks ago while work was in progress. I am not saying that was due to negligence on the part of the local authority or of the Department but it was unfortunate an accident should have taken place in the course of construction of that route. I hate to think that any improvement of this route would lead to more deaths due to inadequate resources to enable the Garda authorities or others enforce the speed limit at this location.

I referred to Milltown Bridge at Glenmore which facilitates the movement of animals and agricultural machinery. There are located there six farmers who need to cross the road daily to take their animals from one part of their farms to another. It is unacceptable that there should be any fragmentation of agricultural holdings that had not obtained before that route passed through that community. I urge the Minister to consider those two projects sympathetically. I would have great pleasure in supporting the establishment of a new national authority if I felt the input of locally-elected representatives and local authorities would be taken on board by their executive.

I should like to make one or two other points in relation to our roads generally. I implore the Minister to consider the impact of some measures for the improvement of our environment generally in rural areas in respect of which there is no legislative teeth. The Minister will be aware, as I am, of the deterioration that has taken place in our rural environment because of the inadequate funding of local authorities to open water tables, cut ditches and compel land owners to do so under existing legislation. The Minister should examine such legislative provisions and ensure that rural areas are rendered more pleasing to the eye by requesting landowners and property owners in general, to cut back hedges and ditches, or be forced to do so. Dangerous trees sited within local authotities' jurisdictions should be removed to prevent accidents.

I support Deputy McGrath's call for the implementation of the provisions of the Casual Trading Act to eliminate the huge negative impact illegal parking and trading by some travellers and other so-called traders is having on our roads network. There have been many visits to the Kilkenny ringroad by such illegal traders. Local authorities' powers are inadequate to tackle this problem. Despite the fact that Kilkenny County Council acted responsibly by providing halting sites for travellers, they are not in a position to deal with so-called traders who roam our countryside night and day, park illegally on many of our most beautiful scenic routes and do irreparable damage to our environment. I urge the Minister to effect the necessary legislative changes giving local authorities power to deal effectively and quickly with such matters.

In spite of the reservations I expressed it would be my hope that the input of local representatives and local authorities will not be diminished as a result of the establishment of the National Roads Authority, rather that the necessary legislative amendments will be implemented in this Bill to so guarantee. The day we remove the input or impact of the local representative, the voice of the local road user, from our legislative provisions, or deny the important contribution they can make in the improvement of local routes, will be a sad one. It is my earnest hope that local communities will be better off, not worse, after the imlementation of the provisions of this Bill. I hope also that my fears at the establishment of the National Roads Authority will prove unfounded; rather that the co-ordination this body can achieve will bear fruit in the more efficient transportation of products to ports such as New Ross, Waterford and Rosslare. My ultimate hope is that citizens of local authority areas will enjoy safer travel on our roads generally.

Mr. Pattison

I should like to extend my best wishes to the Minister for the Environment who has now assumed this most responsible portfolio. I have known him since he entered this House more than 20 years ago and his experience as a member of a local authority in Tipperary qualified him to hold his office.

It is a pity we are not discussing overall transport policy in that our roads network comprises one part only of our general transport problem. Like other speakers, I was disappointd there was no mention of our railway system. Many years ago we had a canal system which, apart from its obvious tourist attraction, does not constitute a viable transport proposition however attractive or viable within the tourism area. Nontheless our railways could complement, or relieve our roads network of many of the heavy loads carried at present. They should have been included in the Bill. The provision and maintenance of a rail network would cost a fraction of the amount needed to provide and maintain a roads network. I fail to understand, why, for a relatively small investment in our railways, we do not relieve our roads network and its attendant problems. Obviously that is not to be.

What bedevils our overall approach to transport is the fact that responsibility is divided among so many Government Departments and agencies, ranging from the Department of Tourism, Transport and Communications to the Environment, to Justice. They all have a say, or some degree of responsibility in relation to how our roads operate, are used, who should use them and their requisite standards. In fact, one could throw in the Department of Industry and Commerce who are involved in and responsible for the general standards of safety of vehicles, insurance cover and so on. This fragmented responsibility results in our experiencing difficulty in achieving a unified approach to these problems.

The potential for employment, so badly needed, in roads is enormous. Indeed the present level of unemployment, approaching the 300,000 mark, constitutes a crisis comparable with that in the post-Famine period when many roadworks were initiated. We find the origin of most of our roads in works initiated to provide employment and some help for people in the aftermath of the Famine. When the number of inadequate roads referred to by Members who have spoken here are added up they must amount to an expenditure of billions of pounds. Apart from that, there is the tremendous potential to put hundreds of thousands of people into useful, gainful employment. This would be a tremendous investment in the future of this country, which depends more and more on the efficiency of our road network. The future of the economy depends in many ways on transport both to and from this country. We can only benefit from European funds if we have a proper road network to quickly get our produce out and our raw materials in.

Like previous speakers, I will follow the practice that has been apparent in this debate and refer to the problems of my own constituency. There are many which have been mentioned already here this evening. I must mention them again because I have lived with them far longer than other Members here. I have seen the result of putting these problems on the long finger. Some years ago we got a ring road in Kilkenny. Again, it is a great help; but its effectiveness has been impaired simply because a short remaining spur of that road has not been built with the result that the roadway is inefficient. It cannot do the job it is supposed to do simply because that short remaining spur has not been completed; it has not even been started. When that work is completed Kilkenny can reap the full benefit of that road. To a certain extent it is at present a waste of money until that remaining short spur is completed, when everybody will be able to utilise it to its full potential. I would urge the Minister to get that done as quickly as possible because he is not getting a good return on the money already invested while the remaining part remains unattended to.

In addition there is the question of the inner relief road in Kilkenny. Kilkenny is an ancient city, with narrow streets and old buildings we do our best to preserve. The completion of the inner relief road is badly needed. At present, because of the partial completion of the road, heavy and fast traffic has been generated in busy and built up areas causing severe anxiety for the safety of adults and children. The road passes by schools and through residential areas and is a danger. That work needs to be speeded on.

I know that you, a Cheann Comhairle, would join with me if you could in calling for the bypassing of Callan to be carried out as quickly as possible because I am sure you have had many an anxious moment on your journeys here wondering if you would ever get out of Callan. Again, I would hope that the Minister would speed up the plans on that bypass, which is long overdue, together with the Thomastown bypass, which is on the main Dublin-Waterford route and also on the main route from Rosslare to the midwest and north west. As the previous speaker mentioned, work needs to be done on the Castlecomer bridge because this is another very important road. There is also a need for a proper bypass of Carlow town to be carried out. I must compliment all concerned on the Leighlinbridge bypass, which has been a tremendous success and has eased the traffic on that road considerably.

One of the problems about road development, particularly the national primary routes, is that when it is done in a piecemeal way it creates fast stretches of roadway which suddenly, and without much warning at times, turn into very narrow and winding inadequate stretches of roadway. Drivers driving along the improved routes increase their speed, because that is what those routes are for, but when they enter the dangerously narrow and winding routes there is an added problem. There are many areas throughout the country where one goes very quickly from the sublime to the ridiculous in road terms, so these matters will have to be attended to.

With the exception of the Ceann Comhairle, I am one of the few Members remaining in this House who used to drive to this House on the old Naas-Dublin road many years ago and who saw that road so ridiculously outdated in a very short time. I suppose nobody foresaw the rapid development of road traffic in that period, because that road was hailed as a modern miracle of dual carriageway in the late sixties when it was finally finished. However, before it was completed it was out of date. It needs major upgrading, particularly in regard to the traffic lights on it which, while easy enough to see at night, are very difficult to see on a bright day.

In regard to section 67 of the Bill, which deals with dangerous structures, trees, etc., will the Minister clarify if that section covers dangerous lighting? I refer in particular to advertisement lighting and other private lights in houses and dwellings on the side of the road. Some of these lights are extremely strong at times and can mislead motorists and cause accidents, especially motorists not familiar with a particular area. I hope they are included under the definition of dangerous structures, trees etc. The roads Authority should have control over the strength and the positioning of lights on private property.

Debate adjourned.

Dáil Éireann debate - Wednesday, 19 Feb 1992

Roads Bill 1991: Second Stage (Resumed).

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 19 Feb 1992