Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 12 Jun 2001

Vol. 537 No. 5

Private Members' Business. - Road Network: Motion.

Ms O. Mitchell

I move:

That Dáil Éireann:

–aware of the importance for the economy of the speedy delivery of the planned upgrading of our national road network;

–conscious of the need for adequate and genuine consultation with the communities affected by these projects;

–mindful of the widespread concern and anxiety throughout the country on major road development projects;

–concerned that the current compulsory purchase order – CPO – procedure is too cumbersome and slow and can result in unfair prices being paid to landowners;

–believing that bottlenecks in the planning system are delaying the delivery of key projects and that the Planning and Development Act, 2001, has not been and cannot be implemented due to lack of qualified personnel;

–knowing that in the national development plan public-private partnerships are envisaged for 11 major road projects and that the NRA has decided that this will involve widespread road tolling;

condemns the Government for the delays in the delivery of the national road network and calls on the Government to immediately:

–take steps, including amending legislation, to ensure a greater level of accountability on the part of the NRA in its relationship with local authorities, public representatives and citizens;

–establish procedures to allow for meaningful public consultation by ensuring early publication and circulation of all appropriate studies, reports, surveys, maps, constraints studies, investigations and all essential documentation and to ensure that the views of the public representatives and citizens are duly acknowledged and considered prior to the announcement of any route selection;

–reform the CPO procedure; and

–justify to Dáil Éireann its economic rationale for the imposition of road tolls.

This motion is tabled in the context of the high levels of distress regarding the method of the roll-out of the national road network. We all agree there is a need to upgrade the national road network for a variety of reasons – safety, to minimise transport costs and improve competitiveness and, most of all, to ensure greater regional balance.

There is an acceptance of the need for a national road network and agreement on the extent of the problem and how it should be addressed. In addition, for the first time a comprehensive programme of road building has been outlined in the national development plan which would, if implemented, at least lay the skeleton of a comprehensive, strategic network. The plan is not without its flaws and there are large gaps in parts of the country. However, it is the most significant plan in the history of the State. For the first time we have enough money to implement the plan.

With all this in place one has to ask why it is going so badly wrong. Why is every project, whether by the NRA or the Department of the Environment and Local Government, taking so long from conception to construction? Why are communities up in arms and distressed and why do they feel that decisions affecting them are being taken over which they have no control? Why do they feel they have no one to whom they can appeal or from whom they can seek assurances? Why are individuals put in the position where the first they hear of plans to take their home, business or farm is when the postman arrives with the notice of the compulsory purchase order? Why is the CPO procedure so lengthy, cumbersome and rigid that sometimes the compensation paid bears no relation to the loss suffered by the individual or the gains which accrue to others who may not lose land?

I could go on with questions. However, what it boils down to is that the system is not working for the communities on whom it directly impacts or in the national interest. Every road project, national or otherwise, is dogged by delays from conception to construction. As a result, not only does every project cost more than it should, but the costs of the delays are incalculable. When projects finally get to the construction stage, they do so at the cost of completely disaffected and disillusioned local communities.

The problems begin at the outset, the public consultation stage. Almost overnight, we move from a situation in which everyone is in favour of a road to one in which everyone is against it. This can only be because of the totally flawed public consultation process.

I am sure that local authorities and the NRA are genuinely committed to consultation. However, they are not achieving that objective. There is a lack of information and the information that is available is grudgingly given. The practice of offering multiple choices in the initial route selection can only be designed to confuse and divide communities. To offer seven or eight choices, not just regarding road projects, but also in the context of the Luas, is to throw seven or eight communities into a frenzy of anxiety. That anxiety is normally needless as the promoter knows from the outset that there is one, or no more than two, options. In most cases the preferred option has already been identified so there is an illusion of consultation and choice. This may not be intentional, but this is a dishonest approach to consultation. The public knows it is a dishonest approach which will, ultimately, be self-defeating.

Most road projects fundamentally impact on people's homes, properties, businesses and way of life. When a project is announced the public craves simple, honest and direct information. People want to know how they will get to work when the road is built, how they will access farmland if it is bisected by the road, what kind of boundary will be available or what compensation they can expect. These are legitimate questions which people would be daft not to ask. However, people are not given answers early or honestly enough.

People cannot be given detailed answers if there are seven or eight route options being offered. It is as if choosing a strategic national route was a matter of "eeny meeny miny mo". What possessed the NRA to think that anyone would choose a route on that basis or that the public would be fooled by it? Real and meaningful consultation is not easy, as every public representative will know. Such consultation requires a knowledge of human nature and an understanding of the fears which change holds for us all. It requires communication skills and, most of all, it requires giving direct information to the public.

There is a wealth of European literature on how to engage in public consultation, how to get people involved in a project and how to give them a sense of ownership of a project which deals with their fears and anxieties at an early stage and overcomes objections at that stage. We must start to examine better means of communicating early with residents. We must change our approach as we are simply inviting objections. There will be objections, court cases and an uphill battle until the last yard of tarmac is laid.

In this week of a failed referendum and a low voter turnout, when we wonder at the cause of the democratic deficit and the apparent detachment, disillusionment and disaffection of the public with the political process, we need not look much further than the farce we call public consultation. When we have antagonised all concerned at the outset, we then move to the CPO stage, which again involves a democratic deficit. Almost overnight, we have moved from a situation in which the elected members of local authorities made the CPOs for roads which were confirmed by the Minister to a situation in which the NRA makes the CPO which is confirmed by An Bord Pleanála. The Government has handed the entire process over to two unaccountable bodies and the democratic process has been bypassed.

I do not doubt that the motivation for this change was to speed up the delivery of the national road network. This approach might have been correct if the necessary safeguards had been put in place to protect those who are the subject of CPOs as well as those who are not. In many cases, those most affected are those who are not the subject of CPOs, communities which may not be losing land but which will be severely impacted on to the extent that the quality of life may be threatened and even destroyed. The result is that, far from speeding up the process of road building, every project mooted will end up in the courts, will take longer and cost more, and in the end no one will be happy. Motorists will not feel they have been well served by the State.

The CPO system has been in operation for almost 100 years. The system is archaic, cumbersome, tortuously slow and unfair. It involves an incredible 18 different procedures which can take years to complete. Throughout the entire process, there is a dearth of information for the individual caught up in it against his or her will.

If I had time I could recount many anecdotes of which I have personal experience where the lives of individuals were virtually put on hold while they were subjected to an uncompleted CPO. I could describe the stress which this limbo causes, particularly to elderly people. During this time marriages can break down, requiring a division of property, people can die or their entire circumstances can change while their property is without value and cannot be sold. During the route selection process, those affected can at least draw comfort and consolation from the support of others. However, once one reaches the CPO stage one is on one's own. Each case is different so that each individual, whether a householder, a business person or a farmer, will have to employ a consultant at his or her expense to advise him or her on the likely impact. This will not merely have a financial impact, it will also impact on the environment, noise levels and property boundaries and result in the loss of access and general inconvenience. An entire industry has grown up around providing these services for which people must pay directly, allegedly to promote the common good. The State could, at the very least, pay these costs.

One of the most outrageous aspects of the CPO procedure is that land can be taken prior to a claim being made for compensation and without the landowner knowing what he or she will get for it. When landowners find out what value has been accorded to the land, CPOs have already been confirmed and it is too late for objections. In any case, there is nobody to whom they can object unless they opt for a costly court case. This is like someone being forced to sell his or her house without knowing how much he or she will get for it until the new owner moves in. Is it any wonder that half the country is up in arms over this procedure? When the level of compensation is eventually decided, it is subject to such outdated and rigid rules that people simply cannot be adequately compensated. Even if a valuer or arbitrator recognises that individuals have been treated unfairly, the system is not sufficiently flexible to provide for reasonable compensation.

In the case of farm land, compensation is calculated with reference to agricultural prices even though they may bear no relation to the actual loss suffered, the loss not only to the value of the farm if a person were to sell it, but also to the viability of the enterprise. When land is severed from a farm or any other business, the meagre compensation allowable does not even come close to adequate recompense for the ongoing inconvenience and difficulties with which the landowners and their families must cope forever. The final insult is that when the cheque eventually arrives, it is subject to capital gains tax. It is incredible that people are taxed on a gain they have not made and a sale they never wanted in the first instance. It would be very difficult to contrive a system more adversarial, cumbersome, unfair or least likely to smooth the path for the delivery of road infrastructure.

As if those who suffer CPOs are not sufficiently badly treated, those who do not have their land directly acquired, but live in close proximity to the road are probably in the worst position of all, having virtually no rights or safeguards. Entire communities and towns can be severed as a result of CPOs and the impact in these instances can be even greater than on those who lose their land. The environmental impact assessment system is the only means of protection in these cases. However, as the Minister is probably aware, this system does not always successfully identify adverse impacts and, even where it does, it effectively only pays lip service to the impact a development may have on people's lives. No real effort is made to develop ameliorating or mitigating measures to protect affected communities.

Irish roads and motorways are designed to the highest specifications from which, as motorists, we will all benefit. Why is the Government so reluctant to accept that individuals bear an enormous and unrecognised private cost for these benefits? Millions of pounds can be found for construction costs, but such is the system's rigidity that if one is unlucky enough to be outside the line of the road and has not succeeded in hammering out mitigating or compensating measures during the public inquiry, one cannot get a single penny once the inquiry has concluded. People may only discover the adverse impact of a development subsequent to the inquiry's conclusion. I have encountered numerous examples of this in my constituency. The system is a very bad one, particularly because long delays can elapse between the public inquiry and the commencement of construction work. A road is currently being built in my constituency in regard to which a public inquiry was held 15 years ago. The traffic, noise and pollution levels projected at that stage bear no relation to the world in which the road is now being built, yet members of the public have no comeback whatsoever.

I want to concentrate on the issue of road tolling and the NRA in my remaining time. This represents another sleight of hand on the part of the Government which has conveniently handed over all decisions on tolling to the NRA. The Government says tolling has nothing to do with it and Ministers are not obliged to answer any parliamentary questions or engage in any debate on the matter. On the other hand, the NRA states that when it levies tolls, it is only implementing Government policy. People want to know exactly who is in charge and actually making decisions in this area. Some 11 large and different sections of the country are to be subject to toll charges for the next 30 years, yet there has not been any public or political debate on the matter. The NRA ploughs on, completely unaccountable to anybody.

True, the Government informed us that £1 billion would be raised by the private sector for road construction, but, overnight, this private sector involvement translated into road tolling as if the two were synonymous. It is possible to have public-private partnerships in the absence of tolling and equally possible to have tolling in the absence of public-private partnerships. I am opposed to neither. I am not opposed to public-private partnerships and I am not opposed to tolling, particularly where the motivation is traffic management as is the case with the port tunnel. However, I and other members of the public strongly object to the failure to provide any rationale for tolling. The Government has not even provided an economic rationale for the tolling of roads. The evidence to date shows that tolling does not deliver infrastructure any quicker or any more cheaply. Some estimates reveal that the public will pay 13 times more than necessary. It is well known that the most expensive means of road provision is private tolling.

There may be some rationale for a Government toll where the user could at least be sure that the money collected would go into Irish coffers to be spent on maintaining existing Irish roads or building new ones. Why are we handing a virtual licence to print money over to the private sector, almost certainly foreigners? Private foreign companies will come to Ireland like bees to a honey pot at the delightful prospect of taking over responsibility for the tolling of Irish roads for the next 30 years. It is not as if Ireland does not have the money to build these roads. Today, the Taoiseach stated we were short by approximately £1 billion. We are not building particularly fast and all these roads are not being built simultaneously. It is possible to provide for longer phase-ins to the projects. Even if it did not want to do this, there is nothing stopping the Government from borrowing money which it can do quite cheaply. If it were still necessary to toll these roads – the Taoiseach appeared very concerned that they would generate a flow of income – at least we would have ownership of our roads, control over the location of tolls and the flexibility to adjust charges to prevent high diversion rates into towns which will inevitably occur if the NRA gets its way in regard to tolling around towns.

It is simply not good enough to hand over control of large sections of the national road network to private – probably foreign – interests in the absence of any explanation of the necessity to do so or any democratic input into safeguarding the interests of taxpayers, motorists and the general public. If we want to build roads, the Minister must alter the public consultation procedure, provide some political direction to the NRA which should be made accountable to this House and radically revamp the CPO procedure to make it more efficient and ensure it provides for realistic compensation for affected landowners.

Mr. Hogan

I propose to share time with a number of my colleagues. I congratulate Deputy Olivia Mitchell on tabling the motion at a time when there is considerable anxiety about road developments throughout the country. Ireland has an acknowledged infrastructural deficit. Following years of substantial growth in traffic on our roads, it is clear we have not planned appropriately for better roads. A well functioning national road network is essential to provide for the efficient movement of people, goods and services and to secure the competitiveness of the economy and balanced regional development. In fact, the national development plan envisages spending £6.75 billion over the next six or seven years to ensure we have a proper road network. We should not forget that there are other roads apart from national roads which mean an improved quality of life to our people. I refer to our county road network which is often neglected.

Approximately 8,000 farmers and 25,000 acres will be affected by the plans for dual carriageways and motorways under the national development plan. My constituency of Carlow-Kilkenny, which is part of the south-east region, was recently shown by Central Statistics Office figures to have one of the country's lowest per capita incomes. It is cumulatively lower than in some parts of the west. It is therefore critical for the south-east and my constituency to have good roads linking airports and ports and all parts of the country from Dublin outwards. The Waterford to Dublin road was originally left out of Government decisions and the national development plan's draft proposals. Subsequently, Ministers had to reconvene in order to ensure it was part of the plan. The manner in which the plan is being implemented is causing great anger, emotion and anxiety, after all no one can expect full co-operation or understanding of what the State wishes to achieve without proper consultation and explanation of the plans for these roads. Meetings have been held in Carlow and Kilkenny to discuss the optional routes for the new M9 and M8 and are advertised as so called consultation events. That is not the reality. Officials from the NRA and the local authority are treating my constituents as bystanders to the process. The NRA describes which routes are being investigated in a so-called information campaign but it is not a consultation opportunity.

We have antiquated compulsory purchase order procedures which go back centuries and desperately need to be updated in the context of these major road investments. The compulsory purchase system implies an unwilling seller and if anybody in the Department of the Environment and Local Government, the National Roads Authority or even the Minister, knew anything about property they would know that if an unwilling seller is in play, particularly a farmer, you will certainly have a difficult problem on your hands. They have no understanding of the mentality of those property owners and they treat people as though they were disloyal if they do not kow-tow, lie down and do exactly what they are asked to in the national interest. It is imperative to be generous and take full account of the use for which the acquirer wants the property. I warn the Minister that he is going to have a very difficult task implementing the national plan and he runs the risk of non-co-operation on route surveys if he does not heed this debate and stop burying his head in the sand. This will further delay the objectives of the plan he has submitted which he does not want to happen.

It is worth noting the consultancy fees he will sanction for these road projects will comprise up to 5% of the total cost of the projects while the property owners involved will get up to 1.5%. I wish to commend an IFA document which provides a good starting point for dealing with these issues. I ask the Minister to address the issues on a human level and ensure that we have no further unjustified anxiety on the part of the people affected.

Mr. Kenny

I intend to report Enterprise Ireland to the Advertising Standards Authority for Ireland. It is currently running a campaign promoting business in the regions and part of which untruthfully says that rural Ireland has the necessary infrastructure to cope with and facilitate expansion of business. This is a grossly false and should not be peddled to the people.

The National Roads Authority is a bureaucratic creature without nature. Public representatives, elected by the people, cannot ask any questions of the Minister for the Environment and Local Government or articulate any answers from him, yet the Minister holds two crucial functions in his remit. The first is that he determines policy and the second is that he provides the money. Section 41 of the Roads Act, 1991, gives the Minister a clear direction and allows him to instruct the NRA stating:

The Minister may give a direction in writing to the authority in relation to any of the functions assigned to it by or under this Act and the authority shall comply with the direction.

The Minister gets what the Minister wants. The last national plan indicated that a bypass would be put around Lough Ree but not one inch of ground was acquired. We are falling further and further behind because of lack of Government impetus and clarity. The Vasco da Gama bridge across the Tagus estuary in Lisbon took five years from plan to traffic because the government was interested and introduced a special Act to take into account people's concerns and wishes.

The cost of the national plan has risen from £40 billion to £47 billion since it was first introduced. This extra money is only going to be provided by extra taxation or tolling of roads. The people will rue the day they gave carte blanche to the National Roads Authority and the Government to introduce this extensive scheme of toll roads without adequate public transport being provided as an alternative. Look at what happened in Saleen, Castlebar, where the NRA threw £1 million to the local authority which was spare money from the Luas project. The result was an unplanned urban scheme and a family imprisoned behind 12 foot walls without sunlight or a view. If it happened in Ballsbridge or Donnybrook the national television station would be out there every week to see people illegally imprisoned by an agency of the State.

I question the design guidelines brought into being by the National Roads Authority and local authorities. We in the west are left with a wide carriageway as the main artery into the region and people turning right have a serious problem at all times. I will tell you how far we have come. Today outside Frenchpark there was a long delay of traffic causing it to travel at one mile an hour. The obstruction was a man wheeling a mobile traffic light with the green light on. We have come a long way since the days of the red flag.

Mr. McGrath

I too welcome the fact that we are going to improve our infrastructure by the development of roads. The crucial point at stake is how we are going to do it and what level of communication we will have with those con cerned and how involved they will be in planning the future infrastructure.

As my colleague outlined earlier, approximately 25,000 acres of land will be taken over the next two or three years for necessary road development and that will involve approximately 8,000 landowners. Most of the land will have to be acquired by compulsory purchase order. In my constituency there will be approximately 400 landowners involved with land purchases for the N4, N6 and N52. It is hard for anybody to comprehend what it is like to have a compulsory purchase order placed on you which is going to affect your livelihood. I can think of one landowner in particular with a barely viable 50 acres of land. He is already struggling and compulsory purchase orders are going to take 11 of his best acres. That is going to make his farm totally unviable. How can he have a sense of the future, of being able to look after his family and feel the State is treating him properly? He is not involved in the design of the road or where it will be. He is simply told it is coming through his land, end of the story, and there is not a lot he can do about it.

This is happening because we have an outdated compulsory purchase order system which dates back to 1919. It is cumbersome, slow and very rigid and it needs to be changed urgently. When one looks at the cost of new developments, about 5% of the total cost of roads goes to the landowners. Compare that to the money paid to a landowner in the case of housing or other developments. He gets a far higher percentage than 5% of the total. Toll roads are commercial developments. As those who build them will make money out of them, why is the land being taken for them, which is being purchased by CPO, not development land? How can the Minister of State subject farmers and others to payment of the agricultural rate for land which will enable commercial developers to reap a rich reward, that is, if the toll road option is pursued? With the State awash with money, as the Tánaiste said, we should be able to build the necessary infrastructure without having toll roads. In my area of County Westmeath and the midlands generally we will have to pay tolls to get to our major cities. This will affect the viability of industrial projects in our area. We will be at a disadvantage, although we are in the BMW area. Why should we be at such a disadvantage compared to industries in other areas which can avail of cities and ports without paying such tolls? This is unfair.

I recently met some landowners who will be affected by this and want to convey the message to the Minister of State that if he proceeds with compulsory purchase orders in the same way as is being done at present – without communication or information, bulldozing in on top of people – he is in for a rough ride. It will be difficult to get the land needed for those roads. I ask the Minister of State to have a fresh look at the matter.

Mr. Sheehan

The main focus is on five national routes: Dublin to the Border, Dublin to Galway, Dublin to Limerick, Dublin to Cork and Dublin to Waterford. The objective of the plan is to bring these routes to high quality dual carriageway or motorway standard by 2006.

I remind the Minister of State that the constituency of Cork South West extends from Cork Airport to Mizen Head, Sheep's Head and Dursey Sound, but does not have one mile of national primary road, yet it is 120 miles from Cork Airport to the three locations mentioned, an area much larger than many counties. The only legacy Fianna Fáil left south west Cork was to remove the railway system from Cork city to Bantry and Skibbereen and the light rail or tram from Skibbereen to Schull and Baltimore in the 1950s and sell the railway tracks to a Third World African nation. The Minister for Transport and Power and the Minister for Local Government in that Fianna Fáil Government told us the road from Cork to Castletownbere, Bantry and Baltimore would be reclassified to national primary status. The Minister of State will know well, having been born on the banks of the Lee, that almost 50 years later we do not have one mile of national primary road in south west Cork. That is a dismal legacy from an uncaring Fianna Fáil Administration.

During the past 50 years rosy promises were made, but no action was taken regarding south west Cork. For how long more will south west Cork be treated as the Cinderella region of the country, with no rail, air, ferry or primary road services? We have the largest whitefish landing port in the country in Castletownbere, the capital of the mariculture and aquaculture industries in Bantry Bay, the tourist riviera, the major agricultural region of Ireland, Carbery Milk Products as well as Bandon, Barryroe, Drinagh and Lislevane Co-ops, yet the region is starved by an inadequate road, rail and air infrastructure.

It is time the Minister of State awoke from his slumbers and realised his Government is slowly strangling this region. The main focus today is on these five national routes, but the legal basis for compulsory acquisition compensation is the market value of the land required, damage to other lands of the owner through severance and other injurious effects and disturbance and other matters not based on the value of the land.

Unless the Minister of State gets this plan going with the blessing of the farming organisations he has no hope of getting it off the ground. In addition, he is presiding over making billionaires of those companies investing in the national road network. Will he let south west Cork to the wolves? Will he let it become a wildlife region or safari park for wealthy Europeans? We cannot live on fresh air and cold water in west Cork. The time is right to seriously consider establishing an airport in Bantry and developing a decent national primary route to west Cork. The Minister of State should consider what we are contributing to the economy. It is a disgrace to introduce this legislation and I am ashamed of the Minister of State, as a Corkman from the city by the Lee, to stand over this treatment of the area.

Mr. Naughten

I welcome this debate and wish to declare a personal interest. The proposed new route to the west divides my family farm in half.

I want to focus on the CPO process and the outdated compensation procedures in place for land acquisition and the construction of the new routes. Everyone at the coalface of planning and constructing these routes agrees that a proper national road network is vital to securing the competitiveness of the economy and balanced regional development. However, the current acquisition of farm land and property using the compulsory purchase system, which dates back over a century, threatens the individual's property rights and causes immense disruption and financial hardship to stakeholders, namely, the property owners.

It is evident that the cards are stacked in favour of the purchaser with the CPO powers, the National Roads Authority, through the local authorities. How can a body such as the NRA be allowed to dictate the pace and consultation – or lack of it – as it treats people as if they are bystanders in the whole process? That body is not answerable to the House or any other elected public representative. There needs to be balanced development between the need to construct these new routes and the protection of the legitimate rights of property owners, which include fair levels of compensation. Such a balanced approach will not only benefit the landowners, but also the economic interests of the State by ensuring these projects are not unduly delayed, thus leading to increases in construction costs and the economic costs to industry in the region. The current derisory levels of compensation will lead to non-co-operation and increased construction costs.

How is it that there is such opposition to the current road construction programme and so little opposition to the Bord Gáis pipeline to the west? The answer is simple. BGE is prepared to adequately compensate landowners and protect the future value of their property. The difference is quite stark: the compensation for these new routes will average between £3,000 to £5,000, but the compensation from BGE is between £7,000 to £7,500, with further consideration given to the restriction on development at some future date and the farmer can still farm the land.

The current situation, where many farm payments are made on an area basis or tied into acreage, has not been given any consideration regarding compensation; neither has the increase in insurance premia for public liability due to the responsibility for maintaining the boundaries of these new routes. The element of compensation as a percentage of the total budget for these new routes is approximately 7%. Any accommodation work is also taken out of this figure, which can lead to a situation where a farmer who has land acquired is entitled to little or no compensation.

The IFA has put forward a well-balanced set of proposals which, if implemented, would ensure much of the opposition to these new routes would be avoided. The current valuation system is discriminatory and unfair. Such a system must be based on the area of the plot of land being acquired reflecting the valuation of a similar sized plot, not its valuation as part of an undivided holding.

Another contentious issue is the delay in payment of compensation which is compounded by people's liability to tax. The Government cannot give out compensation with one hand and take it back with the other. I commend the motion to the House.

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment and Local Government (Mr. D. Wallace)

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following:

", commending the Government's proactive approach to accelerating the delivery of an up-graded national road network:

–welcomes the demonstrable progress being made in implementing the national roads improvement programme set out in the National Development Plan 2000-2006;

–notes the comprehensive statutory public consultation procedures in place under the Roads Act, 1993, which are also being supplemented by extensive non-statutory consultations by road authorities;

–affirms the importance of continuing a system of land acquisition for infrastructure which is fair and equitable and provides for appropriate compensation to all landowners and occupiers;

–welcomes the implementation from 1 January 2001 of the provisions of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, which will assist the speedier planning approval of critical infrastructure;

–commends the National Roads Authority on its planning and management of a greatly expanded national roads programme;

–emphasises the importance of Public Private Partnerships in harnessing necessary skills and finance to ensure the achievement of the Government's ambitious infrastructure targets; and

–notes the Government's continued commitment to delivering top quality national and non-national roads."

Since taking office in 1997, this Government has recognised the importance to the economy, and for the quality of life generally, of a high quality national road network. That is why we have hugely increased the annual allocation for the national roads programme from £260 million in 1997 to £620 million in 2001. Much has been achieved – and is being achieved – with this investment. The House is aware of major road improvements that have been completed in recent years. I am recalling here not just flagship projects such as the bypasses of Arklow, Balbriggan, Nenagh, Cavan, Donegal, the Curlews and major new facilities such as the Lee Tunnel, the East Cork Parkway, Dunleer/Dundalk and more. I am also referring to many smaller projects, such as Clar-Barnesmore in Donegal, recently opened by the Taoiseach, which have brought welcome benefits to less populated areas.

In line with the priority that it has accorded to investment in national roads since 1997, the Government decided in the NDP to further increase investment in this vital area. Accordingly, the NDP provides for a total investment of £4.4 billion at 1999 prices over the period 2000-06. This investment was to be focused on the development of five major inter-urban routes – Dublin to Waterford, Cork, Limerick, Galway and Belfast to motorway or high quality dual carriageway standard; completion of the M50 and Port Tunnel routes in Dublin; major works on other national primary routes; improvement of national secondary routes of particular importance to economic development, including, in particular, routes of importance to tourism and routes providing access to airports and seaports; and support of the Government's road safety strategy.

Improved infrastructure is not an end in itself. It is intended to improve inter-urban links, facilitate regional development and reduce journey times. On the five major inter-urban routes, the following major journey time savings are being targeted: Dublin/Border-24 minutes; Dublin/Galway-36 minutes; Dublin/Limerick-31 minutes; Dublin/Cork-58 minutes and Dublin/Waterford-31 minutes. The development programme outlined in the NDP, and elaborated in the economic and social infrastructure operational programme, provides a clear and coherent strategic framework for the development of our national roads network. It is clearly focused on providing high quality inter-urban links and addressing the most urgent needs in the network.

Implementation of the national roads improvement programme is now well under way. As I have already indicated, the 2001 allocation for national roads is £620 million. This is supporting the completion of 20 projects this year including the Southern Cross Route (M50), the Boyle/Carrick-on-Shannon route (N4), the Knock/Claremorris route (N17), the Ballycarthy/Castleisland route, County Kerry (N21) and the Ardee link, County Louth (N33/M1). The allocation will also enable the commencement of work on 23 further major projects including the Dublin Port Tunnel, the South-Eastern Motorway (M50), Carrickmacross bypass (N2), Monasterevin by-pass (N7), Ennis bypass (N18) and Youghal bypass (N25).

A broad ranging package of measures has been pursued by the NRA to ensure the efficient and effective delivery of investment projects. These include the development and implementation of revised project management and reporting guidelines, including publication of "National Road Project Management Guidelines" in March 2000 and the introduction of a project reporting computer system in early 2001; the adoption of revised planning and design procedures which, together with revised approval procedures introduced under the Planning Act, 2000, should reduce the time required to bring a project to construction stage from five to 3.5 years; the establishment in co-operation with local authorities of 11 regional design offices; the conclusion of a new code of practice with Duchas to ensure the more effective and timely archaeological investigation of sites in advance of road construction; the greater use of consultants for detailed planning and design of individual projects, allowing the staff of regional design offices to focus on project management and delivery and the greater use of public private partnerships.

I turn now to the question of tolling. Major investment in infrastructure, including national roads, has been identified by the Government as a priority of the National Development Plan 2000-2006. Of the total provision for the improvement of national roads in the NDP, fully £1 billion is intended to relate to private sector investment in public private partnership projects. User tolls are now in widespread use throughout the developed and developing world and are particularly favoured where rapid expansion in major networks is required. They are considerably more widely used instruments of road financing than shadow tolls and more readily permit the transfer of economic risk, which is desirable in PPP projects. While the use of shadow tolls has not been ruled out, road user tolling is, on the basis of these considerations, more likely to be relied upon in the earlier stages of national roads PPP development.

Tolling of national roads will increase under the NDP arising from the major emphasis in the plan on the use of public private partnerships. In part, the emphasis on PPP has arisen from understandable concerns about delivering on the major programme of works to which I have referred. PPPs are being considered as a means to capture private sector skills in the areas of management expertise, financial control and technical innovation for the benefit of the project. In addition, PPPs create a means of access to private finance for major projects which will help in accelerating the development of our road infrastructure.

Briefly, the justification for using a PPP approach is that it accelerates infrastructure provision, allows for faster implementation, reduces whole life costs of projects and creates incentives to perform that would not otherwise be there. In the experience of EU member states and that of other developed countries, use of PPP financing to deliver a proportion of major roads pro grammes is the norm rather than the exception. In recent times, major acceleration of roads programmes in Portugal, France and Spain have been achieved in this way. In western Europe, approximately one-third of the 51,000 kilometre motorway network is tolled.

The Government's decision in 1998 to endorse the potential of PPPs led to the announcement in mid-1999 of a number of pilot road projects for implementation by the NRA. Those projects comprise the construction of a second M50 West Link Bridge; the N25 Waterford bypass, including a new major river crossing, and, the Limerick Southern Ring Road, phase 2, also including a major river crossing. The first of these projects has now cleared all statutory procedures and is about to commence construction. The second, the Waterford bridge bypass, is under consideration by An Bord Pleanála, and the third is at an advanced stage of planning.

The NRA subsequently announced a further eight public private partnership schemes for the national road network. All these PPP road schemes will be design/build/finance/operate contracts with a long-term concession period, of the order of 30 years, during which the concessionaire will recoup the upfront construction costs and on-going operation/road maintenance costs by the collection of tolls. The eight new schemes together with the pilot projects involve a total roadway length of approximately 230 kilometre, requiring an estimated investment of £1,030 million with a potential private finance input of about £700 million.

The statutory power to levy tolls on national roads, to make toll by-laws and to enter into toll agreements with private investors is vested in the National Roads Authority under Part V of the Roads Act, 1993. Road authorities have similar powers in relation to the tolling of non-national roads. The NRA and local authorities are, however, required to engage in an extensive consultation process before adopting a toll scheme, which includes a requirement to hold an oral hearing into any objection to a proposed toll scheme. A comprehensive statutory public consultation process in relation to toll schemes is provided for in the Roads Act, 1993.

In addition, the Planning and Development Act, 2000, provides for the possibility of policy directives to the National Roads Authority or local authorities by the Minister for the Environment and Local Government regarding the exercise of their road tolling functions. Any such policy directives may not relate to particular tolling schemes and must be laid before the House. While no such directives have been issued to date, chapter 4 of the NRA's review of 2000 and programme for 2001 sets out the key principles established by the NRA for its public private partnership programme. These principles include making an alternative toll free route available for road users, thereby giving a choice as regards paying a toll. Tolled roads will be widely spread across the main national routes and in, or close to, all main cities in order to create an equitable distribution of user charging. I am satisfied these principles, together with the broader policy framework set out in the national development plan in relation to public private partnerships, establish a satisfactory basis for the continued development of the NRA's PPP programme.

The Government has made clear in the national development plan its plans for considerably greater use of public private partnerships in the implementation of the current national roads programme. That approach is now being taken forward by the NRA and I am confident it will improve the efficiency and the speed of delivery of the national roads programme while at the same time ensuring public accountability.

The motion refers to the need for meaningful public consultation in the context of major new road schemes. I fully accept that such consultation is essential and I add that such consultation is the norm. I have already indicated that the NRA is required to engage in an extensive consultation process before adopting a toll scheme.

As part of major road project planning, local authorities initiate, at an early stage, a process of public consultation in connection with route selection. Typically the initial public consultation takes the form of an information brochure or similar material addressed to local communities and business interests outlining the need for the project, a general description of broad-band corridor route options and a questionnaire seeking the views and concerns of the public. In addition, public presentations are arranged by the local authority at a number of venues in the area concerned to outline the proposal and address requests for information or clarification. Following a review of the public response, together with the findings of studies conducted to identify route constraints, the local authority identifies a preferred route, which is also the subject of public consultation. The primary purpose of the consultation exercise is to bring the public up to date on developments in the planning of the project, taking account of public feedback and the findings of constraint studies and, in particular, to outline information on the preferred route option. I also understand that it is standard practice for the NRA and local authorities concerned to periodically update elected member on developments in relation to major national road projects as part of the overall public consultation process.

The consultations are pre-statutory. Their completion triggers the statutory procedures for taking forward major road projects which involve environmental impact assessment and motorway scheme or CPO, as set out in Part IV of the Roads Act, 1993. These involve extensive public consultations and an oral hearing must be held by An Bord Pleanála. Any fair minded person would have to agree that a very full level of public consultation must be engaged in before a major road project is approved. This is as it should be. I ask the promoters of this motion to indicate what further methods of communication or consultation they deem necessary and how these can be accommodated without seriously compromising the efficient delivery of urgently needed roads infrastructure. It seems that on this issue the Opposition is trying to ride two populist horses at the same time without making it clear what it really wants, or how it proposes to integrate and reconcile the two valid public interest requirements of good public consultation and urgent delivery of roads infrastructure.

Mr. Sheehan

The Minister of State and the Minister for Environment and Local Government are two bad jockeys.

Mr. D. Wallace

In January 2001, the Minister for the Environment and Local Government commenced new provisions of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, relating to the approval process for major road and other public infrastructure. An Bord Pleanála is now responsible for the confirmation of motorway schemes or compulsory purchase orders made by local authorities and for assessing environmental impact statements for all major local authority development, including motorways. These new arrangements, along with the new time limits for submitting CPOs and road schemes to the board for confirmation, and the power to deal simultaneously with compulsory purchase confirmations and environment impact assessment, will speed up the procedures for all types of CPOs. So that the board will have adequate resources to discharge its new responsibilities, the Minister has increased its financing by some 87% over the 2000 level and ensured that it can recruit the people it needs. An Bord Pleanála recently decided that a full independent review of its organisation and staffing should be carried out and this is under way.

Local authorities have power to acquire land compulsorily to fulfil any of their duties under existing CPO legislation. The procedures are designed to ensure a full and independent assessment of the local authorities' proposal and the views of the affected land owners. Local authorities may also acquire land by agreement and the bulk of land acquisitions are managed on this basis. The scale of the national development plan both in terms of the number and size of infrastructural projects, particularly road construction, means that extensive land acquisition is involved, with undoubted disruption to many landowners, and in some cases severance of holdings.

The Government is committed to ensuring that the system of land acquisition operates fairly and efficiently and that decisions can be made in a timely manner. The new procedures introduced in the Planning and Development Act, 2000, where the powers of the Minister for the Envir onment and Local Government were transferred to An Bord Pleanála will help in this regard.

Mr. Sheehan

It is a retrograde step.

Ms O. Mitchell

And completely undemocratic.

Mr. D. Wallace

It is a basic principle that land owners must get fair compensation and that it should be paid as quickly as possible. Compensation is composed of a number of elements, but the fundamental point of reference for this compensation must be the market value of the land. Compensatory provision must also be made for disturbance, severance and so on. Depending on the circumstances, these can add very significantly to the total compensation package. In addition, accommodation works such as underpasses are also catered for. Where a dispute arises about compensation the matter can be referred to an independent arbitrator for decision.

Ms O. Mitchell

Within the rules.

Mr. D. Wallace

The IFA published proposals for reform of the arrangements for compulsory acquisition of land. In the context of the commitment in the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness to the "fair and efficient implementation of compulsory purchase orders", these proposals have been under discussion between the IFA, my Department and other relevant agencies, including the National Roads Authority. This process is continuing. The Government is committed to a fair and equitable compulsory purchase process. It is also determined that value for money will be obtained and that the national development programme will be delivered on time and cost effectively so that the country as a whole can enjoy sustained economic growth and a more balanced regional development.

Mr. Sheehan

That is of cold comfort to west Cork.

Mr. D. Wallace

I emphasise the Government's concern for the speedy delivery of urgently required roads infrastructure, as well as for the position of individuals and groups who are affected by road developments. There is an important balance to be struck between these concerns and I believe our procedures are properly designed to achieve this balance. Public private partnerships using road tolls to remunerate the private sector involvement will be a significant part of the national road improvement programme as set out in the national development plan. The Government makes no apologies for this as there will be clear benefits for road users and communities as I have already outlined.

Mr. Sheehan

Not in west Cork.

Mr. D. Wallace

The reality is that the Government has a comprehensive plan in place to radically upgrade our national road network. The necessary funding is being provided and steps have been taken to ensure early delivery. We stand on this record, and commend the amended motion to the House.

Mr. Dennehy

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Fine Gael motion which seems to be more inspired by happenings in Tipperary South rather than the good of the country.

Ms O. Mitchell

It is happening all over the country.

Mr. Dennehy

For the majority of my 27 years on Cork Corporation, I have been a member of the roads and transportation committee. I have witnessed at first-hand over the years the hard battles to get funding for any major project. I have visited many Ministers in the course of that time.

I like to think we in Cork would be to the forefront in putting in place a proper regional or sub-regional plan taking into account the available Cork land use and transportation study. That exercise, carried out in the greater Cork area, has become the standard exercise for other areas putting in place a development plan. The success of our approach has been borne out by the provision of all but one aspect of that programme. Construction was recently started on the Bishopstown-Ballincollig bypass in the Cork South-Central constituency. That is the final instalment of the land use and transportation study.

One of the reasons the project was delayed was the fairly indifferent approach taken by central Government during the 1994 to 1997 period. At that stage we should have been building the second last phase of the programme, namely, the massive Blackpool bypass recently opened by the Minister of State, Deputy Dan Wallace. If some of those who signed their names to this motion had been more energetic when in government and had listened to the people of Cork and Blackpool, all stages of the programme, including the Bishopstown-Ballincollig bypass, would now be complete.

Mr. Sheehan

It would not have got off the ground had it not been for us.

Mr. Dennehy

There are many other projects in the Cork area and we will conduct a tour, for former Ministers, current Deputies and others, of the Jack Lynch tunnel, the Carrigtwohill-Midleton bypass, the Glanmire bypass, the south ring road and the new inner city bridges, and show them what has been achieved. The achievements to which I refer were realised through the adoption of a realistic plan and a good approach and with funding from the EU. We tried to inform the people of Cork about that fact in the past two weeks but perhaps they did not listen. If we were to take people – be they officials or Members of this House – to any location to show them the importance of new road structures, the text book example would be Mallow in County Cork.

Mr. Sheehan

The Deputy should take them to visit his in-laws in south-west Cork.

Mr. Dennehy

That area has been changed radically by the provision of a proper road network.

In all my years of lobbying Ministers for funding, I never imagined that a sum of £481 million would be spent on road improvements, as was the case last year. When one realises that £620 million will be spent on such improvements this year and a further £40 million will be spent this year on maintenance, it is clear that real progress is being made and no one can argue with that.

Mr. Sheehan

Cork County Council received the largest allocation in Ireland, it is a disgrace.

Mr. Dennehy

Opposition parties have shifted tack so often in terms of their approach to criticising various Ministers and the Government on issues such as the national development plan and its component parts, it is difficult for them to claim credibility. Initially they stated that sufficient money would not be provided in the national development plan. They then stated that it would not proceed on time and that its component parts could not be put in place. They then stated it would not and, more importantly, could not be delivered on—

Ms O. Mitchell

It will not be delivered on.

Mr. Dennehy

—and they have clearly stated that the money could not be spent. Deputy Noonan suggested that we should bring in German and French contractors to carry out the work because we could not spend the money. However, the Opposition have been proven wrong again. At the opening of Blackpool bypass the heads of the NRA and the construction industry stated that targets will be exceeded on all fronts.

Mr. Sheehan

Not in south-west Cork.

Mr. Dennehy

The latest tack the Opposition has taken is an attempt at stalling.

Mr. Sheehan

The Deputy's party has deserted south-west Cork.

Mr. Dennehy

That is obvious to any neutral observer.

I recognise that there is an element of colleagues using the old tactic of "Tadhgín an dá thaobh". On their home turf they are highly critical of the Minister, Deputy Dempsey, and the Minister of State, Deputy Dan Wallace, and state that they will not allocate funding to or grant approval for projects. They are acting the hard man and hard woman in their constituencies but in this House they adopt a different approach by trying to slow the Government's excellent rate of progress. Any European commentator or inde pendent analyst will state that the Government's record in this area is excellent.

Mr. Sheehan

The Government has a dismal record in south-west Cork.

Mr. Dennehy

I could hear Deputy Sheehan's contribution in my office. I have the aid of a microphone to make myself heard but I am not sure if he needed one.

The honest commentators on the other side of the House will admit that they are surprised – in some instances they have been almost shocked – at the rate of progress on projects that were discussed for generations. I suspect that few people did so well in terms of fighting for local projects over the years that they will be disappointed when such projects are completed. Cynical politicians will state that there are no votes to be gained from completed projects and they are quite happy to ensure that projects remain unfinished so that they can fly the flag for their constituents.

Ms O. Mitchell

The Deputy is deluding himself.

Mr. Sheehan

His party sold out south-west Cork 50 years ago.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Sheehan should allow Deputy Dennehy to continue without interruption.

Mr. Dennehy

Those days of bluffing are over because many of the long-fingered projects are proceeding. We need a modern, safe, well-balanced, countrywide infrastructure. We cannot ignore any region of the country. The regions will no longer be ignored as they were for generations.

Mr. Sheehan

The Deputy's party has done it for 50 years.

Mr. Dennehy

No one should be allowed to unduly delay the work to which I refer, particularly not Opposition Members in this House.

I have been an activist on my local parish council for almost my entire adult life and I understand more than most the need for local consultation, to brief people on the issues affecting them and to discuss possible alternatives in any given situation. I am concerned about instances where people have no interest in the common good or where the only objective is to prevent the provision of an obviously badly needed and beneficial facility such as a new road. Recently, while chairing a meeting of the Committee of Public Accounts, I brought to the attention of the chief executive officers of the NRA and Dúchas the case of the Kildare town bypass. In my opinion, much too great an emphasis was placed on the existence of snails and similar creatures on the proposed route of the bypass and that no con sideration was given to the health and welfare of the residents of Kildare town.

Mr. Sheehan

The uncaring Government again.

Mr. Dennehy

I informed them that on three or four occasions while driving to Dublin I stopped in Kildare town and sat in the square near the crossing on the main street. It was pathetic to see elderly people trying to traverse the road and to witness the level of pollution in the square. Construction of the bypass was delayed for three or four years while people argued about—

Mr. Sheehan

A snail.

Mr. Dennehy

—other matters. I am not being facetious but I consider myself a conservationist. I have worked in the area of conservation and I am committed to it. However, I believe that in all instances the health and safety of human beings must come first. That has not happened in all cases. Deputy Sheehan will be aware of the difficulties people experience in trying to enter Tralee town. I ask him to support the Minister, Deputy Dempsey, and the Minister of State, Deputy Dan Wallace—

Mr. Sheehan

Unfortunately, I am not a member of the Southern Health Board and I do not visit Tralee very often.

Mr. Dennehy

—by explaining to people that the money and plans are in place and that contractors are waiting to commence work. He should give encouragement and support. The Deputy has spent 20 years in the House seeking funding for projects. Now that it is being provided, he should give his full support to those responsible. He should not put his name to a motion of this nature which seeks to delay progress and halt projects.

Mr. Sheehan

Nothing has been done in south-west Cork.

Mr. Dennehy

I compliment the Minister of State, Deputy Dan Wallace, and the Minister, Deputy Dempsey, on the excellent job they are doing. These men are ordinary, down-to-earth people who say "Let us get on with the job". They are being supported in that from the Cabinet and elsewhere and they should be allowed to continue. I appeal to Opposition Members to cease being negative. They should not try to stall progress. They tried to state that money would not be provided, that the national development plan would not be put in place and that we could not deliver.

Mr. Sheehan

We have been waiting 50 years and nothing has been done.

An Ceann Comhairle

Order, please, Deputy Sheehan.

Mr. Dennehy

Now the experts have informed them that the Government is between 15% and 20% ahead of its targets and they are seeking a way to slow down this progress or stop it.

Ms O. Mitchell

The Deputy is deluding himself. He should read the motion.

Mr. Dennehy

The Opposition cannot be allowed to do that.

Mr. Sheehan

A total of £8 million was siphoned off—

Mr. Dennehy

The country cannot be dragged back down on to its knees. We must move forward. If that means removing a pet project such as draining the Shannon, so be it. Some people have gained re-election to this House on the back of championing such projects and they are concerned that they will not be carried out.

I accept that everyone has a right to argue their case. If there are laws or regulations that are 100 years old, they should be examined. The Government has updated a raft of old legislation. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy O'Donoghue, has updated 27 items of justice legislation, one of which dated back 108 years, and the Minister of State, Deputy Dan Wallace, and the Minister, Deputy Dempsey, have updated our road structures. I accept that we must negotiate with people. In my opinion, the wording for this motion emanated from south Tipperary. Given that the identities of the four candidates were revealed this evening and in light of the fact that Mr. Rae is not running, the Opposition should back off, relax and join us in driving the country forward to further success.

Mr. Sheehan

I advise the Deputy to take a trip to his in-laws in west Cork to see the state of the roads there.

Ms O. Mitchell

The Deputy needs a dose of reality.

Mr. Dennehy

I support the amendment, compliment the two Ministers involved, Deputies Dempsey and Dan Wallace, for their good work and wish them well for the future. Perhaps the Opposition could give them some support.

Mr. Sheehan

I invite the Deputy to west Cork to see the state of the roads.

Mr. Penrose

I am glad to have the opportunity to contribute to this important debate. I am sharing time with my colleague, Deputy O'Shea.

This is an important and timely debate. It is important that it comes before the House at this point. I will concentrate on the agricultural aspects, especially the compulsory purchase order procedure which is outdated, outmoded and not in line with prevailing circumstances. It involves large tracts of farmland, which is a finite resource, being compulsorily acquired from landowners and, occasionally, cottiers. The procedure sometimes intrudes upon small areas of land people have built up over the years through thick and thin or which they inherited from their predecessors in title and which they have helped preserve in bad times. Now that they have an opportunity to farm that land or pass some of it on to their successors in title, it is taken away by the compulsory purchase procedure.

The issue is not so much that it is taken away as how it is taken away and the method of assessing compensation. The land is compulsorily purchased at a price which is wholly inadequate in so far as the method of compensation is grounded upon a legislative basis which dates back to 1919 and which is out of date, cumbersome, unwieldy, rigid and inflexible. That is the best I can say about it. In spite of the fact that the acquisition of land is based on the concept of the common good in so far as a functioning national road network is necessary, and we all accept the importance of putting an infrastructure in place to provide for the efficient movement of goods, services and people, to develop a competitive economy and to ensure areas such as the Border, midland and west region receive proper and balanced regional development, we must recognise that the CPO procedure impinges severely upon each individual's property rights and is only saved from constitutional infirmity by the fact that a compensatory procedure is an integral part of it.

We must also recognise that the acquisition of land in this fashion causes tremendous disruption, hardship, stress and significant financial costs to farmers and landowners impacted upon as a result. I will give some relevant examples which show the depth of disruption which can be caused. I highlight my county of Westmeath in which a number of major road developments are taking place, such as the N6 from Kinnegad to Athlone, the N4 from Kilcock to Mullingar and the N52. As many as 400 farmers will be affected by the new road proposals which will impact upon roughly 2,000 acres of land, all of it good and arable and some of it reclaimed and built up over the years by landowners and their families. Of the 400 farmers affected, about 240 along the route of the new proposed N6 from Kinnegad to Athlone will be severely disrupted and discommoded and will suffer a significant impact upon their ability to earn a living.

Those farmers in Westmeath do not oppose development and realise that, despite the drastic imposition upon and disruption of their livelihoods and way of life these roads will cause, their support for the construction of these national road networks is necessary. They support them despite the fact that some of the proposed routes criss-cross their land and sever their holdings in three or four places. One farmer in Kilbeggan will be put out of business. It depends on the enterprises involved. If a person is involved in rearing horses, the fact a roadway comes close to the holding eliminates that enterprise. Roads cannot be crossed because often provision is not made for underpasses. Projects are often announced as a fait accompli and one can only fiddle at the edges. That, however, results in neighbours being discommoded and people become agitated. The CPO system appears fine until one witnesses it in operation. All that results is people's annoyance at the manner of its operation. Its successful operation depends on the enterprises impacted upon and the opportunity people have for real consultation as opposed to apparent consultation.

As I said, some holdings will be criss-crossed in three or four places which will render the continuance of some farming enterprises uneconomic and will impact severely and negatively upon the normal, quiet enjoyment by those affected of their houses. Some of the routes will come so close to their houses that they will be the equivalent of prison walls. All proposals must be reasonable, sensible and sensitive to those affected.

The kernel of the problem for landowners is that the compensation procedure is inadequate because it reflects the agricultural value of the land being acquired. This is an anachronism because of what is taking place in major road development. The land being acquired should be accordingly valued at market prices which should be set relative to the price of development land and which would constitute the replacement value of the land at least. It is essential reality is brought to bear on the matter and that the price of compulsorily acquired land be related to its replacement value. Both main farming organisations have put forward significant proposals which set out the changes needed to update the existing compulsory acquisition rules and procedures used since 1919.

It is essential a major overhaul of this legislation is undertaken immediately and that the essence of such an overhaul is to make the legislation more user friendly. It is a fact that land acquisition costs for the construction of roadways are significantly lower than those for housing; they are less than 5%. There is scope to meet the legitimate concerns and aspirations of landowners and put in place a replacement value method of compensation. None of the landowners is a willing seller. They have not set out to seek to have their land severed.

I am opposed to the concept of tolling whereby those who use the roads must pay the cost. It will be self-defeating in the long run. The economy is flush with money and we should give something back to hard pressed motorists rather than putting a tolling system in place. If the Government persists with the concept of toll roads, it will be ironic that the land which will be compulsorily acquired will become the source of significant income for the private sector involved in tolling. It is only fair and just that the compensation paid for the land reflects the use to which it will be put, which is development.

We must also take cognisance of the fact that there will also be an increased number of farmers who will seek to replace the land they lose under the road projects. They will compete with others on the open market for a limited pool of replacement land which will lead to a significant increase in the replacement price which will greatly exceed the market value paid to farmers in this instance. There should also be a significant relaxation of the capital gains tax imposed and the rollover provisions. I accordingly call upon the Government to honour and fulfil its commitment in the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness to put in place a fair and efficient method of dealing with compulsory purchase orders. That should be done without further delay.

Mr. O'Shea

The draft toll scheme for the N25 Waterford bypass proposed by the National Roads Authority has been unanimously opposed by Waterford City Council. This reflects the sense of outrage felt by the citizens of Waterford city and county and the surrounding areas in other counties that the first place tolling will be introduced outside Dublin will be on the infrastructural project rated as the most important in the south-east region by the south-east regional authority.

In a recent report, the average individual income in the south-east was found to be 12% below the national average. The region has a deficit in ICT capacity and in high-tech employment.

This is the region where the upgrading of Waterford Institute of Technology, initiated by my colleague, the then Minister for Education, former Deputy Niamh Bhreathnach, has made excrutiatingly slow progress during the past four and half years under two Fianna Fáil Ministers for Education and Science, Deputies Martin and Woods.

Only the East Link and West Link bridges in the capital are tolled. Over many years there has been huge State investment in the four county boroughs, Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Galway. Waterford has a single river crossing. While Waterford waited for its second river crossing, major road and river crossing projects were completed in the other country boroughs. In some which already had numerous bridges extra bridges were provided. In Cork a major new tunnel, the Jack Lynch tunnel, was constructed recently at a cost of £108 million.

Why has Waterford been selected for tolling? It is indicative of the indifference and contempt in which Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats hold the city. Waterford will not accept this latest insult and threatened exploitation.

The importance of a second river crossing to Waterford cannot be overstated. The lack of proper road access to Waterford city has often been cited by the IDA as hampering its efforts to attract industry to Waterford. The N25 is carried over the River Suir by Rice Bridge, the single river crossing. The N9 commences at Rice Bridge and the bridge also links Waterford city to the port at Belview. The glaring inequity of expecting the citizens of Waterford to be tolled on their second river crossing is starkly apparent to even the most disinterested observer. Cork, with 14 bridges, was recently provided with a toll free tunnel. The injustice of this against what is proposed for Waterford is more than the people of Waterford will bear. The gun has been put to their heads. They are being told they must accept this unjust proposal or go back to the end of the queue. Once again, the message from Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats to Waterford is that it must accept the crumbs from the national table, be grateful and keep quiet. The day when people would accept such treatment has gone. Waterford will not accept the ultimatum that if the city wants a second river crossing, its citizens must pay for it. The constituency of Waterford will not accept this unfair and inequitable treatment.

Adding to the difficulty in Waterford city is the fact that Rice Bridge is raised an average of three times per week to facilitate the passage of ships. Rice Bridge has the only opening span on the national road network. At peak periods the bridge operates at full capacity which means that for significant parts of the day the bridge's capacity is at full stretch. This illustrates the need for an alternative toll free route to Rice Bridge in order that the growing traffic requirement can be catered for.

The model proposed for the city's second river crossing is based on right wing economics rather than social equity. Before any tolled route is considered there must be an adequate toll free route. There is little doubt that motorists would avail of the diminishing spare capacity at off-peak times on Rice Bridge. To attract a significant number of vehicles onto the proposed tolled second river crossing the existing route would have to be gridlocked. The second river crossing is vital to the future of Waterford and the south east region. Many workers access the city by way of Rice Bridge. These workers come mainly from Wexford and south Kilkenny.

Waterford is, by far, the most disadvantaged in terms of roads infrastructure, yet the Taoiseach, Deputy Ahern, and the Tánaiste, Deputy Harney, perceive the city as a soft touch and it is singled out for incredibly brutal treatment. They would not attempt to treat Dublin, Cork or Galway in such a cavalier fashion.

There are environmental features of this proposed development which would prove problematic. Roads in the city would suffer a great loss of amenity as increasing traffic levels became unsustainable. Any roads project should be based on the twin concepts of sustainability and environmental gain. Toll avoiding would be a major difficulty.

We need to be told the reason Waterford's second river crossing has been selected for this inappropriate model. Why is the Government seeking to impose this model on Waterford? It is illogical and unsuitable and would compound growing traffic problems. Why, on the N25 route from Rosslare to Cork, is it proposed to hinder the flow of traffic at Waterford city? Why, in the face of policy throughout Europe, is the city bypass at Waterford proposed for tolling? The European norm is to toll long, inter-urban motorways, ensuring city bypasses are free.

There is a solution to the problem. It is the introduction of shadow tolling. This means that a toll payment would be made to the private partner by the NRA. In this way the second river crossing would be toll free to the citizens of Waterford and the south east region. I am demanding that this option be put in place. Waterford is entitled to the same treatment as other cities. The Taoiseach and the Tánaiste must not think the people of Waterford will accept this.

My colleague, Deputy Penrose, raised an issue on which I, too, have strong feelings. The Land Acquisition Act, 1919, and the Housing Act, 1966, are quite unsuitable to modern conditions. The value of land should be assessed in terms of its intended use. If private individuals can invest in a roadway and make vast profits, there should be a mechanism whereby farmers share, to some extent, in these profits.

Deputy Penrose referred to the damage which can be done to a holding by road building. There is a Teagasc model for assessing the extent of damage done to agricultural holdings by such development. If a landowner loses a significant amount of land, it can be difficult to find replacement land or relocate in a convenient holding. The legislation must be changed.

We must find more innovative ways of dealing with the legalities attached to compulsory acquisition of land by the Department of the Environment and Local Government. The Department might look at the procedures followed by An Bord Gáis, for instance. The model developed by the company is much more appropriate to the 21st century and would effect large savings to the taxpayer.

There should be equity for landowners whose land is compulsorily purchased and becomes very profitable and there must be adequate compensation for landowners disrupted by development. Road development could make a farm enterprise inoperable.

Landowners often suffer delays of up to three years while waiting to be paid, but the value of the land is set at the date the compulsory purchase order is served. There must be flexibility in this regard. Crocodile tears are shed by those who say they wish to maintain the rural population.

Debate adjourned.