We are on section 20, amendment No. 88. Amendments Nos. 135a, 134b and 161 are related. We will take amendments Nos. 88, 134a, 135b, and 161 together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
SECTION 20.
I move amendment No. 88:
In page 20, subsection (1), after line 47, to insert the following:
"(h) take such measures as are necessary to limit noise pollution from a road, including the provision of adequate boundaries, walls and the provision where necessary of noise resistant windows and doors for houses affected by noise pollution from a road,".
These amendments concern the problem of noise pollution particularly from motorways and large new roads. The amendments seek to ensure that the National Roads Authority take measures to limit noise pollution by providing boundary walls and where necessary, noise resistant windows and doors for houses that are affected by noise pollution from a road. They seek to ensure also that account is taken of residential properties sited close to a roadway.
After the opening of the Bray-Shankill by-pass considerable problems were encountered from noise emanating from that road. Some of the houses close to the motorway are very badly affected by noise. One of those houses is located only 90 feet from the motorway. In that case, Dublin County Council, have undertaken a study of the impact of the noise. The first problem we encounter here is that we do not have any standards laid down for noise pollution. In Britain they have standards although their standards of allowable noise levels are very high. We do not have any standards in respect of noise. When motorways are built they affect people living in their homes. In the case of the Bray-Shankill by-pass people have told me they cannot get a good night's sleep because of the noise emanating from the motorway, occasioned particularly by large convoys of heavy trucks travelling at 4 a.m. or 5 a.m. that wake them. It is very difficult for them to get back to sleep.
I am seeking that when a motorway is being built account be taken of that noise factor and some measures be provided to try to abate the noise at the design stage. The road should be designed in such a way that it would reduce noise and, second, when a road is constructed if there is a noise problem that issue should be addressed fairly urgently. I know Dublin County Council are making a special case to the Minister in connection with the impact of the noise on the Bray-Shankill by-pass on behalf of householders affected there. I would ask the Minister to examine that case very sympathetically because it is a very serious, difficult problem for the people who have to cope with it.
My amendment No. 161 is along the same lines. I support Deputy Gilmore's proposals. I propose, in amendment No. 161, that it be the function of each road authority, namely the relevant local authority, to draw up regulations in relation to the limits of noise-sound levels and to put in place whatever protection may be necessary such as trees, sound barriers and so on to protect residences. I have received a number of representations from residents' associations very concerned about this matter. There are now newer, bigger vehicles travelling our roads. It is an issue of substance that needs to be regulated. I would ask the Minister to accept the amendment.
Usually there is a certain attempt made, in designing roads, to do something about noise, to grow certain types of trees and so on to minimise the noise and divert its impact vertically rather than laterally. When a road is constructed it will carry, say, 90 per cent of the traffic that formerly travelled through villages and towns, and was generally slow moving. The problem with by-passes is that the traffic on them moves fairly freely. Many of these trucks/lorries have very noisy brakes. Their drivers tend to use their horns to alert people to move out of the way. This causes much extra noise because of the additional speed afforded on these by-passes, in areas not troubled formerly by fast moving traffic. There is a genuine case for people who live close by — who have accepted reluctantly in many cases the construction of by-passes or of national primary roads close to them — to be given some help in the abatement of noise in their homes. There is merit in these amendments. The Minister should tell us whether he can accept them in whole or in part, particularly in view of attempts being made by Deputies to do something about this noise interference in homes whenever people find a by-pass, national primary or Euro-route being constructed close to them.
As regards Deputy Gilmore's reference to the Bray-Shankill roadway and the possibility that Dublin County Council will be making a special case about noise problems, I will give full consideration to any such proposals that come to my attention in that or any other area.
The environmental impact assessment procedure is referred to in sections 48 and 49 of the Bill and is the appropriate place to deal with measures. Section 48 (3) (c) reads:
a description of the measures envisaged in order to avoid, reduce and, if possible, remedy any significant adverse environmental effects of the proposed road development,
A local authority is required to prepare an environmental impact statement in respect of any road project likely to have significant effects on the environment. There is provision for full public consultation, including the consideration of environmental issues, at any public inquiry into the project. The Minister can approve the proposed road development with any modifications he considers necessary or refuse to approve it. In preparing their environmental impact statement the local authority are expected to identify measures they plan taking to deal with environmental problems. The Minister, in his assessment, can also insist on measures being taken. I believe that these provisions are adequate to cater for Deputies concerns raised here.
Deputy Gilmore's other amendments would require motorway, protected road and busway schemes to specify the properties that may be affected by noise, smells and other pollution and require the relevant local authority to notify such people. The preparation of a scheme is already a huge task. Anybody who has seen the advertisements for such schemes will know that the identification and referencing of property to be acquired or to which access is affected, or in respect of which planning permissions are to be revoked or modified, involves an enormous amount of effort. If we were to increase that burden, as Deputy Gilmore proposes, we would be adding years to the preparatory stage of major projects, hardly good news for communities awaiting by-passes, or exporters seeking improved roads.
Our ambition is to improve national primary routes and we have specified a time scale we hope for reaching those targets. But, as we emphasised many times in the past, more than any other European country, we are dependent on exports. We have a transport disadvantage. Therefore the improvement of our arterial network nationwide is an essential prerequisite for growth in our economy.
I had an opportunity this week to look at a road project involving a number of compulsory purchase orders and environmental impact assessments. The planning of that road began seven years ago. Therefore it will be seen that the processes that have to be gone through to try to find the best possible solution obtain at present. Were we to extend them needlessly, all that would happen would be that the noise to which Deputies rightly refer, the congestion and all of the other problems relating to bottlenecks nationwide, which are far more serious than this kind of problem, would remain. I take the point that we have and must continue to have responsibility for any new roads to be provided which would impact on local communities and go as far as we possibly can on every flank to meet people's legitimate concerns in these areas. That is my ambition and that of all my colleagues here, but we must face the reality that only a certain amount of financial resources are available. Within all of those constraints we want to travel the maximum distance possible to provide a good road network nationwide.
Those are some of the overall constraints on us and some of the distance that we must now travel to endeavour to get these plans to the stage at which we can carry out the work. In ensuing years we hope to have augmented resources for this purpose — which would have been fairly substantial in recent years — but we hope to have the possibility of increasing them in the future. We need to engage in more intensive planning nationwide to ensure improvement in these networks at a faster pace.
During the preparation of the environmental impact statement the levels of noise and other pollutants will be ascertained and recommendations made as to remedial action. As local authorities have gained experience in carrying out these environmental impact assessments increasing emphasis has been placed on public consultation, not just formal notice. They have come to appreciate the value of consulting early and fully, using public meetings and other techniques. I fully support this approach and believe it will be more effective than any formal notice of the type suggested by Deputy Gilmore.
It must also be remembered that the construction of motorways, protected roads and busways covered by these schemes leads to an improved environment, reductions in noise pollution and emissions in previously congested areas that are being by-passed. The people benefiting from a proposed road also deserve to have their say. With regard to notification procedures, it is unlikely that such a major road project could go ahead without local people being aware of it. As I have said, there will be a local public inquiry held into any such scheme at which all of these issues will be dealt with.
As regards Deputy Yates's amendment, I readily accept that noise pollution is a serious issue. I might add that local authorities have been given greater powers in the Environmental Protection Agency Act to deal with noise. However it is envisaged that the provisions of that Act will deal mainly with "fixed source noise." Noise from traffic emanates more or less 50 per cent from a vehicle itself and 50 per cent from contact between its tyres and the road surface. While the Road Traffic Construction Equipment and Use of Vehicles Regulations, 1963, require that silencers be fitted to cars and that vehicles should not be driven so as to cause excessive noise, the actual noise levels are dependent on the manufacturer's standards. In June 1991, the EC Commission proposed a Consolidated Type Approval Directive on noise emissions for new motor vehicles. The draft directive proposes more stringent standards for all categories of new motor vehicles registered on or after October 1995. Local authorities also use different types of road surfacing to reduce noise from tyre contact with the road in sensitive areas. This, of course, often involves greater expense and higher maintenance costs. If noise is a problem in a particular locality, the local authority may consider localised traffic calming measures to reduce the problem. This, again, is not cheap and, more important, it may simply solve a problem in one area by shifting it to another.
Local authorities are already well aware of the problem of noise and have been endeavouring to combat it, but to accept these amendments would place an unacceptable and, undoubtedly, very expensive imposition on local authorities at a time of continuing financial constraint. Monitoring of noise is a specialist skill which local authorities would have to buy in at some cost. In many local authority areas noise is not the main problem. Adequate maintenance of their existing road network is a more pressing task. Nevertheless, this amendment would oblige all local authorities to carry out monitoring. This proposal would also leave local authorities open to litigation if monitoring was perceived to be inadequate or if the taxpayer was not in a position to provide funds for remedial measures. In many cases, remedial measures might not be feasible.
While sympathising with the sentiments expressed, I cannot accept the amendment. I appreciate that Deputies have endeavoured to be brief, but I have tried to cover this problem from practically every possible angle. I appreciate the Deputies' concerns but they will understand the time constraints on local authorities in trying to meet a number of — I will not say conflicting — aims which do not rest easily beside each other; such as the ambition to move ahead and, through the National Roads Authority acquire additional resources which we require as a growing economy. At the same time, they want to make sure that it is done well with the least possible damage to the environment.
Having regard to the particular difficulties mentioned and on foot of receipt of recommendations in that regard from the local authorities, I will be as sympathetic as possible in trying to find solutions.
I expect the submission from Dublin County Council in connection with the Bray/Shankill by-pass will have been made by the time we get to Report Stage. I will withdraw this amendment pending that. I appreciate that the Minister said the environmental impact statement will, in future, provide for an examination of the noise impact, but taking into account the noise problem will not put an unnecessary delay on the design of a road. Very often there is a seven or eight year lead-in period before a road is constructed. While many interests are taken into account at that stage — particularly the interests of people whose land is being acquired — it is not unreasonable to expect some account to be taken of the people who have to live beside such motorways. For example, the Bray/Shankill by-pass — I am harping on about this for obvious reasons — was ten years in gestation and it was only when it was being constructed that issues such as mounding, walls and fencing — the noise impact — were taken into account. Admittedly, the number of people affected is small, but it would have saved a great deal of time and anguish if that had been taken into account at the design stage and some measures adopted to deal with it. The costs involved here are miniscule compared to the overall cost of the road project.
I will withdraw this amendment until Report Stage. By that time I expect the Minister will have studied the submissions in that regard.
There was no obligation to have an environmental impact assessment at the time that road was designed. As the Deputy is aware, the picture has changed since and any assessment is required at this stage. Experience throughout the country has enabled local authorities to better understand the range of problems which are likely to occur because very often, with the best will in the world, it is only after implementation of a new project that its effects register with the public. However, that is changing fast and experience by local authorities in the assessment process is much more advanced. Nonetheless, some of those old problems still exist. I will be as sympathetic as possible to whatever proposals are made and the Deputy will have time to consider my reaction before Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 89:
In page 21, subsection (1) (l), line 8, to delete "of the Garda Síochána".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 90 not moved.
I move amendment No. 91:
In page 21, subsection (1), between lines 14 and 15, to insert the following:
"(n) liaise with local authorities on their road plans in advance of their preparation.".
Section 20 deals with the specific directions that local authorities may receive from the National Roads Authority. Again, engineers are concerned that there would be proper liaison in that regard and I am seeking the insertion of an additional subclause that would make it obligatory to have such liaison and consultation in the preparation of road plans.
I intend to have a look at this between now and Report Stage to see whether the proposal made by Deputy Yates is suitable or whether an alternative one would be more suitable. There should be proper liaison before proceeding with road plans, therefore I do not have any real objection to Deputy Yates's amendment. However, I would like to consider this between now and Report Stage to ensure that the correct approach is adopted.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 92 not moved.
Amendments Nos. 93 and 94 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 93:
In page 21, subsection (2), lines 22 to 38, to delete paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), and substitute the following:
"request the local authority to initiate the procedure for a material contravention of the development plan or special amenity area order; and shall issue a direction only after the local authority has decided to allow a material contravention of the development plan or special amenity area order.".
This is a critical amendment because it deals with the development plans of a local authority. The Bill proposes that if the National Roads Authority, when constructing a national road, wish to contravene a county development plan they must notify the public of their intention to construct a road which is in contravention of a county development plan, receive submissions and then make a decision as to whether the county development plan should be contravened. As we know from another section, the National Roads Authority will not be required to apply to the local authority for planning permission for the construction of a national road.
There is a double problem here. First, the roads authority do not have to apply for planning permission and, second, they can override the democratically arrived at development plan of a county council. I am proposing a change in that regard, that if the National Roads Authority wish to construct a national road which in some way contravenes a development plan, they should request the local authority concerned to initiate the procedure for the variation or for a material contravention of their own development plan. If the National Roads Authority felt, for example, that the line of a road was not exactly that proposed in the development plan, they would then have the flexibility to go to the local authority and have it varied or materially contravened. In that way the integrity of the local authority's development plan would be protected because the body making the decision would be the elected members of the local authority.
There is an issue of principle involved here. Elected members of local authorities spend a great deal of time examining development plans, as road proposals and development plans are often difficult, controversial and so on. If the elected members of a local authority decide that the line of a road should be in a particular place and the National Roads Authority wish to change that, then it is the elected members of the local authority who should contravene it. The same should apply where the elected members of a local authority decide there should not be a road in a particular place. I have in mind specifically the case of the controversial eastern by-pass where the members of Dublin City Council decided to take that road plan out of the Dublin Corporation road development plans. Dublin City Council and Dublin Corporation are no longer concerned with that matter.
Under this Bill the National Roads Authority may decide they want to build the eastern by-pass. Under this provision of the Bill, the National Roads Authority can, effectively, override the decision of Dublin City Council and could, against the wishes of Dublin City Council and the people of Dublin decide that the eastern by-pass would be constructed. There is no provision for planning permission and this section provides that a decision already made by the city council can be overriden. This is probably the most undemocratic provision in the Bill. I regard it as an issue of fundamental principle. If the roads authority wish to go ahead with the road proposal which is against the development plan adopted by the council, the procedure for dealing with that should go back to the elected members to review their development plan, amend it or materially contravene it. The elected members of the council should make the decision, not the National Roads Authority who are an appointed body and may not have to be accountable directly to the people.
Deputy Gilmore's amendments present exactly the same problem as we discussed on amendment No. 85. In effect, he is saying that at the end of the day the National Roads Authority will have to comply with the wishes of the local authority, however reasonable or unreasonable they might be. If the NRA want a local authority to do something which is not in the local development plan, they must request the local authority to go through the material contravention procedure and rely on their goodwill to do so. If the local authority decline, the NRA's plans are dead in the water, there is nothing they can do to implement them even though they will be included in the NRA's own development plan approved by the Minister. The local concern will always outweigh the national interest.
The Government took great care in constructing a balanced approach to this sensitive subject. They recognised that local concerns had to be addressed but that they had to be balanced against national economic interest. We must remember that our national roads carry over one-third of all road traffic, two-thirds of it work-related. They are the life blood of the economy, providing vital transport arteries for goods for both domestic and export markets.
At the end of the day the national interest must prevail, but only if it outweighs local concerns, so a series of checks were built in. The NRA can insist on a local authority contraveining their local development plan but only if the NRA go through a consultative process and adequately consider the points made to them. All the NRA's activities have to be within the framework of their own plan approved by the Minister who, in turn, is answerable to the Oireachtas. The NRA must have regard to the local physical planning and environmental impacts of proposed road developments and if they fail to act reasonably in performing their functions they will be open to judicial review in the courts and ministerial intervention. At the end of the day the NRA will have to live in the real world and in a democracy. Their powers can only be exercised by the consent of the people. If that consent is withdrawn they will be no more able to ride roughshod over popular concerns than a local authority. I have to oppose these amendments.
In fairness, the local authorities are not required to obtain planning permission. I am not giving to the National Roads Authority any power which does not presently exist for the local authority. In the main it will be the local authority engineers who will be involved as an agency for the National Roads Authority in this process.
We seem to be unable to reach agreement as to what will happen when a conflict arises between the local authority and the NRA. Somebody will have to make a decision if a conflict arises. A few years ago the then Minister for the Environment decided, because of the abject failure of local authorities to acquire sites for the travelling people, that he would give executive powers to the county manager to acquire sites regardless of whether a majority of the council favoured such proposals. In the face of much resistance that power was given to county managers. There has been some improvement in that area since then. It is important to realise that a majority decision of the council may not always be the best one for the country, although it almost invariably is. It may be the most popular locally. It may not be the best decision for the country and I have outlined an example of that.
We are not riding roughshod over anybody. The checks have been put in place. The local authority will be the NRA's agent, working in their own area. An environmental impact assessment will be carried out, the consultative process will be gone through and all considerations will be taken into account and if agreement is not reached at the end of the day somebody will have to make a decision. If we spend £100 million on so many kilometers of roadway where traffic is travelling at 70 miles per hour, thus creating a bottleneck at a certain point, and we cannot get agreement, somebody will have to decide. The decision may not be the one the local representatives prefer, but these will be isolated cases. I cannot see any other way out of it.
As I said, I consider these amendments to be fundamental to this Bill. On Second Stage I indicated that I regarded this whole area of the Bill as being undemocratic. This type of situation is likely to arise in controversies such as the one in regard to the Eastern by-pass. This Bill is designed — certainly as far as this section is concerned — to take a short-cut through the objections or reluctance of a local authority to proceed with a particular road plan. The Minister may find it irritating that that is the case, but that is democracy. The Eastern by-pass has already been removed from the Dublin city plan and the proposed St. Helen's link — the road between Foster's Avenue and Booterstown Marsh — is in the process of being removed from the Dún Laoghaire plan.
The Minister is giving power to the National Roads Authority to override the local authorities in those two cases. The elected members may as well not have taken the eastern by-pass out of the Dublin city plan because the National Roads Authority can now put it back in again and construct it. At the very best all that will happen is that there will be a delay of between three and six months while the consultation procedure is going ahead. However, this Bill and section mean, despite the objections of local people, the wishes of Dublin City Council and Dún Laoghaire Corporation in the case of St. Helen's Road, that roads which have been removed from plans by elected members of local authorities will go back in again and that the National Roads Authority can go ahead and construct them. That is wrong, and it is also wrong of the Minister to compare the situation with that of travellers' halting sites. There is no comparison between the two.
There is the comparison that the majority of elected members were unable to make a decision because it was unpopular and travelling people are still expected to live in these conditions.
I have no difficulty, for example, in relation to travellers' halting sites. It had not occurred to me that there was a great deal of electoral fall-out from that either.
I agree.
Before the last local elections there were a number of controversial halting site proposals in my area and those of us who defended them did not notice any electoral problem as a consequence. Proposals for halting sites, by and large, tend to be very isolated, small, localised issues. A proposal for a road, however, can affect a much wider community. The proposed Eastern by-pass, for example, is not confined solely to the Sandymount area of Dublin. It is an issue that affects a whole area of south Dublin. It is wrong to compare the two. What is at stake here is a question of who will make the decision in relation to roads. At present local authorities do not have to apply for planning permission but road plans evolve from local authorities and are discussed by their elected members. Under this arrangement the National Road Authority will be responsible for the design, construction, etc., of national roads.
Using the same system.
No, it is not the same system and that is the point in this amendment. There is no Eastern by-pass in the Dublin City Development Plan but the National Roads Authority want to go ahead and build it. The Minister proposes that it would go through this consultative procedure but at the end of the day the National Roads Authority could make the decision to go ahead with the Eastern by-pass even though it is not in the Dublin city plan and the elected members of Dublin City Council have taken it out of their plan.
I want to clarify the situation vis-�-vis the Eastern by-pass. That was put in as an amendment to the draft development plan about two years ago because the Department of the Environment said they were going to make £0.5 million available to carry out a feasibility study in relation to the roadway. The development plan had to be adopted by 31 December 1991 and the council ran out of time even though they had got two extensions. I felt as chairman of the planning committee which was dealing with the draft development plan that it would be unfair to ask the members to consider the Eastern by-pass before the feasibility study was available and it was taken out on that account. As soon as the feasibility study is available it is proposed to introduce it again as an amendment to the development plan and the matter be decided by elected members at that stage.
I am mindful of the fact that there are over 120 amendments to be dealt with and I would be in some difficulty if we spend a half an hour on each. I am not taking from the importance of this matter but I would like to make one point which perhaps the Minister could clarify. We had a very detailed discussion the last day on the issue of a conflict between local authorities, local residents and the National Roads Authority and my understanding was that there would still be clear powers for the Minister to stop a project. He can refuse to sign the CPO, which means he is still accountable. Therefore, it is not correct for Deputy Gilmore to say that the Eastern by-pass can go ahead just because the National Roads Authority want it.
It is unfair, in the context of the legislative framework, to deal with a new Authority in relation to the development of our roads, to choose a couple of samples in a development plan at the moment and to say that through this Bill, we can ride roughshod over the local authority in that context. There is nothing in this Bill that obliges me or the National Roads Authority to go against a decision of the city or county council in relation to their plans. As I mentioned and emphasised time and time again, in all these disputed areas the least that will happen is that there will be compulsory acquisition orders. These must come to the Minister for the Environment and he or she must take the proper decision in relation to the matter, taking the environmental impact assessment into account.
It is not correct to suggest that this Bill automatically means that the National Roads Authority can provide for the Eastern by-pass contrary to the wishes of local people, including those of local councillors. That would be contrary to democracy. I have reservations about the Eastern by-pass and the cost figures associated with it but the matter will be dealt with in the Transportation Initiative. There will be a number of opportunities to deal with it in the context of St. Helen's Road and other routes. It is not fair to the public to suggest that the Bill means that what has been provided in the county plan — or changes made — automatically changes all that because the checks and balances are in place. They are very fair and I do not accept Deputy Gilmore's point in this connection. It is not a fair way to debate legislation, to automatically decide that the decisions which are now being taken by the city council in some way are automatically put aside by the Bill without looking at all the checks, balances, CPOs, the environmental impact assessment, democracy and the consultative process, which must be taken into account before a final decision is made.
We dealt with this principle earlier and it is obvious we will not get agreement on it. It is a crunch point and the Minister has given us his version on a couple of occasions. The problem with the National Roads Authority is that they are an appointed body and, therefore, not directly answerable to the Oireachtas. The Minister has certain powers in this regard but the Oireachtas has none and the local authority will not have any powers over them either. That is the problem.
The Minister has given a good example in the case of travellers' halting sites where he had to give power to the executive at local authority level because local authorities would not make the decision themselves. However, that policy could lead to local authorities not taking the simplest decision in case it offended even one voter which the Minister seems to be hinting at.
That is not the case.
If the Minister looks at interpretative centres he will see that even if you give powers to a non-elected body or an Authority, the local authority can have no real say in the matter and the problem is moved to a media level where it then becomes an issue in the press. The people with the most powerful influence over the media have the biggest say and the people who are elected or who have genuine opinions are never consulted. We are moving in that direction in so many areas.
It also worries me that we cannot raise matters of this kind in Dáil Éireann as we would be told very quickly by the Ceann Comhairle that we were out of order. There should be some method whereby an authority could be examined by the Dáil. Semi-state bodies can be examined by an Oireachtas committee but not in the House and our reports are rarely discussed in the Dáil. I hope that will change.
We have reached a very critical point in this Bill. We should be saying that there is a move to democratic surveillance in this area. I know the problems the Minister faces but if there is not more democratic surveillance in decisions of the NRA then the battles will be fought in the media rather than where they should be decided, at Dáil Éireann level. I hope the Minister will take that very seriously because too many decisions are being taken in the media instead of in the Dáil.
The Roads Bill will not be framed as a result of the media presenting a particular view. Let us look at one fundamental point. Why do we have a National Roads Authority? Surely we are saying that the speed with which we are providing a satisfactory primary arterial road network throughout the country has not been satisfactory?
There are disputes on the boundaries between local authorities, different kinds of terrain and different systems and we have expert design teams in one local authority which are not available in another. They all have different kinds of strengths which will be put together for the first time to streamline the system which almost everybody around this table agrees should be done. We are taking a long time to discuss areas of conflict and dispute. That is right because of people's rights and the question of whether they are infringed.
I differ from Deputy Gilmore regarding the example I gave of the travelling community. He made the point that the roads affect a wider community. Whether one individual or a group of people are concerned, it is an individual's right and what a person sees as an infringement on those rights. Roads affect a greater number of people in relation to noise and other problems but they benefit enormous numbers as well because the whole idea is to keep traffic moving and to get heavy vehicular, environmentally detrimental, traffic out of the cities and towns. In cases where there is a dispute, a compulsory purchase order must be signed by the Minister and he must also approve an environmental impact assessment.
Will the needs and the demands of the National Roads Authority supersede all other needs and demands of local authorities in relation to county roads and laneways? Will there be a balance? What about rural Ireland and county roads and lanes? Will they be left to one side? That is the feeling I get from the Minister's comments in relation to the Authority.
This Bill deals with 6 per cent of the national road network which carries a third of the traffic and is critical to our economy because whether you are based in Monaghan or Tipperary, you have to get your goods out of that county or people will not have employment in those counties. We all have a vested interest in getting quick access to the ports. This Bill deals primarily with that network but it is not correct to say that I will not give consideration to other areas. I live in the real world.
Amendment put and declared lost.
(Deputy Gilmore dissenting.)
It is fitting to remind ourselves that we have 106 amendments to deal with. I will just sow that seed at this point.
Amendment No. 94 not moved.
I move amendment No. 95:
In page 21, lines 45 to 49, and in page 22, lines 1 to 5, to delete subsection (5).
I draw the attention of the members of the Committee to the bottom of page 21 of the Bill — this subsection deals with the directions which can be given by the National Roads Authority to road authorities at local level. Subsection (5) (a) states that if a road authority refuses or fails to comply with a direction the Authority may decide to perform the function as it considers appropriate. It is badly worded and a blank cheque for the NRA. I ask the Minister to either delete it or refine it so that it would not be as jack-boot in nature as it currently is.
It is not unreasonable that the NRA should have the power to do something when the local authority concerned have not complied. I understand that Deputy Yates is afraid that this power would be absolute and would mean that in all cases where the local authority did not comply with every possible direction the NRA could decide the issue.
Could you insert the word "reasonably" or something similar?
There is an alternative and that is that the NRA should seek a court order or specific ministerial approval in any case where it wishes to carry out the function which is the subject of the direction. We will examine that between now and Report Stage.
I concur because this is an aspect about which I am concerned. We seem to be handing over total power in this loosely worded amendment. The Minister will have to rephrase the amendment because we cannot allow it to go through as it stands.
We will examine it.
I hope you will.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question, "That the section 20, as amended, be agreed to", put and declared carried.
(Deputy Gilmore dissenting.)