Special Committee on the Roads Bill, 1991 debate -
Wednesday, 22 Jul 1992

SECTION 13.

Amendment No. 35 not moved.

Mr. Gilmore

I move amendment No. 36:

In page 14, between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following subsection:

"(3) (a) Each road authority shall ensure that in carrying out its functions to maintain and construct public roads, due regard is had to the needs of various road users, including pedestrians, pedal cyclists, disabled persons and parents or guardians of children in prams, etc.

(b) Each road authority shall therefore, at least every five years, carry out a survey of its road users and categorise them as follows:

(i) pedestrians,

(ii) pedal cyclists,

(iii) motorists (including buses and motor cycles),

(iv) road users with special needs (i.e., disabled persons and parents and guardians of children in prams, etc.).

(c) Each road authority shall then apportion the resources available to it for road maintenance and construction in accordance with the proportion of road users in each category.".

This section deals with the responsibility of road authorities for the maintenance and construction of public roads. This amendment raises the question of for whom public roads are constructed or maintained. It appears to me, that throughout road policy, there is an assumption that roads are for the use of motorised traffic of one kind or another — cars, motor bikes, lorries, buses and so on. By and large all that other road users have been getting is a certain amount of lip service: they would be pedestrians, pedal cyclists, road users who have special needs, whether they be disabled, elderly people or, say, parents pushing prams/buggies, or whatever. In practice what is happening is that, first of all, roads are designed and constructed primarily for motorised users, in some instances, with no regard at all to the needs of other road users. For example, very few roads, other than a couple on an experimental basis, have provision for separate cycle lanes. In many cases new roads constructed, particularly in urban areas, are constructed without footpaths. I can think of a number of dual carriageways in my own constituency which were designed and constructed within the last ten or 15 years, without footpaths. This means the only people who can use those roads in safety are people who are motorised.

Similarly, the resources available to road authorities, particularly since those resources have become more limited, are applied virtually exclusively to the motorised road user or to the sections of the roads which are used by motorised road users. For example, the provision of pedestrian crossings and traffic lights is dependent on traffic and pedestrian counts which, in my opinion, are far too high and then these facilities go to the bottom of the list of priorities. Regarding the construction of footpaths, local authorities have little or no resources available to them, or make little or no resources available, for the construction or maintenance of footpaths.

This creates two problems. First, there are areas, particularly urban areas, where there is clearly a need for provision of footpaths but no resources are made available for their construction. I can list a number of roads — again in my own constituency — where if one wanted to walk from one end of the road to the other by footpath — one would have to cross the road at three or four different places because there are whole sections which do not have a footpath at all. Even where footpaths are provided there is the problem of their maintenance. Some footpaths are simply no longer usable, particularly by people who may be a bit feeble, people in wheelchairs, people pushing prams/buggies, anything of that kind.

What this amendment seeks to do is, first of all, to put an obligation on roads authorities — when they are constructing, designing or maintaining public roads they must have regard to the needs of all road users; second, when resources are being divided up for road use or maintenance, there must be some proportionate method of allocating money to the needs of various road users.

I know, in most local authorities when it comes to estimates time, the allocation of money and so on, the natural inclination is to provide the money to fill the pothole on the road where the car is travelling. Very often the local authority do not have sufficient money to carry out even that function. Always the road user who loses out is the unmotorised one, whether it be a pedestrian or cyclist. What is proposed in my amendment is that a survey be undertaken, say, every five years on the basis of which resources would be allocated for the needs of various road users.

Mr. Smith

Since a public road is generally available for all classes of traffic — pedestrain, pedal cyclist and motorist traffic — a road authority will be obliged to have regard to the needs of that traffic when carrying out their functions under this section in relation to the construction and maintenance of public roads. I would argue that the obligation extends beyond those categories of traffic mentioned in the amendment. Roads are the lifeblood of the economy, carrying over 90 per cent of freight traffic in terms of tonne kilometres and 96 per cent of tonnes lifted. The needs of commercial traffic also warrant consideration and, in my view, fall within the same general obligations conferred on road authorities by this section.

While local authorities and the Environmental Research Units do carry out surveys of road use it would be unreasonable to impose an obligation on local authorities of the type proposed in paragraph (b) of Deputy Gilmore's amendment. The Environmental Research Unit carries out annual automated and manual traffic counts on parts of the road network, principally on national roads and a small selection of other roads. This is used to estimate traffic on the network, primarily by class of road and by motorised mode. This is augmented by some data collection by local authorities for specific purposes. An example of this is the annual inner cordon count in Dublin which counts the numbers of persons and vehicles crossing the canal cordon in morning peak traffic. To carry out surveys on all routes and throughout the country would require huge resources, financial and staffing. I doubt if we could justify that, given the limited funds available for road maintenance and improvements.

I would also have strong reservations about the allocation of road funds in accordance with the proportion of use of roads by each category of traffic. To establish relative usage to the degree of accuracy required for funding allocation would require very large survey expenditure which, as I have said, we could not justify. There would also be immense practical problems. Would the road funds to be allocated per pedestrian be the same as those per cyclist and motorist? How would one equate commercial vehicles with cars, on a one to one basis, by reference to their respective economic functions or on the basis of relative damage to the road? Would the needs of trucks carrying expensive computer equipment, very heavy material or carrying straw equate? What weight would be given to a person with a disability? We could devote years of research to this issue and at the end of it I doubt if the method for allocating funds would be any better than the one we have at present.

The way to address these issues is through policy rather than surveys and my Department constantly draw to the attention of local authorities the need to consider the special needs of particular groups such as pedestrians, cyclists and people with disabilities. The needs of these varied groups are also explicitly built into the brief for the current Dublin Transportation Initiative who are investigating Dublin's traffic and transportation problems. It will be very interesting to learn the findings of the preliminary report of the Dublin Transportation Initiative which will be available, hopefully in September, and the final report is due next April. This is the first time an integrated effort is being made to establish the transportation needs of today's society and the varying methods there are to deal with this are being examined in the public, private and other areas. I look forward to these reports because as Deputy Gilmore knows, they involve a very wide consultative process. This is welcome because very often people are not consulted perhaps in the way that they could and should be.

In the past few weeks I had the opportunity to allocate resources, which were raised by Dublin Corporation, for cycle lanes in the city. These lanes are at an early stage of implementation but it is important that we embrace these considerations and adopt a broad approach in relation to roads and all transport matters for the future, taking account of the national primary routes and pedestrian ways in the cities. A good deal of expenditure is being made available to help pedestrian traffic by way of pedestrian bridges and so on, although more is required. Much of this work would involve carrying out surveys throughout the country. In relation to motorways, pedestrians, cyclists or learner drivers may not use motorways; these are absolute rules that must be adhered to and consequently facilities for such traffic are not provided on motorways. For the most part there is now a clear understanding on the part of the local authority of the role of the National Roads Authority who will have responsibilities in this area, but local authorities have yet to demonstrate how they will cater for the needs of all road users, consistent with their resources.

There is a more enlightened and broader approach developing and we have to try to reduce the growth of motor traffic on our roads, in this city and other cities, and that calls for a change of attitude. That change of attitude will come about by developing our routes and catering for more environmentally acceptable practices. We are going to concentrate as much resources as possible on a broad approach to traffic and transportation problems. The Dublin Transportation Initiative will be very helpful in relation to Dublin city, but it will probably also highlight approaches which can be applicable in other areas. We are doing and will continue to do a good deal of work in this area.

I think Deputy Gilmore will accept that it would not be very helpful to use the available resources to carry out surveys throughout the country and, indeed, in many parts of the country, particularly in the heavy tourist areas in the summertime, such surveys would not provide accurate data. Different figures would be obtained if the surveys were carried out in January. Therefore, it is not a realistic method of ascertaining road users' needs having regard to the limited resources that are available and given that there are other methods of establishing the true needs. We must take into account the total resources that are available to fund such work and how these resources can best be used to redress any imbalances which have emerged in work that has been carried out to date, and we must have a more enlightened and progressive approach to managing our environment.

Mr. Yates

I will be brief as I am anxious that we move along a little faster. I consider Deputy Gilmore's amendment in relation to each road authoriy is impractical. It might be more appropriate if it related to each city council as there is a strong need to consider the needs of varous road users in Dublin, perhaps in Cork, in Limerick, in Dún Laoghaire and in large built-up urban areas. Greater consideration should be given to catering for the needs of cyclists, pedestrians as well as those of motorists. The same facilities are not required for national primary routes and motorways; they are a different kettle of fish. Therefore, I do not support this amendment which proposes that every road authority would have a role, but if it was amended to specifically deal with the problem of large urban conurbations I would then consider it a relevant amendment.

Mr. Gilmore

I note Deputy Yates's point and I confess that the amendment is motivated mainly by an urban perspective of the needs of road users. I am the only member of this committee who is representing a predominantly urban constituency and it is inevitable that what I say will probably reflect that. There are a couple of points I wish to make. The Minister is being a little harsh in relation to the carrying out of a survey. It is possible for local authorities to carry out surveys which do not necessarily have to count every road user. These surveys can be carried out on a sample basis and, as the Minister said earlier, there are already some traffic counts, pedestrian counts and so on, carried out for specific purposes. I am not hung up on it being carried out in that particular way.

What I am concerned about is that people, other than motorists particularly in urban areas, are losing out in relation to the design and construction of roads and the allocation of road resources. In relation to the construction and design of roads I have already mentioned that some roads were constructed without footpaths. I am aware of a proposal relating to roads in my own constituency, which is with the Minister's Department, for the extension of Wyattville dual carriageway and the widening of Church Road. The local authority proposed that it should be designed to incorporate cycleways and the Department have rejected that proposal on the grounds that it should be constructed as a dual carriageway without cycleways. This is a specific case of the old approach to building motorways or dual carriageways, that is constructing them without consideration being given to the needs of either cyclists or pedestrians.

Another aspect of the issue has to do with the allocation of existing resources and there is no doubt that footpaths, pedestrian crossing and so on are at the bottom of the list. I will reword the amendment for Report Stage taking account of Deputy Yates's observations, because there is a necessity to incorporate into the legislation the needs of road users other than motorists.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Yates

I move amendment No. 37:

In page 14, subsection (3), line 33, after "subsection (1) and (2)" to insert "and municipal authorities including town commissioners in their jurisdiction".

This amendment was tabled at a time when there was a major question mark over the future of municipal authorities and I tabled it impishly to extract from the Minister a commitment that our municipal authorities will be retained. I will not press the matter if he can give an assurance on this. Urban councils and town commissioners have a strong role to play in local government and I would not like to see them abolished. I know the Minister for Energy, Deputy Molloy, is keen that they should be abolished in these sub-county tiers, but I do not agree with that.

Mr. Smith

I attributed very generously this morning to Deputy Yates some characteristics which he has now taken away from himself by saying that he is quite devious in the way he puts down amendments, but he will appreciate, as I do, that the urban councils and town commissioners have not been involved to any great extent in the provision of roads and their maintenance in the past. He will be happy to know that I am a strong believer in the county system and have an absolute commitment to town-based councils. This has nothing to do with this Bill or today's business, but in my usual generous response to questions that have nothing to do with the business of the day — I am not going to pre-empt the work of the Cabinet sub-committee — I have had very fruitful meetings with the General Council of County Councils and the municipal authorities and will take into account views expressed by elected members throughout the country in determining the right structures for the future.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Smith

I move amendment No. 38:

In page 14, subsection (5), line 43, before "roads" to insert "public".

This is a drafting amendment ensuring that the reference is to a "public road" rather than just a "road", as is the case elsewhere in the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Gilmore

I move amendment No. 39:

In page 15, between lines 3 and 4, to insert the following subsection:

"(7) (a) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (5), and save as otherwise provided by law, a road authority may take measures to limit, restrict or reduce the volume or types of traffic using particular roads.

(b) In particular, a road authority may take measures to limit, reduce or restrict traffic in residential areas by—

(i) the erection of signs,

(ii) the provision of ramps, chicanes, traffic signals or other physical means of limiting traffic,

(iii) the enforcement of speed limits from 5 miles per hour upwards.

(c) A road authority may, by resolution of its elected members, declare an area to be a "Traffic-Controlled Zone".

(d) A Traffic-Controlled Zone shall be defined, by reference to a map as an area which by reason of its residential, architectural or other characteristics, requires special measures to limit, reduce or restrict certain types of road use. A road authority may take such measures as it considers appropriate to control traffic in the Traffic Controlled Zone.".

This is another amendment which comes from the minority interests that I represent here, urban road users. The problem this amendment seeks to redress is that known as "rat running" which is now becoming evident in a number of urban housing estates where, in order to avoid traffic build-ups on main roads, traffic is using short cuts through residential areas. In my own constituency housing estates located adjacent to the main N11 Dublin-Bray road and the Blackrock by-pass are affected by this. In order to avoid traffic build-ups up on main roads, the traffic takes short cuts resulting in heavy traffic loads in residential areas at peak times. For example, the complaints, that I, and other urban public representatives, have received relate to people having difficulty getting their cars out of their driveways in the morning because of the volume of traffic on the road on which they live. The extent of the problem is reflected in the number of resident's associations and individual residents seeking to have ramps provided on their roads. In my own constituency alone, since the regulations regarding ramps were introduced, we have had requests from residents on over 100 roads for road-ramping. Apart from the fact that the resources are not available to provide ramps, it would make a total nonsense of road policy if, having constructed roads to a certain standard, we then had to provide ramps to control the traffic.

Of course, the road authority are not the traffic authority and measures to try to control the traffic involve a great deal of toing and froing between the local authority and the Garda. What I am proposing in this amendment is that the road authority would have the right to introduce measures which would reduce or restrict traffic in residential areas, including for example, the power to enforce speed limits of, if necessary, five miles per hour in some residential areas. Obviously, that would not be necessary right across the board, but in some areas it might be necessary to reduce the speed limit and have it enforced in order to discourage traffic from using residential areas as a short-cut. I accept that part of this problem is probably due to the volume of traffic on the road, but in Blackrock traffic is now using the local residential roads in order to avoid the traffic build-up on the Blackrock by-pass. In regard to the main Bray-Dublin road, Dublin County Council recently had to provide ramps on a road which was being used as a bypass of the N11 road. In other words, motorists for one reason or another decided thay did not want to use the N11 road and would rather use the residential roads adjoining it. For obvious reasons, people living in those areas are concerned about the volume of traffic that is now building up on residential roads.

Mr. Smith

I share the sentiments behind this amendment. First, there is a range of powers in the Road Traffic Act to control and regulate traffic. Speed limits can be imposed, roads can be restricted to certain types of traffic, streets can be restricted to certain types of traffic, streets can be pedestrianised and ramps and bollards can be provided. I have already indicated that I see far greater scope for local authority involvement in local traffic and parking controls and I intend to deal with this in the Road Traffic Bill. In addition, section 13 (6) (a) of this Bill augments the road traffic powers by enabling local authorities to provide structures, amenities or other facilities for the safety or convenience of road users. This is a very wide enabling power which local authorities should avail of.

The issue of traffic calming is one of a large range of options being considered by the Dublin Transportation Initiative and it would be sensible to await their recommendations before writing further legislation in this area. If that study advances proposals in this area — we are primarily dealing with problems affecting urban areas — I will introduce any necessary legislation to implement those provisions, but I would prefer to await those recommendations, and then respond in as wide a manner as possible.

Mr. Yates

Deputy Gilmore has made a very good case. This problem is related particularly to the Dublin area and I know there are many resident groups on all sides of the city who have major difficulties with this. I would like to see local authorities, in particular, put forward a package of measures. I do not know whether that is more appropriate to this legislation or other legislation but there is need for flexibility so that different packages of measures can be put forward by locally elected members to protect essentially residential areas from becoming roadways for peak hour traffic. It is only a matter of time before there will be serious accidents involving children, and other problems. The principle is certainly worthy of support.

Mr. Boylan

I appreciate fully the case being made by Deputy Gilmore.

As main roads become more congested people with local knowledge are using back roads, which is dangerous. Deputy Gilmore's amendment No. 39, which concerns me, states:

(7) (a) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (5), and save as otherwise provided by law, a road authority may take measures to limit, restrict or reduce the volume or types of traffic using particular roads.

Because of agricultural development milk delivery to the co-ops by means of large trucks is the norm. I am aware of county councils, who shall remain nameless, that are considering restricting the volume of these trucks. If they do this — because of the condition of certain county roads — they will put these co-operatives at a disadvantage vis-�-vis co-operatives in southern Ireland or across the water who can collect milk in large volumes at a lesser cost and put it on the market at a reduced price. It all has to do with bulk collection and getting it from the producer to the processing point as cheaply as possible. The old system of small collection units are not competitive. The State has not kept up with agricultural development in this country. The farmers are not at fault; they are moving with the times but the roads have not kept abreast of this development. The roads were not constructed for this volume of traffic and the farmers should not be penalised.

Mr. McEllistrim

I am interested in what Deputy Boylan says about creamery trucks and collection of milk. We had a major problem in county Kerry in view of the fact that some of our roads were damaged. We got in touch with Kerry Co-op and they changed the design, axles and springs of their lorries. Due to their co-operation there is less impact on the road by those specially designed lorries. Perhaps those who have a problem in other counties would contact the technical people in Kerry Co-op and get their advice.

Mr. Smith

In fairness to Deputy Boylan, may I say we are all grappling with this problem because the foundations of many of these roads were built for a different era. We have tried to cope with it by trying to improve from the top down and it does require a more structural change which will take time and a lot of resources. Even as little as 15 or 20 years ago none of us could have envisaged the weight of heavy vehicle traffic which is now pounding the roads and doing enormous damage. There are those who live in the past and think that things have changed enormously and that we are not providing resources for roads. Huge amounts of money have been spent on our roads in the past three or four years but the demand has outstretched human imagination by comparison with the standards and pressures on us under the old rating system 20 to 25 years ago.

Deputy Gilmore may not accept this but traffic control is covered primarily by the Road Traffic Acts. In recent days I have had to increase speed limits which, in one sense, was a strange way of reducing the speed of traffic on our roads but the purpose was to facilitate enforcement at a more realistic level and in line with what was actually happening on the roads. I think we should wait and see what options will be recommended to us in the Dublin Transportation Initiative before responding. I want to give a firm commitment, to the extent that I can either in the road traffic Bill which is being drafted or this Bill — the Roads Bill, 1991, which still has to go to the Seanad and to Report and Final Stages — or indeed in any other legislation, that where it is open to me to take account of the changed situation in urban areas, I will not be reluctant to do so.

Mr. Gilmore

It was not my intention that this amendment would give rise to another episode of the milk was but I have no doubt that Mr. Denis Brosnan would be quite happy to resolve Deputy Boylan's problem by sending his well sprung trucks to collect milk in Cavan. The Minister has suggested three options for dealing with this problem. I appreciate what he says and the fact that there is an urgency about dealing with this matter. I can assure him that the experience of most Dublin public representatives is that this is one of the most frequent issues arising with residents' associations. Can the Minister say, first, when he envisages the Road Traffic Bill will be published and, second, when he expects the Dublin Transportation Initiative will be completed and be at a stage where some policy or legislative action and so on will arise?

Mr. Smith

A preliminary report from the Dublin Transportation Initiative is expected in September and the final report next April. To the extent that any preliminary findings will help in drafting, preparing for and dealing with the kind of situations referred to here, I would be glad to take that on board and I will have an opportunity to do that in the context of this Bill. The expectation in regard to the Road Traffic Bill is that we will publish it before our return in October. There are still a couple of areas with drafting problems and one or two other areas that have to be resolved at Government level. I hope it can be published before we return or very shortly afterwards.

Mr. Gilmore

In view of the fact that the Road Traffic Bill may be published and the preliminary report of the Dublin Transportation Initiative will be available before we come to Report Stage of this Bill, I will withdraw this amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 40 not moved.

Mr. Smith

I move amendment No. 41:

In page 15, subsection (7), line 4, to delete "Nothing" and substitute "Notwithstanding the definition of ‘road' in section 2, nothing".

This amendment intends to clear up the misunderstanding that there is a conflict between this subsection and subsection (2) in regard to the responsibility of road authorities for roadside fences. Section 2 defines a road as including inter aliafences which form part of the road while subsection (7) of this section provides that there shall be no liability, duty or responsibility on the road authority to construct or maintain fences which do not form part of the road. It has long been held in common law that fences are the responsibility of land owners not road authorities. However, under certain circumstances, for example, where the road authority construct the fence or, by arrangement with the land owner, take over the maintenance of a fence, that fence is deemed to be a part of the public road and the responsibility of the road authority. No new law is being created in this amendment. It simply removes a possible anomaly in the Bill as drafted.

Mr. Yates

I welcome this amendment as my amendment No. 40, which was ruled out of order, proposed the deletion of subsection (7). I do not think it is good enough to exempt local authorities from any liability, duty or obligation to provide fencing. The provisions of section 13 (7) (a) and (b) in relation to maintaining bridges, tunnels and railway crossings raise the whole question of railways. The straitened circumstances of Irish Rail mean that they are not in a position to do this. My experience is that when a new road is built, a new fence is provided which the land owner must maintain. I am not happy with subsection (7) as there should be a responsibility to maintain a fence. Deputy Finucane raised a point about grassy margins. A farmer beside a main road can encounter problems in relation to travellers stopping and leaving gates open resulting in stock getting out. I am not opposed to amendment No. 41 but I am unhappy about subsection (7).

Mr. Smith

There is not much I can add. We are not changing from what has hitherto been the experience of local authorities and land owners. We are making certain that that interpretation remains. If we accepted Deputy Yates's amendment local authorities would be responsible for roadside fencing. That has never been the position, nor has there been pressure from the farming community in that regard. Farmers have responsibilities and they are the best judges of this situation.

Mr. Yates

What is the position in relation to hedgecutting? In my county the position is that on main roads the council carry out this work and on minor roads it is the responsibility of land owners. Could it be construed that "fences" means "hedges"?

Mr. Smith

If we are talking about the usual type of fencing, which does not involve the erection of a fence — in the old-fashioned meaning of the word — it is theoretically possible for the local authority in certain instances to provide that kind of fencing. I will not rule out that possibility, although there is a very remote chance of the local authorities going in that direction, it may happen in very extreme circumstances. The primary responsibility for hedgecutting rests with the farmer.

Mr. Yates

In all cases?

Mr. Smith

I have been put under pressure by a number of local authorities — and at public fora I attended — to update the penalties where landowners, for one reason or another, are reluctant to maintain roadside hedges. The practice seems to be that the local authority in some counties take on this responsibility — and in some cases make a charge for it — but in other areas they do not attend to it. As far as the main national roads are concerned, the local authorities in almost all cases carry out that work but primary responsibility rests with the landowner.

Mr. Boylan

Badly maintained fences can be a nuisance and a danger when they are overgrown. Good farmers cut hedges on the roads or through their farms and keep them well maintained. However, they feel aggrieved that their neighbours do not have to comply with this regulation because the penalty is minimal, it should be uniform. Low hedges make the roads safe and give tourists a better view of the countryside. In my local authority area when hedgecutting notices are served, some farmers comply and others simply do not bother.

Mr. Smith

The primary responsibility rests with the landowner and in some counties the response has been very good. I will deal with penalties in due course but I would like a better response because there is no doubt that roads are damaged, there are visability problems and accidents occur because of this. It is time people realised that they have a responsibility in this regard. If the hedges were maintained quite a number of problems regarding roads maintenance would also be reduced.

Mr. Kirk

Is there any survey information available on overhanging hedges? They obviously have been a contributory factor in accidents, especially at junctions and intersections.

Mr. Smith

I could not say specifically but I recall a number of years ago looking at a map which showed a number of main carriageways, fatal accidents were indicated precisely on the dual carriageway and they were almost exclusively — 70 per cent to 80 per cent — at junctions. I am not in a position to say to what extent fencing or overhanging hedges contribute to accidents. I am quite sure that on the major roads they would not be a major problem except for outcoming traffic from minor routes. In relation to minor accidents on county roads overhanging hedges would be a big contributor.

Mr. Kavanagh

Under section 7 is the responsibility on local authorities to construct walls or fences when a road is built as a result of acquiring land for that purpose affected? We know the very extensive wall constructed in the Foxrock area was very costly compared to fencing in a rural area.

Mr. Smith

These matters form part of a package of accommodation agreed with the landowners but let us call a spade a spade. There are circumstances of which we are aware where we are not in a position to judge but it seems that some people are treated better than others. I would like to see more equity in that throughout the country. However, I do not know what contribution I can make because these are matters for local agreement between the landowner and the local authorities but I think there is room for improvement.

Mr. Kavanagh

There is certainly room for change.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Smith

I move amendment No. 42:

In page 15, lines 12 to 21, to delete subsection (8) and substitute the following:

"(8) (a) A person who, without lawful authority or the consent of a road authority—

(i) defaces a public road by writing or by any other means,

(ii) damages a public road,

(iii) excavates a public road,

(iv) (I) places or deposits any material or thing on a public road,

(II) permits dung or urine from an animal owned by him or any material or thing which falls from a vehicle owned or used by him, to be left on a public road, or

(III) does any other thing,

such that the material, thing, dung or urine or the doing of such other thing is a hazard or potential hazard to persons using a public road or obstructs or interferes with the safe use of a public road or the maintenance of a public road,

shall be guilty of an offence.

(b) A consent under paragraph (a) may be given by the road authority subject to such conditions, restrictions or requirements as it thinks fit and any person who fails to comply with such conditions, restrictions or requirements shall be guilty of an offence.

(b) Where a person does anything in contravention of paragraph (a), a road authority may remove any defacement, repair any damage, fill in any excavation, remove any material, thing, dung or urine or remove or reduce any hazard, potential hazard, obstruction or interference and may recover from such person, as a simple contract debt in any court of competent jurisdiction, any costs reasonably incurred by it.".

This amendment extends the provisions of subsection (8). In the Bill as published that subsection made it an offence to deface or damage a public road without statutory authority which State bodies like the ESB, Telecom Éireann or Bord Gáis have when they dig up roads, or without the permission of the local authority. The amendment extends these prohibitions as listed. These new provisions update similar prohibitions in section 10 of the Summary jurisdiction (Ireland) Act, 1851. The penalties will also be updated from 10 shillings — 50 pence — to a maximum of £1,000 fine or six months in prison. Dung, urine, slurry and mud falling off vehicles present a continual hazard to road users and can also damage the road itself. Where it is possible to indentify the person responsible, the local authorities and the Garda will have effective powers to prosecute.

Paragraph (b) of the amendment allows local authorities to consent to any of these activities, for example, a road opening by a private individual to provide a connection to a water supply and to attach conditions, restrictions, or requirements to the consent. Failure to comply with them will be an offence.

Paragraph (c) will enable local authorities to repair damage and remove any defacing marks, dung, urine, etc., and to recover their costs from the person responsible for breaking the law.

Mr. Yates

I strongly support strengthening the former subsection (8). A great deal of annoyance and frustration is caused to motorists in Dublin because when roadworks are completed by Dublin Gas, Telecom Éireann or Dublin Corporation dig up the road again to lay cables or water pipes. There seems to be endless disruption.

I am aware as a result of a reply to a parliamentary question, that there are regulations in this regard but the Minister should ensure that all the works are completed at one time. There should also be penalties in relation to semi-State companies who fail to put the road back in a proper condition or who fail to operate within a limited period in relation to it. There should be a licensing procedure for road openings, it should not be done on an ad hoc basis. There should be strict controls and penalties for failure to complete works within a certain period as it is a source of great frustration to the average motorist.

Mr. Kavanagh

This amendment is a big improvement on the original subsection (8). It clearly states the problem in regard to the damage done to public roads. It is necessary on occasion for members of the public who own land or property to look for permission to open public roads and there is a stiff penalty for non-compliance. There should be a time limit in regard to all roadworks being completed.

The amount of claims for compensation to local authorities as a result of "accidents" because of claims that reinstatements had not been properly done is very costly. I hope that the Minister will relieve the local authorities of this responsibility because, in most cases, it is not their responsibility. It is the responsibility of other authorities who have done work on the road, the ESB, Telecom Éireann or another body who did not leave the road in a proper condition. Nevertheless it seems to end up as a charge on the local authority. The problem is more acute in certain areas.

This section could perhaps be used to relieve local authorities of the huge impact on their revenue because of the number of accident compensation claims on them. The State's responsibility for that type of action is gone but local authorities cannot afford compensation or insurance for these accidents.

Mr. Kirk

A number of comments were made in relation to road diggings by the various public utilities. We must be realistic about it, repairs and maintenance are a fact of life but it often strikes me coming into the city the serious impact which roadworks carried out by Telecom Éireann or Dublin Gas have on the traffic flow. Is there a case to be made for the work in question to be carried out at off-peak times rather than at particularly busy hours of the working day? There may be good and cogent reasons for not staggering that work but if there is a heavy volume of traffic on the street at a particular time it is bound to slow down the whole work regime on the project. The desired objectives could be achieved in a much shorter time if repairs were carried out at a time when there was much less traffic on the road.

Mr. Boylan

I agree with the thrust of the amendment. We cannot get away from the fact that we are an agricultural county and that the bedrock of the economy is farming. Cattle will have to be driven on the road to move them from the farm to the farmyard. If a county manager or county engineer interprets this amendment to the limit of the law I do not know how cattle can be driven on the roads without leaving dung or urine. In many of our towns and villages it is a common sight to see a herd of cows being driven from the farm at one end of the village. As I was going through Arva the other day English and French tourists were photographing a herd of Friesian cows.

In wet weather work on the farm must continue. I agree that the nuisance created by the deposit of slurry on roads is not acceptable. However, there will be times when the silage has to be cut or the corn has to be got out and tracks will be left on the road. If this provision were interpreted as I read it, strictly within the terms of the law a farmer could be penalised for those activities or for driving cattle on the road. We cannot allow the legislation to go that far.

I take the point made by Deputies. I came to Leinster House some four or five years ago and there has not been a day in my journeys to work on which I have arrived at Phibsboro from Cavan without encountering roadworks. I wonder what is being done. If the roadworks are not on one side of the street, they are on the other. I have often wondered whether the type of equipment used is necessary. A small jackhammer should be sufficient for the depth of the road surface but JCBs are moved in and a whole area is closed. With the equipment used, one would think the workers were going to take down O'Connell Bridge. A job of work has to be done; for example, a gas leak would have to be attended to immediately, but much less powerful equipment would do the job just as well.

Mr. Smith

Statutory authorities such as the ESB, An Bord Telecom and An Bord Gáis have statutory powers to open public roads and are not required to get a licence. However, there are certain controls. Section 101 (d) of the Road Traffic Act, 1961, as inserted by the Dublin Transport Authority Dissolution Act, 1987, enables prescribed local authorities to issue directions to statutory undertakers and others for the purposes of co-ordinating road openings and minimising traffic disruption. In September 1988 the Minister made regulations prescribing Dublin Coporation, Dublin County Council and Dún Laoghaire Corporation as authorities who could exercise these directive powers. My Department have written to local authorities asking whether any of them wish to avail of the powers. For the purposes of this Bill, I should state that those powers are: by direction specify the period for which and the items for which roadworks shall or shall not be and the times at which roadworks shall or shall not be carried out; specify the period within which roadworks shall be completed; lay down the manner in which roadworks shall or shall not be carried out; set out requirements and standards in relation to the temporary or permanent reinstatement of a public road following the carrying out of roadworks; specify requirements in relation to the giving of security for satisfactory reinstatement of a public road following the carrying out of roadworks and set down requirements in relation to the control of traffic in the vicinity of roadworks. Failure to comply with a direction can lead to a minimum penalty of £50,000. The same legislative provisions give the the Minister reserve power to make regulations dealing with matters such as the giving of advance notice of roadworks; the specification of standards for the temporary or permanent reinstatement of roadworks and the specification of traffic control requirements relating to roadworks.

Following the enactment and implementation of the Bill, I propose to carry out a comprehensive review of the law governing road openings. We will be aware of the experience of local authorities who responded but the law is clearly in need of overhaul.

In terms of the roadworks carried out by local authorities, I fail to understand why in busy traffic or in congested areas in the city of Dublin, and elsewhere, it is not possible when working on a main route to stop in June or July at 4 o'clock in the evening to try to relieve traffic problems. In some instances that is done. I have mentioned local authorities only but the same principle could apply to all utilities. It is one thing to have an arrangement as to where a job is, when it may be done and what shall be done but the time it may take to carry out that work is another matter. The time should be shortened whenever possible, and in my view it is possible. I shall review this aspect.

Farmers, and others, do not have anything to fear in carrying out their normal operations. Once an operation becomes a nuisance — and, regrettably, we have instances of that — it has to be addressed. New penalties for infringements are being provided because the old penalties are outdated and do not act as a disincentive to nuisance.

With regard to the law and the question of public liability, I am trying to determine what other measures could be taken in that area. There are some claims which, due to new computer facilities and recent decisions by a court in Cork, present a new situation. However, improvements should be possible. I understand that there are some legal problems concerning accidents that may take place many years after a utility has carried out improvements on a road. It seems that the responsibility falls on the local authority. I should like to have a further opportunity to investigate these matters.

Amendment agreed to.

Question proposed: "That section 13, as amended, stand part of the Bill".

Mr. Kavanagh

I oppose this section for a reason that concerns many of us who are local authority members. I do not object, in principle, to the setting up of a National Roads Authority. There are many good and cogent arguments for that. However, in this Bill we are bringing into being an authority that is not an elected body and we will hand over many considerable responsibilities of local authorities to a non-elected organisation.

This is a section, taken in conjunction with the section setting up the authority, about which there is concern. The section provides that the maintenance and construction of all national and regional roads in an administrative county shall be a function of the council or county borough corporation of that county. One could accept that provision if that were the case. However, the explanatory memorandum states that the responsibility of county councils and county borough corporations for national roads is tempered by the provisions of Part III relating to the National Roads Authority. Section 13 provides that councils and corporations have certain responsibilities in relation to the maintenance and construction of roads, yet the section establishing the National Roads Authority provides that those functions can be changed by the Minister. Thus, in the future the Minister may by regulation take away even those powers set out in section 13. My party and I are concerned that while this legislation may outline the responsibilities of authorities those responsibilities may in the future be varied at the whim of the Minister.

I am not in favour of the part of the Bill that provides that certain decisions taken by local authorities or powers given to them will be subject to Part III relating to the National Roads Authority. It is important to indicate that we are not satisfied that the Bill can be used as a means of reducing the powers of local authorities to design and plan roads. Those powers are being handed over to the National Roads Authority. At some future date the powers relating to construction and maintenance may also be changed in accordance with Part III. I will oppose the selection for that reason.

Question put and declared carried —(Deputy Kavanagh dissenting.)

Chairman

The name of the Deputy dissenting will be recorded in the proceedings of the committee.