Phil Hogan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)

I do not agree with the Minister that the Bill is technical in nature. It transfers a considerable amount of financial autonomy from the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to another Minister. In view of the size of the local government fund and the NVDF responsibilities, the Minister is effectively giving these away under an agreement made in the programme for Government that the non-national roads budget, consisting of the local government fund and Exchequer grants, will now be the responsibility of the Department of Transport. This does not give me great confidence about the implementation of the road works programme in view of the fact that the Minister for Transport, Deputy Dempsey, will be in charge of it. The Bill is certainly more technical than it looks. The recent mess made by the Minister, Deputy Dempsey, in the area of provisional licences and the road safety programme does not inspire confidence in his ability to clear up the enormous number of anomalies in the NVDF system. Thus, I regard this as much more than a technical Bill.

In view of the amount of money he is giving away to another Department, I am disappointed that the Minister did not take the opportunity in his contribution to say a few words about local government. It was a missed opportunity, although that is a political cliché, to enact meaningful legislation which devolves functions to local government rather than discuss one item before the House which the Minister regards as technical in the context of non-national roads. The Bill gives us an opportunity to talk about how local government works at present. It says something about the Government's direction on devolution that these road network functions are being transferred to a Department that administers the budget of the NRA. It was a mistake for the Green Party and for the Minister to allow this happen. I do not accept that the National Roads Authority will be as sympathetic to the pleadings of local government as is the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. When the National Roads Authority is not accountable to this House in terms of even asking a parliamentary question about funding for various road projects, it shows how frustrating it will be, not only for Members of Parliament but for members of local authorities, trying to get straight answers to straight questions on a regular basis from the Department of Transport. There has been a tradition, not without good reason, that the local councillors in city and urban areas, or in county councils around the country, are able to write to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to ask that various water, sewerage or roads projects be undertaken. These were the main infrastructural projects that were at the heart of local communities. The substantial amount of money the Minister has decided to hive off from local government to the Department of Transport will make such representations all the more difficult. In the absence of reform of the accountability system that is required from the Department of Transport, through the NRA, to this House and to local authorities, I have reservations about this.

Both of the measures should have been implemented at the same time, if we were to get some meaningful input with parliamentarians and councillors having an opportunity to raise important roads issues. For example, the former Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Cullen, could meet the regional authority in the south east two years ago and make announcements about additional moneys being made available for designing important regional routes which come under the remit of the Local Government Fund as well as in the context of non-national roads. That sort of engagement with the local authority system, albeit on a regional basis, was vital to ensure that local councillors were able to make the necessary improvements to the network, at regional and local levels that were important for business, for tourism and for the day to day journeys of people to and from their places of work.

There has been much talk and many reports on local government over the years but there has been very little reform. We started in a meaningful way with the Barrington report in 1991, in which various structures were proposed to organise the local government system. Some of those proposals were implemented but they related mainly to geographical arrangements, such as splitting Dublin into three county areas and keeping Dublin City, and setting up the city structures with more meaningful boundaries. There followed the "Better Local Government" system, which was brought before us by the former Minister, Deputy Howlin, and subsequently implemented by the former Minister, Deputy Dempsey. This involved setting up a system of local government that would give community groups much more meaningful input into activities at local level.

There is no point in having those structures when we are effectively taking away from the Department a funding mechanism for non-national and regional roads and giving it to another Department. The direct line of communication is now cut off. Notwithstanding the pressures the Minister is under from the Department of Finance to have this put through for budgetary and estimate reasons, I ask the Minister to tell us on the conclusion of Second Stage or on Committee Stage whether there will be reform of the National Roads Authority in terms of how it engages with parliamentarians and councils and whether we will have access to its staff as regards their additional, as well as existing, funding for national routes, and the principles which will govern them. Local Government has stood the test of time. It is more than 100 years old. It is the form of government nearest to the citizen. I have reservations about giving away that amount of money to another Department from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.

The Minister made a statement over the weekend that he would increase motor vehicle taxation in the context of the budgetary framework on the basis that it would be good for the environment. He suggested it would be based on the engine capacity of the vehicle rather than on emissions of the vehicle. If he is interested in environment issues, as I know he is, I would have thought that he would have taken the opportunity to speak about a form of taxation in the context of reforming the VRT system to ensure that people are penalised for higher emissions rather than for higher engine capacity. That is a form of indirect taxation. The Minister is taking the opportunity to gather in more money for the Exchequer when there is a declining amount of income, and here he will give it to the Department of Transport.

See this speech in context