Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 24 Feb 1993

Vol. 426 No. 6

Roads Bill, 1991: Report Stage (Resumed).

We resume on amendment No. 55 in the name of Deputy Flanagan which was discussed earlier at some length with amendment No. 54. The question, therefore, is "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."

Question put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.

We now proceed to amendment No. 56 in the names of Deputies Gilmore and Dukes. Amendments Nos. 101, 103 and 128 are related and I suggest, therefore, that we discuss amendments Nos. 56, 101, 103 and 128 together, by agreement.

I move amendment No. 56:

In page 23, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following;

"(h) take such measures as are necessary to limit noise pollution from a road, including the provision of adequate boundaries, walls and the provision where necessary of noise resistant windows and doors for houses affected by noise pollution from a road".

These amendments deal with the effect of noise pollution from a road. They have been prompted — and the Minister on Committee Stage indicated some sympathy with the thinking behind them — by the noise local people have experienced where new roads are being constructed. For example, in my own constituency, this has become a major problem. The Shankill-Bray by-pass was constructed at considerable public cost, something in the order of £25 million was spent on it. It runs very close to some dwellings in a number of areas, New Vale, Assumpta Park and Crinken Glen in Shankill, Parknasilla in Loughlinstown and Fassaroe in Bray. Many of those houses are badly affected by noise pollution. One particular house is a mere 90 feet from the edge of the road and the occupants have repeatedly pointed out that their whole life has been transformed. Prior to the construction of the Shankill-Bray by-pass their house backed onto green fields and agricultural land, and it is now backing onto a major motorway. At various hours of the morning, such as 4 a.m. and 5 a.m. convoys of trucks travel to and from Rosslare and they are woken by the noise.

The county council, of which I am a member, has examined this problem on a number of occasions and carried out a noise survey. The survey established that there are no standards in this country with regard to noise pollution. In the UK, a standard exists whereby remedial action is taken if the level of noise exceeds 68 decibels. Although there are no specific standards here the Department of the Environment seem to regard in a loose way the British standard as the norm. No official standard has been adopted in this country with regard to noise pollution from a motorway.

A number of houses were tested for the effect of noise and it was found that several of them exceeded the 68 decibel limit. The Department of the Environment took the view that the only houses that could be dealt with or where compensation could be paid were those where a compulsory purchase order had been made on land. In one case a slice of a garden was taken for the construction of the motorway and it was possible for the Department of the Environment to provide funding for double glazing for windows and doors at that dwelling. No compensation was available to those people whose land was not taken by compulsory purchase but who were as near, or in one case nearer, to the road.

The county council has sought funding for some time from the Department of Environment for double glazing for a limited number of houses that are badly affected by noise in that area. So far the Department has turned down the application for funding for a number of reasons. First, because there is no noise standards here and the impact of noise is apparently not taken into account except in a very general way. Secondly, the standards that appears to be applied is the UK standard and I would argue that it is inappropriate to this country. Thirdly, the only compensation that can be paid is in cases where there has been a compulsory purchase order. This issue is becoming increasingly urgent in this area because it is proposed to link the Shankill-Bray by-pass with another motorway. The proposed junction between the south-eastern motorway and the Shankill-Bray by-pass is precisely at the point where these houses are located and it seems to me that it will not be possible to secure an agreement on the junction unless the problem of noise abatement has been addressed.

The purpose of these amendments is to require the National Roads Authority and the Minister for the Environment to make provision for noise abatement at the stage when a road is being designed and constructed. I am also using this opportunity to appeal to the Minister to make immediate provision to deal with the noise problem that already exists. I have cited an example in my constituency and I know that there are a small number of other cases where there is a similar problem. I appeal to the Minister to address the situation. It is not good enough that people's lives are completely transformed and disrupted by the noise that emanates from a motorway. They are built at very considerable cost and the very least that can be done is for some provision to be made for those limited number of households who are badly affected by noise. The provision of double glazing, screenplanting, walls and so on have the effect of drowning out the noise which comes from a motorway.

I agree with Deputy Gilmore that this is a problem which requires a good deal more attention than it has received to date. It is an area where possibly because our population density is lower than in most other countries in the European Community very little attention has been paid to it, but it is becoming a matter of major importance. If one takes a trip along any of the major improved sections of our national roads, especially along the Naas by-pass and several others which are in gestation or are being built at the moment, one will notice that there are many dwellings that are now quite near to the new roads. Previously these were in the heart of the countryside which was very quiet. In addition in a number of towns around the country where major road improvements were carried out or where by-passes were constructed, there are areas of the towns that were previously backwaters in terms of traffic, but which now have large volumes of traffic passing very close to them. That kind of change in the environment is very substantial for people living in those areas who have been used to nothing louder than the odd car or lorry passing. They are now in a position where heavy traffic passes by, for 16 hours a day. That is in rural areas, but in urban areas the problem is much greater. It can be a major change for people who have been used to living in quite areas for years. It can sometimes be very distressing and it can have both psychological and physical effects on people which is something our road designers should bear in mind.

As Deputy Gilmore pointed out, there are no noise standards in this country. It was a matter of great regret to me that when the Environmental Protection Agency Bill was debated, the Government side quite seriously put it to the House that there was no way of dealing with this problem. I invite the Minister to consider the current state of knowledge on the damage that noise can cause. For example, it has been proven scientifically that if people are exposed for any length of time to unusual noise, even at very low frequencies, it can have an ill-effect on their health. A person can be killed by exposure over a period of time, to strong low frequency noise. People can be literally driven out of their minds by a lengthy exposure to high frequency noise. Noise affects people's physical and mental health and we should take whatever measures are available to offset the detrimental effects of noise. The science of noise reduction is not an arcane science by any means. There are many techniques available to road builders. The Minister need look no further than North County Dublin where there is an ongoing debate about noise reduction for people living in the vicinity of the new runway at Dublin Airport and its surrounding roads. That is a fruitful source of inspiration to deal with this problem.

This section specifies the factors which the authority may direct roads authorities to take into account when operating roads. The purpose of this amendment is to include noise among those factors. The amendment does not require strict standards. It proposes that measures be taken as they become necessary. If we had a comprehensive understanding of the effects of noise the amendment could be more specific. Eventually we may have to introduce such an amendment.

Deputy Gilmore discussed the effects of noise from new road construction in urban areas. As more roads are built and more towns are by-passed the problem of noise will occur more often. Even if this amendment is accepted, at a later stage it may be necessary to define more precisely what kind of noise levels should be permitted and what levels should be avoided. This is a reasonable amendment to deal with a problem which we can ignore no longer, given the higher density of population and progress we hope to make on new road construction.

I support this reasonable amendment. Coming from the same constituency as Deputy Gilmore I am loath to repeat his litany of estate names.

I do not mind.

We are aware of the difficulties for the people of Shankill caused by their proximity to the Shankill-Bray by-pass where noise pollution is a real problem. The Minister should examine this amendment not only from the legislative point of view but also in the context of what can be learned from people's experience.

There will be much controversy about the junction of the south eastern motorway and the Shankill-Bray by-pass unless we deal with the problem of noise. People will rightly object to roads being built near them if, as a result, they will be victims of noise pollution and the legislation should anticipate that. Having read the Special Committee Stage of this Bill I thought the Minister would look favourably on this amendment but nothing has happened in the interim. I ask the Minister of State, Deputy Browne (Wexford), to accept the amendment.

I sympathise with the arguments being made for this amendment. The Minister of State and myself frequently travel on the Shankill-Bray by-pass and Newtownmountkennedy by-pass.

(Wexford): Every day.

We are aware of the volume of traffic on those by-passes but that volume of traffic previously went through the town of Bray and the village of Newtownmountkennedy. The removal of noise pollution in those areas has been a great benefit to them. Bray has become a pleasant place again and the removal of commuter traffic from Shankill has resulted in more road space for local inhabitants. The number of people now affected by noise pollution is very small and it should not require an amendment to a Bill to provide double glazing for the few houses requested. That should be provided through the funding of these roads. I am sure there are EC standards for noise levels that apply throughout the Community. We should get an opinion on whether the standards are applied through the transport commission area or in the social affairs area and adopt them as soon as possible.

The Foxrock motorway was completed when I was Minister for the Environment and it may still be the most expensive road constructed in this or any other country. I think a sum of £4 million was spent on less than a mile of roadway. When driving on that road one can see that expensive walls were built on either side because the people of the area, who are not short of a bob, could use considerable influence to ensure that the project was properly finished. On the Shankill-Bray by-pass one will notice the effects of cutbacks; there is no central median safety barrier and little has been done for the people who live nearby although few people live in close proximity to the by-pass compared with the number on the previous route.

The Minister should not oppose this amendment. He should complete the work in the area and ensure that the huge expense of by-passes, which are three quarters subsidised by EC funds, is not a total cost on the State. I hope the Minister will accept that the privacy of people's homes has been invaded. If some of the leisure developments in the Shankill area were being built now the route would be taken into account and the Department would provide double glazing where necessary. It is a small cost. I hope the Minister will refer the issue back to the Department, investigate it and do something for the various localities. Fassaroe, which is in my constituency, is close to the by-pass. Dún Laoghaire Corporation has discussed constructing bridges in that area and I do not understand why this proposal was turned down. The Minister should consider reviewing both the safety aspect of the Bray-Shankill by-pass and the noise pollution created for a few homes in that area.

I wish to comment briefly on this amendment. I look forward to the Minister's contribution given that he said on Committee Stage that he would look at the issue in detail between now and Report Stage. I wonder what progress has been made.

We should broaden the debate from a discussion of local concerns of the constituencies of Dún Laoghaire, Wicklow and Wexford, which seem to prevail in the House at present——

And Kildare.

——lest the message go from the House that we are dealing merely with an east coast problem. I am sure the Minister will concede, as did my colleague from Kildare, that we are talking about vast areas in the country. This is a national issue given the vast improvements to many of our arterial roads over the past decade and the potential for future improvements as EC funds come on stream.

Why is the Minister opposed to this amendment? There has been considerable and probably sufficient amplification from this side of the House as to its merits. I would like to hear why the Minister is refusing to accept it, if indeed he is. He nodded about ten minutes ago to the effect that he was not prepared to accept it.

We are dealing with major legislation on roads. It is some time since we enacted such legislation and without doubt it will be a considerable period before we have further amending legislation.

The title of the Bill specifies that we are dealing with matters connected with the construction and maintenance of roads as well as the setting up of the long awaited National Roads Authority. If the Minister looks at the amendment he will see that it is merely an enabling amendment empowering the National Roads Authority — if if sees fit — to introduce measures to deal with this problem. Are we to accept that we do not have a problem of the type envisaged by the amendment? Deputy Kavanagh, a former Minister, has stated that we do not have any regulations, that we are unsure of the position regarding the European Community and certain directives. I ask the Minister to clear up this point before we end the debate on this amendment.

Do we have noise pollution regulations? Do we have a problem of the type referred to by Deputies on this side of the House? If so, what is the Minister going to do to alleviate the hardship and suffering of people living on the fringes of metropolitan areas? This is a very important amendment and is one that the Minister should not dismiss lightly.

Wexford): As one who travels that road five days a week, twice a day, I appreciate that Dublin County Council provided the Shankill-Bray by-pass to shorten my travelling time to Wexford. I listened carefully to the contributions in the debate. I felt the environmental impact assessment procedures in sections 50 and 51 of the Bill was the appropriate mechanism to deal with measures to avoid, reduce and, if possible, remedy any significant environmental effects of a proposed road development. It is true that we have no noise standards in this country, we have operated, to a certain extent, the UK standard requirements. The Shankill area was the subject of a Dáil question yesterday; obviously there are problems there and some have been addressed with the Eastern Health Board. I understand that noise levels in excess of the UK standard were recorded at only two properties and that these have been satisfactorily dealt with. Applying these standards to the whole country would have serious financial consequences. However, we could agree to ask the departmental officials to examine this problem before the Bill is sent to the Seanad to see what measures can be taken to deal with the concerns expressed here today.

We are dealing here with two issues. First, we are including specific provisions in the legislation with regard to the design and construction of future roadways and we are seeking to include in the legislation that specific recognition be given to the noise dimension. I know the Minister has stated that account can be taken of this in the environmental impact study. However, the main impact of road construction on people who live nearby is noise pollution and it is sufficiently serious to merit specific recognition.

Second, we are using the opportunity to ask the Minister to address a specific problem as it affects more people living near a road already constructed. From the point of view of the Department's own road plans, there is an anticipated additional problem with regard to a proposed junction in an area which is already badly affected by noise. It is in everybody's interest, the people who live nearby, the local authority and the Department, to deal with this issue speedily.

I am pleased the Minister of State responded positively towards the case made to him. What concerns me is that the Minister, Deputy Smith, on Committee Stage, responded in a similarly positive vein. I do not have the Committee Stage report in front of me, but I recollect he undertook to have this issue considered before Report Stage and I had hoped it would have been addressed by now.

The Minister of State referred to the two properties where the noise level exceeded the UK limit of 68 decibels. The only people who have been compensated have been those whose land was subject to a compulsory purchase order. My understanding is that compensation is only allowable under the existing legislation and regulations under which the Department is operating. Would the Minister confirm that the only people to whom compensation may be paid arising from the construction of a road are those whose land has been acquired by compulsory purchase? Would the Minister explain, in general terms if possible, how he proposes getting around that? Does it require legislation? If so, we should deal with it now as we are discussing the Road Bill rather than deferring it to a future date. The people concerned are looking for a solution to the problem. They want less noise in their living room.

What we need to address is how that is going to be achieved. The case has been made as nauseam for the past two years. There must be a large file on this issue in the Department between the case which was made by the local authority and the case made by individual Members of the House asking for this problem to be addressed. The Minister is now saying he wants us to wait and he might deal with it between now and the Bill being debated in the Seanad. I would ask him, does it require legislation, does it require some change in regulations, and, specifically, is he considering some material means of providing relief for those households who are already affected by noise?

(Wexford): It is true, as Deputy Gilmore has said, that compensation is only payable to property owners where property is compulsorily acquired and in such cases compensation in default of agreement is determined by arbitration under the Acquisition of Land (Assessment Compensation) Act, 1919. However, there is scope to carry out other works such as building walls, tree planting, installing lights, and other solutions to problems. I give Deputy Gilmore an assurance that our Department will look seriously at the problem which exists as well as the concerns expressed by various Deputies. Time will obviously be needed to see what solution, if any, can be put forward to resolve the problem the Deputy mentioned. I am aware of similar problems with new stretches of roadway in my own county so, obviously, I have the same concerns as other Deputies. The Department will report back and see what solutions, if any, can be found.

I do not wish to be rude to the Minister, and I will wait to hear what he says to the Seanad, but may I remind him of what occurred on Committee Stage. In concluding on this amendment on Committee Stage, the Minister, Deputy Smith said, and I quote from column 184 of the Official Report:

I will be as sympathetic as possible to whatever proposals are made and the Deputy will have time to consider my reaction before Report Stage.

That was to Deputy Gilmore. The Minister had previously made a number of comments about the noise problem. For example, on Report Stage at column 181 of the Official Report, he said:

Local authorities have been given greater powers in the Environmental Protection Agency Act to deal with noise. However, it is envisaged that the provisions of the Act will deal mainly with fixed source noise.

By and large, the provision of the Environmental Protection Agency Act will not cover traffic noise because that is not fixed source noise. The Government seems to have ruled out recourse to the Environmental Protection Agency Act provisions to deal with this problem, so we are back to the Roads Bill as being the only source of dealing with it.

The Minister then spoke about the Road Traffic Construction Equipment and Use of Vehicles Regulations, 1963 which, apart from requiring silencers to be fitted to cars, provide that vehicles should not be driven so as to cause excessive noise. I do not know whether there is a Member of this House or anybody outside it who can consciously and deliberately drive a vehicle so as to produce excessive noise. Therefore, I do not think we should bother to look for relief from that quarter.

The Minister then referred to the EC Commission's proposal for a consolidated-type approval directive of noise emissions from new motor vehicles. Again, I do not see any great satisfaction coming from that because, even if we have vehicles which are quieter than those we have been used to, we are talking about cases where there is a concentration of traffic noise in areas where it did not happen before. I am not happy with the idea that we should, in some sense, weigh the advantages that accrue to people living in areas of heavy traffic which will now be relieved by having traffic diverted onto a by-pass. That is an argument which starts off from a notion of equality of misery. It is no solution to say that because one person is suffering from more noise he or she should be consoled by the idea that people elsewhere are suffering from less noise. We are trying to improve the environment for everybody, not spread the pain equally.

From what the Minister said on Committee Stage and from what the Minister of State said here today, I cannot see immediately what sources of relief might be available to us or what the Minister might have recourse to when he comes before the Seanad with this Bill. I say with the greatest friendliness to the Minister that if he is serious about considering this again in the Seanad, I hope a bit more consideration will be given to the matter between now and the Seanad debate than appears to have been given to it between the Special Committee debate last July and today.

I would like to support the amendment. This is a matter which I and others have raised previously both at local authority level and in this House. I am glad to see that a spokesperson for our party has tabled this amendment along with my colleague Deputy Gilmore. Being a member of Dublin County Council also I am aware of the trauma being caused to many people as a result of noise levels emanating from the construction of new roads and by-passes as well as from existing roads where the increase in traffic is making life intolerable for people. Tackling the whole area of pollution is something which all Members support. Noise, however, is a form of pollution which nobody wants to tackle.

Speaking to the Minister as a fellow politician, the reality is that we are getting the run-around on this issue. This matter has been debated in Dublin County Council over and over again. We send letters to the Department of the Environment and get the same acknowledgement. Finally, we get a letter saying it is not normal practice, nor has it been practice, to provide funds for double-glazing. People are being ignored. It is time we put a provision into law to protect the ordinary individual.

We are now faced with a situation where we will have to use every avenue open to us as local authority members to prevent in the case of the Shankill by-pass the junction with the south eastern motorway proceeding at the point where it is intended to go. That is the only avenue left open to us as public representatives. Our hands are tied because the council officials tell us they have not got the authority to spend the money. When we seek authority from the Department we are told it is not the practice. We are trying to get the legislation changed so that it will be a person's right to seek this type of compensation by way of protecting their health.

It is not just a question of putting money in people's pockets. There are people living in some areas who cannot sleep at night because of noise. If we are going to spend millions of pounds building roads and motorways, then surely for the limited sums it would cost, double-glazing should be provided for people whose houses are very near these major motorways or by-passes. We are not asking for much. It is not going to affect large numbers of people. They tend to be in isolated areas where there may be small group of houses, and usually one is not talking about large sums of money. What we are talking about is natural justice.

When it suits us we quote British standards applicable in relation to acceptable noise levels but we do not have any standards ourselves. Examples are given of where British standards are applied, if a scheme is within the limits but when one happens to be outside the limits set by the British standards. Therefore, we are not exactly playing the game on a level pitch.

I appeal to the Minister to deal with this matter. We should not be prepared to postpone it until another day. We may not get a chance for many years to deal with this situation and if we let it slip from us now we, as politicians, will deserve the wrath that will fall upon us from those affected at present and future by continuous noise pollution. They also face the ongoing problem of no-one being in a position to come to their assistance. The minimum we should do is provide compensation for the people affected. We should then devise standards at a European level which would be acceptable throughout the EC in relation to this matter. We must not trot after the British when it suits us to apply their standards and then ignore their standards when they do not suit us. We should be tackling this problem on two fronts. But the only avenue open to us at the moment is this amendment. I ask the Minister to support this amendment and deal compassionately with those who are suffering.

I wish to reply to the discussion on the amendment. The Minister has asked us not to press the amendment and said he will seriously examine the problem between now and when the issue is debated in the Seanad. I am concerned that a similar promise was made on Committee Stage and has not been kept.

I would like to make a suggestion to the Minister. There are four amendments on the same subject. The first is amendment No. 56 which will be decided upon now. We are also dealing with amendments Nos. 101, 103 and 128. I am prepared to defer consideration of this matter until we reach amendment No. 101. I ask for latitude from the Minister and from the Acting Chairman on this matter. That would give the Minister a week or two to consider it.

The Minister should address himself to a couple of issues. First, Deputy Barrett put down a question on this subject yesterday. The Minister in his reply stated he was satisfied the ameliorative measures already implemented by the local authority are adequate and no further remedial works are necessary. That position is totally unacceptable. The Minister would have to change——

The Deputy should not speak again on this matter because he has already spoken on it. He should be as brief as possible.

I think I am in order, because amendment No. 56 is in my name.

Acting Chairman

It seems this is the third occasion on which the Deputy has spoken.

I am responding to the debate. I understand I am entitled to speak by way of conclusion when everyone has spoken.

Acting Chairman

The Deputy may conclude by way of reply on this occasion but, seemingly, it is not the usual practice.

It is my understanding that, as the proposer of the amendment, I am entitled to respond to the debate. I do not wish to argue with the Chair, I am virtually finished. I simply want the Minister to take a number of points into consideration. First, simply applying the UK standard will not deal with the problem. Some of the houses worst affected were shown to be marginally below the UK standard when the study was carried out. I ask the Minister to deal with this problem with a greater degree of flexibility rather than simply applying the UK standards. Perhaps we have lower tolerance of noise than in the UK but the noise levels below the UK standards in this case are not acceptable.

Secondly, in relation to the specific case mentioned, I ask the Minister to look at the inquiry conducted into the motorway scheme. Some of the householders concerned objected at the inquiry stage on the grounds of noise pollution. The Minister should note the road was constructed almost one metre higher than the level confirmed by the Minister for the Environment following the inquiry. The householders concerned have made their case forcefully to me that if the Minister for the Environment does not address this problem soon they intend to seek legal redress.

Thirdly, I ask him to consider the points made about difficulties that will arise concerning the design and the line of the south eastern motorway. We would all like to see the ring around Dublin completed and the south eastern motorway is a key part of that. None of us wants to have exceptional difficulties with regard to the line of the south eastern motorway. However, I assure the Minister there will be difficulties if the problems that already exist regarding noise pollution are not addressed and resolved before the line of the south eastern motorway comes up for final decision. It could be difficult to agree a line for the south eastern motorway at that stage.

I ask the Minister to consider the matter before amendment No. 101 is addressed in the House and make a statement in the House before the question is put on that amendment. On that basis I am prepared to withdraw amendment No. 56 and await the Minister's reply at a later stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 57 not moved.

I move amendment No. 58:

In page 23, between lines 17 and 18, to insert the following:

"(n) liaise with local authorities on their road plans in advance of their preparation.”

I should like the Minister of State to elaborate on the commitment given by the Minister on Committee Stage that he would look seriously at this matter before Report Stage.

I wish to remind the Minister of State what the Minister said on Report Stage. He said he intended to have a look at this matter between Committee Stage and Report Stage to see whether the proposal is suitable or whether an alternative one would be more suitable. He agreed with the proposition that there should be proper liaison between the National Roads Authority and local authorities in relation to road plans and he had no real objection to the amendment. I wonder if that has been finalised and is the Minister now in a position to tell us what he is going to do?

(Wexford): Obviously the Minister has examined the amendment since Committee Stage——

It is not obvious.

(Wexford): It is not proposed to accept the amendment. I am confident there are sufficient consultative procedures in the Bill. Indeed subsections (2) and (3) of this section oblige the National Roads Authority to consult with the relevant local authority before issuing a direction.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 59 not moved.

I move amendment No. 60:

In page 23, lines 24 to 41, to delete all words from and including "shall—" in line 24 down to and including 41, and substitute "request the local authority to initiate the procedure for a material contravention of the development plan or special amenity area order; and shall issue a direction only after the local authority has decided to allow a material contravention of the development plan or special amenity area order."

In view of the discussion on the Mullaghmore issue I think it is appropriate that this amendment be put formally to the House if the Minister is not accepting it.

Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 61 and 62 not moved.

Acting Chairman

I suggest that as amendment No. 64 is an alternative amendment to No. 63 the amendments be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 63:

In page 24, line 11 after "Authority" to insert, "after consultation with local authorities,".

This amendment relates to the question of consultation between the new authority and the local authorities with particular reference to the programmes of European Community assistance. It is entirely appropriate that any road building plan, be it over five or seven years, should involve adequate consultation between the National Roads Authority and the local authority, particularly where a road building programme will be carried out between different local authorities, for example, on the main routes between Dublin and Cork, Limerick, Galway and Sligo. There are instances where, on some major routes, a number of different local authorities would be involved and the consultation process is of extreme importance particularly with regard to county engineers and local authorities. I hope the Minister will accept the amendment.

Amendment No. 64 is in my name and deals with the same issue. The road construction programme of the National Roads Authority and the Department of the Environment and, indeed, the whole purpose of this Bill, is driven by the availability of funds from the European Community. The application for funds for the 1989-93 programme was strongly criticised in this country and by the European Commission for the lack of consultation involved in the preparation of that programme and its submission to Brussels. What we are seeking is that the National Roads Authority, given whatever terms and conditions the Minister apply to it, should be the body responsible for submitting the roads programme for funding to the European Community.

The National Roads Authority will be an appointed body not an elected body. The amount of money involved is enormous. The last programme in the 1989-93 period consisted of an EC investment in the order of £500 million. Given the availability not only of Structural Funds but also of Cohesion Funds, which I understand would be available for this purpose, the amount of money the National Roads Authority will be applying for to the European Community will be very considerable.

The amendments are seeking to have a requirement for consultation — no more than that — with local and regional authorities, which is a reasonable proposition. The local and regional authorities in whose areas the proposed road projects will be built should have the right to be consulted. I would argue that is a requirement of the European Community. If the National Roads Authority may apply for funding without consulting the local and regional authorities, I believe they will be in breach of the requirement of the European Community. They would certainly be in breach of the principle of subsidiarity which apparently underpins the Maastricht Treaty and the process of European Union.

We are seeking a simple requirement in this amendment. It is one that is required by the European Community and, in the interests of at least a semblance of democratic consultation, it should be included in the legislation. Before making its submission for funding for major road developments to the European Community, the National Roads Authority should have to consult with the local and regional authorties.

This is a simple and straightforward amendment. Underlining a lot of what we have been talking about on this Bill has been the theme of local democracy and accountability. I believe that asking that the National Roads Authority consult with particular bodies is a reasonable request and also relates to the acknowledgement of the input of local and regional authorities. One of the fears I have of this Bill which is coming up time and again, is that of ignoring the local authorities. Even if there were consultation in relation to particular matters, there would at least be a feeling that there was a greater degree of accountability, that people would know what was going on. There is a fear that applications will be made by the National Road Authority, and the local authority will not know the detail of the applications and feel that local democracy is a joke.

(Wexford): I am also anxious that the National Roads Authority prepare EC programmes in consultation with the local authorities. However, I do not think it should be a legal obligation. Much of the documentation for EC purposes has to be prepared to tight deadlines and I do not think it would be wise to impose a statutory obligation on the National Roads Authority to formally consult with local authorities. The programmes prepared for EC purposes will be based on the National Roads Authority's medium term plan and under section 18 there is provision for formal consultation with local authorities when that plan is being prepared. On Committee Stage an amendment was accepted from Deputy Gilmore to enhance that consultation process.

At a practical level there will be day to day contact between the NRA and local authorities. The NRA will be well aware of the views of local authorities and will acquire information from them, when preparing documentation. I do not agree, as Deputy Keogh has said, that the local authorities will be ignored; they will be involved in the consultation process throughout the preparing of the plan. The proposed amendments are not necessary.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 64 not moved.

Acting Chairman

Amendment No. 65, amendment No. 66 is cognate and it is proposed that they be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 65:

In page 24, line 18, to delete "national".

I propose to delete the word national from the reference to roads in the section dealing with the application for assistance in funding from the European Community. I discussed this matter at length on Second and Committee Stages. I am concerned that a two-tier system of funding for roads has developed in this country. We have a Rolls Royce system for national roads funded by the European Community yet, roads below national road status are ignored and not even routine maintenance is carried out on them. There is an exclusive concentration on new roads constructed to very high standards and funded by the EC, while the network of secondary country roads is falling into disrepair. I do not understand why the submission made to the EC for assistance concentrates solely on national roads.

National roads alone are not enough if, when one drives off a national road, one is on a glorified boreen. There should be an integrated approach to road development when applications for EC funding are made. They should not be confined to national roads. If the reference in the legislation to the National Roads Authority's responsibility for applying for European funding is confined to national roads, then EC funding will only be sought for national roads. This means that other roads will be left in disrepair as the Department of the Environment will shift its resources from the maintenance and improvement of non-national roads to matching EC funding for the development of national roads.

(Wexford): These amendments would give the National Roads Authority responsibility for the preparation of EC programmes for both national and non-national roads. This is inconsistent with the mandate the Government envisaged for the National Roads Authority as proposed in the Bill and as recommended by various political parties and representatives of organisations throughout the country. It was envisaged that the National Roads Authority would have responsibility for the speedy development of the network of national roads.

The responsibility for non-national roads should remain with the Department of the Environment which will continue to be responsible for submissions to Brussels for finance. Contrary to a widely held notion, under the Community's current framework for Ireland EC assistance for non-national roads is available. Rural roads are supported under the operational programme for rural development and roads in border areas are co-financed under the Interreg programme. There are substantial funds to be acquired in Brussels and the Government sees that task as the responsibility of the Department of Environment and not, as Deputy Gilmore has said, of the National Roads Authority.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 66 to 68, inclusive, not moved.

Acting Chairman

Amendments Nos. 69, 70, 71 and 72 are related. It is proposed to take amendments Nos. 69 to 72, inclusive, together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 69:

In page 24, lines 40 and 41, to delete "and any such recommendations shall be considered by the planning authority".

This amendment deals with the National Roads Authority and the planning process. Under the Bill the Authority may make recommendations in writing to a planning authority as to the content of its development plan and such recommendations shall be considered by the planning authority. I propose to delete the reference to the recommendations having to be considered by the planning authority, because running through this legislation is the theme that the National Roads Authority can tell the planning authority what to do. This is of particular significance given the row we had in the House last week on the rights of State bodies to override the planning authority with regard to planning permission.

This section has to be taken in the context that the National Roads Authorities will not have to apply for planning permission for any development it wishes to undertake. It is interesting that on the last occasion the House divided on the National Roads Authority, it was to decide whether the NRA should have to apply for planning permission. The Government defeated the Opposition on that issue and within 24 hours we had the High Court decision from Justice Costello in the Mullaghmore case.

Amendment 60 which was discussed with amendment No. 53 dealt directly with the application for planning permission. The National Roads Authority not only will not have to apply for planning permission, but it will not even have to comply with any development plan drawn up by the members of a local authority. It will only have to publish a notice in the paper, allow one month for people to make submissions and then override the development plan if it sees fit.

A further provision in the legislation allows the National Roads Authority to tell the planning authority what to put in its development plan. This needs to be commuted from the bald way in which it is presented. This is a dangerous development because roads are, effectively, being taken out of the normal planning process, and the process of the discussion leading to the formation of a development plan. The National Roads Authority will be given the power to direct local authorities as to what they should include in their development plan.

I am not in favour of this amendment. We appear to be consulting one side only. We talk about accountability, consultation, etc., but it seems that the role of the local authority is either ignored or overriden and I do not know at this stage what role the local authorities will have in the future. I support Deputy Gilmore, not because I believe recommendations should not be considered by the planning authorities but because consultation must work both ways.

I wish to refer to amendment No. 71. We are happy that the Minister is anxious to move amendment No. 72. It was a matter to which my colleague, Deputy Dukes, referred on Second Stage. In deference to the Minister we will withdraw amendment No. 71.

While I do not wish to criticise the Chair it does not follow that amendments Nos. 70, 71 and 72 should be taken together because the import of Deputy Gilmore's amendment No. 70 is different to amendments Nos. 71 and 72. These two amendments have their own merits but Deputy Gilmore's amendment goes to the heart of the matter.

The Minister must listen to the Opposition from time to time because, as Deputy Gilmore pointed out, the Opposition was vindicated the day after we last debated this matter by the judgment of the High Court. It is no longer acceptable for the Government to act on behalf of the public without regard to the laws which we have put in place to ensure that the public interest is taken into account.

I suppose the Minister will kick for touch on this matter. I am sure his brief was rewritten after the High Court judgment in order to give him the opportunity to kick for touch. I understand the Government intend to appeal this decision to the Supreme Court. This is wrong because it represents a sort of bureaucratic pluperfect carefulness, often urged on Ministers to make sure that the belt and braces are in place before they decide to take off the trousers and jump into the river. If the Minister is kicking for touch, he will not gain ground because he is kicking against the wind.

I am happy that the Minister is pressing amendment No. 72. He will not face opposition from our party on that amendment. He will need more than a feeble kick to touch in relation to amendment No. 70 because when in a hole one stops digging, and if the Minister resists that amendment he is digging himself further into difficulty.

(Wexford): We are happy to accommodate Deputy Dukes and Deputy Flanagan with regard to amendment No. 72. In relation to Deputy Gilmore's amendments, the first amendment would delete the planning authority's obligation to reconsider a recommendation from the National Roads Authority. I do not understand why there would be any objection to asking a planning authority to consider a recommendation. It is not obliged to accept or act upon it, no time limit is set for consideration by the planning authority nor is it obliged to respond to the National Roads Authority. The second amendment would oblige the National Roads Authority to comply with the local development plan. We have already debated this issue at length on Committee Stage and nothing further can be said. This amendment states that the local authority view must prevail and we do not accept this.

The National Roads Authority will act in the national interest, but is obliged to have regard to local issues, including the content of the local development plan and the potential environmental impact of a proposed roads project on the local area. The National Roads Authority Bill strikes a balance between local and national interest. Therefore, we cannot accept this amendment.

We are dealing with two amendments in my name. First, the National Roads Authority would have the same rights as anybody else to make a submission to a local authority in the discussion and consideration of its development plan. The local authority is obliged, through the planning Acts, to consider submissions made to it in relation to a development plan. There is no need for a statement in this regard.

Secondly, the fact that the Minister has rejected my amendment that the National Roads Authority should have to comply with the provisions of the development plan rather than simply have regard to them, as proposed in the Bill, shows what is the intent. The intent — and the Minister's response confirms it — is that the National Roads Authority will not be bound by the local authority development plan. The National Roads Authority, if it sees fit, can build a national road, irrespective of what is in a development plan or in an area amenity order. We have already had a debate and a division on this issue. The lie of the land is clear. I have made the case in this House to the point of exhaustion. I do not propose to press the amendment, but I regret the continuously negative response we are getting from the Government to these amendments.

In this legislation there is a fundamental shift of power and control away from the democratically elected members of local authorities. That power and control is now being placed in an appointed body which will be answerable to the Minister for the Environment. It is a wrong development and I disagree with it. I disagreed with it on Second Stage, on Committee Stage and now on Report Stage, because it is wrong and undemocratic. Since the Government has the numbers I do not propose to waste the time of the House by forcing the issue.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment Nos. 70 and 71 not moved.

(Wexford): I move amendment No. 72:

In page 25, line 4, after "order" to insert "or tree preservation order".

Amendment agreed to.

(Wexford): I move amendment No. 73:

In page 25, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following:

"(3) (a) Where in the performance of its functions under section 19 or 20, the Authority proposes that a national road be constructed along a particular alignment and the appropriate road authority under section 13 objects to that alignment, the road authority may make representations in writing to the Authority and the Authority shall consider such representations.

(b) Where following the consideration by the Authority of representations received under paragraph (a), agreement on the alignment has not been reached and the representations have not been withdrawn, it may make representations in writing to the Minister in relation to the matter.

(c) The road authority shall send a copy of any representations made by it under paragraph (b) to the Authority and the Authority may, within one month after the date on which the copy is received, make representations in writing to the Minister.

(d) The making of representations by a road authority under this subsection shall be a reserved function.".

There is a technical amendment to amendment No. 73 which I move: paragraph (b), line 4, to delete the word "it" and substitute "the road authority". This makes it clear that it is the local authority and not the National Roads Authority which may make representations to the Minister in relation to this mater.

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

I move amendment No. 74:

In page 25, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following:

"23 — (1) The Authority shall carry out a road audit bi-annually on road works carried out by each local authority. Such road audits shall include comparisons of such matters as methods of construction and materials used in construction by each local authority.

(2) For the purpose of this section ‘road audit' means the carrying out of a cost-benefit analysis of all road expenditure by each road authority to assess efficiency and effectiveness in road works carried out by that Authority.".

Amendment No. 74 is concerned with road audits. We are not happy with the text of the Bill or the intentions of the Minister and his Department on this matter. For that reason we want a biannual road audit on roadworks carried out by each local authority. We want to specify some of the things which should be included in the road audit.

In subsection (2) of the proposed section we make the point that this road audit should mean "the carrying out of a cost-benefit analysis of all road expenditure by each road authority to assess efficiency and effectiveness in roadworks carried out by that Authority". We have two concerns. First, we want to clarify the scope and extent of roadworks being carried out by road authorities. This information is required to enable both the National Roads Authority and each road authority throughout the country to do its job properly. I will not engage in a long diatribe on what they will find in road audits because I know that, apart from my colleague, Deputy Boylan, there is no authority greater than the Chair on the condition of county roads.

We are aware of the problem which the road authorities have with the Minister and the Department of the Environment while trying to improve road conditions in their areas. We are concerned with establishing a system so that we will know the full extent of the problem when passing legislation and approving expenditure for roads in this House.

There is a need for an analysis of the effectiveness and efficiency of expenditure. We distinguish between the two because we would like to see roads constructed and maintained to a proper standard and have a means of assessing the relative priorities of different roadworks. This is what we mean when we talk about effectiveness.

There is always a temptation to undertake roadworks on the basis of what are perceived to be political priorities. I intend no disrespect to any Member when I say that political perceptions of the relative priorities of different projects will not always be identical with economic needs. I will not labour the point that those who shout loudest get most, even if their need is not the greatest. I think the Minister knows what I mean.

We want a means by which the National Roads Authority, the local road authorities and this House can decide what the priorities are when it comes to the allocation of limited expenditure for what are unlimited needs. What we propose in this new section would help us to carry out that work. There is always the temptation for Members to demand that the Government wake up to reality and provide money to solve each problem, without becoming involved in the prioritisation of expenditure. What we are proposing is a tool which would allow the people concerned, and this House, to decide where the priorities should lie.

I invite the Minister to accept this amendment because Departments and Ministers — I have seen this on numerous occasions — never have enough money, especially in an area like this. The temptation always is — I have seen this in the Department of the Environment and in other large spending Departments — to say with a mysterious half-knowing, half-meaning smile that "your project is on our priority list". They do not say where it is on that list. It might be number 996 and there may be no prospect of the list getting past number 30 in the year in question. The same applies to the Department of Education. It would help if there was a wider appreciation of the length of the priority list. I believe that if the Government made this information public there would be a great argument when people realised the length of the list. At least then the people would not be left in limbo, being told they are on the list but would have to wait years to have the work carried out. That applies to all spending Departments. If we could recover from the initial shock, the argument could be conducted under more realistic conditions.

I would not invite the Minister to be indiscreet about what he is proposing, so I will use the expenditure plans of another Department to illustrate what I mean. The Department of Education has an acute problem. There are schools throughout the country in a dreadful condition and need major renovation to provide the basic decent facilities children need. The management of these schools are always told the problem is on the Department's list. However, the Department has no realistic expectation that the work will be done within the next three years. Therefore action groups, parent groups, Deputies, Senators and councillors lobby the Department in the expectation that if they shout loud enough they might get their project brought forward from next year to this year. If they are lucky and make their case effectively, they might have it brought forward from four years to three years. In the meantime, a lot of aggravation is caused and, in many cases, work does not take place which might alleviate the situation in the short term. However, having recovered from the shock of getting realistic information on these matters, we might be able to deal with them more rationally, objectively and with less annoyance if we had clearer criteria and an idea of the extent of the programme facing us. In this amendment we are proposing a modest beginning on the application of that thought to the work that faces us in regard to roads.

It is curious that this amendment, dealing with the major area of expenditure on national roads, is the only place in the literature on this subject in this House where one will find reference to a simple and elementary tool of expenditure analysis, that is, cost benefit analysis. There is no reference to it in the brief of the National Roads Authority and no specific reference to it in the brief of the county councils or in the mountains of literature produced about public expenditure every year. We are dealing with directing the use of scarce and mostly borrowed resources to unlimited ends. I invite the Minister to make a name for himself in roads policy and a greater name for himself in public expenditure policy generally by being the first person in the history of this State to accept, in an expenditure type Bill, the application of this elementary principle.

(Wexford): This amendment would require the National Roads Authority to audit local authority roadworks every two years. The problem is that the National Roads Authority has a mandate in relation to non-national roads and we would not see it diverting into the county roads structure. Their role is to develop a safe and efficient network of national roads. The Bill should go a long way towards meeting the Deputy's concerns by placing the National Roads Authority under a statutory obligation, in section 17, to secure the provision of a safe and efficient network of national roads.

In section 19 (2) it is provided that local authorities will normally carry out or arrange for the carrying out of road construction improvement and maintenance work on behalf of the National Roads Authority. However, this is subject to a change in that the National Roads Authority can arrange to have road construction carried out in an expeditious, effective or economical way. That in itself will sort out the situation eventually because if the National Roads Authority feel they are not getting value for money from the local authorities they will look to have the roads constructed through a different system.

These legislative provisions oblige the National Roads Authority to keep the performance of local authorities under regular review to ensure that the tax-payer's money is well spent. The National Roads Authority can also set standards for construction and maintenance works under sections 19 and 20. They can issue directions to local authorities and these provisions enhance the National Roads Authority's power to ensure that works are carried out as cost effectively as possible.

The problem with Deputies Dukes' and Flanagan's amendment is how one can surmount the problem that the National Roads Authority is dealing specifically with one area of road construction and have no authority to link into the other areas. I would not be against looking into the value for money in road construction here, whether it be national or non-national roads because it has been a bone of contention over the years. The National Roads Authority has no mandate in relation to non-national roads.

I am interested in the Minister's reply. I am sorry he is passing up my invitation to make a name for himself in the history of public expenditure by being the first Minister to accept the use of cost benefit analysis but I detect a slight opening in the Minister's mind. I invite the Minister, between now and the debate on this matter in the Seanad, to consider a modification of this amendment, to cover only the work of the National Roads Authority and the work of the local roads authorities as agents in carrying out work for the National Roads Authority. I invite him to restrict the scope of this to the national roads which are the proper bailiwick of the National Roads Authority. If the Minister would consider that we will suspend judgment on this and I will speak to my colleagues in the Seanad to keep him to his promise.

(Wexford): We will look at that.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 75:

In page 25, between lines 33 and 34, to insert the following:

"(4) The Authority shall make recomendations on Garda training on all matters pertaining to road safety.".

This amendment seeks to strengthen section 23 in order to ensure proper and meaningful dialogue between the Commissioner of the Gard Síochána and the National Roads Authority. There is general agreement about the importance of a national road safety programme. It was appalling to read the figures from the Department of the Environment for the month of January which detailed 15 fatalities on the road and numerous casualties. The degree to which accidents are occurring on our major roads is extraordinary. The amendment, which would give specific power to the National Roads Authority to advise the Garda Síochána on all aspects pertaining to road safety, is an important one and I hope the Minister will take its sentiments on board.

In response, the Minister is probably going to say that the Authority may from time to time come in contact with the Garda Commissioner but it is important to augment this in the interests of road safety. Greater consideration should be given to the traffic corps within the Garda divisions, particularly in areas where there are main roads. It is important to increase the road safety aspect of the Garda traffic corps. Allowing a body, such as the National Roads Authority, to make recommendations on Garda road traffic training and on aspects of road safety would enhance the position of the Garda traffic corps or traffic policemen within the Garda Síochána and would be of great benefit in regard to road safety. I urge the Minister to take on board the sentiments expressed in the amendment.

(Wexford): Driver safety, education and promotion are the function of the National Safety Council who have the expertise in this area. I do not think that the National Roads Authority should trespass on this territory. The Garda Síochána are responsible for safety enforcement and the National Roads Authority should not have any specific role in regard to this.

Under subsection (1) the National Roads Authority has wide powers to offer advice to the Garda Commissioner in relation to his road traffic Act functions and this could be used to convey views to the Garda on any aspect of enforcement or road traffic law. The Garda would only be too happy to listen to any constructive suggestions and would listen to the National Roads Authority if it has constructive suggestions. I do not believe the Authority's mandate should be widened to encompass areas in which agencies such as the Garda and the National Safety Council have the expertise. The National Roads Authority should not have a function in these areas.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 76:

In page 25, between lines 33 and 34, to insert the following:

"24. — (1) The Authority and other road authorities shall, with the approval of the local authorities concerned, regulate the carrying out of road works in connection with the maintenance or provision of gas, water, electricity and telecommunications services (other than works undertaken by local authorities).

(2) Regulations under subsection (1) shall provide for——

(a) the payment of fees,

(b) the issue of permits,

(c) the duration of roadworks,

(d) the imposition of penalties for undue delays, and

(e) the adequate re-instatement of roads."

Debate adjourned.
Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Top
Share