Heather Humphreys (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

This matter was raised on Committee Stage. I was asked to bring the Wildlife Act into line with the Roads Act. The House is aware that there is a provision under section 72 of the Roads Act which obliges landowners to ensure a tree, a shrub, a hedge or other vegetation on their land is not a hazard to road safety. There is also a provision which allows a local authority to serve notices on landowners to undertake works such as hedge cutting and clearance for safety purposes along public roads. However, these provisions under the Roads Act conflict with the exempted activities under section 40 of the Wildlife Act, whereby such works may be undertaken by public authorities such a local authority but not by individual landowners.Therefore, I have brought forward this amendment which provides that under the provisions of section 70 of the Roads Act works to be undertaken for safety purposes along public roads by landowners are considered to be an exempted activity under section 40 of the Wildlife Act. The amendment will harmonise both pieces of legislation and eliminate the confusion that has arisen on the issue during the years.

I understand the concerns raised by Senators. However, the fact is that at present there is a conflict between roads legislation and the wildlife legislation. In my view, it makes no sense that there would be a direct conflict and contradiction between two separate pieces of legislation. It is important for good governance that the entire body of law which regulates how the citizens of this State are governed is clear, unequivocal, consistent and joined up. To have it otherwise would lead to confusion, misunderstanding and inconsistency for citizens in terms of practical adherence to the law and for courts in terms of interpreting and dealing with breaches of the law. At present, if a landowner becomes aware that some vegetation on a roadside hedge belonging to him or her is giving rise to a significant hazard to people using that road and could cause an accident, possibly resulting in serious injury or death, what does the law say to that person? Under the Wildlife Acts, as things stand, it could be an offence for the owner or occupier to take reasonable steps to deal with the hazard during the prescribed closed period. However, on the other hand, that same owner or occupier is obliged under section 70(2)(a) to take all reasonable steps to ensure that such vegetation is not a potential hazard. What we are talking about here is something that is a very obvious potential hazard to road users. This divergence in law makes no sense. The amendment I am bringing forward here is designed to harmonise the two statutes and clear up confusion and conflict. The roads provision is already on the statute books. I will make a couple of points about the provision. First, it can only be invoked where there is a hazard or potential hazard and, second, the owner or occupier may only take reasonable steps. The key word is "reasonable."