Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 19 Feb 1992

Vol. 415 No. 9

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

When I moved the adjournment of the Debate last evening I was about to speak about the appointment of members to the proposed National Roads Authority, dealt with in section 28. I should like to make two comments of principle on the matter. The procedure is a little bit curious in the sense that I wonder if the Progress Democrats part of the Government will not ask for or propose an amendment to this to the effect that the chairman and the members of the Authority be appointed by a High Court judge. It was a very popular formula with them some time ago and I wonder if they are still of that mind.

The other more fundmental question is why no provision is made in this section for the appointment of the chairman or members of the Authority to be brought before the Houses of the Oireachtas in any shape or form. The Minister may have a good reason for doing this but it has been a feature of other Bills setting up bodies that the proposals would come before the Houses of the Oireachtas for their approval.

Section 28 (1) (b) allows the Minister to direct that the chairman perform the functions of the chief executive until such time as the chief executive has been appointed. I wonder why. Why is it provided that the Minister may do this? Why is the provision not simply that the Minister shall do this?

Section 28 (1) (c) refers to the number of members of the Authority, which shall be not less than ten or more than 14. That is a simple, straightforward statement. There is no indication here that the Minister or anybody else would have regard to any particular qualifications that people might have for appointment as members of this Authority or as chairman.

In the Environmental Protection Agency Bill from the same Department a number of bodies are designated to be consulted on their views as to people who would be appointed to be members of that agency. The work to be done by the National Roads Authority is of sufficient importance to warrant some specification or stipulation as to the qualification of some or all of the members of the National Roads Authority because it has a very important job to do not only from the point of view of its effect on the efficiency on our transport system but from the point of view of the inevitable effects it will have on our environment. Would the Minister be open to considering the specification of some of the qualifications it might be useful to have included among the membership of the board of the Authority?

Section 28 (5) (b) allows the Minister to remove from office any member of the Authority for stated misbehaviour or if his removal appears to the Minister to be necessary or desirable for the effective performance by the Authority of their functions. That looks acceptable. It is the kind of thing the Minister should be able to do, but why is it necessary to make that statement here? For what reason would the Minister consider that the removal of a member of the Authority might be desirable for the effective performance of their functions? We all agree that stated misbehaviour might be a good basis for the removal of a person although the Bill does not say what kind of misbehaviour. This power could be exercised in a rather arbitrary manner, and since there is no involvement of the Oireachtas in any of this I would like to know, before we come to the Committee Stage debate, how the Minister intends to approach this.

Section 28 (6) provides that the Authority may act notwithstanding a vacancy among its members. That is a sensible provision but I would sound a warning on this. I hope the Minister for the Environment will not allow too many vacancies to exist for too long. I do not suggest that the current Minister will be dilatory in the event of a vacancy arising but there was a time not so long ago when another State agency, the Higher Education Authority were allowed to get into a position where it was almost impossible for them to meet because there were so many vacancies on the Authority which had not been filled that it became difficult for them to get a quorum to have a meeting. I hope the Minister for the Environment will be less dilatory in that matter than the Minister for Education, Deputy Mary O'Rourke, was with regard to the Higher Education Authority. It is undesirable to have vacancies for too long in an Authority of this kind.

Section 29 deals with the appointment of the chief executive. Under subsection (4) the Minister may at any time for stated reasons terminate the employment of the first chief executive. It is clear that for some time the Minister will have a role if the chief executive is to be appointed before the full Authority has been put in place, but why should the Minister have this function after the Authority have taken office and the chairman has been appointed. Once a chairman and an authority are in place they should be given all the functions proper to their position and the Minister should not interfere in this way at any point after they have been appointed.

Subsection (4) (b) provides that the Authority may at any time for stated reasons terminate the employment of any subsequent chief executive, but not the first. Why? It seems to me that if we set up an authority with a chairman to do a particular job they should take over the running of the organisation and the Minister should not have any further function of the kind proposed in subsection (4) (a) for the first or any other chief executive.

There is a provision in section 31 for the transfer of staff from public authorities to this new Authority. That section and sections 33, 34, 35 and 36 deal with the transfer of staff from public authorities, the provision of services, membership of Houses of the Oireachtas, membership of a local authority and superannuation. There is a series of provisions here. I took the trouble to look back at similar provisions in the Environmental Protection Agency Bill to see whether the same approach is being adopted here. To my surprise I found that a rather different approach is being adopted in some cases in this Bill. They are dealing basically with the same problems, the same kind of personnel issues. All other things being equal, it would have been convenient, since the sponsoring Department is the same Department, to have a degree of commonality between the provisions in this Bill and those in the Environmental Protection Agency Bill. Many of the provisions are similar but there are unexplained differences between some of the provisions in this Bill and those in the Environmental Protection Agency Bill.

I might give just one example. Section 31 (4) is identical to the early part of section 31 (1) of the Environmental Protection Agency Bill, 1990. But there is no provision in this Bill relating to the procedure to be followed in the event of a dispute, whereas a similar provision in the Environmental Protection Agency Bill 1990 contains a provision for the resolution of disputes. Since we are talking about the transfer of staff from local authority to this agency it seems to me that if it was felt that disputes could arise in the case of the Environmental Protection Agency Bill which would warrant a procedure for dealing with them, similar considerations would apply here.

Other sections are similar but there are differences between this Bill and the Environmental Protection Agency Bill, 1990. I wonder is there a particular reason for that. It would appear to me to have been administratively neater and probably entail somewhat less work for the Department had the appropriate sections simply been lifted from the Environmental Protection Agency Bill holus-bolus and inserted in this one. Of course, I know I will be told that the mutatis have to be mutandis and all the rest, but the differences here appear to me to be more than that and not readily explicable to an ordinary, common or garden Member of this House. Incidentially I notice that, since yesterday, we have a new category of people in this House. Apparently some of us are “ordinary Deputies”. I do not know what is the “ordinary” of the day. Perhaps that is something we might pursue at another time. Of course, I know that the Chair is an extraordinary person but I thought all of the remainder of us here were on the same footing except in so far as some are members of the Government. I would like to explore the concept of the “ordinary Deputy” a little more at an appropriate time although it is not relevant in the context of this Bill.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

If it might help the Deputy, as far as this Chair is concerned, I never use the epithet "ordinary" in respect of any person.

Mr. Dukes

How very kind you are, Sir. However, you do use other epithets from time to time when you become somewhat vexed but that is another day's work.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is an annual affair only.

Mr. Dukes

Another difference I have noted, and again I wonder why, is in section 33 dealing with membership of either House of the Oireachtas or of the European Parliament by members or staff of the Authority. This section provides that, where a member of the Authority is nominated as a Member of Seanad Éireann or, further down, where a person employed by the Authority is nominated as a Member of Seanad Éireann, the Environmental Protection Agency Bill deals with the same proposition and speaks of persons who accept such nomination. Is there a good reason for this difference——

Mr. Ferris

A very good reason.

Mr. Dukes

——or is there just an excessive tidiness in my mind? I hope that all of that is behind Deputy Ferris, that accepting nominations for membership of Seanad Éireann will not be a matter of any concern to him. I wonder why there are these differences.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Dukes will appreciate that on Committee Stage all of those details will be teased out.

Mr. Dukes

Yes, but I would think it might be of convenience to the Minister if he knew what questions would arise. It would certainly be to my convenience if I could have explained to me why these things are there so that I could decide whether there was any point in tabling amendments on Committee Stage.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Another consideration is that the Minister being from Tipperary, is accustomed to anticipation in the sporting field. Therefore, it would be reasonable to expect that he would anticipate quite a lot.

Mr. Dukes

Well, he did spend a fair bit of his life in recent years anticipating things. Indeed, I am glad they worked out well for him. I know he is a man of great anticipation. It would be useful to have these questions adumbrated at least on Second Stage. If we receive answers to them we can save ourselves the trouble of tabling unnecessary amendments and devote our entire attention to those appearing to be necessary, for which we need that knowledge.

I will not go into any more detail on these sections. I have indicated that sections 33 to 36, inclusive, contain differences from those of the corresponding provisions of the Environmental Protection Agency Bill, 1990. I wonder why. It is as simple as that. If there is good reason, fine; if there is not good reason, perhaps the Minister and his Department could make a little obeisance in the direction of tidiness of mind in these things.

There is then, in section 39, power for the Minister to issue directions and guidelines to the National Roads Authority. This is the type of section I might call the "belt and braces" section. This is to make it clear — in case the Authority get any ideas otherwise — that if something is not specifically given to the Minister as a power to intervene, to direct their work, if the drafter of the legislation has not thought of making a specific requirement, then, just in case, there is this general power given to the Minister in section 39. Having tied up the Authority and supported their breeches all the way through by a proper belt, in terms of the Minister's attentions to them, we put on the braces here by saying that, just in case we have missed something, and the Minister feels there is something more he would like to do in the way of directing or guiding the Authority, this section will afford him power to do so.

I am not happy with that kind of provision in a Bill. I know why it is included. It is there specifically to ensure that if a case arises which is not specifically dealt with in the Bill and in respect of which the Minister feels he wants to give a direction, he can invoke the provisions of this section. It is a fairly common feature of Bills of this kind but one of which Parliament should be suspicious. I contend the provisions of this Bill give the Minister sufficient powers to put his fingers into the Authority's pie without giving him this very general power contained in section 39. I should like the Minister to say just what unspecified powers of interference he would want to contemplate under the provisions of section 39.

Section 41 and following sections in Part IV deal with motorways, busways and protected roads; a very important Part of the Bill. There are a few things I should say about motorways. First, the National Roads Authority will have a central role to play in the building of motorways. I confess to having a particular and immediate interest in the matter at present, in that plans are well advanced for the construction of a section of motorway to by-pass Kildare town, which will actually pass about halfway between my home and the town. I do not know whether it will have any effect on property in the area — I declare that interest immediately — but certainly it will have a major effect on the environment of the area. I am not suggesting for a moment that I will object because it has been a well thought-out project. Basically there were three possible routes: one going round to the north of the town which would have had to cross the railway line twice; the one apparently now being contemplated as being the actual project, and one that would have gone in a wide loop further south when there would have been the difficulty of building a long section of it over fairly boggy land. My view is that the route chosen — although it will pass within approximately half a mile of my home — is probably the most sensible from all points of view. Nonetheless, it has upset many people, as do all such projects. For example, it has upset our National Stud in that undoubtedly the proposed motorway would interfere with the working of that excellent establishment, but I do not think there is any help for it.

Of course, there is the problem that it is fair to speculate that, had the designers been given the job of designing a road as one project that would have begun where the Naas by-pass now begins and carried on to Portlaoise, we would have got a different line of road. We would not now have the Naas by-pass exactly where it is. We would not have the Newbridge by-pass exactly where it is going and we would not have the Kildare by-pass.

Of course, this is an inherent problem in the way we set about funding our major road programmes. I am not in any way criticising the Minister, his Department or designers when I say so, but it is a pity that we do not have the kind of planning horizon that would allow us plan a project like that in one go. Had we begun some 20 or 25 years ago to design a new road from, say, Newlands Cross right down to Portlaoise, we would have had a very different route from the present one. Doing these jobs piecemeal — which we are fated to do within the kind of financial framework we have adopted — means we get a whole series of sub-optimal solutions to the planning and other problems obtaining. Probably it costs us more in the long run. That is a problem we should consider, one it would behove the National Roads Authority to examine when devising plans and studying the way in which we finance the construction of our roads.

My own particular concern in relation to the Kildare bypass helps to illustrate a number of the problems that need to be dealt with under the provisions of this Bill. I am thinking in particular of what I said last night about my unhappiness with the fact that roads are treated as exempt developments and that we have a different procedure for looking at the environmental impact of these projects.

That Kildare bypass will have a number of different consequences for the environment and for the amenity of the immediate area. The first is that it is proposed that what is now the normal access route to Kildare town from the area that I live in and further south, will be cut by the motorway. It is proposed to build a new road from a part of that existing road to the Grey Abbey Road — we have lovely names around Kildare — that would cross the motorway, provide access to the motorway and continue on to the present main road and provide access to the town from that side. It is proposed to build a bridge over the motorway further east to continue the access to the road from the Japanese Gardens on that side of Kildare town. The current route that my neighbours and I use to get into Kildare town is to be cut. It will become a cul-de-sac from our side and it will be a cul-de-sac from the other side. There is, apparently, a proposal to build a pedestrian bridge across it. That is causing some concern because the alternative routes into the town are a good deal longer than the one that is there at the moment. The difference is enough to make people worry about the convenience and safety of children going to school and of people walking the mile or so into Kildare town in the evening and in the winter time. There is a concern there that needs to be addressed.

At one point, the road will go through the bottom of a fairly wet piece of land and it will require a lot of management and filling in, culverting and diverting of water courses, which is another problem that will clearly affect the drainage of the general surrounding area. Incidentally, it will, take away one of the areas I most like to go for a walk through the fields, but that is progress and we cannot prevent it.

It is going to go straight through an area where there is, to my knowledge, one of the highest concentrations of badgers. Right in the path of the proposed motorway, there is a most magnificent system of badget setts, one of the biggest I have ever seen. Personally I would be very unhappy to see those badgers being literally uprooted when that road is built. There will be a lot of pressure on other potential badger habitats in the area as a result. However, I am not saying that is a reason not to build that road, it is to be built.

As I said, the route being chosen is the most rational one. However, it illustrates the kinds of problems that we will meet all along that section of road from the current Newbridge bypass right down to where it will rejoin the current main road.

This road will go straight through country that is fairly rich in fauna — I am not an expert on the flora of the area but it is certainly rich in fauna — and will make a substantial difference to the area.

These are the kinds of things I would like to see being properly and publicly addressed because I have not seen any mention of them in any of the material I have seen — and I have seen a good deal of material about this motorway. I have not seen any consideration being given to those issues. I am not saying nobody is thinking about them other than myself, I am sure there is, but I would like to see consideration being given to these issues so that we would know that these are concerns that our road planners bear in mind and that they know what the other effects of their plans are likely to be.

I disagree fundamentally with Deputy McEllistrim who came to the conclusion last evening that if they cannot have improvements in the roads in Kerry, which they sorely need and I intend to find out more about that for myself next Friday when I have to travel down to Waterville — then we should not be having motorways either. That is letting the best be the enemy of the good. The funds the Deputy is talking about will be coming from different pockets as far as the Minister is concerned; not, of course, as far as the taxpayer is concerned.

Section 42 deals with busways and we have at least the adumbration of a proposal for a busway; I wonder if the proposal to put a busway on the old Harcourt Street line is not something Minister Brennan rushed out in his last days as Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications, when he saw the writing on the wall and decided he would get the last bit of popularity he could out of the job before he was changed. I do not know whether he will succeed in leaving as his legacy to the people of the southern part of the city of Dublin a new busway along the Harcourt Street line. It appears there have been second thoughts about that. There are apparently some "guestimates" that suggest that the reconstruction of the bridges and the organisation of the surface to make it suitable for a busway would cost £7 million. I do not know whether that is true. I am not an engineer or a quantity surveyor but to me that looks like a modest figure. From my own observation I would think that magnificent viaduct at Milltown will need a lot of work before it can be used as a busway and in several places new bridges will have to be built. I can remember — I was living in Dundrum at the time — when the old bridge was removed. Now, there will be the question of building a new bridge at a very busy intersection. How seriously are we to take this proposal for the busway? Is it a Government proposal or is it a document that occurred to Minister Brennan——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Dukes has gone on to a new track that is covered in this legislation. Is he suggesting it should be included?

Mr. Dukes

I am sorry. Section 42 of this Bill specifically speaks of busways. There is a whole section about busways.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Do you think this particular proposal by the Minister to whom you referred is relevant?

Mr. Dukes

The Bill is very germane to it and it to the Bill because it is the only project I know of where it is proposed, or half proposed, to build a busway. It seems to me that I am perfectly on line — if I can use that particular expression — with the intention of the Bill in talking about a busway. I would like to know if we are ever going to see this busway, or was it just one of these ideas the Minister had and threw on to the table before he hiked off to another Department. Will the current Minister feel obliged to follow up on the busway?

I am told that one of the plans is that we would have a whole fleet of new buses with a capacity of up to 100 passengers compared to the 74 or 78 passengers we normally have in doubledeckers. I look forward to seeing those animals. They must be what a friend of mine in Germany calls these "wormy form" buses that have this accordation part in the centre to articulate them. I look forward to the day when we see such buses going down the old Harcourt Street line if, indeed, some other Minister does not come along in the meantime and decide we are going to have a light rail system there instead.

Was that project put forward by the Minister for the sake of popularity or because it seemed to him that that was a use of £7 million plus that should have a higher priority than upgrading the service that is available to Clondalkin, than upgrading, for example, the service that is available to Hazelhatch? Did the Minister intend to tell us that this project has a higher priority than the others because it ranks more importantly in the scale of public transport improvements? I am not against a busway, far from it, but I would like to know where it fits in in the scale of priority on the many public transport improvements that are needed in the Dublin area only, to speak of nowhere else.

Debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed 2.30 p.m.