id
stringlengths
6
19
text
stringlengths
1
1.02k
eng_text
stringlengths
1
1.02k
eclr:605
Ba mhór agam an comhoibriú a thug an Ghníomhaireacht um Fháil Iarnród (GFI) le linn an phróisis imscrúdaithe.
I greatly appreciate the cooperation of the Railway Procurement Agency (RPA) in the conduct of the investigation.
eclr:606
Chuir an Ghníomhaireacht cás cuimsitheach i láthair an imscrúdaithe i dtaca lena háiteamh nach raibh an reachtaíocht á sárú sa chás seo mar gur chomhlíon na comharthaí ag Stáisiún Uí Chonghaile dualgais reachtúla GFI faoin Acht um Shábháilteacht Iarnróid, 2005.
The Agency put a comprehensive case to the investigation in respect of its claim that the legislation was not being breached in this instance as the signs at Connolly Station fulfilled the RPA’s statutory obligations under the Railway Safety Act 2005.
eclr:607
D’áitigh GFI go raibh tús áite ag a dualgais faoin Acht sin sa mhéid is a tháinig na dualgais faoi Acht na dTeangacha Oifigiúla salach orthu.
The RPA claimed those obligations took precedence in so much as they were in conflict with the obligations under the Official Languages Act.
eclr:608
Thug sí le fios gur athraíodh an reachtaíocht tríd an Acht Sábháilteachta Iarnróid, 2005 (Acht 2005) – gur aisghaireadh alt 11(1)(b) leis an Acht sin agus gur leagadh dualgais sábháilteachta ar GFI faoi ailt 36 & 37 den Acht nua mar seo a leanas:
The RPA informed the investigation that the Railway Safety Commission, which was established under the 2005 Act, has responsibility for the enforcement of that Act, and that wide-ranging powers have been bestowed on the Commission, including the power to request a railway closure under paragraph 79.
eclr:609
Thug GFI le fios go bhfuil freagracht ar an gCoimisiún Sábháilteachta Iarnróid, a bunaíodh faoi Acht 2005, as forfheidhmiú Acht 2005, agus go bhfuil cumhachtaí an-leathan tugtha don Choimisiún, ar a n-áirítear an chumhacht chun dúnadh iarnróid a iarraidh faoi alt 79.
An operator may take any reasonable steps to remove any vehicle or article which is or may become a danger to life, health, the operation and maintenance of a light railway or would otherwise interfere with the proper operation of a light railway.”
eclr:610
Mar shoiléiriú ar an mír seo, dúirt GFI: “In ainneoin go ndéantar tagairt do ‘bhaint’ sna hailt seo, ceadaíonn Alt 66(1) (iv) d’Acht 2001, mar a leasaíodh é in Acht 2005, cosc a chur ar nithe mar seo má éilíonn na cúinsí, faoinar deineadh na fodhlithe, a leithéid.
As clarification of this element, the RPA said: “Despite the fact that reference is made to ‘removal’ in these paragraphs, section 66 (1) (iv) of the 2001 Act, as amended by the 2005 Act, allows for the prohibition of items of this nature if the circumstances under which the bye-laws were made so dictate.” (trans.)
eclr:611
Is léir ón dul chun cinn le forálacha reachtúla, mar atá leagtha amach thuas, go bhfuil ceist sábháilteachta iarnróid agus chosaint phaisinéirí, fhostaithe agus an phobail ar bhagairt thromchúiseach fhéideartha de dheasca oibríochtaí fabhtacha iarnróid, mar phríomhábhar imní ag an Oireachtas agus go bhfuiltear ag súil le hardchaighdeán cúraim ón GFI agus í i mbun an gnóthaí iarnróid.
“It is apparent from the progress with statutory provisions, as set out above, that the question of railway safety and protection of passengers, employees and the public from potential serious threat as a result of faulty railroad operations are of major concern to the Oireachtas, and a high standard of care is expected of the RPA in the execution of railway business.
eclr:612
Éilíonn sé seo monatóireacht leanúnach ar cheisteanna sábháilteachta agus gníomhartha cuí mar fhreagra orthu má aithnítear baol.
This requires constant monitoring of safety issues and appropriate actions in response if a risk is identified.
eclr:613
Maidir leis seo baineann dhá thoisc leis an ábhar atá faoi chaibidil: (1) dea-ghnás idirnáisiúnta agus an teoiric a bhaineann le ‘héifeacht tranglaim’ agus (2) taithí oibríochta na GFI.”
As regards this, there are two factors relating to the subject in question: (1) good international practice and the theory behind ‘clutter effect’ and (2) the RPA’s operational experience.” (trans.)
eclr:614
Rinne GFI cur síos breise ar an ábhar faoin dá cheannteideal sin.
The RPA gave an additional account on the subject under those two headings.
eclr:615
Chuir GFI na míreanna ar leith seo ón dá fhoilseachán sin faoi bhráid an imscrúdaithe mar thacaíocht lena seasamh:
‘As well as having a negative effect on the general appearance of the streetscape, sign clutter can cause a number of other problems.
eclr:616
Ag tagairt di don chinneadh seo, dúirt GFI gur bhraith sí go raibh an baol ann go mbuailfeadh dhá thram in aghaidh a chéile chomh hard, nó níos airde, sa cheantar seo (Stáisiún Uí Chonghaile) is a bhí ag Faiche Stiabhna mar ar tharla tuairt cheana féin.
Referring to that decision, the RPA said that it felt that the threat that two trams would collide was as high, or higher, in this area (Connolly Station) as at Stephen’s Green, where a crash had already occurred.
eclr:617
Toisc leibhéal ard trácht coisithe a bheith sa cheantar braitheadh go raibh baol mór ann go ngortófaí daoine den phobal.
Due to the high level of pedestrian traffic in the area it was felt that there was a high level of possibility that a member of the public could be injured.
eclr:618
Ba ar na cúiseanna seo a glacadh céimeanna slándála den chineál céanna ag Stáisiún Uí Chonghaile, a dúirt GFI.
It was for these reasons that safety precautions of the same nature were adopted at Connolly Station, according to the RPA.
eclr:619
Sa bhreis ar na hargóintí sin, rinne GFI cur síos ar sheasamh an Choimisiúin Sábháilteachta Iarnróid (CSI), a bhí curtha ar fáil di i litir ó Choimisinéir CSI, Gerard Beesley, mar seo a leanas:
In addition to those arguments, the RPA gave an account of the stance of the Railway Safety Commission (RSC), which had been provided to the RPA in a letter from the RSC Commissioner, Gerard Beesley, as follows:
eclr:620
“Aontaíonn Mr.
“Mr.
eclr:621
Beesley le tuairim na GFI nach mar eolas don phobal iad na comharthaí seo ach mar eolas do fhoireann oibríochta, agus gur chóir go mbeadh na comharthaí seo soiléir, agus nach meascfaí iad le haon chomhartha nó póstaer in aice láimhe, faoi réir oibleagáidí na GFI faoi Acht 2005.”
Beesley agrees with the opinion of the RPA that these signs are not provided as information for the public but as information for the operative staff, and that these signs should be clear, and that they should not be mixed with any sign or poster in the vicinity, under the RPA’s obligations under the 2005 Act.” (trans.)
eclr:622
“D’aithin an tuarascáil fabht comharthaíochta, ag cur san áireamh cúinsí an cháis, chun a chur in iúl do tiománaí go raibh sé ag teannadh le crosaire comhréidh agus/nó contúirtí a bhaineann le crosairí comhréidh.
“The investigation identified a signage problem, taking into account the circumstances of the case, in advising the driver that he was approaching a railway crossing and/or dangers relating to a railway crossing.
eclr:623
Bhí go leor comharthaí ann ag láthair na timpiste; mar sin féin ní raibh aon cheann dóibh éifeachtach a dóthain, mar a bhí i gceist, chun a leithéid de thaisme a chosc.
There were a lot of signs at the accident location; however, not one of them was sufficiently effective, as was the intent, to prevent this type of accident.
eclr:624
Agus iad ag moladh don chomhlacht (Iarnród Éireann) go ndéanfaí oiriúnacht na comharthaíochta a athbhreithniú agus a chinntiú go n-aithneofaí is go dtabharfaí aghaidh ar ‘cheisteanna thosca daonna’ is fiú a nótáil go raibh sé tugtha faoi deara ag an RAIU go raibh na comharthaí ag láthair na timpiste i nGaeilge is i mBéarla agus ‘nach raibh eolas ag an tiománaí ná ag an bpaisinéir ar an teanga Ghaeilge’.
Whilst making recommendations to the company (Iarnród Éireann) that the suitability of the signage be reviewed and that it be ensured that ‘human factor issues’ would be identified and dealt with, it is worth noting that the RAIU had noticed that the signs at the accident location were in Irish and in English and that ‘both the driver and the passenger were not familiar with the Irish language.’
eclr:625
Siúd is nach bhfuil an GFI ag maíomh nach bhféadfaí ábhar an fhiosraithe seo bheith i nGaeilge i ngeall ar leibhéal eolais ár dtiománaithe, agus in ainneoin go bhfuil ár n-aighneacht bunaithe ar ár n-imní faoi ‘éifeacht an tranglaim’ agus ar ár dtaithí oibríochta, creidimid go léiríonn an tuarascáil seo go dtógfadh an CSI agus an RAIU san áireamh tuiscint thiománaithe i gcomhthéacs fhiosraithe ar aon thimpiste a fhéadfadh tarlú.
Although the RPA is not claiming that the information which is the subject of this investigation could not be in Irish due to the level of knowledge of our drivers, and despite the fact that our submission is based on our concern with regard to the ‘clutter effect’ and our operational knowledge, we believe that this report shows that the RSC and the RAIU will take account of the driver’s understanding in the context of an investigation of any accident which may happen.
eclr:626
Tá an chuma ar an scéal agus ‘tosca daonna’ a bhaineann le comharthaíocht ag aon láthair go gcaithfeadh an GFI a thabhairt san áireamh cumas thiománaithe chun aon chomhartha a thabhairt faoi deara, a léamh is a thuiscint, agus gníomhú dá réir d’aon chomhartha dá shórt.
It would appear with the ‘human factor’ which pertains to signs at any location that the RPA would have to take into account the ability of drivers to notice, read and understand any sign and to act accordingly in respect of any sign of that kind.
eclr:627
In ainneoin go dtuigeann an GFI go hiomlán nach bhfuil aon díolúine den chineál seo in Acht 2003, caithfimid a rá go mbeimis ár bhfágáil féin oscailte do chinneadh nach raibh aghaidh tugtha againn ar ghné na ‘dtosca daonna’, ar chóir go mbeimis ar an eolas faoi, dá ndéanfaimis neamhaird ar cheisteanna tuisceana.”
Despite the fact that the RPA understands that there is no exemption of this nature in the 2003 Act, we have to say that we would be leaving ourselves open to a decision that we had not taken account of the ‘human factor’, about which we should be aware, if we ignored the question of understanding.” (trans.)
eclr:628
Mar chonclúid, dúirt GFI gurb í a haighneacht gur dearadh agus gur cuireadh in airde na comharthaí chun baol ceapáirithe a chosc agus nach dtig léi aon chomhartha breise ná aon chomhartha le téacs breise a chur in airde sna háiteanna seo, agus dúirt:
In conclusion, the RPA submitted that the signs were designed and erected to prevent a particular threat and that they could not erect any other signs or any signs with additional text in these areas, and stated:
eclr:629
“Tá sé rísholéir don GFI nach raibh sé i gceist go dtiocfadh comharthaí den chineál seo faoi réir Acht 2003.
“It is crystal clear to the RPA that it was not intended that signs of this nature would be included under the 2003 Act.
eclr:630
Bheadh sé doshamhlta go gcuirfeadh acht, a bhfuil mar aidhm leis an Ghaeilge a chur chun cinn ar mhaithe leis an bpobal, an GFI sa riocht go raibh an pobal á chur i mbaol aici.
It is unimaginable that an Act, whose aim is to promote Irish to the benefit of the public, would put the RPA in such a position as to endanger the public.
eclr:631
Iarrfaimid ar an gCoimisinéir teacht ar chinneadh nach bhfuil aon dualgas ar an GFI a thuilleadh comharthaí a chur in airde de bharr a cuid dualgas faoin Acht Sábháilteachta Iarnróid 2005 agus a cumhachtaí faoi Alt 66 (1) (b) (iv) d’Acht 2001.”
We ask the Coimisinéir to arrive at a decision that the RPA is not obliged to erect any more signs due to its obligations under the Railway Safety Act 2005 and its powers under section 66(1) (b) (iv) of the 2001 Act.” (trans.)
eclr:632
Sheol an fhoireann imscrúdaithe an dara litir chuig GFI ag fiafraí di an raibh aon fhianaise le tairiscint aici don imscrúdú ón dlínse seo nó ó thíortha dátheangacha eile go raibh comhartha dátheangach a bhí curtha in airde i gcomhréir leis na dualgais reachtúla cuí ina chúis timpiste.
The investigation team sent a second letter to the RPA asking had it any evidence to offer the investigation from this or any other bilingual jurisdiction that bilingual signs that were erected in accordance with appropriate statutory obligations were the cause of an accident.
eclr:633
Mar fhreagra ar an litir sin, dúirt GFI nár mhaígh sí go mbíonn comharthaí dátheangacha ina n-ábhar timpiste, agus nárbh eol di aon fhianaise chuige sin a bheith sa dlínse seo ná in aon dlínse eile, siúd is go bhféadfadh a leithéid d’fhianaise a bheith ann.
In response to that letter, the RPA stated that it had not claimed that bilingual signs are a cause of accidents, and that they were not aware of any such evidence in this jurisdiction or in any other, although such evidence might exist.
eclr:634
Bhain an t-imscrúdú seo le húsáid na dteangacha oifigiúla, Gaeilge agus Béarla, ar chomharthaí de chuid na Gníomhaireachta um Fháil Iarnród.
This investigation concerned the use of the official languages, Irish and English, on signs belonging to the Railway Procurement Agency.
eclr:635
Ach in ailt 1.1.48, 1.1.50 agus 1.1.51 den Lámhleabhar céanna, dearbhaítear an dualgas reachtúil atá ann comharthaí dátheangacha a úsáid:
· Where the spelling of a place name is similar in both languages, in which case only the Irish form of the name should be shown.
eclr:636
Ba léir ón méid seo nach gcreideann an Roinn Iompair go bhfuil comharthaí Gaeilge nó dátheangach ina gcúis ‘tranglaim’.
1.1.50 All other fixed information and warning signs, including supplementary plates, containing text shall be bilingual.
eclr:637
A mhalairt d’fhianaise, áfach, a bhí ar fáil don imscrúdú, i gcomhthéacs anailís a bhí déanta ar éifeacht comharthaí dátheangacha ar shábháilteacht ar bhóithre in Albain.
The investigation, however, had access to evidence of the opposite nature, in the context of an analysis which had been carried out on the effect of bilingual signage on road safety on roads in Scotland.
eclr:638
I dtuarascáil chríochnúil ar an ábhar seo, Analyses of the effects of bilingual signs on road safety in Scotland (Kinnear, Helman, Buttress, Smith, Delmonte, Lloyd and Sexton, 2012), thángthas ar an bhfionnachtain nach raibh aon fhianaise ann a thabharfadh le fios gur ardaigh nó gur ísligh líon na dtimpistí de thoradh suiteáil comharthaí dátheangacha, agus bhí an méid seo le rá mar chonclúid:
In their final report on this subject, Analyses of the effects of bilingual signs on road safety in Scotland (Kinnear, Helman, Buttress, Smith, Delmonte, Lloyd and Sexton, 2012), it was concluded that there was no evidence to suggest that the number of accidents increased or decreased as a result of the siting of bilingual signs, and the following was said in conclusion:
eclr:639
Rinneadh an taighde fairsing seo, a bhí bunaithe ar léirmheas ar an litríocht idirnáisiúnta, staitisticí i dtaca le timpistí bóthair agus agallaimh le húsáideoirí na mbóithre agus roinnt údaráis áitiúla, thar ceann ‘Transport Scotland’.
It is concluded that while there is evidence that bilingual signs may have increased the demand of the driving task, this increase can be absorbed, and managed, by the driver and therefore does not result in a significant increase in crash risk and accident involvement.
eclr:640
Ba léir, áfach, ó léamh na tuarascála, gurbh é fionnachtain an fhiosrúcháin nach raibh na comharthaí ag cloí leis an reachtaíocht chuí i dtaca le comharthaíocht den chineál sin, agus nach raibh siad curtha in airde i gceart.
It was apparent, however, from reading the report, that the findings of the investigation were that the signage at the accident location was not in accordance with the relevant legislation in respect of signage, and that it was incorrectly erected.
eclr:641
Ní raibh aon bhaint ag an dátheangachas leis an bhfionnachtain.
Bilingualism had no connection with the findings.
eclr:642
Rinne GFI tagairt ina hargóintí do na fodhlíthe a bhí déanta aici féin in I.R. 44 de 2012, faoi réir a cumhachtaí faoi alt 66 den Acht Iompair (Bonneagar Iarnróid), 2001 agus don mhír ‘removal of obstructions’ sna fodhlíthe sin.
The RPA referred in its arguments to bye-laws it had made in S.I. 44 of 2012, in accordance with its powers under section 66 of the Transport (Railway Infrastructure) Act 2001 and to the provision ‘removal of obstructions’.
eclr:643
Thug sí le fios gurbh fhéidir leis an oibritheoir ar an gcóras, faoi na fodhlíthe sin, aon chéimeanna cuí a thógáil le feithicil nó rud atá nó a d’fhéadfadh a bheith ina bhaol do bheatha nó sláinte nó d’oibriú nó cothabháil iarnróid éadroim a bhaint.
It advised that the operator of the system is entitled to take any appropriate steps to remove a vehicle or thing which is or may become a danger to life, health, the operation or maintenance of a railway under those bye-laws.
eclr:644
Ach thabharfadh sin le fios go bhfuil sé de chead ag GFI ábhar den chineál sin atá curtha in áit ag duine eile a bhaint den iarnród éadrom – ní chuireann sé aon bhac ná cosc ar GFI comharthaíocht reachtúil bhailí a chur in airde.
But that would give one to understand that the RPA is permitted to remove any material of that nature which is erected by a third party on the light railway – it does not prevent or prohibit the RPA from erecting valid statutory signs.
eclr:645
Ba dheacair a shamhlú go mbeadh leagan dátheangach den chomhartha reatha, atá i mBéarla amháin, ina chúis bhreise le timpiste.
It was difficult to imagine that a bilingual version of the current English only sign would be an additional cause of accidents.
eclr:646
Agus cé go raibh argóint déanta i dtaca le timpiste a tharla ar an líne Luas i bhFaiche Stiabhna, tharla seo ag tráth nach raibh aon chomhartha curtha in airde san áit.
And although it was argued that an accident occurred on the Luas line at Stephen’s Green, that accident occurred when there were no signs erected.
eclr:647
Ba é seasamh GFI sa chás go raibh díolúine ag na comharthaí seo de bharr na gcúraimí sábháilteachta atá ar an eagraíocht.
It was the RPA’s contention in this case that these signs had an exemption due to the safety obligations of the organisation.
eclr:648
Tugann na Rialacháin faoi fho-alt 9(1) d’Acht na dTeangacha Oifigiúla, 2003 díolúine i dtaca le comharthaí a thagann faoi scáth na Rialachán um Shábháilteacht, Sláinte agus Leas ag an Obair, 2007 (I.R.
The Regulations under subsection 9(1) of the Official Languages Act 2003 grant an exemption in respect of signs to which the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work (General Application) Regulations 2007 (S.I.
eclr:649
Uimh. 299 de 2007).
No. 299 of 2007) apply.
eclr:650
Ach ní comharthaí chun críche na Rialachán um Shábháilteacht, Sláinte agus Leas ag an Obair, 2007 iad na comharthaí seo.
But these signs are not signs for the purposes of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work (General Application) Regulations 2007.
eclr:651
Cé go ndearnadh tagairt rialta i bhfreagra GFI ar an imscrúdú don Acht um Shábháilteacht Iarnróid, 2005 agus do na cúraimí sábháilteachta tromchúiseacha a leagann an reachtaíocht sin ar GFI, ba léir nach raibh aon treoir tugtha sa reachtaíocht sin i dtaca le comharthaíocht, seachas sa mhéid go ndúradh gur chóir go mbainfí leas as an gcomharthaíocht chuí iompair.
Although frequent reference was made to the Railway Safety Act 2005, and to the serious safety responsibilities which that legislation places on the RPA, in the organisation’s responses throughout the investigation, it was apparent that no direction was given in that legislation in respect of signage, except where it was stated that the appropriate transport signage should be utilised.
eclr:652
D’éiligh GFI go dtagann a cúraimí faoin Acht seo salach ar na Rialacháin faoi Acht na dTeangacha Oifigiúla, 2003 agus go bhfeictear di go bhfuil tús áite ag an Acht um Shábháilteacht Iarnróid sna cúinsí sin.
The RPA claimed that its responsibilities under this Act were in conflict with its responsibilities under the Official Languages Act and that it was apparent to it that the obligations under the Railway Safety Act took precedence in those circumstances.
eclr:653
Ní fhacthas don imscrúdú go raibh aon chás le déanamh ina thaobh sin ná go raibh aon choimhlint idir dualgais GFI faoin Acht um Shábháilteacht Iarnróid agus a cúraimí faoi fho-alt 9(1) d’Acht na dTeangacha Oifigiúla, 2003.
The investigation did not find that there was any case to be made in that respect nor did it find any evidence of conflict between the RPA’s responsibilities under the Railway Safety Act and its responsibilities under subsection 9(1) of the Official Languages Act 2003.
eclr:654
Mhaígh GFI ina freagra ar an imscrúdú go raibh sé “rí-shoiléir nach raibh sé i gceist go dtiocfadh comharthaí den chineál seo faoi réir Acht 2003.” Ach chonacthas don imscrúdú nach raibh aon bhunús leis an léargas sin i bhfianaise na díolúine soiléire atá leagtha síos sna Rialacháin faoin Acht in I.R.
The RPA claimed in its response to the investigation that it was “crystal clear to the RPA that it was not intended that signs of this nature would be included under the 2003 Act.” (trans.) But it was clear to the investigation that there was no basis to this claim in light of the clear exemptions set down in the Regulations under the Act in S.I.
eclr:655
Uimh. 391 de 2008: ní chuirtear díolúine ar fáil go sonrach i gcás na comharthaíochta ba bhun leis an imscrúdú seo.
No. 391 of 2008: no exemption is granted in respect of the signage which is the basis of this investigation.
eclr:656
Ba léir ón reachtaíocht fhairsing i dtaca le comharthaí tráchta, iompair agus eile na tíre gurb é mian sheasta an Oireachtas go mbeadh comharthaíocht phoiblí na tíre den uile chineál dátheangach, bíodh sin dírithe ar an bpobal nó ná bíodh – ón Acht Iompair, 1950 agus an tAcht um Thrácht ar Bhóithre, 1961 go dtí na Rialacháin faoi fho-alt 9(1) d’Acht na dTeangacha Oifigiúla, 2003.
It was apparent from the extensive legislation in respect of traffic, transport and other national signs that it is the constant wish of the Oireachtas that all public signage in the country be bilingual, whether or not it is directed at the public – from the Transport Act 1950 and the Road Traffic Act 1961 to the Regulations under subsection 9(1) of the Official Languages Act 2003.
eclr:657
Agus d’admhaigh GFI ina freagra ar an imscrúdú gur thuig sí go hiomlán “nach bhfuil aon díolúine den chineál seo in Acht 2003”.
And the RPA admitted in its response to the investigation that it understood completely “that there is no such exemption in the 2003 Act”. (trans.)
eclr:658
Thug GFI litir ó Choimisinéir an Choimisiúin Sábháilteachta Iarnróid (CSI) ar láimh don imscrúdú mar thaca lena seasamh go raibh cúinsí sábháilteachta i gceist le leagan Gaeilge nó dátheangach de na comharthaí seo a chur in airde.
The RPA presented a letter from the Commissioner of the Railway Safety Commission (RSC) to the investigation in support of its stance that there were safety issues surrounding the erection of an Irish or bilingual version of these signs.
eclr:659
Rinne sí an cás gur aontaigh CSI le tuairim GFI nach mar eolas don phobal a bhí na comharthaí seo ann, ach mar eolas don fhoireann oibre, agus gur chóir go mbeadh na comharthaí seo soiléir agus nach meascfaí iad le haon chomhartha nó póstaer in aice láimhe.
It made the case that the RSC agreed with its opinion that these signs were not erected for the public’s information, but as information for the staff, and that the signs should be clear and not mixed with other signs or posters in the vicinity.
eclr:660
Ach níl na Rialacháin faoi fho-alt 9(1) d’Acht na dTeangacha Oifigiúla, 2003 teoranta do chomharthaí poiblí amháin, agus ní rabhthas ag moladh go gcuirfí comhartha nó póstaer eile in airde in aice láimhe – ba é an t-eolas céanna a bhí le cur in airde, de réir na reachtaíochta, in dhá theanga oifigiúla an Stáit.
But the Regulations under subsection 9(1) of the Official Languages Act 2003 are not restricted to public signs only, and it was not being recommended that another sign or poster be erected in the vicinity – it was the same information which was to be provided, in accordance with the legislation, in both official languages of the State.
eclr:661
Treisiú seachas lagú ar an teachtaireacht oifigiúil a bheadh anseo.
This would reinforce rather than dilute the official message.
eclr:662
Ba iad seo a leanas na moltaí a rinne mé mar Choimisinéir Teanga:
I made the following recommendations as Coimisinéir Teanga:
eclr:663
· Go ndéanfaí comharthaí nua dátheangacha nó cinn ar leith Gaeilge agus Béarla a dhearadh agus a chur in airde láithreach ag an láthair a ndearnadh gearán ina leith.
· That new bilingual or individual Irish and English language signs be designed and erected immediately at the location about which the complaint was made.
eclr:664
· Gan dochar don dualgas láithreach atá ann i dtaca leis an ábhar seo, go ndéanfaí cinnte go dtabharfar an moladh thuas chun críche ar a dhéanaí laistigh de thréimhse 3 mhí ó dháta na tuarascála seo.
· Without prejudice to the immediate obligation in place in respect of this matter, that it is ensured that the above recommendation be implemented within 3 months of the date of this report.
eclr:665
Imscrúdú seolta: 27 Meán Fómhair 2013
Investigation launched: 27 September 2013
eclr:666
Tuarascáil eisithe: 2 Bealtaine 2014
Report issued: 2 May 2014
eclr:667
Rinneadh gearán le m’Oifig sa bhliain 2011 gur i mBéarla amháin a bhí ticéid taistil áirithe de chuid Bhus Átha Cliath á n-eisiúint, in ainneoin an riachtanais reachtúil teanga atá daingnithe in alt 57(2) den Acht Iompair, 1950, mar atá:
A complaint was made to my Office in 2011 that certain travel tickets being issued by Bus Átha Cliath were in English only, despite the statutory language requirement which is confirmed in section 57(2) of the Transport Act 1950, as follows:
eclr:668
“Ní foláir na cárta-thicéidí paisnéara uile a eiseos an Bord i gcóir turasanna laistigh den Stát a bheith clóbhuailte i nGaeilge ach is cead iad a bheith clóbhuailte i nGaeilge agus i mBéarla.”
“All passenger card tickets issued by the Board for journeys within the State shall be printed in the Irish language but may be printed in both the Irish and English languages.”
eclr:669
Ba léir ó chóip den ticéad taistil cuí a seoladh chugam gur i mBéarla amháin a bhí na ticéid á gclóbhualadh.
It was apparent from the copy of the ticket which was sent to me that these tickets were being printed in English only.
eclr:670
Rinne m’Oifig iarracht an gearán seo a réiteach le Bus Átha Cliath tríd an bpróiseas neamhfhoirmiúil réitithe gearán a fheidhmíonn an Oifig.
My Office attempted to resolve the complaint with Bus Átha Cliath through the informal complaints resolution process which it operates.
eclr:671
Dearbhaíodh don Oifig i ríomhphost dar dáta an 6 Feabhra 2013 go mbeadh na ticéid dátheangach go hiomlán go luath sa bhliain 2014.
It was confirmed to the Office in an e-mail of 6 February 2013 that the tickets would be completely bilingual by early 2014.
eclr:672
Ghlac m’Oifig leis an dearbhú sin.
My Office accepted that assurance.
eclr:673
I Márta agus Aibreán na bliana 2014, fuair m’Oifig gearáin eile a thug le fios gur i mBéarla amháin a bhí na ticéid taistil seo á n-eisiúint go fóill, in ainneoin an dearbhaithe a bhí tugtha.
In March and April 2014, my Office received further complaints which gave us to understand that these travel tickets were still being issued in English only, despite the assurances given.
eclr:674
Tharraing m’Oifig an cheist anuas le Bus Átha Cliath, agus tugadh le fios nach bhféadfaí, ag an bpointe ama sin, spriocdháta a chur leis an tionscnamh.
My Office raised the matter with Bus Áth Cliath and was advised that a deadline could not be given for implementation of the project at that point in time.
eclr:675
Ó tharla gearáin a bheith déanta ag daoine den phobal liom i dtaobh na ceiste seo agus ó tharla nár éirigh le Bus Átha Cliath an sprioc a bhí deimhnithe acu dúinn a bhaint amach ná aon sprioc nua a leagan síos, bheartaigh mé go raibh sé de cheart ag na gearánaithe go ndéanfainn imscrúdú a sheoladh i dtaca leis an méid a líomhnaíodh sna gearáin.
As complaints had been made to me on this matter by members of the public and as Bus Átha Cliath had not adhered to the deadline it had set out, nor was it prepared to provide a new deadline, I decided that an investigation into the allegations was necessary to vindicate the rights of the complainants.
eclr:676
Ina chéad fhreagra ar an imscrúdú, dhearbhaigh Bus Átha Cliath gur ghlac sé leis nár chloígh a chóras ticéadaithe reatha leis an bhforáil in alt 57(2) den Acht Iompair, 1950 agus gur sárú a bhí ansin ar an dualgas reachtúil teanga a bhí air faoin Acht.
In its first response to the investigation, Bus Átha Cliath confirmed that it accepted that its current ticketing system did not comply with the provision in section 57(2) of the Transport Act 1950 and that this was a breach of its obligations under the Act.
eclr:677
Mar chúlra, thug Bus Átha Cliath le fios gur tugadh isteach an córas reatha ticéadaithe sa bhliain 2006, nár thacaigh na struchtúir ná na formáidí a forbraíodh mar chuid den chóras seo le fad na gcarachtar atá riachtanach chun an Ghaeilge agus an Béarla araon a phriontáil ar na ticéid, agus gur “(r)oghnaíodh an Béarla mar phríomhtheanga ar ár dticéid toisc nach bhféadfaí an dá theanga a chur orthu.”
As background, Bus Átha Cliath advised that the current ticketing system was introduced in 2006, that the structures and formats which were developed as part of this system did not support the length of characters required to print in both Irish and English on the tickets, and that “English was selected as the main language on our tickets as both languages could not be used on them.” (trans.)
eclr:678
Thug Bus Átha Cliath le fios go raibh sé gafa i mbun oibre ó 2011 i leith chun bunachar sonraí dátheangach i dtaca le stadanna bus a sheachadadh agus go raibh, mar thoradh air sin, tionscadail curtha i gcrích ar nós na dtaispeáintí dátheangacha um Fhaisnéis Fíor-ama do Phaisinéirí agus fógraí fuaime agus amhairc dátheangacha faoin gcéad stad eile ar bord a fhlít, rud a chiallaigh go bhféadfadh sé na bogearraí a bhí de dhíth chun a thicéid a dhéanamh dátheangach a fhorbairt.
Bus Átha Cliath advised that it had been working since 2011 to deliver a bilingual database of bus stops and that it had, as a result, implemented projects such as bilingual displays of Real-time Passenger Information and bilingual oral and visual announcements about the next stop onboard its fleet, which meant that it could develop the software required to make the tickets bilingual.
eclr:679
Thug sé le fios go raibh sé i mbun cainte le soláthraí a chórais ticéadaithe i dtaca leis na bogearraí riachtanacha a fhorbairt ó mhí Feabhra 2013, agus go raibh sé tar éis sonraíocht agus meastachán a fháil uathu siúd agus tar éis obair ar an tionscadal seo a choimisiúnú.
It advised that it was in talks with the supplier of the ticketing system in respect of developing the necessary software since February 2013, that it had got the necessary specifications and estimates from the supplier and that work on this project had been commissioned.
eclr:680
Thug Bus Átha Cliath le fios go raibh saincheisteanna aitheanta ag an bhfoireann tionscadail i gcaitheamh an phróisis seo a chuir isteach ar na hamlínte a soláthraíodh don Oifig, ach go raibh sé tar éis oibriú go comhsheasmhach lena sholáthraí chun réitigh theicneolaíochta a sholáthar ar na saincheisteanna seo.
Bus Átha Cliath informed us that the project team had identified certain issues during the process which interfered with the timelines that had been provided to the Office, but that it had worked consistently with the supplier to achieve a technological resolution to these issues.
eclr:681
Chuir Bus Átha Cliath meastachán ar an gcostas chun an tionscadal a chur i gcrích faoinár mbráid agus thug sé le fios gur chuir sé an tionscadal san áireamh san iarratas ar mhaoiniú caipitil ón Údarás Náisiúnta Iompair (ÚNI) don bhliain 2014.
Bus Átha Cliath provided us with an estimate of the cost of completing the project and advised us that it had included the project in its application to the National Transport Authority (NTA) for capital funding for 2014.
eclr:682
D’aithin Bus Átha Cliath a chuid dualgas faoin Acht Iompair, 1950 agus an tiomantas a tugadh do m’Oifig sa bhliain 2013 agus dúirt go raibh sé ag brú an tionscadail seo chun cinn agus go n-áireofaí é ina iarratas chuig ÚNI ar mhaoiniú caipitil don bhliain 2015.
Bus Átha Cliath recognised its obligations under the Transport Act 1950 and the commitment given to my Office in 2013 and stated that the organisation was progressing this project and that it would be included in the application to the NTA for capital funding for the company for 2015.
eclr:683
Chuir an comhlacht roinnt cáipéisí tacaíochta ar fáil don imscrúdú inar léiríodh an teagmháil leanúnach a bhí aige leis na conraitheoirí i dtaca leis an ábhar seo.
The organisation provided some supporting documentation to the investigation, demonstrating the continual contact with the contractor on the matter.
eclr:684
Dhúisigh an freagra seo ó Bhus Átha Cliath roinnt ceisteanna eile don imscrúdú a cuireadh faoi bhráid Bhus Átha Cliath.
This response from Bus Átha Cliath raised a number of other questions for the investigation which were put to Bus Átha Cliath.
eclr:685
Mar fhreagra ar na ceisteanna sin, thug Bus Átha Cliath le fios gur soláthraíodh €23.5 milliún i maoiniú caipitil do Bhus Átha Cliath in 2014 agus go soláthraíonn Bus Átha Cliath sciar beag caipitil óna chuid acmhainní féin.
In response to those questions, Bus Átha Cliath informed the investigation that it had received €23.5 million in capital funding in 2014, and that Bus Átha Cliath provides some small amount of capital funding from its own resources.
eclr:686
Dhearbhaigh an comhlacht go n-áiríonn a iarratas ar chaipiteal mionsonraí na dtionscadal a bhfuil i gceist ag an gcuideachta tabhairt fúthu, lena n-áirítear an costas a bheidh i gceist le gach tionscadal, agus go sonraíonn ÚNI ina fhreagra na tionscadail a bhfuil maoiniú bronnta aige ina leith.
The company confirmed that its application for capital funding includes the details of all projects which the company intends to undertake, including the cost of every project, and that the NTA specifies in its response what projects the funding is being allocated for.
eclr:687
I dtaca le tionscadal na gcóras ticéadaithe, dhearbhaigh Bus Átha Cliath go bhféadfadh ÚNI tionscadail na gcóras ticéadaithe a mhaoiniú faoin gconradh Oibreora Seirbhíse Poiblí (PSO) reatha, ach gur dhiúltaigh sé sin a dhéanamh ina fhreagra ar iarratas maoinithe 2014.
In respect of the ticketing system project, Bus Átha Cliath confirmed that it was possible for the NTA to fund such a project under the current Public Service Operator (PSO) contract, but that it had refused to do so in its response to the 2014 application for capital funding.
eclr:688
Thug Bus Átha Cliath le fios go raibh sé beartaithe aige an tionscadal a mhaoiniú ó acmhainní Bhus Átha Cliath féin agus go raibh sé curtha san áireamh i mbuiséad an chaiteachais caipitil don bhliain 2015.
We were advised by Bus Átha Cliath that it proposed funding the project from its own resources and that it was included in the capital expenditure budget for 2015.
eclr:689
Ghlac Bus Átha Cliath leis go neamhbhalbh ón tús go raibh sárú reachtúil i gceist sa chás seo, agus d’fháiltigh mé roimhe sin.
It was accepted without question by Bus Átha Cliath from the start that there was a breach of legislation in this case, and I welcomed that.
eclr:690
Ach in ainneoin an dualgas reachtúil sin a bheith orthu, ní dhearna Bus Átha Cliath aon tairiscint don imscrúdú ina chéad fhreagra a thabharfadh le fios go gcomhlíonfaí an dualgas reachtúil sin in achar réasúnta ama.
But despite that legal obligation, Bus Átha Cliath did not make any offer in its first response to the investigation that would lead one to believe that the matter would be addressed in any reasonable length of time.
eclr:691
Thairg Bus Átha Cliath go n-áireofaí an tionscadal ina iarratas chuig an Údarás Náisiúnta Iompair ar mhaoiniú caipitil don bhliain 2015.
Bus Átha Cliath offered to include the project in its application to the NTA for capital funding for 2015.
eclr:692
Ach mar a tugadh le fios don imscrúdú i gcás iarratas na bliana 2014, ní gá go mbeadh rath ar an iarratas sin, agus go deimhin, nuair a fiosraíodh an cheist leis a thuilleadh, tugadh le fios gur dhiúltaigh an tÚdarás Náisiúnta Iompair d’iarratas ó Bhus Átha Cliath ar an ábhar siar sa bhliain 2013, gur thug sé le fios nach mbeadh sé sásta deontas a thabhairt don tionscnamh, agus gur áitigh sé gur thit géilliúlacht le hAcht na dTeangacha Oifigiúla agus leis na hIonstraimí Reachtúla agus na Rialacháin a bhaineann leis faoi dhlínse Bhus Átha Cliath agus go n-áirítear san fhóirdheontas a íocann an tÚdarás le Bus Átha Cliath géilliúlacht le dualgais reachtúla.
But as was advised to the investigation in respect of the 2014 capital funding application, it was not in any way certain that that application would be successful, and in fact, when the question was investigated further, it came to light that the NTA had refused the funding request back in 2013, that it had advised Bus Átha Cliath that it would not be prepared to provide funding for the project and that the NTA had claimed that compliance with the Official Languages Act and the relevant Statutory Instruments and Regulations was a matter for Bus Átha Cliath and that the subvention paid by the NTA to Bus Átha Cliath included compliance with legal obligations.
eclr:693
Tugadh le fios sa dara litir ó Bhus Átha Cliath, áfach, go raibh sé beartaithe anois go ndéanfaí an tionscadal a mhaoiniú as acmhainní Bhus Átha Cliath féin agus go raibh sé curtha san áireamh i mbuiséad an chaiteachais caipitil don bhliain 2015.
In the second letter to the investigation from Bus Átha Cliath, however, we were advised that it had now been decided that the project would be funded from Bus Átha Cliath’s own resources and that it had been included in the capital expenditure budget for 2015.
eclr:694
Níor mhiste liom a rá, cé gur tuigeadh dúinn go bhfuil riachtanais eile i gceist as an maoiniú caipitil a chuirtear ar fáil do Bhus Átha Cliath, gur léir go raibh tosaíocht á leagan amach ag Bus Átha Cliath don mhaoiniú caipitil sin, agus nach raibh ardtosaíocht á tabhairt don obair seo, a raibh dualgas reachtúil sainiúil ar Bhus Átha Cliath ina leith.
I would like to note that although we appreciate that there are other calls on the capital funding which is provided to Bus Átha Cliath, that it was apparent that priorities were being set out for that expenditure, and that a high priority was not being given to this work, despite the specific legal obligation on Bus Átha Cliath in its respect.
eclr:695
Chonacthas dúinn go raibh tús áite tugtha, mar shampla, don chóras taispeána dátheangaí um Fhaisnéis Fíor-Ama do Phaisinéirí thar an gcóras ticéadaithe dhátheangaigh.
We noted, for example, that priority was given to the bilingual system of Real-time Information for Passengers, over the provision of bilingual tickets.
eclr:696
Cé gur maith ann don chóras seo, ní fhacthas dúinn go raibh aon dualgas reachtúil ar Bhus Átha Cliath a leithéid de chóras a sholáthar.
Although we welcome the Real-time Information system, we were not aware of any specific legal obligation on Bus Átha Cliath to provide such a system.
eclr:697
Níor léir ar chor ar bith gur leor fadhbanna le córais ticéadaithe mar leithscéal le mianta an Oireachtais atá daingnithe i ndlí a mhaolú, a mhoilliú nó a chur go leataobh.
It was not in any way apparent that difficulties with the ticketing system were any way sufficient as an excuse to reduce, delay or set aside the wishes of the Oireachtas, as specified in legislation.
eclr:698
Bhí an riachtanas i leith an dátheangachais in alt 57(2) den Acht Iompair i bhfeidhm sula raibh coimisiúnú á dhéanamh ar aon chóras don obair seo agus ba cheart an riachtanas sin a bheith tugtha san áireamh nuair a bhí córas ticéadaithe á roghnú sa bhliain 2006.
The bilingual requirement in section 57(2) was in effect long before any work was commissioned on this project and that requirement should have been included when a ticketing system was being selected in 2006.
eclr:699
Ba léir go ndearna Bus Átha Cliath cinneadh comhfhiosach siar sa bhliain 2006 dul chun cinn le córas ticéadaithe nach raibh i gcomhréir leis an reachtaíocht, ainneoin an reachtaíocht sin a bheith ar an bhfód ón mbliain 1950.
It was apparent that Bus Átha Cliath made an informed decision in 2006 to proceed with a ticketing system that was not in compliance with the legislation, despite that legislation being in place since 1950.
eclr:700
Níorbh fhéidir, mar sin, glacadh le hargóintí an chomhlachta maidir le ganntanas airgid leis an scéal a chur ina cheart.
The company’s arguments in respect of money shortages could not, therefore, be accepted.
eclr:701
Is léir go n-éilíonn Bus Átha Cliath go ginearálta go gcomhlíonfadh paisinéirí a ndualgais agus iad ag taisteal ar thurais bhus, ach go háirithe an dualgas táille chuí a íoc mar chúiteamh ar chearta taistil.
Bus Átha Cliath seeks in general that passengers comply with their obligations when travelling on buses, specifically the obligation to pay the correct sum in respect of the right to travel.
eclr:702
Caithfidh Bus Átha Cliath a dhualgais féin a chomhlíonadh, go háirithe iad siúd atá daingnithe sa dlí ag an Oireachtas, alt 57(2) den Acht Iompair, 1950 ina measc.
Bus Átha Cliath must comply with its own obligations, especially those confirmed in law by the Oireachtas, including section 57(2) of the Transport Act 1950.
eclr:703
Ghlac mé leis an dearbhú a thug Bus Átha Cliath go n-áireofaí tionscadal an chórais ticéadaithe i gClár Caipitil 2015.
I accepted the assertion given by Bus Átha Cliath that the ticketing system project would be included in the Capital Programme for 2015.
eclr:704
Ar an mbonn sin, mhol mé, gan dochar don dualgas iomlán a mheas mé a bheith i gceist, go gcinnteodh Bus Átha Cliath go dtógfaí na céimeanna cuí a luaithe agus is féidir chun go gcloífeadh an comhlacht feasta leis an dualgas reachtúil teanga atá daingnithe in alt 57(2) den Acht Iompair, 1950 trí chinntiú go mbeidh na ticéid phaisinéara ab ábhar don imscrúdú seo clóbhuailte i nGaeilge go hiomlán nó dátheangach (i nGaeilge agus i mBéarla) go hiomlán.
On that basis I recommended, without prejudice to the full obligation, that Bus Átha Cliath take appropriate steps as soon as possible so that the company adheres henceforth to the statutory language obligation enshrined in section 57(2) of the Transport Act 1950 by ensuring that the passenger tickets which were the subject of this investigation are printed wholly in Irish or wholly bilingually (in Irish and English).