We come to deal with amendment No. 2 in the names of Deputies Gilmore and Keogh. I observe that amendment No. 7 is related and I suggest, therefore, we debate amendments Nos. 2 and 7 together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Roads Bill, 1991: Report Stage.
Amendment No. 1 not moved.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 7, between lines 10 and 11, to insert the following:
"`cycle lane' means a road over which there is a public right of way for pedal cyclists only;".
These amendments refer to a proposal that reference should be made in this Bill to cycle lanes. Second and Committee Stages of this Bill involved a considerable amount of debate, some of which concerned the principle of whether a national roads authority should be established independently or in the context of a wider policy on transport. I had hoped in the aftermath of the general election, and with the formation of a new Government, that there might have been a rethink in relation to this legislation. It is regrettable that such a rethink does not appear to have been undertaken. That is reflected in the list of amendments before us.
The question of the provision of cycle lanes was debated extensively when this Bill was in Committee and I do not want to rehash the entire discussion. What is at issue is legislation which will provide a fast lane for the spending largely of European money in the construction of roads. During the lifetime of the last operational programme for Structural Funds a total of £650 million was invested in road construction, of which about £500 million was EC funding. Most of that money was spent and is being spent in providing improved facilities for motorists. These amendments seek to give recognition to those road users who do not use motorised transport but who instead prefer to use the more environmentally friendly method of cycling. It seems a waste that large sums of public money are spent on road construction while only a small amount of money is spent on the provision of cycle lanes. Very few of our roads have cycle lanes. A small number of experimental cycle lane schemes exist.
This Bill is concerned with establishing a road authority to oversee the construction of new road projects. Legislation must be enacted to provide for cycle lanes in the construction of new road projects. Those who cycle around urban areas will know that it is now a very hazardous method of travelling. It is unsafe and the only way to make it safe it to provide cycle lanes. If a large amount of money is to be spent on constructing roads, at least a portion of that money should be used to provide a safe method of transport for those people who opt — in line with Government policy — to use their bicycles rather than pollute the atmosphere with cars. I commend these two amendments to the House.
I support this amendment. I was not involved in the debate on the earlier Stages of this Bill but I was amazed that there was no recognition of the necessity to incorporate cycle lanes from the beginning of a project, rather than adding them at a later stage when it would be dangerous to do so.
Is the Minister aware that one can cycle — I would not want to do it myself — from Denmark to the south of Germany on a cycle lane network? It would be virtually impossible for me to cycle out to Dún Laoghaire because there are no cycle lanes available between the city centre and Dún Laoghaire.
There is no recognition that people are aware of the damage that cars do to our environment and that they are looking more to other forms of transport, including the humble bicycle. I ask the Minister to consider accepting this amendment.
The issues involved in these amendments were dealt with by the special committee. Section 60 of the Road Traffic Act, 1968, allows for regulations to be made assigning different parts of the roadway to different traffic. Cycle facilities currently in use include cycle lanes, cycle paths and cycle tracks. It might help in relation to Deputy Gilmore's amendment if I again briefly explain these terms. A cycle lane is part of the carriageway segregated by road markings and is similar in appearance and effect to a bus lane. A cycle path usually runs alongside a footpath and is raised above the road carriageway. A cycle track forms part of the public road but is segregated from the roadway and the footpath. The definition of a cycle way in section 68 of the Bill is very close to that in Deputy Gilmore's amendment and it is quite clear that a cycle way will be a public road.
As I explained on Committee Stage, these provisions in the Road Traffic Acts that deal with traffic and parking measures, including cycle facilities, are being considered in the context of the new Road Traffic Bill, with a view to amending them. I expect to introduce the Bill within the next few weeks.
Second, the major proposals from the DTI in relation to cycle facilities and the consultation process that is necessary to bring those into force is well advanced and I look forward to the final report which will incorporate some exciting proposals in relation to this area. As far as Deputy Gilmore's amendment is concerned, I cannot accept it for the reasons I have given. However, he will be aware from the proposed Road Traffic Bill and the DTI proposals which are imminent in relation to these and other matters, that careful consideration will be given to enhancing facilities for cyclists and encouraging that mode of travel as much as possible.
I thank the Minister for his explanation of a cycle lane. Although there are not many of them here I visualised what one might look like before tabling the amendment.
The Minister's reply is similar to the reply he gave on Committee Stage.
On the Order of Business this morning I deliberately asked about the promised Road Traffic Bill. During the course of Committee Stage debate the Minister responded repeatedly to a number of amendments, including this one, regarding road matters concerning non-motorised users of the road or road safety by stating that they would be dealt with in the promised Road Traffic Bill. The Minister stated also on Committee Stage that the Road Traffic Bill would be circulated to Members before the Roads Bill was taken on Report Stage. Therefore, Members who had tabled amendments addressing matters that he said would be dealt with by the Road Traffic Bill would at least have a copy of the Road Traffic Bill before dealing with them on Report Stage. I appreciate that, because of the election and the formation of a new Government, there has been an inevitable delay in the production of the Road Traffic Bill. However, it puts us in a difficulty today in dealing with those amendments on the Roads Bill which the Minister says are road traffic matters because we do not have a copy of the Bill and, therefore, do not know how these matters will be dealt with in it.
I do not believe that the issue of cycle lanes can simply be relegated to the Road Traffic Bill. The Roads Bill is substantive legislation that will govern the manner in which investment in roads will be dealt with for the foreseeable future because there will be a substantial investment in roads. References can be made to cycle lanes and similar matters in the Road Traffic Bill but unless provision is made to invest in them they will not materialise. The legislation is primarily about investment in roads. Unless cycle lanes are included specifically in the proposals for the investment in roads and are enshrined in this legislation they will not be provided. The Minister's response is unsatisfactory and I would like the Ceann Comhairle to put the amendment to the House.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 3 and 12 are related and I suggest, therefore, that we debate them together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 7, between lines 20 and 21, to insert the following:
"`hard shoulder' means that part of a road adjacent to the portion of the road on which vehicles travel;".
The purpose of amendment No. 3 is clear. It sets out to insert in the Bill a reference to the definition of a hard shoulder. The purpose of amendment No. 12, following that, is to include an assessment of the condition of the hard shoulder in the later provision for the assessment of the condition of roads. There was a lengthy debate on these issues on Committee Stage where it was pointed out that hard shoulders have a great many uses, which the Minister acknowledge at the time. They are used obviously as places where people can stop in emergencies; they are also used, in some cases effectively, as slow lanes or lanes for very slow moving traffic. At times of very heavy traffic a hard shoulder can sometimes de facto become an extra lane. This is most noticeable on a Friday evening approaching Newbridge, a situation which I hope will be resolved next June when the Newbridge bypass is opened. Hard shoulders have a function and we want to make it clear in the Bill that we recognise their functions and uses. In amendment No. 12 we should include the conditions of the hard shoulder in the assessment we would like to see of all roads from time to time.
As I explained to Deputy Yates during the special committee debate, section 10 (6) already places on obligation on local authorities to carry out inventories of public roads at the request of the Minister and in such a manner as specified by him. It was the practice in the past to carry out an inventory at five yearly intervals and this is reasonable given the extensive milcage of roads for which many local authorities have responsibility. In addition, the environmental research unit carries out annual or two yearly assessments of the network of national roads providing data for the full network on skid resistance, pavement condition and so on. My Department is also co-ordinating an important project to develop an up-to-date data base for national roads which will bring together and augment information on traffic, physical condition, capacity and safety.
In the amendment to section 10 there is a reference to roads, including the hard shoulder. This is unnecessary since "roads" is defined in section 2 as including the hard shoulder, and is provided for in line 38, page 8 of the Bill. A separate definition of hard shoulder in section 2 is not necessary either since the term is well understood. The definition of that term alone out of the long list of items referred to in the definition of a road is hardly warranted. In the light of my explanation I hope that the Deputy will agree to withdraw the amendment.
As Deputy Yates said there were lengthly arguments in relation to the hard shoulder on Committee Stage. The issues of whether the research and the capacity of local authorities to examine this and the consequential roadworks which would be involved were fully addressed. If the Deputy wants it defined in this way he would presumably also want to do so on other issues. It seems unnecessary as it is already adequately covered in the basic understanding of what a roadway is, which has been the same for years.
I appreciate the Minister's position in regard to these matters. However, it is not enough for him to say there is no need to define this because everybody understands it. The Minister knows perfectly well that local authorities apart from anything else, are involved in endless litigation involving arguments about where roads begin and end and where the edge of the road happens to be. In amendment No. 3 we seek to define a term that, as the Minister points out, occurs later on in the text of the Bill on page 8, line 38, without any explanation. It is not enough to say that everybody knows what it is. If there is an argument in a court about it one will quickly find that the judge will say it is not sufficient to say everybody knows what it is, there must be a definition.
I am unhappy with the idea that the assessments should be made only every fifth year, nor am I happy with the idea — I mean no disrespect to the Minister — that the Minister would specify on each occasion which matters he would like local authorities to include in the range of their assessment. Since we are dealing principally with national roads, although the provisions cover other roads also, we must have as much clarity as possible. I regret the Minister is not more understanding, he should accept these amendments to have more clarity in this issue.
Amendment put and declared lost.
We now come to amendment No. 4 in the names of Deputies Flanagan and Dukes. I observe that amendments Nos. 6, 45 and 47 are related and amendment No. 57 is cognate. I am suggesting, therefore, that we debate amendments Nos. 4, 6, 45, 47 and 57 together. Agreed.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 7, line 28, after "improvement" to insert ", provision of public lighting".
This matter was debated at some length in the special committee. I was not present at the special committee but having read the report several times very carefully I found it very difficult to understand the Minister's thinking on this matter. He observed at one point — I quote from column 17 of the Official Report:
I am not anxious to reach a point where public lighting would be regarded as separate from all other facilities. It should be embraced in the overall development of our proper road network.
We agree with that. It is for that reason we have put forward this amendment. We want to make it clear in the definitions included in this Bill that the provisions are intended, among other things, to have regard to the level of lighting on public roads.
During the debate in the special committee many references were made to the difficulties that arise for motorists in passing from a well-lit area into an area that is totally unlit. In wet weather it creates a major physical requirements for a change in the receptive capacities and adjustments of the eye and those areas are places where accidents are likely to happen. Equally, drivers travelling from an unlit into a lit area may find the appearance of shadows passing before them from time to time because of lights of other oncoming vehicles. There is a need to improve the standard of lighting, particularly in merging lit to unlit areas in a way that contributes to safety. For that reason we have proposed amendment No. 4. In amendment No. 6 we have gone on to make the same point more clearly in a different connection.
I take it I may refer to the other amendments very briefly. They are designed to carry that concern with public lighting into the other appropriate parts of the Bill. There is always the question — as we consider the progress that we will make on national routes — as to whether we should look in a more systematic way at the requirement to light longer stretches of road. It is the practice — and it is specified in all the contracts — on all major routes built in recent years and currently under construction that there is lighting at all intersections and junctions. It is very laudable indeed. I would ask the Minister to consider whether we could learn any lessons from some of the practices in continental Europe. It was the practice for quite a time, for example, that all of the motorways in Belgium were lit during the hours of darkness and I have had experience of this. In 1979 when we had a major increase in the price of oil, one of the economy measures introduced by the Government there was to cease the lighting of motorways at night. It was found very quickly that the number of accidents and fatalities increased very rapidly after the practice of lighting the motorway at night was discontinued. It has been my own experience, Sir, after extensive driving on motorways on the Continent that the lighting of those motorways at night is a major contributory factor to safer driving. The fatigue of drivers is far less and the standard of driving improves enormously because there is a lesser demand on drivers to use so much of their attention simply to locate themselves on the road. They have more attention and energy to devote to how they position themselves in relation to other traffic. The Minister will probably reply that this would cost a lot of money in terms of new contracts, but I would like some consideration given to it.
I am delighted that we are increasing the number of dual carriageways and motorways as standard roads in the country. We are extending the range of this problem and an increasing number of drivers will be using those roads, probably travelling at fairly high speeds, who have not been previously used to that type of motor travel. It requires a new kind of mental discipline from drivers different from the way they approach driving on our picturesque and winding roads.
Would the Minister agree with the simple proposals we have made in amendment No. 4 and the other amendments? They are not designed to tempt him down a road, literally or figuratively, that will cost a lot of money. However, we would like these references included in the Bill to make it clear that we regard the lighting of public roads as a proper part of our consideration of the quality, design and construction of those roads.
I support the amendments proposed by my colleagues. My amendment No. 47 proposes the provision and maintance of adequate public lighting. I read the special committee debate with great interest. Obviously the major consideration in relation to the public lighting of our roads is safety. It is very disconcerting for any driver to go from a well lit road, travelling at a reasonably high speed, into an area that is not lit or is inadequately lit. Purely in the realms of safety these amendments should be considered. There should be a consistency in the lighting of our roads. This was referred to previously in the special committee. To use a local example — the Bray/Shankill bypass — there are areas along that bypass that are not sufficiently lit and are dangerous, particularly at the bridge near Bray. It is dangerous driving from a well lit to an unlit area, particularly when travelling at high speed and then being suddenly plunged into darkness.
One issue that concerns me is the cost cutting exercise followed by some local authorities who turn off lighting on minor roads and only provide lighting at major junctions. While we want to save money and use it as effectively as possible, this practice should not be followed. I would ask that the Minister consider the inclusion of these amendments on safety grounds.
I support these amendments. There are two issues involved here. One is the provision of public lighting on new road developments, particularly motorways. I agree with the comments of Deputies Dukes and Keogh in that regard, particularly Deputy Keogh's point in relation to the Bray/Shankill bypass which was built at a cost of £25 million or £26 million. That bypass is effectively an urban motorway and as such justifies being publicly lit, but apart from lighting at junctions along the bypass it is completely dark.
The second issue is the maintenance of public lighting on national roads. I agree with Deputy Keogh's point that some local authorities, due to financial difficulties, turn off public lighting on some national roads for certain periods of the year. Dublin County Council of which Deputy Keogh and I are members, during the course of last year due to a shortage of funding and the inadequate road grant made available to it by the Department of the Environment had to cut back on public lighting. There were times of the year when some major national roads around our capital city were unlit, for example stretches of the N11 on which I and many Members of this House travel regularly. Driving along that motorway from lit stretches into dark stretches is extremely dangerous. The lights along that motorway were not put back on until the beginning of October. It gave rise to a situation where the approach roads to Dublin were in an extremely dangerous condition because of the intermittent provision of public lighting. It is not just a question of providing public lighting, but of the Minister providing the resources to the local authorities to provide for the continuous public lighting of those roads.
Will the Minister indicate when replying who exactly will be responsible for public lighting on national roads? Will the National Roads Authority be taking on this responsibility and, more particularly, will it fund the provision of such lighting? Additional roads are being built now with the assistance of European money, the resources are not being provided to maintain those roads and, in particular, in this case the standards of public lighting.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): I would support the motion concerning the provision of lighting on national roads. There are certain junctions, particularly in rural areas, that are highly dangerous coming on to the national primary roads. Special allowance should be made for the provision of lighting in those areas because they are often the blackspots where accidents occur. The Royal Oak road on the way to Kilkenny is a very serious accident spot, as a I learned to my cost. Public lighting should be provided at dangerous junctions where accidents are likely to occur. I ask the Minister to pay particular attention to ensuring safety of motorists by way of public lighting at junctions on the national primaries.
It is very clear from contributions on this amendment that the Deputies opposite are not as much concerned about whether public lighting is spelled out in terms of section 2 (4) because it is already covered in the understanding of road improvement, but they are more concerned with the adequacy or inadequacy of public lighting on the national roads generally. I would have to express the same fears in relation to our overall ability, in terms of financial resources, to meet those continuing needs. We have moved away from the question of the amendment to where resources are to come from and how the National Roads Authority will deal with these matters in the future.
The Department of the Environment by way of the national roads grants provides for the upgrading of these facilities but not for the maintenance which remains the responsibility of local authorities. Last year there was a problem in County Dublin and it was resolved. A number of councillors exploded the myth that had been put to them by management in regard to resources for the provision of public lighting on roads and lights were put back on. Deputy Dukes made a comparison with Belgium but we do not have the same volume of traffic. Standards for national primary or secondary routes lighting relate to traffic. We have overall about 50,000 miles of road. Pitted against the UK or France it is one person to one mile compared to two in France, and four in the UK. That gives an indication of resources available to deal with the provision of public lighting for our roads.
New carriageways carry a very high volume of traffic since their construction, the volume of traffic on other routes, which were the responsibility of the local authorities up to that time has reduced considerably, leaving resources available to the local authorities for the maintenance of the lighting scheme.
The National Roads Authority in the final analysis will be involved in these schemes for the future and it will be up to the National Roads Authority, in consultation with the local authority, to devise the best way possible to allocate resources for these purposes. I take the point that public lighting on the national routes is a very important factor in terms of road safety. However, I do not want to convey the impression that we will have — and I am sure Deputy Dukes and other Deputies understand this just as well as I do — the type of resources which the public might demand and which taxpayers are not in a position to supply. The basic points being made were in relation to the upgrading of facilities to improve road safety. I am as anxious as the Minister for the Environment, in the context of the resources available to me, to ensure that we have not only the best road standards that we can afford but that they are maintained and enhanced to the maximum.
Before Deputy Dukes begins I understand that Deputy Keogh wishes to intervene. If I call Deputy Dukes now he will be concluding the debate on this amendment and related amendments and I am affording the Deputy an opportunity of speaking now if she do desire.
I have a separate amendment.
A Cheann Comhairle, I note that you are indicating to Deputy Keogh that the Deputy may speak again when we come to amendment No. 47. I do not want to cut off Deputy Keogh.
I detect the Minister is not too keen to go down the road — a dreadful malapropism — set out in these amendments. I would like the Minister and his Department to think again about some of these aspects and I am worried by some of the Minister's comments. First, the very construction of a new national road, because there are obligations of maintenance, can create extra burdens on local authorities that very often have not been recognised. Second, it is not enough for the Minister to say — and leave it at that — that the construction of new roads reduces the volume of traffic on other roads. That would be fine if the world remained static but it does not. I will give the Minister a perfectly simple example. The Minister should have the facts before him because I gather he will open the Newbridge bypass shortly. When the Naas bypass was opened it became a good deal easier to travel through Naas and go out the Waterford road through Kilcullen, but since then the volume of traffic going down to Waterford has increased to the point where the town of Naas is now as congested as it used to be before the bypass was opened. The fact that we open new roads does not and cannot be expected automatically to lead to a reduction in the volume of traffic on existing roads and, therefore, cannot be taken to mean that local authorities have more leeway in their maintenance budgets. They do not. Desirable as it is, the very fact of constructing a new road of a higher quality than those that were there before can sometimes create an additional need for expenditure on maintenance by local authorities. The Minister is basing his refusal of these amendments on some very dubious propositions.
I am perfectly aware that because of higher volumes of traffic in other countries standards of construction elsewhere may be different from what they are here; but I assure the Minister that I have driven extensively over many years on every kind of road in this country and in every other member state of the European Community and, more often than not, the effect of the volume of traffic on road design is reflected in the number of lanes built in the road and not necessarily in the kind of surface that is provided. Neither is it necessarily a factor that determines whether a road is to be lit. At night a driver's degree of comfort and ease will be improved and the degree of stress and fatigue reduced by a road being lit whether or not there is a large volume of traffic on that road. The fact of lighting the road in itself reduces stress and fatigue. That would be the case for any given level of traffic volume going across that road. So to argue that since our traffic volumes are lower than traffic volumes in other countries we do not need the same kind of standards is, with all respect, purely specious.
The Minister is not inclined to specify things in the way we want them specified. My colleagues on this side of the House will agree with me that because the Minister is reluctant to sharpen the definitions set out in this section of the Bill — that is basically what these amendments are about — the Minister, his successors and local authorities will have trouble in the future. They will find themselves with less resources than we might wish them to have and facing local authorities that would wish to have more resources than they have. The less clear the definitions in this Bill, the more room for argument. The clearer we make the definitions, the more we can be sure in future years what will be the arguments between local authorities and the Department of the Environment or the National Roads Authority. It is a pity if the Minister loses this opportunity to clarify those definitions.
Is the Deputy pressing his amendment?
Yes.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 7, line 30, to delete "the Environment" and substitute "Transport".
This matter was debated at great length in the special committee, with the Minister at one stage getting a little huffed because he felt that somebody had accused him of empire building. Of course, we know that the Minister does not indulge in empire building, although there is a Member of the Seanad who might take a different view of that. However, that is another day's work.
The difference between the circumstances surrounding the debate in the special committee — these matters were discussed on 14 July last year — and the circumstances today is that we now have a new Government which has done all kinds of weird and wonderful things to the make-up and construction of Departments. We have the Minister for Employment and Enterprise, we have a Minister for Arts and Culture and apparently half of Mullaghmore, we have a Minister for Arts and Culture and most of RTE and another Minister who seems to be in charge of maintenance in RTE. Creative as they may be, some of the changes made seem to be totally pointless and in some cases downright mischevious because they have led to more confusion than anything else. But the change we propose arises from the proposition that we should have one Minister with a clear brief to look after all aspects of transport instead of having the Minister for the Environment, the Minister for Transport, the Minister for the Marine and perhaps other Ministers involved.
During the course of the debate in the special committee the Minister agreed in principle with the need for a co-ordinated transport policy. We will not have a co-ordinated transport policy if we have separate Departments looking after different aspects of our transport networks, each having their own arguments with the Department of Finance about their resources and each making separate deals in order to get what they want. That is not the way to achieve a co-ordinated transport policy.
The basic logic of this Bill should be carried through into the way the Government wants transport policy, because this Bill seeks to set up an authority that can take a co-ordinated, integrated approach to the construction and maintenance of the 6 per cent of our roads that are national primary roads. The very logic of this Bill is in the same family as the logic that says we should have one Minister for Transport. I invite the Minister to tell us whether, after all the commotion and creative rearrangements that have been made in Government, he thinks he and his Department should be the subject of a little more creative thinking than they have been up to now. Given that we talk so much about the need to get over the disadvantages of our peripherality, to compete with the fact that the British now have the Channel Tunnel to link them to Europe and the need for integration and transport planning from an environmental point of view, it would make eminent sense to look at the structural change we are talking about. It would make a lot more sense than some of the changes which have been made.
I would like to conclude with a reflection which receives far too little attention. There is no means in our Government making policy where we can do anything which would even approach an energy audit of the way we organise our transport. Our railways are run totally separately from our roads. Air and sea traffic are in totally different compartments. Some of them are not alternatives in that, in the nature of things, we need overland transport on this island and we need either surface transport across the sea or air transport. The time will come, and it is not that far away, when we will have to apply a rigorous system of energy auditing of how we plan our transport system. That job will be made immeasurably more difficult if we have different Departments looking after our transport network. I bet my bottom dollar that when it comes to doing that they will all want to use, for very good reasons, different systems for measuring the energy input for a given level of output. They will all have different ways of measuring the output of the particular mode of transport for which they are responsible. The result will be total confusion and we will not get anything like a proper view, whereas if we had one Department it could come to an integrated and unified conclusion about how conceptually we go about measuring the energy efficiency of our transport system and that could then be used, with some effect, as a basis for the rational planning of our transport system.
We know the Minister is a modest man who likes to get on with his job but he should start clamouring for the same kind of attention through creative reorganisation in the areas for which he is directly responsible and some for which he is tangently responsible and accept the amendment and the spirit behind it.
I join in congratulating you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, and wishing you well. This amendment raises an issue which I was anxious to raise in another amendment. It was amendment No. 1 which was ruled out of order because it was disposed of on Second Stage. The issue is whether, in fact, the establishment of a national roads authority and the concentration exclusively, as we have in this Bill, on a roads strategy is the correct way to proceed with regard to our roads and transport policy. My view is that it is not the correct way to proceed. What we need is a co-ordinated transport policy which takes account of the need for investment in roads but which also takes account of, and puts in an overall transport context, the need for investment and development in rail and other forms of transport. I believe that is particularly urgent because, as we know, the Cohesion Fund is to be used partly for transport purposes. Over the years there will be funds available from the Cohesion Fund and from the continuation of what is known as the peripherality programme on the Structural Funds from which roads are funded. It seems that there is need for co-ordination so that the country gets the best possible result from the investment of European money and the investment of local money in our transport needs.
The concentration which we are getting and which is reflected in this Bill is exclusively on roads and that is regrettable. It is also quite frightening that the Minister seems to believe, judging from his response to an earlier amendment, that if one builds more roads one reduces traffic. I see the Minister shaking his head but it is what I understood him to say. We were talking about the pressures on local authorities with regard to the need for maintenance of roads and so on. The Minister expressly stated that because more roads were being provided there would be less traffic and less maintenance by local authorities. All the experience is the more roads one builds the more traffic one gets. Deputy Dukes referred to the Naas by-pass. In my own constituency I can refer to the utter traffic chaos that now exists in the Blackrock area following the construction of the Blackrock by-pass. It was bad before but there was never the kind of chaos we have now.
In the UK, for example, a recent study shows that the continued construction of additional roads there has led directly to a huge increase in the volume of traffic. In the United States there is probably no other city that is more road-bound than the city of Los Angles. It is choked with traffic. One cannot advance the argument that because one builds more roads one solves the traffic problem. In fact, it goes the other way. Roads are like rivers; if one builds them they fill up with traffic. There is a very strong argument for developing a transport strategy as against a roads strategy.
This Bill is all about providing a fast lane for the European funds that are available for road construction. Let us look at the Operational Programme on Peripherality, 1989 to 1993. It shows quite clearly a total investment of £818 million of which £515 million was a European contribution, the bulk of it being for road construction. This is about money from Europe. Money available from Europe for the peripherality programme is being syphoned into the roads area. There was concern on the part of the construction industry, that they were not able to get their hands quickly enough on that money and there was a certain amount of irritation about the delay in processing road plans through local authorities and so on. The Government's solution was to establish a national roads authority which would provide the fast lane to the European money. That is what the National Roads Authority is about and what this Bill is about.
It is wrong, because it is motivated not by the transport needs of the country or by any kind of rational planning to decide the extent to which roads, rail and other means should contribute to our transport needs. The National Roads Authority will cut out much of the need for consultation, discussion and so on at design and other stages and the construction industry will get its hands on the European money as quickly as possible to build as many roads as possible. What we should have is a National Transport Authority which would look at the overall transport needs of the country and not this kind of European driven investment and preoccupation with road construction, underpinned by the astonishing approach of the Minister for the Environment who believes if one builds more roads one gets less traffic.
I extend my congratulations to you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle on your election. I am sure you will be an excellent referee in this House. I do not wish to be repetitive on this amendment. I would agree with my colleague, Deputy Gilmore, that we seem to be in single minded pursuit of European money for roads. What I am concerned about is that we should have a transport strategy, as has been said and that we do not look at roads in isolation.
I referred earlier to cycle paths. We need to look at all modes of transport including rail. We need to have an integrated approach to transport in this country and I do not believe that going down this road is the way to achieve that. We will need a roads authority to look after the roads but if it is not part of an integrated strategy, which is not referred to at all in this Bill, then we will fail in what we are trying to do. Fine if we are in single minded pursuit of the European money — at least we will get it and spend it and the construction industry will be delighted — but I do not believe that in any planning one can look at something in isolation; it must form part of an overall plan. I ask the Minister to consider this amendment.
In relation to the proposal that we substitute the Minister for Transport for the Minister for the Environment in the context of this Bill, it is not the first time we heard the argument for a single transport authority. It is clear from some of the comments made that there is not a realisation that in the technical assistance programme of the operational programme on peripherality there is a very genuine effort to develop a common evaluation of the methodology used and of all transport types so that ultimately we get the most balanced system possible.
Deputies are ignoring the reality of the transport situation in Ireland today where there is such a huge dependence on roads compared to any other system of transport. Over 90 per cent of freight and 96 per cent of vehicular traffic depend on roads. There is a 75 per cent dependence for exports and a huge need to develop systems for industries in the west and other parts of the country where there are not alternative systems in place. Notwithstanding that, in the operational programme for peripherality, provision was made for the Belfast-Dublin rail route, upgrading of the Dublin-Cork, Dublin-Waterford routes and in the Dublin Transport Initiative tremendous emphasis is being put on the possibility of upgrading public transport, which is essential in terms of a point made earlier by Deputy Owens about environmental considerations and easing traffic congestion.
In the programme for peripherality there are evaluation systems. It is not possible to get European funds to do what one likes with and my colleague, the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications, is as interested as the Deputy in ensuring that our transport system is developed in a way which is not, as Deputy Gilmore said, just a singular approach to roads. In selectively quotating the amount of European money spent on roads at £515 million, it must be remembered that it is £515 million out of £3 billion, so clearly there are very many other considerations to be taken into account.
There is also the argument against a single transport authority in terms of the reliance on local authorities to carry out these functions and the introduction of the National Roads Authority as a management co-ordinating and integrating facility, with the local authorities still doing virtually all of the work. One would have to link the local authority and a single transport authority into the rail system and into airport and sea port management. It is not feasible to deal in a single Department with the system as it now stands. But there is need for the Departments and the different authorities, whether it is Aer Rianta, Córas Iompair Éireann, or Bus Éireann etc., to have the maximum collaborative and co-ordinating effort so that funds from Europe and national resources are developed to create a transport system which meets all needs. The greatest example of that is the Dublin Transport Initiative. Their interim report demonstrates very clearly the question of moving away from the belief that roads and roads only are the solution to the problem. I concur with that.
I do not want to be misunderstood in terms of my earlier contribution about available resources to local authorities. I did not say that the development of new roads would reduce traffic but that it should reduce traffic on certain routes and that this would release resources to local authorities. The counter argument was made earlier, and I accept it, that traffic keeps growing and we have to increase resources to meet that. But I am quite sure Deputy Dukes would be the first to say in another debate: "Cut public expenditure and get the EBR right". These are some of the constraints that come into this as well.
I am as concerned as Deputies opposite to ensure we have an integrated transport policy. I do not accept the view that it can be done in one single Department. Deputies who have sat at the Cabinet table will know that different Ministers' views impacting on a situation is healthy. If we were to think today of amalgamating Aer Rianta, the seaports, airports, railway systems, and the link that roads have with local authorities, we would have a lot of problems on our hands. One of the first steps I took when I became Minister for the Environment was to establish a linkage with all the other transport agencies and Departments.
My effort with DTI is a convincing demonstration that, as far as Dublin is concerned, the emphasis is being taken away from roads and put onto public transport, consultation and finding solutions which will bring the people together. To meet the points made on this Bill I cannot go further than demonstrate the actions I have taken — not what I will do in the future but what I have already done. I do not see myself running a singular Department but rather I see myself with a responsibility in all the other areas to find the key which will bring the different units together in the best way possible to solve our transport problems within the constraints of existing resources.
What the Minister has said for the last three minutes makes the case for our amendment. For the Minister to congratulate himself on having set up all these links with other transport agencies again suggests that he perceives things in the same way as we do and he is making the case for the amendment.
The Minister should try to understand statistics and not be seduced by them. We know the proportions of total passenger traffic and total goods traffic that move around this country by road. If one looks at passenger movements between Tallaght and the centre of Dublin one will find that they are 100 per cent by road. This is because there is no other means of transport, but that is not to say there is not a very good case to be made for providing another means of transport which would be more energy and socially efficient and have less harmful effects on our environment. That might be good value for the whole community.
That is what we are doing.
The fact that approximately 90 per cent of goods are moved around the country by road does not necessarily mean that we have arrived at the proper balance between road and rail.
I agree.
What it means in most cases is that we have reduced the rail network by too much and we have done so because we have not had integrated transport planning.
Is Deputy Dukes pressing the amendment?
Yes.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 not moved.
Amendment No. 8 is out of order as it involves a potential charge on the Revenue.
May I ask why amendment No. 8 is out of order and in what way it imposes a charge?
My note is to the effect that it involves a potential charge on the Revenue. I do not have a further explanation for the Deputy.
I do not like to argue with the Chair but I cannot see how it will impose a potential charge on the Revenue if we say that the Act shall come into effect on 1 June 1993. We are taking the Minister at his word that he intends to do all these things at some stage. I cannot see how we are burdening the Revenue by putting in this date.
Amendment No. 8 seeks to bring forward to a date earlier than is proposed and to make mandatory the commencement of the provisions of the Bill. Since this proposal would also bring forward in time the liability of the Exchequer to fund the National Roads Authority, it must be regarded as a potential charge on the Revenue.
I am not sure whether it is the House or the Government that is telling me this.
Deputy Dukes is a trusting person.
I would just like to know.
I would not be responsible for things like that.
If we look at the text of the Bill, it means that June 1993 is earlier than "such day or days as may be fixed therefor by any order or orders of the Minister". At least we have found out that the Minister does not intend to do any of this until after 1993. It now seems the Minister is telling us that, to the extent that this Bill requires the expenditure of money, he is kind of Augustinian on it; let us spend the money but not yet. Could the Minister explain what kind of phasing he has in mind for spending this money and why he does not want to be led into the temptation of spending any more money by a simple amendment that will give effect to this Bill in 1993? After all, if we say the Bill comes into operation on 1 June 1993 we are not thereby saying that the public lighting on every road has to be improved with effect from that date. We are not thereby saying that the Kildare bypass has to be in hand in 1993. Let us be reasonable.
To rule an amendment like this out of order on the basis that it may produce a charge on the Revenue will prevent all of us from saying almost anything about the Bill because we might induce the Minister to agree with us that it is a good idea to spend money sometime on something.
I cannot allow the Minister to accommodate the Deputy. That is the ruling.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 10, to delete lines 36 to 43 and substitute the following:
"(2) Where it is proposed to make regulations under this Act, a draft of each regulation shall be laid before each of the Houses of the Oireachtas, and shall not come into effect until a resolution approving of the draft has been passed by each such House."
For the past two months we heard much about change in the way political business is done and, in particular, the way business is done in this House. This is only our second day back but so far I have looked in vain for any evidence of this change. I hope this amendment might elicit the first glimmer of that change.
The Bill makes provision for the Minister to make regulations in a range of areas. In fact, it gives the Minister quite extensive powers. Two subsections of section 7 deal with the making of regulations by the Minister. The subsection I am seeking to amend provides that regulations made by the Minister will stand unless they are annulled by the Houses of the Oireachtas. We know from experience that never happens by and large because we do not have the means here to do so except by way of a procedure which, in practice, does not work.
In theory, it is possible for a motion to be tabled annulling regulations but I do not recall it happening or when a motion of that kind got onto the floor of the House for debate.
What is proposed in subsection (2), which I am seeking to amend, is a procedure which is unworkable. The ministerial regulations are made and will stand unless they are annulled. In practice there is no provision in the House for a debate on secondary legislation of that kind.
Subsection (3) provides, in relation to regulations which come under two sections of the Bill, for the regulations to be brought before the House for approval. My amendment seeks to follow that principal in relation to all the regulations made by the Minister — they would be brought before the House and would not take effect until a resolution is passed giving them effect. Under that safeguard the Houses of the Oireachtas would have an opportunity to debate regulations, the content of which in many cases will put meat on the bones of the legislation before us.
The principle, in fairness, has been conceded in subsection (3). My amendment seeks to extend that principle to the generality of regulations made under this Bill.
I support Deputy Gilmore's amendment. There would be a degree of consistency in the legislation if this amendment were accepted. The buzz word now is "transparency". If we allude to the notion of transparency and accountability, this amendment should be accepted. The Minister should take that into consideration.
I am delighted to support this amendment because the whole question of regulations has been a hobbyhorse of mine for some time. On every occasion I have spoken on Second Stage of a Bill for the past five years, when the Bill involves the making of regulations, I have made this point. I would much prefer to see the kind of active approval of the Dáil that is required in Deputy Gilmore's amendment, and in relation to two sections of this Bill, applied in every case where it is proposed to make regulations. That would require other changes.
I have made this point on a number of other Bills and I have a feeling I will be making it for a long time. The point has been dealt with by various Ministers who said it would be cumbersome to use this kind of procedure in all cases where regulations are made. They argue, quite rightly, that there are cases where Ministers make regulations about matters that are more routine than questions of policy. That is quite true. The way to deal with that is to make it clear in the text of the legislation that there are areas of routine processing of the consequences of the provision that are properly the Minister's and for which the Minister must be accountable to this House when we debate the Estimates for his or her Department or discuss the policies followed by that Department and so on.
There are instances where it would be absolutely nonsensical to require the making of routine humdrum day-to-day decisions to be brought before this House. There are too many cases in legislation of regulations to be made by Ministers which, in fact, are substantial decisions and which under the passive procedure we are used to, are laid before this House. As Deputy Gilmore said, a procedure is there that notionally can be used by this House but which would be very difficult to operate and which, if the House ever managed to use it to set aside something done by a Minister, could sometimes mean that an objectionable provision was in force, for example, for the length of a summer recess and 21 sitting days before or after that summer recess. It could happen that a measure would be in operation for six to eight months and then notionally be set aside by this House.
That is a very bad procedure indeed. It will require Ministers, their Departments and the parliamentary draftsmen to take a new look at the extent of the powers they wish Ministers to exercise by regulation and to make a much more balanced and well-judged distinction between routine matters and matters of substance.
The provision contained in this Bill and in so many other Bills is nothing less than plain, straightforward, lazy draftsmanship. It is going back to what seemed to work reasonably well in the days of the high stool and the quill pen and is trying to transpose it into modern legislation. It does not work.
I am delighted to support Deputy Gilmore in this proposal. I hope that Deputies Gilmore, Keogh and myself will make the same case when we speak on other Bills that contain this pernicious provision about making regulations.
I understand the fears expressed but, in the main, they are groundless. The Bill deals with the primary legislative format and the administrative and procedural elements are dealt with through regulations. In terms of introducing legislation, Deputy Dukes will be familiar with the length of time it takes from the time the Minister first says he is preparing legislation to deal with this matter, the subsequent effort made to try to combat opposing considerations from other Departments and pressure on the draftman's office, to come to the final day of saying it is in early stages of preparation, it will be ready within the next couple of weeks, and then to have the Bill. He, better than anybody else here, knows that it is a tedious and difficult route. A considerable bank of that work is done in the primary Department to try to see to what extent we can speed up these developments.
I am not going to hold my hand across my heart and say that everything possible in terms of the primary legislation is dealt with. We would all like to see that improved but, as it stands at present, what would happen if we were to go down the road suggested in the amendment would be to delay further the day when this Bill comes into force. It would take more time to get the Bill through the House and would clutter up the work of this House. If there were anything substantial by way of policy in the regulations it would be a matter for the House to decide whether that should be put into the regulations.
I take the point that it is not always something that is highlighted here or even the powers to do it that are highlighted. Perhaps there are further improvements that we can make in the light of experience to distinguish between the administrative, procedural elements which are normally enshrined in the regulations and other more serious areas. We are trying to find a balance while enacting as much legislation as possible.
I am not saying that we have all the answers. Clearly the more understanding there is of the need for something the more public goodwill there is in following it through because it is not just a question of enacting laws; it is a question of their implementation. Public goodwill, understanding and backing from all sides of the House are important.
There is nothing I can do in the context of this amendment. In so far as it relates to my own activities, I will have a searching look at other Bills coming forward to see if there are further efforts that can be made to put into the primary legislation any elements which have that policy nature. I do not want to give any commitment because one of the pressures is to try to bring forward as much of that legislation as we can. If we go down the road of wanting to cover every detail and have every "i" dotted, the Deputy knows what would happen. I would be glad to bring any experience I have in these areas before any committee. I assure the House that nothing will be contained in the regulations other than administrative and procedural tools for implementating the legislation. As far as I can humanly do so, I will ensure that policy questions and serious matters are dealt with in the primary legislation.
The Minister may misunderstand what we object to. It is not the fact that Ministers have to make regulations or come before the House. There is a lack of definition about the kinds of things that legislation allows Ministers to do by regulation. I have seen it in other Bills. There are things which Ministers are required to do by regulation which should not need a separate regulation. There are cases where we can give powers to Ministers in the legislation itself to get on with the job and not have to come back to the House looking for this kind of spurious sanction for what are routine matters of day-to-day administration.
On the other hand, there are matters which legislation allows Ministers to do by this kind of passive regulation formula that deserve debate and examination in this House. That is why the formula is there in the first place. There are matters which Ministers are allowed to do by regulation which seem so important to the drafters of the legislation that they actually require the regulations to have an affirmative vote of this House before the regulation can come into effect. The dividing line between the two categories is drawn in the wrong place. I have never objected to legislation where this has arisen. I have never had any difficulty with matters where Ministers were required to come before the House to get an affirmative statement from the House that the House agreed. I have never found a matter that was not a proper matter for the active form of approval for these regulations. I have found in a number of matters which were proposed for the passive form, ones that should have been more appropriately dealt with by the active form. That is the point Deputy Gilmore made earlier.
Equally, I have found matter in legislation in passive form that should not have to come before this House if the original legislation were properly drafted. Of course, nobody wants a mountain of regulations coming before the House. The Minister should remember that there is another procedure which is frequently used in this House for far more important items than are to be dealt with by regulation here, that is, we can have matters brought before the House and decided without debate. We do not like using this procedure very often but we have an example this morning. Where matters are clearly within the framework of something that has been agreed by the House, that is a procedure that can be used if we wish to use it.
The choice, therefore, is not between the present situation and having a mountain of matters before the House taking up a lot of time. It requires simply a rational distinction to be made between the kinds of things that should be submitted to the House — if they are worth submitting they are worth debating and getting the affirmation of the House — and the kind of things that should never come before the House after the primary legislation has been passed.
Before I call Deputy Gilmore I remind the House that we are dealing with Report Stage of the Bill and Deputies must only rise once to speak, with the exception of the mover of the amendment who may reply.
I am not interested in having the Minister for the Environment come into the House with every tittle tattle of administrative detail and having to get the approval of the House before regulations are made. That is not the purpose of this amendment.
I am very pleased to hear him say that while he occupies that office it is his intention to confine the making of regulations which would not require the approval of the House to purely administrative and procedural matters. That is a very welcome change in the Minister's Department because I recall a number of cases where regulations were made which involved very substantial policy matters. I recall, for example, the regulations governing environmental impact assessment, involving a very substantial body of policy, were not debated in the House but were delivered to me by courier a couple of days before Christmas in the year they were made. We had the building regulations under the Building Control Act. The dog regulations which became the subject of a certain amount of controversy were made quite hastily on foot of a number of radio programmes, media comment and so on. They gave rise to considerable public agitation when the Minister's predecessor came to the conclusion that certain categories of dogs were dangerous and had to be muzzled. Unfortunately, it was not just the dogs that were muzzled; this House was also muzzled in the process because we could not debate the regulations. It would have been better if we had the opportunity of doing so.
The Minister is concerned about the fact that bringing regulations before the House may cause undue delay. We are now to have four standing committees of this House to address legislation and so on. That appears to be an ideal vehicle for the examination of secondary legislation and perhaps some means could be found under that formula whereby secondary legislation of this kind could be examined.
Unfortunately we are dealing here not with the Minister's goodwill but with legislation and while the Minister may say that it is his intention to confine the making of these regulations purely to administrative and procedural matters, the legislation says something completely different. Subsection (1) of the section concerned states that the Minister may make regulations prescribing any matter or thing in the Act. It is quite a wide ranging provision. That is what we are seeking to amend by providing that regulations must be brought before the House. It is an important principle. I regret that the Minister has not seen fit to extend the principle outside sections 10 and 17, where he has conceded it. He should concede it in the other areas.
Question: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand" put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 11, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following:
"(4) Where an order referred to in subsection (3) has been made, the road authority concerned shall, as soon as may be, gave notice thereof to its members.".
In response to Deputy Yates's request in the special committee that local authority members be kept informed of ministerial decisions I now propose this amendment to oblige local authorities to inform their elected members of relevant orders made by the Minister under this Bill. These are the orders which have been exempted from the notification procedures of the Statutory Instruments Act, 1947 following an amendment adopted by the special committee.
As explained in the special committee, these orders are made only after intensive public consultation processes including public notification and the consideration of representations and objections, usually through oral hearings or public local inquiries. The orders in question involve ministerial approval, the abandonment of or extinguishment of a public right of way over a regional or national road, approval of motorway schemes, toll schemes, toll by-laws and environmental impact approvals. I believe this amendment meets the concern expressed by Deputy Yates.
I thank the Minister for accepting this amendment and bringing it back on Report Stage. It will help alleviate some of the fear expressed about the information given to members of local authorities.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 11, to delete lines 8 to 15.
This amendment is in the same family of amendments as the one we debated a few moments ago. Section 9 enables the Minister to delete references to main roads, county roads and so on. It effectively gives the Minister carte blanche to recategorise roads. Section 10 also deals with the Minister's power to classify roads.
Section 10, however, is subject to regulation and, interestingly, that is one of the regulations which would have to be brought before the House. Section 9 somewhat negatives the arrangement that is provided for in section 10 because it enables the Minister to make changes without going through the procedure which would require him to bring a regulation before the House.
This amendment proposes to give power to the Minister to modify or adapt existing enactments. It might, therefore, be helpful to understand the purpose of these provisions. Section 9 provides that the Minister can make an order amending any legislative provision either in an act or statutory instrument which has a reference to any of the old road classifications such as main, trunk, link, county or urban roads. These will be replaced by references to new classifications — national, regional, local — as set out in section 10. For example, it will now be possible to substitute the word "local" road for "county" road if it occurs in an Act or regulation. However, in drafting it was not possible to simply provide for the general substitution of one term for another in this section because each case has to be judged individually. For example, in some cases an existing main road will become a national road; in other cases it may be classified as a regional road or, in an extreme case, a local road. There is no sinister intent behind this power since it just provides for the continuation in force of the existing legal provision by ensuring that the most up to date reference to the road classification is included.
I hope Deputy Gilmore will accept that this is largely a technical amendment which will enable existing law to continue to be effective without imposing any additional obligations upon any person. Although Deputy Gilmore finds it difficult at times to accept what I say in these matters, there is not anything sinister, underhand or ulterior behind it; it is purely a technical arrangement.
I am inclined to give the Minister the benefit of the doubt on this amendment and accept what he says. I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 12 relates to a discussion we had on an earlier amendment; but in this case, since we are dealing with Part II of the Bill, the classification of roads and the assignment of functions, the purpose of this amendment is to make it clear——
I would like to bring to the Deputy's notice that this has already been discussed with amendment No. 3 so we cannot discuss it again.
I am not sure, Sir. We discussed it with amendment No. 3 on the basis that it was related but we are dealing with a different part of the Bill.
Acting Chairman
Even so, it has already been discussed so we can no longer discuss it. I hope the Deputy will get an opportunity to make a contribution on some of the other amendments.
All hope is, therefore, lost.
Amendments Nos. 12, 13 and 14, not moved.
Acting Chairman
Amendment No. 15 is in the names of Deputies Gilmore and Dukes. Amendment No. 16 is related and these may be taken together.
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 12, between lines 44 and 45, to insert the following:
"(iii) have regard to the conditions of any planning permission relating to the development of the road, and in particular the need for the road authority to take in charge the road concerned, and if necessary to complete any outstanding works on the road from monies provided in the developer's bond,".
This amendment deals with the declaration of a road to be a public road and relates to a subsection of section 11 which sets out the various things to which the road authority shall have regard when it is declaring a road to be a public road. The Bill provides that it has to satisfy itself that the road is a general public utility and it has to take into account the financial implications and so on. My amendment seeks that it would also have regard to the planning permission relating to the development of the road in the first place and in particular the need for the road authority to take in charge the road concerned and if necessary to complete any outstanding works on the road from moneys provided in the developer's bond.
What I am attempting to get at in this amendment is the unfortunately widespread practice of many developers who leave housing estates and roads in housing estates uncompleted. In my constituency there are several housing estates, many of which were built years ago, and even today road surfaces have not been completed or road works finished off. Quite understandably, that is a matter of great irritation to people who buy houses in those estates. They pay money on the assumption that the development is to be completed. They buy their houses very often on the basis of glossy brochures presented to them the day they visit the showhouse and then find years later that many aspects of the development have not been completed and, in particular, that the roads have not been completed.
I know that the issue also concerns planning legislation but my amendment seeks to make provision in the roads legislation that in considering the declaration of a road as a public road the road authority will have regard to the planning permission which was originally granted and to the need for the developer, if it is a private developer or, if the private developer is no longer there, as is very often the case, the local authority, to complete the roads concerned.
I promised during the special committee to look at the issues involved in unfinished housing estate roads and to report back. It is the practice of local authorities to ask for adequate money or insurance bonds before granting planning permission for the development of housing estates in order to ensure that all ancillary work, including the construction of roads, is carried out satisfactorily. The local authority will often lay down conditions with regard to the phasing of the development — for example, not allowing the commencement of phase two of the development until phase one has been completed to its satisfaction.
Before taking an estate road in charge the local authority inspects the road and, if necessary, presents the developer with a list of works to be carried out before taking it in charge. In some cases of noncompliance the local authority can take enforcement action, its powers having been strengthened in the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1992. However, due to the problem of some development companies going into liquidation and trading again under a different name, the preferred mechanism is to ask for adequate money or an insurance bond. Local authorities are using their powers to good effect now.
Problems arose in the past, however. Local authorities have on occasion laid down inadequate conditions or, alternatively, have demanded inadequate bonds. Where problem estates exist at the moment they usually date back a number of years. Because of the improved vigilance by local authorities in these matters the problem of unfinished housing estates has diminished over the last number of years. Therefore, I do not see the need to accept Deputy Gilmore's amendment, especially since the section already obliges the local authority to consider the financial implications before taking a road in charge. If major problems arise in the future, however, the Minister has power in subsection (3) to prescribe criteria for the declaration of public roads which could if necessary include reference to this issue.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 16 not moved.
Acting Chairman
We will proceed to amendment No. 17. Amendment Nos. 18, 19 and 20 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 17:
In page 13, between lines 33 and 34, to insert the following:
"(b) A road authority shall not abandon a public road unless a majority of the elected members of the authority so decide.".
There was a discussion on this subject in the special committee. There seemed to be some lingering uncertainty in the Minister's mind as to whether the abandonment of a road in the way provided for in this Bill would be a reserved function. The Minister indicated that he would consider the matter more closely between then and this Stage of the Bill. I wonder if the Minister had the opportunity to give this any further thought or whether his new colleague since then, Deputy Stagg, whom I welcome, has managed to give further consideration to this matter. The concern is — as expressed by Deputy Yates at that time — that a local authority could find itself in a position where a decision would be made to abandon a road without the members of the local authority being so aware. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that this would not happen. My understanding from the debate in the special committee was that the Minister felt that could not happen even under the law as it stands and that it was made clear in section 12 (7) of this Bill that this could not happen. Is the Minister of State in a position to say anything more definite at this stage on that matter?
One of the concerns which was expressed at the special committee related particularly to those sections of an old road that are cut off when a new road is being constructed. With a new dual carriageway a slice of the old road is cut off and falls into disuse. It becomes derelict and is used for all kinds of purposes. A declaration is made that it is no longer a public road and, therefore, there is no longer an obligation on anybody to maintain it. It becomes effectively a kind of no man's land. There are many such cases and, in addition, roads which for one reason or another end up declassified as public roads.
What members sought to achieve at the special committee was that the decision to abandon a public road would be a reserved function of the elected members of the local authority who would be in a position to take into account all the considerations involved and the needs of the public good. They would also be sensitive to public opinion on the matter. It is important that this issue be left in the hands of the elected members of a local authority. I do not see why it should not be. There is doubt as to whether it is and in order to clarify the position the Minister should accept the amendments that have been tabled.
There are a number of options he can select. If he does not like the wording of one amendment he can accept any other one. He should accept them and stitch in the principle that a decision on the abandonment of a public road, which is a major decision and could have many implications in a local community, should only be made by the elected members of the local authority. It would be quite wrong if it were made by anybody else.
I wish to make a brief point to support these amendments. One of the points it relates back to is local democracy. We talk about devolving power down the line. There would be a fear on behalf of local authority members that their considerations in relation to roads and so on, would not be taken into account so Deputy Gilmore's point is a valid one. Those who know an area best are the ones who should make the decision.
The problem of cut-off sections of roads referred to by Deputy Gilmore is tackled by amendments Nos. 133 and 134 and will be dealt with later. As was explained to Deputies in the special committee, abandonment of a public road will be a reserved function under this section. There is, therefore, no need for these amendments, a fact accepted by the special committee. However, I should explain again that under section 12 (7) the making of an order abandoning a public road is the responsibility of elected members of the road authority as is the consideration of objections and representations in relation to any such proposal. This provision adequately meets the Deputies' concerns and there is no need for these amendments.
With regard to the second of Deputy Flanagan's amendments, my commitment to devolution has been put on record many times. I am of the view that elected members with local knowledge are in the best position to weigh up the pros and cons of any proposed abandonment and to consider the objections made. I am not convinced that the issue is of such moment or that I or my officials have such special expertise to bring to bear that it is necessary to obtain ministerial approval for the abandonment of local roads or that an absolute majority of the elected members rather than a simple majority is required. In my view that is contrary to the spirit of devolving powers to local authorities.
In any event, the Bill contains safeguards. Ministerial approval is required where the abandonment relates to a national or regional road but that is only because the Minister classified it as such in the first place. The consideration of objections would still remain with the local elected members. Section 12 (10) (b) gives the Minister reserved power to make regulations, including the setting of criteria for abandonments, with which local authorities would have to comply. This power could be used if evidence came to hand that the devolved powers were being abused, something I am confident will not happen.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 18, 19 and 20 not moved.
I move amendment No. 21:
In page 15, between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following:
"(10) Where a portion of a national road is downgraded the Authority shall continue to provide the necessary funding for the maintenance of the downgraded road.".
This issue was also discussed at some length in the special committee. At that stage the Minister had the kindness to point out that this amendment was not relevant to section 12 as section 12 does not deal with downgrading but with abandonment. He went on then at a later stage in that debate to undertake to look again at section 69 of the Bill, as it was then, in this context which I do not think is entirely relevant.
The point at issue here is that there are cases where, owing to the construction of a new road, the old road remains in existence. It still continues to have its function. What we are worried about, and indeed more worried because of what the Minister said this morning, is that once the new road is built the Department of the Environment will make allocations in relation to the cost of maintaining the new road but the new road having been provided, it will lose all interest in the old road.
On Committee Stage, Deputy Creed gave an example which the Minister seemed to understand. There is a national primary route that passes through Macroom. It is proposed to by-pass Macroom and local people fear that since Cork County Council presumably will be given some contribution to maintain the by-pass, they will not get funds to allow them to maintain the road that goes through Macroom. It will still be the main street of Macroom and people would like to see it maintained. If the Minister of State tells me that this is not the appropriate place for the amendment, them I am quite happy to be told that I should put it somewhere else.
That is what the Deputy is likely to be told.
There are times when the Minister is tempted to be rude but he is never quite that bad. We get on rather well together.
I have not noticed.
That is because the Minister of State is a nasty, insensitive man. Did that wake the Minister of State up? I would like him to tell me where would be the appropriate place in the Bill for this and to indicate that it is not part of the Government's intention to neglect a road that continues to be used even where a by-pass has been built.
As I explained on Committee Stage to Deputy Yates, this amendment to section 12 which provides that downgraded sections of national roads shall continue to be funded by the National Roads Authority is not appropriate to section 12 which deals with abandonment of public roads. I presume that Fine Gael is not proposing that abandoned roads should remain the responsibility of the National Road Authority. It is, however, inappropriate to discuss here as I presume what is involved in the amendment in the downgrading of a road from national to regional or local classification. I do not accept that as a general rule the National Roads Authority should continue to fund the maintenance of roads which are no longer classified as national.
The existing network of national roads is already extensive and a policy of this kind could add some hundreds of kilometres of roads to the network for which the National Roads Authority would have responsibiliby. This would dilute the funding available from national funds. Also the EC Commission would not provide European Community Structural Fund assistance for both the new and existing road running in parallel. This would mean a 100 per cent funding from the Exchequer for these roads, diluting the funds available for national roads still further. There may be cases in which it will not be appropriate to downgrade a national road and, in such circumstances, I will retain the national classification. However, as a general rule, the existing road would be reduced in classification once a by-pass or re-alignment has been provided.
I was correct in anticipating that I would be told this is the wrong place for it. I was also correct in my anticipating that there would not be any sympathy for it. To take a concrete case — if the town of Macroom is bypassed and the main street of Macroom remains the main street, will the National Roads Authority provide funding for the maintenance of that main street of Macroom which is now a national route and will continue to be a very heavy traffic route even after the by-pass?
There may be cases in which it will not be appropriate to downgrade a national road and, in such circumstances, the national classification will be retained.
That is as long as a piece of string.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Acting Chairman
Amendment No. 22 has been ruled out of order as it involves a potential charge on Revenue. We now come to amendment No. 23 in the name of Deputy Gilmore. Amendments Nos. 25 and 38 are related. It is proposed to take amendments Nos. 23, 25 and 38 together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 23:
In page 15, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following:
"(3) (a) Each road authority shall ensure that in carrying out its functions to maintain and construct public roads, due regard is had to the needs of various road users, including pedestrians, pedal cyclists, disabled persons and parents or guardians of children in prams, etc.
(b) Each road authority shall therefore, at least every five years, carry out a survey of its road users and categorise them as follows:
(i) pedestrians,
(ii) pedal cyclists,
(iii) motorists (including buses and motor cycles),
(iv) road users with special needs (i.e., disabled persons and parents and guardians of children in prams, etc.).
(c) Each road authority shall then apportion the resources available to it for road maintenance and construction in accordance with the proportion of road users in each category.".
In amendment No. 23 which I tabled at the special committee I am seeking to arrive at a situation whereby there would not be a narrow definition of road user, particularly with regard to the maintenance of roads. Over the years, particularly as local authorities have found themselves hard pressed for money, with competing demands on them from various road users, very often a number of categories of road users are forgotten. I refer to pedestrians, cyclists, people with special needs — disabled people attempting to move about in wheelchairs or parents pushing prams or buggies, and so on.
Such people are forgotten about when it comes to the allocation of funds. A local authority will be given money for roadworks in a given year. It knows that the road surfaces on which cars travel are in a bad condition so it decides to apply its money to the repair of road surfaces. It forgets that there are other road users who use footpaths and who might need to cross the road, elderly people for example who would need pedestrian crossings and so on. There is need for those to be maintained.
The amendment seeks to require all road authorities to take into account the needs of all road users. The formula which I have proposed was that a survey would be carried out every five years. Road users would be defined under a number of different categories and funds would be allocated in proportion to that. The Minister, in the special committee, indicated that he had some sympathy with the principle but felt the formula was too restrictive.
The Minister has put down two amendments which require road authorities to consider the needs of all road users and I am quite happy to withdraw my amendment in favour of the amendments proposed by the Minister, realising that it is probably the best I am going to get on this. It stitches into the Bill a recognition that there are road users other than motorists and that their needs will be, in some way, protected in the legislation.
I am sympathetically disposed to the principle that prompted Deputy Gilmore to put down this amendment. I realise that he does not intend to pursue it and will accept the Minister's amendment. I am sure Deputy Gilmore was prompted to put down the amendment by his intimate knowledge of urban situations but in rural areas a number of differences arise which would cause it to be impractical. For instance, there would be massive changes seasonally in the levels of traffic and the type of traffic that would use rural roads. It would be very difficult to stipulate at what time the five-year survey should happen and there would be major differences from one time to another.
My most serious worry would be that local authorities would use a points system effectively to abandon sections of road which might have relatively little usage, perhaps with one house or business on them. In that regard, I very much welcome amendment No. 26 which would allow local authorities to provide for users of roads to make a specific input and they would not necessarily leave themselves open to litigation on foot of that. In rural areas more likely than in urban, there is frequently an availability of small plant materials or labour in a particular area which allows local people to have a positive input into road maintenance and which heretofore has been precluded because of the major difficulties that arise in relation to insurance.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 24:
In page 15, line 24, after "subsections (1) and (2)" to insert "and municipal authorities including town commissioners in their jurisdiction".
The amendment is self-explanatory. We want to include among the local authorities referred to in this section municipal authorities that include town commissioners in their area. I wonder if the Minister could tell us whether there are any plans for the re-organisation of these authorities and, if so, when we are likely to see them. If we see them, are we likely to find that they give them any functions in relation to roads?
Subsections (1) and (2) of this section very clearly set out the respective responsibilities of local authorities for the public road network. The 27 county councils and five county borough corporations will be responsible for national and regional roads in their areas. County councils, county borough corporations, borough corporations and urban district councils will be responsible for all local roads in their areas. This division of responsibility reflects the reality that the urban districts have largely had no responsibility for main roads and indeed in some cases have even asked the counties to take over responsibility for their own local urban roads.
Town commissioners do not have any responsibility for public roads under existing laws. No change is therefore being made in the position of town commissioners or small urban councils. In practice they would not have the staffing or financial resources to take on the task. I am satisfied that the division of responsibility proposed in this section is sensible, coherent and practical. It means very little change and reflects the relative capabilities of the local authorities involved. UDCs and boroughs will retain responsibility for their urban roads. For all these reasons, I see no basis for the proposed amendment.
I know the Minister is saying that he has no proposals to give town commissioners any responsibility for roads in contrast with what the Bill does in relation to urban councils. Am I to take it that the Minister is saying he has no plans whatsoever in relation to town commissioners and that no changes are to be made in the position of town commissioners either in the context of this Bill or in any other context of local government reform for which the Minister has responsibility?
It is not normal on Report Stage to have a second bite at the cherry, but in relation to local government reform all these aspects will be taken into consideration. As I have said many times, I want to see local authorities upgraded. In regard to road maintenance, the practice has grown over the years because of the incapacity of town commissioners and small urban councils to manage this. It applies mainly to the county systems.
Is the Minister not going to give them more capacity?
A little more power but not necessarily in that area.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 25:
In page 15, between lines 31 and 32, to insert the following:
"(5) In the performance of their functions under subsections (1) and (2), a road authority shall consider the needs of all road users.".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 26:
In page 15, between lines 31 and 32, to insert the following:
"(6) (a) A person or group of persons may, with the consent of a road authority, carry out maintenance works on a local road.
(b) A consent under paragraph (a) may be given by the road authority subject to such conditions, restrictions and requirements as it thinks fit.
(c) Where a road authority gives its consent under paragraph (a) and the works have been carried out in a bona fide manner and in accordance with every condition, restriction or requirement specified under paragraph (b)—
(i) the works shall be deemed to have been carried out by the road authority, and
(ii) the person or group (and each member thereof) who carried out the works shall be indemnified by the road authority against all actions and claims howsoever arising in respect of the works and the carrying out of works.
(b) A road authority may provide materials, plant, equipment and the services of its staff to a person or group carrying out works under this subsection."
Over the years the issue of private citizens repairing roads has arisen time and time again. Local authorities have taken the view, rightly, that they could leave themselves open to legal actions in respect of any injury, death or damage caused by substandard road repair work undertaken by private individuals. Local authorities have therefore been reluctant to allow people repair their local roads, much to the frustration of local voluntary groups who are willing to provide materials and manpower.
This subject was raised again during the special committee and I agreed to reconsider the matter. In response, I am introducing this amendment which will allow local people repair local roads if they have obtained the consent of the local authority. This power will not apply to regional or national roads, which must remain the sole responsibility of the local authority. The road authority will, however, be able to impose conditions, restrictions or requirements when consenting to such work. This will ensure that any work is properly and safely carried out and will not subsequently create a hazard to road users. If the work is carried out in accordance with the terms of the consent and in a bona fide manner, then any liability will rest with the local authority and not the private citizen who carried out the work. It is in the interests of the local authority therefore to ensure that the work is carried out correctly.
The amendment will also allow local authorities to provide materials, equipment, plant or the services of its staff to private individuals or voluntary associations carrying out the work on a local road.
It is difficult to tell at this stage what impact this will have, but it does at least open the door for co-operation between local people and local authorities in the maintenance of local roads. This could be very worthwhile at times of financial restraints, such as exist at present. I do however want to stress that the purpose of this amendment is not to relieve local authorities of their statutory responsibility for local roads, nor does it imply any substitution of private effort for State and local authority funded works. Its purpose is to respond to a genuine local demand, to increase the total effort being put into road maintenance and to reflect the views which were genuinely expressed to me during the course of the debate on Committee Stage.
I have a certain ambivalence towards the provisions of this section. I welcome it for the very practical reasons that the Minister has set out. Many of us, particularly rural Deputies, find that the situation that the Minister addresses here arises frequently. It is a bit naive of the Minister to say that we should not take this in any way as being a step back by local authorities from their statutory duty to maintain roads. Frequently, such situations arise because a local authority has for many years failed to carry out any of the required work in keeping sections of road up to proper standards. I know this is a problem the Minister meets frequently in his own constituency and is one that I meet in my constituency very often. It is one that most of us in rural areas meet with appalling regularity.
I have ambivalent feelings about this. On the one hand, I can see the practical value of allowing people, who up to now have been driven by frustration to make these offers but were stopped because there was always a doubt about the insurance status of the work to take the kind of action that this amendment permits them to take. It would be idle to pretend that this will not allow local authorities to feel in some cases that they are now off the hook. Any Deputy who has been agitating for improved lighting on roads will have found in the past few years, as I found, that the county manager will be very nice and say. "Yes, we will put up a light if the local people can make a contribution", which is usually to cover the total cost of erecting the pole and making the connection.
What we have here, and let us not put a tooth in it, is a method for the handing over by local authorities to private citizens of a part of their responsibility. The Minister is limiting it to local roads and he is quite right to do so. It is in respect of local roads that the problem arises in the first place.
I hope the Minister does not think I am carping. I welcome the practical effect this will have. Work will be done that people were prevented from doing up to now by a legal question mark. However, it represents a move away by the local authorities from some of their statutory responsibilities and we should not present it any other way.
I share Deputy Dukes's ambivalence about this amendment. I recall the discussion at the special committee. My sympathies are with the Members who sought some arrangement whereby, particularly in rural areas, people who wanted to make some contribution to the maintenance and upkeep of a road could be facilitated in doing so without exposing them to liability. That is fair and reasonable and makes a lot of sense.
My concern is that the formula the Minister has introduced here will go beyond that. We all know that local authorities are short of money to carry out road maintenance. I chaired a meeting of my local authority last week dealing with roads and traffic matters. There were 14 different items tabled by members of the authority looking for an improvement in this section of road, an improvement in a footpath or public lighting. They all got the same reply — there was no money to do it. My concern is that after this becomes part of the roads legislation there will be an addition saying something like this: however, the residents or the residents association concerned may, if it wishes, do the work itself or apply to the local authority to have it done under this formula. There is plenty of precedent for that. For example, in a similar matter like the provision of road signs —"caution children" signs and so on — there is a waiting list for those kinds of signs in my own local authority area. A scheme was introduced some years ago whereby, if one did not want to join the queue waiting for one of those signs to be provided by the local authority, a residents' association or a group of people could put up the money and the sign would be provided. What happened in practice was the areas that were able to come up with the money got road signs and the areas that were not able to come up with the money did not. The local authority, in effect, stopped providing the signs itself. Everybody who looked for a "caution children" sign was told that if they put up the £120 the sign would be erected.
The same thing has happened in relation to schools. A number of years ago because the capitation grant made available to schools was so low the system of voluntary contributions was introduced. Parents of school-going children could make a voluntary contribution to the upkeep of the school. The voluntary contributions have grown and now constitute three-quarters of the cost of upkeeping a school. The whole system has now come to depend on that kind of approach.
By all means a formula has to be found whereby a person living at the end of a country boreen which needs maintenance and where realistically the local authority will never get around to doing it, if the person concerned is in a position and wants to maintain it, they can do so without being exposed to liability, but under this formula local authorities will simply pass responsibility for road maintenance on local roads over to local communities. We will end up with a two-tier road system whereby national roads are very well funded, backed up by EC money and so on and are maintained. They will be the primary responsibility of the roads authority and the local authority but local roads, including roads within housing estates and so on, will effectively be thrown back on the local community. There will be good roads in an area where people can afford to pay for them and bad roads where people cannot, with the local authority, in effect, copping out of its responsibility to maintain roads.
I agree with the points raised by Deputy Gilmore. I appreciate that the Minister is trying to meet a need expressed to him at an earlier stage but there is a danger in it. I can quote other instances, for example, the planting of trees. People or traders in the locality may make a contribution and have trees planted while other areas which may need them more will not get the trees because they are unable to come up with the necessary contribution. That is a very genuine fear that has been expressed.
I do not know if we will come up with a two-tier road system because we have it to a great extent already. The Minister will have to take this into consideration. It may seem to be nit-picking to some extent in that he has tried to come some way on this. I appreciate that, but there is a danger here and I ask him to suggest some way of circumventing it.
I, too, thank the Minister for trying to come up with some solution to this problem but like other Deputies I worry that it will be found to be the answer to the problem. In my constituency, Cavan-Monaghan, the road situation is so serious that people would like to be able to do something with the roads to give them some leeway at silage making times and so on. However, I am seriously concerned that it would be seen to be a way out for the county councils not to do the necessary road repairs.
There is one road on the borders of Cavan-Monaghan where parents cannot go out to meet schoolgoing children because they cannot bring prams on the roads. We have an extremely serious problem in that area which needs to be addressed as quickly as possible. I accept that the Minister has made an effort to improve the situation as far as legal rights are concerned but I am afraid the Minister and the county councils will be allowed off the hook. There is a desperate need to repair the roads in Cavan-Monaghan in the immediate future before people can no longer travel on them. That is the reality in that area at present.
I am amazed at the introduction of this proposal. I cannot believe it. I well understand what people are saying. There are people in rural areas and in some urban areas as well, who would like to be able to have works carried out but the local authority does not have the money to provide these services. What is now being introduced is a complete and absolute cop-out by Government to get somebody else to pay for something that they, and through them the local authorities, are taxing people to provide. This is a new area that will not be provided for in estimates at all; the people will pay for this.
There are a number of anomalies in this. What equal access will there be to this new proposed service or facility? For example, take a group of old local authority houses which are down a narrow county lane. Will they, housing maybe ten or 15 unemployed people, or ten or 15 old age pensioners, have equal access to this facility as a successful businessperson will have? Will each group in society have the same right to gain access to road improvements or whatever through this proposal? It is an absolute cop-out and it has been introduced at local authority meetings in the past, invariably by supporters of the main Government party. It has come about as a result of the failure of the Government to provide money to local authorities to enable them carry out their statutory functions.
We hear a great deal in this House about the Constitution. I cannot understand how this will be constitutional because there will not be equal access to the service. At some later stage, I can see local authorities faced with a tight financial situation, will perhaps approve of jobs being undertaken in a substandard fashion. This will result in claims against the local authorities which their insurers will have to underwrite. Ultimately what will happen is that local authorities will end up spending more money. It is incredible.
There is nothing in that proposal which is helpful. It is saying to people: we are very sorry; we are in Government to do a job and we have appointed people to do a job. We do not have enough money available but if you are lucky enough to have money yourselves, or can raise it, you can carry out improvements to your local road, provide public lighting or do whatever you like. We will empower you to do it and we will cover you in the event of liability so that nobody can say: "I tripped and broke my neck on a road that was badly completed as a result of a scheme undertaken by local people".
It is unbelievable that the Government should come in with a proposal like this before the budget. It is a total and absolute cop-out and an abdication of statutory responsibility. The Government propose to do this willingly, knowing the consequences full well. Nobody knows the position better than those of us who travel on a daily basis through rural areas where no money has been spent on road maintenance for years. We all recognise the need to do something about it. There is no point in circling around it and saying there is not enough money. The people who live in those areas see adequate finances becoming available through various bodies at present. Take, for example, the £8 billion being trotted out for various purposes over the last six months. The people who live in those areas who are about to be given permission to carry out their own road improvements, with the approval of the local authority and the Government, will look askance at the £3 million per day which is allegedly being made available through the system.
Acting Chairman
I would point out to the Deputy that this is not a Second Stage debate. It must be briefly related to the——
I accept that.
Acting Chairman
I cannot allow a long winded Second Stage debate.
I am sorry I upset the Chair and I apologise for doing so.
Acting Chairman
The Deputy did not upset me but we must follow the procedures.
I realise that in the Chair's constituency there would be quite considerable discussion on this subject but I am speaking specifically to the proposal which is before the House and the effect it will have and on the need for the Government to provide for this by another means.
I will quote, for the benefit of the House, Deputy Boylan's comments on Committee Stage:
In relation to harnessing the goodwill of people who are anxious to make a contribution to maintain a public road but without legal liability, can that proposal be incorporated into this Bill? Does the Minister understand the point I am making?
The Minister cannot win. In endeavouring to respond to that very genuine request by Deputy Boylan, and others, I sought to bring forward this amendment. Section 13 (1) and (2) clearly specifies that responsibility rests with the local authority and the amendment does not dilute this. If Deputies felt that the action which I have now taken in response to that genuine request will have the effect which they fear, and which I do not support, I am prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Will the Minister withdraw the amendment?
It is up to the Deputy now.
No, it is up to the Minister.
The Deputy should tell me what to do now.
Acting Chairman
Is the amendment agreed?
I think we ought to know.
Acting Chairman
The Deputy may not speak again. He can only speak once on Report Stage. I am putting the question.
Is the Minister withdrawing the amendment or not?
Acting Chairman
He said he is not withdrawing it.
He is putting the stick away.
I will withdraw the amendment if the Deputy tells me to do so.
It is the Minister's responsibility; he is in charge.
The Deputy cannot have it both ways.
Amendment put and declared carried.
I move amendment No. 27:
In page 15, between lines 42 and 43, to insert the following:
"(7) (a) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (5), and save as otherwise provided by law, a road authority may take measures to limit, restrict or reduce the volume or types of traffic using particular roads.
(b) In particular, a road authority may take measures to limit, reduce or restrict traffic in residential areas by—
(i) the erection of signs,
(ii) the provision of ramps, chicanes, traffic signals or other physical means of limiting traffic,
(iii) the enforcement of speed limits from 5 miles per hour upwards.
(c) A road authority may, by resolution of its elected members, declare an area to be a "Traffic-Controlled Zone".
(d) A Traffic-controlled Zone shall be defined, by reference to a map as an area which by reason of its residential, architectural or other characteristics, requires special measures to limit, reduce or restrict certain types of road use. A road authority may take such measures as it considers appropriate to control traffic in the Traffic Controlled Zone.".
This is one of the amendments which I mentioned at the special committee. The Minister gave an assurance that the problem which this amendment addresses would be dealt with in the Road Traffic Bill. I asked him at that stage if the Road Traffic Bill would be with us before we came to Report Stage and he assured me that it would. It is not and on Committee Stage I indicated that, if it were not, I would retable this amendment and seek the Minister's agreement to it.
This amendment is largely about an urban problem that is commonly known as "rat running". Contrary to the Minister's belief, when you build more roads you do not reduce the volume of traffic on either those roads or the adjacent roads, but in fact it is my experience that you increase it. In my constituency I can think of a number of areas adjacent to either the main N11, which has been improved and modernised over the years, or adjacent to the Blackrock by-pass, which was also provided in recent times, which now have a very serious problem of rat running. People who cannot move quickly enough on the main road divert into residential areas and use them as a shortcut to get around traffic bottle necks, onto other roads etc. The problem now is that traffic is going through roads which were never designed to cater for that volume of traffic.
There are parts of my constituency where people complain that they simply cannot drive out their own front gate in the morning because of queues of traffic on residential roads. These people bought houses in housing estates and now find that the estate roads, which were built and designed purely to cater for the estate's own traffic, have in effect become major through-ways and are being used by people commuting through them.
It is very difficult to deal with this and it is complicated by the fact that the local authority is the road authority and the Garda are the traffic authority. There is constant confusion between the two. Even getting a very simple measure like a set of double yellow lines, traffic lights, a yield sign or whatever, can involve a very complicated procedure between the Garda, the local authority, the traffic division etc. My amendment is to enable road authorities, in particular local authorities, to deal with this problem themselves by a range of measures that I suggest, such as the erection of signs, which is a very simple and straightforward one; provision of various physical means of controlling traffic, whether it is ramps, chicanes, traffic signals and so on; the enforcement of speed limits of as low as five miles per hour. If in some of these residential areas there was a very low speed limit, it would have the effect of discouraging traffic because many of the people who use these rat runs do so in order to make time. They find it quicker to go through a residential area than to stay on the main road. If a five mile per hour speed limit were placed on such roads it would not be a problem for the people who live in the estates but it would discourage other traffic using the estate roads.
I have also suggested the creation of traffic controlled zones, which I understand operate very well in some other countries. The amendment gives road authorities a certain amount of flexibility to deal with these kinds of traffic problems. Road engineers tell me that there is no quick fix to this kind of problem. It seems to be a problem that will have to be approached on an experimental basis. It is a complex problem because if you provide one measure on one road it may have a knock-on effect in another road. The roads authorities need a certain amount of flexibility to deal with this problem themselves. It is a massive problem and it is one about which I get most complaints from constituents: they are tired of the volume and speed of traffic. They cannot let their children out to play in front of their own houses. They find that their roads are unsafe. They are plagued with noise and with heavy volumes of traffic travelling at speed in areas which, at one stage, were quite peaceful residential areas. The amendment is designed to deal with that.
The Minister indicated that he was going to deal with this in the Road Traffic Bill. We do not know what is in the Road Traffic Bill because we have not got it yet. This may not be dealt with in the Road Traffic Bill.
I take great pleasure in supporting this amendment. Deputy Gilmore and I share a constituency and I can vouch for the fact that one of the main issues we encounter every day in relation to the problems of our constituents has to do with traffic problems, traffic calming and traffic management measures, because of the difficulties and problems which Deputy Gilmore outlined. We cannot afford to wait. I do not know when the Roads Bill will come into effect but we cannot afford to wait any longer than the coming into force of this Bill.
In the special committee the Minister said he shared the sentiments behind the amendment as it was put at that time. He gave a commitment in relation to the Roads Traffic Bill but unfortunately we cannot wait. I ask him, if he shares the sentiments behind the amendment, to share with us our feeling of frustration that we cannot deal with traffic measures in our own local authority areas because we do not have the power to do so. The method in place at the moment is cumbersome and unworkable. It is not good enough that we cannot deal in any way with the difficulties that our constituents are faced with. I ask him to bring sentiment to bear on this and accept the amendment.
I support this amendment for the same reasons that Deputies Gilmore and Keogh have outlined. I would add to what they have said the reflection that the problem is not related only to housing estates and areas that are contiguous to main roads that get clogged up during heavy traffic. There is another dimension to the problem which is to be found in a great many places around the country. Even in areas surrounding towns that are not very large, one will find this problem. Where there are blockages of traffic on a main road there is always the temptation for motorists to take this kind of avoiding action.
There are other cases where this kind of problem arises at specific times. For example, near football grounds, racecourses and any other area where, from time to time, there is a big event which results in large volumes of traffic and parking. In some cases the problem is even further compounded by the fact that on what are normally relatively quiet estate roads not only is there traffic coming through to avoid bottlenecks but there is an unusual amount of parking. That creates a double hazard particularly in relation to children who use the roads in the estates they live in as play areas, which we all know happens regularly. There is an extra problem in that, very often, children and other pedestrians are shielded from the view of motorists by large numbers of parked cars and vans. It would be entirely appropriate to have a provision of this kind in our standing body of legislation on how we deal with, construct and manage roads.
I congratulate the Leas-Cheann Comhairle on his new appointment. I support the amendment. Unfortunately one of the problems with developments that take place in most urban areas is that, in the early stages of development roads are not finished, and so on. Finally, when a good smooth surface is applied to many of the roads in new estates, speed becomes a problem and if that estate happens to be a link between two congested roads, one then encounters the problems referred to by the other speakers.
There is a great deal of merit in the amendment. One of the problems that we have had in the local authority of which I am a member is that the Western Parkway toll bridge has deflected traffic further out into places like Captain's Hill in Leixlip, causing problems in a residential area there. We have spent the last 12 to 14 months trying to find statutory ways and means of restricting the flow of traffic and so far we have failed. According to all the information we have, it is virtually impossible to do something that is within the law and readily available in order to control that kind of traffic.
The same thing happens in some of the older developments in the country where there is perhaps a set of traffic lights on the main street of a town or village. We have this problem in my own town of Maynooth where the traffic automatically selects an alternative route and to beat the traffic lights motorists race from one end of the parallel street to the other. The result is that the unfortunate people who live in these areas are in danger of their lives at all times. I agree with the amendment and I hope the Minister sees fit to meet the suggestions as far as is possible.
I said on Committee Stage that I had every sympathy with this amendment. While I did not specifically say that Deputies would see the Road Traffic Bill by the time we reached Report Stage, I was hopeful and that was the expectation — I think the word "expectation" was the word I used because one can never be too sure about these things — but needless to say in the meantime there were survival stakes at risk and I did not even know if I would be back here to pick up the cudgel again.
Apart from the powers that are already contained in road traffic legislation which enable a variety of different matters relating to speed limits, restriction of road users, bollards, ramps and other traffic calming measures to be introduced, I am perfectly satisfied that the role for local authorities — I will demonstrate that in the Road Traffic Bill when I introduce it — in terms of their direct involvement in all of these areas without any archaic, restrictive impositions from the Department of the Environment and without the need for approval from the Department of the Environment and a lot of consultation with local people is the best way to go forward in these areas.
Subsection 6 (a) gives considerable enabling powers to local authorities to do the kind of things to which Deputies referred. It will be quite possible for them, even within that and notwithstanding other powers that I intend to provide in the Road Traffic Bill, to take a number of decisions which will be quite helpful. The introduction of traffic calming may be fairly complex and require legislation. We have to await the outcome of consultation that is going on in relation to that to see the overall position viz-á-viz what the Dublin people are saying themselves. Deputy Dukes rightly makes the point that there are corresponding problems in different parts of the country, but that should give us a broad notion of what it is we have to do. We should await that before we make final decisions on the broad list of measures we might introduce.
We already have very considerable powers at local authority level which I am going to enhance. This section provides further powers to local authorities to take other measures which they deem fit. The best place to resolve these issues is at local authority level with local representatives consulting the people. A broad ranging national legal framework is not able to take account of some of the points that Deputy Gilmore made, for instance, when major road improvement takes place. Presumably before a full road route is completed traffic tries different options, but the problem should be resolved when the total road network is completed. That is some years down the road and in the interim many people living in estates have definite problems and we need to address them. I will bring forward in the next couple of weeks the Road Traffic Bill and that will demonstrate further the raft of powers that I want to see managed directly, without my involvement, at local level.
I am glad that the Minister has repeated his sympathy for what I was attempting to do in this amendment and that he has given some cause for hope that he may address it somewhat in the Road Traffic Bill. However, I am at a loss to understand why he has not taken the opportunity to do so in this Bill. What is at issue here, as Deputy Keogh said, is current and urgent.
In my constituency we are currently at local authority level dealing with a proposal to erect bollards on a number of roads in Blackrock. It has turned out to be a rather controversial proposal. People on the roads concerned seem to be, by an large, all for it; but those living on adjacent roads fear it may result in a knock on traffic problem for them all and are not too keen on it, to put it mildly. That is the kind of solution, for example, that the Minister recommended in this Bill. We may provide "any amenity, structure or thing"— I suppose bollards would come under the category of "thing"— for the safety and convenience of road users. Quite clearly we can do that.
That is a physical solution, but some of the solutions may not purely be physical solutions. There might be a range of things that need to be done which might involve speed limits, traffic measures and so on and that, unfortunately, is not provided for here. There is an urgency about this and I am disappointed the Minister has not accepted the amendment. Hopefully, the Minister will deal with this as a priority issue in the context of the Road Traffic Bill when it eventually appears before us.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 28 has been deemed out of order on the basis that it involves a potential charge on the Revenue. Amendments Nos. 29 and 30 are also deemed out of order for a similar reason.
Amendments Nos. 28, 29 and 30 not moved.
Amendment No. 29 has been deemed out of order on the grounds that it might impose a charge. I can understand about amendment No. 28, although bad drafting in the Bill gave rise to that, but I cannot see how amendment No. 29 can be held to impose a charge. Nothing is said in regard to public expenditure that could lead the Minister or the Government, or whoever it is decides these things, to anticipate a charge.
I will endeavour to clarify that for the Deputy. Amendment No. 29 seeks to have all road tax receipts applied to the maintenance of local roads. This represents an amount which is in excess of that which is currently spent. The implementation of this proposal would therefore leave the Exchequer at a net loss in those areas where it would otherwise have spent that excess.
That presumes that no other measure would be proposed to go with it, which the wise heads and sagacious minds that applied themselves to that are not entitled to assume. I object to a matter being ruled out of order just on that basis without any discussion. It does not impose a new charge of any kind.
In my endeavours to familiarise myself with my new position, I can say that, having clarified the position for the Deputy, I am comforted by the knowledge that the Chair, having made such clarification, does not have to defend its decision.
I appreciate that, Sir, but the Chair will understand that the Deputy who made the proposal is very discomfited by the fact that the analysis that went into it seems to be deficient.
I so understand.
Moving on to amendment No. 31, amendment No. 32 is related and it is proposed that both be taken together. Both are in the name of Deputy Gilmore.
I move amendment No. 31:
In page 16, line 41, after "may" to insert "request the Minister to".
These two amendments derive from a concern which was expressed on Committee Stage that the National Roads Authority was being given very considerable power at the expense of local authorities. The purpose of the two amendments is to seek to reduce that authority. If I may speak specifically in relation to amendment No. 32, which deals with the revoking of a section 59 agreement which might be made between two local authorities over a road matter, the provision in the Bill is that the section 59 agreement made between two local authorities cannot be revoked save with the consent of the National Roads Authority. That seems to be giving a power to the National Roads Authority that is excessive and in amendment No. 32 I seek that the revocation of a section 59 agreement should be with the consent of the local authorities concerned rather than specifically the National Roads Authority.
In amendment No. 31 I seek to reduce the degree to which the National Roads Authority will direct individual local authorities by making a provision that a request from the National Roads Authority would go through the Minister, since the Minister would be accountable to this House in a way that the National Roads Authority would not be.
The amendments proposed would negate the whole purpose of this section but deny the NRA the power to direct the making of an agreement, though significantly not the making of a joint arrangement. Even the Minister would have the power only of requesting the local authorities to make an agreement if the NRA asked him to so act. There would be no power to specify what terms would be included in the agreement and the local authorities could revoke the agreement the following day even if they agreed to the Minister's request. So why bother to have that power if it is so weak?
We went through this in great detail on Committee Stage. Amendments were accepted at the time which ensured that the NRA would first request road authorities to make agreements or enter into arangements before it could use its power of direction. Only if they refuse to act will the NRA be able to give a direction and then only after consultation with the local authorities.
I want to stress again that section 59 agreements are very important in the roads context. They permit road projects to be planned and implemented in the most efficient way possible and avoid having to artificially divide up schemes to take account of local authority boundaries. Under such an agreement one local authority carries out all the work on a project even though it crosses the local authority boundaries. It is therefore important that the NRA should have the reserved power to insist on the making of agreements. If it did not, the only real alternative would be to take over the project itself and this should always be the last resort.
This is a classic case of local authorities losing whatever power they have in this area. Irrespective of how it is dressed up the bottom line is that the National Roads Authority can tell the local authorities what to do. If there is a section 59 agreement the National Roads Authority can, at the end of the day, require local authorities to make section 59 agreements between them. Where section 59 agreements exist the National Roads Authority can instruct a local authority to revoke them. The power that local authorities now have, for example, to uphold section 59 agreements and decide not to revoke them will ultimately be taken from them.
The Minister proposes going about it in a very polite way. At first the local authorities will be requested to do so. If they refuse the request they can ultimately be directed but only after they have been consulted. It is a transfer of functions from the local authorities to the National Roads Authority and I am opposed to it. These amendments give effect to that opposition.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 32 not moved.
Amendment No. 33 is in the name of Deputy Gilmore. Amendment No. 34 is an alternative and amendment No. 35 (a) and amendment No. 98 are related and may be taken together.
I move amendment No. 33:
In page 18, to delete lines 47 to 51.
This amendment underlines more emphatically what I said in relation to the previous one. One of the buzz phrases these days is the "principle of subsidiarity". The Minister intends to substitute the principle of subservience for the principle of subsidiarity with this section. In effect what section 15 (1) of the Bill means is that the Minister may give a direction to a road authority to do anything. It refers to any of the functions assigned to it by any enactment, including this Act, relating to any road matter. The Minister for the Environment can tell the roads authority what to do, how to spend money and where to spend it. It is openended. It is a very dangerous principle to have enshrined in the Bill. My amendment is to remove it.
Other sections of the Bill give the Minister specific powers to give directions to the local authorities where it is quite clear that is relevant in the context of setting up a National Roads Authority and introducing a new system for classifying roads. There is no need for the Minister to arrogate to himself a power to give an openended direction to local authorities about any matter relating to roads. The effect of this section is to take away from local authorities their sovereignty in matters relating to roads.
From here on local authorities will simply act either as some kind of agent for the National Roads Authority in some cases or some kind of subservient body to the Minister. The elected members of local authorities will not call the shots anymore at local level, but the person calling the shots will be the Minister for the Environment. It is a fundamentally undemocratic provision. It flies in the face of everything that has been said about the principle of subsidiarity. It flies in the face of the Programme for Government about extending the principle of democracy and devolving powers and so on to local level.
I know we debated this issue on Committee Stage and that the Minister at that stage was not disposed to change his mind, but a lot has happened since then, not least the Minister's own political survival.
And the Deputy's
I have been looking for evidence in the last few days of the changed approach to Government that was heralded over the last two months. I have seen no evidence of it since I came in here this morning. Perhaps this will be the first opportunity to show that what is said in the Programme for Government about subsidiarity, devolving powers to local level and extending the principle of democracy does mean something and that we will not enshrine in legislation a provision that robs local authorities of their road functions.
The provision which it is proposed to amend is one of the most obnoxious in the Bill. Although it looks very innocent, it specifically provides that the Minister may give directions to a road authority in relation to any of the functions assigned to it by or under any enactment, including this Act. If there is any existing enactment or any future enactment that has anything to do with the functions of a road authority it may be disturbed or interfered with or set aside by a direction from the Minister. I do not see any reason for doing that. As Deputy Gilmore has said, the Bill contains very clear powers for the National Roads Authority and for the Minister. It is clear that in relation to national roads, given the general shape of what is proposed in this Bill, roads authorities cannot be independent free standing agents as far as the construction of national roads is concerned. To give the Minister power to give directions in relation to functions of road authorities under any enactment is going much too far.
There are other similar provisions in this Bill and on Second Stage, looking at some of those provisions, I was moved to say that once again what we see in this Bill is what I call the belt and braces approach to securing the Minister's position under this legislation. Elsewhere in this Bill the Minister is given specific powers, some of which we may agree with. Those who drafted the legislation decided what kind of powers they wanted the Minister to have and then, just in case there was something they missed, they put in another provision that says "in case there is something else we have missed or have not thought of up to now we are putting in this provision to make sure the Minister has the power to second-guess either himself, his Department or the local authority". It is a very bad way to write legislation. As Deputy Gilmore said, it completely overturns any notion of a distinct separation of powers or a hierarchy of functions between different levels of authority.
It is a feature that I find comes up with disturbing frequency in legislation from the Department of the Environment. We found it in this legislation and we found it in other legislation from that Department. It is an indication of a view or a mood in that Department and perhaps in the Minister that does not seem to have caught up with the idea that many of us want to give local authorities and local groups of all kinds, more powers to decide their own actions rather than constrain them increasingly in tighter and tighter strait-jackets and subject them increasingly to second guessing on the part of the Minister.
If the Minister wishes anything to be clear in relation to the balance of functions between the National Roads Authority, the local roads authorities and the Minister himself let that be set out specifically in relation to each specific function where there is need to do so. But let us not get into the business of giving the Minister, as a kind of an after thought, the sweeping powers that are given by this section. It is unnecessary and anti-democratic and it flies in the face of any kind of re-organisation of local government. It makes me shudder to think that it is the same Minister and Department who produced this legislation who will come into this House at some unspecified stage in the future to give us proposals for further local government reform. If this is the mind-set they are using, then the local reforms will not be worth an awful lot.
The word "democracy" has come up time and time again. It is not that I would accuse the Minister of trying to subvert local democracy but there must be this fear, particularly with regard to this section, amongst members of local authorities that all powers will eventually be stripped away from them. It is not enough that we do not have sufficient money to do whatever it is we want to do but any powers that we may have had are slowly disappearing.
I cannot but feel that is a very genuine fear. To have this section enshrined in the Bill seems to confirm that the fear may be more realistic that people might think at first glance. Even though this is a small section of one Bill it gives a lead. It is one of the first Bills that we are examining this term and the lead we should be giving is to show that there is an openness and change. Maybe because the Bill was drafted before the election this openness and change does not seem to come through.
Does the Deputy really think so?
Whether that is true I just do not know. In every aspect of our legislation we are saying something broader and wider. This is a particular instance where we should give a lead.
I wish to place on record the functions during the last 12 months that were delegated to local authorities from my Department and those which are about to emerge in the next week, as an example of how I want power to devolve in strange contrast with any efforts that were made for a very long time to so do. There should be no question in anybody's mind and the record is there to prove it. Further examples will be available in the very near future to demonstrate that I am concerned to ensure that at local authority level the maximum freedom and autonomy is available to local elected members and administrations.
My amendments require that ministerial directions to local authorities under section 15, and to the National Roads Authority under section 41 and ministerial guidelines under section 15, must be laid before both Houses of the Oireacthas. There was much debate on this on Committee Stage. It is strange, if one reads through that debate, and those who were present will know and others can confirm, that the contributions went in diametrically opposed directions. There was opposition, as Deputy Gilmore rightly confirmed here today, to the ministerial directions to local authorities or to the NRA, and there was the demand, as the debate proceeded, for the Minister to retain and take powers from the NRA as the NRA was going to be too powerful.
It is quite extraordinary for a man with the experience of Deputy Dukes to try to read something sinister into a provision which is contained in the Postal and Telecommunications Services Act, 1983, the Industrial Development Act, 1986, the National Development Corporation Act, 1986, the Forestry Act, 1988 and Safety Health and Welfare Acts 1989. That is just a sample. Let us get the facts right. There is a childish approach, to my mind, emerging from some of the contributions in that every local authority in this country is perfect and everything is going on at 100 per cent pace and that there are no problems whatsoever.
I put on record, as Minister for the Environment, that I see a great difference between the capacity of local authorities to provide local services. I see a great difference between those who run very efficient systems and those who do not. I had, in the course of the last 12 months, to resort to giving a direction. I do not like it. It is not something that I particularly want to have but in circumstances where there are local difficulties and there is not the proper response, Deputies Gilmore or Keogh would be the first into this House demanding that I take action. If I were to say I do not have the legal powers, I would be told it was a cop-out. So let us get some straight sense into this.
These are not laws which we want to operate every day but there will be, and there have been in the past, circumstances in which it was absolutely essential that somebody responsible to the people as a whole had the authority and ability to act in this way. That is not just in relation to roads. It could well be in relation to housing or other matters. We had, on the one hand, the demand to leave the NRA totally independent. We had the totally opposite demand: they have too much powers; take the powers away. The only way in which I can find a proper balance is to act in the way I have done. The previous Acts in which a similar provision is contained demonstrate that. I reject out of hand the accusation that has been levelled at the Department of the Environment and its officials that they were trying to establish a norm or a set of circumstances for themselves which was unique and did not apply anywhere else or in any other Department. It is totally unfair criticism in the face of 12 months during which local authorities have been given, through legislation and regulations, more powers than they ever had. In a great number of cases, they do not understand the powers they have. They have power to do a number of things and have freedom in relation to matters which, in some cases, they do not seem to appreciate.
Somebody must take overall responsibility in a democratic system to solve problems and this mechanism has been used very successfully in the past. It is an exceptional measure, not one that I invite or would want to use but we must ensure that a local authority will take appropriate action in circumstances where all the other local authorities in a region have brought developments to a certain pitch and is not held back because of the resistance of one particular area.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): Comhghairdeachas leis an Aire as a ainmniúchán. Tá súil agam go bhfuil blianta fada roimhe anseo.
As a member of a county council it would be indefensible of me not to rise and say that, while conceding the Minister must take an overall view of local authorities, the problems encountered by Carlow County Council are not because the county council will not make decisions, it is basically that there is not money to do anything. I have been a member of the county council since 1979, which is not a long time but in the early years the county council dealt with genuine problems. At this stage, if money is not allocated to specific cases the local authorities cannot act.
It is unfair of the Minister to blame local authorities for lack of housing and the condition of roads. County councils are not responsible for many of their difficulties, they just cannot do anything about them. The Minister has the power to tell the local authorities what to do. If the county councils had power to tell the Minister what to do, they would solve many problems. The Minister should not pass the buck.
The Minister's last intervention is most regrettable. It betrays an attitude to local government which is completely at variance with stated Government policies and the high minded talk about devolution of powers, etc.
The Minister said that this provision is the same as that contained in other legislation. That may be but there is a major difference in the relationship between the Minister for the Environment and democratically elected local authorities and the relationship between a Government Minister and a board of directors appointed by that Minister. All the legislation, the Post and Telecommunications Act, the IDA and all the various other bodies to which he referred are appointed by the Minister and accountable to him. There is merit in it where those bodies would, through the Minister, be accountable to this House. That is perfectly understandable but this is different. We are talking here about the Minister giving direction, not to a body appointed by himself, but to a body or bodies, in the case of local authorities, which are elected by the people.
The Minister says that local authorities are not perfect and may hold up things. He might not like the manner in which they respond to public opinion and the way to get through that is for the Minister to have the power to tell them what to do. That is the kind of logic that justifies dictatorship and says that if one does not like the democratic wish of the people, one can find some formula to ride through it. That is what this Bill is all about.
This Bill is about shortcutting the concerns that very often manifest themselves at local level — concern about a new road proposal, road plans which people are worried about going near their homes, destroying communities, etc; the type of concerns that have been expressed publicly on things like the eastern by-pass and a number of other road proposals that can very often give rise to a great deal of heat and local concern. The Minister is saying that if the local authority cannot do business, if it responds to public concern locally and the Minister does not approve, the Minister can tell the local authority what to do.
This raises a question as to what is the point of people electing local councillors to represent their views and make decisions on their behalf if, at the end of the day, the Minister can tell them what to do.
I made the point earlier that there are many sections of this Bill — it is quite a large Bill — where the Minister has given himself specific power to give directions to the local authority. In some cases it makes sense, for example, in areas where the directions are specific but this is a very general power. As Deputy Dukes said earlier, it enables the Minister to tell a local authority to do anything in relation to roads. For example, we had a discussion earlier about the abandoning of a public road. The Minister assured us that the decision to abandon a public road would be a reserved function for the elected members of the local authority. So far so good, until we come to section 15 when the Minister may give a direction in writing to a road authority in relation to any of the functions assigned to it or any enactment and the local authority shall comply with such direction.
Let us take the case of the abandonment of a public road. The Minister, under this section, can give a direction to the local authority to abandon a public road and under this section it would have to comply. Where is the reserved function of the local authority in that case? The Minister makes the decision. That is standing democracy on its head. It is an undemocratic provision.
I regret the Minister's contribution because his attitude implied that he does not trust local authorities or their elected members and that, like wayward children, they will have to be periodically corrected by the Minister. That is a very bad attitude towards local authorities and a very bad start to the Minsiter's second term as Minister for the Environment, particularly at a time when local government will have to be reorganised and local authorities given devolved powers.
One of the major functions of a local authority is in relation to roads and if local authorities do not have independence in decision-making in that area, as they will not have after this section has passed, then they will have lost a major power to the Minister and will, in fact, be subservient to him. I regret that the Minister is taking that approach.
I want to reject out of hand the very selective——
Perhaps the Minister could do so at a later stage.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 34 not moved.
I move amendment No. 35:
In page 18, after line 51, to insert the following:
"(2) The Minister shall lay a copy of any direction given by him under subsection (1) before each House of the Oireachtas.".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 35a:
In page 19, between lines 5 and 6, to insert the following:
"(3) The Minister shall lay a copy of any guidelines given by him under subsection (2) before each House of the Oireachtas.".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 36 and 37 not moved.
We come to amendment No. 38 which has been discussed with amendment No. 23.
I move amendment No. 38:
In page 19, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following:
"(2) In the performance of its functions under subsection (1), the Authority shall consider the needs of all road users.".
Amendment agreed to.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): I move amendment No. 39:
In page 19, line 27, after "appropriate" to insert ", subject to the approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas".
I made it clear to Deputy Yates on the Committee Stage debate on section 7 (3) that there is already a provision that any regulation made under this section must be laid on draft before both Houses of the Oireachtas and the resolution approving it must be passed by both Houses before the regulation comes into force.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 40:
In page 19, between lines 35 and 36, to insert the following:
"(4) The Minister shall make regulations providing that any function relating to roads, other than national roads, conferred on him under any enactment (including this Act), or on the Commissioner of the Garda Síochána under the Road Traffic Acts, 1961 to 1987, shall be performed by a roads authority, in lieu of being performed by him or by the Commissioner, be performed by the roads authority from a date specified in the regulations.".
This section deals with the functions of the roads authority. Under the provisions of section 17 (3) the Minister can make regulations providing that any function performed by him or by the Garda Commissioner shall, where the Minister feels that it could be performed more effectively by the roads authority in relation to national roads, be assigned to the roads authority. My amendment seeks to make a corresponding provision in the case of local authorities in respect of non-national roads. We referred earlier to the area of overlap between local authorities as road authorities and the Garda Commissioner as the traffic authority. Quite clearly in subsection (3) the Minister proposes that this be streamlined in the case of national roads, that he may transfer to the national roads authority his own functions and the Garda Commissioner's functions, as he sees fit. National roads will have a regime under the National Roads Authority and these matters can be dealt with expeditiously.
In fairness, the same provision should be made in relation to local authorities that there should be the same transfer of functions. If it can be done for a national road in the case of the National Roads Authority, then it should be possible to do it for non-national roads in the case of local authorities.
The purpose of this amendment is to oblige the Minister to make regulations devolving his non-national road functions and those of the Garda Commissioner to local authorities. I am sympathetic to the principles which underlie this amendment but as I explained to the special committee this Bill is not appropriate for the devolution of road traffic functions.
This Bill contains a substantial measure of devolution to local authorities. The powers to extinguish public rights of way and to abandon public roads have been devolved to the elected members of local authorities. Previously these powers could only be exercised with the consent of the Minister following an oral hearing or public inquiry into any objections. Now the whole process, including the consideration of objections, will be in the hands of the local authority. The requirement to notify the Minister of temporary road closures has been abolished.
I put down an amendment on Committee Stage proposing to give local authorities power to make by-laws controlling skips. These by-laws will not require ministerial confirmation. These are examples of my desire to remove unnecessary controls on local authorities. I will shortly be proposing draft regulations under the Local Government Act, 1991, for the approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas, to remove certain statutory controls which apply to local authority operations. I hope, also, to be in a position to bring forward a new local government Bill which would confer broad new powers on local elected representatives, for example, to make by-laws dealing with matters of local concern and activities which are seen to cause nuisance or to be in need of regulation. More specifically in the whole area of parking, traffic management, control and speed limits I see scope for a far greater local authority role and I will make a start in implementing this approach in the Road Traffic Bill now being drafted.
All of this, of course, I am doing as somebody who, according to Deputy Gilmore, does not trust the local authorities. I said in my earlier contribution with regard to ministerial powers that only in exceptional cases do I see them being necessary. The broad picture is that I trust the system.
I am prepared to give powers that no other Minister before me gave and I will give more. I have responsibilities under the Postal and Telecommunications Act, the Forestry Act, and so on, but my relationship with local authorities is different. I also have responsibility to the taxpayer. Between direct and indirect subsidies and contributions of one kind or another to local authorities, the national Exchequer, through the Government supplies over 70 per cent of their financial means. In the case of other bodies under my aegis, I do not provide 70 per cent of the funding from the taxpayers' resources. Clearly that relationship is different.
I have the greatest of dependence on local authorities. That is why, in broad measure, I am bringing in these provisions, with more to follow. I do not want the notion to go abroad just because there are local authorities I would like to see step up their performance, in the same way as this country needs a stepping up in performance in so many other areas, that this is a slight on the system or on publicly elected members. I do not accept that. I am looking for excellence. I am going after it and I am providing the legal framework to achieve it. Embodied in every Bill I have brought before this House over the past 12 months is the principle of devolution.
It is fine for the Minister to talk about his commitment to devolving powers to local authorities. We are all behind him in that. In practice what he is doing is taking power away from the local authorities. I detect in the Minister a disturbing tendency towards autocracy. We will be increasingly vigilant to ensure that he fulfils these fine statements he is making about devolving powers to local authorities and that he does not negate them by doing what he did in relation to the previous matter we discussed here.
I am quite happy to leave this and see how the Minister intends to deal with it in the Road Traffic Bill. When we come to deal with that Bill we will then put to the test the Minister's words in relation to devolution of power to local authorities.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Debate adjourned.