Amendment No. 144a is in the name of Deputy Gilmore. Amendments Nos. 144a, 148a and 148b form a composite proposal and, therefore, may be taken together.
SECTION 54.
I move amendment No. 144a:
In page 46, lines 28 and 29, to delete paragraphs (a) and (b), and substitute "in the case of National Regional and local roads the elected members of the local authority in whose administering area, the road is located;".
One of the things that this Bill does is to transfer to the National Roads Authority the power to make tolls or to declare a road to be a toll road which is a power currently held as a reserved function by the local authorities. In these amendments I am seeking to leave the power with elected members of local authorities to declare a road to be a toll road. Last year we already had a considerable controversy over a pre-emptive strike by the Minister's Department to declare the west link around Dublin a toll road. They went to the extent of arranging for toll booths to be erected when the local authority concerned had not decided in this regard and had made it clear that they had no intention of declaring that road to be a toll road. The toll booths were erected and had to be removed and it appears now that the Minister is finding a different way of having it declared a toll road.
My amendments Nos. 145, 146 and so on, also deal with this area in a slightly different way. Taking Deputy Gilmore's point first, if the revenue is not going to a local authority I do not see too many local authorities queuing up to voluntary raise revenue — which they will not get — from motorists. They cannot benefit and they will probably be criticised. The local authority should not necessarily have the veto. The Oireachtas should put in the protection that only roads built by private sector money should have a toll and other roads per sethat are publicly funded either by the EC or by the Exchequer would not be tolled.
I am very concerned about Part V of the Bill. It introduces new, very wide-ranging powers of revenue raising. Existing main roads can now be tolled if this is passed and we certainly will be opposing it in its present form with particular reference to section 55. If someone proposes a Liffey tunnel and wants to pay for it I do not mind if it is tolled. If someone wants to engage in private development which will benefit the public they are entitled to a return. However, I do not think the Department of Finance are entitled to arbitrarily introduce charges for motoring that have not heretofore existed on public roads. This Bill gives them the power to do that. It should be limited to private sector roads, partially or fully. I can see the problem with local authorities. Unless they get the money they will never agree to a toll, even though they are not paying for the road.
I cannot support these amendments. It is Government policy that the National Roads Authority will be given the power to toll national roads subject to ministerial approval. It is not intended to give local authorities a veto over the tolling of national roads which will be funded 100 per cent by grants from the National Roads Authority. Tolling powers for the National Roads Authority represent a logical extension of their overall responsibilities in respect of national roads and complement their borrowing powers uner section 25. Since the development of national roads will be fully funded through the National Roads Authority it seems reasonable that they rather than the local authorities should be able to avail of any toll revenue from these roads.
It is my belief that the scope for tolling is very limited and any revenue obtained in that way by the National Roads Authority will be ploughed back into national roads. Logic dictates that tolling powers should be available to the National Roads Authority as part of their overall financial responsibility, which includes the power to allocate State grants, borrow money and promote EC investment in national roads. I would remind the committee that this is not an unfettered power. The Authority are obliged to consult the appropriate local authority; there is a public consultation process; the Minister must hold a local public inquiry into any objections and tolls cannot be levied without ministerial approval. In relation to Deputy Gilmore's amendment No. 144a, decisions in relation to tolling non-national roads are reserved to the elected members.
The only two tolls that exist at the moment are the East Link and West Link bridges. I do not know if there is a toll anywhere else.
I do not think so.
In both of those cases the developments were carried out by the private sector and the local authorities made the tolling scheme. In relation to the East Link — Deputy Joe Doyle is not here but I am sure he would confirm this — people in the Ringsend-Irishtown area will tell you that some of the heavier commercial trucks coming up the quays cross Matt Talbot Bridge, go up the south quays and out through Ringsend in order to avoid paying the price of two pints in crossing the East Link Bridge. There is heavy traffic in that area. Tolling sometimes can have the effect of driving off the road traffic for which it was designed.
Would they be cattle trucks?
I did not check to see if there were cattle on them, but that is quite possible. The Minister is probably right in that the circumstances where this is going to arise will be fairly limited. The first place it will arise is on the western ring road around Dublin. The Department of the Environment entered into an arrangement with an American company for the tolling of that ring road, which would result in two tolls on that road because the bridge is already tolled. The effect of that would be to drive traffic off that road and onto the residential roads. The power to toll this road currently rests with the elected members of local authorities, and that is where it should rest. The circumstances mentioned by Deputy Yates, in which there is private sector investment, have already arisen. The two Dublin local authorities have already shown a willingness to toll in those cases, and with the exception of the trucks from Cavan, it seems to be working reasonably well. I will withdraw the amendment but will be opposing the section.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 145 and 146 are related and may be taken together.
I move amendment No. 145:
In page 46, line 31, after "public road" where it secondly occurs, to insert "the construction of which was either partly or wholly funded by private investment and".
My reading of sections 54 and 55 are quite clear. What is stopping the National Roads Authority from deciding to toll the Shankill by-pass? Does this provision not enable them to do so for the first time?
It does.
They did not build it.
That is my point. If these sections are passed as they stand, the National Roads Authority could decide to raise £20 million this year by tolling the key routes around the country, from the N1 to the N11. This is a huge revenue-raising power that does not exist at present.
Deputy Gilmore tends to be a little more reasonable than Deputy Yates on this matter in that at least he appreciates that this is a limited areas. We can suggest that the National Roads Authority have these almighty powers to introduce tolls here, there and everywhere, but it is a limited field. Should the Authority decide that this is an option for them, they cannot do so without ministerial approval. In these cases there are various checks and balances.
The Minister is missing the point. The Minister for Finance could provide in the budget that as the Government cannot fund their proportion of the national roads construction programme motorists, as is the case commonly throughout the Continent, and the transport sector generally, will have to pay a portion of the cost. There are now powers in place for the first time to introduce a comprehensive national tolling scheme. The fact that the Government can prevent the National Roads Authority from introducing tolls gives me no comfort. The decision could be made by the Department of Finance.
The Department of Finance will survive for a few years without great help from Deputy Yates on this question. I could suggest 50 different ways to the Minister for Finance to raise the kind of money the Deputy is talking about without getting into the hassle this would produce. It is not as feasible as Deputies are inclined to believe. We are simply making sure that the power, if it is deemed necessary in given and specific circumstances, is enshrined in the legislation.
This is one of the key points I am oppossed to in the Bill. We are not dealing with what the Minister thinks; we are dealing with the law. The law is explicit and new powers are being introduced for the first time. This is a new taxation method — and let us make no mistake about that. I will withdraw amendments Nos. 145 and 146 but I will be totally opposing both sections as they provide for taxation by the back door.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question, "That section 54 stand part of the Bill", put and declared carried.
(Deputies Yates, Boylan, Timmins, Kavanagh and Gilmore dissenting.)