Amendment No. 43, in the name of Deputy Yates, is deemed out of order as it involves a potential charge on the Revenue and amendment No. 44 is deemed out of order for the same reason. Amendment No. 45 is in the name of the Minister and amendments Nos. 46, 47 and 48 are alternatives. Amendments Nos. 49 and 50 are related and amendment No. 51 is consequential on amendment No. 50. The suggestion is that we take amendments Nos. 45 to 51, inclusive, together. Agreed.
SECTION 14.
I move amendment No. 45:
In page 15, subsection (1), lines 22 to 34, to delete paragraphs (a) and (b) and substitute the following:
"14.—(1) (a) Whenever it appears to the Authority that an agreement under section 59 of the Act of 1955 ought to be made between road authorities for the purpose of any of the functions of those authorities relating to national roads the Authority may request the road authorities to enter into an agreement in accordance with such terms and conditions as the Authority may specify.
(b) Where any road authority concerned refuses or fails to comply with a request under paragraph (a), the Authority may, after affording an opportunity to the road authorities to make representations to it in writing and considering any representations made, direct them to enter into an agreement in accordance with such terms and conditions as it may specify and the road authorities shall comply with any direction given by the Authority.".
The purpose of my amendment is to ensure that the National Roads Authority will first request road authorities to make agreements in relation to national roads under section 59 of the Local Government Act, 1955, or to enter into joint arrangements. It is only in the unlikely event that one or more road authorities refuse a request from the National Roads Authority that they will have the power to direct the road authorities to enter into an agreement or joint arrangements. These amendments reflect the emphasis which the Government place on co-operation between the National Roads Authority and local authorities in upgrading our national road network. An agreement under section 59 of the 1955 Act enables one local authority to carry out a function on behalf of another, for example, where a road project crosses a county boundary. Special arrangements allow local authorities to jointly carry out functions such as establishing a regional design service.
The amendments proposed by Deputy Gilmore would negate the whole purpose of this section. They would deny the National Roads Authority the power to direct the making of an agreement though, significantly, not the making of joint arrangements. Even the Minister would only have the power to request local authorities to make an agreement if the National Roads Authority asked them to act. There would be no power to specify what terms should be included in the agreement and the local authorities could revoke the agreement the following day, even if they agreed to the Minister's request. Why bother to have the power at all if it is to be so weak? My amendments represent a reasonable compromise.
The National Roads Authority will, initially, be able to ask local authorities to make agreements or joint arrangements only where they consider it is necessary. Only if they refuse to act will the National Roads Authority be able to give a direction, and then only after consulting the local authorities.
I urge the Committee to accept my proposals. I stress that section 59 agreements are very important in regard to roads. They permit road projects to be planned and implemented in the most efficient way possible and avoid having to artificially divide up schemes to take account of local authority boundaries. Under such an agreement one local authority carries out all work on a project even though it crosses the local authority boundaries. Therefore, it is important that the National Roads Authority should have a reserve power to insist on the making of agreements. If they did not, the only real alternative would be to take over the project and this should always be the last resort.
What is now proposed is a substantial re-writing of section 14, and I believe it is an improvement. Would this amendment get to the core of the problem, the relationship between the National Roads Authority and local authorities and deal with the points made by Deputy Kavanagh on the last section? The purpose of the Bill, and the underlying principle of it, is to establish a national executive or even a semi-State body to deliver in a streamlined way an improved national roads structure for our 6 per cent of national primary roads to ensure that there are no further layers of bureaucracy. We must have a strategic implementation of an improved roads structure plan where we will get better value for money and have more streamlined routes under the auspices of local authorities so as to ensure a prioritisation of routes. I hope there will be as much consultation, and agreement where possible, between local authorities. The only instance where local authorities should override the National Roads Authority is where a route is particularly sensitive to residents or local people in terms of CPOs. In such instances local authorities should have the final say in broad terms. In other words, that if the National Roads Authority wanted to build a motorway on Sandymount Strand and the local people said "no", then the locals views should prevail.
As regards other day-to-day issues, the National Roads Authority should be allowed to get on with the job. I support the thrust of section 14 which facilitates agreements between the local authority and the National Roads Authority. It is as fair a compromise as we will get. As a general principle, as this is a new departure, perhaps a year after this legislation is enacted or a year after the National Roads Autority are up and running, the Minister should review this legislation so that if there is a jackboot tactic being employed by the National Roads Authority against local authorities, there would be a mechanism to enable the Oireachtas re-examine the position. That is not the intention of the Bill. It seeks to facilitate the greater construction of roads commercially, taking the responsibility for this away from the Department and giving it to a new executive office. The amendments are worthy of support.
If the Minister had not intervened with his amendment it would have been necessary to appeal to him to do so. I welcome the Minister's amendment because as the Bill stood the National Roads Authority would have the right to direct local authorities to carry out work on national roads and that was the main problem with section 14. The Minister has gone some way to meet the objections of local authorities in general. That is my understanding of this amendment and I welcome it because I do not believe any national authority has the power to direct a local authority regarding its own area of responsibility. Local authorities have the combined knowledge and expertise of their administrative and professional staff who are in contact with the local population and their decisions should not be overruled by a direction from a national authority. The Minister is wise in acknowledging that that section was too undemocratic to be acceptable and that the power it sought to give to the National Roads Authority would have been far in excess of what was needed. I am glad to see more of a partnership and joint venture type of approach rather than some "big brother" directing people who have been given a mandate to carry out their functions on behalf of the population. I welcome the thrust of the Minister's amendments.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 46 to 49, inclusive, not moved.
I move amendment No. 50:
In page 16, subsection (3), lines 3 to 13, to delete paragraphs (b) and (c) and substitute the following:
"(b) Whenever it appears to the Authority that arrangements should be made by two or more road authorities for the joint discharge of any of their functions relating to national roads the Authority may request the road authorities to enter into arrangements in accordance with such terms and conditions as the Authority may specify.
(c) Where any road authority concerned refuses or fails to comply with a request under paragraph (b), the Authority may, after affording an opportunity to the road authorities to make representations to it in writing and considering any representations made, direct them to enter into arrangements in accordance with such terms and conditions as it may specify and the road authorities shall comply with any direction given by the Authority.".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 51:
In page 16, subsection (3) (d), line 14, after "paragraph (b)" to insert "or (c)".
Section 14, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 15.
We move to section 15 and amendment No. 52, in the names of Deputies Boylan and Gilmore. Amendment No. 53 is an alternative amendment and the suggestion is to take amendments Nos. 52 and 53 together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 52:
In page 17, lines 23 to 27, to delete subsection (1).
The proposed section 15 (1) is dictatorial to say the least and seems to be designed to upstage the local authorities and, indeed, the National Roads Authority. The provision is open to abuse in so far as the Minister — and when I say the Minister I am not talking about the present Minister or any particular Minister — at the behest of a group of people, at election time for example, could dictate to a local authority that a certain road be constructed. The Minister is given the power to issue directions notwithstanding the fact that local authorities, in conjunction with the elected representatives, draw up their roads programmes for a particular year, from the end of the previous year. The roads programme is drawn up to give priority to roads in need of immediate attention and it is generally adhered to. A direction to the authority from the Minister would cause much local annoyance. The provision is open to abuse, is not necessary and should be withdrawn.
Subsection (1) runs counter to the Minister's stated policy to give local authorities as much power and as many functions as possible. The power the Minister proposes to give himself under this provision is extraordinary. He could give a road authority a direction in relation to any of the functions of the road authority, whether concerning the maintenance or the construction of public roads. The road authority would have no discretion in the matter and would have to comply with the direction. Effectively, the power makes the Minister the "Super Roads Authority".
Why do we have the Roads Bill which establishes the National Roads Authority and gives powers to road authorities when the Minister can at any time override the legislation by issuing a direction to a road authority? This draconian power should be removed. It seems that elsewhere in the Bill the Minister is given more than ample scope to involve himself in the roads affairs of local authorities without being given the general and sweeping powers contained in section 15 (1).
I strongly agree with what has been said. This provision goes to the very core of the Minister's relationship with local authorities and the National Roads Authority. As far as I am concerned, the Minister cannot have it both ways. He cannot give directions right, left and centre to a road authority in relation to their functions and the maintenance and construction they must do unless he also provides the money. The Minister cannot be allowed to fire out instructions and then expect local authorities to pick up the tab. I would prefer if section 15 (1) was deleted.
Section 15 (2) deals with policy issues and the giving of guidelines to road authorities, which is a ministerial function. It seems that this provision asks us to sign a blank cheque. Certainly the provision is unacceptable if the Minister is not prepared to pick up the bill and provide adequate finance for any such direction.
I do not need to come to the Minister's aid in any way in this regard, but I do consider that if the Minister feels that in the national interest he has to give a direction he will at least be accountable to the Dáil. The proposal that the National Roads Authority give directions is only a slight improvement. I would be greatly concerned if the National Roads Authority were able to appeal to the Minister to use his power to direct local authorities and I hope that that is not the reason for including this provision. I await the Minister's explanation but I am inclined to oppose the section. I await the Minister's explanation on the necessity for the power.
It may be felt that this is a new power for a Minister but ministerial powers of direction are quite common not only in local government legislation but also in, to give a few other examples, the Local Government (Roads and Motorways) Act, 1974, the Postal and Telecommunications Services Act, the Industrial Development Act, 1986, the National Development Corporation Act, 1986, the Forestry Act, 1988, and the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act, 1989.
The power to issue directions is an important reserve power available to the Minister. It is rarely used but nonetheless vital. It is a primary statutory mechanism by which Ministers can ensure that public authorities comply with Government policy. Problems can arise from time to time which would necessitate ministerial intervention and in such circumstances Members opposite would be among the first to demand ministerial action. The power to issue guidelines will go only so far towards dealing with the issue. Guidelines are only advisory whereas a direction is mandatory and must be complied with.
The alternative amendment tabled by Deputy Yates proposes to qualify the power to issue directions and to make it subject to sufficient finance being made available to comply with a particular direction. There is nothing in the Bill that states that compliance with a direction must of necessity involve the spending of money. A direction could relate to a policy issue or could, indeed, require an authority not to do something. Even if the direction incidentally required a local authority to spend money in complying, that is not to say that the Minister should always, or indeed ever, have to provide the funds. Local authorities are not devoid of resources and it would be entirely unreasonable to preclude the Minister from issuing a direction unless he was prepared to pay the full costs.
The amendment also seems to assume that the Minister would issue a direction without due regard to the capacity of a local authority to finance compliance. A Minister who placed an unreasonable financial burden on a local authority in that way could well leave himself or herself open to successful action against him or her in the courts and would, of course, have to answer to this House as the ultimate democratic forum.
Notwithstanding the fact that such a provision is included in several other Acts and that it is proposed to include one in this legislation, between now and Report Stage I shall further consider the matter. In view of my commitment to devolve functions, and having regard to my overall responsibility, I would need to have some way of dealing with the matter. I shall give further consideration to it to determine whether I can manage with a provision which contains in the first instance the provisions of section 15 (2) and whether the matter can be approached any other way. Deputies will recognise that circumstances do arise that cannot always be predicted. The power given under section 15 (1) is not one that is either too much welcomed or very often used but it is necessary to keep the mechanism in place. It may be that I can achieve the same results by adopting the new and different approach I have in mind, namely, changing, retailoring or removing section 15 (1) from the Bill. I will seriously look at those three options.
Are Deputies Boylan and Gilmore pressing the amendment?
I accept the Minister's good intentions.
If amendment No. 52 is withdrawn but we vote against the the section as it now stands, you can resubmit the amendment if the Minister does not honour his commitment.
The very idea.
I do not think the Minister's reply, was adequate. How many county councils are going to sue the Minister for the Environment? I do not know if this ever happened. Did it? It is not something I would advise them to do. Since many of the directions given would not have a financial implication, my amendment would not arise. However, if you order county councils to maintain a road to asphalt standard, for example, and then expect them to pick up the tab, that would be unreasonable given the straitjacket they are in financially. While I would prefer if it was deleted from subsection (1), as it now stands it places enormous burdens in an arbitrary fashion on local authorities.
The Minister referred to individual Ministers giving directions to bodies appointed by a Minister; we are talking about bodies which are elected by the public. There is an important difference there. I would be happy to withdraw the amendment at this stage and wait for the Minister's reply on Report Stage.
I am grateful to Deputy Gilmore for trusting me but we have to appreciate that Deputy Yates is under some pressure. He had a long journey on Sunday and he is still recovering. By seven or eight o'clock tonight he will have improved.
I take it then that Deputy Boylan's amendment is withdrawn.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 53 not moved.
Question, "That section 15 stand part of the Bill," put and declared carried —(Deputies Yates and Boylan dissenting).
The names of Deputies dissenting will be recorded in the proceedings of the Committee.