Private Business. - Local Government (Toll Roads) Bill 1978: Committee and Final Stages.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3.
I move amendment No. 1:
In subsection (1), page 3, line 32, after "road" to insert "provided that no such scheme shall apply to any public road which was in existence prior to the making of such scheme".
The amendment is quite clear that no public road or bridge that is now in existence will have a toll charged on it. People who make contributions in tax or rates feel that tax is taken from them for the provision of these bridges and roads. I certainly do not think that any of them should become toll roads.
I would like to support this amendment. Amendment No. 2 can be associated with it.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
It is preferable to deal with the amendments separately, if the House agrees.
All right. Paragraph 8.5 of the Road Development Plan for the 1980s under the heading of "tolls" states:
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.
It also states that road users have, in parallel, a choice of alternative routes. I do not believe this principle has been included in this Bill in any respect. As the Bill stands it is open to the Department and a local authority to approve a toll on an existing road. People may have no option but to pay the toll. In accordance with the principles in the Road Development Plan for the eighties there will not be an alternative route for road users. I ask the Minister to abide by the principle so positively laid down in the booklet, which was adopted by the Government but is not included in the Bill.
I am not prepared to accept this amendment. It is quite conceivable that a toll facility would incorporate some part of an existing road. For example, in the case of a bridge it might be necessary to have the toll booths on the approach roads in order to ensure smooth traffic flow on the bridge itself. These approach roads could in some cases comprise part of the existing road network. At present major road improvement scheme realinement works often incorporate sections of existing roads. This principle could also apply in the case of a toll project. The Bill as drafted caters for such a situation. I have made it clear that I do not anticipate indiscriminate or widespread imposition of tolls on existing roads because of the rigorous process being laid down in the Bill for bringing toll schemes into force.
The rigorous process to which I refer involves prior approval of the elected members of road authorities and of the Minister after ventilation of the pros and cons of any particular scheme or schemes at public inquiries. I am satisfied that there is already sufficient safeguard against any unacceptable or unwarranted imposition of tolls and projects which would propose to include sections of existing roadways. One thing that should not be forgotten in relation to this Bill is that the final say rests with the elected representatives of local authorities and thereafter the approval of the Minister. It is elected representatives who decide on the toll schemes. I do not see why any local authority or members of local authorities should have anything to fear with regard to this section and indeed this Bill because the elected representatives are the people who decide.
I am sure the Minister will agree that people who have already made their contribution in their taxes for roads and bridges will feel much aggrieved now when they have to pay when they are crossing them. On top of that it is easy enough to say at this stage that it is left to the local authorities and to the local representatives. These people are under terrible pressure for money at the moment. I am sure the Minister realises that, without getting into the percentages given to them last year and the amount of money they require with the rates limit, they will also be under pressure from the people who are sponsoring the schemes for tolls. Their main interest will be a return for their capital investment. If the local authorities find themselves under pressure they will hit at somebody else. I do not think that it is reasonable to expect the local authorities to accept it in that way.
I read out what the Minister in his own booklet accepted as the general principle of toll roads and bridges, namely that there should be an alternative route, that there should be a choice to road users, that there should be an option to road users. Is the Minister now saying that he is departing from that acceptance principle which he enunciated only six months ago?
I am not departing from it. For example, in the case of a new toll bridge it is conceivable that some portion of an existing road would have to be utilised as an approach to a toll bridge. Take the example of the one that is under discussion with the road authority here in Dublin, across the Liffey. As the Senator can understand some of the existing roads will lead on to any new toll bridge. This does not mean, in effect, that road users, if they wish, are in any way prevented from using O'Connell Bridge or another or another adjacent bridge. Existing roads and bridges are already there and can still be utilised. There is no serious infringement of people's rights involved in this. It is just conceivable that some portion of an existing road would have to be utilised as an approach to a new toll bridge. It is not an infringement. There is already an existing route in all cases.
Would the Minister clarify one aspect of this legislation for me? It seems to me from what the Minister has just stated that the intention is that tolls may apply to a very limited portion of an existing road approaching a new toll bridge. In reading the Bill I have the distinct impression that the legislation enables tolls to be applied, as necessary to all existing roads. Even though the Minister says the intention is only to provide for tolls on short portions of existing roads approaching a new toll bridge, could that not have been provided without giving the sweeping powers that are in the legislation to apply tolls? The authority and the power is there to apply tolls to all existing roads. Could the Minister tell me why that is necessary?
It is necessary for the reasons I have already stated, such as, if there are toll routes at the approach to a bridge on part of an existing road. There will have to be approaches whether we like it or not. The power is there to have them, but it is entirely up to the elected members of local authorities to decide in favour of a toll scheme, the type of toll scheme, whether they should be at X or Y, the approaches and so on. It is entirely a matter for the elected representatives. Nothing could be more democratic or fairer than that. The power is in the Act for them to act in whatever way they wish.
If a toll bridge was erected beside the house of a person who was a resident of that house for many years and the particular road right beside the bridge became a toll road, what way would that person be affected? Would that person be obliged to pay a toll every time he comes out on that road? I do not like leaving the option to any section of the community, whether it is a local authority or the Minister, to decide, either with approval or without approval, to put a tax on that person going out on the road. This is what the Minister proposes to give authority to do.
This does not arise under this section. It would be a matter for the local authority concerned. We will come in at a later section to this question of exemptions. It does not arise under this section.
Am I correct in saying that there is power under this Bill for a local authority, should they so decide, to introduce a toll scheme to cover the cost of maintenance or improvement on an existing road?
Is the Senator asking if an existing road becomes part of the toll scheme?
Will a local authority under this Bill be empowered to impose a toll, should they so decide, on an existing road to cover the cost of improvement on that road or maintenance of that road?
That would be subject to the same procedure as any toll scheme.
It would be subject to a local inquiry and the Minister's approval in the same way as any toll scheme.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 2:
In subsection (2), page 3, line 40, after "authority" to insert "and any such scheme shall describe the alternative route or routes available to road users who do not choose to pay a toll".
The Minister on the previous amendment said in relation to O'Connell Bridge that the alternative bridge would be left there and that on the building of toll roads or toll bridges existing routes will not be interfered with. If that is the case I am quite happy with it.
The Senator is quite right. The existing alternatives will be there.
Could I apply that statement to rural Ireland? Where an improvement is carried out on an existing road and it becomes a toll road, is the Minister saying that there is still an alternative route for the public to use in addition to that toll road? There might well not be. It might be the only road in that locality.
If you build, for instance, a bridge, you will have to provide approaches. Correct?
Any scheme put before a local authority will be before the elected representatives and there are existing alternatives. People will continue to have use of alternatives if they so wish. If a local authority decide to include a part of a road in a toll scheme, it will become part of the toll scheme. That is up to the local authority.
Does it then become an additional route to what is already there? In other words, the road user is given an option and a choice of using either route A or route B, which is in accordance with the accepted principles of toll roads, as the Minister enunciated in the booklet.
As I understand it, the Senator thinks that they might be deprived of an alternative scheme, of an alternative route——
——because of the inclusion of part of an existing road in a toll scheme. If there is an existing alternative route, and if good planning should include part of that in a toll scheme, the local authority would have to take into account how they would provide the alternative scheme, or the portion of it which they are depriving people of. It would make good common sense to any local authority in order that all the users of the old route would not be subjected to the paying of tolls.
That is an improvement on the situation as we could understand it from the existing legislation. If the Minister is saying that the local authority must ensure that an alternative route will be available to road users in addition to any improved road network, I accept that.
They would continue to provide the alternative route. It may mean a new portion of road instead of the other one.
Is the Minister telling us now that there will be an alternative route to the toll road one?
We will come to that at a later stage on another section.
I cannot see if you are building a new toll road and you are converting the old route into the new toll road that you can have an alternative unless you build an alternative road. Why build an alternative route at extra cost?
I do not think that any local authority will act so foolishly as to use an old route that is used fully by the public. If the only reason they would build a toll road as an alternative to that is because of the volume of traffic, such a by-pass or a new bridge would have to be made attractive to the people who invest money in it also. It is not the intention to deprive people of alternative routes or the existing alternative routes.
It could happen that a route could be taken over to make the toll road. Part of a route could be taken over to continue the toll road on to the existing road. There could be people living on the old road. The entrance will be on the toll road and there will be an extra cost on those people.
With regard to people living there it is up to the local authority to include them under the exemptions from charges if they were obliged to use the road. All this would have to be teased out at the public inquiry. In turn, it would have to come before the Minister.
If a toll bridge was erected over the Shannon at Shannonbridge or improvements were made to the roads on either side of the bridge is it fair that people should have to go to Limerick or to Lanesboro in order to cross the Shannon by an alternative route? It is unfair for the local authority to extort money from the public using the ordinary routes that existed up to now and compel them to use the toll bridge and take from them a very considerable amount of tolls on the costing of that bridge?
If a new toll bridge were built across the Shannon, presumably the people who would not want to use that toll bridge would use the bridges they are now using.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 3:
In subsection (3), page 3, lines 41 and 42, to delete "give special consideration to the question of exempting" and substitute "exempt".
This is a very simple amendment. It is a matter of changing a word from "exempting" to "exempt". There are a number of people who should be exempt from paying tolls—pedestrians, people on pedal cycles. It is in everybody's interest to keep as many people as possible on pedal cycles if we listen to the Minister for Health and if we listen to other Departments about the use of petrol and the saving it would be on our energy. As well as that we have invalid people who use carriages and some type of motor they have adapted. Some disabled people have vehicles which are operated by hand. All those people should be exempt from tolls. We had the situation up to 1977 that they were exempt from paying motor tax. They should have this advantage above other sections of the community. I am sure the Minister will give me the same answer he gave on the first amendment, that it is a matter entirely for the local authorities and for the elected representatives. We should put something in the Bill to prevent the local authorities or anybody else making a charge on this particular section of the community.
Local authorities are under great pressure for money at the moment. Maybe every company and private individual is under pressure for money, but certainly local authorities are under much more pressure than many others. I would ask the Minister, if at all possible, to provide for those people in this Bill. In England, these unfortunate people have to pay £1 every time they cross a toll bridge. There is a danger that this might happen here.
I have to repeat that it is the elected members of local authorities who will have the say in this. This particular subsection was inserted by me on Report Stage in the Dáil. It specifically requires road authorities to give special consideration to the question of exempting from tolls pedestrians, pedal cycles, invalid carriages and vehicles specially adapted for use by physically handicapped persons. I am quite satisfied that any Member of this House who is familiar with the local authority system will also be quite satisfied that the members of these authorities will give special consideration to the granting of exemptions to these categories of road users. I fail to see how necessary making it mandatory is. After all we are leaving the power to the elected members of the local authorities. I would remind the House that in the last 12 months, under the Rates Bill, I was continuously accused of taking powers away from local authorities and eroding their autonomy. This was inserted by me in order to give local authorities the power to make the exemptions that they thought should be made. I have sufficient confidence in local authorities that they will do it properly.
Considering that there are up to 40 local authorities, maybe 39 will exempt those people, but there may be one local authority that will not exempt them. You then have a curious situation, where you have an exemption in one part of the country and none in another. Therefore, it should be mandatory on all local authorities to exempt them.
The Minister went a good part of the way in meeting it when he made the suggestion to the local authorities, but he should go the whole way now and accept the amendment. If it should happen that in one local authority they are exempt and in another they are charged we would have a bad situation. I feel the Minister should have another look at it.
If what the Senator says happened that 39 authorities did what we expect them to do and the other did not I would still have to approve this. I could have it amended in order to include such exemptions as people feel strongly about.
Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided: Tá, 25; Níl, 15.
Tá
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Brugha, Ruairí.
- Cassidy, Eileen.
- Conroy Richard.
- Cranitch, Mícheál.
- Crowley, Flor.
- de Brún, Séamus.
- Donnelly, Michael Patrick.
- Dowling, Joseph.
- Goulding, Lady.
- Herbert, Anthony.
- Hillery, Brian.
- Honan, Tras.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Jago, R. Valentine.
- Kiely, Rory.
- Kitt, Michael.
- Lanigan, Michael.
- McGlinchey, Bernard.
- McGowan, Patrick.
- Mulcahy, Noel William. O'Toole, Martin J.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Ryan, William.
- Whitaker, Thomas
- Kenneth.
Níl
- Butler, Pierce.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- FitzGerald, Alexis.
- Governey, Desmond.
- Harte, John.
- Howard, Michael.
- Kennedy, Fintan.
- Kilbride, Thomas.
- McAuliffe, Timothy.
- McDonald, Charles.
- Markey, Bernard.
- O'Brien, Andy.
- Reynolds, Patrick
- Joseph.
- Robinson, Mary T.W.
- Staunton, Miles.
Tellers: Tá, Senators W. Ryan and Brennan; Níl, Senators Butler and Harte.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question declared carried. Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 4:
In subsection (4), paragraph (d), page 3, line 55, after "users" to insert "and shall also include a projected profit and loss account anticipated for each year of the operation of the said scheme".
My amendment seeks to have each toll road scheme accompanied by an estimate of the amount of money likely to be collected. I have no doubt that a private individual will not build a toll road or bridge without making some calculation of income, and that calculation or estimate should be submitted to the local authority concerned. It is also necessary for us to know the amount that is likely to be collected. Will the same amount be demanded for a motor car using a toll road or bridge as for a lorry or tractor for agricultural purposes? Some type of estimate should be submitted to the local authority. I do not think this will work otherwise. It is essential also that a profit and loss account be produced. That is a handy, fair and sensible approach. Could those tolls be subsidised from the Central Fund or from any other source such as the EEC? One never knows the switches that may come and that is why it is essential that an estimate is produced when the scheme is prepared. It is vital information for local authorities. What is the attitude of the Minister to this?
I do not propose to accept this amendment but I appreciate the objective which the Senator has in mind in putting it down. The provisions of section 3 have been drafted on the basis that the maximum information which a road authority could reasonably be expected to provide for the public will be made available through the explanatory statement which must accompany any toll scheme being put forward for consideration. The detail which must be included in the explanatory statement is set out in section 3 (6) and includes estimates of capital and operating costs of the volumes and types of traffic likely to use the facility, and of the likely levels of toll charges. The Senator, I feel, will accept that it would be unreasonable to require a projected profit and loss account on an annual basis of a scheme that would be of so many years' duration. I have no doubt that the public will insist on getting the maximum possible information on operating costs of any proposed toll facility at the public inquiry. In any event, the Minister will insist on getting similar information prior to approving such a scheme. I am sure the Senator will appreciate that a profit and loss account of so many years' projections would be unreasonable. All the necessary available information will be available at the inquiry and when the scheme is submitted.
The Minister said it would be unreasonable to insist on or seek a profit and loss account on a scheme of so many years' duration. The "so many years' duration" aspect is something that concerns me. I take the view that we may well see quite a section of the most important part of our communication, roads or bridges, coming under the control for their development, maintenance or improvement, of private enterprise, with a toll charge on them.
If private enterprise are to be enticed into doing this job they will become interested only if the margin is good enough and the return on the investment is good enough. Let us assume that the construction of a bridge arouses the interest of private enterprise and a scheme, which includes a costing on the job, is agreed upon and a toll charge is set. If the capital cost of providing that bridge, and the interest on it with a reasonable margin of profit is obtained from the toll charges of over a period of five or ten years, what provision is there in the legislation to say that at the end of that period a local authority has the power to say to private enterprise: "It has been a profitable operation for you and now we feel the scheme should be discontinued"? Are we going to have a situation that private enterprise, attracted by the margin that can be obtained from this development, will regard it as an asset or a facility to continue producing good returns over an unlimited number of years? Will the Minister comment on my fears on that likely development?
This is all dealt with under section 9.
I move amendment No. 5:
In subsection (4), page 3, between lines 55 and 56 to insert the following new paragraph:
"(e) state the duration of the scheme,".
In reply to amendment No. 4, the Minister clearly stated that at the inquiries the charges for the various types of vehicles using toll roads or bridges would be discussed to see what could be hammered out. However, there is also the question of the period for the duration of the scheme. Do I take it that that will also be discussed? When a scheme is submitted to a local authority for a certain period it is necessary to state the duration of the scheme. Will the Minister accept my amendment which seeks to have the duration of the scheme specified?
I do not propose to accept the amendment. There is ample power under the Bill for any road authority to fix the duration of a toll scheme. Subsection (4) (e) requires a road authority to specify such other information as the road authority may consider appropriate or the Minister may direct. This will enable duration clauses to be adopted where either the road authority or the Minister consider such to be either necessary or desirable.
Subsection (5) (b) enables a road authority to amend or revoke a toll scheme. This could be used to insert duration clauses where none may be included in an original scheme but where the road authority subsequently consider a fixed duration to be either necessary or desirable. Section 9 (2) (b) provides that an agreement between a road authority and a private entrepreneur may provide for its duration and determination while it can be said that these provisions are not as rigid as the proposed amendment, I would argue for the greater flexibility which the Bill in its present form provides because of the many uncertainties which could affect projects, for example, fluctuation of interest rates, the energy situation, variations in the volume of traffic and so on.
A rigid provision on the lines proposed could cause unnecessary problems. As was stated by the Minister of State in the course of his reply to the Second Stage debate many of the provisions of the Bill have been framed on a flexible basis because the Bill is breaking new ground in this area. I am satisfied that there are sufficient safeguards to ensure that the interests of the general public are reasonably safeguarded. There is also the possibility that a rigid insistence on the duration of a toll scheme being specified in all cases could operate against the consideration of cross-subsidisation of toll schemes. This is an aspect of the financing of such schemes which was put forward in the Dáil by the Opposition. It could interfere with the successful utilising of that asset. I do not propose to accept the amendment.
What crosses my mind very forcibly about this is that the local authorities, with the demand on them for money at present—and they have no means of getting it—could overcharge for the use of the toll road or encourage the overcharging in order to get a higher income from the contractor. I accept that schemes must be sanctioned by the Department of the Environment, and that is all right for us but we must think of the people who will follow us. There must be some sort of protection built into this section.
With regard to overcharging in an effort to get more revenue into the local authority, any toll scheme has to be approved by the Minister.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 6:
In subsection (6), paragraph (a), page 4, line 26, after "operation" to insert "and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing shall include all necessary plans, drawings and specifications, proposed methods of construction and subsequent standards of maintenance and the estimated annual cost of such maintenance.
This is a simple amendment. This section is rather vague and it is necessary to have specifications, construction methods and maintenance standards included. When a toll road is complete the contractor, naturally, will be out to get as much money as possible and for that reason it is essential that there be some set of standards. The Department of the Environment and local authorities have all experienced inferior type of houses being built. We are all aware of complaints about housing. I want to ensure that a contractor does the job to specifications and gives some guarantee in the agreement with regard to maintenance.
With regard to the initial approval of a toll scheme, the preliminary plans are all that are required because one could not expect the entrepreneur at that stage to have detailed plans. They would be required later by the local authority, and subsection 6 (a) requires the giving of information in relation to the general arrangements for the construction, maintenance, improvement, management and operation of a project. With regard to the matters of construction and maintenance, since every toll road or bridge will be a public road then, by definition, the relevant road authority will, ultimately, be legally responsible for its satisfactory construction and subsequent maintenance.
Do I understand the Minister to say that it will be the responsibility of the local authority to see that this standard is sufficiently high with regard to the construction? Will the local authority also be responsible with regard to maintenance? I can recall where local authorities have fallen down on the building of bridges, the reason for which I do not know. There have been some damn bad jobs done in house building and the construction of bridges. I do not want to see a recurrence of this on toll roads or toll bridges.
It will be the responsibility of the local authority because as a public road it will be their responsibility. With regard to the construction, plans and so on they will be subject to the approval of the Minister, just as the building of any new public road is at present. It will be the responsibility of the local authority who will, undoubtedly, enter into a proper type of agreement with their partner to ensure that this is catered for in the agreement and that the public good is protected with regard to maintenance.
There is more machinery available to the Minister in his Department than there is to a local authority for advice about construction and maintenance. The specialised people in this field in the Department will have to help.
As in the case of any proposal for a new road or portion they are available for advice in the preparation stages. It will be subject to approval by the Minister, which will mean that the people the Senator refers to will have to be involved with regard to advice.
They will have to be available for more than advice. There is an onus on the Department and the Minister to make sure they are available. Naturally the local authority's or the Department's money may not be involved but we are trying to give people a service and we must see to it that they get it. The Department must be involved more than in an advisory capacity.
Like any new road or bridge, the design and all the details of a proposal would have to be approved by the Minister before a local authority or road authority could enter into a contract.
The responsibility for the maintenance of the toll roads will be on the local authorities, but who will be responsible for the raising of the finance for their maintenance?
This will be catered for in agreement with the local authorities. They will make the necessary arrangements with their partner or partners, whoever they may be, in that agreement with regard to maintenance.
The responsibility will be put on the local authorities to see that the contractor will maintain the roads in the future?
It is entirely a matter for the local authority. The necessary moneys will be made available from the revenue that will accrue from it. The local authority will ensure that provision is made for it in the agreement.
I am a little worried about the financing of the main toll roads. The present maintenance of roads in Ireland is very poor and if toll roads are treated in the same way, they will be a danger to drivers.
Regarding the capital invested, there is a danger that the person putting up the money will expect as quick a return as possible. He does not go down one bit in my estimation for doing that—I would say that the Minister, every Senator and everyone else would do the same thing. In this event, is there any danger of the roads deteriorating?
The local authority will be responsible. In their agreement, they can ensure that their partners will be responsible for jointly providing the money from the revenue for the maintenance of these roads, which must be maintained properly.
Agreements are made to be broken.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 4, between lines 31 and 32, to insert the following new subsection:
"(7) A toll scheme shall not be prepared unless the land required can be purchased by agreement."
This amendment is quite clear. It is much easier, much quicker and much better to have land purchased by agreement, and certainly much faster. I fully realise that it is hard to embody that in the Bill, but some encouragement should be given somewhere to get agreements, other than compulsory acquisition, or whatever the alternative will be. Could the Minister see if anything can be done about it?
Since a toll road will become a public road it will have to be subject to the same laws as any public road. I agree with the Senator that negotiation is always a quicker way to get a road or a bridge built but there are people with whom one cannot negotiate so you must resort to the CPO. I expect that any group involved in this would do their utmost to negotiate rather than resort to the CPO.
When the Minister sends the Bill to the local authority, when it becomes law, would he give them some time to try to negotiate rather than using the CPO, because this compulsory acquisition can be a very slow, expensive process? I am sure the Minister fully realises that as well as I do.
I do realise that it can be a very slow procedure, which is only a last resort.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 3 agreed to.
Section 4 agreed to.
SECTION 5.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 5, between lines 45 and 46, to add to the section the following new subsection:
"(4) The making of bye-laws under this section shall be a reserved function within the meaning of the statutes referred to in section 3 (7) of this Act."
This amendment on the bye-laws should be treated the same as Sections 3 and 7 of the Act as a reserved function in legal terms. Would the Minister consider doing that?
This amendment is not necessary. Although it is not specifically stated in the section, the Senator can be assured that the making of bye-laws under this section will be a reserved function, that is, reserved to the elected members of the road authority. The relevant legal provision for the making of bye-laws by a local authority on which this assurance is based, is under section 16 (2) of the Second Schedule of the County Management Act, 1940; section 8 (1) (b) of the Cork City Management Act, 1929; section 51 (1) (b) of the Local Government (Dublin) Act, 1930; section 12 (1) (b) of the Limerick City Management Act, 1934 and section 11 (1) (b) of the Waterford City Management Act, 1939.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 5 agreed to.
SECTION 6.
I move amendment No. 9:
In subsection (1), page 5, line 47, after "Síochána" to insert "and the local authority or local authorities within whose functional area or areas the scheme is situate".
This section gives free use of a toll road or a toll bridge to ambulances, the gardaí and so on. The local authority within that area should also have free use of the road or bridge. This is not an unreasonable amendment. It could be negotiated at the agreement stage and I am sure there would be no objection to it.
This type of exemption would be a matter for the local authority.
We have specially mentioned the gardaí, ambulances and so on and I feel that we should also mention the local authority, within the given local authority area. I am not looking for freedom on it for every local authority.
The local authority have discretionary powers to do that but have no discretion with regard to public security vehicles or emergency vehicles.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 5, between lines 48 and 49, to insert the following new subsection:
"(2) Vehicles used by doctors on duty shall be exempt from payment of tolls."
There are a few reasons why this amendment should be accepted. Firstly, usually doctors going on a call in a car are, naturally, in a hurry. Secondly, it would show some respect for the doctor's calling. I know it is sometimes difficult to know when a doctor is on duty. At the same time they should be mentioned among the people who are exempt.
Again, it would be up to the local authority. It would present difficulty to a toll gate operator to identify whether persons are on duty or not. It is something for the local authority to decide.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 6 agreed to.
Sections 7 and 8 agreed to.
SECTION 9.
I move amendment No. 11:
In subsection (2), page 6, line 50, to delete "may" and substitute "shall".
This is a sensible amendment; perhaps the Minister might accept the word "shall" in this case.
This amendment was put forward also in the Dáil. There was a very long and detailed argument on it. I was not prepared to accept it then and I am not prepared to accept it now.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 9 agreed to.
Sections 10 to 12, inclusive, agreed to. Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
Agreed to take remaining Stages today.
Bill received for final consideration and passed.
