Amendment No. 85 is in the name of Deputy Gilmore, amendments Nos. 86, 87 and 92 are related and I suggest amendments Nos. 85, 86, 87 and 92 be taken together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
SECTION 20.
Amendment No. 84 not moved.
I move amendment No. 85:
In page 20, subsection (1), line 32, to delete "direct" and substitute "request".
We have been through the issue of principle in this regard. The amendment concerns the relationship between the National Roads Authority and the local authorities. Under this Bill the National Roads Authority will give directions to a local authority. I am opposed to that in principle because I do not think it is proper that an unelected body should have the power to give directions to a democratically elected local body at local level about matters which affect the local area. The areas in which the National Roads Authority may direct a local authority are extensive; there are about one dozen of them listed in the section and some of them are far reaching. In turns local democracy on its head.
I am proposing that the National Roads Authority be given the power to request a local authority to carry out any of these functions. Such power would secure the role of the National Roads Authority in relation to the work they have to do and, at the same time, would protect the democratic integrity of a local authority. There would be a better relationship between the National Roads Authority and the local authorities if the word "request" replaced the word "direct" in section 20 (1) line 32.
This is the ground covered in my amendments Nos. 86, 87 and 92. This is the nub of the problem, particularly in relation to the South-Eastern Cross route. I would like the Minister to clarify the procedure because section 20 (1) (e), line 42, implies that if there is a compulsory purchase order the Minister has to give his consent. Is that the case?
I still have to confirm that.
Basically what I propose in amendment No. 92 is that in the event of any dispute arising between a local authority and the National Roads Authority on the acquisition of land, the Minister shall approve the acquisition of land, and that there would be democratic control. If the Minister is saying that that will still be the case, then this thorny conflict to which we have referred in so much detail must have some level of democratic accountability. I will be pressing this amendment. I do not think one can assume that in all cases local authority members will be irresponsible. They will try to balance the overall need for a better transportation system against the local needs and what is environmentally best. I know there are EIAs and environmental safeguards but there must be a role for the National Roads Authority in this area. It seems that the National Roads Authority can issue a direction under section 20 (1) (d) and acquire land by making a compulsory purchase order. That will cause problems for the Minister, his successors and the National Roads Authority. All the parties may agree on a route because the same county engineers will be advising the National Roads Authority, but this is not always so, for example, the discussions in relation to the Eastern by-pass resulted in the project being shelved as there was conflict between the political and elected bodies and the engineers. This is a live issue. Would the Minister elaborate on how this matter will finally be resolved? We know the current position, the National Roads Authority have power over the local authorities. Would the Minister envisage using his power under section 20 (1) (e) to grant an order? This matter should not be swept under the carpet. We should be given a clear explanation of how the procedure will work.
We are back to the point I raised on section 13 and the conflict between powers given to local authorities and the National Roads Authority under this Bill. This section appears to take power away from the local authorities, the democratically elected body, and the power now lies with a non-elected body. This position will cause major conflict. There should be greater partnership between these bodies leaders to avoid such conflict. That would seem to be the road to go and it may be achieved by Deputy Gilmore's amendment. That could be a way to avoid the conflict that will undoubtedly emerge.
In relation to transport policies which have been designed at local authority level for their own administrative area, such as land use policy and development plans, the local elected members are in the best position to make decisions in this regard because they know the views of the local community in urban areas where the main conflicts will be and in the larger rural areas where it may be easier to get agreement.
It is generally in the large urban areas that conflict arises. Conflict arose in relation to the Merrion Road and the proposed road along Sandymount strand. In the interest of Dublin Port it was considered that there should be some construction in this area. There was very strong oposition to it and it could not be resisted because local corporation members and Dáil representatives made their views known. Under this Bill none of those democratically elected representatives could make a case and conflict will arise as a result. I oppose this section and I do not intend to pursue the argument in every amendment, section or subsection. It is a matter of principle that I will not depart from.
These amendments are the nub of the role of the National Roads Authority. For a long time there has been a call for a single authority to take on the task of developing the national road network. These amendments suggest that the National Roads Authority should be given that task but that in some way their hands should be tied behind their back. Deputy Gilmore's amendment will effectively remove the National Roads Authority's power of direction leaving them entirely toothless in the face of a local authority who refuse to co-operate with them. Since land acquisition is the key to most major road projects Deputy Yates's amendments could make the National Roads Authority entirely impotent where a dispute arose with a local authority and that authority refused to use their land acquisition powers. As I said, in a slightly different though related context in my second reading contribution, the buck has to stop somewhere and it is logical that the National Roads Authority which have been given the overall responsibility for national road development should have the reserved powers to implement the mandate given them by the Oireachtas.
Let me point out that section 20 does little more than transfer the Minister's directive power under section 11 of the Local Government (Roads and Motorways) Act, 1974 to the National Roads Authority, a logical step, since they will be taking over the Department's management functions in relation to national roads. I, and my predecessors, have been at pains to point out that the National Roads Authority will work in harmony with local authorities, that partnership to which Deputy Kavanagh referred is clearly the way forward. Those authorities generally will act on behalf of the National Roads Authority in acquiring land, signing schemes, letting contracts and so on. My Department have had few problems with local authorities. I know that will continue to be the position once the National Roads Authority have been established. Nevertheless, an occasional problem may arise and, in such circumstances, there can be one boss only. There is no point in giving the National Roads Authority a battery of powers if we negate them by affording local authorities a veto over land acquisition, effectively enabling them to ignore the wishes of the National Roads Authority.
I must point out again that the powers of the National Roads Authority are hedged in a number of ways in the Bill. In performing all of their functions including the giving of a directive they must consider the proper planning and development of the area affected along with the provisions of the relevant local authority development plan. They must also consider the impact on the environment of what they plan. For example, if a proposed direction would require a local authority to materially contravene a local development plan, or special amenity area order, the National Roads Authority would have to undertake a public consultation process similar to that followed by a planning authority when considering a material contravention of their plan.
All of us can envisage circumstances arising when for one reason or another, a conflict can arise. In the majority of cases the local authority working as an agency for the National Roads Authority creating a totally harmonious proper partnership relationship will overcome such problems. That is the whole idea. If it happens that all the practical, normal, sensible arrangements are unable to produce a result, that there remain two opposing factions, that must be resolved. It is either that, or we leave it, contending we are unable to make any more progress. Inevitably, that will be the position. It is very isolated; it may happen in a small number of cases only nationwide. It should not be construed as a major element, as a huge diminution of local democracy. There are many instances of the Minister of the day having to take decisions which do not accord with the day-to-day democratic wishes of a local organisation or local authority because he may not have the financial resources, or the proposal may not accord with national policy and so on at the time. This is no different. It cannot be presented and paraded here as a cardinal sin to have one boss in circumstances in which a conflict arises that has to be resolved. It happens; such problems are on my desk every day; it is nothing new.
The Minister can lose his seat if he makes wrong decisions.
Yes.
That is the difference and where the principle is involved.
They are decisions Ministers do not want to make because they are so contrary; they are passing them over to some body to take the flack.
This is a response to pressure from all political parties, the CII and a whole range of organisations. Everybody said: "this is the way to go". We responded, reluctantly on my part.
Where do landowners rights come into all of this? Henceforth the National Roads Authority will have tremendous power.
It will be no different from the powers that obtain at present.
It appears to me — from what I hear here — that they will be all powerful, that landowners——
The Deputy can be assured there are no new powers.
What redress will a landowner have henceforth? He will not have redress to An Bord Pleanála.
The position at present in the vast majority of major schemes, is that an acquisition order inquiry is held. One makes objections, advancing whatever case one wants to make. Finally, if the order is confirmed the land is valued by arbitration. I deal with such situations daily. I do not receive representations from Deputies about major problems even though one would have to accept that, in the past few years, in terms of CPOs, acquisitions and arbitrations, there has been much greater experience nationwide than before. It has not been reflected in any problems emerging that people cannot handle them or that they do not agree with the general outcome.
Is there a precedent for a Minister not signing a CPO?
Yes.
Is this something that arises as a normal feature of the Minister's job, that a Minister would decide whether or not to sign them?
Yes, of course, we carry out a fairly detailed examination of all of the objector's objections. We had two or three this week. In one case it boiled down to just a margin —quasi judicial, if you like, when the balance was swayed on one side against the other. I have to judge that in the best way possible.
There is a batch of issues surrounding these sections very much at the heart of my objections to this Bill. They relate to the circumventing of normal planning; the arrangements for overriding development plans and, in this case, the proposal that the National Roads Authority be able to direct elected local authorities. Quite simply the purposes for that is that democracy and accountability are being sacrificed in the interests of speed and efficacy in the case of road construction plans. This area in future will lead the Minister into enormous problems. There were references earlier to the kinds of objections that arose in the case of the Eastern by-pass. This problem is not confined to Dublin by any means; only a year or 18 months ago there were people standing in front of JCBs on the road project in Castlebar. They were fairly hostile to what was happening there.
It is fantastic road now.
It may be a fantastic road but time will tell whether it will not produce a Member for Dáil Éireann.
Hope springs eternal.
I had in mind to withdraw my amendments to the section.
I intend to do that also.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 86 and 87 not moved.
We move to amendment No. 88. I observe that amendments Nos. 134a, 134b and 161 are related.
We will continue next week.
We will meet at 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 29 July 1992. Will we set a finishing time then.
Can it be organised on a defined basis of targets we set ourselves.
The Whips had an opportunity to discuss that and I discussed it with the main spokespersons for each Party. Originally I favoured Deputy Kavanagh's proposal, but it was decided to continue for the first day or so and see how we were progressing. We are coming close to half-way in terms of the number of amendments although that is not to say we are half-way through Committee Stage of the Bill. A full day next Wednesday would allow about the same time as has been allocated already and if it is not possible to finish a little time will be allocated on Thursday.
Is that agreed?
We will review the position at lunchtime on Wednesday.
The Committee adjourned at 8.05 p.m.