I move amendment No. 167:
In page 55, subsection (5) (a), line 19, to delete "Justice" and substitute "Judge".
This is a technical amendment to take account of the recent change in the title from Justice of the District Court to Judge of the District Court.
Do I take it that anybody who grows a tree beside a road will be responsible to cut it back? In our area it was the practice that the local authority were responsible for this work; indeed there are weeds growing along the roadside as big as trees. I take it that trees growing along the roadside are the responsibility of the landowner. In the case of hedges, there is sometimes a difficulty establishing whether their maintenance is the responsibility of the farmer or the local authority but now these will have to be cut back. It is important to note that over the last few years there has been a reduction in the number of local authority outdoor staff and much of this work had been carried out by them. I can remember men with slash hooks cutting back bushes. It would appear that under this section landowners with land adjoining roads will be totally responsible for the cutting back of hedges, trees, etc., and making them safe.
I would like to ask a few questions about this. We have had discussions in our county about the problem Deputy Kavanagh has mentioned. In our area we hold that anything that grows in the centre of the ditch to the roadside is the responsibility of the local authority but if it is just inside the centre of the ditch, that is the farmer's responsibility. Perhaps the Minister would clarify that for me. That is what we have always held in Kerry. I accept, as Deputy Kavanagh said, that a farmer would be responsible if a branch of a tree in a field grew over a ditch on the roadside but I should like that confirmed.
Present exalted company prevents me from relating a story about what happens when something rolls over from your jurisdiction and ownership into somebody else's. Deputies can use their imagination in that regard. The fact is that this was always the responsibility of the farmer. He is the landowner and is responsible for the maintenance of hedges adjoining the roadside on land he owns. When you look at the ordnance and survey maps and you see where the lines are drawn and people tend to say: I own the land and half the road as well. Leaving that aside the practice has grown up that local authorities — where they are in a position to so do — have maintained many roadside fences, but it would be a much simpler task for a local authority — and most local authorities could afford to undertake the tidying/cleaning up exercise immediately adjacent to the roadside — if all farmers met their responsibilities with regard to the maintenance of hedges. There are very few farmers who would own so much land adjacent to roadways that they would have to incur serious expense to undertake this general task. This is unacceptable on a number of counts. In particular it undermines consistently wet county roads which are not given a chance to dry out, considerably reducing visibility on bends and even on straight, fairly narrow roads. In my work with local authorities I am trying to ascertain what better enforcement can be implemented in this area, but it is primarily a matter for local authorities. The responsibility is that of farmers who, in many cases, live up to their responsibility fully. In other cases they ignore their responsibility, fatally which is not acceptable.
As a farmer I accept what the Minister says. Emphasis should be placed on farmers landowners. There is the type of person who may own some land, who drives around it for pleasure, he might not describe himself as a farmer but he too should be responsible for the hedges adjacent to roads. Hedge cutting notices should be served and enforced but common sense should apply. There are many mature ornamental trees along the roadside, not a danger, which should be pruned.
However, I do not believe, in cutting everything in sight, leaving the countryside bleak or denuded of foliage. I notice some authorities are enforcing these hedge cutting notices rigidly which means that fine trees that have taken a lifetime to grow are cut within a matter of minutes. That is wrong. There should be some restriction/discretion in regard to wholesale cutting of ornamental trees.
There is another dangerous aspect to the pruning of hedges. In winter such roads will be slow to dry with frost remaining on them for long periods rendering them dangerous, that is on sections where the sun does not penetrate. There should be a standard applied to hedgecutting with common sense applied to the pruning of mature trees.
Amendment No. 168 is in the name of the Minister. Amendments Nos. 168a and 169 are alternatives and amendment No. 171 is related. It is suggested we take amendments Nos. 168, 168a, 169 and 171 together.
I move amendment No. 168:
In page 56, before section 68, to insert the following new section:
68.—(1) (a) Any person who, without lawful authority or the consent of a road authority—
(i) erects, places or retains a sign on a public road, or
(ii) erects, places or retains on a public road any caravan, vehicle or other structure or thing (whether on wheels or not) used for the purposes of advertising, the sale of goods, the provision of services or other similar purpose,
shall be guilty of an offence.
(b) A consent under paragraph (a) may be given by the road authority subject to such conditions, restrictions or requirements as it thinks fit and any person who fails to comply with such conditions, restrictions or requirements shall be guilty of an offence.
(2) Without prejudice to the liability of any person under subsection (1), where there is a contravention of that subsection in the case of any sign or advertisement, the person on whose behalf the sign or advertisement is exhibited shall be deemed also to have contravened that subsection.
(3) Notwithstanding any other enactment, an authorised person may remove a sign, caravan, vehicle or other structure or thing to which subsection (1) applies.
(4) An authorised person may store, or procure the storage of, a sign, caravan, vehicle or other structure or thing removed by him under subsection (3).
(5) Where the name and address of the owner of a sign, caravan, vehicle or other structure or thing removed and stored under this section can be ascertained by reasonable inquiry, the road authority or the Commissioner shall serve a notice upon the owner informing him of its removal and storage and of the address of the place where it may be claimed and recovered, requiring him to claim and recover it within one month of the date of the service of the notice and informing him of the statutory consequences of his failure to do so.
(6) A sign, caravan, vehicle or other structure or thing removed and stored under this section shall be given to a person claiming it if, but only if, he makes a declaration in writing that he is the owner of the sign, caravan, vehicle or other structure or thing or is authorised by its owner to claim it and, at the discretion of the road authority concerned or the Commissioner, pays the amount of the expenditure reasonably incurred in removing and storing it.
(7) The road authority concerned or the Commissioner may dispose, or procure the disposal, of a sign, caravan, vehicle or other structure or thing removed and stored under this section if—
(a) the owner of the sign, caravan, vehicle or other structure or thing fails to claim it and remove it from the place where it is stored within one month of the date on which a notice under subsection (5) was served on him, or
(b) the name and address of the owner of the sign, caravan, vehicle or other structure or thing cannot be ascertained by reasonable inquiry.
(8) A sign, caravan, vehicle or other structure or thing shall not be disposed of under this section within six weeks of the date of its removal under this section.
(9) In this section—
"authorised person" means—
(a) a person authorised in writing by a road authority for the purposes of this section,
(b) a member of the Garda Síochána;
"sign" includes any sign, hoarding or other structure used for the purposes of advertising.
(10) This section shall not apply to a sign which relates to a presidential election within the meaning of the Presidential Elections Act, 1937, a general election or a bye-election, within the meaning, in each case, of the Electoral Act, 1923, a local election, a referendum, within the meaning of the Referendum Act, 1942, or an election of members of the European Parliament, unless the sign has been in position for seven days or longer after the latest day upon which the poll was taken for the election, bye-election or referendum concerned.
This amendment is a restatement of the existing section 68 which provides for enforcement action to be taken where unauthorised signs or trading vehicles are placed on a public road. The main change in this section is to extend its powers to the Garda as well as the local authorities. As this required a large number of minor changes throughout the section it was found more convenient to replace the section in its entirety. The mechanism used in the amended section is to give the powers to an "authorised person," defined in subsection (9) as a person with written authorisation from a local authority or a member of the Garda Síochána. A number of minor changes have been made in subsection (1) where the words "other similar purpose" are added at the end of section 68 (1) (a) (ii). The reference now is to a caravan, vehicle or other structure or things used for the purpose of advertising the sale of goods, the provision of services or a similar purpose.
In response to Deputy Yates's amendment No. 169 proposing to give local authorities the power to regulate structures I have inserted a new subsection (1) (b) which will allow local authorities to attach conditions, restrictions or requirements to consents given under subsection (1) (a). As I pointed out in my Second Stage reply, the seasonal sale of fruit and vegetables is not to be prohibited under the provisions of section 68. Trading of this type is permitted under the Casual Trading Act, 1980, the primary legislation in this area. Trading with such lawful authority is not affected by the new provisions in section 68. If it is also possible, under this section, for a local authority to consent to trading activities which would not be affected by this section. Therefore, there is no need for Deputy Yates's amendment No. 171 concerning the sale of fruit and vegetables. I hope that, following my insertion of the amendment covering the first of Deputy Yates's amendments and my explanation with regard to the second — he will not find it necessary to press his amendment.
I am happy to withdraw my amendment No. 169 on the basis that amendment No. 168 covers it.
In relation to amendment No. 171, the situtation here is that this is a matter of substance. Many people sell potatoes, strawberries and other vegetables in season in a quite acceptable manner along the roadside. Perhaps it should be regulated, but not in an overly bureaucratic way because much of such selling might be for two weeks of the year only. These activities tend to add to the ambience of an area. For example in my county, one and a half million people travel through Rosslare. How many people would stop in Wexford at the end of their journey? But they might stop, say to buy strawberries or something like that. I consider that to be an entirely good thing. In different parts of the country there will be other produce on sale and so on. I have received substantial representations because word went out among ordinary strawberry growers in County Wexford that the provisions of this Bill would outlaw such selling on the roadside. I do not think it should be outlawed. I was only half listening to the Minister when he said there was no need for amendment No. 171. Perhaps the Minister could clarify what will be the position henceforth of those people selling fruit and vegetables on the roadside. The Minister will be familiar with what I am saying — such people will locate off the hard shoulder, will have a half trailer and remain there for the day, lying out in the sun, reading books and selling their wares.
I support the case being made by Deputy Yates. It is not a problem that we encounter very much of in County Cavan. But the selling of strawberries and early potatoes, has been a traditional practice with children earning pocket money over the summer by so doing.
In relation to advertising signs with which the Minister dealt earlier — these highways will by-pass many locations of established businesses. There may be accessways and so on available to people. I contend such people should be allowed to erect adequate signs advertising the fact that this service or facility is available at a certain destination. I contend there should also be uniformity in relation to advertising. I notice that such advertising is widespread in some counties while in others it appears to be totally restricted. We must endeavour to build up the country by stimulating business and other activity and movement vis-�-vis jobs.
With regard to the erection and retention of signs, there are many on our roads already. Some of those signs existed before planning laws were introduced in this country. Some are much larger than the regulation sign allowed by local authorities. Under the provisions of this Bill will such signs have to be removed? After all, they have been in existence over the past 30 years before planning was introduced here. That is a very important matter the Minister should endeavour to explain to us.
Traditionally there have been these traders, local people or farmers of any ilk, as it were, selling strawberries and potatoes for a limited period during the year. Their activities are covered by the Casual Trading Act, 1980 and will be totally unaffected by these provisions. There is no intention to interfere with their activities.
In regard to Deputy McEllistrim's question about billboard advertising, what is involved — with regard to road safety — is that they can divert the attention or concentration of the driver. We all have an idea of what such billboards and advertising signs can be like. The type of small-scale advertising Deputy Boylan mentioned — in relation to the other areas — does not appear to be covered by any provisions here.
I do not think the provisions of the Casual Trading Act, 1980 solve my problem. My understanding is the provisions of that Act operate on the basis of a designated area within the jurisdiction of a local authority; that they regulate it on a one day per week basis, the third Monday of the month, or whatever, and they obtain their permits to do so.
What is happening with regard to the selling of fruit is much more informal than that. Such people do not have permits or anything else. I do not foresee local authorities designating hard shoulders of roads as a trading area.
Fruit and vegetables are exempt from these provisions so such people would not be required to sell them within a designated area.
Do they have to have a permit?
Not really.
I have taken my holidays in Wexford for a few years. It appears we are talking about a short life span for most developments referred to by Deputy Yates. It would be outrageous if there were to be many bureaucratic bottlenecks put in its way, that is provided such people are reasonable and keep well off the road.
