We now move on to item 15, motion re Planning and Development Bill, 1999, to conclude within 30 minutes. The Minister of State at the Department of the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Dan Wallace, to move the motion. The opening speech of the Minister, the Minister of State and the main spokesperson for the Fine Gael party and the Labour Party, who shall be called upon in that order, and the speech of each other Members called upon shall not exceed five minutes in each case. Members may share time.
Planning and Development Bill, 1999: Motion.
I move:
That, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, the Select Committee on Environment and Local Government has power to make amendments to the Planning and Development Bill, 1999, the purposes of which are–
(i)to amend and extend the law in relation to the tolling of public roads provided for in the Roads Act, 1993; and
(ii)to amend the law in relation to the tenure of City and County Managers provided for in the Local Government Act, 1991,
and to amend the long title of the Bill accordingly.
I appreciate that this is a technical motion which is not designed to deal with the substance of the amendments proposed. Members will have a full opportunity to debate the amendments in detail when these are considered in due course. However, in order to place the proposed amendments in context, it is useful to outline briefly the purpose of the provisions to be inserted in the Planning and Development Bill, 1999. The aim of the amendments is to modify the existing legislative arrangements for tolling under the Roads Act, 1993, by removing the Minister for the Environment and Local Government's quasi-judicial functions in relation to toll schemes, associated by-laws etc. Under the revised Part V of the Roads Act, 1993, the decision to adopt or revoke a toll scheme, adopt by-laws or enter into toll arrangements with private investors will be a matter for the National Roads Authority in the case of national roads and in the case of non-national roads, a matter for the relevant local authority.
As a corollary, the Roads Act, 1993, is also being amended so that the Minister for the Environment and Local Government can issue policy directives to the National Roads Authority or local authorities regarding the exercise of their functions regarding road tolling. The NRA or local authority will be obliged to comply with a directive issued by the Minister. Any policy directives made by the Minister for the Environment and Local Government will be required to be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas.
There are a number of provisions in the Planning and Development Bill, 1999, which reduce the role of the Minister for the Environment and Local Government in project-specific approvals and consents. In this connection, the amendments proposed to the tolling provisions of the Roads Act, 1993, remove an anomaly which would otherwise have been created under the Bill. This would have seen the Minister for the Environment and Local Government retaining an involvement in the approval of specific toll projects, while approval of associated motorway schemes, compulsory purchase orders and environmental impact statements in respect of the same road projects would be transferred to An Bord Pleanála. In the absence of these amendments, part of the project decision making process would be retained by the Minister and part by An Bord Pleanála, which would be clearly inappropriate. The proposed amendments seek to address this situation and are consistent with the other provisions of the Planning and Development Bill, 1999, to which I referred.
The amendments are also in keeping with the principle of subsidiarity as regards decision making, while retaining ministerial control at a broad policy level, and will simplify statutory processes for the approval of toll schemes. The decision making process in respect of toll schemes will be devolved to the bodies best placed to do it; the NRA in the case of national roads and local authorities in the case of non-national roads. It would not be appropriate for powers regarding approval of tolling schemes, etc., to be transferred to An Bord Pleanála as such matters are outside its remit. It is important to note that the NRA and local authorities will not be operating in a vacuum on tolling; as indicated previously, they will be obliged to comply with policy directives issued by the Minister for the Environment and Local Government in this regard. As at present, the NRA and local authorities would still be required to engage in an extensive consultative process before adopting a toll scheme, which includes a requirement to hold an oral hearing into any objections to a proposed toll scheme.
The Government is committed to delivering on the national development plan and to streamline procedures as much as possible in order to facilitate the achievement of the plan's objectives within the timescale proposed. It is therefore important that the proposed changes to the tolling regime are implemented as soon as possible. The Planning and Development Bill, 1999, is an appropriate mechanism to achieve this outcome.
The Minister is also taking the opportunity to amend the law on the tenure of local authority city and county managers. At present the maximum term of a local authority city or county manager is seven years. As Members may be aware, the principle of fixed tenure contracts for local authority managers was established in the Local Government Act, 1991. The arrangements were generally on the same lines as for departmental Secretaries General and received general acceptance. However, unlike departmental Secretaries General who generally serve only one term, managers are entitled to apply for other manager posts and many of them do so.
There are many reasons managers apply for other posts – preferred location or higher pay, for instance. However, the principal reason managers apply for other manager posts during their contract period is to ensure continued employment. To ensure they will have a new appointment before the present term expires, the trend is for managers to start looking for new posts after about four or five years' service. This has resulted in managers vacating their existing posts prematurely, giving rise to instability in local authority management. This is not in the best interests of efficient and effective local government.
The Minister examined this problem and consulted the managers about it. He concluded that the fundamental problem is that the contract periods are currently too short. The required stability will be restored to the system by the extension of the contract periods as now proposed. In accordance with the amendment, the basic contract will continue to be for a maximum of seven years, as at present, but managers will have an option to extend this by three years.
Primary legislation is required to make these changes in view of the need for certainty in relation to managers' tenure and to avoid any doubt attaching to the legality of the important executive functions exercised by managers, for example, in the area of planning. The Minister is anxious that the amendment to the tenure of office arrangements be implemented as soon as possible to restore stability to the system. The Planning and Development Bill, 1999, provides the opportunity to meet this requirement and Members will have the opportunity to debate the substance of the amendments in full on Committee Stage. I therefore commend the motion to the House.
This is not a simple technical matter. The Government has decided that there are two things which it would like to do and it has looked around for an appropriate framework in which to do them. There is no such framework in existence, but the Planning and Development Bill, 1999, is before the House and the Government thinks that, by extending the scope of that Bill and amending its long title, it can bring these two matters into its remit. That is why the Minister tabled this motion. These are two matters, which are unrelated to any Bill which is before the House, which the Government wants to introduce and therefore it is going to piggy-back them on a planning and development Bill which is before the House. That is not just a technical matter.
However, the reason we are discussing this is even simpler than that. The Government wanted to take this motion without debate last week, and I looked at it and wondered why the Government wanted to give local authorities power to toll roads and to amend the law regarding county managers. I wanted to know why the Government wants to do these things before I agreed to let the Minister go ahead and do it. The answer I got was: "We cannot discuss that with you; this is just a technical matter", and I do not accept that. If the Government wants to make a substantial change in a Bill before the House, then it must explain why it wants to make that substantial change or, as in this case, those two substantial changes.
There have been several instances in the recent past where the Government has introduced Bills, to which, in the course of their discussion by this House, major changes have been made. This is one and the Broadcasting Bill, 1999, is another.
I am bound to say that I smelled a rat last week when this request to take this matter without debate was made. Now that the Minister has explained what it is all about, I find it even more suspicious. Is there anything more ridiculous than saying, as is set out in the statement of the Minister of State, Deputy Dan Wallace, that it is proposed to divest powers, to give away powers of the Minister? In order to do that, the Government follows a procedure which appears to give powers to two other bodies, but they will exercise those powers only under the direction of the Minister. It is proposed to tell county councils that they may charge people for using county roads. In order to do so, they will be given the power to fix charges, but they can be directed as to what to do by the Minister. I do not know what is the sense of that. They are being given power to do something which the Minister can tell them to do, something which the Minister can do already, if he so wishes. I cannot see the sense of that.
The Minister pretends that these "amendments are in keeping with the principle of subsidiarity as regards decision making, while retaining ministerial control at a broad policy level". I wish the Government would make up its mind what it wants to do. Does it want the Minister or somebody else to control things? It is trying to have it both ways here.
I do not object to what the Government is proposing to put before us regarding the county managers. There is a fair case to be made in that regard, but it is not obvious from the motion. Before we decide to interfere substantially in the terms of a Bill before this House, we should be given the courtesy of being told broadly what the Government wants to do and why. That is what we have done here this afternoon and I am glad that the point has been made.
I will not oppose this motion. However, I will have a great deal to say on the amendments, which will flow from this and which we will debate on Committee Stage of the Planning and Development Bill, 1999. The first is as confused a proposal as I have ever seen emanate from the Government, and I feel sorry for the Minister of State that he has to come to the House to try to make sense of it as it makes no sense. Now at least we have established that it is legitimate for the House to be asked by the Government to tell us why it wants to do things in this manner.
The Government is introducing two new provisions to extend the Planning and Development Bill, which is currently being considered by a committee of the House, almost as an afterthought. One of those provisions relates to the terms of office of city and county managers. I have no difficulty with the proposal to extend from seven to ten years the maximum period of the term of office of managers. However, I have a difficulty with the proposal to do this by way of an addition to the Planning and Development Bill. For three years we have been promised local government reform legislation. We have been repeatedly told on the Order of Business that, in the words of the old Guinness add, "Tá sé ag teacht". It was supposed to be introduced before the local elections last year, then some time during the summer, then in autumn, then around Christmas, then after Christmas, then before Easter and now it has been promised for some time after Easter.
The appropriate place to introduce a provision on the term of office of city and county managers is in a local government Bill. When he is replying to the debate I would like the Minister of State to say whether the local government Bill is so far down the line that we cannot wait for its introduc tion to deal with the provision that relates to city and county managers.
The second issue proposed is the tolling of roads. The Minister for the Environment and Local Government is involved in a bit of a soft shuffle in relation to his powers. The Planning and Development Bill before the committee includes a number of provisions whereby the Minister is discreetly divesting himself of certain powers in relation to the approval of road schemes, etc., all of which is being shunted to An Bord Pleanála. I disagree with this because the Minister has those functions so he can be politically accountable to the House and the public for the decisions made on those projects. I do not agree that the Minister should divest himself of those powers to an unelected body for which he will not be accountable to the House. If it happens, when we raise questions about those functions in terms of a major motorway or road scheme we will receive an answer from the Ceann Comhairle's office stating the Minister is not answerable to the House.
In addition, the Minister is proposing to divest his powers in relation to the tolling of roads. Let us be frank in saying this relates to a plan to toll additional roads. The Minister does not want to find himself with the political problem of having to make the final decisions on those matters. Therefore, before the issue of road tolling comes before him, and before there is any question of the Minister making decisions in this regard and being accountable to the House and the public, he has decided to shunt responsibility from himself to An Bord Pleanála. It is a cowardly act which is unworthy of the Minister and the Government.
One of the provisions relates to the tolling of non-national roads, something we will debate in greater detail when the exact proposals are brought before the committee. What exactly is happening? I understood the national plan included a consideration that some new road and motorway construction projects might be done through public-private partnerships and might have tolls on part of them. What non-national roads will be tolled? This is about the Minister shifting his direct responsibility and accountability to the House and the public to An Bord Pleanála.
I am glad we have had the opportunity to blow the whistle on what is a very underhand proposal from the Minister and the Government.
From the day I entered the House I understood that Second Stage was the time to debate points of principle. What is involved in this proposal is a point of principle, and what is happening is wrong. It is no wonder the public is losing confidence in the ability of the House to deal with legislation or issues when this is being hived off to a committee where it is hoped it will be slipped through without anybody knowing. I sincerely hope this matter will not be allowed slip through.
Deputy Gilmore has more or less said what I wanted to say about the local government reform legislation. To use a planning Bill to extend the contracts of county managers is quite outrageous. There are some very good managers, but there are also some bad ones and there is no question in this as to the role of elected members. Can the Minister tell me of any organisation or business in which elected members serve but have no say whatsoever in the appointment of the manager or the term of his or her contract? It is now proposed, by way of an amendment on Committee Stage, to give powers to individuals to decide for themselves whether they want to extend their contracts for another three years.
Some time ago I tried to raise a matter by way of parliamentary question. The Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, was very upset that I was raising a matter in the Dáil which he maintained was one for the local authority. It referred to the application of the letting housing priority scheme by a particular local authority. I got nowhere when I raised the question, but I decided to take up the Minister's offer, which I had already done, and I wrote directly to the county manager, pointing out the exact nature of my problem and enclosing a copy of the Dáil debate. That was approximately three months ago. I since sent a reminder and have not had the courtesy of a reply. The matter effects ordinary people in terms of their rights under the letting priority scheme. How can public representatives face their electorate and say they cannot get a reply from a county manager? In those circumstances, should I have the right to say I will not support the continuation of a manager's contract because I do not think he or she did a good job? I would have no problem if it was a matter for elected members of local authorities, but to provide an option to extend contracts for three years without reference to any person is just not good enough.
The place to introduce such a provision is certainly not the Planning and Development Bill, especially when the Taoiseach has told us that the local government reform legislation will be introduced in the next couple of months. The provision should be included in that Bill, and I agree with Deputy Gilmore who knows exactly what I spoke of in terms of the housing problem as he supported me in the House, something for which I thank him. As a member of the particular local authority he was experiencing the same frustration. Three or four months later we still have not received a reply. I was first elected a member of a local authority 26 years ago and I cannot even get a reply from the county manager. The Government is now providing county managers with the right to extend their contracts by a further three years for the sake of stability.
Regarding the principle of subsidiarity, since when does the vesting of a Minister's powers in a non-elected body where nobody is accountable adhere to the principle of subsidiarity? As Deputies Dukes and Gilmore rightly pointed out, if one tables a parliamentary question in regard to any of these issues, one is informed by the Ceann Comhairle's office that they are not matters for the Minister. Where does one go?
The NRA is to be given powers to impose tolls but only at the direction of the Minister. Whether one agrees with tolling of major roads is a separate issue but there is a policy issue in so far as in 1977 the public was told that road tax was abolished. Today, all car owners pay road tax which is increased on a regular basis but it must blend in with the overall road infrastructure policy. I hope the Minister will withdraw the motion, having listened to the debate, and will reintroduce these proposals so that they can be discussed on Second Stage of the local government reform Bill and will not cause anybody any problems.
(Dublin West): I am also strongly opposed to what the Government is trying to do. It has become a habit of the Government to introduce primary legislation and then make substantial proposals which do not relate to it – the most blatant example related to an asylum seeker's right to appeal a decision upon rejection of his or her application. The Government amended the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Bill, 1999, to include something entirely different in substance. A similar scenario pertains to this motion, which addresses two serious questions, the policy of road tolling and the tenure of county managers. I agree with previous speakers that these issues should be the subject of a Second Stage debate on amending legislation. The City and County Management (Amendment) Act, 1955, is the most obvious legislation to deal with the tenure of county managers while the Local Government or Road Traffic Acts could address road tolling.
The question of tolling for working people is a very important issue which deserves a full discussion. It is quite clear that private interests are lining up to create goldmines for themselves courtesy of the Government which will hand areas of the transport infrastructure in the form of roads over to them on which they can charge tolls. The West Link bridge over the M50 in my constituency is a goldmine. However, it is so at the expense of PAYE workers in the main who must use it to travel to and from work or when they are going about their business. Any amendment in that regard or the provision of new powers to anybody should be discussed properly in the House.
It is totally unacceptable to introduce a proposal without a proper debate to extend the tenure of a county manager to ten years without imposing a democratic check in the normal way. We should have a considered amendment to legislation in regard to how people in these posts of responsibility are appointed and what democratic check could be undertaken in regard to their appointments so that they cannot act, as they do in some cases, like mini-dictators, completely casting aside what are often the reason able views of communities in their functional areas. These issues need to be discussed during a proper Second Stage debate and should not have been introduced through sleight of hand in this cynical manner.
I support the previous speakers. It is amazing the Minister is introducing a proposal to extend the contracts of county managers. I recently tabled a parliamentary question to the Minister for the Environment and Local Government in regard to new legislation on central heating. I asked him how many local authorities had obeyed his wish and, in particular, I queried the number of applications which had been processed by Westport, Ballina and Castlebar urban district councils. The answer was none, but I had to make a request under the Freedom of Information Act, 1997, because the Minister and the local authority would not provide me with the information, yet the Government wants to extend the contracts of county managers, some of whom have seven year contracts. It does not matter whether they have performed well because if the Minister of the day likes the county manager and thinks he is the man for the job, he or she will sanction another three years. It is outrageous.
Deputy Barrett referred to correspondence with county managers and other local officials. I would like the Minister to list examples of local authority officials answering letters from public representatives within seven days and providing a full reply within 14 days. Deputy Higgins is also right in that these people think that they are not answerable to the House or anybody else. It proves a point I have made in this House for many years. Who is running the country? Every Thursday evening, the 26 county managers meet in Dublin and they decide what will happen under the planning laws. The Government issues a policy and they do something else. The Government should address this problem. If Fianna Fáil backbenchers allow the passage of this motion, God help them when they want replies to their queries, given that the current Minister is trying to abolish the dual mandate for Oireachtas Members. It will be a sad day for democracy.
Question put and agreed to.