Amendment No. 73, in the name of Deputy Yates, is deemed to be out of order as it is not relevant to the provisions of the Bill.
SECTION 19.
Amendment No. 73 not moved.
We now come to amendment No. 74 in the name of the Minister. Amendment No. 78 is consequential. Therefore, amendments Nos. 74 and 78 may be taken together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 74:
In page 19, subsection (1), between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following:
"(e) secure the provision of facilities for the parking of vehicles,".
Amendment No. 74 adds to the list of specific functions of the National Roads Authority enabling them to secure the provision of parking facilities on national roads. Amendment No. 78 is consequential and ensures that this function will normally be carried out by local authorities acting on behalf of the National Roads Authority. This amendment was sought by the interim National Roads Authority who argued that the provision of parking facilities was an integral part of their overall general function of providing a safe and efficient network of national roads.
I am in total agreement with this amendment but who will get the revenue, the local authority or the National Roads Authority?
We are talking here about the national road network, so the National Roads Authority will have the resources. As the local authority will perform this function, I am sure arrangements can be made between the two.
Will the Minister expand on the words, "secure the carrying out of construction or maintenance works"? While a national roads authority may act as a co-ordinator in relation to construction works many local authorities — Limerick County Council would be a classic example; they have overseen much activity on the main Limerick to Killarney road — rely on the involvement of local contractors in carrying out works. Local plant hire companies and so on could make a significant contribution and do a good job.
In relation to the National Roads Authority I am concerned that only a small number of contractors will get a slice of the action. I would like to hear the Minister's observations on section 19 (1) (d).
It seems, for the second time this afternoon, that Deputies misunderstand how this new system will work. The local authorities will act as agents for the National Roads Authority in this area and will in the main prepare designs and seek and approve tenders. No changes are envisaged in this regard.
Let me take up the Minister's last point. While I accept that the local authorities will act as agents for the National Roads Authority — local authority engineers will prepare the designs for construction works — I am not clear on who will make the critical decisions. Let me refer once again to my favourite road plan, the plan for the South-Eastern motorway. The cost of that motorway will to a large extent be determined by its route. It will run through a very scenic area and a number of options are being considered in relation to where it will join the main Dublin-Bray road. Who will decide on the line of the motorway? Will that decision be made by the local authority and, if so, will the National Roads Authority and the Minister accept their decision?
I presume the local authority have their own development plan for that area.
Correct.
The design of the new carriageway will be prepared by the local authority. Therefore, nothing has changed. They will have to make sure that the design of the roadway conforms to the development plan for that area.
Under this Bill the National Roads Authority will not have to comply with the development plan and will not have to apply for planning permission because they are exempt.
The power of the National Roads Authority to approve work that is in contravention of the development plan is no different to that of the local authority who can do the same at present when they see fit. The position will not change.
Is the Minister saying that the decision on the line of a motorway or national road, at the design stage, will be made by the local authority for the area concerned? Will the National Roads Authority permit the local authority to make that decision?
That is how I envisage it and that is the way it has been done up to now. With the exception of one or two areas we have not had any great problems with those arrangements. I do not see how the position will change.
With respect, under this Bill the position will change. Up to now the local authority made those decisions. Under this Bill that power will be transferred to the National Roads Authority. I understand from what the Minister said that the National Roads Authority, in turn, will then subcontract that work to the local authority. In relation to the line of the South-Eastern motorway, there could be a difference of up to two miles in the length of the motorway depending on where it will join the Bray-Shankill by-pass. The options are limited. It will have to cross the Brides Glen while Loughlinstown Hospital is in the way. Therefore, the length of the motorway will be determined by the route chosen. The local authority, for example, might have their own preference for environmental reasons and to meet local needs. I would like to know if the local authority will have the power to decide on the line. It is my understanding that, under the Bill, they will not, but the Minister is saying that they will.
Let us look at the developments that have taken place and put the matter in perspective. If I have a difficulty with a local authority on a matter of that kind and it comes down to a question of contravening the development plan, I have the power at present to direct the local authority. The National Roads Authority will have the same power but the construction work, the work on the designs and all the other matters to which Deputy Gilmore referred will be carried out by the local authority who will act as agent for the National Roads Authority. They have the expertise and will continue to do this work.
The point Deputy Gilmore is making is that if there is a difference of opinion between the National Roads Authority and a local authority as regards the optimum route the decision will go against the local authority. When this matter was raised previously the Minister referred to subsection (2) which states that the Authority shall, as far as possible, arrange that the functions be performed by the relevant authority but in any case where the authority consider that it would be more convenient, more expeditious, more effective or more economical that the function concerned should be performed by them, they may decide accordingly. Therefore, if there is a conflict the law states that the authority may over-ride the decision of the local authority.
It is my understanding that the Arklow by-pass which is now being planned and which will be ten kilometres long will in the main be a single carriageway. I do not want to pre-empt the decision of Wicklow County Council but it is the collective view of Wexford County Council that it should be a dual carriageway. However, the Department or the National Roads Authority may, because of the cost involved, say no, and decide that it should be a single carriageway.
That is one example; others include the Eastern or South-Eastern by-pass motorways. Section 19 gives the National Roads Authority the power which the Minister now has to override local authorities. Is that the case?
That is true but the position at present is that if that type of conflict arises I have the power to give a direction. Deputies seem to imply that if there is a conflict there is some easy way out. If there is a conflict there is a problem and somebody must try to resolve it. Nobody will have the right to ride roughshod over anybody. One must have regard for planning laws, public amenities, public consideration and the environmental assessment, but in the final analysis somebody must decide what to do. Very often in public life there is the belief that when a real conflict or problem arises something will happen to take it away. The simple fact is that I hold those powers at present. They will be transferred to the National Roads Authority, but they will not be in a position, no more than I was, to ride roughshod over any community. If such a problem arises we must find a solution, we cannot postpone dealing with it. If Deputy Yates wants us to adopt his original proposal to get 60 per cent of the roads in order in the timescale he outlined, we must follow this line. The problem will be dealt with much more quickly in this manner.
The solution is for the Minister to retain certain powers so that there will be some democratic accountability where such a conflict arises.
(Interruptions.)
Deputy Kavanagh is trying to row the boat exclusively for the local authorities. This is a core issue and it is worth discussing. Where there is an established conflict — I thought this would arise in relation to the CPOs — the Minister should be the final arbiter because at least he can be asked questions in the Dáil on such a sensitive issue. The buck ultimately must stop with the Minister in regard to resolving the conflict.
Are we discussing the section?
We are on amendment No. 74, but we are discussing the section, albeit prematurely.
I do not want to take away from what has been an interesting discussion.
This is very interesting because we already dealt with amendment No. 52 to section 15, and Deputies Boylan, Gilmore and Yates have put this unfortunate Minister under enormous——
That is a separate issue.
We are talking about ministerial power to intervene, to do something and the Deputy wanted to take such power away from me; now he wants to give it back to me.
I would like to leave the power where the Minister said publicly he would like to leave it, at local level. I appreciate that we have extended the discussion on amendment No. 74 somewhat, but I promise we will not repeat it at a later stage.
I wish to make one or two points on this critical issue. On Second Stage I questioned the power the National Roads Authority are being given. The National Roads Authority will be a non-elected body neither accountable to the local authorities or the Dáil. It is not simply a question of giving to a body some kind of a quasi judicial function to arbitrate between the conflicting interests that might arise between, say, a local community and a local authority with regard to road plans. This body will also have responsibility for funding, drawing up road plans and so on. They will have an interest of their own in the decisions they make. This is undemocratic because the National Roads Authority will not have to comply with a development plan. Dublin County Council are currently reviewing the maps of the development plan of the south eastern motorway. All we have been able to do is to say that at some stage there will be a motorway between two points. Realistically the county council are not in a position to say over whose land the motorway will run.
Why?
First, because the engineering or environmental studies have not been carried out and, second, as I understand from this legislation, the National Roads Authority will make that decision. I would be delighted if the Minister could put on the record that the decision on the line, design, junctions and so on of the South-Eastern motorway will be made by Dublin County Council. If the Minister can tell me that I would be very happy because then we would be in a position to weigh up all the factors but that is not what I understand from this Bill. I understand this Bill to mean that the National Roads Authority will make the critical decisions which will be passed back to the local authority for implementation.
I would be very sad if I thought local authority reaction to this Bill was a slackening of their efforts to improve the national road network.
There has been no slackening, we have been looking for this Bill for a long time.
The local authority, the local elected members and the officials will be working on the line of that route in their development plan. They will take account of all views in that context and proceed from there. I would be disappointed to hear that the local authority are reluctant to say exactly where the route should go because the basis for my giving them more powers is to get a response, not to funk an issue. I take it that the local authority would carefully consider the design and preparation of that scheme in conjunction with their development plan.
If a conflict or a problem arises somebody must resolve it. Irrespective of whether that is the National Roads Authority, the local authority or myself, consideration must be given to local views, the environmental impact assessment, the county development plan, normal planning procedures and so on. Since I became Minister for the Environment very few problems have arisen in that regard. Obviously there will be some, but they should not be a cause for major concern. Local authorities have done very well in road development, but they can improve. The teams which operate in some local authorities are so good that they should be used on an agency basis by local authorities and by the National Roads Authority. We should improve our ability to respond to such problems. But there is no getting away from it — if we have a problem, if we have a bottleneck somebody must resolve it. The National Roads Authority will do it, but they cannot do so without taking into account the views and considerations I have outlined. They are not going to ride roughshod over anybody. They have to respond to public opinion. They have to be responsive to the political, social, economic and other questions. That is the way we shall proceed. We are not going to approach this now on the basis that if we have a problem, we are not going to resolve it or, alternatively, a local authority, because there is a sensitive question will put themselves in a position to funk the preparatory work they are obliged to undertake under their development plan. I would be very sorry to learn that that was the position in the case of any local authority.
Is there not a contradiction in terms in relation to the setting up of this National Roads Authority inasmuch as I understood they were to be responsible for national primary and secondary roads, thereby relieving local authorities of that responsibility? Local authorities will not have the engineering and other staff required to develop a route such as Deputy Gilmore described. Indeed, in Cavan we will be involving ourselves in a great portion of the county in the nine mile by-pass from Meath, the planning work for which has been held up for ten years. The exact route has not yet been decided and, as I understand it, Cavan County Council will not be involved. There are many complaints at present about there being many engineering staff but insufficient workers on the ground. Finances are very tight. If we are to be relieved of responsibility for this national route people will ask: what do you require these engineers for; is it not the National Roads Authority who are responsible for the road and if so they should design it?
There is a massive staffing requirement with local authorities. What we want to achieve is that the resources available be deployed in a streamlined way to undertake this task more efficiently. That does not mean that one has to build up one massive agency, or take the resources from a local authority that may be required for other purposes. They can continue to carry out their functions as a local authority and act as agents for this work. I do not accept that there are not sufficient local authority engineers to do that. I hope the Deputy from the Cavan/Monaghan constituency is not telling me that there are not sufficient engineers in local authorities today.
I want to revert to the Minister's reply to Deputy Gilmore. I too am anxious that we make progress. The Minister said he is not aware of any difficulties arising in the past. As far as I am aware, as transport spokesman for my party, the biggest issue in the Dublin local elections last year was where the Government stood on the Dublin Eastern by-pass. It was a huge political issue. I know that political documents were produced by four parties on that issue. Therefore, the Minister should not be surprised if there is major controversy about that.
I have a very simple solution to that.
While the Minister contends that the National Roads Authority would be sensitive to public opinion the fact is they can ride roughshod over that opinion if they want. In other words, port and transport representatives have absolute bona fide entitlement to have a point of view. They could well say: "to heck with local objections, this is a national priority" and go ahead. There is a difference between streamlining, taking what is in the Department into an executive agency, removing much of the Civil Service bureaucracy, bringing together the best within local authorities into an NRA and achieving uniformity and jackbooting through a route that people might not want. I do not think this issue can be resolved by this section, but it must be resolved in some way. Perhaps it can be resolved within a period of revision of the Bill after implementation.
I envisage the mother and father of a row down the road — when local authorities will be overrun. The Minister will say: "it has nothing to do with me" and the NRA will not give a tuppenny damn because they will not be hurt.
On the question of acquisition of routes, route alignments or selection more thought is needed. The Dublin Eastern by-pass was a classic example of the upshot of a decision by a majority of elected-councillors whose single, common denominator was against the Eastern by-pass. It was the "green" issue in Dublin. Some councillors who never campaigned for the Green Party were in America on holiday because they were opposed to the Eastern by-pass. It is a political issue. I do not think it would be considered acceptable if this committee delegated our role. I am not saying I have all the answers. Perhaps the Minister should consider some role for himself in his democratically-accountable position, unlike that of the National Roads Authority.
Let me put the Minister right. I do not want him to leave here with a wrong impression. I want to assure him that Dublin County Council are more than anxious to have the South-Eastern motorway constructed, to have the ring around Dublin completed. Indeed, we have been seeking to achieve that goal for some time. It might assist everybody if the Minister addressed this question: if, when the review of the development plan of Dublin County Council is being completed — let us say six to nine months from now — the engineering, environmental studies and so on should be prepared by then — Dublin County Council take a decision to specify a route for the South-Eastern motorway in that plan in the light of environmental, local, social considerations and so on, will the National Roads Authority, and the Minister, accept that route, or will it be changed subsequently.
I endeavoured to answer this question one hour ago. What happens at present? When a local authority set out to design a route they are in constant consultation with the Department of the Environment about the route. Ultimately it is decided by the local authority, but it has not been brought to that stage without bringing to bear all of the usual considerations between senior executive engineers of the local authority and the technical services officials of my Department. That is quite normal. In fact, we advise in respect of planning and so on a process of consultation prior to getting all of the really serious work done. That is an important element in making that decision in the final analysis. That is the way it has worked to date and is the way it should continue.
Deputy Gilmore seems to be endeavouring to avoid circumstances in which a conflict may arise between the local authority, the NRA or myself and the local community. Regrettably, no matter how we try to avoid it, circumstances will arise in which the overriding national considerations will be somewhat different from those a local community might perceive as their main consideration. In the normal course I will endeavour to avoid it but there is no getting away from it. In such circumstances the matter must be resolved.
If the Minister does not like it, he will not accept it.
No. I have already indicated that the process of going that route is by consultation, bringing all the expertise available at local and national level in the Department of the Environment to bear on getting it right from the beginning, and that is the way it will develop in the future. However, in the final analysis, you and I know there will be conflicts in certain areas and they have to be resolved some way.
And at the end of the day the National Roads Authority make the decision.
The Deputy is trying to have the best of all worlds. I am trying to live with reality.
I want to know what the legislation provides.
The Minister has answered that very clearly.
That is correct.
Amendment No. 74 is a quaintly worded provision. It would seem to apply, for example, to the erection of traffic signs, etc. The amendment says: "secure the provision of facilities . . . .". Is the Minister saying he will allow the private sector to build car parks along national primary or secondary routes? Is that why these words are being inserted in that it needs to "secure the provision of", rather than "prepare plans for" or something like that, because it is different to the way that the functions of the authority are set out?
No.
When I see this inserted in a different way and I know that car parking is a very lucrative business, particularly in Britain where it is in the hands of the private sector, road building and so on should be left to the local authorities and the Department of the Environment, where money could be paid by a local authority for the provision of car parking.
I have made it clear on a number of occasions that I want to see the local authority or enterprise units within the local authority doing what they think is best for their area, and if they are into a commercial consideration for gain in the normal competitive way, that is permitted.
This amendment proposes to "secure the provision of facilities for the parking of vehicles". Could the functions not have been outlined in the same way as in an earlier section?
Do not be suspicious because it does not enhance the Deputy's very pleasant personality.
I did not survive in this business for 24 years without being suspicious.
Section 19 (1) (d) states:
secure the carrying out of construction or maintenance works, or the provision of traffic signs,.
We use the same type of language there and what we are saying is that you either do it yourself or get a contractor to do it; the amendment is not different from the wording in other sections. There is nothing sinister in this.
We are talking about the functions of the Authority and I suggest that a better wording would be what was done with the traffic signs — prepare or arrange for the preparation of schemes for the provision of parking facilities at the roadside. Parking is a far bigger issue than erecting a traffic sign.
I do not know what I can do to help the Deputy.
The Minister can do as I suggest — insert the same wording as at paragraph (c).
I gave the Deputy paragraph (d); what is wrong with that?
The Minister has given me half and I want him to give me the other half. Perhaps he would consider doing that on Report Stage.
Only because I am succumbing to pressure without having any break. We will consider it.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 75 not moved.
Amendments Nos. 76 and 77 are related and will be taken together.
I move amendment No. 76:
In page 198, subsection (1), to delete lines 29 and 30 and substitute the following:
"(g) carry out, arrange to have carried out or assist the carrying out of, training, research or testing activities in relation to any of its functions.".
In response to Deputy Yates's amendment, I put down a counter amendment taking on board his suggestions in relation to training and testing activities. I do not propose to give the National Roads Authority an explicit role in relation to road safety as this would cut across the activities of the National Safety Council which has the expertise in this area. The National Roads Authority will, of course, be obliged to take account of the physical aspects of road safety in the planning and implementation of the national road development programme. Indeed, there is an explicit obligation on them to do so since they have the general duty under section 17 to secure the provision of a safe and efficient network of national roads.
I do not propose to impose an obligation on the National Roads Authority to harmonise road markings with those in other EC member states for three good reasons, first, there are no harmonised standards and if they were introduced, we would be obliged to comply with them; second, road markings are prescribed by the Minister under the Road Traffic Acts and only those prescribed types of markings may be used; finally, section 19 (1) (c) already empowers the National Roads Authority to prepare schemes for traffic signs, which term includes road markings. The purpose of this provision was to enable the National Roads Authority to achieve a harmonised and coherent approach to the sign-posting and marking of our national roads.
While much good work has been done, the present situation is far from perfect. This power will enable the National Roads Authority to tackle this task in a co-ordinated and rational way. I have gone a long way to meet the points in Deputy Yates's amendment and I hope he will agree to accept my proposal and withdraw his own.
I ask that particular attention be given to training local authority staff.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 77 not moved.
I move amendment No. 78:
In page 19, subsection (2), line 32, to delete "(d)" and substitute "(e)".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 79 and 80 are related and may be taken together.
I move amendment No. 79:
In page 19, between lines 39 and 40, to insert the following subsection:
"(4) No action or other proceedings shall lie or be maintainable against—
(a) the Authority,
(b) a committee performing functions delegated to it by the Authority,
(c) a road authority performing functions on behalf of the Authority,
(d) a body providing services to the Authority,
for the recovery of damages in respect of any injury to persons, damage to property or other loss alleged to have been caused or contributed to by a failure of the Authority to perform or to comply with any of the functions conferred on it.".
Amendment No. 79 provides that the National Roads Authority will be immune from any legal proceedings for the recovery of damages arising from a failure by it to perform its functions. It does not give the Authority immunity against negligent performance of its functions. Similar immunity is granted to a committee delegated functions by the Authority, a road authority carrying out functions on behalf of the Authority or any other public authority or the Minister when providing services to the Authority under section 32.
The general duty of the National Roads Authority under section 17 to secure a safe and efficient network of national roads is very broad. If the immunity from legal action provided in this amendment were not included, it would leave the Authority or bodies acting on its behalf exposed to a succession of law suits which would be damaging not only financially but could also adversely affect the credibility and standing of the agency and other bodies involved.
The task of the National Roads Authority to provide a high quality national roads network will necessarily take time. It will have to be phased over a period and priorities will have to be adopted. It is important that it be able to determine its programme and decide investment priorities on an objective, socioeconomic basis without having to look over its shoulder and worry about the prospect of litigation. This protection is not new. There is a similar provision in the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act, 1989, and in the Environmental Protection Agency Act.
Subsection (4) which Deputy Gilmore's amendment opposes, applies the non-feasance immunity, already available to local authorities, to the National Roads Authority. Local authorities are at present liable for damages in respect of misfeasance where they negligently undertake work on a public road. They are not, however, liable in espect of nonfeasance where they fail to maintain a road or to maintain it adequately.
Section 60 of the Civil Liability Act, 1961, provided for the abolition of the immunity in respect of nonfeasance. However, this section only comes into force when an order has been made by the Government. The Government have considered the matter and have decided that section 60 should not be brought into operation at present because our road network is not yet sufficiently developed to justify the imposition of the additional obligation on road authorities. If section 60 were brought into force it would place an additional financial burden on local authorities in defending and meeting claims for damages for nonfeasance. This would divert resources from road development and simply result in a further deterioration in road conditions. The question of bringing this section into force will, of course, be kept under review.
I appreciate the distinction the Minister has drawn where he makes it clear that the Authority can still be pursued legally for negligence but not for failure to perform or comply with the provisions conferred on it. However, there is an additional issue that has to be addressed and that is the question of accountability because we are establishing a National Roads Authority which will not be directly accountable to the public. We are now in the position where there will be no accountability and, at the same time, there will be no recourse through the courts in relation to the failure of the National Roads Authority to perform any of its functions. This leaves the National Roads Authority in a very powerful position in that it will only be accountable to the Minister, unlike other authorities established by statute. The National Roads Authority will have little public accountability either through an elected body or the courts.
I do not like the notion that seems to have emerged in the debate that the National Roads Authority or any other statutory authority will be able to ride roughshod or will not have political accountability. Anyone who has held the office of Minister knows that when anything goes wrong, the Minister is held accountable. If a Deputy feels that a Minister has made a wrong decision, he can table a motion or a question in the House. Ministers cannot live in isolation from what is going on around them.
Second, we had an argument earlier where I sought to retain a provision which would enable a direction to be given if it were necessary and Deputy Gilmore opposed that. A Minister may want to intervene for a variety of reasons; he could intervene to direct an authority not to do something. Let us keep this in perspective.
I do not propose to pursue this amendment because of what the Minister said about negligence. In relation to his last point on accountability, would he give an undertaking that he will answer in the House questions concerning the National Roads Authority when it is established and the Bill is passed?
Deputy Gilmore can be satisfied that as far as my responsibility is concerned, I will be politically accountable.
As far as your responsibility is concerned.
The Deputy will be aware that bodies like CIE are not the responsibility of the Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications. The IDA is not the responsibility of the Minister for Industry and Commerce.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 80 not moved.
I move amendment No. 81:
In page 20, subsection (5), line 1, after "shall" to insert "not".
I consider this to be a critical amendment because we have had a great deal of discussion about the accountability of the National Roads Authority, and the Minister assured us that, although the Bill would change everything, nothing would really change and everything would be done as heretofore. Up to now the local authorities were also the planning authorities and there was a convergence between the planning and roads functions of local authorities. This subsection would mean that development work carried out by the National Roads Authority, by a body acting on behalf of the National Roads Authority, would be exempt and the National Roads Authority would not have to apply for planning permission. That should not be. If the planning, designing and construction of roads is now being given to a State appointed body, a body which is not elected which is not accountable through an elected body and for which the Minister will not be obliged to answer questions in the House, it should be a requirement that it must apply for planning permission and that road development by the National Roads Authority would not be on exempted development. That is a minimal safeguard for the public.
If, for example, one local authority wants to carry out works or development in another local authority's administrative area, or if a public body wants to carry out works in a particular area, it must apply for planning permission. Road development is a major issue and, as a minimum, the National Roads Authority should be required to apply for planning permission for this type of work.
There is an issue of substance here. In earlier replies the Minister implied that the usual planning Acts and county development plans would apply but it appears there is an exemption being allowed in this amendment. It is probably similar to what exists at present. When a local authority builds a house it is not required to get planning permission. The Minister said an EIA would have to be carried out but if it is an exempt development, would that still apply? The days of blanket exeptions are fast running out and we should not add them on willy-nilly. Against that one could have people applying to An Bord Pleanála and frustrating the process for a long time. A balance must be maintained but there is an issue of substance here. I ask the Minister to consider this matter before Report Stage.
I made the point on section 13 that the responsibility for the maintenance and construction of our national regional roads primarily rests with the local authorities. I wonder why this amendment was inserted at this stage. It refers to construction or maintenance of national roads as exempt developments.
Subsection (5) provides that roadworks undertaken by the National Roads Authority will not require planning permission. As Deputy Yates said, that puts the National Roads Authority on the same footing as local authorities carrying out similar developments. It would be invidious to require the National Roads Authority to obtain planning permission for works which, if carried out by the local authority, would not require planning permission.
There are ample safeguards built into the Bill. The National Roads Authority has to act, as far as possible, in accordance with its own development plan approved by the Minister and prepared with an input from local authorities. In carrying out their functions the National Roads Authority under section 22 must consider the proper planning and development of an area in which road development is planned, the environmental effects of planned road development, and have regard to the provisions of any special amenity area order. The National Roads Authority cannot override a local authority development plan without going through a consultative process akin to that for a material contravention of its development plan by a local authority. Since the National Roads Authority will be acting in lieu of local authorities and in view of the substantial checks and balance on their activities, I have to oppose this amendment.
The Bill makes it clear that the normal practice will be for local authorities to act on behalf of the National Roads Authority. It will only be in exceptional cases that the National Roads Authority will carry out road works. Questions have been raised about planning permission but, at present, the local authority is not required to obtain planning permission for its development. The local authority will continue in the main to carry out those functions. If they apply for planning permission they must go through the same process as that which obtained up to now. Surely the expertise available in local authorities in all these areas is able to take account of such matters? They will hardly apply to themselves for planning permission for a development in their own area. The same provisions will apply as obtained up to now for local authorities. If that is conceded, the local authority would then be applying to themselves for planning permission for developments.
A similar argument may be made by parties who oppose a development. They may argue that the local authority are not in a position, or should not be allowed, to make a decision in their own area and somebody else should decide but that would result in appeals being lodged. We are trying to adopt a sensible, efficient and streamlined approach bearing in mind the experience local authorities have in such matters. If there are objections to a development plan, those opposing it must have an opportunity to raise and submit their objections. All the checks and balances are in place. Perhaps this amendment was tabled because of the belief that the National Roads Authority will carry out the work. The fact is that in the great majority of cases it will be the local authority, as an agent for the National Roads Authority, who will carry out the work.
The Minister has more or less answered a question I asked some time ago in regard to objections that may be made at local level to a development plan being infringed by the building of a road in a particular way and the National Roads Authority saying that the way they want it and that they are exempt from any action being taken against them. Under this provision the direction of the National Roads Authority will override any objection by the local authority. As the Minister stressed, it could be referred to the local authority if this power was not in place because this exemption does not apply to them and they do not have to worry about planning objections. Directions will be issued by the National Roads Authority to the local authority to build roads as they wish, not as the local authority want. I am concerned that a conflict will arise if such powers are written into the Bill.
The Minister is not correct in stating that the procedure for getting around a development plan is the same as a material contravention of a development plan as we know it. The Bill provides that if the National Roads Authority wish to carry out a development which does not comply with a development plan, they may publish a notice in the newspapers, receive objections, consider them and then make the decision. It is the National Roads Authority who will make the decision. In regard to a normal material contravention of a development plan, the elected members of a local authority make the decision, which is an inherently more democratic method.
The agent carrying out the works for the National Roads Authority may be the local authority. In such case they would be acting on behalf of the National Roads Authority. That is different to what has applied heretofore. In any event a national road development is a major development. There are no reasons which justify the exemption of a major development from the normal planning process, from being subject to normal examinations which follow the submission of a planning application and ultimately, if necessary, appeal to An Bord Pleanála. I do not expect that any unnecessary delay would be involved in such an appeal, first, because the Minister has already dealt with that in the recent Planning Bill which limits the period within which an appeal can be heard and second, because the lead-in time for a major road development of four to six months — the time a planning application would take even with an appeal — is not exceptional.
This is a crucial amendment and I would like to have it debated publicly. I promise not to do this too often but on this occasion I intend to reserve my thunder for a more public forum. Therefore, I withdraw my amendment.
It is almost impossible to envisage the type of project Deputy Gilmore has in mind without an environmental impact statement. The facility for the examination process to produce the best possible result will be enhanced by the provisions of the Bill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 82:
In page 20, subsection (6) (a), line 9, after "purpose," to insert "provided that any such land will be acquired at no greater cost than the value of land as valued by the Valuation Office".
This amendment is to ensure that too high a price is not paid for land. At the time of tabling the amendment the Telecom Éireann head office site was in the news. It is wrong that the taxpayer — be it the European or the Irish taxpayer — would be held to ransom and have to pay too high a price for land because they had to acquire it. People who have property and who may lose that property through no fault of their own, even though they do not want to relinquish it, should be properly compensated. A fair valuation should be carried out and the Valuation Office is the statutory authority to do that. I would not like to see a situation develop whereby members of the National Roads Authority would have roads built on their own land resulting in a potential scandal. This is an issue of public concern. I ask the Minister to accept this amendment.
That could not happen in this country; the Deputy must be thinking of Paraguay or somewhere similar.
I appreciate the concerns which led the Deputy to propose this amendment but I am not prepared to accept it as it carries an implication that the Authority might act in a less than honest manner in relation to land acquisition. Whatever our recent experiences, it would be unwise to start from a premise which seems to suggest that we do not trust the Authority to do their job fairly and honestly.
Second, there is an implied assumption that a willing seller would be prepared to sell at the values set by the Valuation Office. Nobody doubts the expertise of that Office, but it must be acknowledged that land valuation is not an exact science. It is an undoubted professional skill but, as we all know, even doctors differ. It is my view that it would be unreasonable to deny the Authority the power to acquire land required for a particular project solely because they proposed to pay more than the Valuation Office's assesment. In these circumstances. I would, of course, expect the Authority to act reasonably, to take full account of the expert opinion of the Valuation Office's assessment and seek independent and expert valuation advice of their own.
The circumstances in which the NRA will acquire land are likely to be rare. As a general rule the NRA will act through local authorities and they would usually acquire land for particular projects. The only other circumstance in which the NRA would have to acquire land is in the event of a local authority not complying with a direction. I do not expect this eventuality to arise very often, if at all. If the NRA are put in a position where they have to acquire land, the most likely mechanism would be by compulsory purchase order or a scheme under Part IV of this Bill. This is often the only way in which it is possible to acquire the land and sometimes the most convenient and expeditious way. The use of compulsory purchase orders or motorway scheme powers would, of course, mean access to arbitration to determine the price of the land involved.
Finally, there are safeguards in place. The NRA will be subject to audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Minister also has powers of direction, if I continue to be in a position to direct.
In any fair and sensible approach to this matter, Deputy Yates will realise that restricting it in that way has an unfair imputation and it is not basically realistic. I am sure the Deputy has considerable experience in his constituency of market forces, how various projects are developed, and how the purchase of land can vary from time to time for sound and good reasons. The important factor is to ensure that all this is done on a reasonable, fair and transparent basis, that it is subject to all audit considerations and fits neatly into a pattern of expediting development as much as possible.
All that is fine and it is true that the Valuation Office should not be the final arbiter of the value of any property, but we live in a small country and somebody knows somebody whose land the National Authority want to untilise. I do not take the benign view that it could never happen that some members of an authority might act improperly. However, unfortunately, I do not accept the Minister's view. What happened in regard to Carysfort, Talmino and Telecom Éireann should mean that we have healthy scepticism and cynicism.
I am prepared to withdraw this amendment, but I ask the Minister to put down an amendment on Report Stage to ensure that the NRA would have to get an independent valuation of land acquired other than by a compulsory purchase order. I accept that a compulsory purchase order provides some protection, but we should provide a fail safe measure by way of an independent valuation because this was a grey area in regard to Carysfort. I am not a member of the Committee of Public Accounts but I am sure if members of that Committee were here they would request something along those lines. This would guard against some cavalier Opposition Deputy making allegations that would be totally unfounded or unfair.
That is not an unreasonable request and I will see to what extent I can respond to it.
In relation to Carysfort, I would like to assure Deputy Yates that the Carysfort Avenue widening scheme has been completed. Fortunately, Dún Laoghaire Corporation bought the land while the nuns still owned it and before the State decided it was worth two and a half times what the valuation officer thought.
I thank Deputy Gilmore for that clarification.
I thank the Chairman for allowing us to play on and off the field this afternoon.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 83:
In page 20, subsection (8), to delete lines 30 and 31.
This is one of these omnibus powers the Minister is keeping to himself. Lines 30 and 31 state "including the provision for the application, modification or adaptation of any enactment". In other words, the Minister could make an order to enable subsection (6) to come into effect which would enable him to change any Act. The Minister seems to be giving himself extraordinarily wide powers and I have tabled the amendment to question that.
This amendment proposes the giving of power to the Minister to modify or adapt existing enactments. It might, therefore, be helpful to understand the purpose of these provisions. In certain defined circumstances the NRA will have a reserved power to perform a function without going through a local authority — under section 19 (2) where the NRA consider that it would be more convenient, expeditious, effective or economical to do so and under section 20 (5) where a local authority do not comply with a direction. Section 19 (6) gives the NRA the necessary powers to carry out the function, including the power to acquire land while subsection (8) empowers the Minister to make provision by order to give full effect to the NRA power including the modifying of existing Acts.
Since the NRA are given the reserved power to carry out certain functions, it follows that the logical thing to do is to ensure that the NRA can effectively use that power. This is the reason for the provision allowing for the adaptation of Acts. Only time will tell what, if any, local authority functions the NRA will carry out, what powers they may need and what, if any, of the myriad of local government Acts may need to be adapted to allow the NRA to work effectively. By removing this adaptation power, Deputy Gilmore's amendment would seriously hinder the effectiveness of the NRA reserved powers. There is no sinister intent behind this power since it just provides that the existing legal provisions used by road authorities will be available to the National Roads Authority where that becomes necessary.
I hope Deputy Gilmore will accept that this is largely a technical power which has been made available in other legislation in the past, such as the Environmental Protection Agency Act, the Transport Reorganisation of Córas Iompair Éireann Act, 1986, the Postal Telecommunications Services Act, 1983, the Forestry Act, 1988, and so on.
We have been over the issues of principle ad nauseam today, so I will press the amendment to a vote.
Amendment put and declared lost —(Deputies Timmins, Boylan, Yates, Gilmore and Kavanagh dissenting).
The names of the Deputies dissenting will be recorded in the proceedings of the Committee.
Section 19, as amended, agreed to.