Amendment No. 101 is in the name of the Minister. Amendments Nos. 101a, 101b and 101c are related. It is suggested that they be discussed together.
SECTION 22.
I move amendment No. 101:
In page 22, subsection (1), line 34, after "may" to insert ", in relation to its functions under this Act,".
Subsection (1) gives the National Roads Authority power to make recommendations to planning authorities on the content of the development plans and will oblige them to consider these recommendations. My amendment responds to a point made on Second Stage by Deputy Dukes. It makes it clear that the power of the National Roads Authority to make recommendations must be related to its national roads functions under this Bill, in other words, it will not be free to make recommendations on totally extraneous matters.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 101a and 101b not moved.
I move amendment No. 101c:
In page 22, subsection (2) (c), line 45, after "plan" to insert ", any tree protection order, any regional plan published by any local authority or official agency such as the forthcoming Dublin Transport Study".
I am prepared to agree to the inclusion of a tree preservation order among the matters to which the National Roads Authority must have regard when performing its functions.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 22, as amended, agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 102:
In page 23, before section 23, to insert the following new section:
"23—(1) The Authority shall carry out a road audit bi-annually on road works carried out by each local authority. Such road audits shall include comparisons of such matters as methods of construction and materials used in construction by each local authority.
(2) For the purpose of this section ‘road audit' means the carrying out of a cost-benefit analysis of all road expenditure by each road authority to assess efficiency and effectiveness in road works carried out by that authority.".
This matter is of concern to me. I put a question to the Minister in the Dáil about this. It has been suggested to me that different local authorities are paying different prices for each kilometer of road they are maintaining — strengthening roads, surfacing roads, etc. — and there can be discrepancies in the price of materials, the efficiency of labour practices and so on. I do not believe there is adequate information in the Department to ascertain what exactly is the situation. Given that road expenditure for both national roads and non-national roads is over £200 million a year, it is important that this matter be dealt with to ascertain, by way of a road built audit every two years, how each local authority is performing, the benefits of direct labour over contract and in relation to supplies, etc. It has been suggested to me that authorities nearest the Border are getting them cheaper. It has even been suggested that there is a cartel operating. What I am saying is that to ascertain the correctness of these allegations, to get value for money, we need a road audit and this should be provided for.
I agree with Deputy Yates. It has been suggested in my county that road repairs and road improvements should be put out to contract and that the local authority should tender in competition with local contractors so that the public would see the price quoted and the competitiveness of the local authority against the private contractor. I believe there is merit in that because there is this feeling — I am not saying it is correct — that things could be done a lot better. In many cases the local authority's approach to these works has improved dramatically but there is this belief in the public mind and it should be put to rest. The work should be tendered and prices quoted.
This amendment requires the National Roads Authority to carry out an audit for local authority road works every two years and will, of course, only apply to works on national roads, even though the amendment states all roads and will not apply to works carried out by contract. The National Roads Authority has no mandate in relation to non-national roads and it is not intended that it should have. This would only divert it from its prime mission—the development of a safe and efficient network of national roads.
The Bill, as drafted, goes a long way towards meeting Deputy Yates' point by placing the National Roads Authority under a statutory obligation in section 17 to secure the provision of a safe and efficient network of national roads. Section 19 (2) provides that local authorities will normally carry out or arrange for the carrying out of road construction, improvement and maintenance works on behalf of the National Roads Authority. However, this is subject to an important and, in the context of this amendment, very significant caveat where the National Roads Authority considers that it would be more convenient, expenditious, effective or economical to carry out the work itself, it may do so.
There is no doubt that these legislative provisions oblige the National Roads Authority to keep the performance of local authorities under regular review so as to ensure that the taxpayers' money is well spent. The National Roads Authority can also set standards for construction and maintenance works under section 19 and under section 20 can issue directions to local authorities. These provisions enhance the National Roads Authority power to ensure that works are carried out as cost effectively as possible.
There is no doubt but that there are differences. There are discrepancies which are not easily answered even on what one might consider a quick perusal not just in relation to roads but also in relation to other activities and performances of county councils. I am extremely anxious to develop a best practice profile in all these areas where we can assist local authorities in a way which will streamline, update and modernise. However, for that to happen, there are certain restrictions at our level in relation to the laws and to requirements for ministerial consent and some freedoms that are required at local authority level. I have discussed these previously, so I will not go into them in detail beyond saying that I can understand the Deputies' concern to make sure that, with the money and particularly the new resources that are available for these purposes we get results commensurate with the best practices and the most cost effective means. The legislation as drafted makes adequate provision for that but there are other areas of local authority remit where I am anxious to see what else I can do to help. This is not just one consideration in relation to roads alone.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SECTION 23.
I move amendment No. 103:
In page 23, subsection (1), line 2, to delete "of the Garda Síochána".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 104:
In page 23, subsection (3) (a), lines 21 and 22, to delete "of the Garda Síochána".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 105:
In page 23, between lines 29 and 30, to insert the following subsection:
"(4) The Authority shall make recommendations on Garda training on all matters pertaining to road safety.".
On issues such as safety in relation to Garda training, to ensure there would be proper liaison provided in the Bill. This is not a major point but it is an important one. I ask the Minister to accept this amendment.
I know that on a few occasions amendments to this Bill tried to cover ground never envisaged. I contend that safety enforcement and responsibility therefor should remain with the Garda authorities and road safety with the National Safety Council. Any input or expence of local authorities or the NRA always will be available, but primary responsibilities in both areas should remain where they are at present.
I think the Minister misunderstood the purpose of my amendment which is that the NRA be empowered to make recommendations to the Garda Commissioner which could be valid. It is not that they would take over Garda training or road safety. My amendment says: "The Authority shall make recommendations. . ." That could be pertinent to what would be analysed as the cause of road accidents. Perhaps the Minister would consider it on Report Stage. All aspects of road safety are very important elements of road construction.
Giving an advisory role to the National Roads Authority with regard to Garda training is one thing but there are a host of organisations about which one could say the same. Much consideration is being given to what is the best method of training. Such training has been updated considerably recently. I might add that under section 23 (1) the National Roads Authority have wide powers to offer advice to the Garda Commissioner in relation to his functions under the Road Traffic Act. This provision could be used to convey views to the Garda on any aspect of the enforcement of the road traffic law. As I said earlier, there are facilities obtaining to advise or transfer an experience in this area — local authority or whoever — but to specifically lay it down as a requirement does not appear to me to be very realistic.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 23, as amended, agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 106:
In page 23, before section 24, to insert the following new section:
24—(1) The Authority and other road authorities shall, with the approval of the local authorities concerned, regulate the carrying out of road works in connection with the maintanance or provision of gas, water, electricity and telecommunications services (other than works undertaken by local authorities).
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) shall provide for—
(a) the payment of fees,
(b) the issue of permits.
(c) the duration of roadworks,
(d) the imposition of penalties for undue delays, and
(e) the adequate re-instatement of roads.
We debated this the last day, when the Minister read out a very long reply he need not repeat. I might point out to him that this matter infuriates people. There is an ad hoc approach to all semi-State companies’ road openings, electricity, water, gas pipelines of different descriptions for which there should be stiff penalties. I do not accept that the law is adequate; it should apply right across the country. One need only listen to the AA bulletins on “Morning Ireland” daily to know that road openings are not adequately organised nor is there sufficient discipline surrounding them. I would ask the Minister to give a commitment to tighten up this area.
Following the enactment of this Bill I propose to undertake a very comprehensive review of the law governing road openings. I would prefer not to pre-empt the outcome of that review, which is continuing but I understand the concerns that have been expressed here, and on the last occasion, with what would appear to be a total lack of cohesion between relevant authorities vis-�-visserious disruption of traffic as I said I intend to undertake a comprehensive review of the law governing this area and, arising therefrom, to lay down for the future the type of legislative code and standards which hopefully will prevent a recurrance of present happenings.
I am happy to withdraw my amendment. However, I might make the point their reviews tend to last longer than Ministers.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SECTION 24.
I move amendment No. 107:
In page 23, line 33, after "Authority" to insert "and grants under this section shall be made having particular regard to the maintenance requirements of national roads".
This amendment deals with section 24 which outlines the grants to be paid to the National Roads Authority. It has been specifically said to me that the money will go to the headline project of new realignments and developments and that maintenance will not be adequate. I am seeking that there will be a specific mention of the maintenance requirements of national roads—I spoke about hard shoulders and so on earlier; this should be provided for in the Bill.
In considering the allocation of grants to the National Roads Authority the Minister of the day will have regard to maintenance requirements. However he will need also to consider needs for new construction, improvement works, pavements, bridge strengthening, traffic management requirements and so on and be guided, in any such decision, by the view of the National Roads Authority charged with responsibility for the national roads network. In addition, he will have regard to the medium-term plan prepared by that body who will have to deal with expenditure priorities.
I believe it is important that the Minister should be able to balance all the competing expenditure demands, listen to the advice of experts from the National Roads Authority and take his decision without having the dice loaded in any particular direction. Deputy Yates has one consideration; but he could have quite a number of others.
There is a valid reason for that. Of course mention of this does not exclude proper money for new developments and so on. I remind the Minister that these amendments were tabled as a result of the concerns of county engineers.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 24 agreed to.