Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 14 Nov 1979

Vol. 93 No. 2

Local Government (Toll Roads) Bill, 1978: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. McDonald

I should like to make one or two very brief comments on this Bill. Two weeks ago it was discussed briefly in the House. Today we have an opportunity of taking a look at it again. This kind of legislation is absolutely new. It is a new concept on the Irish scene. It is the kind of legislation that is widespread in other countries, especially in continental Europe. One thing bothers me about the Bill itself. It is quite a small Bill. It does not say very much, but it enables the Government to achieve quite a number of things under its general umbrella. It is an indication of a certain amount of dishonesty. It is before the House today as a direct result of one of the promises upon which the Government achieved office some two years ago. They promised to remove car tax which contributed a considerable amount of money to the Road Fund over the years. Many people thought it was a nice bonus to have the tax removed from their cars, especially younger people. Its removal contributed quite considerably to the huge majority the Government now enjoy in Dáil Eireann.

I should like to ask the Minister of State if he will elaborate further on the reasons why the Government at this time seek to bring in this kind of legislation. From my experience of motoring on the Continent, if one has to use the toll roads from Strasbourg to Paris, or even from Paris to Le Havre, it is quite expensive, especially when one compares that kind of taxation with the car tax we accepted before the last general election. The Government have introduced this Bill to milk the already hard-pressed motoring public for considerably more money than they were paying before. Yet the Government got good value from their initiative in promising to remove the car tax.

On the merits of the Bill, it would appear from press reports that it is enabling legislation to allow some investors or big businessmen to move into this area. Are the Government and the Department of the Environment convinced this is an appropriate way to finance road construction and the provision of infrastructures? We must remember that our road infrastructures are in a deplorable state. I am not blaming the Government particularly but we have not got the flyovers, and so on, which tend to speed up traffic. We have not got the ring roads which reduce traffic needs. The traffic in Dublin certainly needs tremendous thought, not to talk of finance.

I was in the southern capital over the past three or four weeks and the traffic there is appalling. Their system of one-way streets is just not possible to follow. Also they have not got adequate signposting. The traffic system in Cork city is nothing short of a national scandal. Are we now to take it that the Department of the Environment are handing over this snarled and tangled problem to the private sector? This is certainly something new. The Minister of State in his Second Stage speech to the House did not elaborate on the plans or the ideas his Department have for the future utilisation of this Bill in real terms.

The Minister said the Bill would not be utilised apart from the provision of one bridge in Dublin.

It seems rather a wide Bill if the Government and the Department of the Environment propose to utilise it for that sole purpose. Those of us who travel around the roads will not have failed to notice the very small amount of arterial road repairs and road construction undertaken during the summer. Perhaps the Minister might like to give us an indication as to why so little was done at a time when there appears to be so much room for improvement. For example, it takes over 40 minutes to get through Naas at any time of the day. This retards transport and commerce to an unnecessary extent. The local authority should be encouraged to move a little faster. It is just not good enough for people to have to wait 40 minutes to get through a reasonably small provincial town. The present infrastructure is not able to cope with the mix of large and ordinary private traffic.

The Minister might tell us whether in the coming years a more dynamic approach will be taken, and spearheaded by the Department of the Environment, to tackle the traffic problem and the road infrastructure problem right across the country. This is long overdue. It has been promised and it is difficult to see any light at the end of the tunnel.

An Cathaoirleach

Perhaps the Senator would get back to the Bill dealing with toll roads rather than speaking about general traffic congestion.

Mr. McDonald

I accept your ruling. Under section 3 of the Bill, a road authority may make a scheme for the establishment of tolls in respect of the use of a public road to carry all kinds of general traffic. I should like to ask the Minister of State whether it is possible for him to give us a clearer idea of the Department's reasons for introducing this kind of Bill. In his opening speech two weeks ago, he did not mention what the motivation was for introducing this Bill at this time. He did not suggest that it would solve any particular problem. For that reason he might be more explicit. I suspect that in a narrow political kind of way the Bill is a substitute for the car tax which the Government removed some two years ago.

Mrs. Robinson

I was waiting for some contributions from that side of the House. There seems to be a silence on this Bill from the Fianna Fáil side which reminds me of the brevity of the Minister—not the Minister of State who is here today—when introducing this Bill some considerable time ago in the other House. That opening speech has been noted by a number of contributors. It must stand as one of the briefest and least illuminating speeches made by a Minister in either House for a considerable number of years. As Senator McDonald was hinting, we are still not very much the wiser. The only specific proposal I can see that this Bill is intended to cover is a matter which has come before another forum in which I participate, that is, Dublin City Council.

Contrary to the proper and democratic order of things, Dublin City Council, as the road authority in Dublin, have been considering the specific proposal of Mr. Roche for a toll bridge which would link the East Wall and Ringsend. The proposal was adopted in principle by Dublin City Council at their meeting on the first Monday of this month. There was a reference from the General Purposes Committee to the city council in relation to this toll bridge and approach road to connect Ringsend with North Wall Quay and, after a vote, this was adopted in principle. I objected to this not least on the grounds that the Bill which would give a statutory basis for Dublin City Council as the road authority to enter into any kind of negotiations had not even had its Second Reading in this House.

I am wondering what the real background is to this Bill. Is there anything else except Mr. Roche's proposal for a toll bridge and approach road in Dublin? Has Mr. Roche been impatient with the Government who may or may not have entered into an agreement to bring in legislation to facilitate his proposal to operate a toll bridge and to make a profit out of operating it? It seems to me that there is nothing else behind this measure, that that is the beginning and the end of it, and that the Government have not been efficient enough for Mr. Roche, so that he had to go before the city council when that body did not have statutory power to enter into any negotiations to get their agreement in principle before there was legislation grounding it.

This is a reflection on the approach to the vital question of traffic in various cities and towns and specifically, for my purposes, traffic in Dublin city. Here we have an ad hoc piecemeal measure. The Minister of State in introducing it to this House described it as an enabling measure. Of course it is an enabling measure which enables the relevant road authority to enter into discussions with a private entrepreneur, if that entrepreneur wants to build a toll bridge, or an approach road in a particular area, and to charge a toll in order to make a profit out of the enterprise. That is what the Bill is about.

If we see it in an overall context of traffic chaos in Dublin of an urgent need for a Dublin traffic authority, an urgent need for major legislation in order to give an overall traffic authority in Dublin power to begin to cope with the real traffic problem, then we have some measure of the lack of overall concern and interest on the part of the Government. They do not seem to be on top of the job, with the effect that traffic is getting worse and worse. The snarl is getting worse and worse. The pollution by traffic is getting worse and worse and the city is grinding to a halt. If anybody doubts this I would refer him to the paragraph of the Fourth Report of the Joint Committee on State-Sponsored Bodies. The report was specifically on CIE, but it also dealt with what it called traffic restraint in Dublin. There are a number of paragraphs, beginning with paragraph 72 of that report, which identify the seriousness of the problem and the need for a major response to it. At paragraph 88 the Joint Committee states:

The Joint Committee believes that there is a need for a high-level coordinating authority and this should take, if necessary, the form of a new statutory authority. It should have powers to develop and execute a traffic management strategy for Dublin as a whole, and to ensure that the measures it proposes are enforced. It should cover Dublin as a whole and result in necessary changes in the relevant by-laws, and parking regulations and have powers to introduce bus priority schemes throughout the city. Such an authority would have considerable implications for CIE and for the Gardaí. The Joint Committee urges the necessity of a new authority for this purpose, and trusts that the local authority will also recognise this need.

It seems to me that this House is focussing on an ad hoc once-off measure, because a private entrepreneur has come forward with a proposal for a toll bridge in a particular area. When this was discussed in detail at various meetings of the General Purposes Committee of Dublin City Council and in the council chamber itself, on the first occasion it was sent back from the council chamber to the General Purposes Committee and on the first Monday of this month it was passed in principle on a majority vote by the city council.

The issues became clear. First of all, as far as Dublin is concerned, is a bridge needed at that particular part of Dublin? Is it necessary to have another bridge at that particular point to link Ringsend with North Wall Quay? If so, why are the local authority not prepared to ensure that the bridge is built, as the local authority up to now have assumed responsibility for the road system in Dublin?

A separate matter is this: if this bridge is necessary and is to be built, then why is the fundamental decision in principle being taken—and it is a fundamental decision in principle—to hand over the building of the bridge to private enterprise and to allow private enterprise to operate under by-laws prescribed specially for them by the local authority to operate a profit-making enterprise with no time limit on it, a profit-making enterprise indefinitely, so that not only those who seek to use it, but those who need to use that bridge several times a day, would have to pay the toll and therefore fill the coffers of the particular private enteprise company?

In the city council there were many references to the fact that this was becoming an ideological debate. There is a very important ideological issue here. It is the first time—and we should be aware of this—that part of our road system, our transportation system, is to be handed over, a piecemeal part, a profit-making part, to private enterprise. We should be aware of the implications of this for our whole transport system, and for our traffic and our flow of traffic. Does this mean that where some other private entrepreneur in some other city, or in some other part of Dublin, comes up with a good idea for making profit, we will have pressure on the road authority, the city council, to make the necessary by-laws to facilitate him? Are we to be at the beck and call of private enterprise to build certain bridges or certain toll roads in certain parts of the city? Have we a Government who will listen genuinely to the desperate appeals from residents of residential areas of Dublin? I can speak for the residents in the areas of Rathmines, Rathgar, Dartry, Orwell Road, who are oppressed by heavy and persistent traffic at all hours, heavy vehicle traffic through residential areas.

We all know that the travelling rate of CIE buses in Dublin is one of the slowest rates in any European city and we know that the flow of cars through the city every day does not make any kind of sense. Therefore, I would reject this Bill on several grounds. I reject the idea of private toll bridges for the profit of entrepreneurs. I reject the idea that, if a bridge is necessary, it will not be built by and under the control of the road authority, as has been the case always.

I also reject this piecemeal and unconnected approach to the whole transport and traffic problems in Dublin specifically and also in other cities and major towns around the country. It is strange if you look at the legislative order of priorities of this Government what seems to determine the priorities. It seems to me that Mr. Roche is able to determine Fianna Fáil priorities in relation to coping with traffic and transport problems in the city of Dublin. For those reasons I reject the idea of a Bill enabling road authorities to negotiate with private entrepreneurs in this way. I believe the Bill is specifically related to Mr. Roche's proposal. I do not believe there is any other specific proposal in mind at the moment. Obviously it will be open to another private entrepreneur to come forward and approach another road authority once this Bill is passed through both Houses. This is not the way to start approaching one of the most serious and urgent problems facing us.

Apart from what I have talked about—the economic undermining of our capital city by the fact that the transport system is not working properly, the fact that traffic is moving at such a slow pace in the city—there are also very serious environmental problems and very serious energy problems on which we are not getting any leadership from the Government in coping with them. This Bill does not spell out any leadership or any sense of the proper order of priorities in relation to traffic and transport. Therefore, it is a revealing measure. What was perhaps most revealing of all was the very minimal speech made by the Minister in the other House when introducing the Bill. That to me spoke volumes. The Bill can be understood if you go back and read that opening speech by the Minister. He did not want to say anything about it because of its whole motivation, because of the whole approach of this Government to coping with that major problem. This Bill should be rejected by the House.

Mr. Dowling

I should like to add my voice to the voices of other Senators who spoke on the Bill. We have just heard Senator Robinson on one of the head-hunting expeditions she usually carries out in this House when she attacks people who are not here to defend themselves. This despicable type of conduct has been part and parcel of the Senator's approach to the problem. Let me make the position clear in relation to the Bill itself and the Labour Party's attitude to it. If the Labour Party members of Dublin Corporation had their way we would have half a bridge. Half of them are for it and the other half are against. That is the way they vote. They are a half-a-bridge party. We see now where Senator Robinson stands. Which side of the bridge is she on? Is she on the side for building or for not building? Maybe she can explain party policy on this problem. It is important that we should have the overall situation rather than the viewpoint of a crank on either side.

Mrs. Robinson

Party policy is clear. We oppose private toll bridges.

Mr. Dowling

A constructive and positive approach to this matter is needed. If the traffic is in chaos, which it is, then some remedial measures must be taken. The ever-changing situation in relation to this city and transport development means there has to be new legislation to up-date the procedures and make available more outlets in a positive way. New legislation like this is necessary and desirable. The solutions of many problems in this city have been impeded in the not-too-distant past by head cases of all types. Every effort made by Dublin Corporation to speed up the movement of traffic and to adjust the road system has been met by the same type of violent opposition we heard today from Senator Robinson.

The Labour Party and others opposed to the Government have had a majority in the Dublin Corporation for a number of years. In fact they were in Government for a number of years. Maybe the Senator does not hear me, but I want to get through to her loud and clear that her party were in Government for a number of years when this chaos was developing. Dublin is slowly coming to a standstill. Maybe the Senator and other people want to see the city and the country tied up. Maybe they want to ensure there will be no movement within our city.

We do not want half a bridge. Half a bridge is no solution to this problem. Of course we need additional bridges across the Liffey. Is the Senator so out of date with the situation that she believes there is some doubt about this situation? Has she ever seen the traffic travelling in Dublin city? Obviously she has not or she would be up to date with the problem. Over the years each and every member of Dublin Corporation sought additional facilities across the Liffey to meet the ever-increasing flow of traffic.

The whole question of the traffic chaos in the city is one we must take positive measures to deal with. Whatever the situation is in relation to its development, assuming that an industrialist was prepared to put money into the development of an industry in Dublin, would the Senator object? We have entrepreneurs willing to invest money. Would she at the same time ensure that the industry would not be developed?

Mrs. Robinson

Why do not Fianna Fáil hand the Government over to Michael Smurfit?

Mr. Dowling

The Senator wants to ride a variety of horses at different times. She cannot do that. She is either a part of the Labour Party or she is an independent entity, as she displays herself here. Let us know what the Labour Party's policy is in relation to toll bridges.

Mrs. Robinson

The Labour Party's policy is very clear. The Senator should address himself to the Bill.

Mr. Dowling

She should not come here on a head-hunting expendition. We have had enough of those. She should not frighten away people who are endeavouring to assist the city. We should open our arms to people who are prepared to solve our traffic chaos. The Senator seeks to pick out individuals who, in their belief, are making a contribution to the city. This Bill does not name individuals; it is not related to an individual. The individual was named by the Senator. He is a responsible and honest businessman. Any reflection other than that is an appalling insult to this House. He has been well known for a considerable period because of the employment his companies give. It is appalling to think that a Labour Senator would come in here and try to degrade him for trying to——

Mrs. Robinson

How did I degrade him?

(Interruptions).

Mrs. Robinson

I object to somebody making an entire speech misrepresenting what I said in this House. I do not mind a few statements, but from the very beginning this has been an entire misrepresentation of Labour Party policy on the toll roads which is clear, and of my contribution in this House which was clear. I am a bit tired listening to it.

An Cathaoirleach

Senator Robinson must appreciate that I did not allow anybody to interrupt her when she was speaking. I try to extend the same facilities to everybody else.

Mrs. Robinson

Provided the Senator addresses himself to the Bill.

Mr. Dowling

The Labour Party policy is absolutely confusing to me. Half the Labour Party are for and half are against tolls. That is not party policy; that is not a common approach to a problem. That is what is wanted in Dublin city at the moment. On every occasion honest efforts are made, there are people who wish to disrupt them. We want to see every avenue explored to ensure that some remedial measure will be taken because of the introduction of this Bill and other Bills to solve these problems.

I hope commonsense will prevail in this House and in other forums in relation to this chaos. Bridges are needed soon to ensure the free flow of traffic in this city. Commuters know well that the present chaotic condition is the result of inactivity. Some of that inactivity was brought about by pressure groups who had control of the corporation for some time. This seems to be the problem in Dublin at present. Apparently the Senator is prepared to cause further chaos when efforts are being made in the city, in this House and in other forums to alleviate the distress and the vast problems that will confront us now and in the future.

I hope when the Bill is passed it will be examined to see where it can fit in to our general needs and so ensure that we will have a smooth traffic flow. Our roads are in a very bad condition, particularly in the cities. If this Bill alleviates even one situation, it will have done a good job.

I congratulate the Minister for bringing in new legislation to meet ever-increasing changes in the development of the nation. This nation is still evolving. There are new pressures and problems. There will be more new problems and pressures in the future and new legislation will be required. Work should not be impeded by cranks or pressure groups inside or outside this House. We should do what we think is right in the interests of the community as a whole, and we can get on with the job.

Dr. West

I do not have ideological views about the proposal to build toll roads. Such a proposal may help to alleviate the situation in which we find ourselves, with traffic problems and poor approach roads to many of our cities. I would not object either to toll roads being built and managed by local authorities or necessarily, on ideological grounds, to toll roads or, bridges managed, constructed and run by private individuals. One wants to look at the problem from a broad perspective. It could well be that one type of operation is suitable in one situation while another is suitable for another situation.

In general terms I would favour toll roads. The very high cost of infrastructure should be paid for by the user and it should not all come out of taxes. I would welcome a situation in which local authorities, for example, found that they could recover the high cost of special roads or bridges by charging tolls. This is a transference of the cost to the user and, generally speaking, I favour this. It should help us to cut down our public borrowing, otherwise the whole charge would be on central funds.

Basically, this is a good idea. I hope this Bill is not framed simply with one proposal in mind, as Senator Robinson suggested. I do not have any feelings one way or the other about this particular proposal. I am not against it ideologically. If the appropriate authorities favour that specific proposal, I would generally take their viewpoint. But, in broader terms, there is a very good argument for increasing our road building capabilities by encouraging input of funds and expertise from the private sector. When one examines approach roads—the Dublin-Cork or Cork-Mallow roads, the main road out of Dublin to the west as far as Enfield—one realises that by any standard, Irish, European or international, their situation is critical. I welcome legislation which would help to deal with this problem and ensure that the situation is tackled.

There are, of course, problems particularly when private enterprise or even the local authorities are involved. Senator Dowling pointed out that there are objections to all these schemes. That it is the democratic process. There should be objections to such schemes because some people are going to suffer and one has to take the overall good into account. The sort of developments which lead to spaghetti junctions and road intersections with great waste areas underneath and surrounding them, are proposals that should only be put into practice after very careful deliberation. One of the most important aspects of this problem is to ensure that proper controls are exercised when such projects are being put into operation. For example, not only planning problems occur here but the problem of overcharging on toll roads is something which should be looked into.

I suggest that toll roads should come under the aegis of the National Prices Commission to ensure that the tolls are not too high to cover the inefficiency of the operator, whether a private enterprise, private entrepreneur or a local authority, or that the toll reflects overcharging by the private organisation. It would be a good thing if the tolls where subject to the scrutiny of the National Prices Commission. There might be merit in a proposal to exempt buses from tolls and encourage the buses to use the toll roads. Also, it is a possibility that agreements might be entered into by local authorities whereby the local authority might take over a toll road from a private enterprise company when the initial outlay and a suitable profit had been recovered. I would like to see local authorities taking the initiative in using this legislation to improve our road system and to recover some of the costs which I certainly believe in the case of these very expensive roads, and bridges should be borne by the user. I welcome that and I would like the Minister to comment on the possible scope of the move by local authorities to make use of this legislation.

Mr. Jago

I welcome this Bill. We all know that we are trying to get an expansion in industry and that our industrialists have criticised the infrastructure behind industry, one of which is the roads. Since we entered the Common Market there has been a build up in the usage of our roads, particularly in the last two years, since industry has begun to expand at a fairly fast rate. The traffic on our roads has increased enormously. The bulk of this traffic which is blocking the roads are the vehicles coming from outside the country. There are more of these big vehicles using our roads at the moment than there are vehicles owned by companies in the State.

Senator McDonald mentioned the fact that tolls are used on the Continent and our vehicles going to the Continent pay toll charges. I do not know what arrangement is made in the EEC for a contribution towards the cost of our roads by the vehicles which are coming from outside, but if we have tolls this will be one method of getting users from outside to contribute to the cost of our roads.

Senator McDonald mentioned that they have a small traffic problem in Cork. No doubt some Members of the Oireachtas on their recent visit to Cork came across this and will agree. The Cork problem has been examined by world experts and there is a programme for solving it. This programme will be spread over several years and will cost well over £100 million—an awful lot of money. Already finance has been arranged by the Government for this programme and bridges will be built inside the city. The difficulty about Cork is that it is built in a valley, with a river in the middle, and access to it from outside is very difficult. There is only one solution to the traffic problem in Cork, that is, to by-pass the city altogether. This is in the programme. Either a high level bridge or a tunnel is to be built down river to meet by-passing roads. What we are talking about is a cost of about £20 million for one bridge or one tunnel. This is put ahead of the programme.

I am quite sure that if any industrialist paying for the costs of his vehicles could get rid of the extra costs for fuel and labour, which the hold up in Cork city costs him at present, by paying a toll to get that bridge built earlier, he would be very glad to do it. Personally I am not terribly concerned whether the toll would be the responsibility of the local authority or private enterprise, but the sooner that bridge is built the nearer we will be to solving the traffic problem in Cork city. That will allow the very fast development of industry in Cork to continue, which no one in Cork wishes to stop. Senator West asked the Minister to include one category free of tolls. I will ask for another—perambulators.

Mr. Howard

I approach this Bill with caution and with some reservations. I am concerned with the implications that will flow when this Bill becomes law. It represents a serious and radical development where roads and bridge development here are concerned.

I read the Minister's Second Stage speech. It conveyed the very clear impression that the power to levy tolls, and to bring into operation a road or a bridge on which tolls would be charged, would be an exceptional, isolated and rare occasion. Senators seemed to convey the view that in their minds this legislation is intended to deal with one single project. If that were the case I would not be as deeply concerned as I am. I feel that the reality of the situation is that the powers made available under this Bill are widespread and far-reaching. It is conceivable to envisage a time when practically any road or any bridge could be subject to the payment of tolls.

This Bill will enable tolls to be charged by local authority or private enterprise to finance the maintenance and management of roads and bridges. Conveying that power to private enterprise is a radical step and there is every reason why we should consider very deeply the implications of what is proposed here. It can very easily happen that we will find ourselves putting a most vital and essential part of our communications system under the control of private enterprise.

The Minister mentioned safeguards. He said, "I would emphasise that it will be the statutory road authorities, and they alone, who will decide". We are now coming to a stage, as those of us who are members of local authorities realise—with the continuing restraint on the availability of finance to local authorities to carry out and develop their plans within their respective counties, even though it will be their prerogative to decide whether they will allow this development to take place—that unless they have adequate finance they may well be left with no option.

The Minister also stated that the intention behind this Bill is to supplement the activities of the local authorities in the provision of roads and bridges. I see a danger here. We are not solely going to supplement the local authorities in discharging this function, but we may well supplant them in doing this work. It is also implied that it is necessary to proceed to this unique development here. This is perhaps an admission that in the foreseeable future the resources local authorities will require to discharge their normal work may not be available to them, not in the amount that would be desirable, and consequently we have to look to a new development and a new means of providing the facilities our communities require.

I take the view that this is the beginning of what will be a widespread development. By imposing tolls, which can also be imposed to ensure the maintenance of roads as distinct from the development of roads and bridges, this in its own way is the reimposition of the road tax on cars which was removed a few years ago. If the local authorities cannot interest private enterprise in the construction of a particular road or bridge, they will have the power under this Bill, admittedly with the consent of the Minister, to impose a toll for the construction of roads and bridges and for the maintenance of roads.

The Minister drew attention to the fact that toll roads operate on the continent, in Brazil, the Philippines and the United States. My understanding of this is that if tolls operate on roads in these countries they are operated on what we would regard as super-roads—the motorways, the autobahns. Under this Bill the Minister is not proposing to confine the charging of tolls to the type of road on which they are charged in other countries. The Government are making it clearly available under this Bill that road tolls may be charged on any road and any bridge.

I have spoken to Irish people who had motoring holidays on the Continent in recent months and who had experience of toll roads in France. Their judgment of the scheme was that it was an expensive means and a costly addition to their normal holiday expenses. If the people who use the toll roads of Europe were asked to give their opinion, they certainly would not favour what is proposed in this Bill.

The Minister referred to the Government's road development plan of the eighties. He stated that they hoped the private sector would respond to the opportunity to participate in the development of the country's road system. Let us be logical about this. Private enterprise will respond provided the return on investment is adequate, provided the profit margin is satisfactory. In other words, private enterprise will respond if the incentive is good enough. If private enterprise does not respond the first incentives provided by the Government or local authorities, there will be no option but to increase the incentive until it becomes sufficiently attractive.

I have read the report on road development for the eighties and I have no criticisms to make, but it would not be unreasonable to say that the effect of the Bill will be to leave the more attractive sections of the road development programme up for grabs to private developers.

Tolls can be applied to the maintenance of roads. This situation could have undesirable consequences. The public have already contributed through taxes and rates towards the provision of roads, but they may be asked to pay a second time through tolls for maintenance. In view of the fact that I regard the Bill as a radical and serious development in our road programme, I have reservations about the rights of the public to make effective objections to proposed developments.

I note that a notice must be served by the local authority, that there is an initial period of a month and a further period to two months within which objections can be made. We are talking about a total period of three months and about a substantial development costing millions of pounds. We must safeguard the rights of the individual who may be affected by the development.

Because of the complex nature of the proposed development, the period of one month for public notice and two months for the making of objections is too short and could discriminate against an individual. On Committee Stage I shall ask the Minister to extend the period and to include safeguards in the Bill for the rights of the individual.

The Minister has also stated that the Bill provides an additional option. In view of the diminishing resources available to local authorities I believe that it will become the only option. Even though the Bill provides for the right of local authorities to set conditions under which roads may be constructed and tolls charged on them, the fact is that the real control of local authorities over the setting of satisfactory conditions will be limited. The Bill does not provide for the rights of people such as land owners on either side of a toll road or at each end of a toll road who may have to cross the road or bridge several times a day. I should like the Minister to assure me that this aspect of the matter will be taken care of without disadvantaging the people concerned. The natural progression of events from the passing of this Bill could be the imposition of tolls on every road and bridge requiring development or maintenance. It is for this reason that I have strong reservations about the Bill.

Mr. Harte

In view of Senator Dowling's outburst it is necessary to put on record the view of the Labour Party. We are not opposed to toll roads or toll bridges, nor do we favour toll roads or toll bridges. If the argument is proved that tolls roads or toll bridges are necessary, we contend that the State should reap the rewards on behalf of the people. That is the Labour Party policy. We have not heard any good case, either in the Dáil debate or in the Seanad debate, for the lending of toll roads and toll bridges to private enterprise. Why should the State not make the money on behalf of the people? That is the simple view of the Labour Party, and it is unambiguous. So the question of whether or not Dublin Corporation are confused is simply explained by the fact that the argument that toll bridges are the best way of dealing with the problem has not yet been won.

It would be foolish to dismiss the fact that we might need toll bridges or toll roads. I am not so sure that private enterprise would be easily attracted to toll roads because of the problem of the acquisition of land and the length of time taken to pass legislation. Toll bridges would be a more attractive proposition. On the other hand, there is the problem in relation to private enterprise of acquiring land from people and giving it into the hands of private speculators to build houses and so on. It is just an extension of one thing into the other to put it into private hands. Basically the Labour Party are opposed to this kind of thing. We believe that the roads belong to the people; we believe the State should administer them on behalf of the people. It is easy to hand over land to speculators for building houses on, but it is not easy to put people into houses because of their prohibitive cost. If we are not careful we will shortly have to pay for the air we breathe. This is the crazy way in which society is developing and this is our basic objection to it.

Other arguments have been made extensively in both Houses. It is worth putting on record for the benefit of the House that there is no confusion in the Labour Party on the question of toll roads. We should like to hear the argument proved for toll roads and toll bridges. If the argument is proved, we would like to see the State controlling toll roads and toll bridges on behalf of the people.

Mr. Reynolds

I agree with Senator Harte's view. There is nobody against toll roads, but at the moment it is hard to be in favour of them. We all know that the traffic situation is desperate and something will have to be done immediately to solve that problem. Senator Robinson and other Senators explained the situation in Dublin city. No effort has been made to improve the situation which is worsening all the time.

With regard to private enterprise, I would not like to think that this Bill is, being introduced for the sake of one road or one bridge in or around Dublin city, because this problem exists all over the country and I have no doubt that the Minister of State realises that. Would there be any danger that private enterprise would move into the area where there is a heavy volume of traffic and ignore the area where there is very little traffic, where the income would not be so great? If that is the situation, I think Senator Harte is right in saying that the State will have to provide the capital and keep out private enterprise. If we are going to give the cream of the income from toll roads to private enterprise at the expense of the State I do not think it will work.

Senator Jago made a very good case for Cork where traffic is a serious problem. He said that they had a plan ready and invited people from all over the world to look at it, but when will the plan be put into operation? Will it even be put into operation in the eighties? Can we convince ourselves that the problem of traffic in our cities and large towns will be solved by the eighties? I hope I am wrong, but I do not think it will be. Up to a few years ago we had a Road Fund, which may have been raided on various occasions by various Governments instead of being used for the roads. This was a pity and none of us has a clear conscience on it. The Road Fund no longer exists. The only contribution to the Road Fund is from commercial vehicles. I do not suppose we get anything from the commercial vehicles that are coming in from the EEC. We have a large number of commercial vehicles. The tax on some commercial vehicles ranges from £300 to £1,000 per year, which is a substantial amount of money. Would the owners of commercial vehicles have to pay tolls as well as tax? The Minister should tell us exactly what is going to happen. I know that the present cost of servicing commercial vehicles is out of control. As it stands, the Bill enables a local authority with the consent of the Minister to order the collection of tolls on any road or bridge. That is not fair. It would be fair to collect tolls on any road or bridge built on or after the date the Bill becomes law, but it would be wrong to collect tolls on roads that are in existence. Naturally, one looks at the manifesto that the present Government put before the electorate in the last general election, and on which they won the election. They said they had prepared a major road development plan designed to meet the traffic density in the eighties. I hope that that will happen and I would like the Minister to tell us where the money will come from, if it does not come from private enterprise. What is the thinking of the Government on the collection of this money? I am satisfied that the full amount will not come from private enterprise. They may be lucky enough to get some of the capital from private enterprise.

I associate tolls with the old landlords. When I was young I attended agricultural markets in various towns in my county. People who sold cattle had to pay a toll to a representative of the landlord who owned the market yard. There is no doubt that Irish people resent tolls. I have no doubt that the Minister for the Environment or the Minister of State have researched this matter. The House is entitled to know what the Minister knows. We should be told what is being charged and why they decided to use tolls.

As I said at the outset, it is clear that our road system is a disaster. Our roads are deteriorating day by day. The Government should try to solve the problem immediately.

Mr. Mulcahy

There is one principle relating to traffic which it might be worth discussing. It is a principle drawn from the area of what is known as operations research. It is based on mathematics. As a channel being used by any set of elements in traffic becomes fully utilised, any increase in the flow of traffic through it increases the delays at a rate which is out of all proportion to the small increase in the number of elements going into the traffic. In other words, if the maximum utilisation of a channel is near and 10 per cent extra traffic is added to it the delay of each item of traffic could be increased by as much as three times, not 10 per cent. That is a fundamental principle of queueing which can be shown mathematically. Our difficulty is that in places like Dublin and Cork, in the main urban areas, we are near the maximum capacity position and any small increases have huge effects. One report I looked at showed that the average speed of CIE buses between 1971 and 1977 had been reduced from 14 miles an hour to seven miles an hour in the city. In effect, the delay time is doubled. At peak time the average speed is down to as little as three miles an hour only. That is a measure of the problem we have.

The Bill enables us to find another way of increasing the capacity of the system. Any increase in the capacity makes a great difference because an additional 10 per cent increase in the maximum utilisation reduces the delay time by one-third by the same principle. In other words, if the channel capacity could be increased by 10 per cent, for instance, adding another bridge in Dublin would increase the capacity by 33? per cent in the upper area of the city where we have the main flow and the main difficulty. That would make a great difference to the average delay time. This is what we are talking about. We should get on with the job and this Bill enables us to do so.

We know that the question of a toll bridge for Dublin has been on the table for a few years. I am sure that the person who has an interest in doing something in Dublin must be worn out from bringing his entrepreneurial idea from one group to another. In Dublin city there are a number of Departments and authorities involved in determining whether or not traffic is going to flow freely. The chief engineer of the corporation takes an interest in traffic. Funds are coming through the corporation, and central funds are coming through the Department of the Environment. CIE are providing public transport and getting funds through the Department of Tourism and Transport. The Garda have responsibility for regulating traffic in a particular way under the direction of local authorities. In Dublin there are three local groupings involved between the urban area, Dún Laoghaire and the county. Organisationally, that is a formula for disaster in relation to improving the traffic flow in Dublin. We must do something about it.

The transport study of 1971 gave a figure for road costs. In present day money those costs would be of the order of £400 million. The rapid transit study for CIE produced a figure of £200 million. If some entrepreneur comes along and says: "I will try and get the agreement of the people. I will go along Ringsend and I will talk to the people, I will make deals with the communities so that I will provide a community centre as part of the total deal, I am inclined towards giving it a chance. We are not selling the roads of Ireland to private enterprise. We are increasing the capacity of the main channels of the upper part of the city by 30 per cent. This could make a great difference to the average delay time. It would be very difficult to estimate the improvement that would come from this, so my view would be to let that go ahead while making sure that any of the problems that would arise from interfering with people's rights and housing are fully explored and that they have the opportunity to have their say.

The difficulty in Dublin is that people living in areas like Clontarf, Dún Laoghaire, Mount Merrion and so on want to get into the city rapidly, to their work and people living in houses along the proposed routes have been complaining, and rightly so. If they have a complaint they should have a place to air it and to work it out. In the meantime Dublin's traffic snarls up more and more, and something must be done about it. This Bill is one way of going about it. I support it and hope that we get on with it.

The objective is to improve traffic flow. There has been much discussion about the relative merits of using buses versus using rail and private transport. The facts are that five million journeys are by rail, 200 million by buses. Therefore, the question of making the roads more effective and more efficient is prime. Experiments were made with bus lanes but they were not successful and some recent reports have recommended more experimentation. I often think of the foresight of our ancestors in building wide roads to suit their horse carriages. The Dún Laoghaire to Blackrock. Blackrock to Ballsbridge road is a fine wide road. Every morning the two left hand channels are packed with traffic on the way in and if one ever sat in a queue there one would find that the two channels in the right hand side coming in the other direction are under utilised. I often wondered: why not put a bus in the middle channel? Let the buses use one of the two channels that are under utilised and have it switched by traffic lights so that in the morning the bus uses one side and in the afternoon it uses the other. There must be a variety of tricks of that kind used in other countries which could be tried out. I see the toll bridge idea as another way of contributing and I would say in relation to the rest of the traffic plans that we try out the effect of the toll bridges and then see what happens after that.

I disagree with all the talk about integrated and comprehensive plans. What happens is that the more one goes into it the more costly one sees it is and the more any move is delayed while the overall plan is examined. In relation to comprehensive road development in Dublin—which obviously is going to give rise to difficulties if motorways are going to pass through or over people's houses—it should be done step by step to see what happens at each stage. Look ahead and have some alternative. Write out what some possibilities might be but do not get absolutely hung up. Take it step by step and then revise the situation. Review it and see what the next step should be. For me, the toll bridge is a first step. If we do not see another bridge over the Liffey soon we will not even be able to see the river.

Mr. Markey

It is a matter of regret that the Government should have to resort to the toll system to finance major projects on our roads. It is perhaps an admission by them that the finance is not there and will not be there to meet the improvements and requirements that will be necessary in the future. It is pathetic that at a time when there is a greater need than ever for the Road Fund—that much maligned fund which over the years grew into a treasure chest—it is no longer there. In any country where over a period of 30 years there was one car on the road and where now there are ten cars a very severe measure is needed to remedy that situation. That the Government is without the Road Fund can largely be laid at its own door.

I have no doubt that this Bill is introduced as a way out both for the Government and for local authorities. Local authorities will be reluctant to resort to this Bill. There is a certain intrinsic pride with local authorities that they are responsible for any major road improvements within their own catchment area. They will be reluctant to have to resort to the Bill but they may well be forced to do so. When all is said and done we might well be bringing more multinational corporations on our heads and shoulders in regard to roads as we have them on our head and shoulders in other aspects of our economy at the present time. When approaches will be made by large building and construction companies to provide a dual carriageway or improved networks in a local authority, no matter what the inclination on the part of the local authority to accede to that request or application, there will be certain pressures brought upon them by the Department of the Environment that they should accede to the request of the multinational building companies and they might well be allowed to have their head.

If I thought that this Bill was completely in line with what was envisaged in the road development plan brought out earlier this year, my reservations would be less than they are. To indicate how I feel the Bill has departed from the principles laid down in that plan I would refer the House to page 44 of the road, development plan for the 1980s, paragraph 85. It states that:

The accepted principle of toll roads and bridges is that the facility to be provided offers an alternative route to road users who may choose to pay for the convenience of using the toll facility.

The principle enunciated in that paragraph, which is an admirable one, is that whatever road networks may be provided will be as an alternative route to what is already there and road users have the option of using it or not using it. Within the terms of the Bill I do not see either of those principles of the alternative or the option to the road users enunciated. The Bill is a departure from that admirable principle laid down in the road development plan for the eighties.

If major road improvement works are carried out by a private company and that company approaches the Department to have tolls levied on it, will the Department be able to say: "No, what must be provided is an alternative route to what is already there? I do not think the Government will have that discretion under the Bill. Will there be an option open to road users to use the improved network or to go on to an existing road network? It would be easy for the Department, the building company or the local authority to argue that there are other road networks available. This country has a lot of minor and county roads. We do not want to have the sort of an option open to people, after providing a major road improvement, that they can be told that if they do not want to use it they can go via point A, B, C, D, E, which will probably take them 30 or 40 miles off the main road, with the additional dangers and risks to personal safety inherent in such a variation.

If this Bill were as specific as the road development plan is in regard to the principle of the toll system, I would have much fewer reservations than I have in regard to the whole matter. If I felt that the road development plan projections were likely to be adhered to, I would also have fewer reservations. With the financial stringencies at present, which will increase in the future, many excuses are likely to be put forward for delays in the implementation of the plan. I could see the excuses coming under the heading of the fact that oil will become a scare commodity and therefore there may not be the same demand on the roads in the future as in the past. Our roads are inadequate to carry the traffic on them, and even with a lesser growth in road traffic in the future there is still a crying need to bring them from their present inadequate state to what would be at least commensurate with the amount of traffic being carried on them. If a road is in the same condition as it was 30 years ago when it was carrying one car, and is now carrying ten cars, then a deplorable stage has been reached in regard to our road network system.

As regards projections in the road development plan each of us will look at what is laid out for our own particular counties or regions. A woeful omission in regard to County Louth is that on the main Belfast-Dublin thoroughfare which, considering its distance from Dublin probably carries a greater volume of road traffic than a corresponding location in any other part of the country, the road networks are not envisaged to be completed until 1984 or 1985 and in another instance not until 1989. In regard to the Derry-Dublin road through County Louth no improvements are envisaged in this plan.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator should relate his remarks to the Bill.

Mr. Markey

The State should provide a proper road network. It has always been a sacred principle that people from anywhere in the country have a right to use the roads. As I see this Bill expressed there will be an attitude confronting the public in the future decade where they will not be able to use the roads unless they pay a toll for particular passageways.

This has come about from a scarcity of finance. I would think more of the Government if they were to express that as the reason for giving in to the toll system. In the White Paper and in the Minister's speech it is said that approaches were made from private concerns; that they could well have a part to play in providing improved road networks. The Minister should tell the House the volume of these approaches and if since this Bill was printed there has been a follow-up on the part of any private building concerns who are more than willing to go ahead immediately and do what is available for them to do under the Bill.

I regret that I do not altogether go along with the Bill. If it was as specific as the road development plan on which it is based in regard to the principles that should underlie any toll system, my reservations would be much less. Regrettably I do not see those principles being adhered to by this Bill.

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment (Mr. J. O'Leary)

I should like to thank the Seanad for the constructive comments, criticisms and discussion of the Bill. It is hardly necessary for me to say that the Bill is breaking new ground and that we will learn from experience as the provisions of it are applied in practice. For this reason, there is an inbuilt flexibility in many of the sections in the Bill. This flexibility is matched by a carefully considered set of safeguards with particular emphasis on the interests of the general public. The provisions of the Bill offer ample protection against any unwarranted proliferation of toll charges and against profiteering.

Having made these general remarks, I should like to deal with some of the questions raised by Senators in the course of the debate. Senator Alexis FitzGerald raised, in particular, the absence of specific borrowing powers in the Bill. The legal references which he quoted from Street were, however, superceded by section 4 of the Local Government (No. 2) Act, 1960. The 1960 Act provides the general power for all borrowing by local authorities. This Bill under section 12, will be cited together with the Local Government Acts 1925 to 1978. This collective citation includes the 1960 Act and, accordingly, specific borrowing powers are not necessary in this Bill.

Senator Alexis FitzGerald also mentioned the matter of toll facilities in the United States of America and in particular the Connecticut turnpike. American toll projects would offer little, if any, valid comparisons with any projects that might be undertaken in this country because of the vast differences in the scale of projects, required level of investment, traffic volumes and so on. For example, the Connecticut turnpike, which the Senator mentioned, runs for a length of 129 miles. It required a bond issue of the order of £230 million to finance it and has a toll income of £15 million and a concession income of a further £1 million per annum. It is obvious, therefore, that traffic volumes run at very many times the number of vehicles on even our busiest roads.

Senator Murphy referred to what he called the intrusion of private enterprise. He asked whether local authorities could not administer a toll facility. Other Senators mentioned this as well. The answer is, or course, that they could. The major principle of the Bill is to empower the statutory road authorities to do so. They would, at the same time, have the option under section 9 of the Bill of making an arrangement with private interests to participate in the financing, construction and managment of toll projects.

Senator McDonald raised the old question about the abolition of car tax on cars up to a certain horse power and that this had an adverse effect on the allocation of money for roads. This is not so. In 1976 there was a total allocation of approximately £20 million in respect of roads. This year the allocation is something in the region of £47 million. That shows the rapid growth in expenditure on our public road network. As well as that in recent years the pattern has developed that the income from road tax was being appropriated more and more for Exchequer purposes. For instance, following the significant increases in road tax imposed by the previous Government in the 1976 budget, the Exchequer take increased from about one-third to one-half of total receipts. In effect in 1976 despite total receipts of £38 million approximately, the making of total grants of £20,705,000 in that year for road work purposes required the making available of an additional £5,356,000 by way of voted moneys. This illustrates that the original primary intention in relation to the levying of road tax—that is the funding of road works—had by 1976, to a great extent, been eroded and that road tax had, at that stage, become more and more an indirect form of taxation.

In abolishing road tax as from 1 August 1977 on all cars not exceeding 16 horse power and on all motorcycles, the Government effectively removed taxation of which a high proportion had become a more regressive form of indirect taxation from the date of implementation of the 1976 budget increases, which was 1 March 1976. In connection with this abolition of tax, however, the significant aspect was that central Government expenditure on road works did not decrease but rather was substantially increased in 1977 and onwards.

It was also mentioned during the course of the debate that there was now little revenue, if any, in respect of road tax. There is indeed still a significant income from road tax. The revenue from road tax this year is expected to be in the region of £19 million, which is very significant and important.

Mr. Markey

Would the Minister not do away with that or is it welcome?

Mr. Reynolds

Keep that until the next election.

Mr. J. O'Leary

Senator McDonald asked if a more dynamic approach will be made in relation to roads. The road development plan is a clear indication of the Government's intentions in this regard. Indeed, the amount of money made available this year is the highest in the history of the State, at more than £47 million in grant allocations. With regard to the Naas by-pass, the Minister has approved the motorway scheme made by the council. The ball is now in the council's court to progress the scheme, which I understand has already been started, as expeditiously as is practicable. They have and will continue to have the Minister's encouragement and assistance to do so.

Senator Robinson queried the number of applications received which could be regarded as coming within the scope of this Bill. The reality of the situation will not be known until the Bill becomes law and until local authorities and private enterprise consider it. In reply to Question No. 3 in the Dáil on 14 March 1979, tabled by Deputy Quinn, inquiring about the number of organisations, private and professional, which had contacted the Minister expressing a positive interest in participating in the provision of toll roads I stated:

As I have already intimated in the course of the debate in the House on the Local Government (Toll Roads) Bill, 1978, there have been a number of expressions of interest in the concept of participating in the provisions of improved road facilities on a toll basis and I do not propose to disclose details of these at this stage.

I am aware that a number of road authorities have been approached...

I would repeat that the Government welcome the response from the private sector at the prospects of capital being invested in suitable toll projects which will help to supplement the amounts being provided in the public capital programme for road and bridge improvements.

Senator Robinson also mentioned that under this Bill private enterprise could proceed to take very high profits for an indefinite period. This is not so. A study of the Bill will clear any person's mind in this regard. Senator Robinson also queried the purpose of the Bill. In my opening statement I set out the purpose of the Bill. The general principle advanced has been that a private company or person would finance wholly or partly and construct a public road or bridge and recoup their capital by charging tolls for the use of the facility. The Government have previously indicated that they are open to the idea that suitable road projects might be constructed on a toll basis in association with private enterprise.

This Bill will fill a major gap in existing road legislation by enabling tolls to be charged on public roads. The road authority will make a toll scheme. The public must have an opportunity to inspect the scheme and object to it if they wish. A public inquiry must be held if there are any objections. My approval must be given to the scheme. These measures are designed to protect the public from a proliferation of tolls.

Section 9 enables road authorities to enter into agreements with private persons or companies in relation to the financing, construction, maintenance and operation of toll roads. The power to make such an agreement is reserved for elected members of a road authority. My approval will also be necessary. It is very important to stress that the Bill is only an enabling one. It will enable road authorities to construct roads in association with private enterprise on a toll basis where suitable projects exist. It will provide road authorities with a further option for financing and constructing roads. It may allow the timing of some major road projects to be very much advanced.

The Bill serves its purpose by enabling tolls to be charged and enabling private enterprise to become involved in relation to finance, construction, maintenance and management of a road or proposed road in respect of which a toll scheme has been made. The Bill necessarily provides for other related matters; the inspection of toll schemes by the public, public inquiries into objections, by-laws for the operation and management of toll facilities, exemption from tolls, agency arrangements between road authorities and regulations to enable the Bill to have full effect.

I assure Senator West that this Bill was not framed with one particular proposal in mind. A number of parties have shown interest in the schemes. Interest has been expressed by private enterprise in the possibility of developing toll roads and bridges. Road authorities at present are not empowered to accept an offer from a private person or body to co-operate in the financing, design, construction and operation of a road or bridge nor are they able to charge a toll on a public road. The possibility of constructing roads or bridges at a number of locations by way of toll schemes has been mentioned. There is one firm proposal, which is public, and relates to the construction of a toll bridge over the Liffey from East Wall Road to York Road, Ringsend, in the administrative area of the Dublin Port and Docks Board by the Ringsend Bridge Company Limited. The Department are aware of tentative proposals and inquiries in respect of toll roads and bridges in Cork, Limerick, Waterford and Galway.

Senator West also stated that he would like to see tolls being charged coming within the scope of the National Prices Commission. The position is that the fixing of the tolls will be made under by-laws which will be framed by elected members of the road authorities. These by-laws can be amended or altered at any time as deemed fit by the elected representatives. If it is not done in this manner, it would be necessary to go through the long procedure again to revise the scheme, hold a public inquiry, consider objections and submit the scheme again for approval. The tolls can be amended at any time by the elected members by merely amending the by-laws.

Senator Jago mentioned the position in Cork, and he also inquired if it would be possible to exempt prams from toll charges. This is a matter for the road authority. I would raise no objection to such a proposal if it is submitted. I presume, in respect of any toll road or toll bridge, that a footpath would be provided.

A number of Senators referred to road problems generally. Senator McDonald referred to Naas and Senator West referred to Dublin and Cork. Senator Dowling referred to Dublin. I should like to refer the Senators to the road development plan. It incorporates the major proposals revised by Cork Corporation, Cork County Council, and Kildare County Council for the Naas by-pass. It also incorporates all the major projects envisaged in the road development plan for the eighties. For example, in Dublin there is a proposal for the St. John's Bridge due to commence in 1983, Heuston Bridge in 1980, and the Liffey crossing and approach downstream of Talbot Memorial Bridge—that is the Macken Street site—in 1983. I would urge the elected members of Dublin Corporation to consider seriously these proposals and to set in train the work required to carry out these projects to a final conclusion.

In relation to Cork, there are some major proposals as well under the national road development plan. A grant of £1 million approximately was made available recently by my Department in respect of the transportation study in Cork city. Most counties are covered under this scheme, and it includes a by-pass which relates to Killarney town.

Mr. Reynolds

Where is that?

Mr. J. O'Leary

I will take the Senator there some time. Senator Howard referred to the abolition of the car tax. I have explained that position already. He also said that it appeared to him that, under this Bill, the proposal is that private enterprise should supplant rather than supplement the national road programme. I can assure him that is not so. He also made the point that there should be a longer period than two months for lodging an objection. In fact, it is provided under the Bill that a period of not less than two months must be allowed for objections. That is mentioned specifically in section 4, so his fears in this regard can be allayed.

Senator Reynolds queried allowing private enterprise to come into the operation of road works, including bridges. This will mean that, according as private enterprise enters into the scene, more money will be available for roads and bridges, and for improving our national road network. On the other hand local authorities will also have more money because they will be relieved of the jobs and the schemes which it is envisaged will be carried out by private enterprise.

Some Senators asked whether or not finance will be made available to fund the national road development plan for the 1980s. I can assure the Seanad that I am confident that the Government will be in a position to finance this scheme. I urge the elected members of road authorities to make sure that their councils and corporations are fully aware of what is contained in the national road development plan and that their administrative and technical staff set about preparing the necessary plans and acquiring the necessary land so that these schemes can progress in accordance with the plan. We often find that schemes are held up due to delays in land acquisition and to the fact that there were delays initially in planning.

Senator Harte asked whether it was right or wrong to have private enterprise involved. He was afraid that the entrance of private enterprise into the field of constructing and maintaining roads and bridges might interfere unduly with local authorities. I can assure him that this is not so. Local authorities can decide about this in the same way as they decide whether to carry out road works or housing schemes by contract or direct labour. In other words, they can weigh up the pros and cons before they enter into any commitment or prepare any scheme as to whether it is feasible to proceed under this Bill or to carry out the work themselves. I am sure they will bear in mind the cost and the savings, whatever their ultimate decision is. The road authority can take over a road under the scheme at any time, because it is a flexible scheme.

I have answered Senator Markey's main query regarding the projections for the 1980s and the financing of the scheme during the 1980s. At the moment the end of the 1980s might appear to be a long way away, but I am sure Senator Markey realises as well as I do that time moves swiftly. We are now approaching 1980 and it will not be too long before we will be well into the 1980s. I am confident that the Government will have the resources to implement this road plan in full.

Before I conclude there are a few points which I should like to make. Some Senators asked whether there is any danger of a proliferation of tolls. Will there be widespread impositions on existing roads? The answer is no. The intention is simply to provide a further option for the financing and operation of suitable road facilities, most likely river crossings, for the benefit of the public. There will be no question of an indiscriminate power to charge tolls, or of their being widely applied to existing roads. The overall responsibilities of the Minister for the Environment for the public road system are provided for. The Minister's approval will be necessary for the implementation of toll schemes and the making of agreements between road authorities and private interests. This control will enable me to ensure that there will be no unwarranted or unacceptable toll schemes and that scarce financial resources will be applied to the best effect in the public interest.

Some Senators asked whether anybody can build a road or a bridge and charge a toll on its use for profit. The straight answer is no. This Bill reaffirms the powers and functions of the road authorities in relation to the public road system. The underlying principle of this Bill is that each road authority will continue to be responsible for the provision of roads and bridges in their area of administration. The Bill enables them, however, to enter into an agreement with other persons or bodies to finance, design, construct and manage any particular road or bridge. They will also be enabled to charge a toll on a public road subject to satisfying the conditions of this Bill regarding public notice of charging of tolls and the agreement of the Minister for the Environment. These provide them with new options regarding the financing and operation of public roads and the involvement of private enterprise, while retaining all their statutory duties and functions in relation to public roads.

The elected members of the road authorities in relation to the charging of tolls are important. This Bill provides that a road authority must make a toll scheme before charging tolls on a public road. The making of a toll scheme will be a function reserved to the elected members of the authority. This ensures that tolls cannot be charged on a public road, unless the majority of the elected members of a road authority are satisfied that such an action would be the best way of fulfilling their obligation to provide a satisfactory road system and of applying scarce financial resources in the public interest.

The other important decisions under the Bill which must be made by road authorities, the making of by-laws, entering into arrangements with private interests and making agency agreements with other road authorities, are all reserved to the elected members of the local authorities concerned, and the approval of the Minister for the Environment will be necessary to the charging of tolls.

A question has also been asked as to whether the Minister will be able to insist on tolls being charged in some instances. The answer is no. This Bill will not give the Minister a power of direction in relation to the institution of tolls. While there are good arguments for the inclusion of such power because of the financial contributions made for roads from the Environment Vote, any such directions could come into conflict with the quasi-judicial functions vested in the Minister in relation to acquisition of land, motorway and toll schemes, and also in relation to public local inquiries.

The Bill provides protection for the public against exploitation. Section 3 provides that before a toll charge can be introduced it will be necessary for a local authority to formulate a toll scheme and to give public notice of such a scheme. Section 4 of the Bill provides that it will be necessary to conduct a public local inquiry into the proposal. We must also bear in mind the fact that toll roads will be subject to general road traffic laws in relation to speeds, drivers' licences, vehicle registration and taxation, construction of vehicles, drunken driving, wearing of seat belts, and so on. Section 1 defines a toll road as a public road or proposed public road and toll roads will, therefore, be subject to the general traffic laws applicable to all public roads.

In conclusion, I should like to thank Senators for the tone of this debate, for the constructive manner in which the Bill was debated, and I strongly recommend that the Bill be passed by the Seanad.

Question put and agreed to.

An Cathaoirleach

Next Stage?

Mr. Reynolds

This day fortnight.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 28 November 1979.