What inquiries have gone on in relation to staff? The Minister mentioned that probably some of his Department's staff would be transferred to the Roads Authority. I was wondering if local authorities are to hand over staff. Speaking from the point of view of Dublin, many of the authorities have not had men replaced recently. The Minister might clarify the position.
Roads Bill, 1991: Committee Stage (Resumed).
Sections 29 and 30 agreed to.
SECTION 31.
Question proposed: "That section 31 stand part of the Bill."
Wexford): As I said previously, some of the staff will be transferred from the Department of the Environment. Discussions are about to commence in relation to local authority staff and I appreciate what the Senator is saying with regard to some local authorities. We envisage that many of the works authorised by the National Roads Authority will be done by local authorities and there should be no change. The local authorities have their structures, engineers and draftsmen and so on. I would not see a major problem but it is early days yet. Discussions are ongoing and it will be some time before they are concluded.
Many questions arise in relation to this Bill. Here is a section which relates to public authorities. I am a member of a public authority, as are many other Members. This section states that "a public authority may designate for employment by the Authority, any person employed by that public authority." Could the Minister define "public authority"? Is it the management of the public authority or the elected members of the public authority? This should be more clearly defined as it could have a significant effect on the whole structure of the local authority. In 1987, there was a big scare about the system of public finances and the local authority. A large number of people within the local authority system, at engineering level and otherwise, took redundancy and opted out. The result is that local authorities do not have the staff and design teams which they had in the late 1980s. The Minister should be more specific as to what is envisaged by way of local authority staff being designated and assigned to the National Roads Authority.
While I accept what the Minister has said, I concur with Senator Sherlock. At the moment, there is a reorganisation process in Dublin and it appears from what I have heard on the grapevine that many of the parks department people are being laid off or are certainly being told to reapply. I am concerned that no-one's present status should be reduced. Can the Minister assure us that no-one will be worse off after this and also that a person will not be suddenly taken from either his department or local authority and transferred to some totally different area? We hope that people will give of their best and that this authority will be workable and produce ready answers, solutions, plans and so on. I would be concerned that there might not be adequate consultation with unions or, particularly, with any person designated. The section states that: a public authority shall not designate an employee under this subsection, without having notified in writing the employee and any recognised trade unions or staff associations concerned. I wonder if they will go further than that and just give written notice that from Monday week a person is on his way and that is that.
(Wexford): In reply to Senator Sherlock, I do not envisage many transfers of staff from local authorities to the National Roads Authority. The local authorities will be implementers of National Roads Authority schemes and on the odd occasion there may be secondment of expertise from local authorities if the National Roads Authority feels it so requires. Section 31 of the Bill provides enabling power for the transfer to the National Roads Authority of staff from the Department of the Environment, local authorities or other public bodies where their principal duties relate to functions of the National Roads Authority. All this will take place with consultation. There will be provision for prior notification of consultation with employees and their trade unions where transfers are proposed. The Minister stated quite clearly in the Dáil that there will be full consultation with staff interests before any final decisions are taken in this area.
Subsection (4) protects the terms and conditions of tenure of any person transferred to the National Roads Authority from a public authority. They cannot be made less favourable except by way of a collective agreement negotiated with the person's trade union. A further provision was added in the special committee that should there be any dispute concerning the terms and conditions relating to the tenure of any person being transferred, such a dispute will be decided on by the Minister for Finance, following consultation with the Minister for the Environment. The Bill gives protection for employees who may be transferred to the National Roads Authority and provides for full consultation with the Department and with the trade unions and, if an agreement is not reached, further consultations with the Minister for Finance and Minister for the Environment. Staff, no matter where they are transferred, will be totally protected and will not be moved or downgraded to a lesser position.
I thank the Minister for his reply, but that is not the main point of my argument. The staffs of the local authorities will be further depleted and consequently when issues come before the local authority, where the design team is needed to design a scheme of one kind or another, they will be over the line with the roads authority. That is the problem we are going to face on this issue.
(Wexford): I would see very little transfer of staff from the local authorities as they are at present constituted. From experience in my area, there are already design teams in place and building roads and ring roads, as well as providing plans and scales. They will continue to do that on behalf of the National Roads Authority in future. We would not see the National Roads Authority going completely over to private enterprise and saying that it no longer needs the local authorities. Throughout the Bill there is reference to the National Roads Authority availing of the staff and expertise that is already in local authorities. I would certainly hope that the downgrading of local authorities would not happen. I have the utmost respect for local authorities and I am concerned that they would be mainly responsible for implementing National Roads Authority policy for the future.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 32 to 34, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 35.
Question proposed: "That section 35 stand part of the Bill."
Section 35 (1) (b) states:
Subject to paragraph (c), no person shall be employed by the Authority while he is a member of a local authority.
I can understand that, but I would ask the Minister of State to clarify a point? In certain circumstances a member of a local authority could have machinery contracted to local authorities. Would this section of the Bill prohibit that happening with the National Roads Authority?
My point is related to that and concerns section 35 (1) (c) which, notwithstanding what is in (1) (b), goes on to state that the Minister may order that certain types of people may be exempt. In what sort of circumstances can the Minister of State envisage that happening? It would seem to me that section 35 (1)(b) is adequate when it states that no person shall be employed by the Authority while he is a member of a local authority.
Why go on to allow a loophole where the Minister at his discretion can do something contrary to what is the intention of paragraph (b)? I wonder about the circumstances in which section 35(1)(c) might be invoked.
(Wexford): In relation to Senator Finneran's point, if a councillor happens to have a business and machinery or equipment is already contracted to the local authority, then certainly this Bill will not prevent him from doing that. What he would be expected to do, however, would be to declare his interests in a particular project that he might be tendering for. The Bill will not prevent such a person from becoming involved in that contract or from carrying out works for the National Roads Authority.
Section 35(1)(b) would exclude people from becoming members of the National Roads Authority while they are members of a local authority, but paragraph (c) allows a loophole. Are we creating a pals network whereby if we regard certain people as desirable or politically correct we can give them an exemption that might not apply to people who are not politically correct?
(Wexford): It certainly has to apply to a grade and not to individuals. In the past some grades were exempted. They consisted of employees of local authorities who were not officers, clerical staff up to and including officers and vocational education committee teachers. Civil servants below clerical grades may also become local authority members. The Minister is complying with provisions in related areas in the past. It is a continuation of ministerial functions.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 36 to 38, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 39.
Question proposed: "That section 39 stand part of the Bill."
In the normal course of events when the authority looks at plans or schemes it will be able to take into account representations made. If one knew a member of the board one might be able to express concern at what was being done or not done with certain roads. Could the Minister of State elaborate on how he sees this section operating? Normally, I would make representations to the secretary of An Bord Pleanála, which I presume would be in order, on behalf of constituents. The local authority may take a certain view and may want to push it home, particularly if there is an oral hearing. I would hope that the Minister of State would not block genuine representations made either by public representatives or individuals. Can the Minister of State expand on section 39?
(Wexford): I would certainly hope that the democratic process would be allowed to continue in this area, and that the National Roads Authority would not be above this. I would hope also that local authority members, politicians and the general public would be entitled to make representations to the National Roads Authority on an issue if they so wished. The emphasis of this section is on improper influence, such as attempts to blackmail, bribe, threaten or coerce somebody. It does not prohibit normal lobbying and other legitimate attempts to influence decisions. That should allay Senator Cosgrave's fears about that area.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 40 to 42, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 43.
Question proposed: "That section 43 stand part of the Bill."
A motorway means a public road or proposed public road specified to be a motorway in a motorway scheme approved by the Minister under section 49. Section 43 states that persons in charge of, or having control over, animals shall not permit them to be on a motorway. We must clarify what is meant by that. Does that mean that every motorway on the national primary and secondary routes will need an underpass?
In certain areas people find it difficult to get approval from the local authority to have their cattle herded across the road. A few years ago it was easy to get approval but it is now a major problem. This section specifically says people in charge of or having control over animals shall not permit them to be on a motorway. I would like clarification on that point.
(Wexford): There are only 150 to 200 kilometres of motorway in the country. That is a small amount of roadway. There would have to be underpasses for motorways if animals had to be transported from one side to the other. They would not be allowed on the motorway itself and since we have such a small number of motorways I think underpasses will be the order of the day. I see no other solution.
I refer to the same subsection raised by Senator Sherlock. I have experience of this because a motorway has gone through my land. My understanding is fencing on motorways is the responsibility of the local authority or the road authority rather than the landowner. If a motorcar leaves the motorway and goes through my fence leaving a hole in it, and the animals go on to the motorway from my land, that is the authority's responsibility rather than mine. It is its responsibility to maintain the fence on the perimeter of my land and the motorway. There may be reference to this elsewhere in the Bill. Can the Minister clarify the position?
During the course of construction animals frequently get on to motorways. Farmers who concentrate on tillage rather than livestock wish to keep animals off their land rather than keep them enclosed on it. That can also cause problems.
(Wexford): The Senator is correct. Local authorities are totally responsible for the maintenance of fencing along motorways. If someone broke through the fence the authority would hope to recoup the losses from the vehicle owner involved. The full responsibility for repair and maintenance lies with the relevant local authority.
Is that a responsibility under law or is it just the practice and precedent?
(Wexford): It is under law. It is clearly laid down in the motorway specifications that the local authorities have that responsibility.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 44 to 46, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 47.
Question proposed: "That section 47 stand part of the Bill."
I am not sure whether my query is appropriate to this section or section 48. It relates to the responsibility or otherwise of the new National Roads Authority in relation to planning permission. Is there any onus on the NRA to apply for planning permission for road or motorway construction? Does the recent court decision play any part in this legislation or does the NRA have to apply to the relevant local authority for planning permission?
(Wexford): At present the authority does not have to apply for planning permission if it is doing the work itself. The position will be reviewed in the legislation proposed by the Minister which I understand may come before the Dáil next week. As of today, planning permission need not be sought.
My question may refer to another section. The local authority of which I am a member has its development plan under review at present. What obligation is on the National Roads Authority to comply with the five-year development plan of each county? This is vitally important matter. In years to come there will be a considerable amount of development in towns. In my area, Fermoy and Mitchelstown will be bypassed.
(Wexford): It is clearly laid down in section 22 of the Bill that the National Roads Authority will have to take full account of the local authority's county development plan when considering any developments in a given county.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 48 to 56, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 57.
Question proposed: "That section 57 stand part of the Bill."
Many of us on this side of the House and perhaps other Members also would like to see fewer toll roads on a point of principle. We are far too heavily taxed on motoring, whether it be on the purchase of a car, taxation and insurance of same or other items. I ask the Minister where or how he envisages tolls being established. There may be some justification for tolls where private enterprise develops networks such as the East Link and West Link bridges.
Motoring is an expensive necessity for many people. The cost of insurance is astronomical, the price of cars is expensive in comparison with the UK and there are regular increases in road tax and the cost of repairs. Those who have company cars are hit for benefit in kind.
In view of these factors, perhaps the Minister will outline how the tolling of roads will operate. Will it be an easy target like the 1 per cent income levy and the 2 per cent probate tax? Will you, a Chathaoirligh, when driving to your constituency, or will many of the Members when travelling home, be subject to tolls on an intermittent basis from one county to another? It is possible that tolls could be used as a revenue raising method adopted by local authorities to make up for lack of funding. We would be opposed to the tolling of roads in principle, especially when public funding is already used to build such roads.
(Wexford): The scope for private toll-based investment is very limited. We do not have the traffic volumes or the motorway mileage suitable for tolling. The East Link and the West Link are the only tolling facilities to date and as a regular commuter on the East Link I am sympathetic to Senator Cosgrave's concerns on the cost to the motorist.
Toll proposals for the Dublin ring road proved unacceptable to Dublin County Council. Negotiations were in place at an earlier stage in relation to the by-passes at Newbridge and Kilcullen. These did not reach a satisfactory conclusion as the likely level of private funding available was small when compared with the total cost and the probable diversion of traffic to secondary roads.
I do not accept that the tolling of roads is a double taxation. It has been the policy of successive Governments to seek toll-based investment in roads, with moneys raised passed on to develop further road structures throughout the country. Ultimately there will probably be very few toll roads. There will not be sufficient motorway mileage and I am not convinced that tolling is a major way of raising revenue to fund further road construction.
There has been substantial motorway development in the part of the country where I come from and the issue of tolls has been highly controversial. I agree with Senator Cosgrave that as a society we are reluctant to pay tolls. Given the level of taxation on cars tolls should not be imposed.
Section 57 (6) of the Bill states: "The making of a toll scheme in relation to a regional road or a local road shall be a reserved function." The national road network is to be under the care of the National Roads Authority. However, if a proposal was put to the National Roads Authority to have a toll on a national road, such as a motorway going through Kildare, it would be the members of the local authority in Kildare who would get the heat rather than the members of the National Roads Authority.
I would be reluctant to relinquish local authority control on the issue of applying a toll to a national road. How can the Minister reassure me, as a member of Kildare County Council, that I will not find myself taking the heat for a decision taken by the National Roads Authority rather than the county council?
(Wexford): If the National Roads Authority considers tolling, it is obliged to consult fully with the appropriate local authority and consider any views expressed by the authority. In addition, there is a public consultation process. The Minister must hold a public inquiry into any objections and tolls cannot be levied without ministerial approval. The scope for tolling in this country is very limited. There are no projects on national roads which could be fully funded by toll-based private investment.
Members of local authorities have expressed reservations similar to those expressed by Senator Dardis. Because of these reservations the Minister has made clear provision in the Bill for the procedures to be fulfilled before any toll is introduced.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 58 to 61, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 62.
Amendment No. 15 is a Government amendment and amendment No. 16 is related. Both may be taken together.
Government amendment No. 15:
In page 58, between lines 14 and 15, to insert the following paragraph:
"(c) such other classes of vehicles or road users as the Minister may prescribe in relation to toll roads generally, specified classes of toll roads or specified toll roads."
(Wexford): Senator Cosgrave's amendment No. 16, referring to “road users with special needs” is, I believe, too vague to form the basis of an exemption from tolls. The private investor would need to be clear as to what classes of road users or vehicles were exempt as this would have an impact on revenue.
I am sympathetic with the thinking behind Senator Cosgrave's amendment. Present exemptions include pedestrians, pedal cycles, invalid carriages, vehicles specially adapted for use by physically handicapped persons and vehicles providing public passenger transport services. Perhaps Senator Cosgrave wishes to propose some defined exemptions. The Minister has further powers under regulation to extend the list of exemptions under section 62.
I am involved with the handicapped and there are exemptions I would wish the Minister to include. I will discuss this with the Minister when consideration is given to increasing the exemptions.
So many sections of this Bill refer to toll roads that I believe there is more than just a suggestion of introducing them. Could the Minister clarify the circumstances under which toll charges could be imposed on users of regional roads by local authorities which are also roads authorities? The Bill provides for this development.
I accept the points made by the Minister. If my amendment is accepted, a list would be drawn up of road users with special needs. As the Minister indicated, this amendment is particularly relevant to the disabled who should be uppermost in our minds and who should be given priority. Even though my amendment is vague, the Government's amendment is not specific either. It refers to "such other classes of vehicles or road users as the Minister may prescribe in relation to toll roads generally, specified classes of toll roads or specified toll roads."
Local authority regulations concerning the payment of toll charges by disabled people who travel the East and West Link bridges led me to put down this amendment. They are exempt from paying these charges when crossing the East Link bridge but must pay them on the West Link bridge. I kept the wording of the amendment simple while making clear the category of persons I wish to benefit.
Some Senators suggested that toll roads will be very much part of our lives in the next century. Will the Minister clarify whether the disabled will be exempt from paying charges on toll roads operated either by local authorities or private concerns?
I see the reason for the Minister's amendment but I cannot see why it is framed in the way it is. Section 57 (2) states that:
In making a toll scheme, a road authority shall give special consideration to the question of exempting from tolls under the scheme pedestrians, pedal cycles, invalid carriages vehicles specially adapted for use by physically handicapped persons and vehicles providing public passenger transport services.
Since this seems to be also appropriate to section 62, is there any need for it to be included in section 57 rather than in section 62? I am confused as to why such vehicles and persons should be exempt when they do not come within section 62.
Senator Cosgrave's amendment refers to "road users with special needs". I can think of all sorts of special needs which would be unlikely to qualify for exemption if the amendment is accepted. The need to transport my grain along a certain section of road may be special to me but I cannot imagine the Minister agreeing that I should be exempt from paying a toll. The words "special needs" are very broad and need to be restricted by words such as those in section 57.
It must be accepted in principle that the disadvantaged should not suffer and the disabled should be exempt from paying toll charges. I am sure the Minister would not quibble with this. We should devise a formula of words which would give expression to this principle and take it outside the realm of discretion. The formula should include the words "the following shall be exempt" which are contained in section 62 rather than "given special consideration" which are in section 57. My central question is: why is the subsection I quoted included in section 57 rather than in section 62 which is more appropriate?
We all appreciate that the intent of Senator Cosgrave's amendment is to provide for the special needs of the disabled and others. However, it has been pointed out that it is too broad. If it were accepted it would be difficult to classify those with special needs, and I can understand why the Minister has difficulty accepting it. I have no doubt that the amendment intends to give the Minister discretion in deciding the category of vehicles or road users which are to be exempt. The Government's amendment, however, provides for this broad discretion. When this Bill becomes law, requests for exemptions may be made to the Minister on behalf of individuals or groups and he will have discretion when making his decisions.
In a recent court case involving a child in Cork who was seeking the right to be educated, the judge, in a landmark judgment, strongly criticised the poor quality of care given to people with special needs. I strongly support Senator Cosgrave's amendment. Groups which help the physically and mentally handicapped clearly understand the meaning of the term "special needs". The Minister should not allow legislation to be enacted which imposes additional taxation on those who are handicapped or have special needs.
Under current legislation disabled drivers are entitled to rebates of VAT and excise duty on the purchase price of new cars and excise duty on petrol. This legislation, if enacted, will impose additional costs on motorists without any exemptions for disabled drivers. It is not much to ask the Minister to accept this amendment. It shows a degree of caring.
Local people have special needs. Throughout Europe — and in Ireland — transport companies and road and rail owners have to make special arrangements for people in local areas who use the road and rail networks. It is appropriate that we legislate for people with special needs who conduct business in the service industry.
It is significant that the Garda, the Army, the ambulance service and the fire brigade are exempt from paying tolls. This logic can be extended. No one is against the idea of exemptions. However, why should Army personnel have rights which are not extended to handicapped people? The answer is simple: because it would be a tax collected by the State to be paid to the State. This would signify an administrative blunder of the highest order.
We make every effort to support and make life easier for disabled or handicapped drivers who are on a low income and are supported by the State. However, we are now saying that we will impose an additional tax on them. Surely, we should make life easier for them.
This legislation should specifically state that vehicles used by handicapped people are exempt from paying tolls. There are different circumstances where such vehicles can be used. Ambulances have been mentioned. The local handicapped organisations have their own ambulances, but this would not meet the criteria set out in this section. It is necessary that this legislation state specifically that handicapped people are exempt from paying tolls.
I specifically mentioned "special needs" because, as Senator O'Toole indicated, it has particular connotations in relation to health. Words such as "disabled" and "handicapped" are used less frequently today.
I am sure Senator Dardis has a "special need" in relation to his grain truck and his colleagues in Kildare County Council might be able to include that in another subsection. However, I did not have his grain truck in mind when I was tabling this amendment.
Notice taken that 12 Members were not present; House counted and 12 Members being present,
(Wexford): I respect the views expressed. They show the need to define the areas which should and should not be exempt. Under section 57(2), the National Roads Authority or a local authority will be obliged to give special consideration to exempting certain categories of vehicles and road users when preparing a toll scheme. They are only obliged to give special consideration because their powers are discretionary.
I was responding to Senator Cosgrave's amendment in a positive way because the Government tabled an amendment which allows the Minister for the Environment to make regulations. In future, regulations made by the Minister will be mandatory. At the moment, certain persons are exempt from paying the toll on the East Link bridge but no one is exempt on the West Link bridge. In future, the Minister can make a regulation which will exempt the West Link bridge and the local authority or the National Roads Authority will have to implement the Minister's decision. This is responding to Senator Cosgrave's amendment.
We must clearly define what or who is exempt. We do not want people arriving at the toll bridge and debating for up to an hour about whether they are exempt from paying tolls. I ask Senators on all sides to accept section 62 which gives the Minister power to make regulations. In future, these regulations will not be discretionary but will be mandatory.
I agree with the Senators' views, I am not too happy about some of the areas which are not exempt at present. I will encourage the Minister for the Environment, Deputy Smith, to include the views and ideas which have been put forward from all sides of the House when making regulations in the future.
Senator Sherlock made a point about toll roads. The Government does not intend to have toll roads throughout the country. As I said, there is little scope for toll roads in this country. We have taken the 1979 legislation and put it into the National Roads Authority Bill but we have introduced a power to revoke toll roads. In other words, it is the 1979 legislation with that one change.
I accept the Minister's good faith on the question of the regulations and who should be exempt but the amendment does not meet the case Senator Cosgrave was making. What the Minister is saying in essence, is "trust me and trust the Department", and when the regulations are being made they will take into account all our worries. That is one of the most dangerous things that has happened in parliament over many years. Instead of us doing the work, we would be asking the Minister and the Department to do the work for us. It is important that we have a guarantee on the concerns which Senator Cosgrave, Senator O'Toole and others expressed on this issue. This House is the place where we can frame and decide issues rather than leaving it to the good will, or otherwise, of the officials in the Department where they may publish regulations which might lie in the Library and become law almost by stealth.
A few years ago one of the worst examples of this occurred in relation to the licensing of restaurants. Both Houses agreed in principle that restaurants should be licensed to sell alcoholic drink, and that ministerial order would decide the definition of a restaurant. However, when the orders — which we could not vote on, they had to be accepted — came to this House they ruled out a large number of what most of us considered bona fide restaurants. Clearly, the publicans lobby had persuaded the Minister of the day and the eventual regulations went contrary to the spirit expressed in both Houses.
I accept the spirit what the Minister of State says, and if he was the Minister I would have no great problem. However, Ministers come and Ministers go, and for that reason we cannot accept the assurances given to us unless we have a guarantee that on Report Stage he would take on board the case Senator Cosgrave and others so strongly argued.
That was the point I was going to make. Section 62 is specific in so far as it refers to:
(a) ambulances and fire brigade vehicles, (b) vehicles used by members of the Garda Síochána or the Defence Forces in the performance of their duties as such members.
The Government amendment is, to say the least, vague where it states: "such other classes of vehicles or road users as the Minister may prescribe." We are talking about a specific class of person covered by the Senator Cosgrave's amendment which states: "road users with special needs." A person with a trailer of wheat going to the granary would not be considered a person with special needs. Generally, we know what constitutes a person with special needs, but more precise, most specific wording should be put into the legislation to cover such people. I support Senator Cosgrave's amendment for that reason.
(Wexford): I will have another look at this matter before Report Stage. There is a physical problem in that a number of other Departments — the Department of Health or the Department of Social Welfare for example — would have to be consulted and it depends when Report Stage is to be taken. There may not be time to deal with this matter. However, we will have another look at it and come back to the House.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 26; Níl, 17.
Tá
- Bohan, Eddie.
- Byrne, Seán.
- Cashin, Bill.
- Crowley, Brian.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Farrell, Willie.
- Finneran, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Tom.
- Gallagher, Ann.
- Hillery, Brian.
- Kiely, Dan.
- Kiely, Rory.
- Lanigan, Mick.
- Lydon, Don.
- McGowan, Paddy.
- Maloney, Sean.
- Mooney, Paschal.
- Mullooly, Brian.
- Norris, David.
- O'Brien, Francis.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Sullivan, Jan.
- Quinn, Feargal.
- Townsend, Jim.
- Wall, Jack.
- Wright. G.V.
Níl
- Belton, Louis J.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Dardis, John.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- Farrelly, John V.
- Honan, Cathy.
- Howard, Michael.
- McDonagh, Jarlath.
- Manning, Maurice.
- Naughten, Liam.
- Neville, Daniel.
- O'Toole, Joe.
- Ross, Shane P.N.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.
Tellers: Tá Senators Mullooly and Wall; Níl, Senators Cosgrave and Neville.
Amendment declared carried.
I move amendment No. 16:
In page 58, between lines 14 and 15, to insert the following paragraph:
"(c) road users with special needs."
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 62, as amended, agreed to.
Section 63 and 64 agreed to.
SECTION 65.
Question proposed "That section 65 stand part of the Bill."
What is the position in relation to money accruing to local authorities? Will the local authority benefit, without being excluded from the block domestic grant?
(Wexford): Whoever is involved in the tolls project, whether it be the National Roads Authority or a local authority, will receive the funds.
Without any deduction in the grant?
(Wexford): I can assure the Senator that there will be no reduction in the grant because of that funding.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 66 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 17:
In page 60, before section 67, to insert the following new section:
"67.—The owner of a horse found straying or unsupervised on any road shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine of £200 and to a further fine of £2,000 for each subsequent offence."
Most Senators would be aware of the increasing number of stray horses and the problems they cause in urban and rural areas. I know of many who have been badly injured in accidents caused by these animals. We should not let horses wander about unattended in urban or rural areas. We should also consider the imposition of a heavy penalty on the owners of such animals. I acknowledge there is great difficulty ascertaining the ownership of such animals, but there might be an improvement in the situation if their owners knew they would have to pay heavy fines if they did not control their horses. I ask the Minister to consider this proposal.
I sympathise with Senator Cosgrave's amendment but it should not be limited to horses or the imposition of a fine. The law, as I understand it, already provides a strict liability on landowners for the escape of any animal from their property and for any damage they might do as a consequence. It also covers many circumstances in a much stronger fashion than would be provided for in this amendment. Perhaps the Minister could elaborate on that further. It puzzles me that section 67 is there at all because I always understood there was a duty of care there, whether it was specified in the legislation or not.
(Wexford): In relation to Senator Cosgrave's amendment, the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1851, amended by the Animals Act, 1985, makes it an offence to turn loose any horse on a public road or to let any horse wander upon any public road or street. There are fines of up to £150 for first offences and £350 for subsequent offences. At present, the Minister for the Environment has no responsibility in relation to stray horses. The Animals Act, 1985, introduced by the then Minister for Justice, updated and improved the law in relation to wandering animals. This Act gave new wide ranging powers to local authorities and the Garda to impound wandering animals found on public roads, parks and other open spaces. It also gave new powers to local authorities regarding the sale, disposal or destruction of impounded animals and also provides for increased fines for offences, such as allowing animals to wander on public property. The Act also abolished the then existing immunity of occupiers of land adjoining the public road in relation to damage caused by animals straying onto the road. Any strengthening of this law would be a matter for the Minister for Justice.
I sympathise with the speakers; wandering horses are an ongoing problem in my constituency. The Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry has general responsibility in relation to animal cruelty under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and the Minister of Justice has some responsibilities in relation to wandering animals under the 1985 Animals Act.
There seems to be considerable problems with wandering horses in many urban areas and the local authorities and the Garda are finding it difficult to enforce the legislation. The Garda are also aware of allegations and problems arising from the sale of horses and ponies, and they are trying to resolve them. The new section introduced to the Bill codifies the existing common law duty of care imposed on road users to take reasonable care for their own safety and the safety of other users. Road users will also be obliged to take all reasonable measures to avoid injury to themselves or other road users and to avoid damage to their own, or other people's, property.
In relation to stray animals, I would like to see this problem resolved. I spend much of my time in my constituency meeting groups concerned about this issue. This is the responsibility of the Minister for Justice, and I am not passing the buck. The Act was updated in 1985 but it does not seem to have worked. The Minister for Justice will have to look at this to see how it can be improved.
The Minister has broadly met the point made by Senator Cosgrave and is aware of the extent of the problem. It was interesting to hear the Minister agree with views expressed here that the Animals Act, 1985, is lacking in the extent of the fines imposed and in its application. The Garda do not have the resources or the time to properly implement the Act and it would be no harm for the Minister to report back to the Department of Justice the feeling on all sides that this section of the Act needs to be reviewed.
As regards the amendment, Senator Gallagher asked about the purpose of this section. As it stands, it is an exhortation; there is no definition of what people should do or what might be an offence, and there are no penalties involved. It says that we all have a duty to be careful on the road. We all agree, but, apart from this provision, what is the point of having this section in the Bill? I may be wrong, but it seems there is neither definition nor sanction involved for those who might be guilty of not being careful on the road.
I support the amendment. Any provision to increase protection from wandering animals on public roads is to be welcomed. When animals are impounded under the wandering animals Act, the registrar of the court is involved and the person claiming ownership has to prove they have an alternative site for the horses — it is generally horses that are involved. This calls for a stiff penalty, and it is appropriate that we do more in this area so that we can eliminate this widespread problem. I know of one local authority that had to engage contractors to deal with this problem as their employees refused to do it because they were afraid. Once the animals appear in a certain area the contractors were called in to take them to the pound.
Section 67 of the Bill states that it "shall be the duty of a person using a public road to take reasonable care...". If this section is law, could it be used against a person who has a legitmate claim because he or she was injured while using a road? There are many hazards on our roads today which did not exist years ago. Some people using the public highways, and others who have to do work on the roads, have no regard for the general public — they leave craters on the roads, tar barrels, etc., if roads are being repaired. Some people seem to totally disregard public safety. If this section becomes law, could it be used against a person who has a legitimate case and who may have suffered injury?
(Wexford): Senator Sherlock spoke about proving ownership. From experience I know it is very difficult to prove ownership of animals. When one thinks one has found the owner it transpires that the animal belongs to someone else.
This section is inserting what is already stated in civil law. Breach of statutory duty is not being made an offence but the courts will have discretion when considering civil actions for damages against the road authority. The rules for contributory negligence are set out in Chapters 3 and 4 of the Civil Liability Act, 1961, and these are unaffected by the provisions of this section. Under the existing law, if a local authority, Telecom Éireann, the ESB or others, dig up a road but do not restore it properly, and if a person or a vehicle is damaged, the injured party is entitled to claim, and that will not be affected under this section.
The Minister mentioned one of the biggest hazards of urban life at present, and that is the constant opening of roads by the local authorities, state corporations, etc. My point is probably not relevant to this discussion, but one of the greatest frustrations of public representatives in urban areas — and I am sure it is the same throughout the country — is trying to get satisfaction from the public utilities who frequently have work ongoing for weeks. From personal experience I have had great difficulty in getting satisfactory responses on many occasions from these public utilities.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Sections 67 and 68 agreed to.
SECTION 69.
Question proposed: "That section 69 stand part of the Bill."
There are some points in this section which require clarification. Subsection (1) (a) states that a person "who without lawful authority erects, places or retains a temporary dwelling on a national road, motorway...". Temporary dwellings which are erected or provided are a common problem in many areas. According to a High Court judgment, if a person is in occupation of a temporary dwelling and a local authority seeks an injunction to prevent the person continuing to do so, it now must provide an alternative for the family or person or persons occupying the temporary dwelling at the time. I assume this will now apply to the roads over which the National Roads Authority will have jurisdiction. Will this jurisdiction extend to regional roads or what will now be known as local roads?
All Members are aware of the problem of people dumping cars in the countryside. Some beauty spots have been spoiled by this practice which is becoming more common. We should do something in law to prevent it and to make the people who do it liable. It should be reasonably easy to trace the ownership of some of these vehicles. I note that a temporary dwelling is defined under section 69, line 44, page 61, as a "tent, caravan, mobile home, vehicle or other structure or thing (whether on wheels or not) which is capable of being moved from one place to another.. .". Does that mean that those cars are covered by this legislation? I am not clear if they are but if they are not, they should be.
I endorse the section because it will leave our motorways free from interference from parked vehicles and other obstructions. There are two points I would like clarified. The first relates to trading on motorways. Does this section prohibit the parking of mobile chip vans, mobile shops, etc., and will the owners be fined under this section? Secondly, will it prevent caravans belonging to the travelling community parking on motorways?
I welcome this section. I am not sure if my query is pertinent to this section or to section 71 because they are similar. There is a tradition in this country that farmers and others sell potatoes, apples or strawberries on the side of the road. i do not want that type of local endeavour to supplement a farm income to be excluded. It has been a tradition in the farming community that people would have an opportunity to sell direct to the public for limited periods and that system of sale should be allowed to operate.
In relation to abandoned vehicles, I do not know if my point would be more appropriate to section 71 but perhaps the Minister will reply. A common complaint I receive is about vehicles left in urban areas. However a big difficulty at times is to decide if the vehicles have been abandoned or if they are just dilapidated. In some built up areas where there are many flats, people may only use their cars occasionally. Perhaps the Minister could consider the question of abandoned vehicles which create a problem in built-up areas.
It has been the custom in the south-east to sell strawberries and other fresh fruit on the side of the road. Will that practice be exempt from the provisions of this Bill, even on the national primary and secondary roads? These traders have traditionally put up signs to advertise that they are selling fruit. Will such signs also be exempt?
(Wexford): Temporary dwellings will be prohibited. It will be an offence to retain a temporary dwelling on a national road, motorway, busway or protected road. In total, this represents only about 6 per cent of road mileage in this country, but in addition to these roads, the Minister has the power under subsection (1)(b) — and this was inserted on Committee Stage at the request of Members from all sides of the House — to proscribe the placing or retention of a temporary dwelling on any other road. In Dublin and in rural areas there are major problems with temporary dwellings which are not confined to national primary roads or motorways.
The Supreme Court decision in McDonald v. Dublin City and County Managers, etc., which oblige the local authority to have regard to its obligations as a housing authority before removing a temporary dwelling from a public road, will not be affected by the provisions of section 66. If somebody illegally places a temporary dwelling on a national road, the road authority will still have to take into account its obligations as a housing authority before removing the dwelling. The person who places the temporary dwelling on the national road will be guilty of an offence, but that Supreme Court decision will be taken into account before any decision is made to remove it.
Abandoned cars are another problem around the country. There is a responsibility under the Litter Act, 1982, to remove abandoned cars. This is national clean-up week and I would hope that a number of abandoned cars around the country would be collected by the local authorities and recycled or disposed of in another manner. I agree that this is a problem and there is a further problem in defining an abandoned car, particularly in urban areas. A car may appear to be abandoned but after a few weeks a person may claim ownership. I would say to Senator Cosgrave and Senator Dardis that the responsibility for removing abandoned cars comes under the Litter Act, 1982.
This roadside sale of strawberries, potatoes and other produce, which may provide people with a seasonal income, comes under section 71. This will not be affected under this Bill and people will be allowed to continue trading in these areas.
The Minister would not dare go home if it was.
(Wexford): I have ensured in discussions with the Minister, Deputy Smith, that this area would not be affected because many small farmers, not only in Wexford and Carlow, supplement their income during the summer months by selling potatoes and other vegetables on the roadside. We should not bring into legislation measures which might adversely affect their livelihood. I am happy to say it is clear in section 71 of the Bill that these people will not be affected.
I take the Minister's point that abandoned cars come under the Litter Act, 1982, but, I think it is a reasonable point to make that cars are related to roads — or at least they should be. If we make provision in the legislation for tents, caravans, mobile homes, and so on, it would seem logical to include abandoned cars. I must admit that I have difficulty visualising cars as litter, but that is mostly a matter of semantics. They probably go to the great scrapyard in the sky after they have eventually decayed.
With regard to roadside trading, it is reasonable that people should continue trading in traditional places. I would ask the Minister to make a distinction between motorways and other roads because, as one who travels almost daily on the Naas motorway, it is astonishing to see what people get up to on that stretch of road. I have seen people picnicking, doing U-turns across the central reservation and all sorts of weird and wonderful wildlife. Cars travel on that road at such speed that it would be extremely dangerous to allow any type of casual trading there.
Legally, one cannot stop a car on that road. In the event of a breakdown one is meant to telephone and have the car towed away. I imagine the Minister accepts that point. While it would be important to allow traditional places be used as trading areas, it would not be appropriate to allow anything of that nature on a motorway given that drivers cannot stop on the motorway.
(Wexford): I accept the comments of Senator Dardis in relation to the problem of abandoned cars, but there is a section in the Litter Act, 1982, which covers this area and I do not see any need to put a similar section into this Bill. The Litter Act, 1982, gives wide ranging powers in this area. The local authorities may not be able to finance the collection and removal of cars, as happened in the past, but I do not see any need to duplicate that provision. I agree with the Senator, and it is clearly defined in the Bill, that trading or similar activities should not be allowed on motorways in the interests of the safety of traders and motorists.
I know that the Minister answered my question, but does the jurisdiction extend to the regional roads, or the local roads as they will be known in the future?
(Wexford): As I said earlier, only 6 per cent of the total road mileage is accounted for by national roads, motorways, busways and protected roads. On Committee Stage the Minister was given powers to extend the legislation to regional and secondary roads, which is now written into the Bill. As a result of people like the Senator expressing concerns on Committee Stage, these powers were extended to the Minister.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 70.
Question proposed: "That section 70 stand part of the Bill."
Due to one's experience and knowledge, one can see the anomalies between what is proposed in this legislation and what exists in the other area. One must agree that the legislation in regard to dangerous trees and the power to compel people to remove them is archaic, and this has been the experience in recent years. It appears that if the local authority was to bring the person who owned the property to court, it would have to prove that the trees were affecting the condition of the road, and might prove to be dangerous. I want to know if this legislation will make it easier for people to get the relevant authority, whether it is the National Roads Authority or the local authority, to deal with this common problem?
I have some queries about the section particularly with regard to the felling of trees. Local authorities have established a practice of issuing preservation orders on trees, some of which are located on road sides. I am aware of a case where a local authority issued a preservation order about four or five years ago to prevent a landowner from cutting down trees on the side of the roads, yet the same local authority cut those trees down in 1993 in the course of road widening work. There seems to be little consistency in the process. It would have been illegal if the farmer had cut down the trees when developing his land but the council could do so, without consultation with other bodies, when developing the national secondary road.
Another area that concerns me is forestry. The planning laws have little control over the planting of forests. In some cases trees are planted very close to the edge of the forest which can interfere with visibility at, for example, a road junction. I hope regulations can be introduced to deal with such problems as it would appear that the local authority does not have the power to do so.
There appears to be some confusion about hedge cutting orders, particularly at local authority level. The law does not seem to be clear on the subject. It allows the local authority to issue hedge cutting orders but people are confused about whether hedge cutting on road sides is the responsibility of the landowner or the local authority. Indeed, it is often a matter of argument between the local authority and the landowner with the public representative regularly drawn into the debate. I have been drawn into such debates on numerous occasions and I would welcome clarification of the issue. When a hedge cutting order is issued, are the trees at the roadsides the responsibility of the landowner and the weeds and overgrowth the responsibility of the local authority? Will the National Roads Authority or the local authority be charged with responsibility for such matters in future? It is a difficult problem to deal with through legislation but, in recent times, it has caused controversy and debate at local authority level.
(Wexford): I appreciate that the removal of hedges or trees is a difficult issue. Although local authorities could, in the past, issue orders to landowners to cut down and remove hedges and trees, they were not successful in implementing those orders.
This Bill, in section 70 (1) and (2), improves the ability of road authorities to deal with hazards and potential hazards. Previously the road authorities could not deal with dangerous structures along public roads and could only order owners or occupiers to carry out remedial work on trees or other vegetation in a limited number of situations. For example, if the authority ordered a landowner or occupier to remove a dead tree from a roadside — if the tree shaded or obstructed the view of the road — no effective action could be taken if the person refused to comply.
Under the new legislation the National Roads Authority can, in certain circumstances, remove dangerous trees or hedging and try to recoup the costs from the owner or occupiers of the structures or the land concerned, which is sometimes difficult. The structure must not be a hazard or a potential hazard, it must not interfere with or obstruct the safe use of public roadway.
Ultimately, the cutting of hedges or the maintenance of fencing beside roads is the responsibility of the landowner. The local authority or the National Roads Authority can take action against landowners if they refuse to comply with notices to remove trees or hedging. However, I have found that serving such notices usually results in an argument about whether the trees are in a formal state of decay, with the landowner arguing that the local authority must prove that the trees should be cut down and this can develop into a very difficult situation.
The National Roads Authority and the local authorities have the power to take cases to court and their powers will be strengthened under this legislation. I hope the powers relating to this matter under section 70 will be used more effectively by the local authorities in future. Trees can be a great danger to motorists and pedestrians, particularly when they are planted at bad bends. Owner occupiers may not always comply with regulations on the location and planting of trees under the planning laws. It is a difficult problem but I hope this section will enable local authorities to enforce stricter controls in future.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 71 agreed to.
SECTION 72.
Government amendment No. 18:
In page 66, subsection (3) (a), line 41, before "fee" to insert "specified".
(Wexford): This is a drafting amendment which requires that the public notices of the preparation of draft by-laws controlling skips should indicate the specific cost of buying a copy of those by-laws. This change brings it into line with similar provisions elsewhere in the Bill — for example, toll by-laws under section 61 (6).
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 72, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Skips are a problem in urban areas where their random location can be a danger to motorists and cyclists. Although I appreciate that business must be conducted, there should be clear guidelines for the parking of skips overnight, particularly in relation to fluorescent tapes and notices on the approach to the skip that give advance warning to both motorists and cyclists. The gardaí in the area should be notified about where and when a skip will be in use. I appreciate business premises must dispose of their rubbish but at times skips are parked on the path or road as if this were legitimate. In certain areas skips cause congestion problems, and delays for ambulances and fire tenders. There must be a firmer attitude to the operation of skips, particularly with regard to badly lit skips which constitute a danger to motorists and cyclists. Business must go on and the operation of skips is necessary but the guidelines on the operation of skips should be tightened up.
I agree with Senator Cosgrave in this matter. People who wish to erect scaffolding must contact the local authority for clearance. Skips are often a great inconvenience to people and a danger to the visually impaired and the handicapped. I hope the regulations will be tightened up so that skips cannot be placed just anywhere. Public safety must be taken into consideration and in particular those members of the public who have special needs. It is useless for local authorities to decide to make access to buildings and parks easier, and to lower footpaths to accommodate wheelchairs when we allow developers to make life intolerable in some cases for those with special needs. I hope the Minister will be very firm in this matter.
I welcome this section of the Bill. The problems caused by skips are considerable, especially when they are badly sited, badly lit, left for a long period with overflowing contents, or not constructed to the highest safety standards. One has a certain sympathy with those who operate bona fide waste removal companies which provide an important service, generally at very reasonable prices and most of the companies I have dealt with have been well run. My problem is whether this section will make any difference to the way in which skips are operated at present. Under this section the authority may provide by-laws. I wonder how many local authorities will actually provide these by-laws. If by-laws are put in place they need to be enforced. It might be better to license companies subject to periodic spot checks; I do not believe what is proposed in this section will be a reality within three or four years. If the authorities actually pass the by-laws I will be concerned about their enforcement, so while I welcome the principle behind this section I do not believe it will make any difference.
(Wexford): Section 72 was not part of the original draft Bill. It was inserted in the Bill by the special committee and represents the kind of provision the local authorities have been requesting for quite some time. Its purpose is to regulate and control the use of rubbish skips on public roads. I agree the way in which skips are parked at random with no regard for the safety of the public causes problems in our towns and cities; we have had frequent complaints about the dangers posed to road users by these skips. This section allows for a flexible approach by local authorities when making by-laws regulating these skips, to tie in with the different levels of control which may be appropriate to major urban centres or to smaller towns, and between urban and rural areas. The power to make these by-laws will devolve entirely on local authorities, and ministerial approval will not be required, although local authorities will be obliged to consult with the gardaí when drafting them. This is appropriate in this case.
The power in subsections 1 and 2 to make by-laws will include the power to introduce a licensing system if required, and to specify requirements as to the siting, lighting and removal of skips. Under subsections (7) and (12) it also gives local authorities and the gardaí power to remove and store skips which are in breach of by-laws which may be introduced by local authorities, where these skips are causing a serious and immediate hazard to road users. In response to Senator Manning, the officials had discussions with local authorities, and this is exactly what they looked for. The Special Committee and Members on all sides of the House asked for the inclusion of this provision, and the Minister has agreed to devolve the making of by-laws on local authorities without any need to return the proposed by-laws to him for approval. That should give the local authorities wide ranging powers to deal with this problem. There are, as Senator Manning has said, some very responsible skip operators in the country, but there are also a number of cowboys who cause serious problems in towns and cities with no regard whatsoever for the safety of the public.
Question put and agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment 19:
In page 68, before section 73, to insert the following new section:
"73.—(1) It shall be the responsibility of each roads authority to provide secure parking areas for articulated trucks in each area where it thinks necessary.
(2) Where a parking area referred to in subsection (1) is provided by a roads authority it shall be an offence on the part of the owner to park an articulated truck on a public road except when he is engaged in delivery or some other activity connected with his business.
(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (2) it shall also be an offence on the part of the owner of any truck over 25 feet in length to park such truck on any private road or any road within a housing estate."
This section follows our previous discussion but is probably more serious in one way. The parking of articulated trucks is a bone of contention, in both rural and urban areas. I have the utmost sympathy for truck drivers who work long hours, having to meet strict deadlines in a stressful job. However, in some areas lorries and articulated trucks are parked in ways which cause a hazard to other motorists. Because of their size it is difficult to drive around them, especially in residential areas. The road authorities should come up with a scheme to avoid this problem. Perhaps each local authority could designate an area where such trucks can be parked. This is not a simple problem and I appreciate that while some authorities may find a solution easily, other local authorities will have to consider the problem in depth. I hope the Minister of State will see the point in providing such areas. Articulated trucks parked in very awkward places can lead to accidents. We must ensure the proper lighting of such trucks so that they can be seen when parked. I ask the Minister to respond positively to this amendment.
(Wexford): Section 54 of the Bill will empower the National Roads Authority and local authorities to provide service areas on motorways and protected roads which will serve as places where heavy vehicles can park. Local authorities also have a general power under the Road Traffic Acts to provide parking facilities themselves or support the provision of private facilities.
I appreciate that the parking of heavy vehicles is a problem that is not confined to Dublin but also affects towns and areas where there is a heavy volume of traffic. As one who lives on the Rosslare route I have seen many problems caused by trucks parked in towns and residential areas. If, for example, fridges have to be left running all night it causes nuisance to residents.
The Department of the Environment has been in consultation with the Garda in relation to proposals by the Garda Commissioner to apply specific controls on the parking of heavy vehicles in the Dublin area. These Garda proposals have been submitted to the Attorney General's Office for consideration. It is expected that further discussions between the Attorney General's Office, the Garda and the Department in relation to these proposals will continue for some time.
In May of last year the Minister for the Environment gave approval to Dublin Corporation to spend £3 million out of capital receipts accumulated from parking charges in Dublin city to improve traffic controls. He specifically asked that the corporation should consider earmarking some parking fees income to provide parking facilities for heavy goods vehicles and buses and coaches. He did that with a view to the elimination of the problems caused by heavy goods vehicles being parked overnight in residential areas and the problem of illegal parking of buses and coaches in busy areas, which can affect traffic flows and also cause problems in residential areas.
Successive Governments have taken the view that private interests, including the commercial haulage sector, oil companies etc., should take a leading role in providing facilities for truck parking, either on their own or in co-operation with local authorities. This has happened in some cases but I suppose that commercial interests will only get involved if it is viable and there is money to be made.
The problem might not be solved by Senator Cosgrave's amendment. I hope, however, that the discussions my Department is having with the Garda and with Dublin Corporation in relation to the fees from parking charges will result in some solution to the problem, at least in Dublin. It will be more difficult to solve the problem in the smaller towns. It will not be viable from a commercial point of view or even for local authorities to build parking bases for trucks and buses. With the co-operation of the Department of the Environment, the Garda Síochána, Dublin Corporation and, perhaps, some commercial interests, we should be able to resolve some of the problems in Dublin city. We all have first hand experience of the problems here and I sympathise with people living in built up areas and housing estates.
We must find a balance. Truck drivers work long and unsocial hours and because of regulations laid down by the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications they have to stop for specified times. We have a duty to provide services for those people. I ask the Senator to take account of the ongoing negotiations and perhaps together we can devise a solution to this problem sooner rather than later.
Notice taken that 12 Members were not present; House counted and 12 Members being present,
The Minister said he accepts fully the case made by Senator Cosgrave about the nature and the extent of the problem. As I understand it, his solution is that, if left to their own devices, the procedures and processes in place at present will bring together the corporation, the Garda authorities and the Attorney General's office and the problem will be resolved. It is not as simple as that. This amendment is not intended in any way as an attack on the drivers of these trucks, for whom we all have the utmost sympathy. They work long and unsocial hours and, generally, they are more courteous to other road users than may be the ordinary motorist.
The problems in certain suburban areas in Dublin can be quite appalling. Large refrigerated trucks are frequently left in side streets. They are dangerous and a hazard to other cars because of the obstructions caused. It is often a question of might is right and there is no comeback for the ordinary citizen. Those of us who go to residents association meetings on a regular basis will find that this problem is frequently discussed.
I do not think that we can agree to drop this amendment. We would like to see it included as an indication of a stronger resolve to tackle this problem.
While I note what the Minister said and I hope that progress will be made, we are here setting up a roads authority who will have to take a lead in the matter. If the authority is given a certain direction, they will be better able to tackle the problems. I appreciate that it would be unrealistic to expect parking areas in every little town or village where someone has an articulated truck, but some local authorities, particularly in Dublin, Cork and Galway, could provide these parks.
The National Roads Authority is being set up to improve the whole road and travel network. The authority should examine this area because a number of fatalities have been caused. One Member of the other House was seriously injured having driven into a parked truck. We have to look at this with a view to preventing further carnage and accidents on the road and, accordingly, we will be pressing the amendment.
I listened carefully to Senator Cosgrave and I realise that this is a serious problem which must be addressed. However, having thought about it and recognised the Minister's point, I think it would be dangerous to put the responsibility for solving this problem on each road authority. Responsibility must ultimately lie with the owners of the trucks. It seems dangerous to force each road authority always to have spaces available for parking articulated trucks. It would present an almost impossible task. The onus has to be placed on the owners of those trucks. This is clearly a very serious matter but the answer does not lie in the solution recommended by Senator Cosgrave.
The experience in towns is that people who drive articulated trucks are away all day, come back and park outside in a built up area. They are out again at five o'clock in the morning and they have the whole neighbourhood awake and listening to an articulated truck being revved up. It is a common problem which cannot be rectified by parking by-laws. The situation can be rectified by what is proposed in the amendment. It is worth considering and I support it.
(Wexford): To specify local authorities would cause problems because of lack of funding. The solution can be found in a combination of factors. There can be local authority involvement, commercial involvement and truck owner involvement. The National Roads Authority can be involved under section 19 (1) (e) which states quite specifically that one of its functions is to “secure the provision of facilities for the parking of vehicles”. There are small local authorities that could not afford to provide such facilities. We should look at a combination of factors to try to resolve the problem.
I accept that this is not an attack on truck drivers. Truck drivers have come to me and to every other Senator and Deputy requesting that we provide facilities for them. I would like to help them because I know that they do not want to be a nuisance to built up areas, either in Dublin or in other parts of the country. I cannot accept the amendment because I would see a better chance of reaching a solution to the problem if one could marry the interested parties and try to come up with funding, rather than specifying that the local authorities are responsible. I do not think that would work.
This relates to what was said before the Minister's contribution. I was interested in the intervention of Senator Quinn and the emphasis he put on the responsibility of the private sector, the industry itself, to help resolve this problem. I would be interested to know from the Minister if specific proposals have been made by the interests involved to help alleviate this problem. From what I know of the subject, the industry itself — although perhaps it is too much to speak in terms of a homogeneous industry — has been reluctant to foot portion of the bill or to speak in a unified way. Could the Minister tell me what the position is?
(Wexford): I am already aware of one development in Blanchardstown which is a commercial, private enterprise. There is talk of other such developments around the country. I am sure we could initiate discussions with the representatives of the transport industry to see if we could bring about a solution. It has been the policy of successive Governments to encourage commercial developments in this area. As Senator Manning said, they have been reluctant and the process has been slow, but maybe the Department of the Environment can initiate talks in conjunction with local authorities. We may be able to initiate a policy to resolve the problem based on the suggestions that the Minister made to Dublin Corporation in the past year in relation to income from parking charges.
Having been a member of a reasonably small local authority for a number of years, I could not see how they would be in a position to fund it on their own without adequate support from the Exchequer. Considering the Exchequer position, I do not see that happening in the short term.
It has been my experience, particularly abroad, that this is quite a common development. It is not required of a local authority to build or create a new facility. Most of the local authorities in the London area, in providing secure parking areas for large vehicles, normally use facilities attached to sporting arenas such as greyhound tracks and football grounds. These have secure parking areas within them, and similar facilities could be provided in many parts of this country. There is a number of such facilities in Dublin. Blanchardstown was mentioned, and there is one on the North Road in Finglas. Providing secure, supervised overnight parking for trucks is the only way to do it.
There are two aspects to this matter. It is not just a question of protecting local estates by saying we do not want trucks parked there because of the effect on the quality of life of the residents. That is important, but for a truck driver or owner, that might be the only safe place where there is at least some sort of visual supervision. A local park would relieve a lot of pressure both for the driver and the truck company. There must be movement in that direction.
I certainly did not mean to give the impression that I would be taking away responsibilities from truck drivers. We have to provide some of these car parks but at the end of the day truck drivers have responsibility. We have to address this problem, particularly in built up areas, but realistically we will not be able to provide sites or bays all over the country. If we could reduce on street parking it would be a good thing as it is a danger to other motorists, not to mention the noise levels involved.
People sometimes cycle or drive into one of these lorries, particularly if it is badly lit. These parking bays are a cheap option in comparison to the cost of damage done.
(Wexford): We can take on board Senator O'Toole's suggestions. Most road hauliers will make the point that parking facilities must be secure, with an element of activity around them, so that trucks will not be damaged or interfered with.
The Department will have discussions with road hauliers as well as taking on board the views outlined in the House. In the past there has been a stand-off position, with road hauliers asking the Government to provide these facilities. The Government has not provided them, but the Department of the Environment has gone part of the way by saying it would look at the facilities to see what can be done as a joint venture with local authorities and commercial interests. That is the only way forward.
I will ask the officials to initiate talks with the road hauliers association to see how we can bring about a resolution of the problem. I accept that it is a difficult one to solve but I also appreciate that we have to start somewhere. This debate will be a help when we meet the different interested parties. We will also put Senator O'Toole's suggestions to those involved. There may be opportunities for people with stadiums and other secure areas to make money out of this suggestion. It can be a two-way system.
The amendment moved by Senator Cosgrave ties the hands of local authorities too much. If they have not got the wherewithal to provide the services I do not think there is much point in asking them to do so.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 19; Níl, 28.
Tá
- Belton, Louis J.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Dardis, John.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- Farrelly, John V.
- Henry, Mary.
- Honan, Cathy.
- Howard, Michael.
- McDonagh, Jarlath.
- Manning, Maurice.
- Naughten, Liam.
- Neville, Daniel.
- Norris, David.
- O'Toole, Joe.
- Ross, Shane P.N.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.
Níl
- Bohan, Eddie.
- Byrne, Seán.
- Cashin, Bill.
- Cassidy, Donie.
- Crowley, Brian.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Farrell, Willie.
- Finneran, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Tom.
- Gallagher, Ann.
- Hillery, Brian.
- Kiely, Dan.
- Kiely, Rory.
- Lanigan, Mick.
- Lydon, Don.
- McGennis, Marian.
- McGowan, Paddy.
- Magner, Pat.
- Maloney, Sean.
- Mullooly, Brian.
- O'Brien, Francis.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Sullivan, Jan.
- Ormonde, Ann.
- Quinn, Feargal.
- Wall, Jack.
- Wright, G.V.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Cosgrave and Neville; Níl, Senators Mullooly and Magner.
Amendment declared lost.
Sections 73 to 85, inclusive, agreed to.
First Schedule agreed to.
Second Schedule agreed to.
THIRD SCHEDULE.
I move amendment No. 20:
In page 82, line 39, after "Oireachtas" to add "within 90 days of the end of the most recent financial year of the Authority".
The purpose of this amendment is to force the publication of the annual accounts of the National Roads Authority. Following an amendment in the Dáil, the National Roads Authority is compelled to submit its annual accounts to the Minister by the 30 June each year. However, what I am seeking is the speedy publication of the reports and accounts of all State bodies. This amendment is an opportunity to start that process.
Speedy publication means within three months and this is another instance of what can be learnt from the private sector. If a company is quoted on the Stock Exchange, then it is bound by the rules of the Stock Exchange to report speedily. This is for a good reason. Shareholders know time is of the essence and if there is bad news it is important to know it early.
On the issue of speedy reporting the record is quite bad. In some cases State bodies publish annual reports and accounts years after the period to which they refer.
These delays are not always the fault of the State body. Sometimes the body submits its report to its sponsoring Department and then has to wait many months for approval to publish while the civil servants debate and procrastinate.
For this reason it is insufficient to compel the State body, in this instance the National Roads Authority, to report to the Minister by a specific date. I suggest that it is necessary for the legislation to impose on the entire system — the State body, the Comptroller and Auditor General, the sponsoring Department — an obligation to publish the report and accounts within a period of three months. From my own experience with An Post this is not an impossible time frame if the will is there. This amendment should help create that will.
This amendment introduces an important element of accountability. Speed, an essential element of such accountability, has too often been neglected. I urge the Minister to give his consideration to the amendment.
With respect to Senator Quinn, who has wide business experience, the general principle of his amendment is valid but it could not apply to a local authority body. There is so much overlapping and incompletion of work in such organisations that it would be impossible to adhere to the accounting practices required by the amendment.
I would welcome the publication of annual accounts and reports by all public bodies. In my experience of seeking such reports, it is often not possible to obtain them. For example, it is difficult in the middle of 1993 to obtain the 1992 report of the Foyle Fisheries Commission.
It is impractical in the context of this Roads Bill to have reports and accounts published under the terms of this proposed amendment.
I dispute the position taken by Senator McGowan on this amendment. There is a specific requirement that the National Roads Authority shall, "Not later than the 30th day of June in each year submit to the Minister a report"... The Bill then goes on to specify the requirements in relation to account keeping.
I fail to understand why the strictures imposed on private enterprise should not apply equally to public bodies and authorities where public money is being spent. We are accountable for the spending of such moneys.
It is improper that the publication of accounts by these organisations should be deferred indefinitely. There have been several cases recently where matters were debated without adequate access to accounts. An example is the National Stud, where the accounts were several years in arrears. This is unacceptable as it can lead to sloppiness in the way moneys are spent. It is for this reason I support the amendment.
I also support the amendment. The 30 day requirement under section 4 of the Third Schedule to the Bill appears to relate to the performance and functions of the National Roads Authority under the proposed Act rather than the financial report.
There will be substantial finance involved in the National Roads Authority — there is provision under the Bill to raise up to £500 million in loans. There will also be a large input of EC Structural Funds in which the State will have an interest. I believe it is reasonable to require such a report within 90 days.
(Wexford): I sympathise with the motives behind this amendment. The Bill as drafted allows the Minister to direct the National Roads Authority to submit its accounts to the Comptroller and Auditor General for audit on or before such date as may be specified by the Minister. Immediately upon completion of the audit, a copy of the accounts must be presented to the Minister who is obliged to present them to the Houses of the Oireachtas.
To specify a time limit of 90 days for the submission of accounts to the Comptroller and Auditor General and for those accounts to be fully audited would be problematic, restrictive and impracticable. The end of the financial year for all Government departments and most semi-State bodies is 31 December in each year. Most of the semi-State bodies are then required by the responsible Ministers to submit their accounts to the Comptroller and Auditor General by the 30 April of the following year.
This may be one of the reasons why Senator Quinn's amendment is impracticable. There is a build up of accounts around 30 April each year and it is not feasible to audit all the various accounts at one time. In addition, the Comptroller and Auditor General is now obliged by law to have the Government accounts finalised by the end of March in each year and these must be given precedence.
It is also important to have the workload of the Comptroller and Auditor General spread over a year rather than have it accumulate at a given time each year. It is not practicable to second staff to the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General mainly due to lack of experienced auditors elsewhere in the Government Departments and State agencies and the fact that such transfers would disrupt the work of the parent organisations.
The Bill as drafted gives flexibility to the Minister to specify when the accounts must be submitted to the Comptroller and Auditor General. In the National Road Authority's initial period of operations delays may be experienced while new accounting systems are being put in place. This would require the Minister to afford the Authority extra time before presenting its initial accounts. However, it is hoped that as soon as the Authority has a system fully operational and running smoothly the Minister will be able to specify a date early in the year for the submission of such accounts.
I am not satisfied with the Minister's reply. It is necessary that there be a distinction between reporting to the Minister and publishing accounts. I urge that the publication of accounts be adopted as standard practice. I am disappointed that my other amendment was not considered, although I understand why. A quality audit as well as a financial audit should be undertaken each year, or at least on a regular basis. A financial audit examines an organisation's financial performance; a quality audit looks at how it runs its business, whether its procedures are appropriate for the work it does and if they are being followed.
Quality audits should be undertaken in the public sector for a number of reasons. First, our future prosperity will depend more and more on our ability to deliver quality. We must learn to compete on international markets on quality as well as on price. This principle should permeate all aspects of national life. What we need is the conviction that constantly improving the quality of what we do is an important central task of all activity, whether in the private or the public sector.
Second, quality is now recognised as being as vital to the service sector as it has been for many years to manufacturing. When the quality movement began 20 or 30 years ago, it was concentrated almost entirely on manufacturing. Within the last 15 to 20 years the measurement and systematisation of quality has moved into the service sector and the National Roads Authority will be part of that service sector. The principle of quality assurance should apply to all service businesses, including State bodies.
State boards should be obliged under legislation to account for their quality performance as well as their financial performance. One does not necessarily flow from the other. The figures of a State company could be in order but it could be providing a poor quality service. Thus a company's performance could be deteriorating without anybody at any level being aware of it and we, the representatives of the taxpayers who own the company, would not be aware of it either.
Introducing quality into the area of accountability would be an important step forward in how we oversee our State bodies. It is a practical step because the mechanisms are already in place to do this. I urge the Minister to set a standard by seriously considering introducing quality assessment to the annual accounts of the National Roads Authority rather than confining the accounts to financial statements.
This amendment would impose hardship on road authorities. In Donegal at the end of last year we had 90 days of inclement weather during which it was impossible to construct and repair roads. Local authorities in such difficulties would, if this amendment were carried, have to return to the Exchequer any money allocated for road development as their acounts would have to be completed within 90 days. The principle behind this amendment may be practical and desirable in the business world, but it is impractical in the context of this Bill.
(Wexford): While I do not wish to include a 90 day time limit in the Bill, I hope it may become a reality with the development of technology and new accounting procedures. Speaking in Dáil Éireann on 18 May the Taoiseach acknowledged the importance making those reports available as early as possible and has issued instructions to various State bodies in this regard. Senator Quinn has been very insistent that quality audits should be undertaken. We all hope that quality will be a major consideration of the Authority's operations.
The Bill, as drafted, goes a long way towards meeting the Senators concerns. Section 17 places a statutory obligation on the Authority "to secure the provision of a safe and efficient network of national roads." Section 19 (2) provides for the functions of road maintenance, construction and improvement to be performed or arranged to be performed by local authorities. However, "in any case where the Authority considers that it would be more convenient, more expeditious, more effective or more economical that the functions concerned should be performed by it, it may decide accordingly." These legislative provisions oblige the Authority to ensure that taxpayers' money is well spent. The NRA can also set standards for construction and maintenance works under section 19 and these are subject to the approval of the Minister.
I listened carefully to Senator Quinn's contributions and am aware of his views on this subject. Section 18 deals with the preparation by the Authority of its medium-term plan. I propose to put down an amendment to this section on Report Stage which will oblige the Authority to have regard to the need for efficiency, economy and quality in the construction and maintenance of national roads and will also require it to include an assessment of these matters in its medium-term plan which must be prepared at least once every five years and reviewed annually. Perhaps we could insert the word "independent" immediately prior to the word "assessment". This may not fully comply with what Senator Quinn has in mind but would go a long way towards meeting his concerns. When I was Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture and Food for ten months last year I saw the emphasis that was put on quality in the food area. It is important that quality be an important consideration of all State operations in future. I would like to go some way towards accommodating Senator Quinn's views.
I appreciate the Minister's comments and will take a close interest in the Report Stage.
I assume the proposed amendment will not be ruled out of order on the grounds that it will impose a charge on the Exchequer because I would have disputed the reasons for ruling out of order amendment No. 21.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 21 is out of order as it involves a potential charge on the Exchequer.
Amendment No. 21 not moved.
Third Schedule agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendment.
Agreed to take remaining Stages today.