Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 6 Apr 1993

Vol. 429 No. 3

Roads Bill, 1991: Report Stage (Resumed).

Debate resumed on 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 undersubsection (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 reinstatement of roads.".

—(Deputy Flanagan.)

Mr. Dukes

This amendment seeks to clarify most of what we want the National Roads Authority to do. Our concern has been voiced frequently in Dublin, and elsewhere, to ensure proper co-ordination of the different works in order to minimise the inconvenience to or interference with road users, also to minimise the amount and frequency of occasions on which road surfaces are disturbed by these works.

We provide in the proposed section 24 (2) for regulations which I do not think would be upset in the context of the European Communities Act, 1972, to allow the Authority bring some order and control into these activities.

I do not need to deal at great length with the disturbance and annoyance caused when after a new portion of road has been finished another agency digs it up to carry out one of its functions and then part repairs it. Sometime later a second agency may carry out its operations, digs up the road again, half repairs it and leaves. This means that, within no time a new portion of road looks as if it has been there for the past 50 years with lorries and so on trundling over it.

The intention is to endeavour to find a means of giving the Authority power to put some order and sequence into all of these things so that, at the end of the day, we get better value for the money expended on road construction and road users receive a better service.

Ms Keogh

I support this amendment, in particular the imposition of penalties for undue delays. People are extremely concerned about the duration of roadworks leading to great inconvenience for the public. In regard to building programmes, a penalty can be imposed if a contractor exceeds the agreed completion date. It would not be unreasonable to have a similar provision in relation to roadworks.

With regard to our proposed section 24 (2) (e) — the adequate re-instatement of roads — this is a constant bone of contention, particuarly at local authority level where councillors are inundated with representations by constituents in regard to road repairs. There should be consultation with other authorities in regard to the adequate re-instatement of roads and some agreement reached as to when such works should be undertaken. Very often we discover that the works undertaken to re-instate roads are inadequate, occasioning a continuing problem with regard to their maintenance.

Mr. Gilmore

I, also, support the amendment and would like to make two points, the first is that the proliferation of roadworks carried out by other agencies in connection with the provision of services contributes significantly to the severe traffic problems in Dublin in particular. Many of the traffic jams are caused by roadworks during which very often the same stretch of road is repeatedly dug up and subsquently reinstated. In addition to saving the public purse money in road resurfacing and maintenance costs, a greater degree of co-ordination, which is what the amendment calls for, would help in addressing the traffic problem.

The second point I wish to make is that a case can be made for the Minister for the Environment providing a greater degree of co-ordination with regard to services provided and works undertaken by local authorities funded by the Department of the Environment. During the next few years much work, which I presume will be funded from the Cohesion Fund, will be undertaken by local authorities in connection with improvements to water supply schemes and the provision of sewerage systems. Inevitably, this will give rise to roadworks on non-national and county roads, many of which have deteriorated significantly in recent years.

A case can be made for a programme of road resurfacing and improvement works in conjunction with water supply and sewerage schemes which are to be undertaken by the Department of the Environment. If a road is dug up so that a water main can be laid then, instead of reinstatement, which very often is inadequate, it would make much more sense, from the point of view of the public purse, to carry out road improvement works, which may be necessary in any event, with that work. Will the Minister of State consider the suggestion that we should attempt to carry out a programme of road improvement and resurfacing work in conjunction with water supply and sewerage schemes which will probably be undertaken in future years?

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment (Mr. Browne, Wexford)

On Committee Stage we gave a promise that, following the enactment and implementation of this Bill, we would carry out a comprehensive review of the law governing road openings. I would prefer at this stage not to pre-empt the outcome of that review. Perhaps Deputy Flanagan, through Deputy Dukes, will withdraw the amendment.

We all realise that there is a serious problem. Section 101 of the Road Traffic Act, 1961, enables Dublin County Council and Dublin, Waterford, Limerick and Galway Corporations to exercise powers of control over the ESB, Telecom Éireann and Bord Gáis but it is obvious that these have not been effective; we need new legislation. On Committee Stage the Minister gave a commitment to carry out a comprehensive review when this Bill passes through the Seanad. Following the review new legislation will be enacted in this area.

Mr. Dukes

I understand what the Minister of State and the Minister said on Committee Stage but I am not prepared to withdraw the amendment on that basis as I want it on the record that the Government had the opportunity to take action now but did not take it. Having said that, I hope the Minister, with his 37 seat majority ensures that this Bill will pass through the House. We know what the problem is and how to deal with it and I cannot see the reason for making a federal case out of bringing the legislation forward.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Mr. Dukes

I move amendment No. 77:

In page 25, line 37, after "Authority" to insert "and grants under this section shall be made having particular regard to the maintenance requirements of national roads".

We are trying to include a particular reference in this Bill to the maintenance requirements of national roads. This matter was dealt with at some length on Committee Stage when the Minister said that he was reluctant to include this provision in the Bill because of a number of other considerations. I find this argument underwhelming. There is little sense in embarking on a substantial programme, as I hope we will, of upgrading the principal national routes and building new roads, where required, if it is not buttressed and supported by an explicit commitment, in the context of the fundamental Act which sets out the functions of the National Roads Authority, that it is also responsible for the maintenance of national roads.

The Minister can say, as he did on Committee Stage, that we have to apply limited resources to the whole programme but one of the problems, and it arose indirectly on the last amendment, is that some of the functions which should be carried out after work on a particular phase of the road network has started are not being carried out adequately. I do not think anyone would pretend that there is adequate maintenance of the principal national trunk routes. Like many other Members of the House, I am well aware of this because I frequently use many of our principal trunk routes and I had a very upsetting experience recently while driving towards Roscrea. Just outside the town I thought I had a puncture because it sounded as if one of my types had gone. I stopped my car and I am glad to say that all my tyres were perfectly in order, the road surface had given me the impression that I had a puncture. I hesitate to claim that I was travelling at no more than the maximum legal speed limit — I may have been going a mile or two faster — but it was a very upsetting experience. The problem is that there is inadequate maintenance of that national route.

In the past few days on another national trunk route on which I travel very often I came across a section which has recently been "scarified"— this is the term used. When the road authority in question finds that the road surface is slippery at this point it uses a machine which has the effect of a metal cone being drawn along the surface of the road. This is intended, apparently, on a temporary basis, to make the road less slippery in wet weather. If one comes across one of these sections at night, not expecting a change in the surface, it can be offputting.

These are only minor examples of a lack of maintenance of our national trunk routes and it is not desirable that this should be the case. A provision in a Bill such as this which makes specific reference to the need for maintenance, which is what this amendment does, is not only desirable but should be supported. As I said at the outset, the Minister will argue that there are limited resources and that certain commitments must be fulfilled but it is not enough to say that other considerations have to be taken into account. We are entitled to feel that a section of national road which has been raised to a particular standard should be reliably maintained at that standard. I ask the Minister of State to be more adventurous than the Minister and to accept explicitly one of the things that the Minister implicitly accepts but does not want to include in the Bill.

It is cold comfort for road users when they find an inadequately maintained stretch of the national primary route to know the Minister in his heart implicitly accepts the need to maintain it properly. The amendment sets out the very minimum provision we can insert in the Bill to deal with the problem of maintenance. I suggest that it will not cost him anything in terms of either money or prestige to accept this amendment but it will give a great deal of comfort to road users and useful direction to the National Roads Authority.

Ms. Keogh

Last week I tabled a question to the Minister about the provision of adequate moneys for the maintenance of our national primary routes and to this end I support the amendment. Whether the moneys come from the Community or, as suggested in this section "such amounts as may be sanctioned by the Minister for Finance out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas", at the end of the day we must maintain our network of primary roads. I do not think it is acceptable to invest time, effort and money on our national roads and yet allow them to disintegrate due to a lack of maintenance, like spoiling the ship for a hap'worth of tar. For instance, very serious remedial action had to be taken on the Tallaght by-pass. We do not want to see this happen. We want to see the necessary maintenance carried out in an efficient manner on a regular basis. The moneys should be provided for our roads so that they will be maintained to a sufficiently high standard. Deputy Dukes is right in seeking to ensure that it is built into the Bill that moneys be provided for maintenance of our national roads.

Mr. Browne

(Wexford): Deputy Dukes asked me to be adventurous and I would like to think that people from Wexford are always adventurous. We will accept the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 78 and 79 not moved.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We now come to amendment No. 80, amendments Nos. 81, 83 and 84 are alternatives and amendments Nos. 85 to 88 are related. It is therefore proposed by agreement to take amendments Nos. 80, 81 and 83 to 88, inclusive.

Mr. Gilmore

I move amendment No. 80:

In page 27, lines 39 and 40, to delete "and shall appoint one of the members to be Chairman of the Authority." and substitute the following:

"and shall include in his appointments——

(i) one representative of the professional and technical staff of roads authorities, elected in an election to be conducted by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions;

(ii) one representative of the road workers of roads authorities, elected in an election to be conducted by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions;

(iii) a representative of road safety offices to be elected by the Roads Safety Association;

(iv) two representatives of the General Council of County Councils;

(v) two representatives of the Association of Municipal Authorities of Ireland;

(vi) two representatives of the National Road Users Association;

(vii) a representative of CIE; and

(viii) a representative of An Taisce.".

These amendments deal with the composition of the National Roads Authority. At present the Minister has discretion to appoint whomever he or she likes as a member of the National Roads Authority. As we are dealing with a number of amendments I will refer now to the Minister's own amendment, as I believe it does not improve the situation substantially. Amendment No. 84 states:

(d) Each member of the Authority shall be a person who in the opinion of the Minister has wide experience and competence in relation to roads,...

That statement could apply to any driver of a motor vehicle or even somebody on a bicycle. It continues:

... transport, industrial, commercial, financial or environmental matters, local government, the organisation of workers or administration...

It is not clear from this amendment if each member of the Authority would have to have experience in all of these spheres. If they were to have such experience it is not membership of the National Roads Authority they should qualify for but we might have somebody who is qualified to run Aer Lingus, or even the country, or even deal with some of the emergencies we have at present. If, as I suspect, the intention is to make general provision, like in the Vocational Education Act, 1930, where in theory members of vocational education committees are supposed to have "knowledge of and experience in educational matters" or the manner in which people qualify for nomination to the various panels for election to Seanad Éireann where they are required to have "knowledge of or inexperience in" different areas, the practice can be quite different. It stretches credibility on some occasions to see the level of knowledge of or experience in the field which qualifies someone for nomination to the Seanad or indeed in some cases for appointment as a member of a vocational education committee and bodies of that kind. A Minister who is determined to make a political appointment — and even Ministers of this Government, I suggest, have been tempted to make appointments of that kind from time to time — can very easily find ways around it.

It is necessary to define the categories of persons and organisations who should be represented on the National Roads Authority. The amendments proposed by myself, Deputy Dukes, Deputy Keogh and Deputy Flanagan are similar in that regard. In my amendment I seek to ensure that the Minister shall include in his appointments representatives of the professional and technical staffs of roads authorities and of road workers — I deliberately choose that formulation — and that they be elected in procedures established by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. It is important that we ensure that people who are directly involved, for example, a local authority roads engineer or road worker, because of their knowledge and experience of roads, be appointed. It is much better that we get somebody like that than a professional trade union leader as he or she may not necessarily have the degree of expertise — even though they represent workers in this field — knowledge or, indeed, time to commit themselves to membership of the National Roads Authority. Similarly I think it is important that a representative of the Roads Safety Association would be included. I have spoken before on the necessity to heighten awareness of road safety.

The number of deaths on our roads varies from between 400 to 600 per annum, depending on the year one takes. This is of the order of magnitude of the crisis in Northern Ireland, yet it is very often passed over. I also make provision for representatives of the bodies representing local authorities, the National Road Users Association, the public transport authority and An Taisce, in view of the obvious environmental consideration that has to be taken into account.

I am not offering this as the absolute be all and end all of membership of the National Roads Authority but it is desirable that a formula of this kind is built into the legislation to provide a basis for appointments to the National Roads Authority rather than leaving it entirely at the discretion of the Minister, albeit qualified by the amendment which he himself proposes. He has before him a number of options and I appeal to him to accept one of the options as they are all in the same general vein.

Mr. Dukes

I support Deputy Gilmore's sentiments. We should look at what we are doing in this Bill: we are proposing to delegate a very important function to a new national authority. We are doing that for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the concern with efficiency in having the programme carried out and because there is a number of areas where, by its structure, this House cannot make effective decisions on a day-to-day basis — nor should it be involved in that detail. We will be delegating a very important function to this Authority which will be spending substantial sums of money, including Irish taxpayers' money, money from the European Community and money borrowed from banks all over the world. The Bill as it stands proposes to allow this new Authority to have borrowings at any given time of up to £500 million for which ultimately the State will be responsible. Therefore, we are not talking in terms of small potatoes; we are talking about very important functions.

This matter was discussed on Committee Stage when a number of options were presented. The Minister gave an undertaking on Committee Stage to consider a Report Stage amendment. He stated in the Official Report:

I am prepared to consider a Report Stage amendment which would provide that members of the National Roads Authority should be persons who, in the opinion of the Minister, have wide experience in areas relevant to the functions of the Authority.

Considering the range of amendments before us, the Minister has put forward a tame amendment, amendment No. 84. I was speaking about small potatoes a moment ago. The Minister's approach on this issue puts me in mind of a person brought into a high class restaurant with an extensive a la carte menu who, on looking through the menu, decides to do the safe thing — people in Wexford are not always adventurous — and have a small mixed grill. This is the most timorous, conservative and least imaginative option the Minister could have chosen.

That feeling is reinforced when one considers the range of options put before the Minister. Deputy Gilmore's amendment refers to representatives of such bodies as the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, the Road Safety Association, the General Council of County Councils, the Association of Municipal Authorities of Ireland, the National Road Users Association, CIE and An Taisce. A series of considerations is also put forward relating to transport policy, traffic manments—— agement, town planning, environmental sensitivity, road construction, road maintenance, bus and rail operation, transportation geography and transportation economics. Other bodies are mentioned such as the Chartered Institute of Transport in Ireland, the Automobile Association, the Transport Committee of the Confederation of Irish Industry — now IVEC — the Irish Planning Institute, the Society of the Irish Motor Industry, the Irish Road Hauliers Association, Iarnród Éireann and the Irish Ports Association. All of these bodies have a legitimate interest in this matter, have expertise to offer and could usefully reinforce a board of this kind.

There has been a great fashion — I do not normally follow these fashions but I recognise they are there — to criticise members of the boards of State and semi-State organisations. On occasion many of these criticisms have been justified — although some very curious decisions have been made recently, with people being put in charge of semi-State operations who only a few months ago appeared to be anathema to the people now appointing them. However, I will leave that matter aside because I do not want to make personal remarks about anybody. It is evident that there have been cases — I will not be specific but Members of the House will know perfectly well what I am talking about — where people have been appointed to boards who have not had a great deal of specific expertise to bring to bear on matters they have had to deal with. In common with most other Members of this House who have been in Government, I have had experience of being approached by people who would like to be a member of a State board, who were not particular as to which board they wished to be appointed and who had no qualfication for that job. I am glad to say that in most such cases those people got from me what is colloquially known as the bum's rush, and quite properly so.

In this case the interests and areas of expertise can be identified and there are people available who could make a very valuable contribution to the work of the Roads Authority. Even in the formulation of his amendment the Minister has made it clear he agrees that people with expertise are needed, but he simply has not had the courage or self-confidence to make up his mind as to which of these areas he favours.

I am very much afraid that some of the other fashions that are evident these days will come into play. I bet my bottom dollar that on the day the Minister makes up his mind about this board a number of considerations will be brought to bear on him. There will be pressure on the Minister to make sure the board is representative of this group and that group and of this gender and that gender. He may find that there is a less than optimal combination of people on the board because he cannot find in the various areas the appropriate gofors or tofors, as they have become known. Some of the ideas of having quotas of various kinds will probably produce as bad a result as the idea of having no quota at all. However that is another day's work.

I invite the Minister to say he is not going to confine himself to the terms of his amendment No. 84 and to tell us which dishes he will take from the extensive menu before him in the other amendments. I would be quite happy if the Minister, when he brings this Bill to the Seanad, would be more specific in his proposal in relation to this section of the Bill than he is in amendment No. 84.

Ms Keogh

A number of Deputies put forward related amendments on this matter, the principle behind which relates to accountability. I object to the selection of people who look for appointment to State boards, who have no expertise in any particular area but who believe that if they were a member of a State board it would look good on their CV. We are asking that the Minister go further than the proposal in his amendment. We are nominating bodies that should put forward representatives for the Roads Authority and this is a matter that should be considered by the Minister. It is not good enough for him to say that each member of the Authority shall be a person who, in his opinion, has wide experience and competence in relation to roads. He must be more specific. It might be the opinion of the Minister that somebody has a particular competence in this area, but that opinion may not be widely shared. I ask the Minister to reconsider the specifics in each of these amendments.

I have no difficulty in relation to the bodies I have nominated. I took as objective a view as possible so that a wide range of bodies would be represented who would have a direct interest in roads, who would have expertise and experience in this area and who would make an impact at the boardroom table, which is extremely important. I would remind the Minister that in setting up the Environmental Protection Agency distinct bodies were selected in relation to the nomination of the director of that board. It is important to nominate fairly and, in terms of accountability, democracy and so on, it is important that it be seen to be done.

The Minister's amendment is too vague. Perhaps I do not agree with Deputy Dukes but I remind the Minister that we expect a 40 per cent representation by women on any authority appointed by him. That would not lower the standard, in fact it would probably raise it.

Mr. Dukes

That is a sexist claim.

Ms Keogh

Perhaps, but at least it is valid.

Deputy Dukes referred to the special committee report. The words that struck me in relation to the response by the Minister for the Environment, Deputy Smith, at the time were that what we want here is the "right mix". I suspect that political party appointees or party hacks are not necessarily the best people to appoint to any State board. We must look at the competence of individuals. I am sure the Minister is concerned about this but we need to be more specific as to the type of people we appoint to represent us.

Mr. Browne

(Wexford): During the special committee a number of amendments was tabled suggesting that representatives of a range of organisations should be members of the national authority. The Minister was opposed to the idea of members representing various interest groups and indicated that he would consider an amendment requiring appointees to have experience or expertise. I am now proposing an amendment which will ensure that members of the National Roads Authority will be persons who, in the opinion of the Minister, have a wide experience of and have shown capacity in relation to roads, transport, industry, commerce, finance and other environmental matters, local government, the organisation of workers or administration. I am opposing the amendments tabled by Deputies Gilmore and Flanagan because I want an authority which acts as a cohesive executive in a single-minded way. I do not want a collection of people whose first loyalty is the organisation they represent. However, I will listen carefully to any suggestions put forward by the organisations listed in the amendment or to other suggestions in relation to suitable persons for appointment to the Authority. The Government amendment represents the best approach. It guarantees the independence of the members and the relevance of their expertise and experience.

On foot of a suggestion by Deputy Yates and an amendment by Deputy Flanagan I am proposing an amendment specifying a maximum term of office of five years for members of the Authority. It will be open to the Minister of the day to reappoint all or some of the Authority when the term expires.

It is part and parcel of the Programme for Government that we should have 40 per cent representation by women on State bodies. That policy will be adhered to. I hope we will not end up with a board comprising party hacks. I have always maintained that the best people should be put on the board regardless of political affiliations and I hope that will apply in regard to this Authority.

Mr. Gilmore

I welcome the fact that the Minister has proposed a limit of five years on the tenure of membership of the National Roads Authority, although it is open to the Minister to reappoint the Authority. I welcome the Minister's statement that it is intended to comply with the commitment to have a minimum of 40 per cent representation by women on the National Roads Authority.

The Minister did not clarify whether each member of the National Roads Authority will have to fulfil all the requirements listed here or simply one of them. On reading the list I came to the conclusion that I must be one of the few people who fulfils all these requirements, although under another provision of the Bill I am probably ineligible for membership of the National Roads Authority. The amendment does not meet what we are setting out to achieve in relation to membership of the National Roads Authority being drawn from defined constituencies representing different interests, and ensuring that that mix is provided for. I ask the Chair to formally put the amendment in my name.

Question: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand" put and declared carried.

Amendment declared lost.

Amendments Nos. 81 to 83, inclusive, not moved.

Mr. Browne

(Wexford): I move amendment No. 84:

In page 27, between lines 48 and 49, to insert the following:

"(d) Each member of the Authority shall be a person who in the opinion of the Minister has wide experience and competence in relation to roads, transport, industrial, commercial, financial or environmental matters, local government, the organisation of workers or administration.".

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 85 not moved.

Mr. Browne

(Wexford): I move amendment No. 86:

In page 27, line 50, after "office" to insert "which shall be for a period not exceeding five years,".

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 87 and 88 not moved.

An Ceann Comhairle

We now move to amendment No. 89 in the names of Deputies Flanagan and Dukes. I observe that amendment No. 90 is related so I suggest that we discuss amendments Nos. 89 and 90 together. Is that satisfactory? Agreed.

Mr. Dukes

I move amendment No. 89:

In page 29, line 5 after "grading" to insert "and where such staff are drawn from the Department of the Environment or local authorities, each appointment shall be subject to the consent of the individual concerned".

The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that when staff are transferred from local authorities or the Department of the Environment to the National Roads Authority the transfers contemplated in the Bill should be on a voluntary basis. This matter has been discussed in the context of other legislation debated in the House and we have always tried to provide that transfers of that kind would be on a voluntary basis as it would be undesirable to have any element of compulsion. Since we set up An Post, Telecom Éireann and other companies, there is certainly enough experience in moving staff from one form of public authority to another to enable us to handle the question of staff transfers of this kind sensitively without causing undue friction.

It is important to make that point here because the Minister knows there are other areas of legislation within his Department where similar questions arise. For example, the Environmental Protection Agency Act provides for the transfer of staff from local authorities to another agency. In that area also we went to some lengths, both in this House and in the Seanad, to ensure we got as far as possible, a system that could be operated satisfactorily in the sense of putting the right staff in the right place without causing friction, that is, without compulsion. I am not sure it can be said that staff transfers in all areas of the public service have worked entirely to our satisfaction, but it is fair to say that successive Governments and the public service unions have gone to a great deal of trouble to try to ensure that the moves judged to be essential by the Houses of the Oireachtas could take place without causing problems. For that reason we put forward this amendment so as to ensure that transfers can be carried out without causing undue friction.

Mr. Browne

(Wexford) Before proceeding to deal with the substantial point in the amendment I should like to clarify the purpose of sections 30 and 31. The purpose of section 31 is to provide for the transfer of staff from public authorities such as my own Department to the National Roads Authority.

The purpose of section 30 is to enable the National Roads Authority to employ its own staff. Section 30 will apply where, for example, the National Roads Authority advertises a particular job and will have nothing to do with the staff transfers envisaged in section 31. If the National Roads Authority advertises a job and a civil servant or local authority official applies for it and is offered an appointment, the terms and conditions will be determined under section 30.

I have indicated, both in my Second Reading reply and to the Special Committee, that I did not think it appropriate to give individuals a veto under section 31. The realities are that the functions to be carried out by the National Roads Authority are to a significant extent already performed by officials of my own Department reporting to an interim non-statutory authority. If the statutory National Roads Authority is to be effective it is essential that those officials continue to work for the new body. They have the expertise, they would provide continuity and they would have built up an excellent working relationship with local authorities. It would be unreasonable and unacceptable to deprive the National Roads Authority of this talent bank and expect it to recruit its own staff from day one.

At this point I should stress that I have not decided what mechanism to use to provide for the continuity of staffing to the National Roads Authority. As I have mentioned, departmental staff will be transferred under section 30, but another option could be for my Department to provide staffing services to the National Roads Authority under section 32. Section 31 provides an enabling power for the transfer to the National Roads Authority of staff not only from the Department of the Environment but from local authorities or other public bodies where their principal duties relate to functions being taken over by the National Roads Authority. It is not intended that there would be a wholesale transfer of staff from local authorities or other public bodies though the option of selective transfer or provision of services is being provided for.

While I cannot accept the Opposition amendments, I did, however, on Committee Stage move an amendment to section 31 which provides for prior notification of and consultation with employees and their trade unions where transfers are proposed. It is my intention that there would be full consultation with staff interests before any final decisions are taken in this area.

Mr. Dukes

I thank the Minister for his explanations. In fact — although the Minister of State is too polite to say it — the amendment in its intention is badly placed. Having drawn attention to the problem, and given the Minister's disposition in the matter, I will withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments Nos. 90 to 94, inclusive, not moved.

Mr. Dukes

I move amendment No. 95:

In page 33, line 44, after "he," to insert "his spouse,".

This subject was the matter of some little debate during Committee Stage. What was at issue here was the question of disclosure of interests where a conflict of interest may arise. I would be tempted to draw the Minister out on this because I suspect he may have something in mind in this regard that would be a little different from provisions which a colleague of his, the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, may have in mind. Although I would be out of order if I were to go into that, I find it amusing that the Government is proposing the provisions in this Bill on the one hand and that another Minister of State intends to propose much more draconian provisions in a different context, "Marcosian" provisions, if that word exists.

The purpose of this amendment is to make clear what the provision means and to make clearer the limits or the boundaries of the disclosures contemplated. On Committee Stage the Minister said the word "household" included all the persons, including the specification in the proposed amendment. He said also that between Committee and Report Stage he would take advice from the parliamentary draftsman and revert to the House on it. Can the Minister of State give us any indication of what advice has been given and whether it confirms the Minister's view then? If the Minister of State wishes to expand further on his views of the intentions of Minister of State Fitzgerald we would all be fascinated to hear what he might have to say about that.

Mr. Browne

(Wexford): As Deputy Dukes has said, the Minister promised to raise the issue with the parliamentary draftsman following the discussion at the Special Committee. The parliamentary draftsman advised against the insertion of “spouse” on the basis that if the spouse is living in the family home he or she is regarded as a member of the household and is therefore covered by the section. If, however, the spouse is separated — and this would involve legal separation or the use of the barring order — then it would be unnecessary and indeed improper to consider the spouse's interests, which would have to be declared by the former partner.

Mr. Dukes

What happens in the case of a divorce, or is that contemplated?

Mr. Browne

(Wexford): Not at the moment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Dukes

I move amendment No. 96:

In page 34, line 25, after "offence" to insert "and shall immediately cease to hold their membership of, or employment by, the Authority".

This amendment seeks to add an extra specification of the consequences of an offence. We are concerned to ensure that the Bill is clearer on this point than at present. The proposed addition would make clear what the consequence of the offence would be in the same section.

Mr. Browne

(Wexford): I do not propose to accept this amendment. Section 37 is modelled closely on existing established provisions contained in such Acts as the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1976, which set up An Bord Pleanála, and also in the newly enacted Environmental Protection Agency Act. I do not propose to introduce automatic dismissal for members and employees of the National Roads Authority.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 97 not moved.

Mr. Browne

(Wexford): I move amendment No. 98:

In page 37, between lines 31 and 32, 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.

An Ceann Comhairle

Amendment No. 99a is an alternative to amendment No. 99. I suggest, therefore, that the two amendments are discussed together.

Mr. Dukes

I move amendment No. 99:

In page 37, line 36, after "functions." to insert "Where the Minister issues policy guidelines to the Authority the Minister shall publish a copy of such policy directive(s).".

The Minister indicated on Committee Stage that he would have no objection to laying policy guidelines before the Houses of the Oireachtas and, as far as I am aware, amendment No. 99a which was put down by the Minister, meets the requirement we put forward on Committee Stage. Therefore, we agree to amendment No. 99a, and withdraw amendment No. 99.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Browne

(Wexford): I move amendment No. 99a:

In page 37, between lines 39 and 40, 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.

Amendment No. 100 not moved.

Mr. Browne

(Wexford): I move amendment No. 100a.

In page 38, line 41, to delete "Tourism, Transport and Communications" and substitute "Transport, Energy and Communications".

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 101 not moved.

An Ceann Comhairle

Amendments Nos. 102, 104, 121, 123 and 125 are related and may be discussed together. If the Deputy believes that any one of those amendments should be discussed separately, we can do so.

Mr. Dukes

I move amendment No. 102:

In page 43, line 10, to delete "one" and substitute "two".

I will be guided by you, Sir. This is a very simple amendment which would require a road authority to publish a proposed scheme in two or more newspapers circulating in the area where the proposed motorway is to be located. Section 49 of the Bill requires the Road Authority to publish details of its scheme in one or more newspapers circulating in the area. It is reasonable to request publication of such schemes on a wider basis. In this case the Authority would get away with publishing such information in one newspaper circulating in the area. I do not wish to impute bad motives to anybody or to give publicity to a particular newspaper, but in regard to the Kildare bypass it would be open to a road Authority to publish the details of its scheme in a newspaper circulating locally which would be the Kildare Nationalist, which the Minister probably reads from time to time. The Authority would not be required to publish it, for example, in the Leinster Leader or the Leinster Express. That scheme will affect people who read the Kildare Nationalist, but it will also affect people who read the Leinster Leader and the Leinster Express. In the case of a major project such as this — and in the interests of full public information and giving people adequate time to express their opinions — we should require a wider publication than the provision in the Bill. This would not put an onerous burden on road authorities. In fact, I would go so far as to recommend that details of such schemes should be published not only in local newspapers, but in the four national daily papers. It would not involve a substantial cost and would be useful information. In that way, members of the public would at least know what is taking place and could express their views.

Members who listen to the traffic reports on RTE in the mornings will be aware of the roadworks near Newcastle on the Naas dual carriageway where a new bridge is being built across the road. Most people who travel that road do not know why the bridge is being built. It may be argued that such information would not add much to their health, happiness or wisdom, but, in general, people suspect it is part of a new motorway, which is not the case. Most people do not know that the objective of the project is to link an industrial estate with the west link road around Dublin. Such information should be published in the national newspapers, that is an option open to a road Authority. However, this amendment is concerned with the minimum publicity a road Authority must give and it is reasonable to require that details of any schemes should be published in two or more newspapers instead of one or more which is the case under the provisions of the Bill. This provision would not entail a substantial extra charge on the Exchequer; if that was the case it would have been ruled out of order. In the interest of the public, the Minister should accept this amendment.

Ms Keogh

There should be the widest possible circulation of information in this regard. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to suggest that information should be published in two or more newspapers instead of one or more as stated in the Bill. We should seek to reach as wide an audience as possible. I do not believe the Minister is deliberately trying to curtail the supply of information to the public but if the wording of the Bill was not so constrictive it would imply a more open-minded attitude and indicate that the public have a right to be informed. That was the principle which led me to table my later amendment. Even with the best will in the world, we know that in certain areas people will read only one newspaper and, perhaps, political affiliations have something to do with that. We should endeavour to address the widest possible audience. Therefore, the announcement of schemes should not be confined to publication in one newspaper.

Mr. Browne

(Wexford): The present requirement to place an advertisement relating to a motorway or toll scheme in one or more newspapers is the statutory minimum requirement. However, I sympathise with the views expressed by Deputies opposite. The Minister has powers to make regulations setting down more specific provisions for publicity, where appropriate. In some cases it might be appropriate to provide for notices in local papers, as Deputy Dukes has pointed out, but I am not sure if this should be included in the legislation. It would be better if this matter was dealt with by way of regulation. I will look again at the issue.

Mr. Dukes

The Minister is being very unadventurous in regard to this matter. He should think about another point. Why should the poor, misfortunate Minister for the Environment have to consider this issue in the case of every scheme? Any future Minister for the Environment will have plenty to occupy his or her mind without being required, every time a scheme is proposed, to make a decision on whether a notification should be placed in one or more or two or more newspapers. As the Minister basically accepts the need for more information — he is very sympathetic on this point — he should marginally, infinitesimally, reduce the future workload of the Department of the Environment, and the Minister for the Environment, by accepting this amendment.

Mr. Browne

(Wexford): I do not think any future Minister for the Environment would have to make regulations in the case of every scheme; I think there will be a general regulation. This requirement should be covered by the regulations rather than making it part of the legislation.

Mr. Dukes

If it is a general regulation, why not make it part of the Bill?

An Ceann Comhairle

How stands the amendment?

Mr. Dukes

I will withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments Nos. 103 to 105, inclusive, not moved.

Mr. Dukes

I move amendment No. 106:

In page 43, line 39, after "shall" to insert ", within eighteen months of its being submitted to him".

This amendment is somewhat more important than amendment No. 105. It proposes to give the Minister a reasonable time to react to certain proposals which come before him. I know the difficulties involved in this area. One of the problems which arises in regard to major road projects is that they appear to almost literally disappear off the map — nothing happens or nothing is seen to happen — during a certain period. The people who have an interest in a project, and those who will be affected by it either in their local environment or in terms of the convenience it offers to them, do not know what is happening. I know difficulties can arise and the Minister, and his advisers, will require time to make a response, but it is reasonable to provide for a reaction by the Minister within a period of 18 months which, in all conscience, seems to be long enough to allow all the various considerations to be gone into thoroughly by the Minister and the Department of the Environment. I ask the Minister to accept this amendment.

There may be room for agreement on this issue. The debate on it on Committee Stage covered a variety of deadlines which ranged between six months and 18 months. The Minister made the point, probably fairly, that six months would be an impossibly short time. It is fair to make the counter argument than anything more than 18 months would be an unreasonably long time. I hope the Minister can agree to the time limit of 18 months proposed in this amendment, which would also have the effect of putting a little more pressure on the official side to come up with its assessments and advices rather more quickly than at present. I will not go into a long rant about the delays which arise in many areas of planning — Deputies are familiar enough with these delays without repeating them. We should, where possible, impose a reasonable time constraint for reactions to proposals of this nature so as to ensure that projects are not merely put on the long finger.

Mr. Browne

(Wexford): It would be somewhat unfair to tie the hands of the Minister in this way. I know from debates on environmental issues which took place in my county, and other counties that some can go on for longer than 18 months. Some schemes can be very large and complex and difficulties and unforeseen hitches can arise. For example, a public local inquiry may have to be adjourned to seek further information or allow time to review certain issues. All proposals in regard to motorway schemes must be accompanied by an environmental impact statement. The environmental impacts of the proposed project must also be assessed by the Minister who must allow time for submissions on its contents to be made. To restrict this process would not allow sufficient time for consideration of all the issues involved in schemes of this magnitude and would be a grave injustice to all the people affected by a scheme who may wish to object to it or make recommendations to the Minister. I cannot accept the amendment for that reason. It would be unfair to tie the hands of the Minister, regardless of what party is in Government, in this way.

Mr. Dukes

Again, I am disappointed at the Minister's response. This amendment proposes that before approving a scheme under section 47 the Minister shall, within 18 months, either cause a public inquiry to be held, consider objections which have been made and not withdrawn or consider any report and recommendation of person conducting an inquiry. I do not think it is unreasonable to require this to be done within 18 months. I do not think it is at all unreasonable to require, after a scheme has been submitted to the Minister, that a public inquiry should be held within 18 months. This does not require a final decision to be made on a scheme within 18 months; rather it proposes to give the public an opportunity to make their views known within 18 months.

It is incorrect for the Minister of State to say that this amendment would unreasonably tie the Minister's hands. I wish to point out — I do not say this to be disobliging to the Minister of State but rather because I believe it to be true — that if it is being pretended that a period of 18 months would tie the Minister's hands unduly then that is the very best reason for including this provision in the Bill. If a period of 18 months is regarded as "undue haste" then there is a totally unwarranted laxity in the Minister's approach to this issue which we should deal with in the Bill.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Amendment No. 107 not moved.

Mr. Dukes

I move amendment No. 108:

In page 48, between lines 44 and 45, to insert the following:

"(2) Where the Minister approves a scheme under this section, his approval shall be subject also to the approval of a majority of the membership of the local authority concerned.".

The proposal in this amendment has been discussed at some length both on Committee Stage and on Report Stage. It provides that the Minister's approval of a scheme shall also be subject to the approval of a majority of the membership of the local authority concerned in the scheme. I know it is probably a vain hope to expect the Minister to accept this amendment, but if there is to be any degree of reality in terms of the role of local authorities in the physical planning and management of our landscape, and the facilities at our disposal, then some real effort should be made to involve them in making decisions of this kind. If a project is worth while, and the Minister believes it should be properly approved, he should then be required to get the assent of a majority of the members of the local authority concerned. That is the only way we can be sure there will be the necessary commitment, acceptance and understanding of the project at local level. It may be inconvenient, it may impose a new burden on the Minister and on the Department but, in the interests of the reality of local government, it is worth doing.

I suppose it is a vain hope that the Minister would accept the amendment but I would point out to him that he represents a Government that has been talking for quite some time. I should not say that the Government has been talking, the two parties involved have been talking for some time about the necessity and the desirability of local authority reform. Every time a Bill with implications for the operations of local authorities is introduced we find that they are not being given any real role but the Minister is being given, either explicitly or residually, substantial powers to take decisions over their heads. It is time to start reversing that process by this simple, straightforward and democratic provision. It is not by any means the be-all and end-all of reform. It is a measure in one very restricted area to give local authorities real power and to have consultation with them and their members.

Mr. Gilmore

I support the case made by Deputy Dukes. My understanding is that this is an amendment to section 52.

Mr. Dukes

Yes.

Mr. Gilmore

I am not sure if that is the section which needs to be amended to achieve the objective in mind. However, the principle outlined by Deputy Dukes has been debated throughout this Bill from Second Stage. It concerns the transfer from local authorities to the National Roads Authority of functions relating to the introduction of a motorway scheme, road schemes, the decision in relation to the line of roads design and so on. In my capacity as a member of a local authority, of which Deputy Keogh is also a member, I have practical experience of this at present. The question of the proposed line of the south eastern motorway is currently under consideration by the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown area committee of Dublin County Council. For some months we have been in discussion with local interests, including the many conflicting interests that inevitably arise in an issue of this kind; conflicting opinions have been expressed by different communities and interests and so on as to where the motorway line should go.

Local authorities — it is fair to say that I am expressing the opinion of the vast majority of members — are happy and quite prepared to make the decision in relation to the line of the motorway and in relation to the scheme. However, in view of the Bill we do not know where we stand. We are in the process of talking to local communities about alternative routes for the motorway when legislation is going through this House that will transfer the function for making that decision from the local authority to the National Roads Authority. We are at a loss in talking to people who have an interest in this issue and to the local authorities' own professional staff because by the time this Bill is enacted, and the decision will have to be made, the body which will have the power to make it may be the National Roads Authority.

This legislation, without the amendment proposed by Deputy Dukes and, indeed, the various attempts by other Members at various times in the course of this debate to achieve the same objective, will result in local authorities, and particularly their elected members, being no more than lobbyists making recommendations but not having any real power in the area. It is taking a very important area of local democracy from elected members of local authorities and putting it in the hands of an appointed body. This is a matter of great regret because no matter how difficult a decision may be it is much better to leave it in the hands of local authority members. I attended a meeting in my constituency in Stepaside recently; it was a very healthy meeting with an exchange of views from different perspectives on the same issue. The general view coming across at that meeting in regard to the line of this motorway was that such decisions should be made by the elected members of local authorities. The public should be confident that the people democratically and directly accountable to them will make the decisions and weigh their various aspects in the best interests of the public and the area.

Ms Keogh

I also support this amendment which relates to many points raised during the course of the debate on Report Stage and earlier Stages regarding accountability and democracy. In relation to Deputy Gilmore's example of the motorway, local authority members are not mere lobbyists, to a certain extent they could be called consultants because that will be their role unless they have an input to the decision-making process. I do not know what answers the Minister would give my constituents who are genuinely concerned about the line of the motorway. They have gone to great lengths and expense, held public meetings, included many people in the area in the decision-making process and proposed an alternative siting for the motorway. That decision-making process may be lost unless we decide that local authorities have some role in relation to the roads authority. Throughout this debate I have argued, as a member of a local authority, that I am being left out, cast aside and ignored, which I do not like. Instead of being consultants, which may sound very well, I would like the local authorities to be part of a decision-making process. However, we have argued about the membership of a roads Authority and said that they should have an objective view in regard to decisions, but local authority members should have a greater input than mere consultation. It should involve, as stated in this amendment, the approval of a simple majority, which would not be a material contravention. The amendment has not gone that far. The local authority members have a great fear of being excluded and I would like the Minister to consider this amendment in the spirit of local democracy being included.

Mr. Browne

(Wexford): By the time the Minister approves the scheme under section 49, a lengthy process will have been gone through. The scheme will have been introduced by the local authority and the general public will have been notified through the newspapers; landowners will have been notified individually. A local public inquiry will have been held into all the issues involved. In all cases involving motorways an environmental impact statement will have been prepared and the impact of the proposed project on the environment will have been assessed. If local authority members had a veto at this stage it would necessitate starting off the process again or abandoning the project completely. As I have made clear during the debate on previous amendments, while I am prepared to give local authorities a substantial say on national roads development, I am not prepared to give them a veto. For this reason we cannot accept the amendment.

Earlier in the debate, in order to allay fears that were expressed that the National Roads Authority would ride roughshod over local authorities, particularly in regard to the alignment of a proposed road, I introduced an amendment to section 22 which will allow the elected members of a local authority to make representations to the National Roads Authority where they object to a proposed road alignment. The National Roads Authority will be obliged to consider representations and if, having responded to the local authority the latter is still aggrieved, it can make written representations to the Minister. I would not accept Deputy Keogh's statement that the local authorities are being ignored completely.

Mr. Dukes

Since I am not a member of a local authority I can speak with some objectivity on this. I do not think, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, that members of local authorities will be thrilled or delighted or over the moon at the idea that because of the amendment to section 22 they will be able to make representations to the National Roads Authority about these issues. The Minister is right to point out that by the time we get to the procedure set out in section 52 of the Bill, a whole range of things will have been gone through —"a lengthy process", as the Minister says — a public inquiry, an environmental impact statement and so on. I would just invite the Minister to reflect on what involvement the local authorities will have had all through that. The answer is that they will have been given the inestimable privilege under the provisions of section 22 to make representations about the alignment of the proposed project. That is the limit of their involvement.

However, section 52 is the one that allows the local authorities to go ahead and compulsorily acquire land. This section is the trigger. Up to now the weapon has been armed, it has been cocked; but this section is the trigger that sets the whole procedure off. That is why — I say this to Deputy Gilmore — the amendment has been put in here rather than anywhere else, especially since the level of involvement by the local authorities up to then has been, as so generously described by the Minister, the ability to make representations about the alignment of the proposed scheme. If one reads the rest of this section one finds that this is the section where all these things come together and begin to happen. At this stage we have had the environment impact statement, we have had the public inquiry, we have had the report of the inspector appointed by the Minister and we have had the decision of the Minister on the inquiry. A Minister who has been busy making all the orders and taking all these things into account now finally lays the egg. All I am asking at this stage is that the local authority, which has not really been involved in any determining sense up to then, would at this point, when all the pieces are being put together, be allowed to have an input into it.

I do not see why the Minister should come in here and say that he does not want to give the local authorities a veto at this point. It is another expression of the old, excessively bureaucratic defensiveness which says that if we give these people any possibility of participation in this they will muck up a grand scheme that the Department and the Minister have put together between them. If the Minister has done his job properly he will be able to so blind them with eloquence and wisdom that they will have no hesitation in saying that they agree with him, that they agree with the Minister's view of the environmental impact statement, that they agree with the Minister's recommendations as to the alignment, that they agree with all the Minister's inspector has said to him about his view of the representations made to him by the local authority itself, among other things, and the view that he has taken of all the cases that have been put during the course of the local inquiry as a necessity for the compulsory acquisition of the lands that are there. Why should the Minister assume that if he allows these jumped-up little Johnnies who are members of local authorities any function in the matter they are going to screw the whole thing up on him — pardon my language, Sir. That is really excessively defensive and it shows very little confidence on the part of a Minister who is now equipped with a huge panoply of all kinds of powers to come along and convince the simple members of the local authority that it is a good idea.

Mr. Ferris

They are not simple.

Mr. Dukes

The Government is treating them——

Mr. Ferris

They are not jumped-up Johnnies and simpletons. No wonder the Deputy is not a member. If the Deputy had any sense he would be one.

Mr. Dukes

I am very sorry and very disappointed to find Deputy Ferris, a man I always thought had democratic instincts, coming in here and going along with a proposal that actually assumes that they are. The Minister has said, and Deputy Ferris apparently agrees with him, that if we give a local authority any power they will muck up a grand proposal. The Government is acting as if they are children not to be trusted and I am astonished that Deputy Ferris should agree with that.

Mr. Ferris

Is that why the Deputy is not one of them?

Mr. Dukes

I do not honestly feel that I could do the job justice.

Mr. Ferris

Would it be too simple?

Mr. Dukes

No. They are far more sophisticated than Deputy Ferris gives them credit for and if the Deputy keeps backing up a Government that passes legislation like this his fellow members on local authorities——

Mr. Ferris

You are insulting them.

Mr. Dukes

You are insulting them. Deputy Ferris's fellow members on local authorities will find, as I have found, the scales falling from their eyes when they see that this gentleman, Deputy Ferris, that they were used to seeing in Opposition, has a much harder edge underneath and that when he gets into government and into a position of power he is as good at riding roughshod over them as anybody else, as anybody he ever criticised in his life. I find that very astonishing. Deputy Ferris should spend a little more time in here because——

Mr. Ferris

The Deputy should stop insulting members of local authorities.

Mr. Dukes

——we on this side of the House have been — unsuccessfully, I regret to say — making the case for a greater degree of power to be devolved on local authorities. We have been making the case for local democracy which the Deputy's party seems to have forgotten about since January of this year.

Mr. Ferris

That is a simple analysis.

Mr. Dukes

I am sorry that the appearance of the Labour Whip in this debate should have been the first occasion that gives rise to acrimony.

Mr. Ferris

You are insulting people all the time.

Mr. Dukes

The Deputy knows full well that if he starts an argument with me he had better have a lot of breath left because I can keep it up for as long as the Deputy can.

I am very disappointed to find the Minister coming in here and saying he is assuming that he if he gives local authority members any function in this they will use it mischievously and get in the way of his schemes. If Deputy Ferris had any real concern about the wisdom of local authorities he would convince the Minister, who should himself know a fair bit about local authorities, if given the power they can actually operate very constructively in the interests of the people they represent.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is Deputy Dukes pressing his amendment?

Mr. Dukes

I have to say, Leas-Cheann Comhairle, that I would get more pleasure out of calling a quorum.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present.

Amendment put and declared lost.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I ask the Minister to move an amendment in relation to the time and order of the day.