Amendment No. 64 is in the name of the Minister. Amendment No. 65 is an alternative and amendment No. 66 is consequential on amendment No. 65; all may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
SECTION 18.
I move amendment No. 64:
In page 18, subsection (1), lines 27 and 28, to delete "from time to time, at such intervals as the Minister may direct" and substitute ", at least once every five years,".
I put down a counter amendment to those proposed by Deputy Yates. This would require the National Roads Authority to prepare a plan for the development of national roads at least once every five years. This is a reasonable period for a medium term plan and would parallel the five year timeframe adopted for EC Structural Fund purposes. Subsection (4) of this section already obliges the National Roads Authority to annually review their plan.
I accept that five years is appropriate. Hopefully a plan will be prepared every five years. However, as the 1994-98 tranche is coming up, it probably will not work out that way. The plan should be a prelude to the EC negotiations. I withdraw amendments Nos. 65 and 66.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 65 and 66 not moved.
Amendments Nos. 69 and 70 are related and amendment No. 71 is consequential on amendment No. 70 and all may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 67:
In page 18, subsection (1), line 29, after "39 (2)" to insert "and having obtained the views of local authorities".
These amendments would give local authorities a say in the road plan which would be prepared by the National Roads Authority. That is proper because national roads do not have a life of their own. At very least, they are integrated with the roads which would be under the direct control of local authorities. When the Authority are preparing a draft plan for the construction and maintenance of national roads, they must have regard to the guidelines laid down by the Minister, but they should also obtain the views of the local authorities.
The Bill states that before submitting a draft plan to the Minister the National Roads Authority must publish in the newspapers that a draft plan has been prepared. They should also notify the local authorities that they are preparing a draft plan because in relation to their own road plans, they will need to know what the National Roads Authority propose and they should have an input.
The procedure I propose is normal. For example, in the making of other plans whether they are development plans, water quality plans or anything of that kind, there is a requirement in existing legislation that the authority making those plans notify other authorities who would be affected by them. If the National Roads Authority prepare a national roads plan, obviously, the roads authorities will have an interest and they should be notified.
My amendments provide explicitly for consultation with local authorities and Deputy Gilmore's amendment would oblige the National Roads Authority to consult with local authorities before preparing a draft plan. This will happen in practice. My amendments will ensure that local authorities are formally consulted on the draft plan before it is submitted to the Minister for approval and their views will be considered by the National Roads Authority.
In spite of what he says about me, I lean backwards to facilitate people like Deputy Gilmore, and I accept his amendment.
I am almost speechless. I thank the Minister.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 68:
In page 18, subsection (2), between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following:
"(b) When submitting a draft plan to the Minister the Authority shall provide information on all objections and representations received under subsection (3) and not withdrawn.".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 69 not moved.
I move amendment No. 70:
In page 19, subsection (3), between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following:
"(b) send a copy of the draft plan to each road authority assigned responsibility for national roads under section 13 and serve a notice on each such authority stating—
(i) that a draft plan has been prepared and that it is proposed to submit it to the Minister for his approval, and
(ii) what objections or representations may be made in writing to the Authority in relation to the draft plan before a specified date (which shall be not less than two weeks after the end of the period for inspection referred to in paragraph (a));".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 71:
In page 19, subsection (3) (b), line 6, to delete "paragraph (a) (iv)" and substitute "this subsection".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 72:
In page 19, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following subsection:
"(6) 60 per cent. of the construction of national roads contained in a plan approved under subsection (2) shall be completed by 1998 and the remaining construction shall be completed by 2010.".
The supposition behind the Bill is that there will be money to build these roads. The Association of National Road Users carried out a detailed study of expenditure from 1989 to 1993, of the money received from Europe. That study showed that while the amount of money spent on national roads had increased the net amount spent by the Exchequer during a five year period — prior to 1989 and the following years — had decreased by 19 per cent per annum. In other words, instead of building more and better roads with the extra Structural Funds the Government had substituted EC money to reduce their contribution. We should bring our roads up to European standard with the money we are getting from the EC.
In 1987, EC officials, and the Department of the Environment, agreed a national roads plan in which they outlined what required to be done to bring Ireland's roads up to European standard. It carried a price tag, in 1987 of £3 billion. It is reckoned that it will be implemented by the year 2010. I am suggesting, therefore, that 60 per cent of the construction works in that roads plan in 1987 be completed by 1998 with the next tranche of funding for the five year period 1994 to 1998. This would mean — I am glad this amendment was not ruled out of order on the grounds that it involved a charge on the Exchequer — that the Government would not be able to substitute EC money, that they would have to build the roads and would have to give a commitment, which the Minister's predecessor, Deputy Flynn, was reluctant to give, that our roads would be brought up to European standard. I am trying to set out a timetable for the NRA; if they are to complete the programme by the year 2010 60 per cent of the construction works should be completed by 1998.
However much I share the aspiration of Deputy Yates it would be unreasonable to turn it into a legal obligation. The amendment effectively preempts a significant amount of future Exchequer revenues and EC assistance. My Department's 1987-88 needs assessment identified long term investment requirements of more than £3 billion for the national road network. This amendment proposes that we set aside that money between now and the year 2010 no matter what our economic and social needs are, what economic or financial difficulties we might face, what else might befall us or what funding is available from the European Community. To my mind, that is more than unreasonable, it is reckless.
However, the Government are determined to complete the development of the national road network as quickly as possible but cannot agree to have their hands tied in the way suggested in this amendment. Our commitment has been demonstrated by the increases in State grants for national road improvements from £96.22 million in 1987 to £167.48 million in 1992. In the Operational Programme on Peripherality we set ourselves the target of completing the national primary investment programme within a 12 to 15 year period. We will do all we can to reach that target. Although some people may not agree I think the target is reasonable and attainable. It takes account of our likely capacity to fund the programme from Exchequer and EC sources and the capability of the construction industry to handle the work giving good value for money.
These arguments were made before. Deputy Yates knows as well as I do that this amendment does not mean anything. We should spend the maximum amount of resources; negotiate the best possible deal at EC level and make sure that the systems operate efficiently and that industry responds. We will set that target every year with ambition bearing in mind the resources that are available, competing demands and the other problems we face.
I will withdraw my amendment but will resubmit it on Report Stage. I do not want to put a legal obligation on the Exchequer. The amendment is not reckless. The £6 billion, and the extra resources that will be made available, should not be hijacked and used for other purposes. The principle of additionality was not adhered to fully in relation to the last and present tranche of funding and while the total amounts of money have increased the Exchequer contribution has not. I do not think that is fair. I am trying to ensure that the European taxpayer will not be cheated.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 18, as amended, agreed to.