Skip to main content
Normal View

Special Committee on the Roads Bill, 1991 debate -
Wednesday, 29 Jul 1992

SECTION 47.

Amendments Nos. 136 and a136a are related and may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 136:

In page 38, subsection (2), line 39, after "shall" to insert ", within six months of its being submitted to him".

This amendment deals with section 47 under which the approval of a roadwork scheme is required of the Minister. I am concerned with the delays taking place in relation to proposals that are sent to the Minister's Department.

Such as?

Such as sanitary service schemes; phase 2 of the main drainage scheme in Enniscorthy, in particular, which has been on the Minister's desk since May 1991. Leaving that parochial point aside, a limit of six months within which the Minister must take a decision is not unreasonable. There is no specified time limit in section 47 (2) or in section 47 generally. Amendment No. a136a requests that the inspectors report be published within a month. This would bring about a more streamlined approach, when people would know where they stand and could get on with the job.

It is totally unrealistic to expect that all motorways, protected roads or busway schemes could be fully processed within six months as advocated in Deputy Yates, amendment No. 136. First, the scheme must be available for inspection for at least one month. Objectors must be given at least a further two weeks in which to submit objections to the Minister. Reasonable notice must be given of the public inquiry, usually at least two weeks. The inquiry may last only a day or last as long as nine days, as in the case of the proposed Southern Cross route, or longer, depending on the complexity of the issues and number of objections. A full transcript of evidence is prepared before the inspector prepares his report. In the Southern Cross case, for example, this ran to 1,500 pages. The inspector has to be given a reasonable time to consider the issues which will have arisen at the inquiry and to prepare a full and adequate report. The Minister has to have an adequate opportunity to consider the objections and the inspector's report, as he is required to do under the provisions of section 47.

Some of these schemes are very large and complex, and difficulties and unforeseen hitches can arise. A public local inquiry may be adjourned for some reason; for example, to seek further information, or to allow time to review issues which arise. All motorway schemes must be accompanied by an environmental impact statement. The environmental impact of the proposed project must be assessed by the Minister. He must allow time for submissions to be made on its contents. In short, to restrict the process to six months would not allow sufficient time for the consideration of all the issues involved in schemes of this magnitude, and would be a grave injustice to all those people affected by the scheme and who make objections and/or representations to the Minister. Therefore I request the Deputy to withdraw his amendment.

On the second amendment, No. a136a, the purpose of the inspector's report is to draw together all the evidence presented to the public local inquiry and to make a recommendation to the Minister as to the course of action he should pursue.

In section 47 the Minister is asked to decide whether to approve, modify or refuse to approve a motorway scheme, It has never been the practice to publish an inspector's report. Indeed, the only occasion they are released is when a court makes an order requiring disclosure. Where inspectors reports have been disclosed invariably they have been found to be fair and balanced documents objectively presenting the evidence to the Minister for his consideration. I see no reason people should be allowed a further period to comment on the inspectors recommendations.

The public inquiry will have provided ample opportunity to interested parties to state their case, to cross-examine local authority witnesses and to examine their own evidence. Inspectors always do everything they can to facilitate people in presenting their evidence. This may often require the inspector to cross-examine witnesses on all sides or to request that further information be provided. Also people will have been given on opportunity in the first place to make written submissions. These, together with a transcript of their oral evidence, will be available to the Minister when considering his decision. If I were to allow, say the local authority, to comment on the inspector's report, in fairness should I not also allow objectors to comment on the local authority's comments. Where would this circle of commentary end?

The advantage of the public inquiry is that all evidence is presented in an open forum. Witnesses are free to be challenged in cross-examination. Full opportunities are available to tease out all the aspects of the issues under consideration before the hearing comes to a close. Based on the evidence presented the inspector has to go away, prepare his report which, in my experience, invariably has been a model of objectivity.

At the end of the day the decision rests with the Minister. He must weigh the evidence. He is required, by law, to consider the objections made, the inspectors report and recommendations, and make up his mind. He can agree or disagree, but the inspector and the courts, have consistently refused to review a Minister's decision provided that it has been shown that he acted reasonably in reaching such decision. I would be very disappointed if I thought that one purpose of the amendment was to put pressure on the Minister of the day always to accept his inspectors recommendation or to have to explain or defend his reasons for disagreeing. That would be a retrograde step and would demean the Minister's democratic function.

With regard to sanitary services in Wexford and such areas and time limits, apart altogether from the fact that there has been a very substantial growth in the number of schemes prepared by local authorities, in some instances some very difficult technical problems to be overcome—nine times out of ten the reasons for long delays are quite obvious.

I take the Minister's point about six months being unrealistic. On a point of order: may I suggest, say, 18 months or a year on Report Stage? There should be some time limit on a decision to approve or reject a scheme. I appreciate that six months is too short a timescale. I withdraw my amendment.

In relation to amendment No 136a, the Minister's remarks bear no relation to his earlier unscripted comments in relation to transparency. That is the kindest thing I can say about it. I intend to press my amendment No. a136a.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No a136a:

In page 38, subsection (2), between lines 39 and 40, to insert the following:

"(a) publish the Inspectors report within a period of one month,".

Amendment put and declared lost.
Question proposed: "That section 47 stand part of the Bill."

Perhaps I might clarify two matters for Deputy Yates. In some cases the specified time limit is far too long in a great many cases, when the tendency will be to use up that time whereas it may not be anything like adequate for extremely complex and difficult cases. Second, in relation to the difference between my attitude towards transparency, I should say we are different from the United Kingdom in many ways in that there the inspectors report very often is the document which is published. It is he who takes the decision in the planning area. Here it is the Minister who does so. Very often that is the document which is published. He takes the decision in the planning areas; the Minister takes decisions in this context. As in the case of An Bord Pleanála and other boards, he is not obliged to take the decision 100 per cent in accordance with the inspector's report. That is the problem. If the inspector was taking the decision, I would have no problem. It is just that he or she is not. It forms part of the total consideration and is not upheld necessarily in all cases. It would place inspectors under very great pressure also. I would prefer to see them act independently. I am not saying that any of them might not act with the greatest integrity, but, in the world in which we live, we must take account of the pressures that may be exerted on them.

Question put and agreed to.
Sitting suspended at 1 p.m. and resumed at 2 p.m.
NEW SECTION.

Amendment No. 136a is in the name of the Minister. Amendments Nos. a137a to f137a, inclusive, are alternatives and amendments Nos. 137a and 137c are related. It is proposed to take amendments Nos. 136a, a137a to f137a, inclusive, 137a and 137c together.

I move amendment No. 136a:

In page 39, before section 48, to insert the following new section:

48.—(1) (a) A road authority shall prepare a statement of the likely effects on the environment (hereinafter referred to as an "environmental impact statement") of any proposed road development consisting of—

(i) the construction of a motorway,

(ii) the construction of a busway,

(iii) any prescribed type of proposed road development consisting of the construction of a proposed public road or the improvement of an existing public road.

(b) Where the Minister considers that any proposed road development (other than development to which paragraph (a) applies) consisting of the construction of a proposed public road or the improvement of an existing public road would be likely to have significant effects on the environment, he shall direct the road authority to prepare an environmental impact statement in respect of such proposed road development and the authority shall comply with such direction.

(c) Where a road authority considers that any proposed road development (other than development to which paragraph (a) applies) consisting of the construction of a proposed public road or the improvement of an existing public road would be likely to have significant effects on the environment, it shall inform the Minister in writing and where the Minister concurs with the road authority he shall give a direction to the road authority under paragraph (b).

(2) An environmental impact statement shall contain the following specified information:

(a) a description of the proposed road development, comprising information about the site, design, size, physical characteristics and land-use requirements of the development;

(b) the data necessary to identify and assess the main effects which the proposed road development is likely to have on the environment;

(c) a description of the likely significant effects, direct and indirect, on the environment of the proposed road development, explained by reference to its possible impact on—

(i) human beings, fauna and flora,

(ii) soil, water, air, climate and the landscape,

(iii) the inter-action between any of the matters referred to at paragraphs (i) and (ii),

(iv) material assets, and

(v) the cultural heritage;

(d) where significant adverse effects are identified with respect to any of the matters referred to in paragraph (c), a description of the measures envisaged in order to avoid, reduce and, if possible, remedy those effects;

(e) where appropriate, an outline of the main alternatives (if any) studied and an indication of the main reasons for choosing the proposed alternative, taking into account the environmental effects; and

(f) a summary in non-technical language.

(3) An environmental impact statement may include, by way of explanation or amplification of any of the specified information referred to in subsection (2), further information on any of the following matters:

(a) the estimated type and quantity of expected emissions resulting from the proposed road development when in operation;

(b) the likely significant direct and indirect effects (including secondary, cumulative, short, medium, and long term, permanent and temporary, positive and negative effects) on the environment of the development proposed which may result from—

(i) the use of natural resources,

(ii) the emission of pollutants, the creation of nuisances, and the elimination of waste;

(c) the forecasting methods used to assess any effects on the environment about which information is given under subparagraph (b);

(d) any difficulties, such as technical deficiencies or lack of knowledge, encountered in compiling any specified information.

The purpose of my amendments is to strengthen the provisions in the Bill governing environmental impact assessment and complies with the requirements of the relevant EC Directive. These two sections comply with the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Secondary Legislation by incorporating the provisions of European Communities regulations into primary legislation. The most important changes in the revised section 48 in amendment No. 136a are as follows. In section 48 (a) (b) the Minister will now be obliged to direct a road authority to prepare an environmental impact statement where he considers that a proposed road development would be likely to have significant effects on the environment. Previously he had a discretion but now he will not have any —"may" is being changed to "shall". I should add that the preparation of an environmental impact statement will be mandatory for certain projects — specified in subsection (1) (a) — motorways, busways and certain other major road projects. This ministerial power applies to projects other than these.

In the light of the new ministerial obligation, subsection (1) (c) is being amended to require a local authority to inform the Minister of any proposed project which they consider would be likely to have significant effects on the environment. Where the Minister agrees, he must use his powers under subsection (1) (b) and direct preparation of an EIS.

Section 48 (2) and (3) specifies the contents of an environmental impact statement. The items in subsection (2) are mandatory while those in subsection (3) are discretionary. The redraft is closer to the wording of the relevant EC Directive and of the general Irish regulations implementing that directive.

The most significant change is in paragraph (2) (e). An EIS will now have to outline the main alternatives studied where that is appropriate. Previously this provision spoke of only the main alternative road alignments. This could be particularly important in major urban areas, especially Dublin. An outline of the main alternatives could include not only possible alternative road alignments but alternatives to building the road at all, such as better traffic management.

Amendment No. 137 has now been incorporated into amendment No. 136a and I propose, with the agreement of the Committee, to withdraw the former.

Three changes are proposed in section 49. Amendment No. 137a is a drafting point. It requires the local authority to submit the environmental impact statement to the Minister, rather than a copy of it. This brings the wording into line with other provisions of the Bill and leaves the Minister the option to seek more than one copy.

Amendment No. 137c strengthens the provision regarding consultation with the Northern Ireland authorities, which is required under EC Directive. The directive requires consultation with another member state where a proposed development is likely to have significant effects on the environment in that member state or where the member state asks to be consulted. The revised subsection (3) (c) not only requires the local authority to send the prescribed authority in Northern Ireland a copy of the environmental impact statement, but also to notify them of their right to make written submissions on it to the Minister. Under subsection (5) the Minister has to consider any submission received. The prescribed authority is likely to be the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland.

A careful reading of my amendment No. 136a will show that it covers the points raised in the amendments subsequently put down by Deputy Yates. Amendments Nos. a137a and b137a are substantively included in the new subsection (2). The issue of considering alternatives raised in amendment c137a is now to be found in subsection (2) (e) which I have already mentioned. Amendments Nos. d137a and e137a are covered in my new subsection (3) word for word and I am pleased to have anticipated Deputy Yeats' proposals in this regard.

I see no reason for accepting amendment No f137a. In most cases the road authority will also be the planning authority and in any event the matters mentioned in the amendment will be taken into account in the EIS. Any planning authority will, of course, also be free to make representations to the Minister under section 49 and he will be obliged to consider them.

Finally I would like to move an oral amendment that in subsection (2) (c) (iii) the words in the second line "at paragraphs (i) and (ii)" should read "in subparagraphs (i) and (ii)".

Amendment amended, by leave, accordingly.

Section 48, as amended, is completely rewritten. I received representations from An Taisce in this regard and I am sure other Members have as well. I am happy to withdraw these amendments. If I receive subsequent representations I will be able to consider them before Report Stage.

Could the Minister tell us when an impact environmental statement becomes an assessment? In the section it is referred to as an assessment, but the Minister referred to it as a statement.

The environmental impact statement is carried out by the local authority and the environmental impact assesment is carried out by the Minister.

That is the basis of the assessment.

Of course.

When the Minister approves the statement it becomes an assessment.

I could also receive other submissions or objections.

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 137 and a137a to 137a, inclusive, not moved.

Acceptance of amendment No. 136a involves the deletion of section 48.

Section 48 deleted.

Top
Share