(Cavan-Monaghan) asked the Minister for the Environment if he will amend the regulations or, if necessary, the law in regard to road works under the local improvements scheme so that one or more people will not be allowed to obstruct unreasonably the schemes by withholding consent to the proposed works.

The Deputy is aware that legislation would be required to empower county councils to proceed with road works under the local improvements scheme where a landowner whose lands or interests would be likely to be affected refused his consent to the works. I am satisfied, as were previous Ministers, that I would not be justified in seeking leave to introduce such legislation.

Why?

Firstly, you are into the area of compulsory powers.

Do local authorities have such powers?

Yes, but it is a question of the advisability of extending compulsory powers to this area which we do not consider desirable. Not only this Government but the previous Government after consideration came to the same view.

We accept that.

The former Minister, Deputy Tully, notified Deputy Fitzpatrick on 24th March, 1976, of his decision not to proceed with the legislation and gave his full reasons, which were on the same lines I am giving now.

Will the Minister agree that when a development which might benefit five or six people is held up by the intransigent action of one person, it should not be permitted to hold up a worth-while development?

This is a local question.

It is a very general question.

Deputies cannot have it both ways. A few moments ago Deputy O'Keeffe was concerned about the rights of the individual in another context vis-à-vis the Civil Liability Act, 1960. Here the right of the individual is involved.

Against his neighbours.

The Deputy is suggesting that we give local authorities compulsory powers to deal with an individual with regard to his rights.

When the Minister was a rural Deputy he knew of cases where a person could have a right of way to a bog miles down a roadway. An individual such as this person can impede the right of numerous families living on such a roadway. The Minister must agree that that person's right in impeding the progress of these families is such that it cannot be countenanced. The Minister for the Environment has the ultimate responsibility in this matter, and surely he will agree that this is his responsibility and he should act on it?

I have every sympathy with what the Deputy says. Like him I have dealt with these problems over the years. I know how these schemes can be held up over the intransigence of people in regard to rights of way, rights of property and so on. There are two points of view on it—the point of view of having the bureaucratic local authority move in on people to ensure that a scheme is done, and the right of the individual.

The Minister is the most broadminded Minister in the House.

It is one of these eternal conflicts that arise in regard to all legislation between the administration and the individual.

Will there be two points of view on all matters from now on?

The Minister for Philosophy.

I will put the Deputy's point of view before the Minister for the Environment.

Would the Minister agree that a correct balance in this case would be in favour of permitting the overall development which would help a number of people?

I have a certain feeling for the point of view put by the Deputy. I will put that view, added to my own which is not too remote from the Deputy's to the Minister.