Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 27 Mar 1979

Vol. 313 No. 3

Local Government (Toll Roads) Bill, 1978: Committee Stage (Resumed).

SECTION 9.

Debate resumed on amendment No. 6:

In page 7, between lines 10 and 11, to insert the following subsection:

"(3) An agreement under this section shall provide for its termination when the other party has been reasonably remunerated for any capital moneys expended by him on the road.".

—(Deputy T.J. Fitzpatrick,Cavan-Monaghan).

Minister for the Environment (Mr. Barrett)

When I moved that progress be reported I was replying to Deputy Fitzpatrick. I explained that subsection (2) (b) of section 9 already covers the point made in the amendment in so far as it provides that an agreement under the section may provide for its duration and for its termination. It would be reasonable to assume that the duration of an agreement would in the normal course be related to the length of time it would be expected to take in order to redeem the capital invested in a project and to gain a reasonable economic return on that investment.

The Bill gives all the flexibility needed by the road authorities to determine the most suitable agreement in the case of a particular project. It can safely be left to the good sense of the elected members of the local authorities concerned to strike the best and fairest balance between the interests of the public to whom they are answerable and any private entrepreneur who may be putting his money at risk.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): Section 9 provides and empowers a road authority to enter into an agreement with another person under which that other person would provide, maintain or construct a toll bridge or road. He may only maintain such a road or bridge and in return he would be entitled as of right to collect tolls from the users of the road or bridge. I put forward the point that these contracts are likely to be entered in to only in respect of profitable sites which are almost certain to be winners and which will reap a very profitable harvest for those who enter into contracts and undertake to provide them. I am concerned that the taxpayer or ratepayer should be protected and that these toll agreements should not operate indefinitely. Not alone should the local authority or the road authority in entering into them have the right to write in a clause for their termination but it should be obligatory on the road authority to write into these agreements a condition which would bring them to an end when the contractor had been adequately remunerated.

Experience throughout the world shows that tolls tend to be permanent and continue indefinitely. There might be some sort of argument for that in the case of toll roads or bridges constructed and operated by road authorities or other public bodies because after construction costs have been repaid the money collected in tolls could be used to relieve people in respect of rates or taxes. That is not so in the case of toll bridges or roads built by private individuals. This House would be doing less than its duty if it did not ensure that these agreements are brought to an end when the contractor has been reasonably compensated for any money expended by him. That is a reasonable approach to the matter.

The Minister relies on section 9 (2) (b) which reads:

provide for its duration and for its termination or suspension and for matters connected with or incidental or ancillary to or consequent upon the expiration of the agreement or such termination or suspension, and

That is an enabling provision and does not state that the agreement should contain such a clause. My amendment seeks to write into this section a provision that the agreement shall contain a clause bringing it to an end when the contractor has been adequately remunerated for the money spent by him.

I should like to make another point in connection with this amendment. I am told that if interest and capital are charged on tolls it is almost certain that these tolls will continue indefinitely. I think that only the capital should be repaid by way of a toll and that the interest on the capital should be paid by the State as a charge on what used to be the Road Fund. That may seem an extraordinary approach to the matter but its purpose is to ensure that the tolls will end quicker than they would otherwise end. In other words, I am proposing that the State pay a contribution to cover the interest and that the road users would only have to pay a contribution to cover the capital. In that way the tolls could be ended earlier than they would if the entire servicing of the debt incurred had to be paid by the road users.

Mr. Quinn

When we were last discussing this matter I had to leave before the debate adjourned. Since then I have read the debate and should like to raise a number of points on section 9. Sections 9 and 3 are related. Section 3 states that the toll scheme——

An Ceann Comhairle

We are on section 9, amendment No. 6.

Mr. Quinn

Am I in order to speak on section 9?

An Ceann Comhairle

The section can be dealt with when the amendment has been disposed of.

Mr. Barrett

With regard to the point made by Deputy Fitzpatrick, I have already explained why his amendment is not necessary.

With regard to charges against tolls, thére is nothing to stop the road authority contributing towards the capital cost in their agreements since they are to participate. It is out of the question for the State to pay interest on capital which may be borrowed by a promoter. Why should the State be asked to do so?

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): I should like the Minister to say whether he thinks a bridge or a road should remain subject to a toll indefinitely. We tried to ascertain from the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment whether many applications had been received from contractors for the construction or maintenance of bridges and roads in exchange for tolls. It is hard to get an answer from the Minister of State at Question Time but it appeared that few applications were received. There was one in Dublin, about which we all know, and there was talk of a by-pass at Naas. Those are two choice sites, two geese that are certain to produce golden eggs, two transactions which will not expose the operations to any loss. It is hard to see why the State cannot build the bridge and the by-pass and thereby make a profit. If the Minister is prepared to authorise local authorities to enter into agreements in respect of a bridge in Dublin city and in respect of the Naas by-pass, this House should impose an obligation on the road authority and the Minister to ensure that these agreements contain clauses terminating them under certain terms and conditions. The House should retain control of the situation.

I am not satisfied with the section. I would ask the Minister to amend the section in accordance with my amendment. If he cannot accept the wording of my amendment, he should introduce an amendment to ensure that the agreements are terminated when the contractors have been adequately remunerated for the money which they have expended.

Mr. Barrett

I repeat that I am satisfied that this is provided for under subsection (2) (b). It is not my intention to accept the Deputy's amendment. With regard to the point he raised about applications for a toll scheme, "applications" would not be the correct term. What I and my colleague, the Minister of State, have said was that interest has been expressed in some areas with local authorities, but the question of an application or serious discussion could not get really under way meaningfully until such time as this legislation is passed and local authorities are enabled to talk about agreements and what should be involved in them.

Interest has been expressed in a number of areas but no application in the strict meaning of the word has been made. The Deputy seems to select two with a heavy volume of traffic. Naturally anybody putting up his money is going to look to where he will have a reasonable return. This is quite understandable and nobody can deny a person the right to negotiate on that basis, but again, the agreement is subject to the approval of the local authority or to their being satisfied. It is the elected members of the local authority who are involved here and again this has to be approved by the Minister for the Environment. Therefore, the question the Deputy has raised in his amendment is covered. There is provision for doing this. The elected members of the local authority are involved and there is the appeal of the Minister thereafter.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): When this Bill was introduced I complained with good reason about the lack of information or lack of explanation forthcoming from the Minister. Even at this late stage I ask him to give us as much information as he has about his proposal. As a result of what his colleague, the Minister of State, said and what the Minister himself has just said now, we know that while there are no firm applications apparently in respect of roads or bridges which may be tolled, there are a number of inquiries which are serious enough to be accepted by the Minister as showing interest. The Minister should tell this House how many. Naturally I would not expect him to give the names of the individuals who made these inquiries, but I would like him to tell the House——

An Ceann Comhairle

I do not see that this relates to the amendment.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): I think it does. I would like the Minister to tell us the situation of the roads or bridges in respect of which he has inquiries. The House is entitled to this sort of information as an example of where we may have toll bridges or toll roads.

Mr. Barrett

The Minister of State named a number of places——

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): Two.

Mr. Barrett

——in answer to a supplementary question in this House——

An Ceann Comhairle

This is not really relevant to the proposed amendment No. 6 which relates to the termination of the duration of collection of tolls. I cannot see the relevance of who might or might not be interested. I will put the amendment to the House.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): Not for a minute or two.

An Ceann Comhairle

Unless the Deputy has something new to bring in.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): The information I am seeking now is relevant in so far as if these sites, as I call them, are in profitable places or places that the House might think were profitable, then it would be more important to accept my amendment than if they were in some places that were not profitable. It is not correct to say that the Minister of State named a number of places. He conceded—if that is the proper word—that there was an application in respect of a bridge over the Liffey, but he did not give us the other sites. He did say there were about six but he refused to give the location of these.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am not trying to prevent the Deputy seeking this information. He might get other opportunities of seeking it, but it does not affect in any way the argument for or against the amendment. It is not relevant.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): I do not want the Chair to anticipate efforts which I may make later on, but if I were satisfied that the Chair would treat me as in order in raising this matter under discussion on the section I would then be quite happy to defer my request for this information until that time.

An Ceann Comhairle

There might be room for it under the section. The amendment is too narrow to permit it here.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): On the basis that I will be raising it again on the section I will not pursue it now.

Mr. Quinn

The Minister has indicated his opposition to this amendment on the grounds that it is redundant or that it can be handled properly by the existing draft legislation and in the final analysis he would rely on the good sense of the local authorities himself anyway. He failed to point out that he would be monitoring the good sense of the local authorities and deciding whether their good sense met his definition of good sense, so that he would have to approve the toll scheme finally.

I would like to hear him express his views on two things that give me some concern. Suppose that the local authority display eminent good sense by deciding that they are going to exploit this position between one centre of population, that is, Cork and another centre of population, that is, Dublin, and by virtue of the fact that it happens to be located in the national primary route system they submit a toll scheme for improving that road in part and incorporating a substantial part of the existing public road. The House will recall that we have established clearly that an existing public road can be designated as a toll road for the purposes of this Bill.

Leaving aside the question of Ministerial approval, unless the purpose of this legislation is to enable the cost of construction and provision of toll roads to be collected from tolls alone, we will be doing a bad day's work. The intent in Deputy Fitzpatrick's amendment is to make that principle fairly clear. One can only argue the case in abstract because we are dealing with a matter that the Minister has insisted on maintaining abstract throughout this debate. Let us take the extreme example of a local authority who, for whatever reason, decide that they will charge tolls on a continuing basis on a stretch of road improvement which would include part of the existing public road and part of the new facility which they would build. They would use that facility to finance other road activities in the area.

It is not clear in the legislation and in the matters to which this amendment refers and which would become part of the total section, what the constraints would be other than that the Minister would have the right to approve or sanction. With all due respect to him, the Minister has been extremely unforthcoming in indicating any Government policy in this regard other than that he wants to facilitate local authorities in responding to the private sector. That is the first question raised by this amendment.

Is it clearly established now in this House by the Minister, and will he write into the regulations which arise out of section 8 of this Bill, that a toll road facility cannot be used to generate current income after the capital costs have been reasonably defrayed? In "capital costs" I would include any risk or profit element that might have been provided. That is at the base of the amendment put forward by Deputy Fitzpatrick. It is only reasonable, if the Minister has a view on this, that he should indicate it to the House.

Mr. Barrett

Section 4 protects the public or any objector with regard to having a public inquiry.

Mr. Quinn

The Minister is quite correct in pointing that out to me. But there are so many provisions in this: the Minister has to approve the toll scheme; the toll scheme has to go on exhibition and be subject to review. There are three potentially separate inquiries in relation to all of this. There are various Ministerial approvals. The public, as such, are protected by the fact that it is a reserve function in many instances. Therefore, the checks and balances are there. However, there is not a clear indication from the Minister that a toll road should not be used simply to generate revenue. The fear of Deputy Fitzpatrick—and it is a fear in which the Labour Party would share—is that there is nothing explicitly saying that toll roads should not be used to generate revenue.

The Minister can reasonably infer that the safeguards and checks are contained in the Bill. But I cannot understand his unwillingness to accept this amendment when he considers that he has introduced this enabling Bill in the House to respond to the private sector and to improve the existing system. Unless present Fianna Fáil policy has degenerated to a new level, at no stage was anybody on that side of the House suggesting that they were going to charge people for using the public roads system. That may be in line with current right-wing thinking within the economic circles of Fianna Fáil—that one charges for everything—but the Minister at least should indicate his view, if he has one, on the question of toll roads being used to generate revenue after their capital cost, including whatever profit element is agreed, has been recouped.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): Not alone does this agreement make it possible to generate revenue after the cost of the road or bridge has been repaid, and after a reasonable profit has been reaped, but it gives power to generate revenue for a private individual, not for the State. If this was a matter only of generating revenue for the State, while we would not agree with it, at least we would know that if that revenue was collected by that method, it would not have to be collected by some other method. But what we are doing here is leaving it open to some local authority, some Minister—perhaps in good faith—to enter into an open-ended agreement providing the contractor with revenue indefinitely. We are asking that a reasonable precaution be written into the Bill to ensure that that cannot happen.

Mr. Barrett

First of all, there is the inquiry to which we have referred already under section 4; we have discussed that already. In any agreement, the duration would be specified.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): It need not be.

Mr. Barrett

It would; the section provides for the duration.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): It may.

Mr. Barrett

It provides for its duration and termination. It is covered in subsection (2).

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): Subsection (2) says:

Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of this section, an agreement under this section may——

do the things specified, and may not.

Mr. Barrett

Yes, for the duration.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): And may not.

Mr. Barrett

May provide for the duration of the agreement, and the agreement has to be approved by the Minister, when reached between the parties concerned. Therefore, it must provide for the duration.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): I am now more alarmed than ever. I am convinced—and I do not like saying this—that the Minister either does not understand the section he is asking us to approve or he is trying to put forward a case which cannot be sustained by the section. The Minister has said repeatedly that is an agreement under section 9 must contain provision for its termination. That is simply not so. There is nothing in section 9 making it obligatory on a local authority or on the Minister to write a provision into the agreement making its termination obligatory in any event. It can be an open-ended agreement that may never be terminated if this section is left as it is. Even if they did not go that far, they could write in some harmless provision to terminate it at the option of the contractor which he might never exercise. Either the Minister understands the section or he does not. If he is saying to the House that an agreement to be entered into under this section must contain a provision for its termination, I must say without doubt that the Minister has not read the section correctly because it need not contain any such provision; it may, but the words “may” and “must” are very different.

Mr. Barrett

My advice is that the terminology affords the necessary strength to an agreement and to the question of duration.

Mr. Quinn

Perhaps the Minister could check with his advisers what their advice would be to him if a proposal came up, dutifully processed, which made no provision for any termination under the terms of this Bill, but rather, commencing from the completion of the toll facilities and so on, specified that the tolls would be such-and-such, giving the breakdown and all the rest of it, with no proposal for termination. What would be the Minister's advice then? What would be the Minister's advice in terms of whether he would accept or approve such a scheme?

Mr. Barrett

To check?

Mr. Quinn

If there was no proposal to terminate.

Mr. Barrett

To satisfy the House I would be willing to check out the advice before Report Stage to ascertain if it does specify; I am willing to examine whether any change is necessary in the wording.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): It is no harm to tease this out somewhat. Is the Minister putting this section to us on the basis that an agreement must provide for its termination? Is the Minister advised that, under the section as it stands, an agreement entered into must contain a provision for its duration and termination. If the Minister discovers that that is not the position—as I think is abundantly clear—will he introduce an amendment on Report Stage amending the section by writing into it a provision that any agreement must provide for its duration and termination? If the Minister does that, I will be satisfied. If the Minister finds that the last word in line 50, which is “may” does not mean “must”, will he substitute the word “must” therefor?

Mr. Barrett

I am willing to have a look at this between now and Report Stage. However, I could not visualise any local authority furnishing an indefinite agreement.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is the amendment withdrawn?

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): I am withdrawing it on the basis that the Minister will look into it and, as a precaution, I will be putting down an amendment for Report Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed: "That section 9 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Quinn

This question of the termination of an agreement after the capital cost has been recouped raises the whole question of cross-subsidisation. One policy or another should be pursued and clearly indicated in the legislation. In the absence of a national roads plan and a clear policy indication from the Government we must hang on to a piece of enabling legislation certain comments and observations in relation to the question of toll roads. If the Minister does not have a view on the question of a coordinated programme whereby toll roads would by systematically used to improve the national primary route system and, contrary to such a comprehensive overall planned approach is introducing enabling legislation so that local authorities can produce a toll scheme for a part of their road system, then the question of cross-subsidisation does not arise. However, the question of the termination of the agreement very definitely arises. As that matter will be discussed on Report Stage I would be obliged if the Minister would tell the House the role cross-subsidisation will have in the improvement of the primary route system. How does he see it being facilitated and operated under this section?

Mr. Barrett

The purpose of the section is to enable road authorities to enter into agreements with companies or bodies to participate in the provision of toll facilities, including the financing of all or part of the cost of a particular toll project. Participation may also extend to the construction, maintenance and management of toll roads, including bridges or tunnels. A harbour authority could be party to such an agreement and the decision to enter into such an agreement is reserved to the elected members of a road authority. The Deputy raised the question of cross-subsidisation, such as the using of revenue from a toll scheme to subsidise any other road works, and I should like to tell him that this is possible if a local authority generate such revenue.

Mr. Quinn

Under subsection (3) a road authority may, with the consent of the Minister, enter into an agreement with the party or parties to amend an existing scheme. For example, suppose Westmeath County Council were approached by a consortium of banks about financing a by-pass at Mullingar and decided to use part of the revenue from that toll scheme to finance the Athlone by-pass would they have to go through the entire process again? A group of local authority members anxious to do something about the road system in their county will not concern themselves with one by-pass but will it be possible under this legislation for a road authority to produce a comprehensive scheme for the county in which as many as six toll road schemes could be included? Is it the situation that each toll road scheme is a separate entity?

Mr. Barrett

Each scheme would be a separate entity. The Deputy is correct in saying that subsection (3) provides for the use of revenue from one scheme for further works but under section 8 the Minister has the power to make the necessary regulation regarding the use of the revenue concerned. It will not be possible to have five or six schemes in the one proposal.

Mr. Quinn

Is the Minister not creating a lot of administrative paper work for local authorities? If one steps outside the major cities one is talking about local authorities with reasonably limited resources. Am I correct in thinking that the Minister's interpretation is that all local authorities will have to go through the same process for each toll road scheme they propose? If that is the case is the legislation enabling in the sense that it could be? The way the legislation has been prepared and presented is designed to facilitate the response from a private individual outside the local government system to come forward with a pet project rather than enabling the private sector to get into financing an existing roads programme.

Since every local authority have a priority of road schemes I can see great difficulties for a medium-sized authority trying to work this legislation. There are so many things that must be done that unless substantial advice, direction and assistance—financial and technical— come from the Department many managers will advise their councils not to bother with such schemes. Will the attempt to provide enabling legislation fall flat on its face because we are making it difficult for county engineers and county managers? I am sure county engineers will want the entire system of roads in their county improved on a systematic basis. The Minister is putting an unnecessary burden on small local authorities that will have a deterrent effect.

Mr. Barrett

I do not agree with the Deputy's contention. The fact that each scheme will be treated as a separate entity will not prevent them from having further schemes or having two schemes submitted by agreement with the same company at the same time. That does not impose an almighty extra burden on them in reaching the type of agreement they would be satisfied with, whether it is for one or two schemes. They will be treated separately when submitted.

Mr. Quinn

Would the publication of the notices for the public inquiry have to be done separately or could they be done together? Would the local authority have to take their place in the queue? Could the inquiry take place simultaneously on schemes A to Z or would there have to be a separate inquiry for number 1, another for scheme 2 and so on?

Mr. Barrett

There would be separate inquiries because the schemes can vary so much. You could have a road, a bridge or a tunnel. The schemes can vary so much that they would be done separately.

Mr. Quinn

How many applications are in the Minister's Department at the moment waiting the allocation of staff from the Custom House? How many files and applications for decisions from the Custom House or O'Connell Bridge House are in the Department of the Environment at the moment? The Minister referred to the common sense of local authorities. Is it not an unreasonable inference to make here that many local authorities, given their experience of trying to get compulsory purchase legislation applications through, will be unnecessarily deterred as a result of the structure of this legislation? The Minister has come into the House saying that he wants to provide local authorities with enabling legislation. If a local authority attempt to do this on a systematic basis and come forward with a streamlined proposal, they will have to have each of the components of their toll scheme treated as separate applications.

I believe the private sector have very little to offer in this regard except finance for schemes which local authorities already have designed and for which they are simply waiting for money from the Custom House. There is an unnecessary amount of paperwork involved if a local authority want to run three or four schemes at the same time. I cannot see why some provision cannot be made for this. Perhaps the Minister might have another look at this between now and Report Stage to see if there is any way in which, under the regulations under section 8, all those could be grouped together.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): Is the Minister now prepared to give us particulars of the location of bridges or roads in which people have shown an interest to enter into toll agreements? Will he give us particulars of the location of proposed roads and bridges if they do not already exist? I do not want particulars of the individuals who have made inquiries but the House is entitled to know the location of those proposed bridges or roads.

Mr. Barrett

The Minister of State mentioned places where interest was expressed. He instanced five places.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): Would the Minister mention them again?

Mr. Barrett

I will quote what he said. He stated:

The position is that a number of locations have been mentioned such as Cork, Limerick, Waterford, Galway and the by-pass in Naas.

Mr. Quinn

I was in the House when those questions were asked and I read the text afterwards. The Minister said that those places were mentioned in the House. Was the Minister of State referring to the fact that Deputy Fitzpatrick, I or anybody else mentioned those locations? Did he say that those places were mentioned in discussions, formal or informal, which have taken place between local authorities and the Department of the Environment?

Mr. Barrett

He gave this information in reply to Deputy Quinn who asked:

Is the Minister of State in a position, without breach of commercial confidentiality, to answer the question, that is, the number of organisations that have specifically contacted the Minister, the number of projects listed and the approximate value of capital? Surely that information is not confidential.

The Minister of State replied:

I cannot give the Deputy the names of the persons who approached my Department. The position is that a number of locations have been mentioned, such as Cork, Limerick, Waterford, Galway and the by-pass of Naas.

Deputy Quinn then asked:

Can the Minister indicate the number of organisations that have expressed positive interest?

The Minister of State replied:

I cannot give the number but quite a number of organisations have approached the Department.

Does that satisfy the Deputy?

Mr. Quinn

It did not satisfy me at the time and the Minister of State seemed to be so uncomfortable in giving that information that we simply backed off. It is important to section 9 to find out what volume of interest there is. If the Minister of State can say that a number of organisations have expressed interest—I want to say that I am not interested in the names of them and I am not interested in the commercial side of it—I believe we are entitled to get an indication now from the Minister of how many private sector organisations we are talking of. It would determine the way in which this enabling legislation should be drafted.

If there are only three or four private organisations in the country who are interested, and if the locations are quite limited as well, there may be a more efficient way of going about the question of involving private sector finance in the financing of the toll road system. Can the Minister give the House information in relation to (1) the number of private and professional organisations, (2) the number of specific projects identified without reference to their location and (3) the approximate volume of capital which was indicated as being available for their participation in such toll roads? Is that information available?

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): The secrecy surrounding this Bill becomes more alarming and more difficult to understand as the debate continues. At Question Time we asked the Minister of State to specify those locations. As Deputy Quinn said, although he was obviously uncomfortable, he named, under pressure, those places as Cork, Limerick, Waterford, Galway and the Naas by-pass. The fact that by-pass is mentioned makes me believe that the other locations are bridges. The extraordinary thing about today's instalment is that, when we asked the Minister to give us some more information about the inquiries he had received and where the proposed roads or bridges are to be constructed, instead of giving that information from his brief he seemed compelled to answer us by reading out information that his Minister of State gave at Question Time, thereby leading me to believe that he was afraid of giving more information or that he wanted to give the minimum information. That is not the proper way to treat the House. What is the objection to being forthright with the House, of saying that there have been a number of inquiries for a bridge at Cork, Limerick, Waterford and Dublin and a by-pass at Naas? The Minister is being less than frank with the House.

Why is he rereading something that the Minister of State told the House a few weeks ago? It seems to be an extraordinary approach. It appears to me that the Minister is saying that if he had been here he would not have given the House any information but that as it was once given here it is again. The Minister should make a general statement on the inquiries that were made and on the companies or individuals who expressed an interest. Another subsection in the Bill provides for security. It provides that a local authority shall get a bond or something like that from the people concerned. The House is entitled to that kind of information, and I do not understand the Minister's reluctance to give it.

Mr. Barrett

The Deputy has criticised me for referring to what the Minister of State said in this House by way of reply.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): I did not.

Mr. Barrett

That is what the Deputy said. The reason I read out what the Minister of State said in this House was that Deputy Fitzpatrick said a few minutes ago that the Minister of State did not give any location——

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): I said two locations.

Mr. Barrett

In order to clarify the matter I read out his reply to the supplementary question. The second time I referred to the reply of the Minister of State it was in order to clarify a question that Deputy Quinn asked me a few minutes ago. It was not that I did not want to reply to what was said in the House. Deputy Fitzpatrick may be right when he said I might not have given as much information as the Minister of State. Let me reiterate once again that all we have had so far is an expression of interest by companies or people who are interested. There is no way a local authority can take it a step further until the legislation is passed. What is the point in asking for the names of people or similar information? There is nothing to tell other than what I have said, namely, that there has been an expression of interest in different locations.

Mr. Quinn

Is the Minister seriously saying that this Bill has been prepared on the basis of vague expressions of interest? We have not been told about the number of organisations and we have no idea of the capital involved, whether it is 5 per cent financing or 95 per cent financing. In his defence the Minister has said that until the legislation is passed there cannot be anything firmer than an expression of interest. Are we to take it that on the basis of such a vague expression of interest a senior Department have produced legislation of a substantial nature involving many discussions and that there is no indication of the likely capital there is in the private sector to finance the projects? That is the inference we must take from the Minister's response.

The Labour Party have no desire to extract commercial information that may be damaging to the parties concerned, including the local authorities. I am sure Fine Gael have the same view because this matter arises in relation to other areas where the State is involved. There is a clearly established precedent for that in this House and we are not trying to breach it in any way. However, we are entitled to find out from the Minister more information than he has given. During the drafting of this legislation surely somebody in the Department must have asked how much money the private sector could reasonably be expected to put forward, or were they flying a kite merely to catch the possibility of someone coming in on the project? When the people expressed interest, did they say what kind of percentage financing and what volume of capital was involved?

I should like the Minister to find whatever formula of words is necessary to protect the interests he wants to protect. I realise the commercial confidentiality aspect but surely the Minister is in a position to give the House some indication of the response that has been indicated in terms of money or alternatively if he chooses the other formula, of percentage financing of the six locations mentioned. If the Minister refuses to give the information that is his prerogative. However, if he says he cannot give us the information because he does not know, are we to take it that his officials have been working for the past year producing legislation in the hope that the private sector will come in but without any idea of how much money is likely to be there? If that is the situation, one can reasonably question the Minister's responsibility in directing his officials to produce this legislation when there are many other areas crying out for legislative reform. On numerous occasions the Minister has told the House that certain matters are "under review", "are being considered" or "are in the process of being drafted".

Mr. Barrett

This is an instance of putting the cart before the horse. It has been said repeatedly that an interest has been expressed to participate in providing capital for road building but now Deputy Quinn wants me to put a figure on it. How can I put a figure on something, how can the nitty-gritty of the matter be discussed, when the necessary legislation is not there to allow it to be done? There is no use in talking hypothetically about how much money is available. How can people enter into serious discussions when they are told that legislation must be brought before the Houses of the Oireachtas to enable them to participate? We cannot expect people to say that they have £X million available when some of them are not satisfied with the areas in which they would participate. They cannot do so. They can only be firm in their expression of interest to participate in the financing of certain road buildings. We will not be able to put a figure on any scheme until this Bill has been passed. It is ridiculous to talk about £X million without having the necessary legislation.

Mr. Quinn

Is the Minister saying that in the absence of any legislation no reasonable enterpreneur could put forward a detailed proposal indicating the amount of finance that would be made available, the return that would be expected and the level of toll charges?

Mr. Barrett

How can the Deputy expect him to do so when he does not know if he will be involved? Why should he do so?

Mr. Quinn

This legislation is being produced to facilitate people who would otherwise not respond. It indicates clearly the kind of participation they would be expected to make. Is the Minister saying that this legislation will enable someone in the private sector to respond and participate by way of financing and so on?

Mr. Barrett

I repeat that this legislation makes it possible to get down to meaningful discussions with persons or companies who have given a definite expression that they are prepared to participate in road building. This Bill enables road authorities to have full and proper discussions on the basis of participation, the cost of any particular proposal, how it should be financed between the two bodies, the private sector and the road authorities, or fully by the private sector. Until this legislation becomes law that cannot happen. I do not see why any financier or company should disclose what they would have available at this stage when they do not know where they are going.

Mr. Quinn

Would the Minister not agree that we have got ourselves into an extraordinary situation if he and his advisers think that in the absence of this legislation nobody can be reasonably expected to come forward with a hard-edged proposal? By "hard-edged" I mean indicating the percentage of finance or the amount of capital in toto that would be provided. The House is aware, because reference has been made to it in the past, that we have such a detailed hard-edged proposal, and his Department and the Department of Tourism and Transport are aware of it. The Minister argued that he cannot tell the approximate percentage of participation the private sector are likely to be willing to give, how definite the expressions of interest are in terms of either the volume of capital or the percentage financing, on the grounds that until such time as the terms of the legislation are clearly published and enacted the private sector could not be reasonably expected to respond. That appears to be totally at variance with the one hard-edged proposal we already have where a particular individual has gone through the whole exercise, costed a capital cost, the interest charges and so on and has come up with an estimate of what the toll charges would necessarily be to earn a return on that expenditure.

The Minister is quite right in saying that the private sector could not possibly anticipate the procedure whereby a scheme would be approved first at local level and subsequently at national level, but any reasonable person knowing how our country works would have one or two models he could follow. There is no administrative innovation in this legislation. If an entrepreneur who understands local government had employed a retired city and county manager as a consultant, an hour with such a person would have given him a reasonable outline of how the procedure is likely to operate and where the political insurance would be built in—it is built in here by way of the reserved function to the local members.

Section 9 covers the procedures to enable the toll scheme to go through. We are still forced to the conclusion that the Minister has spent a year of his departmental time drafting this legislation and either does not know how much the private sector are likely to put up, or alternatively knows and is not prepared to tell the House. If he disagrees with that I would ask him either to demolish my argument or to tell the House the extent of the private sector's definite interest in terms of either percentage financing or overall capital.

Mr. Barrett

I have answered that four times already.

Mr. Quinn

Does the Minister or anybody in his Department know if any person who expressed a definite interest mentioned figures at any stage? The Minister's silence presumably means he does not want to answer. Perhaps I should rephrase it. When people expressed a definite interest, obviously that expression of interest was sufficiently strong for the Minister to draft legislation and circulate it to the various governmental offices. Did anybody in the Department ask them what volume of money they might be talking about?

Mr. Barrett

I have already answered that.

Mr. Quinn

I do not wish to be argumentative. I am trying to get some factual information. I do not think the Minister has answered my question and the record will show that. By way of parliamentary question and this evening, I have been asking these questions. All we have had so far is an admission that the private sector have expressed a definite interest and that a number of locations have been mentioned. As Deputy Fitzpatrick correctly inferred, by the way they were announced they all referred to bridges and the Naas by-pass. Section 9 is one of the key financial sections in this Bill. This legislation has been drafted to facilitate a response from the private sector. The Minister said in reply to my question on 14 March at column 1458, Volume 312 of the Official Report:

I would repeat that the Government welcome the response from the private sector as to the prospects of capital being invested in suitable toll projects which will help to supplement the amounts being provided in the public capital programme for road and bridge improvements.

Does anybody know or did anybody ask the approximate amounts that might be made available?

Mr. Barrett

I repeat what I have already said. If you are talking about £X million, you are talking about meaningful discussions and you cannot have these discussions until you are in a position to talk hard business with these people, whether it is the roads authority talking to the private sector or at departmental level. While we are awaiting this enabling legislation which will provide this facility, why should any proposer in the private sector disclose the amount of money he would have available until he knows where that money will be spent? If the private sector are interested—and they have expressed an interest—surely they expect to put up their fair share of the capital, whether it is the total cost or part of the cost? By this legislation we are enabling them to get involved in this area. We will be able to build better roads and bridges, faster than in the past by attracting this kind of capital to local authorities.

Mr. Quinn

As this legislation stands, the private sector have the upper hand in deciding where the money will be spent. They are the people who make the first approach——

Mr. Barrett

That is extraordinary. The Deputy told me, when we were last discussing this Bill, that this legislation would- prevent the private sector in Dublin from participating.

Mr. Quinn

The Minister indicated that the private sector must at least be entitled to know where its money is likely to be spent before it shows its hand. The record will show that the Minister said something in accordance with that. In relation to the Dublin project, it was the private sector that selected Dublin. Whether the project goes ahead or not is another matter. The question of the private sector not showing its hand because it does not know where the money is going does not arise. I suggest to the Minister that that is a red herring.

I do not believe that the Minister has no indication of the amount of money involved. Perhaps I might be able to prise open a response in this way. If the private sector does not finance it by 100 per cent but finances it to the extent of anything ranging from 10 per cent to 50 per cent—the Minister said that the private sector would expect to pay its reasonable share, and God knows what "reasonable share" is but assuming that it is 50-50—will the other 50 per cent, which would have to be raised by the local authority, be subject to the public sector borrowing restraints? That question is at the centre of section 9. Will it be designated in a separate category for the purposes of capital loans in contrast to the normal capital budget which the Department of the Environment would have for the roads programme? This is extremely important. Would it be subject to the constraints that the Department of Finance might introduce at different times and, indeed, to the constraints that are part of the policy of this Government in order to get borrowing down to a certain level? If that is the case and if the private sector have good bankers—if they have money to invest in roads they obviously have—one of the assurances they will look for particularly if it is to be financed over two budgetary periods which for a major road programme is not an unreasonable length of time, is that the capital contribution from the local authority will be reasonably safeguarded and does not come under the axe of the Department of Finance on the grounds that the public sector borrowing requirement for this year is going to be reduced from one percentage of GNP to another. For that reason it is important that we get some information from the Minister on this.

If the private sector were financing these facilities 100 per cent and were simply waiting to take their return by way of tolls until such time as the agreement would terminate, we would be dealing with a different kind of private sector involvement to the one that this enabling legislation envisages, which is participation and partial financing. Could I ask the Minister how much capital has been indicated as possibly being available subject to all the nitty-gritty considerations being worked out?

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): The Minister, in the course of one of his interventions, accused Deputy Quinn of putting the cart before the horse. One the information available I am forced to the conclusion that the Minister has provided himself with a horse, cart and all for a once-off operation. Either that or he has a lot more information than he is prepared to give us. We all know the amount of time and trouble involved and the amount of toing and froing between the Department of the Environment and the Attorney General's office and between those offices and the parliamentary draftsman's office which is involved in bringing in a Bill. I find it very difficult to believe that the Minister has gone to all that trouble and proposes putting the Bill on the Statute Book on the off chance that someone in the private sector will provide him with financial assistance to provide these toll bridges.

The Minister says he gave me the quotation by his colleague, the Minister of State, because I did not appear to remember what he had said. That may be true. I asked the Minister for the location of the sites in which the private sector had shown interest. He kept repeating that that information had been given by his colleague, the Minister of State, but he did not give any more information himself. It was only because of my statement that the Minister of State gave the limited information that the Minister read in the quotation.

We know that inquiries were made about Cork, Limerick, Waterford, Dublin and the Nass by-pass. Would the Minister tell us if the inquiries about Cork, Limerick, Waterford and Dublin were about bridges over rivers? If that is so, the interest by the private sector seems to be in bridge construction. The Nass by-pass has also been included. Has the inquiry in respect of that come from the same source or is it from a different contractor? These questions should be answered by the Minister. Section 9(1) makes it possible for an agreement to be entered into with another person for very minimal services—for example, collecting tolls.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.