Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are out of order.
SECTION 2.
Chairman
I take it when we are discussing the totality of section 2 that we will be able to make those points?
Chairman
Yes. Amendment No. 3 is consequential on amendment No. 62 and amendments Nos. 89, 103, 104 and 153 are cognate. I suggest that amendments Nos. 3, 62, 89, 103, 104 and 153 be taken together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 7, subsection (1), between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following:
"‘the Commissioner' means the Commissioner of the Garda Síochána;".
This is a drafting convenience. It is a standard provision and avoids the need for the inclusion of the full reference elsewhere where it appears in the Bill. It also facilitates the proposed amendments of section 66 and 68. Amendments Nos. 62, 89, 103, 104 and 153 are related since they include abbreviated references to the "Commissioner".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 7, subsection (1), between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following:
"‘consent' means consent in writing;".
This is a drafting amendment which ensures that any consent given under this Bill must be in writing.
Amendment agreed to.
Chairman
We come now to amendment No. 5 in the name of Deputy Gilmore. Amendments Nos. 14 and 162 are related. Amendments Nos. 5, 14 and 162 may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 7, subsection (1), between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following:
"‘cycle lane' means a road over which there is a public right of way for pedal cyclists only;".
Amendment No. 14 is probably the critical amendment in that it refers to the definition of "road". As I read it, the definition of "road" does not include specifically a cycle lane. Section 65 deals with cycleways but the bulk of the Bill deals with roads generally and the term "road" is used repeatedly throughout the Bill. The definition of "road" on page 8 does not specifically include a cycle lane. I felt that was an omission and that it should be included. Amendment No. 5 proposes a definition of "cycle lane". The wording is similar to that used in the definition of "footpath", but refers to cyclists.
The purpose of my amendment to section 65, which we are considering with amendment No. 5, is to ensure that there will be no confusion between cycleways to be provided under this Bill and other cycle facilities provided under the Road Traffic Acts. A cycleway under this section will be a public road reserved exclusively for the use of cyclists or pedestrians. This is to be distinguished from cycle facilities provided under the Road Traffic Acts, which all form part of a public road used by other traffic.
Section 60 of the Road Traffic Act, 1968, allows for regulations to be made by assigning different parts of the roadway to different traffic. Cycle facilities currently in use include cycle lanes, cycle paths and cycle tracks. In relation to Deputy Gilmore's amendment, it might help if I explain briefly how these terms are defined. A cycle lane is part of the carriageway segregated by road markings and is similar in appearance to a bus lane. A cycle path usually runs alongside a footpath and is raised above the road carriageway. A cycle track forms part of the public road but is segregated from the roadway and the footpath.
The revised definition of a cycleway in section 65 will be very close to what is contained in Deputy Gilmore's amendment and it is clear that a cycleway will be a public road. I hope Deputy Gilmore will agree to withdraw his amendment.
I thank the Minister for explaining the different types of cycleway. It is not clear to me that a cycleway, as defined now by the Minister, will form part of a road as defined in this Bill.
Section 65 provides for the construction and maintenance of cycleways by a road authority. This approach seems to treat cycleways as optional extras, which is how road authorities regard them. Cycleways are not seen as an integral or necessary part of road construction. They are seen as an extra which can be provided where there is additional roadway available which cannot be used for anything else. They do not form an integral part of the design or construction of roadways.
I am concerned that that will remain the position if a cycle lane or a cycleway is not an integral part of the definition of a road. There needs to be a quantum leap in our thinking in relation to cycleways. Otherwise local authorities will continue to provide the odd experimental cycle lane here and there, usually with a great deal of fanfare. The idea of providing cycle lanes is not being taken seriously. If it were included in the specific definition of "road" I would be happy. That was the intent of my amendment.
Deputy Gilmore is right. A cycleway is not defined in the way he suggests, but neither is a bus lane. The Road Traffic Acts and that code of legislation would be the appropriate place for the definitions which Deputy Gilmore seeks to include here and we will be looking at the regulations in the context of that Bill. As far as this Roads Bill is concerned, it seems as an unnecessary provision, as it would be to give a definition of a bus lane or other facility.
Chairman
Deputy Gilmore, are you pressing the amendment?
I am. There is a question of status involved here. In this Bill we are talking about a lot of money, particularly European money.
Some of the roads which have been built, particularly in urban areas, with substantial public and EC money do not even have a footpath, much less a cycle lane. That type of approach to road construction needs to be looked at. I have in mind a road which the Minister travels, a section of the N11 as you come in to Dublin. On the section between Cabinteely and Foxrock there is no footpath. Pedestrians have managed to beat a little track along the landscaped section of it. The same applies to bicycles.
I would like to see cycle lanes included in the definition of road. Virtually everything else is included, from weighbridges to flyovers.
The Deputy is referring to definitions which relate to construction as distinct from use. We would have to prescribe use in the Road Traffic Act.
Amendment put and declared negatived.
(Deputy Gilmore dissenting).
Chairman
The name of the Deputy dissenting will be recorded. Amendments Nos. 6 and 22 are related and may be taken together, by agreement.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 7, subsection (1), between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following:
"‘hard shoulder' means that part of a road adjacent to the portion of the road on which vehicles travel;".
I have received, as I am sure the other Members have, a submission from the Association of City and County Engineers who are very concerned about the annual grants they will obtain from the National Roads Authority for maintenance purposes. Funds available for the maintenance of roads designated as national primary routes have fallen short of what is required. In many cases there is insufficient money to enable them to strengthen, surface and maintain the hard shoulders. I am aware of two local authorities which have responsibility for considerable mileage of national roads and they have deliberately taken the policy decision not to carry out any works to the hard shoulder because the maintenance money is only adequate to do the main part of the road.
Amendment No. 6 seeks to ensure that there will be no escape from the need to provide finance for maintaining the hard shoulder. Amendment No. 22 seeks to resolve this issue by providing for an inspectorate to make an annual assessment of the roads to ensure that adequate moneys are made available. Long after we pass this legislation, if the moneys the NRA give to local authorities falls short, other parts of the local government budgets will have to subsidise the maintenance of national roads, which, in effect, will mean a cutback on essential services. Given that this is an issue of substance and of practical concern to engineers, it is important that we provide for it in the Bill and ensure that there is adequate money for maintenance.
I support Deputy Yates' case. The hard shoulder on most of the major roads is dangerous. The hard shoulder is there for a purpose. Often it is used as the slow lane for heavy traffic. Slow traffic is reluctant to pull in because of the risk involved. I take the point Deputy Gilmore was making about pedestrians and cyclists using these roads and I am sure that they are entitled to do so but the roads are dangerous because sufficient funds have not been provided for road surfacing, a point that we will probably come to later in the Bill. The engineers, in their wisdom, tried to make the best use of the funds available but because of ongoing maintenance on the major section of the road, the hard shoulder becomes lower and lower. Deputy Yates has raised an excellent point.
In this Bill we hope to deal with roads that are going to be constructed by the Roads Authority. I hope there will be no difference in construction of the hard shoulder and the road itself. Over the years the national primary roads and the national secondary roads have been constructed to one strength, with the hard shoulder being less robust. After a while, the heavy lorries moving on to the hard shoulder, particularly on uphill gradients, cause deterioration, breaking down the surface. The hard shoulder thus becomes very dangerous, although people think of it as being as strong as the road. I hope the hard shoulder will be constructed to the same strength as the road itself. We must remember that we are almost talking about another lane, a slow travelling lane or a slow climbing lane, rather than a hard shoulder.
I point to the experience on the N11 road north of Arklow. One of the causes of a serious accident was that the hard shoulder was not strong enough to take the heavy traffic. It had become very bumpy and very dangerous simply because the construction of the hard shoulder was not to the same quality as the main road. Rather than providing definitions for the hard shoulder, we should ensure that it is constructed to same level and the same strength as the road itself.
Section 10 (6) already provides an obligation on local authorities to carry out inventories of public roads at the request of the Minister and in such manner as specified by him. In the past it was the practice to carry out an inventory at five yearly intervals, a reasonable provision given the extensive mileage of roads for which many local authorities have responsibility. In addition the Environmental Research Unit carry out annual or two-yearly assessments of the network of national roads, providing data for the full network on skid resistance, paving conditions and so on. My Department are also co-ordinating an important project to develop an up to date data base for national roads which will bring together and augment information on traffic, physical conditions, capacity and safety.
In the amendment to section 10 reference is made to roads, including the hard shoulder, margin kerb, lay-by, island, pedestrian refuge, and so on — all elements covered in the definition of "road". Deputy Yates' amendment is therefore unnecessary since "road" is defined in section 2 as including the hard shoulder. A separate definition of a hard shoulder is not necessary either since the term is well understood. Definition of that term alone out of a long list of items referred to in the definition of "road" is hardly warranted.
For national primary roads, the policy is to provide a 7.3 metre road with two 3 metre hard shoulders, all to the same standard. That is being done as Deputy Kavanagh outlined and it is very necessary in the development of new roads. It is not that the hard shoulder is to be a lesser element. The Deputy referred to certain roads and I take his point, but as far as we are concerned, the definition of "road" takes account of the hard shoulder. The prescription for road development is as I have outlined and it should be and has to be, the ambition of us all to ensure that there is no difference.
I take the point made by the Minister and Deputy Kavanagh in relation to road construction. My principal concern related to maintenance. Wexford County Council can only get enough money from our maintenance grants to resurface the roadway to the 7.3 metres the Minister referred to; there is not enough money to do the two 3 metre sections on either side. I would be happy to withdraw this amendment if I had an undertaking that the Minister will establish the National Roads Authority, and that the calculation of payments for maintenance purposes will include adequate resources to treat the hard shoulder and the roadway alike. This submission and this amendment come from the people at the coal face, the engineers. With the moneys that are being made available it is just not possible to maintain both.
I do not wish to get into a debate on the adequacy or otherwise of road funding. No matter who sits in my place, I suppose the position will nearly always be that some engineer or local authority will say they are not getting enough money. Until now there has been an onus on local authorities, which will subsequently lie with the Roads Authority, to ensure that construction and maintenance meet the criteria I have set out.
The road traffic and the vehicular weights being carried by our roads require very high standards. In the context of legislation one cannot expect to take account of the future ability of the Government or roads authorities. In all these aspects clearly the onus rests with the various authorities to ensure that that work is up to the level and standard required. In speaking to various sections of the Bill I am not about to make commitments to future Governments nor to make assumptions in relation to their ability to meet demands of that kind. Suffice to say that we are providing the legislative framework. The standards and requirements for construction of roads are laid out and it is clear that the onus will be on the constructing authority to make sure that they are met to the highest degree.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 7 ruled out of order.
Chairman
Amendment No. 8, in the name of Deputy Yates. Amendments Nos. 11 and 75 are related and amendment No. 90 is cognate. It is suggested that amendments Nos. 8, 11, 75 and 90 be taken together.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 7, subsection (1), line 26, after "improvement" to insert ", provision of public lighting".
Some years ago I was a member of the Association of Municipal Authorities. They usually have a most enjoyable annual conference in the autumn. Almost every year they table a resolution to Ministers for the Environment that public lighting, where it is part of a national primary road, would be a national rather than a local charge. This is an important issue in terms of road safety. Part of the reason for removing bends, upgrading and developing roads is to make them safe. In urban areas there are pedestrians having difficulty seeing traffic at junctions and intersections. Other countries have a higher standard of public lighting on their national primary routes.
This matter requires recognition in this Bill. Public lighting should be seen in the same context as routine road construction and maintenance. Of course it would be up to the technical people to decide the financial limits of what is involved. The principle of improving the quality of the roads through public lighting, where appropriate, is omitted from the Bill and I ask the Minister to include it.
I support this amendment. It is important that public lighting which is an integral part of motorways and Euro-routes is included in the definition. I do not think it is possible to set up a roads authority or require local authorities to maintain the national primary or Euro routes and not make them responsible for public lighting. I had occasion to travel from the north to the south of County Dublin on Friday last and more than two-thirds of the lights from Skerries to Loughlinstown were out of order. These are major motorways and many of the lights have been out of order for some time. The onus for repairing them must be placed on somebody to ensure that something is done quickly. It is an important safety aspect in the construction of major roads particularly through urban areas and, for that reason, it is proper that this amendment be accepted.
In the past public lighting on national primary roads was a charge on the national primary fund; I think that is still the case but the Minister may clarify it. In my county in the past public lighting on national primary roads was a charge on the allocation for national primary and secondary roads.
I support the amendment. I take the points made by Deputy Kavanagh. Given the construction of major by-passes, ring roads and fast traffic, lighting is essential. It has often been drawn to my attention that while the lighting is excellent when in operation, it suddenly stops working and one is plunged into darkness when travelling at a fairly fast speed. There should be a fading out of the lighting; I do not know if that is feasible. A number of accidents have been caused as a result of people, having had the benefit of major overhead lights, driving onto an ordinary primary road still travelling fast and then being plunged into darkness. The cost of major lighting will place an extra burden on local authorities and they have insufficient funds to do the jobs outlined in this Bill.
What is the energy demand of the lighting used nowadays compared to the lighting used ten years ago?
I agree with Deputy McEllistrim's comment that the improvement and provision of public lighting on our national roads has always been a charge on the Exchequer and grants are provided to local authorities to do that. In section 2 (4) the maintenance of a public road includes the provision and maintenance of public lighting. That provision spells out what is to happen. Nonetheless we are not without some worries in relation to the continual improvement and maintenance of public lighting and the national road network. In the course of negotiations on the last tranche of Structural Funds, it was not possible to get maintenance of public lighting included. It is my ambition on this occasion if it is not possible to have maintenance included, to try to have improvement of public lighting covered in a way which would allow for an improved facility by way of resources for maintenance. We must ensure, for safety and other reasons, that these provisions are enhanced and improved as much as possible.
In relation to Deputy Kirk's comments, there has been a radical improvement in terms of reducing electricity costs in recent years in this area. It is an area where there is continual research to see what other steps can be taken to further reduce maintenance costs. The section covers more than adequately the fact that public lighting is an integral part of maintenance and improvement. It is my ambition to ensure that future reference to Structural Funds takes greater account of what it is possible to achieve in this area.
I appreciate that if there is new road development or road improvement the provision of public lights is included, but I was speaking of the ongoing ESB bills. Are they fully provided for in terms of the cost of public lighting on our national primary routes?
No. The matter of maintenance following improvements and provision of public lights on roads as referred to by Deputy Yates falls to local authorities.
Is there any intention to change that?
If I met more generous people like the Deputy who were prepared to give me resources, there is no question but that I would leave politics immediately and take it all on.
On a point of order do we have to discuss the other amendments at this stage?
Chairman
Yes. Amendments Nos. 8, 11, 75 and 90 are being discussed now.
Will we have an opportunity to come back on those amendments?
Chairman
No. Does the Deputy want to make a point?
I am interested in amendment No. 75 which made the provision of public lighting a specific Authority function. I listened to what the Minister had to say and it is important when moneys are being allocated and payments made in relation to construction and maintenance works, that money for public lighting be provided. Even though it is included in maintenance, I do not think that is adequate.
Huge standard lights are required on national primary roads and regional roads in certain areas and at by-passes, roundabouts, etc. I recall one occasion in the Swords area where the road and roundabouts were constructed and lighting was not put up at the time because of cost. It was found necessary to make the required allocation from a safety point of view. It could not be provided out of maintenance and it certainly was not allowed for in the construction cost. The Shankill-Bray bypass has no standard lighting and that bypass is as busy and as important as any other bypass. A fine road lacking that safety feature is a dangerous road. It was correct to name public lighting as a separate issue since it appears to be so; the construction of these roads is a separate issue of roads policy anyway. I hope Deputy Yates will press amendment No. 75 because it is very important.
I am not anxious to reach a point where public lighting would be regarded as separate from all other facilities. It should be embraced in the overall development of a proper road network. The Deputies will understand that according to standards laid down it is necessary to make provision for public lights having regard to the density of traffic, etc. Deputy Kavanagh may be making the point that I have made myself in the past, that full account should be taken initially of the total needs for road provision because it is inconvenient and expensive to have to go back for whatever reason to install items not provided for at construction stage on the basis of cost, performance, efficiency and everything else.
Shortly after my appointment I had discussions with the technical officers in my Department to make sure as far as possible, taking into account all considerations, that we complete operations and do not have to return to them on questions of this kind. Further than that I cannot go.
Virtually all the comments in relation to public lighting that have been made up to now relate to national roads and in particular to the construction of national roads and I agree with those comments but this Bill concerns itself also with roads other than national roads and with the functions of road authorities in relation to those roads.
There is need for a wider look at the question of public lighting and there are a number of problems at present that need to be addressed. One is the adequacy of public lighting particularly in urban aras and the relation between that and the rise in crime. There is no doubt that in some areas of Dublin city there is a virtual curfew after dark because people are afraid to go out because of the inadequacy of public lighting. Some of that inadequacy is due to vandalism. The lamp standards in the first place are too light and the electrical box on some lamp standards is half way up the pole and can literally be knocked out by somebody hitting a fist off the pole.
In some areas the standard of public lighting needs to be upgraded. As housing and other developments have taken place the standard of public lighting on some roads has remained as it was prior to development. We need to look at the question of public lighting not only in the context of road safety but also with regard to the rise in crime and the general fear in many communities contributed to by inadequate public lighting.
Is it correct that if I press the amendment I cannot resubmit it on Report Stage while if I withdraw it I can? I withdrawn the amendment.
I think I was slightly misunderstood when I made my plea to have amendment No. 75 included. I am aware that the specific functions of section 19 set out certain activities which will be the work of the Authority. I cannot see how public lighting on motorways is not as important as traffic signs which are included in the specific functions. I think it is important because of failure to provide appropriate lighting on the Shankill bypass and in other cases of motorway extended roads, that public lighting provision be included among the specific functions. I hope the Minister will take the point I am trying to make.
These matters have been left out before and I would not like the National Roads Authority when it is brought into being to say that public lighting was not mentioned in the Bill and therefore has nothing to do with it. It may say that lighting is the responsibility of the local authority. I would like to see somebody being made responsible, such as the National Roads Authority under section 19. It should be part of their function to provide the money rather than that of the local authorities.
Section 2 (4) states that the maintenance of a public road includes the provision and maintenance of public lighting. Regarding Deputy Gilmore's point I am always amazed whenever I fly over Dublin city at night to see how well lit it is. There will always be pockets inadequately lit. It seems to me that fairly extensive provision has been and is being made to meet lighting requirements. It would be fair to say that on a number of new developments substantial lighting improvements have been made. We should recognise that and make sure at construction stage that adequate provision is made for public lighting and, as far as is humanly possible within the financial resources available to local authorities or to any other authority, in the context of any negotiations which will take place with regard to new funds, that significant priority will be given on an ongoing basis to what we want to achieve in relation to maintenance.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 7, subsection (1), line 28, to delete "the Environment" and substitute "Transport".
I would like to bring the Minister down to earth again to deal with what I consider to be a core issue in relation to this Bill. The purpose of this Bill is to improve our transport system. We need to be more competitive and more efficient. The impetus behind this Bill has been industry which is required to move freight more rapidly and more efficiently. I know of no group in the transport sector which has not made repeated submissions, indicating that they want a single transport department. The CII, the Irish Road Haulage Association, the International Road Haulage Association, the exporters group etc., have lobbied for this; I know of no group against it.
In some European countries they have a single transport ministry which deals with ports and shipping, which are currently dealt with here by the Department of the Marine, and also traffic and roads which are dealt with here by the Department of the Environment as well as the Department of Transport. If we are to get the best value for money in relation to the ECUs we receive from the Structural Fund and the Regional Fund, and will receive from the Cohesion Fund, and if we are to integrate trans-networks, which is what Europe wants us to do on the basis of door to door freight deliveries we must have a single transport department.
Given their local authority functions the Department of the Environment, formerly the Department of Local Government, are responsible for all roads but this should not apply to the National Roads Authority. Local administrators and local government should be responsible for local roads. In this Bill we are separating the 6 per cent of national roads that require special strategic consideration and I believe a transport department should be responsible for them. I emphasise that other countries, including Denmark, have made this change and have integrated their transport networks. If, for example, we wanted to improve the Larne-Belfast road down to Rosslare we would have to adopt an integrated approach and improve the ports, the roads and all access points.
The transport disadvantage costs to this country relative to our competitors in Europe are of the order of 10 per cent. That is the key point. This means that our peripheral location has not been taken into account.
Amendment No. 1 which was ruled out of order and sought to include the words "National Transport Authority", deals with the same point, which is central to this Bill. The circumstances under which the Department of the Environment took control of national roads no longer apply. It makes no sense to upgrade a road to motorway standards if, because of the condition of the access points, people have to wait for two hours, be it at an airport or seaport. It is vital that the concept of trans-networks — the European buzz word for greater transport efficiency — be accepted so that we reappraise the ways in which, both administratively and politically, we look at strategic roads. The best way to do this in this Bill, as the first step in making the Department of Transport responsible for shipping and ports, would be to make the National Roads Authority answerable to a new revamped Department of Transport.
I may not be as familiar with the Euro buzz words as my colleague, Deputy Yates, but I think there is great merit in the case he has put forward. It has been pointed out ad nauseamthat when the Channel Tunnel has been completed we will be the only island community which will have to bear significant costs getting our goods to the European marketplace with its 320 million consumers. Given that it makes sense to co-ordinate all investment which facilitates exporters to the European marketplace it is logical, when seeking European funds for infrastructural development, that a co-ordinated approach be adopted given also the importance of airports and seaports, and that the matter be dealt with by one Department. In that regard, the amendment which would put an onus on a Ministry of Transport makes sense and should be supported.
Deputy Yates referred to my amendment which was ruled out of order. I think his amendment presents us with as good an opportunity to have a discussion on the core issue——
Chairman
Perhaps it would be better to wait until we reach the section, Deputy.
Deputy Yates' amendment essentially raises the same issue of principle and rather than repeat myself later, I will make the point now. The point he made is correct. It is a pity we are dealing with a small portion of our road network, albeit a very important portion. All the reports and commentaries not just here but in other countries in recent years have emphasised the desirability of approaching transport in an integrated way.
It seems that this country is wrong to address the issue of roads solely in relation to the establishment of a national authority. First, we are confronted with the problem of our peripherality in relation to Europe; of integrating our road network with our ports, airports and so on, and transporting our goods. There is a transport problem in our larger cities — Dublin in particular.
At present the Dublin transport initiative, is being carried out to examine the ways in which the transport elements in this city can be pulled together. Irrespective of which vehicle is used, an overall Department of Transport which would take all the elements of transport under its umbrella or a national transport authority — there is no doubt but that there is a need for a national authority to assume overall control and resolve our transport problems.
I am concerned about one dimension — I referred to this on Second Stage — and it is that in this Bill we are creating a two tier system of roads. On the one hand the National Roads Authority will be responsible for our national roads, which will be the jewel in the crown while, on the other, the remainder of the roads will gradually be relegated. This is happening already; the local authorities are being starved of funds and the roads for which they are responsible are showing signs of wear and tear — potholes, etc. I would like to see those roads also being looked at in the context of some overall national transport policy.
I have a difficulty with this amendment which suggests that we should transfer 6 per cent of our road structure to one Minister and that another Minister would be responsible for the remaining 94 per cent; the Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications would be responsible for the roads which would attract European funds leaving local authorities and the Minister for the Environment with responsibility for the other roads. Later, I will be asking if those other roads could also attract funds from Europe. This means that if the Minister for the Environment attended a meeting of the General Council of County Councils he would be able to talk about the county roads only and would probably get a cooler reception than he does at the moment when he can allocate funds to various roads.
This also involves a much wider argument about the responsibility for transport. It would be easier to transfer the National Roads Authority to the Transport Minister than to suggest that it should become the responsibility of a Minister who, hitherto, has had no responsibility for roads. The Minister for the Environment and the local authorities are doing this work at present.
I hope other roads will be taken over by the National Roads Authority if that is the only body which can get Euro money.
At the moment I would not like to go any further than this Bill proposes and I suggest the responsibility for this Authority should remain with the Minister for the Environment; we might have an argument at a future date whether it would be beneficial to transfer it to the Department of Transport.
In relation to the points Deputies Yates and Gilmore have been pursuing I wonder if we are not obsessive about the establishment of new structures. We are talking about the mechanics of co-ordinated planning, the national road network, the airports and the sea ports. By calling for a separate Ministry of Transport are we saying there is no co-ordinated planning at present? Are we suggesting that the work has been taking place in splendid isolation from the other relevant authorities who have responsibility in this area? Perhaps the Minister would tell us in detail about the mechanics of the co-ordination of planning in this area at present, which would be useful from the point of view of debate.
This is a complex matter. It is being proposed that we hand over about 6 per cent of the major roads to the National Roads Authority leaving the remainder in the hands of local authorities who may not be given sufficient finance. Those local authorities could be responsible for the roads to our sea ports or airports, and for the transport of goods and people. Tourism is the keyword if we are to create employment in Ireland with the Channel Tunnel people coming from Europe into England and then over here. They will find that because of traffic congestion they cannot get out of our ports or airports. Responsibility for this would lie either with the local authority or the National Roads Authority but nobody would have overall responsibility for transporting people from A to B.
If we are serious about getting goods out of this country, and about facilitating visitors who can bring in much needed finance, we have to put in place a system that will be effective in getting us from one location to another in the shortest possible time.
If we leave these major roadways in the hands of local authorities and they do not have the finance to maintain or develop them, we will be in trouble.
Chairman
We have a number of amendments to get through. Deputy Yates has raised the desirability of transferring the Minister's functions under this Bill to the Minister for Transport. If we use this amendment as a vehicle to discuss transport issues generally, we will be here forever. We should not go down that road.
You were not referring to me.
Chairman
You covered amendment No. 1, which was out of order, very well.
I will not come back in again.
Chairman
We have a nice schedule and let us hope we can stick to it.
There are still one or two Deputies present who were here in 1969 when the former Minister for Lands declared himself redundant in the Dáil. I am not proposing to do that in this amendment which purports to substitute the Minister for Transport for the Minister for the Environment as the appropriate Minister.
In my reply to the Second Stage debate I dealt at some length with the allocation of transport functions. The Taoiseach more recently gave a clear explanation of his view in reply to a recent parliamentary question from Deputy Yates. In my Second Stage reply, if I may recap, I pointed to the Operational Programme on Peripherality and the Dublin Transportation Initiative as concrete evidence of an integrated approach to transport policy. Deputy Yates and others will know that this is a condition and the subject of very strenuous efforts on the part of the EC Commission. The coherence with which a variety of Departments have co-ordinated their activities in recent times to produce the Operational Programme and the Transport Initiative which covers roads, rail, bus services, public access, port access, etc., is a firm indication of the road we are travelling in relation to co-ordination and the necessity to make sure that all those points meet at some stage.
I also pointed to the merits of a number of Departments having involvement in transport policy leading to more open and informed debates on key issues. I emphasised that decisions on those key policy issues would be taken at the Cabinet table and not in an individual Department. I drew attention to the fact that whatever structures we adopt there will be problems.
Transfer of roads responsibilities to a Department of Transport would destroy the integration between land use and transportation planning on which so much emphasis is placed. Since roads account for almost 40 per cent of local authority spending, it would seriously fragment the supervision of local authority functions between the Departments of the Environment, Tourism and Transport and Communications.
As the Taoiseach emphasised in his reply to Deputy Yates recently, the key to coherent implementation of transport policies is co-ordination. This Administration has gone further than any other to provide practical and effective co-ordination in the transport area. Suggestions have been made, and they are entirely accurate, that the transport disadvantage costs to this country relative to our competitors run at the order of 10 per cent. Deputy Yates said that those costs exclude distance. I do not think that is accurate but we do have a dispersed population by comparison with France.
On the question of the upgrading and maintenance of roads, we would be serving one person per mile while France would be satisfying two; and in the UK it would be four. We have a dispersed population with industry in every county and the co-ordination of activities among local authorities in all counties in an integral part of focusing and developing a national road network.
Let us take our minds back a couple of years to ask where the National Roads Authority came from? Was it not an idea conceived by the majority of people involved in trade, business and commercial activities in this country to streamline road building activity, to take away the bottle necks, to remove restrictive requirements and difficulties in the way of getting European funds and to make sure that we had an arterial network that facilitates, as Deputy Boylan said, fast access out of the country for our exports as we depend more on exports, comparatively speaking, than any of our European competitors?
We are not working from a high-minded idea that nobody ever thought of before. There was broad consensus that we need to sharpen the focus regarding what we want to achieve in this area and this Bill is broadly in response to that consensus. It is also true that a single transport authority as in the case of the UK — I have read arguments that the question of alternatives to rail transport to the Channel Tunnel has been given little consideration — does not provide any guarantees.
The second point I want to make — and I believe this — is that 96 per cent of Irish passenger traffic is conveyed on our national roads along with approximately 90 per cent of freight traffic. There is nobody sitting around this table who believes that these percentages will change dramatically in a way that would not sustain my view that the national road network is going to carry a huge percentage of Irish trade and commercial traffic as far as we can see into the future.
The roads we are talking about in the context of this Bill carry two thirds of the business in this country, even though they may be only 6 per cent of the total network. That is not going to change substantially. If somebody from Kerry, Mayo or Sligo can produce evidence to me that that position will change I would be glad to listen but until then I remain unconvinced. This single authority, with its own policy to mastermind the acquisition of funds from the European Community — a unique opportunity to achieve additional resources for this country — must be established with a view to getting the best possible results.
With the best will in the world, Deputy Yates has represented a view which has been put to him and to me by various organisations in the last year in particular who seem to be of the view that this new transport authority will solve all problems. If we look closely at Dublin's transport problems — we are awaiting the Transportation Initiative and all that will follow from that — most of us would accept that problems and difficulties are not going to be solved overnight. This is a single minded authority and often in the past when we had difficulties we have proposed breaking up a composite organisation or department — as in the case of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs — into a number of single authorities shouldering various responsibilities undertaken by the old department. That has been tried not only in this country with success but in other places as well.
I do not think we are able to prove the point that bringing and putting everything together in the way proposed in this amendment has ever produced the solutions that were envisaged. Where are the arguments that the position of Aer Rianta would be enhanced by their being included in the functions of this Authority or by combining them with CIE and Iarnród Éireann? I am not convinced that that is the way to go.
On a technical point, it would take an order under the Ministers and Secretaries Act, it would not be possible under this Bill. We would also need to talk about Tourism, Transport and Communications because we do not have this so-called Department of Transport at the moment.
Much of our business depends on an improved national road network. We need a single minded approach determined to use the resources available for this area to the limit, having regard to the fact that the programme on peripherality and the discussions at EC level bind us to a co-ordinated effort. In other words, we have to take account of all other transport features and supporting features.
In relation to airport and seaport development, it is essential that developments which take place under this heading do not lead us to unresolvable difficulties at the end of the line regarding the dispatch of exports or whatever. These considerations will have to be worked out.
I do not believe it is essential to have a new structure of the order proposed by Deputy Yates and seconded by others to manage and perform these functions. I would be happy to give this Authority its mandate. It will make our case to Brussels for the type of funds that we require and for each of the single authorities whether Iarnród Éireann, Bus Éirann, CIE or Aer Rianta. Local authorities must combine and co-ordinate as much as possible to produce the best and quickest results for the country. We are going about it the right way and there is considerable commercial support for this proposal.
I listened with interest to the contributions on this. I do not think, however, that it is any coincidence that a former Minister for the Environment and the present Minister for the Environment should take that view. That would be consistent with what I would call an empire building point of view — what we have we hold. It is the first commandment of any Minister not to relinquish to another Minister.
Reference was made to the Taoiseach's responsibility, and in the political context it is ultimately a matter for him. I do not believe that there is adequate co-ordinated planning. Ireland is out of step with the rest of Europe in that regard. Co-ordination in dealing with Commissioners and different structures in the Community would facilitate better planning.
The Minister made an eloquent defence of road expenditure and said that 96 per cent of passenger traffic and 90 per cent of freight traffic are carried on our national roads. That is valid. However, nobody believes that the solution to the major and worsening problems of traffic congestion in our capital city, where we have 55,000 cars on the inner cordon carrying 75,000 people during the rush hour, lies with better or more roads. Given the Minister's views it is no surprise that public transport got less than 4 per cent of the 1989-93 five year tranche of regional Structural Funding. So far as I can ascertain, public transport has a very low priority with the present Government. In terms of the national network, better and wider roads are the answer, but in urban areas, and in our capital city, public transport is the answer, along with, perhaps, a Dublin transport authority. In this instance a roads only solution is not only wrong but undemocratic. The most recent local elections clearly indicated that the public do not want large motorways through the city of Dublin and all DTI surveys indicate public support for a public transport solution. The most appropriate solutions will not be found as long as the approach to transport is compartmentalised. What is appropriate on the Dublin to Cork line and on the Belfast to Rosslare line is not appropriate to the city of Dublin. To say that the Department of the Environment have always had the responsibility and will always have it, is wrong. So long as the Department of the Environment are responsible for roads, the roads will have to complete with housing and sanitary services when it comes to funding. A more strategic and beneficial approach to the national economy in terms of the percentage of resources allocated to roads would be to make them the responsibility of the Department of Transport.
I am happy to withdraw the amendment. Perhaps when the legislation reaches the floor of the House, I might be able to prevail upon a wider audience.
The Transport Initiative is along the lines outlined by Deputy Yates, and he knows that. We are waiting for the interim report, which we will have in September; and we will have the final report next year.
To interpret remarks which I and others have made as being consistent with an empire building philosophy is incorrect. Substantial evidence was produced to sustain the points we are making with regard to the national road network. It would be less than fair to produce figures relating to the resources that have gone into alternative transport as a basis for determining whether the Government's most recent Operational Programme was right without saying how much the Government provide by way of annual subvention. Each year in excess of £100 million is provided for areas of low density traffic.
I acknowledge, and most people acknowledge, that public transport will have to play a bigger role in dealing with city traffic congestion in the future. Other substantial, interesting and enlightened proposals will support that. I would like to find a way to encourage the use of fewer cars in this city, but there are difficulties because of the lay-out of the city, distance from work and so on. I am convinced that the public are prepared to take the steps to make Dublin city much cleaner and more environmentally acceptable. However, better access to public transport is a matter for another day.
All proposals will go into the melting pot. I am very anxious that this initiative will bring forward good suggestions and that the Government can respond to the challenge of dealing with the problems of congestion and noise in the city comprehensively and successfully. To suggest that this Bill and adherence to it will diminish our concern is less than fair.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 7, subsection (1), between lines 33 and 34, to insert the following:
"‘owner' when used in relation to any thing which is the subject of a hire-purchase or leasing agreement includes the person in possession of that thing under the agreement;".
This is a drafting amendment. The definition could apply to a temporary dwelling or a van used for trading, for example. In many cases the legal owner, hire purchase company or finance house would have no day to day control over the property in question and it is important to be able to identify the de facto owner as distinct from the purely legal owner. Most people will understand the reason for this and I expect there to be no problem with the amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 8, subsection (1), between lines 10 and 11, to insert the following:
"‘public lighting' means the provision and maintenance of electrical lighting on national roads under section 10 (1) (a);".
Chairman
This amendment has been discussed with amendment No. 8.
Amendment put and declared lost.
(Deputies Yates, Boylan, Creed, Finucane and Kavanagh dissenting.)
Chairman
The names of those who disagree with my declaration will be recorded.
Amendment No. 12 is out of order. Amendments Nos. 13 and 118, are related and may be taken together.
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 8, subsection (1), line 19, to delete "1988" and substitute "1991".
Reference in these sections to various statutes has been amended to include the most up to date legislation enacted in the specific areas. The amendments are purely technical.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 14 not moved.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.