Eamon Ryan (Dublin Bay South, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

In section 50 of the Bill, we are providing a number of amendments to section 95 of the Road Traffic Act 1961, which deals with provision of road signage. The principal aim here is to ensure the necessary powers for the TII to deal with signage on a new class of what will be called national managed roads. The only such road intended for now is the M50. What the Bill does is that it separates out existing powers for provision of signage from those being given to TII - still referred to, Senators may wish to note, as the National Roads Authority, NRA, in law.

Amendments Nos. 65 and 66 propose to replace references to signs which are "desirable" with signs which are "necessary". I understand the Senators’ wish to limit the signs which can be provided to those strictly necessary. However, the word "desirable" is the word already used in section 95 in relation to signage put up by road authorities. It would be odd if we put a tighter restriction on signage provision where a road was under TII management than where a local authority was in charge. The term "necessary" would place an unreasonable limit on signage provision by TII as opposed to local authorities, and therefore I cannot accept amendments Nos. 65 and 66.

The position is similar with amendments Nos. 67 and 68. The Bill will amend section 95 of the 1961 Act to allow for TII to provide signage on national management roads in the same way that a road authority does on roads within its ambit. Section 95 provides for the removal of signage where the Garda Commissioner has requested the removal on the grounds of the safety of road users, and in the Bill we are replicating this provision in respect of TII removing signage. Amendment No. 67, which proposes to add removal where the signage interferes with the mobility, as well as the safety, of road users would place a different standard under section 95 for TII signage as opposed to road authority signage. Amendment No. 68 would likewise add conditions to TII signs that do not apply to road authority signs. I believe the two should remain the same basis, which is what we have proposed in the Bill.

Amendment No. 69 would require notification to the relevant local authority where TII removed a regulatory sign from a national managed road. I do not see the value in this. The road will be under the management of TII, which will be providing the signage. I do not think we need to create a requirement to notify the local authority, which is not managing the road.

Finally, with regard to amendment No. 70, which would insert into section 95 of the 1961 Act – which deals with signage, let us remember - a requirement that "Where a private individual removes or significantly alters a hedgerow, or other established growth in the vicinity of a national managed road, the relevant local authority shall be notified." I am very much in favour of protecting the natural environment. However, I do not see how this can possibly belong in a section of the law on signage. In any case, the proposed amendment does not say who is obliged to do the informing. In effect, no one would be. I therefore request that this amendment, and also amendments Nos. 65 to 69, inclusive, be withdrawn.