Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)

I hope Senators do not get the wrong impression. I will not be able to accept every amendment. I will try to accept the spirit of a number of them.

I know what the Senator is saying here. However, the section is not, in fact, about right of way. It, essentially, says a person shall not damage or interfere with a building, gate, fence, hedge, boundary wall or other structure used to contain farm animals unless the person has a lawful excuse to do so. This includes, potentially, right of way. Even if a right of way goes through a person's farm, we must, nevertheless, try to ensure that people close gates after themselves and do not damage walls. A person who is walking on a right of way may, occasionally, have to climb over a hedge or another obstacle. The existence of a right of way does not limit our responsibility for animal safety while using the right of way. We are always obliged to close gates behind us, and so on.

The terminology in line 20, page 11, which says, "without lawful excuse" should cover a myriad of things, including right of way. I cannot accept the Senator's amendment which excuses people from damaging or interfering with a building, gate, fence or hedge because it is part of a right of way. That is sending a signal that people who are walking along or using a right of way do not have to be conscious of the fact that there may be an animal next door. It is a fair point to raise rights of way but this section does not preclude people from walking along a right of way. If a farmer decides to put a gate across a walkway where there is a legal right of way, there is nothing to stop someone taking a legal case against him or her, but if there are cattle in the field and someone opens the gate and walks through because they see it as a right of way, they have a responsibility to ensure the cattle do not go out the gate. It is likewise if there was a sheep pen or something else of that nature. The aim of the measure is to ensure that as people walk across the countryside, they do not deliberately open gates or release animals. It is about making people conscious of the fact that if there are animals kept either in a pen, a shed or a field, everyone has a responsibility to ensure that if they are enclosed they remain enclosed if that is appropriate. I cannot accept the amendment because I do not want a person to make a case in a court of law, having left a gate open and where an accident ensued, to say in his or her defence that it was a right of way and therefore there was no need to close the gate. I am trying to give a practical example of what might happen. "Without lawful excuse" should cover rights of way as it is and that is probably as far as we should go.