I move amendment No. 41:
In page 20, line 2, to delete "him" and substitute "the Minister".
This amendment makes clear that the person referred to as giving guidelines to the Authority on the draft plan is the Minister.
Roads Bill, 1991: Report Stage (Resumed).
There is a nice gender balance.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 42:
In page 20, line 16, after "notice" to insert "and notify each local authority".
This is in connection with the submission of plans to authorities. In addition to doing all of the various other things that are listed in the section I am seeking that the Minister should notify each local authority.
Subsection 3 (b) which was inserted on Committee Stage covers the point raised by Deputy Gilmore.
I accept that.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill recommitted in respect of amendment No. 43.
I move amendment No. 43:
In page 20, between lines 46 and 47, to insert the following:
"(4) The making of objections or representations under subsection (3) (b) shall be a reserved function.".
This amendment clarifies that the making of representations by a local authority to the NRA in relation to its draft medium-term plan is a function reserved to elected members.
Amendment, agreed to.
Amendment reported and agreed to.
I move amendment No. 44:
In page 21, between lines 2 and 3, to insert the following:
"(6) 60 per cent. of the construction of national roads contained in a plan approved under subsection (2) shall be completed by 1998 and the remaining construction shall be completed by 2010.".
I waited with some trepidation for your verdict, Sir, in case this amendment might be declared to be out of order because it involves a charge. I am glad to say, Sir, the Government promised to spend money that it does not yet have; it does not seem to constitute a charge on the Exchequer. The purpose of the amendment is to try to tie the Government into getting on with the programme. On Committee Stage, the Minister felt it would be unreasonable to tie the Government in the way the amendment suggests. He did, however, go on to say that the Government was committed to completing the programme but he did not say by when. He spoke of a period of 12 to 15 years and doing all we could to reach the target. This amendment is designed to encourage the Government to get to a measurable point on that road by the year 2010 — which is 15 years from now. On Committee Stage, the Minister indicated that in 1987-88 the Department assessed the long term investment requirements for our main roads as being more than £3 billion. In that context, setting a target of having 60 per cent of the programme done in 15 years time is, in all conscience, a modest enough one. Because I understand the technicalities of these matters I know that the amendment, even if it were made, would have no force in law or constraint on the Minister, and therefore I do not intend to press it.
Thank you.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 45 not moved.
I move amendment No. 46:
In page 21, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following:
"(i) fufill a road safety role,
(j) train local authority staff,
(k) harmonise road markings on roads with those in member states of the European Community,
(1) carry out tests on all soils and materials used in road construction,".
The purpose of this amendment is to set out certain requirements more clearly than they are in the Bill. The intention is to insert in section 19 a number of extra specific functions for the National Roads Authority in dealing with safety, with training local authority staff, harmonising road markings with those we find in other members states of the European Community and carrying out tests on soils and materials to be used in road construction.
This matter was looked at to some extent on Committee Stage but I am not entirely happy that we will necessarily see all of it done, and that is not an accusation of ill-intent against the Minister. What we wanted to do here was to emphasise certain aspects of what we believe the obligations of the authority should be. There will be many opportunities for the Minister and for the authority to have regard to these matters. If I could pick just one of them for a very brief comment it would be the matter of road markings.
There are two problems here to which we would like the Minister and the Authority to give attention. The first is the inadequacy of road marking generally, even on our national primary routes, to say nothing about the secondary roads and the county roads. We spoke earlier about lighting. There is also a grave danger — and many Deputies will know what I mean — that if you are travelling, particularly at night, you may come to a section of road that is not properly marked. It is a very disorientating experience to go suddenly from a stretch of road that has nice clear white lines running down the middle, to a fairly wide section of road that has no markings at all on either side. That is not uncommon. It is not uncommon on sections of roads that have recently been repaired because it seems to take some local authorities rather a long time to get around to putting down the road markings.
That is difficult enough for people who are used to that situation, as most of us in this House are, but for tourists suddenly to find themselves on a stretch of tarmacadam that has no markings on it at all must be a rather frightening experience. Added to the fact that quite often there are eccentricities in road building here it is not uncommon to find oneself coming over a rise and to find a bend just lurking on the other side of the rise, sometimes an unmarked bend. There is a very substantial case to be made for more attention to be paid to road marking.
Another example I would give is one that I come across virtually every night, it is where the Naas by-pass at its western end now merges into the dual carriageway between the end of the by-pass and Newbridge. You go from a stretch of road where markings are extremely good to a stretch of road where markings are very bad indeed. Again, in wet weather particularly, or in foggy weather, that can be a danger so I ask the Minister to ensure that the Authority will pay proper attention to these points.
I would also ask the Minister to bear in mind the question of harmonising road markings here with road markings in other member states of the European Community. We are not the only ones who need to look at our practices in that regard. Given the fact that we want to develop tourism to the maximum possible extent, the more we can do to ensure the road environment is as similar as possible to what people are used to in other member states the better it will be. It is difficult enough for the average tourist coming here from anywhere, with the exception of the UK, to find himself or herself driving on the left hand side of the road without having to cope with a totally different set of road markings. I know a lot of work is underway in that regard but I would ask the Minister and the Authority to pay particular attention to this and speed it up. There was a great deal of discussion on Committee Stage about signs — that is not really what we have in mind here — and it is an area where the greatest possible commonality of approach would have benefits.
Having said those things, Sir, I will ask the Minister to bring them to the notice of the Authority and I do not intend to press this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 47 not moved.
I move amendment No. 48:
In page 21, to delete lines 43 and 44, and in page 22, to delete lines 1 and 2.
The provision I am seeking to delete by this amendment is that at the bottom of page 21 and the top of page 22 of the Bill which states that the National Roads Authority shall not be liable for damage caused as a result of any failure to maintain a national road. It seems that exposes the public in a rather unfair way, if the National Roads Authority fails to maintain a national road and nobody can hold it accountable for not doing so. Many private citizens would wish they could be insulted in such a way against possible litigation and it puts the general public in a very unfair position vis-à-vis the National Roads Authority. The National Roads Authority should be liable if there is an accident, or if somebody is in some way injured as a result of a failure on the part of the Authority to maintain the national roads properly.
I concur with the sentiments expressed by Deputy Gilmore. I do not know if we seem to be straying from the idea of accountability if we include this section. It does seem very straightforward that the Authority should be liable for damage that is caused as a result of their failure to maintain a national road. The Minister earlier spoke about having standards of excellence, and rightly so. I imagine the outcome here would be that people would not be striving for the excellence which he wants and we need.
I might make a brief point on that. This is an area which — I am sure the Minister is aware of this — has been the subject of some legal wrangling for quite some time. Unless I am greatly mistaken, the only case of misfeasance which has been successfully taken has been against a road authority for apparently not having done its job properly. I may be wrong about that, but I do not think so. There is an enormous potential danger here and an injustice would be done by having the provision in the Bill.
I know it is trite and banal — we hear it every day — to talk of the damage to motor vehicles caused by the condition of some of our roads. It has got to the point where there is an enormous yawn when you talk about such damage. If you take it further, you find that the dangers lying in wait for the motorist are much more diverse than that. Indequate road markings, for example, can lead a motorist astray, sometimes with disastrous results; bad lighting and defects in the construction of a road can have the same effect.
We are all familiar with places where there are bends and where the camber has altered significantly, which can be very dangerous indeed. That serves to underline the point that any public authority has a duty to the people who are using the facilities it provides. I believe that in this House we should be very loath to give any kind of blanket exemption of the kind stated here. The Minister may very well say that the responsibilities of road authorities which are in existence at the moment will continue, but that is not the point. We are setting up a new authority that, in a sense, is a cap over all of them. I would see a danger that if we exempt that overall body from any responsibility, others will argue that if they are acting on behalf of the National Roads Authority, or at its direction or, indeed, at the direction of the Minister under the sweeping powers that he is being given under this Act, they too can be exempt from any liability in this regard. The Minister did not give any persuasive reasons on Committee Stage for this exemption so, unless he has a new reason, he should accept this amendment.
Subsection (4), which Deputy Gilmore's amendment opposes, applies the non-feasance immunity already available to local authorities to the National Roads Authority. Local authorities are at present liable for damages in respect of misfeasance, that is where they negligently undertake work on a public road. They are not, however, liable in respect of non-feasance, that is where they fail to maintain a road or to maintain it adequately.
Section 60 of the Civil Liability Act, 1961, provided for the abolition of the immunity in respect of non-feasance. However, this section only comes into force when an order has been made by the Government. The Government in recent years have considered the matter and decided that section 60 should not be brought into operation at present because our road network is not yet sufficiently developed to justify the imposition of an additional obligation on road authorities. If section 60 were brought into force it would place an additional financial burden on local authorities in defending and meeting claims for damages for non-feasance. This would divert resources from road development and simply result in a further deterioration in road conditions. The question of bringing the section into force will be kept under constant review.
In an ideal world that is the kind of provision we would all like to see in place because it has its own force — provided the resources were available — in terms of ensuring that everything we do on roads is adequate to meet the needs. However, we have to face the realities that the resources to do that on a very comprehensive basis throughout the country are not available to us. If we were to do this it would only mean, in current financial constraints, that it would have to be at the expense of some other competing and equally deserving considerations. For those reasons, I am unable to accept this amendment. If we ever reach the stage — I hope we do — that we have the kind of resources that would give us a national network, which we could stand over and say is absolutely perfect and meets the needs, I do not know who will be standing here at that stage.
We will all be very much older and greyer before we ever get near that point.
The Minister has drawn some very fine legalistic distinctions in replying. I believe the citizen who is injured or has his property damaged as a result of a failure on the part of the roads Authority to carry out work would not be too reassured by the kind of distinction the Minister has drawn. This provision should not be included in the Bill and I believe the roads authority should take its chances before the courts like everybody else and should not be granted the kind of favourable treatment that this Bill proposes to give with regard to any possible case taken against it.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 49:
In page 22, line 5, after "shall" to insert "not".
This is an extremely important amendment. The provision in subsection (6) which I am seeking to amend is that works carried out by the National Roads Authority "shall be exempted development for the purposes of the Planning Act, 1963". In other words, the National Roads Authority will not have to apply for planning permission. The question of public authorities being exempted from the requirement to apply for planning permission is a matter that has been debated widely both in this House and elsewhere and the view was very strongly taken by bodies like An Taisce, by many environmental organisations and by myself that public bodies should not enjoy a status in our planning laws which is different from that of private bodies. A public body wishing to carry out works should have to submit its works for planning permission in the normal way. Perhaps if that were the case, we would not be faced as we come into the House every day with a picket from people who are concerned about what is happening in Mullaghmore or, perhaps later, people from Luggala or about the many issues like that which arise from time to time. These arise when public bodies proceed to do works and all they are required to do under the 1963 Act is, at best, consult in some kind of a general way with the planning authority, but they are not required to submit their plans for planning permission in the normal way, like everybody else.
This Bill is providing for a situation where the major road developments in this country will be the responsibility of the National Roads Authority. Functions that currently belong to local authorities will be transferred to the National Roads Authority: the ultimate functions in relation to the line of the road, its design and, in many cases, the actual carrying out of the work will be transferred to the National Roads Authority.
According to this subsection, the National Roads Authority will not have to apply for planning permission to the local authority. It will be regarded as exempted development. This should not be the case. In this Bill many of the safeguards the public have enjoyed up to now with regard to road proposals cannot be taken into account. Ultimately the decision on road proposals was taken by the local roads authorities concerned and these authorities, acting through elected councillors, and responsive to the public, were able to take account of public concern.
Because the local authority was the planning authority it was able to take account of the impact of road proposals on the planning and development of its own area. Here we will have a situation where the National Roads Authority will be the body responsible. Under his legislation it will not even have to comply with the terms of the local authority development plan. At most, the NRA will have to take account of it. If the road proposal is in breach of or at variance with the development plan there is a procedure whereby submissions will be made, but ultimately it will be the National Roads Authority who will make the decision. It will not even have to go through the normal procedure for materially contravening or varying a development plan that any other development would have to undergo.
Therefore, road proposals under this legislation will enjoy a form of exemption that no other work of its kind will enjoy. That is wrong and there should be a requirement for the National Roads Authority to submit their proposals for road development for planning permission. For that reason, I am proposing the deletion of the exempted development status afforded to the National Roads Authority from the legislation. The NRA should be required to apply for planning permission if it is proposing to build a road, motorway or whatever.
Even though the Government have decided not to proceed with the eastern by-pass I see in today's newspapers that there is now a proposal for a tunnelled version of the eastern by-pass to come out under Sandymount and Booterstown. If, for example, that proposal were to be proceeded with by the National Roads Authority there would be no requirement on the National Roads Authority to apply to Dublin Corporation for planning permission for it. I think that is wrong and it should be remedied in the legislation.
I support this amendment not only in the context of this Bill but in the context of the activities of public agencies generally. As Deputy Gilmore has said, we find all too often that public agencies carrying out work which, if carried out by a private agency would need planning permission, do not require planning permission. It is true that consultative processes exist and these are gone through solemnly in all the appropriate cases but one wonders sometimes whether they make the slightest difference. It is somewhat different in relation to roads. It has been my experience — and I think that of many Members of this House — that the public hearings and inquiries that are held are in fact real exercises in consultation. A party colleague of the Minister's in my own constituency lately said he felt that the public inquiry to be held into the Kildare by-pass would be a non-event. The Minister should speak to Councillor Ó Fearghail and put him right on this. They are worthwhile exercises.
However, that does not take away from the central point. We have public authorities who are allowed to carry out all kinds of development without being subject to the same kind of scrutiny that private agencies or individuals would be. We see the results of that in all kinds of ways. Many public projects are very badly planned. In the days when we built local authority houses — before the Minister's time, indeed, it is a long time since we built any decent number of local authority houses — all that was required was for the local authority to have an area zoned in its development plan for "housing". There was no further specification than that required.
In the days when we had enlightened Ministers for the Environment, like Deputy Kavanagh, and substantial numbers of houses were being built, they simply built six, eight or ten houses to the acre, or whatever their standard was at the time. We got very, very bad planning and that can be seen in local authority housing estates all over the country. In many cases we had bad planning in terms of the quality of the houses and even where the quality of the houses was good we had bad physical planning of the estates. That was the direct result of the public agencies not having to undergo the same kind of scrutiny of their proposals as a private developer would. No private developer would be allowed, even today, to build a number of houses in the same space as a local authority would without providing a minimum of amenities, a minimum frequently not provided by our local authorities when they are building houses.
It is a dreadful reflection on the lack of confidence we have in our own ability to guide these events that we require private individuals, or even speculative builders who want to build a small number of houses, to conform to all kinds of criteria to avoid strip development, in some enlightened local authorities areas to build in clusters rather than in lines and yet we have no such specification for local authorities when they come to carry out the work. It is not an argument to say, as the Minister said during Committee Stage debate, that it would be nonsense for a local authority to seek planning permission from itself. Nobody would suggest that that is the way we should do it. Clearly, we need another agency — and we already have the bones of it there — which could act in relation to public authorities in general in the State as the scrutinising body. For example, we have Bord Pleanála which could quite easily have added into its remit the function of overseeing planning applications from public agencies or local authorities. That should apply in the case of roads just as it should apply in the case of other kinds of development.
In recent times we have seen the ill feeling provoked by the procedure we use now. We have people, as Deputy Gilmore said, demonstrating outside the House about Mullaghmore. Of course it can be quite properly observed that that project was brought through the consultative process with Clare County Council and that Clare County Council voted by a majority to agree to the proposal. But Clare County Council did not have any qualitative input into that, although it is the local planning authority. There is no sense in which Clare County Council was asked to give any kind of a qualitative view on whether or not there should be an interpretative centre and, if so, where and of what kind. We are now left with people demonstrating outside this House at a mad, daft proposal from our Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht to put a sculpture park on the ground already levelled in Mullaghmore. For God's sake what are we at?
There is a very good case for having sculpture parks but the Minister knows as well as I do that if one sets out to put a sculpture park somewhere useful, where people could see it, one would not build it in the Burren at Mullaghmore. One might put it in Ennis, in Galway, Gort, Kilfenora or in Corofin but you would not go out into the middle of what should be an untouched wilderness below Mullaghmore to build a sculpture park. It seems that the daftness of the system we have engenders further daftness when some of our more high-minded Ministers get their hands on the process half-way through. We have plenty of other examples of it.
There is another bone of contention now being gnawed on in County Clare with a plan to build a 700-foot mast a few miles east of Loop Head, where there is a Loran C navigation system. It would run into endless qualifications and demands for clarification from the local authority but this one is not getting that kind of treatment because the local authority does not have the authority even to raise the questions. There will be a consultative process, but no qualitative decision will be affected from that process.
The position is very much the same in relation to roads. I spoke at some length on Second Stage about the very bad planning in relation to roads. I do not think anybody on the Minister's side could argue that if we had started to plan a motorway from Newlands Cross to Portlaoise it would not take a very different route in some sections from the route we will now have with the Naas dual-carriageway, the Naas bypass, the Newbridge bypass, eventually the Kildare by pass and the Monasterevin bypass. I am not criticising any of those designs, but because the work is being done piecemeal that road is going to snake around in a most improbable way, whereas if the whole project had been planned as one unit from the beginning we would get a much better result. However, we would get a better result and one that the public could accept only if we had the same kind of invigilation of the whole planning process that the public rightly expects in the case of private sector developments.
There are many comments that could be made in terms of the quality of decisions.
The Kildare bypass, for example, will go through the middle of the biggest badger set for miles around where I live. I do not know how their habitat would rate in terms of the discussion that may take place at a public inquiry and it would be very unconvincing for the Minister to say that we will carry out an environmental impact assessment. An environmental impact assessment may decide that the badgers must be uprooted but such an assessment is not one of quality. It is not what we intend to do when we solemnly transpose into our legislation European Community directives on those issues nor what we had the ambition to do when we passed the Environmental Protection Agency Act. We are getting bad planning because public authorities are not in the loop, they are not subject to the same invigilation as private interests and the same mistake is being perpetrated again in this Bill. It is long past the time that we should have called a halt to this.
The Minister on Committee Stage made the old argument that if the amendments being proposed here were conceded or if the concerns expressed were given way to, the local authorities would then be applying to themselves for planning permission for developments. This would not be the case because it is clear that what we need is an agency who can invigilate local authorities in regard to assessing the quality and impact of their proposed developments. It is not enough to say that they cannot be the judge and jury in their own cause. We need a different judge and jury to judge what they are doing and it will not be achieved through the kind of mechanism proposed in this Bill, with which we are all too familiar in other areas of public agency activity. The Minister in accepting this amendment could do far more in practical terms for the environment than will be achieved over the next five years by the Environmental Protection Agency Act.
I support this amendment. I have used the word "accountability" a number of times and we are back to this issue again.
Deputy Dukes mentioned bad planning. If public bodies are not made accountable bad practice results. We have had examples cited such as Mullaghmore, etc. As a public body any roads authority should be accountable and should go through the same process that private individuals and organisations must go through. As members of local authorities we are very aware of this. People ask why these public bodies are not accountable. I have been asked this question many times and I have no answer, except that I believe they should be accountable. We should learn from the examples that have been cited already and we should ensure that these bodies are accountable.
A point was made in relation to material contraventions. Material contraventions of development plans were sewn in as a protective measure. It is extraordinary that a public body can completely bypass that measure. I have great pleasure in supporting this amendment.
I would like to be as convinced as Deputy Dukes and others that the planning system operating throughout the country was producing good results. Apart from financial constraints in relation to major local authority housing development, I am not satisfied that in the past we have taken broader concepts into consideration. Planning is just one of those considerations; others include whether we can provide homes which meet the changed social character of housing, how we can get a better mix and avoid social segregation and the single class type of estates, how roads are developed etc.
I visited many local authority housing developments in Dublin and other parts of the country and I agree that they leave much to be desired but I would say much the same about ribbon development where planning permission was granted. I would say very much the same also about decisions in relation to overall planning which has put stress on individuals, and on the transport system. The best way to integrate that thinking, which not only takes planning into account but also the broader considerations, is to move the responsibility from the local authorities to the NRA. This will provide a result based on a total integrated plan for the development of our roads.
We all can give examples of what might have happened if the Naas bypass was forgotton about for years until such time as this legislation was in place. We all are wiser after events. We should, at times, pay tribute to people who — bearing in mind the circumstances of the time and planners etc — did the best they could, but there is not the same excuse for us. There is now much more information regarding how planning should be approached. I have sympathy for the view that public authorities in circumstances where they look to have an advantage on planning should be accountable in the same way as private citizens and other private authorities. I hope later this year to introduce a new planning Bill which will — I am not certain at this stage because a considerable amount of work must be done before its completion — go a long distance down the road to ensure a more coherent and transparent system with the same set of obligations applying to private citizens and public authorities, as far as possible.
It is not fair to say that the NRA can ride roughshod and will not be accountable. The NRA will be a co-ordinating integrating authority, with the local authority in the main carrying out the works, and designing the road plans. Ultimately the group should produce a design which takes account of the planning experience of that council.
It is only in circumstances where the local authorities, for one reason or another, are unable to complete a design or work that the National Roads Authority will be more directly involved. We should not try to impose a planning obligation on a local authority. I note Deputy Dukes's point regarding an outside agency, but surely with the expertise in our corporations, county councils and management teams working on designs, we can expect those delivering the planning system to the public to take account of environmental considerations and other issues. Some contributions cast doubt on the ability of local authorities to interpret the system, for example, the planning considerations for a road or housing development, how they are integrated and the environmental considerations, yet we place confidence in local authorities to make planning decisions in relation to all other matters.
There are times when their decisions would make one's hair stand on end.
We are at the nub of the problem now. The reasons for that and it happens very much in relation to housing — for which I have received much abuse — relate to refurbishment, renewal, derelict sites, and infill.
In every village or town, there is a derelict area. People do not know who owns those areas in many cases they would accommodate four or five houses or flats. I know that Opposition Deputies are as concerned as I to achieve the right results in this regard, otherwise we will perpetuate some of the problems of the past for which I do not condemn anybody but for which I stand condemned. I know from experience that is the wrong way and I am sure everybody in this House agrees on that. There is a process we must go through which involves not having the straight line approach but one which takes account of the landscape. Some changes have been made to the landscape, it changes over the centuries but some of its features must be protected. Sometimes we must modify systems and take account of the views of the people living in an area. We must adopt a broader conceptual approach which not only deals with the road problem but also tries to overcome the repercussions or ill effects that might arise from such development. When I introduce the new planning Bill we must consider how the evolution of a better overall plan could be achieved.
With due respect to the Minister I have rarely heard as contradictory a reply to an amendment as the contribution he has just delivered. He began by telling us that, effectively, we could not trust the planning system and cited ribbon development and so on in support of that. He wound up by telling us that we should trust the people involved at local authority level in planning professional services and so on to do the right thing since they would, in effect, be carrying out the work on behalf of the National Roads Authority.
The Minister is having a bad day on the question of local government; on a number of occasions he cast considerable doubt on its value and integrity. It is quite inappropriate that the Minister for the Environment to whom we look to protect our system of local government——
The Deputy has got it wrong.
I did not. I have listened very carefully to the Minister and I am getting more and more worried as the day goes on.
Is the Deputy happy with planning here?
Many of the problems in relation to planning here are more relevant to the Minister and his political party than to the professional planners charged with the responsibility of running our planning sytem. Much of the ribbon development around the country has more to do with section 4 motions proposed and passed and local authorities around the country than with the decisions of professional planners.
I have never put down a section 4 motion in my life.
I take the Minister's word on that but he raised the question of ribbon development and I am telling him why it occurred.
This is a critical amendment to the Bill. Under the Bill the National Roads Authority may ask or direct a local authority to do work on its behalf. If the local authority does not do it the National Roads Authority can proceed to do it anyway. We all know that road proposals give rise to considerable controversy, public unease and worry on the part of the public. A road going through or near anybody's area, property or dwelling is a major factor in any description of development. As it stands the National Roads Authority will be able to proceed with a development of that type, with the design and building of a major road, perhaps even a motorway, without having to apply for planning permission — without having to subject their plans to public scrutiny.
The planning system is not perfect, but it is the best we have and is much better than not having a system for subjecting what the National Roads Authority may want to do to public scrutiny. At the very minimum the National Roads Authority should be subject to the requirement to apply for planning permission, put its plans on public display so that people may examine them and enable a local authority, An Bord Pleanála or another body to make a decision having heard the views of the public and various interests. If it does not have to do that, as proposed in this Bill, then it is being given carte blanche to make decisions without scrutiny, hindrance, approval or authority from any outside body. Nobody else in this State is given that kind of authority, particularly in an area that will affect so many people. This is a critically important amendment to this legislation and I hope even at this late stage that the Minister will change his mind.
Deputy Dukes rose.
I can only allow the Deputy to come in once on Report Stage.
It is also my amendment, Sir.
Let me clarify this. Regardless of whether your name is on the amendment the Deputy who moves the amendment in the first instance is the only one allowed come in a second time. I clarified that with you at the start of business. I regret that I now have to put the question.
Then, I would ask the office in cases like this to put the names of Deputies on the amendments alphabetically.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 32; Níl, 62.
Tá
- Boylan, Andrew.
- Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Connor, John.
- Cox, Pat.
- Crawford, Seymour.
- Doyle, Avril.!Keogh, Helen.
- Dukes, Alan M.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- Finucane, Michael.
- Foxe, Tom.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Gregory, Tony.
- Harte, Paddy.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Creed, Michael.
- Cullen, Martin.
- Currie, Austin.
- Deasy, Austin.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Keogh, Helen.
- Lowry, Michael.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McDowell, Michael.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Noonan, Michael (Limerick East).
- O'Malley, Desmond J.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
Níl
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Ahern, Noel.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Bell, Michael.
- Bree, Declan.
- Brennan, Matt.
- Browne, John (Wexford)
- Burton, Joan.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Coughlan, Mary.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Ellis, John.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Brian.
- Fitzgerald, Eithne.
- Flood, Chris.
- Foley, Denis.
- Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
- Gallagher, Pat.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hilliard, Colm M.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Killeen, Tony.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- McDaid, James.
- Moffat, Tom.
- Morley, P. J.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.
- Mulvihill, John.
- Nolan, M. J.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Batt.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Sullivan, Gerry.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Penrose, William.
- Power, Seán.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Ryan, John.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Smith, Michael.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Upton, Pat.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Walsh, Eamon.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Woods, Michael.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Rabbitte and E. Kenny; Níl, Deputies Dempsey and Ferris.
Amendment declared lost.
We now come to amendment No. 50 in the names of Deputies Flanagan and Dukes. I observe that amendment No. 51 is an alternative and amendment No. 139 is related. I suggest therefore that amendments Nos. 50, 51 and 139 be taken together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 50:
In page 22, line 13, after "purpose," to insert "provided that any such land will be acquired at no greater cost than the value of land as valued by the Valuation Office".
The purpose of this amendment is to clarify the issues dealt with in the Bill by making it clear that there are limits in relation to the valuations that can be put on land acquired for the purpose of this Bill. We have proposed that the value fixed by the Valuation Office should be the one we would use here. Since that is an agency of the State already in place and widely accepted, its decisions would not be subject to any great degree of contention. Of course I am aware, Sir, that on the Committee Stage the Minister did not see the need to specify the matter in this way, but I think he might agree that the less room there is for contention the more smoothly the procedure will work. The Minister is aware that I have gave reservations about the whole procedure and we should make it as uncontentious as we can.
In my usual generous way I promised Deputy Yates on Committee Stage that I would return to this matter. I have proposed an amendment to section 19 of the Third Schedule which will ensure that the NRA will always require an independent valuation. I explained that I did not want the valuation tied in any extreme way to valuation by the Valuation Office notwithstanding its expertise. There could be circumstances where because something was restricted a valuation was somewhat higher, but we will now have an independent valuation for any circumstances that may arise. That meets the general point made at the committee and the one Deputy Dukes is making now.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 51:
In page 22, between lines 31 and 32, to insert the following:
"(9) Before acquiring land by agreement under subsection (7) the Authority shall obtain an independent valuation of the land.".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 52:
In page 22, to delete lines 34 and 35.
This amendment is one of a family of amendments dealing with the rights the Minister has retained to himself to make various changes in relation to this legislation. It relates to the functions of the authority.
In subsection (9) the Minister is retaining the right to order that various changes be made in the application, modification and adaptation of any enactment as it relates to subsection (7). It is giving the Minister an excessive amount of power and he should reconsider it.
As I explained on Committee Stage, there is no sinister intent in this provision. It is merely transferring to the National Roads Authority powers which exist already in the local authority. It is a purely technical amendment and I hope that when we debate the remaining amendments to this Bill Deputy Gilmore and I will have the opportunity to remove the doubts which seem to have emerged today regarding my intent on these matters. Nothing will be changed. I am transferring what is an existing power to the new authority.
I accept the Minister's statement and withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Debate adjourned.