id
stringlengths
6
19
text
stringlengths
1
1.02k
eng_text
stringlengths
1
1.02k
eclr:2905
Bíonn mo chinneadh i leith an ghearáin agus na moltaí cuí sa tuarascáil sin.
My decision on the complaint and the relevant recommendations are included in that report.
eclr:2906
Is féidir achomharc a dhéanamh chuig an Ard-Chúirt ar phonc dlí i gcoinne an chinnidh laistigh de cheithre seachtaine.
An appeal may be made to the High Court on a point of law against the decision within a period of four weeks.
eclr:2907
Seoladh seacht n-imscrúdú nua le linn 2014.
A total of seven new investigations were commenced in 2014.
eclr:2908
Bhí imscrúdú neamhchríochnaithe amháin ann a tugadh ar aghaidh ó 2013.
One uncompleted investigation was carried forward from 2013.
eclr:2909
Mar sin, bhí ocht n-imscrúdú idir lámha le linn na bliana 2014 agus críochnaíodh trí cinn acu sin faoi dheireadh na bliana.
Consequently, there were eight investigations in hand during 2014 and three of those investigations had been completed by the end of the year.
eclr:2910
Dá bhrí sin, tá achoimre ar thrí imscrúdú sa Tuarascáil seo.
Therefore, summaries are provided in this Report of three investigations.
eclr:2911
Líon na nImscrúduithe
Number of Investigations
eclr:2912
Tugtha ar aghaidh ón mbliain roimhe
Brought forward from previous year
eclr:2913
Imscrúduithe seolta
Investigations launched
eclr:2914
Iomlán idir lámha
Total in hand
eclr:2915
Tugtha ar aghaidh go dtí an chéad bhliain eile
Brought forward to next year
eclr:2916
Achoimrí atá iontu ar na tuarascálacha oifigiúla a eisíodh i nGaeilge de réir alt 26 den Acht chuig na páirtithe cuí de thoradh na n-imscrúduithe.
They are summaries of the official reports issued in accordance with section 26 of the Act to the relevant parties in Irish as a result of the investigations.
eclr:2917
An Ghníomhaireacht um Fháil Iarnród
Railway Procurement Agency
eclr:2918
Léirigh imscrúdú nach raibh an Ghníomhaireacht um Fháil Iarnród ag sárú na ndualgas reachtúil teanga atá daingnithe sna rialacháin agus sna hordacháin atá déanta faoi fho-ailt 95(2) agus 95(16) den Acht um Thrácht ar Bhóithre, 1961 ach go raibh sí ag sárú na ndualgas reachtúil teanga atá daingnithe sna rialacháin faoi fho-alt 9(1) d’Acht na dTeangacha Oifigiúla, 2003 i gcás comharthaí i mBéarla amháin a bhí curtha in airde ag Stáisiún Uí Chonghaile.
An investigation found that the Railway Procurement Agency was not in breach of the statutory language obligations enshrined in the regulations and orders made under subsections 95(2) and 95(16) of the Road Traffic Act 1961 but that it was in breach of the statutory language obligations confirmed in the Regulations issued under subsection 9(1) of the Official Languages Act 2003 in respect of signs which had been erected in English only at Connolly Station.
eclr:2919
Rinneadh gearán le m’Oifig i mí Eanáir 2013 maidir le húsáid na dteangacha oifigiúla, Gaeilge agus Béarla, ar chomharthaí de chuid na Gníomhaireachta um Fháil Iarnród a bhí curtha in airde ag Stáisiún Uí Chonghaile, Baile Átha Cliath.
A complaint was made to my Office in January 2013 in respect of the use of the official languages, Irish and English, on signs belonging to the Railway Procurement Agency which had been erected at Connolly Station in Dublin.
eclr:2920
Ba chás leis an ngearánach gur i mBéarla amháin a bhí dhá chomhartha, dírithe ar thiománaithe LUAS, a bhí curtha in airde ag an stáisiún – ceann amháin leis an téacs “Stop! check your route” agus an ceann eile leis an téacs “One tram only in the marked area”.
It was of concern to the complainant that two signs, directed at Luas drivers, had been erected at the station in English only – one with the text “Stop! check your route” and the other with the text “One tram only in the marked area”.
eclr:2921
In ainneoin an cheist a bheith á plé go leanúnach leis an nGníomhaireacht, trí chóras neamhfhoirmiúil réitithe gearán na hOifige, agus in ainneoin an chomhoibrithe iomláin a fuair m’Oifig ar an ábhar ón nGníomhaireacht, níorbh fhéidir an cheist a réiteach ar an mbonn seo.
Despite ongoing discussions with the Agency on the issue through the informal complaints resolution system operated by the Office, and despite complete cooperation on the part of the Agency, it proved impossible to resolve the issue in this manner.
eclr:2922
Toisc nár éirigh leis na hiarrachtaí neamhfhoirmiúla sin an cheist a réiteach, beartaíodh tabhairt faoi imscrúdú sa chás, le teacht ar fhionnachtana agus le moltaí a dhéanamh ina leith, dá mba ghá, mar go raibh sin dlite don té a rinne gearán báilí de réir na reachtaíochta.
As the informal attempts failed to resolve the issue, it was decided to launch an investigation in the case to make findings and recommendations, if required, as the person who made a valid complaint was entitled to.
eclr:2923
Tá dualgais reachtúla i bhfeidhm faoi úsáid na Gaeilge ar chomharthaí bóthair atá déanta faoi rialacháin agus ordacháin faoi fho-ailt 95(2) agus 95(16) den Acht um Thrácht ar Bhóithre, 1961.
There are statutory obligations in effect in respect of the use of Irish on road signs which are made under the regulations and orders under subsections 95(2) and 95(16) of the Road Traffic Act 1961.
eclr:2924
Tá na dualgais sin daingnithe sa Lámhleabhar do Chomharthaí Tráchta agus is achtacháin iad na rialacháin agus na hordacháin thuasluaite chun críche fho-alt 21(f) d’Acht na dTeangacha Oifigiúla 2003.
Those obligations are confirmed in the Traffic Signs Manual and the above-mentioned regulations and orders are enactments for the purposes of subsection 21(f) of the Official Languages Act 2003.
eclr:2925
Caithfidh údaráis bóithre na tíre cloí leis na dualgais sin.
The country’s roads authorities must adhere to those obligations.
eclr:2926
Tá dualgais reachtúla eile i bhfeidhm faoi úsáid na Gaeilge agus an Bhéarla ar chomharthaí nach comharthaí tráchta iad faoi na Rialacháin faoi fho-alt 9(1) d’Acht na dTeangacha Oifigiúla, 2003.
There are other legal obligations in effect with regard to the use of Irish and English on signs which are not road signs under the Regulations issued under subsection 9(1) of the Official Languages Act 2003.
eclr:2927
Cuireadh an t-eolas, faisnéis agus eile ar fad a bhí iarrtha san imscrúdú ar fáil go críochnúil agus go gairmiúil do m’Oifig.
All the information and documentation which was requested by the investigation was provided in a complete and professional manner.
eclr:2928
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:2929
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:2930
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:2931
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:2932
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:2933
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:2934
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:2935
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:2936
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:2937
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:2938
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:2939
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:2940
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:2941
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:2942
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:2943
“Aontaíonn Mr.
“Mr.
eclr:2944
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:2945
“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:2946
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:2947
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:2948
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:2949
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:2950
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:2951
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:2952
“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:2953
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:2954
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:2955
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:2956
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:2957
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:2958
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:2959
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:2960
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:2961
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:2962
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:2963
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:2964
Ní raibh aon bhaint ag an dátheangachas leis an bhfionnachtain.
Bilingualism had no connection with the findings.
eclr:2965
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:2966
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:2967
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:2968
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:2969
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:2970
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:2971
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:2972
Uimh. 299 de 2007).
No. 299 of 2007) apply.
eclr:2973
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:2974
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:2975
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:2976
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:2977
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:2978
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:2979
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:2980
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:2981
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:2982
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:2983
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:2984
Treisiú seachas lagú ar an teachtaireacht oifigiúil a bheadh anseo.
This would reinforce rather than dilute the official message.
eclr:2985
Ba iad seo a leanas na moltaí a rinne mé mar Choimisinéir Teanga:
I made the following recommendations as Coimisinéir Teanga:
eclr:2986
· 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:2987
· 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:2988
Imscrúdú seolta: 27 Meán Fómhair 2013
Investigation launched: 27 September 2013
eclr:2989
Tuarascáil eisithe: 2 Bealtaine 2014
Report issued: 2 May 2014
eclr:2990
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:2991
“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:2992
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:2993
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:2994
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:2995
Ghlac m’Oifig leis an dearbhú sin.
My Office accepted that assurance.
eclr:2996
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:2997
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:2998
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:2999
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:3000
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:3001
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:3002
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:3003
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:3004
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.