We come now to amendment No. 29. As amendments Nos. 30, 31 and 32 are related, all four amendments may be taken together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
SECTION 12.
I move amendment No. 29:
In page 12, subsection (1), between lines 45 and 46, to insert the following:
"(b) A road authority shall not abandon a public road unless a majority of the elected members of the authority so decide.".
Both of my amendments have the one purpose in mind, which is to prevent arbitrary decisions being made whereby roads would be abandoned, and it would seem to me that section 12 facilitates such abandonment. Subsection (2) gives an elaborate description of the things that must happen where there is an objection. It strikes me that the local authority — it could be a county manager — would "(a) publish in one or more newspapers . . ."; "(b) affix a copy of such notice . . ."; and "(c) consider any objections" and so on. But that is only a superficial exercise. At the end of the day once they have gone through all the consultation process they do not have to take into account the objector's views. What I am seeking — I think Deputy Gilmore's amendment has the same purpose — is that this would, in effect, become a reserved function in all such cases and that where the abandonment of any road is on the agenda it would have to be by decision of the elected members.
I can only speak for Wexford County Council where there was a particular difficulty which resulted in Wexford County Council bearing the brunt of the PLV rates case for farmers. In the run-up to the Supreme Court case in 1988 — these cases are not heard overnight — for three or four years the farmers in Wexford paid no rates as part of an orchestrated campaign. In that situation Noel Dillon, who was the county manager, was faced with a very difficult choice because he was not given any extra money by the Department of the Environment, and he actually said that he would have to abandon roads because he did not have enough money to maintain them. Take, for example, another county where they might have a major problem with, say, coastal erosion and where resources would have to be redirected or they found themselves with a rates strike by business communities or were strapped for cash for some other reason. I would not like the management of a local authority willy nilly to have the ultimate power to abandon roads as they saw fit, based on their financial difficulties of the day. It strikes me that section 12 has that power, and as this is a new power, it must be tempered with some level of democratic control. Amendment No. 29 proposes that a road authority shall not abandon a public road unless a majority of the councillors so decide. This would give objectors a right to lobby members of the district committee and so on to have their say. That is eminently reasonable.
Amendment No. 31 proposes that in subsection 2 (c) Ministerial approval shall be obtained where there are objections for the abandonment of a public road. If the Minister is not prepared to accept amendment No. 29 I ask him to consider amendment No. 31. I know this runs against the thrust of what he now proposes in relation to divesting himself of any control in this regard, but residents should have a right of appeal to the Minister where a county manager proposes to abandon a road for which there is a demand by the residents. The Minister should have the power to say that on reflection he believes the manager is being somewhat high-handed and that he does not agree with him. In other words, I am trying to enter some caveat or have some little check and balance in the system that would not give managers such power in circumstances in which they might find themselves through no fault of their own.
I support Deputy Yates, we cannot willy nilly abandon roads all over the place. I hope that would not be the case if this section is implemented. At present local residents cannot subscribe towards the repair of county roads. However, our roads are in such bad repair that local people are anxious to make a contribution towards their repair. In order to do that such roads must be declared non-public. Is it possible to make a temporary arrangement whereby local people who wish to make a contribution towards the cost of road maintenance can do so? At present this can only be done under the local improvement scheme which does not apply to public roads. Pilot schemes are in operation in the Department, who are prepared to accept local contributions, but such roads would have to be declared non-public in order to do that. Is it possible to have roads made non-public on a temporary basis so that they may be repaired?
I am also aware that contractors and others are prepared to supply diggers to carry out drainage works and so on. Such goodwill should not be overlooked because there is a major problem in this regard and obviously, from what I heard today, it is more widespread than in my own county; I am glad to hear that, as I thought we were isolated up in Cavan. An effort is being made by local people to contribute either in cash, or by doing drainage work, hedge cutting, the bull-dozing of grass verges and so on, under the supervision of the county council, but that cannot be done if the road is a public one. It is regrettable that we cannot get around this problem in some way.
My two amendments have the same purpose as Deputy Yates's, which is that the power to abandon a public road should be a reserved function of the elected members of the local authority. What I am suggesting is that when a proposal is brought forward to abandon a public road, the initiation of that procedure should first require a decision of the elected members of the local authority in much the same way as the decision to materially contravene a development plan is one for the elected members of the local authority. I know the Minister, having regard to his recent public statements, is keen on devolving power to the elected members of local authorities and this is an ideal opportunity for him to give that power to them. The elected members are in the best position to know the local situation, to weigh up the varying opinions that may exist between, say, a county manager, who might wish to abandon a road, and the local people who may hold the opposite view. It would also help if the Minister gave some indication as to the circumstances in which he envisages the power to abandon a public road being exercised. I cannot recall any case where this has arisen. Perhaps that is because I have a more limited experience in local government than some of my colleagues, but I would like to hear where this is likely to arise and what the section anticipates.
The abandonment of public roads on the basis of county managers or county council officials making a decision is an interesting question. I have seen cases recently where ordinary members of the public have requested to take a road in charge, and surely we must all know why this is emerging. In the past county councils took over the funding for roads while in fact they were adequately funded by income from rates. The reality at present is that local authorities can no longer cope with the mileage of roads under their control. During the most recent local elections campaign many of us will recall going down roadways, byways, and so on for which the county council were responsible and being castigated because of the condition of such roadways.
There is a contradiction here in that people who decide they want to improve the roads themselves are being warned by the county council that they are not covered by insurance. They are caught on both fronts, yet the county councils do not have sufficient resources to maintain the roads. I believe local authorities and the people who live on many of these roadways are beginning to realise that it might be better if the people took the roads in charge and some assistance was given to them to do a decent job. I agree with Deputy McEllistrim that it is foolish at this stage for local authorities to take roads in charge, whether under a local improvement scheme or under their own wing, when they cannot maintain what they have.
What is the position under this section where individuals want a road abandoned because they feel they can do a better maintenance job afterwards and they are freed from what they fear are the insurance implications if they do the work while the roadway is under the council's control?
We should get it straight from the Minister whether or not he is giving this power to the local authorities. Is it in the unlikely event of a proposal to abandon a national primary or secondary road that he will step in and make a decision? This may not be a reserved function of a local authority, but it certainly is a function of the public representatives on the local authority and the county manager. Although we are all aware that money is not available to do much of the work we would like to do, I hope managers would not put pressure on any public representatives to say they will not maintain roads. It is the function of public representatives and local councillors to decide whether they want to maintain roads. I do not think managers should ever be given the power to abandon roads. The impression is being given that under this section county managers will have greater powers, but I would be opposed to such a proposal. We should be taking away rather than increasing their powers. In relation to the additional powers being given to county managers or county engineers of local authorities, this should be a reserved function of the local elected representatives.
I am delighted that my rich neighbours in west Limerick have opted to take roads in charge and I wish they were in a position to do so in north Kerry. In my own county when a new national primary road was made, there were two access points both of which were very dangerous. These had to be abandoned and a new access point made. Strange as it may seem some elected members opposed the proposal that a new road be made. The county manager made an order abandoning the roads in question and a new access point was made. The manager was right but the elected members were put under a certain amount of pressure by the local people who did not want to see the roads abandoned.
I am not opposed to the idea of the county manager having the power to abandon roads, but the elected members could have an input although not having the final say in view of the circumstances I have mentioned.
In my own county roads which were not in good condition were taken in charge. However because some of the people living along the roads felt responsible for their deterioration, they repaired them themselves, even though they were public roads.
The section, as drafted, devolves to the elected members of local authorities the power to abandon public roads subject only to ministerial sanction in the unlikely event of their wishing to abandon a national or regional road which would, in the first instance, have been classified as such by the Minister. Deputies will have to accept that when new legislation comes before me I will be seeking ways to leave it to the discretion of local authorities to make decisions on these and other matters. If I continue to hold on to these powers when new legislation comes before me it will make a nonsense out of what I have been saying. In the first instance, I want to make it absolutely clear that in an effort to be consistent I must, where it is sensible and feasible to do so, in new legislation, leave it up to the elected members to decide on this and other matters.
The section will replace a provision in the 1925 Local Government Act which left the power to initiate abandonment procedures to the county manager rather than to the elected council and required ministerial approval for all abandonment orders. That was a very cumbersome provision and it needs to be updated.
The question was asked, in what circumstances would a road be abandoned. Clearly there is only one set of circumstances, that is, where a roadway is no longer used for any one of a number of reasons. It seems however that I cannot win. On Second Stage I was attacked by the Deputies opposite for retaining too many powers. Now, when I propose to devolve powers to elected members, amendments have been tabled requiring ministerial approval where objections have been raised to the abandonment of roads and requiring an absolute majority of all elected members rather than just a majority of those present. I have always considered Deputy Yates to have a certain amount of practical experience. Given that in this case we are talking about a small number of applications coming before the council — none of us can visualise ourselves having to deal with too many in our life-time; obviously there will be some — is Deputy Yates, as a business-minded politician, going to require everyone to be present? If we are to be consistent I think he must agree that a majority of those present should also be required for matters of major importance.
I am of the view that elected members with local knowledge are in the best position to weigh up the pros and cons of a proposal in regard to the abandonment of roads and to consider objections. I am not convinced that the issue is of such moment or that I or officials have such special expertise that it should be necessary to obtain ministerial approval for the abandonment of local roads or that the absolute majority of the elected members rather than a simple majority should be required. In my view that runs contrary to the spirit of devolving powers to local authorities. In any event the Bill contains safeguards. Ministerial approval is required where the abandonment relates to a national or regional road because the Minister classified it as such in the first instance. The consideration of objections will remain the responsibility of the local elected members. Subsection (2) gives the Minister a reserved power to make regulations, including the power to set criteria for the abandonment of roads, with which local authorities would have to comply. This power could be used if evidence came to hand that the devolved powers were being abused. However I am confident that this will not happen.
On Deputy Gilmore's amendment, under subsection (7) of this section the making of an order abandoning a public road is already the responsibility of the elected members of the local authority as is the consideration of objections and representations in relation to any such proposal. I hope this provision adequately meets his concerns.
May I take it from what the Minister has said that, under the 1925 Act, this is not a matter for county managers, that all that is required is a majority of those present at the meeting and that a road cannot be abandoned unless that is the case?
Is the Deputy talking about the old Act?
I want to clarify the exact situation now. I am proposing that if there are 21 elected councillors 11 will have to put it through, whereas the Minister is proposing that if nine are present at the meeting, five could put it through. Where is that stated?
That matter will be covered by the normal rules for county council meetings. The consideration of objections or representations and the report and any recommendations of a person appointed under subsection (2) and the making of an order under subsection (3) shall be reserved functions.
It is covered by the regulations relating to reserved functions?
Yes.
Is the Minister saying therefore that a majority of elected members will be required in all cases?
Yes.
I will be happy to withdraw the amendment. In relation to amendment No. 31, while I appreciate the grand intent——
It is not a grand intent; this is for real.
The question is, should citizens have the right to take the matter beyond the local authority. I am thinking here about people who are dissatisfied. It is all very well to say that we are only talking about disused roads; we do not know what the future scenario is in relation to financial constraints.
I clearly take it from what the Minister has said that it is his understanding that the elected members will make the decision. I am trying to trace that provision in the legislation. The reference in this section is to "road authority". "Road authority" is then given the meaning defined in section 13, which provides for the council of a county, the corporation of a county or other borough or the council of an urban district. Do I take it that the road authority is defined as the elected members of the local authority?
Is the Deputy referring to the specific question of the abandonment of a roadway?
Specifically for this section. Since the definition is not spelled out in this section and the only reference in this section is to a road authority, is a road authority defined as the elected members?
That is difficult to answer. In the context of this Bill we are talking about the local authority being a road authority. That does not necessarily mean that for the purpose of other developments contained in this Bill we are talking about a different road authority, that being the road authority itself.
Section 12 (7) provides that it is a reserved function. "Reserved function" in section 2 (1) is given the definition provided under the County Management Acts, 1940 to 1988, which, I assume, refers to what the Deputy mentions, the majority of those present.
That is the consideration of objections and representations. I want to be absolutely sure that the actual decision is a decision for the elected members.
That is my understanding.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 30 to 32, inclusive, not moved.
I move amendment No. 33:
In page 13, subsection (4), between lines 36 and 37, to insert the following:
"(c) The Minister shall consult with the Authority before making an order under this subsection relating to a national road.".
This amendment is designed to ensure that the National Roads Authority are consulted before the Minister approves or refuses to approve the proposed abandonment of a national road. This is in keeping with the NRA's proposed statutory responsibility for the overseeing and development of our national roads.
The amendment reads, "The Minister shall consult with the Authority before making an order under this subsection". Does that relate to national roads?
Yes.
Who will actually make the order, the Minister or the Authority?
The local authority, but the Minister has to approve it.
I thought the authority was the NRA. Section 2 (1), the definitions section, provides: "‘the Authority' means the National Roads Authority established under section 16".
I am advised that in this instance it is the local authority. One of the questions I raised myself was the necessity for a provision of this kind because I could not at this time envisage circumstances in which the use of such a provision would arise. The provision takes into account some potential occurrence but in my view it is a very unlikely event.
So this would only affect the relationship between the Minister and local authorities, not the relationship between the Minister and the National Roads Authority.
I think we need clarity on this issue. The Bill refers to "Authority", with a capital "A". I take that to be a reference to the National Roads Authority. Section 12 refers to "a road authority", "authority" being spelled with a small "a". I think we are talking about the National Roads Authority here, reference to which would be inappropriate in this section.
Section 2 (1) makes very clear the definition of "the Authority".
The local authority makes the order. The Minister of the day approves the order. Before the Minister approves the order he or she consults the National Roads Authority.
I am not against the concept of consultation, I was seeking clarification.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 34:
In page 14, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following subsection:
"(10) Where a portion of a national road is downgraded the Authority shall continue to provide the necessary funding for the maintenance of the downgraded road.".
I have tabled this amendment because of reservations similar to those I expressed earlier when talking about the hard shoulder. I received representations — and I am sure other Deputies have also — from the Institute of Engineers, who are very concerned that after a road has been realigned there could still be a road which, while not a national primary road would still need to be maintained as, say, a route through a by-passed town. The institute are anxious that adequate funding be made available to maintain such roads. I do not know whether that is dealt with under legislation. The Minister has said that he could not say what a future Minister would do but I am sure he could indicate his intentions in relation to funding. He could say that there will be adequate moneys and that the legislation will not be used as sleight-of-hand to leave the local authorities shortchanged.
Deputy Yates's amendment to section 12 provides that downgraded sections of national roads will continue to be funded by the National Roads Authority. The amendment is not appropriate to section 12, which deals with the abandonment of public roads. I presume that Deputy Yates is not proposing that abandoned roads remain the responsibility of the NRA. I take it that what is involved in the amendment is the downgrading of a road from national to regional or local classification. I do not accept that as a general rule the NRA should have to continue to fund the maintenance of roads which are no longer classified as national roads. The existing network of national roads is already extensive and a policy of that kind would add to the responsibility of the NRA some hundreds of kilometers of roads and network and would dilute the funding available for national roads. Also, the EC Commission would not provide EC Structural Fund assistance for both a new and an existing road running parallel. The result would be 100 per cent funding for those roads from the Exchequer, thus diluting the funds available for national roads still further.
As I mentioned already, there may be cases in which it would not be appropriate to downgrade a national road and in such circumstances I shall retain the national classification. However, as a general rule, the existing road will be reduced in classification once a by-pass or realignment has been provided.
It would be nice to believe that we would have the resources for all of these considerations but Deputies will understand that when a by-pass is provided the old road will be reduced in status but will also carry a much lighter traffic load. The reason for a by-pass is to take heavy traffic out of the town centre. A by-pass road would obtain 100 percent funding from the Exchequer and EC resources. It is neither possible nor necessary to provide for two in parallel.
This aspect is of particular interest to me because of a local consideration. It is proposed, and has been for some time, to build a by-pass road at Macroom. One concern expressed by the local urban council relates to maintenance of the national primary route, which currently goes through the town. The urban council seek a pro rataincrease in the roads allocation from the time the by-pass becomes the national primary route. The council have made the case that precedence suggests that that does not happen and that local authorities, particularly urban councils, are left labouring under the obligation to maintain the previous national primary route without an adequate road grant allocation from the Department. I wonder whether it is possible under this legislation to impose an obligation on the Department to recognise the additional road mileage that a local authority have to maintain, given that the national primary route, which will be within the responsibility of the new National Roads Authority, will be outside the realm of the Department.
There is pressure on to have a by-pass at Macroom, which would cost substantial moneys. The by-pass will be a big asset to Macroom and surrounding areas in the relief from traffic congestion, from heavy vehicular traffic and traffic noise, and will be of environmental value. At the same time there is an argument for resources in parallel. In the first instance I shall speak about EC resources. For the national primary and secondary routes, which would in the main be the ones that Deputy Creed refers to, £3 out of every £4 would come from EC resources. There is a choice: by adopting the Deputy's approach the extent of national primary routes that would be upgraded could be reduced considerably. Only a certain amount of resources is available. Those resources can be ploughed into existing routes or we can try to get the longest distance possible consistent both with a good standard of road and with available resources. That is the only sensible policy. If local authorities feel that for one reason or another they have a special case, that can be made. However, it should be remembered that secondary routes get a 50 per cent EC grant and routes below that standard get 100 per cent funding from the Exchequer. Last year the total amount of funds available from the Irish taxpayer for the maintenance of non-national routes was about £13 million. The solution is not easy. Towns that are successful in getting by-passes, and the fantastic resources being put into them, should first make an argument to get the by-pass and then if there is something very particular about the route that requires support they should make that case. It has to be a matter for the local authority, in the final analysis, when that road is their responsibility, to use their resources or to raise resources to deal with their own problems. One cannot commit resources under legislation to deal with matters such as that on which, of course, there is enormous variance throughout the country.
I support Deputy Creed's point. I can envisage that problem arising in my own county — in the distant future, I suppose. When short sections of national primary roads are rerouted the existing road should not be abandoned, and that is what is happening. Abandoned roads become halting places for itinerants and travelling people and cause problems. When a road is rerouted the authority responsible for the major road construction should ensure that the original section or road is properly fenced off so that it cannot be used as a halting site, such use being a nuisance to local residents and everybody else. Obviously, if that were done, there would be one place fewer for travellers to pull into. Travelling into Dublin this morning, I passed rerouting on the Navan road and noticed about 40 itinerants' vans parked on an old section of the road which is quite open. Had that section of road been properly fenced off — and here I am talking about good wooden or concrete post fencing — they would not have been able to park there. They would have gone somewhere else, but at least there would be one place fewer for those people to use and abuse.
I must say that I agree very much with what Deputy Boylan has said. I have often thought that a road that does not seem to have any potential use as a carriageway and is going out of use is an attraction for illegal and illicit parking and becomes an eyesore and a blight on a whole area. Local authorities should consider several factors in this regard. We are looking for a common-sense solution, not something that of necessity should be provided for in law. It could be somewhere close enough to a village or town that the local community would have an interest in developing so as to enhance the whole look of the area. It could be an area that might be returned to a local farmer and fenced at the road. It is a mistake to take away from a road the possibility of its current use while in many cases allowing abuse and unsightly activities. I exhort public representatives to put whatever pressure is necessary on local authorities to take a harder look at the development of the roadway, not just the carriageway but what is left after construction, and formulate a plan to deal with that. Such development would not have to involve major expenditure. For instance, in the case of return of land to a local farmer or the previous owner, it could probably be rededicated for a pittance.
I strongly agree with the Minister's latter point. I am happy to withdraw amendment No. 34 on the understanding that not all national roads will be downgraded. I take the example of the Arklow by-pass. Even though there might be a 10 kilometre by-pass quite apart from the town, there would still be a strong demand to maintain the road through Arklow for local and business traffic. I hope that the official policy will not be to downgrade. The Minister said it would not apply in all cases and I feel that that would be the best solution.
I want to go back to the point made by Deputy Boylan because I also intended to talk on it. Under section 12 (5) a road authority would no longer be responsible for the maintenance of a local road or of a national or regional road that is abandoned. There are many sections on the national primary and national secondary roads in particular on which roadworks have taken place, leaving to one or other side stretches of the original road varying from 50 yards to a couple of hundred yards. As Deputy Boylan said, those sections of road are used as lay-bys for all sorts of purposes. If we were to abandon these roads, who will maintain or at least be responsible for them? One could not merely assume that the previous owner, after tracing whomever it might have been, will want to buy back the section of road; it would not be much use for agricultural purposes. I do know of one section of road that has been taken over in my own county. The Bill should include a provision in this regard because the maintenance of these roads is becoming a real problem. If roads are abandoned they must not be abandoned to a local authority in conjunction with the incoming National Roads Authority but must be the responsibility of the local authority. After a route has been abandoned for use as a national primary road it seems to remain a lay-by of sorts and becomes a dirty, filthy area for which nobody seems to have any regard. The Garda have no authority to move anybody off such an area and it becomes just a place on which to collect waste.
I should be very reluctant to try to prescribe in legislation for something as varied as that. We could all conjure up in our minds a variety of different situations but those that are being emphasised here concern the lay-by or the section of old roadway which is no longer used for through traffic and can be put to the most undesirable uses. The local authority may, of course, extinguish the right of way on the roadway and may, as I have instanced, decide to return it or to dispose of it to a local landowner. I see greater merit in that type of solution than in most others unless close to a village or town where the landscaping, flower arrangements, or whatever would be natural to that area and be a consideration for local voluntary organisations.
I cannot imagine all these portions or parts of roadways being of use to local authorities. If they are not of use they have no value or interest and ultimately become derelict or an alternative site for illegal parking. While in some areas the amount of land might not be great, I can think of many landowners taking a sensible decision to acquire such land in order to eliminate the type of undesirable development which might otherwise take place.
There is room for locally-elected members in local authorities nationwide — I am not sure if it should be left to the farm organisations or whoever — for some new thinking. I cannot think how it could be prescribed within the context of this Bill because it has too many varying factors. I do not want to provide for a situation in which a local authority would have to use its resources unnecessarily. This is not a road; it has no function for "through traffic"; it is a bit of waste ground that could be converted to some other use, not necessarily by or for the local authority. That is why I do not want to get involved in trying to prescribe what a local authority should do.
When land is acquired for a new roadway a substantial fence is erected. The same should apply whenever it is abandoned. If land is properly fenced off it will not be easy for people to gain access. Generally the land is abandoned without fencing because the original fence is to one side of the road and to the main road it is generally waste ground. I believe such ground should be properly fenced off with a clear road boundary so that people cannot park there. If it is a new development generally it will be a carriageway. If the road is properly fenced off it will be easier to control, with a gateway either end, irrespective of who owns it. The local authority may convert it into a car park or whatever — not that that would be desirable — but it does present a problem. Unless the regulations specify that it must be fenced the same as acquired land, nothing will happen and it will be abandoned.
I want to seek clarification. I think the Minister is not dealing with this as authoritatively as I had hoped. Section 12 (5) says:
A road authority shall no longer be responsible for the maintenance—
of these pieces of roads. I hope the Minister will have reason to visit my part of the country — as he did recently — when he will travel through one of the loveliest places — the Glen of the Downs and see a piece of road that has been abandoned because of road widening and straightening. The Minister will see several others as he travels south. I cannot think of a landowner who would want a piece of this ground, but it must be remembered that people live near it and have to put up with the attendant dirt, abandonment of old cars, rubbish and so on. Deputy Boylan advanced one solution. If by "maintenance" we mean fencing the land off, that is some solution to the problem but it should not be left high and dry with nobody responsible for it, the attitude being that millions of pounds were spent to straighten roads and provide byways and that these old roadways can be abandoned and used as dumping areas or as lay-bys for all the wrong purposes.
In the past I have found that members of local authorities have dealt adequately with any road abandoned whenever a new road was constructed. I have full confidence that local authorities and their elected members will utilise such roads or hand them over to somebody for proper use.
I support Deputy Kavanagh. These days I travel through the Glen of the Downs on Sundays and weekdays. The position is deplorable. There are many other cutaway former roads. Surely the Minister can provide for Report Stage some amended wording for section 11 (5) (a) to the effect that: "A road authority should no, longer be responsible for the maintenance of such roads, save that they be left in an orderly and environmentally friendly condition, thus preventing them from being an open invitation to every traveller to come because they give shelter, have a hard surface, are near the main road and are ideal for selling travellers' wares.
It will be obvious later, when we come to the sections dealing with prohibitions on traders, vehicles and caravans on the road, that these provisions will not deal adequately with abandoned roads. I ask the Minister to return on Report Stage with a set of words so that we will all know what we want to achieve.
I fully agree with what Deputy Yates has said. Experience in our area has been that where there is a national primary route there is a private cul-de-sac which is being used in that manner. In County Limerick we have more than our quota of settled travellers. In creating fine national primary routes and national secondary roads often unwittingly create a problem by creating a large grassy margin parallel to the main road which serves as a halting site for travellers. We have dealt with abandoned roads and I have seen examples in my county, but I wonder whether in designing a road and so on an embankment should always be left to act as a deterrent.
I wanted to add a few words. The worst solution of all is to leave these pieces of road with nobody responsible for them. It is not all a black picture. Some of these road cut-offs, disused portions of roads, have been developed very attractively as picnic lay-bys, rest areas and so on. Obviously, not all of them would be suitable for that purpose but some thought should be given to their future use. Otherwise we shall be creating derelict sites for which nobody will be responsible. In circumstances in which, say, a local authority have no further use for such a portion of road and wish to dispose of it, some arrangement should be made to reincorporate that section of road back into the adjoining property so that somebody has responsibility for it.
The Deputies' comments are encouraging. I cannot deal with problems that are raised here under section 12. Section 69 deals with the extinguishment of public rights of way. A road can be abandoned and the right of way can still be retained. I will examine that section again to see if these provisions can be further tidied up. Deputy Gilmore outlined the position more or less along the same lines as I did earlier, that there is not one single solution to the problem. There are different ways it can be approached. It is my view that it can be ably dealt with at local level.
Deputy Finucane referred to the question of embankments. They are feasible in some instances but for drainage and other reasons that is not always the case. I hold the view that local authorities who acquire land for road development and do not require all the land that was originally acquired should ensure the land adjacent to the road is fenced. Extra land can be purchased initially to ensure there is only one land purchase transaction and to cater for future traffic loads. Land ownership may be designated on a map or on a folio but the land should be fenced near the road as it develops on the very first day as distinct from where it was located originally. Open areas that are level and accessible invite the problems that have been outlined. This problem should be addressed at local level. A solution cannot be prescribed for it in primary law, so a different approach must be taken. I know that a county manager and county engineer may suggest that we want to establish ownership. Surely it is within the bounds of legislation governing development to ensure a more sensible approach so as to avoid illegal parking. There are areas throughout the country that are open invitations to illegal parking. On the one hand the local authority are the main authority for acquiring and providing halting sites, and at the same time they are creating areas which invite undesirable development which they have the responsibility to eliminate. A more businesslike approach on the ground is necessary to deal with these matters in the future. We have enough experience between the elected members, county managers and county engineers to know that the current position must be changed. Deputy Kavanagh may be of the view that I am lax in this regard. I do not think in primary legislation I can stipulate what should or should not be done in these circumstances. For instance, Deputy Boylan's solution is to fence the land near the roadside. We know how easy it is to break fencing and how often it happens. There is a good deal of expense involved in fencing and it is only a partial solution to the problem. We will examine section 69 again to see if there is a better way to approach this problem.
I am concerned that the power the local authorities have at local authority level will be taken away and we will be left up in the air to a certain extent, in regard to who will be responsible for the maintenance of these areas. I do not want that power abandoned. If we are going to abandon the road the responsibility for its maintenance must lie somewhere. I ask the Minister to ensure that when this Bill is enacted somebody will have the responsibility for these pieces of land.
Let us be clear about this. In terms of the type of road we have been discussing for the past half hour, the requirement to maintain roads, and the future maintenance of a road which is abandoned because there is a major road rerouted alongside it, do not come within the domain of what I would view as local authority business. Let us be realistic: the local authorities are not in the business of being responsible for the maintenance of a road which it is not envisaged as having any future use for routing traffic. We would like to have the problem solved, and it may be solved by local landowners, by local voluntary organisations, and in some instances by the local authorities where there is sufficient land for a suitable halting site if the services are available or whatever. Regarding Deputy Kavanagh's point about addressing the problem primarily at local level, whatever support I can give, as Minister for the Environment, I certainly will, but it is limited. We should approach this matter not in the isolated context of this problem but in the context of the total planning which the local authority are responsible for in terms of road realignment, by-passes or whatever and in that way there would not be fences a good distance in from the road. If land is not required but it is still purchased there should not be fences 40 metres from the edge of the road. One aspect of the matter is that we may have ownership of the land but we may not necessarily be responsible for fencing it. Secondly, there is the question of planning the future use of the land. If the land is not required the lay-by may be returned to the farmer, another local person or whoever. This area should be tidied up in an overall way in respect of the whole country. Under section 69 I will undertake to see what further guidelines or proposals we can produce.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That section 12, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
In relation to harnessing the goodwill of people who are anxious to make a contribution to maintain a public road but without legal liability, can that proposal be incorporated into this Bill? Does the Minister understand the point I am making?
I do.
It is a fairly common practice now and it should be availed of if we are to make any progress in resolving this problem. At present, if one repairs a road, one is liable in the case of somebody having an accident.
That arises because the road is a public road. The local authority are responsible for its maintenance and if somebody else carries out the maintenance and there is a claim for injury or whatever, the local authority would be responsible. It is a complicated area. The local authority could return the road to the local owners who could approach its maintenance in two ways, by carrying out maintenance of the road themselves or, alternatively, by applying under a local improvements scheme and contributing towards the scheme, and subsequently having the road taken over by the local authorities if the local authority are agreeable to this option.
That could be all short-circuited.
By——
Making roads non-public.
I am proposing to move away from that old requirement and have the decision taken by the local elected members in circumstances like that.
Question put and agreed to.