Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As the witnesses from Comhairle na Tuaithe are under some time pressure, I propose that the joint committee first hear their presentation, after which we will go into private session to deal with housekeeping matters and EU legislative proposals. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I have received apologies from Deputy Thomas Pringle and Senators Brian Ó Domhnaill and Michael Comiskey. I ask members to switch off mobile telephones and other electronic devices.

I welcome from Comhairle na Tuaithe, Ms Finola Moylette, chairperson, and Mr. Des Moore. By virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give this committee. If a witness is directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and the witness continues to so do, the witness is entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of his or her evidence. Witnesses are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and they are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person, persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I invite Ms Moylette to make her presentation.

Ms Finola Moylette:

I am the principal officer in the community division of the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government and one of my areas of responsibility is to chair Comhairle na Tuaithe. I am accompanied by Mr. Des Moore who works with me in the Department on the day-to-day implementation of the national countryside recreation strategy. Members will have received copies of a document I circulated yesterday outlining the general objectives of Comhairle na Tuaithe. I will briefly discuss our work, after which I will be pleased to answer any questions members may have.

Comhairle na Tuaithe was established in 2004 for the purpose of progressing three specific priorities, namely, access to the countryside for recreation purposes; the development of a countryside code; and the development of the countryside recreation strategy. Significant progress has been made in all three areas. The national countryside recreation strategy was agreed and published in 2006 and the principle of "leave no trace" has effectively been adopted as the code for recreation users. The strategy is dedicated to creating a nationally recognised and accepted outdoor ethic, which encourages all outdoor enthusiasts to act with responsibility in the countryside and take care of the environment. While not universal, there is widespread permissive access to the countryside for recreation purposes.

The Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government provides the secretariat and chair for Comhairle na Tuaithe, which meets, on average, three or four times per annum. The membership comprises representatives from a range of bodies, including the main farming organisations, State and semi-State organisations such as Coillte and the national trails office and a large number of non-State organisations, including Scouting Ireland, Mountaineering Ireland and Keep Ireland Open. While the organisations represented on Comhairle na Tuaithe can and do have different and sometimes conflicting views, the national countryside recreation strategy published in 2006 represents a consensus view of the membership.

The document I circulated outlines some of the current areas Comhairle na Tuaithe is trying to address. They include the development, with the main State agencies, of an outdoor recreation plan for public lands and waters. These agencies include Coillte, Inland Fisheries Ireland and Bord na Móna.

Comhairle na Tuaithe, through the Department representatives, also works closely with the national trails advisory committee, a sub-committee of the Irish Sports Council, to oversee the implementation of its national trails strategy and assist the national trails office in its work. With Fáilte Ireland, the Department funds 12 rural recreation officers through local development companies to support the development of walking trails and manage the walk scheme. While the scheme is closed to new trails, it currently maintains more than 40 trails throughout the country and approximately 1,800 landowners are participating in it.

With regard to future plans, our main aim is to continue with implementation of the national countryside recreation strategy, which outlines five strategic objectives. Comhairle na Tuaithe has agreed a list of priority actions to be progressed, although our ability to deliver on these will be contingent on resources. We hope to conclude agreement on the national outdoor recreation plan for public lands and waters during 2013. This will be significant as the State owns or is in control of in excess of 15% of the land in the country and a more co-ordinated and planned approach to the development of recreation infrastructure can only be beneficial.

We are exploring the possibility of introducing a national indemnity scheme to facilitate access to private lands for recreational purposes. This has the potential to greatly alleviate landowners’ fears regarding possible litigation and other difficulties and should facilitate the removal of any barriers to access. Having provided this quick summary of the types of areas in which Comhairle na Tuaithe is currently involved, I and my colleague, Mr. Moore, will be pleased to elaborate on any aspect of our activities.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome Ms Moylette and Mr. Moore. The main focus of the joint committee in this matter is the Common Agricultural Policy, CAP, and proposals to restrict farmers' use of commonages. As many people are aware, when pressure is applied to hill farmers on the issue of commonages, there is always a danger that rural recreation, which, as Ms Moylette noted, takes place on a permissive basis, will come into play. Have discussions taken place with officials in the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine on the commonage policy it is developing, given that walking places a certain amount of pressure on certain hills, especially where they are used by large numbers of walkers?

Have their been discussions on the possible use of the forthcoming CAP negotiations to build in the development of rural recreation on hills, possibly through a new REP scheme or other rural development scheme, so that a holistic view would be taken of the use of the hills?

I know Comhairle na Tuaithe was looking at the issue of insurance. There were pilot schemes on Carrantuohill and on Beann Shléibhe in the Joyce country. The idea on Beann Shléibhe was to get the agreement of the hill owners to allow permissive access on designated parts of the hill, effectively all of the hill in open commonage which was above the level of the divided fields. In return, indemnity would be given to the landowners so that no claim could be made against them, walkers would adhere to the "leave to trace" policy and would enter and exit the common areas by designated gates, and car parks would be provided through the rural development fund. There would be a totally holistic view of the use of the hill. How far has that gone?

There is huge goodwill among farmers to the idea of permissive access. I see two challenges to that. The first is the insurance issue which, in my view, is minuscule. The chance of any recreational walker taking a successful claim against a landowner is, in practice, nil, but people still worry about the issue. Second, in the context of the CAP and commonage plans, farmers do not like being asked to give permissive access while another Department - and it is all seen as the same Government - is placing restrictions on them, without so much as a by your leave. They are the two elements where Comhairle na Tuaithe has a key role to play.

I was involved with Comhairle na Tuaithe at the beginning. When the walking organisations sat down with the farmers, both sides would have sworn they would never see eye to eye. Over three or four years they achieved 90% agreement on the fundamental issues and a working arrangement was arrived at between all parties. There was huge buy-in and huge effort. It would be a tragedy if we lost that because changes are happening outside the remit of Comhairle na Tuaithe which are not being co-ordinated and because the organisation is not part of the management of the change.

Rural recreation is good for everyone in the country. It is good internationally. It brings tourism to Ireland. It should be done on an agreed basis. Without the landholder that is not possible.

Martin Ferris (Kerry North-West Limerick, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the representatives of Comhairle na Tuaithe for their presentation. I am involved in a walkway in my own area that uses an abandoned railway line. It is up and running. There were many objections to it and serious problems from some landowners regarding insurance and fear of the spread of disease. Even today, I had an e-mail from the north Kerry-west Limerick walking group, which has a fantastic set-up and is organising a walk on Saturday next. They, too, had their difficulties. If the route I referred to could be spread throughout north Kerry it would be a fantastic amenity.

It is difficult to win over landholders. This is partly due to genuine concerns about the spread of disease on agricultural land. While one can overcome that, liability for accidents and so forth remains a difficulty. That fear is magnified but it can be overcome.

Ms Moylette said Comhairle na Tuaithe has a list of priority actions to progress under the national countryside recreation strategy, NCRS. Could she outline those actions? Many Departments are involved in this area. It would make matters easier if all could be brought under one umbrella. A single entity could negotiate with landowners and communities. In using abandoned railway lines, for example, difficulties arise with the use of old railway stations. People who are now living in these stations may have concerns about people passing their windows and so forth. This creates its own problems and needs to be looked at.

My party and I support the use of land for recreation in a controlled way that protects the land owner. It can provide a facility which, if marketed properly, could have huge benefits to communities.

Tom Barry (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the representatives of Comhairle na Tuaithe for their presentation. I have a few thoughts on the matter.

A few years ago, when a rural scheme was promoting access to pathways through farms, I was anxious to establish a path through my land. I encountered all the obstacles that other members have noted. Insurance was a huge issue. The matter seemed to involve a number of agencies and was very confused. I wanted no financial reward. There may be goodwill among landowners, but providing access must be made easy. Farmers are busy and when planting season starts the pathway will be forgotten until next year comes around.

Landowners must be given time to get a feel for permissive access. We are talking about creating pathways and permanency. We should forget permanency. If people get access for a few years and enjoy that, then so be it. A right of way can be closed once a year until a farmer feels comfortable with it. Over time, people will see the benefits of walking on hills. If there are negative effects from access it probably should not have been granted in the first place and can be curtailed. There might be a fear that, for example, a farmer's son or daughter might want to build a house at some future date and the pathway might impinge on that. Such fears need to be allayed. In the majority of cases access, once given, will remain open.

I am involved in tillage. Very little damage can be done to tillage land. I might want to restrict access in the week of the harvest when there is a risk of round bales rolling on top of passers-by or from large machinery. One must take practical precautions and the initiative should be taken in that spirit. It is said that progress has stopped due to lack of funding. Very little funding would be required by farmers. There is considerable goodwill among them. Many people who live in the countryside work in the cities and appreciate the value of the rural environment. Losing weight, living healthily and walking has become almost a national obsession. Granting access also has benefits for the farming community. They can be seen to be engaging with their rural neighbours and taking a greater part in the community. This is a great initiative. It needs to be simplified.

Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I also welcome Ms Moylette and Mr. Moore. I commend the work they are doing. It is very important.

I served as chairman of Fáilte Ireland North West from 2008 to 2010 and became aware of the importance of the development of walking trails, particularly in the north west. There is an impressive list of 800 walking trails on the national trails register. During my time as chairman, there was a great focus on developing more and more trails, particularly in areas like the north west where the topography suited them and where they would have generated extra tourism income in a part of the country that had the lowest visitor numbers of all the regions.

Of course, the same would apply to certain other parts of the country along the western seaboard. At a time when we were struggling to get more people to visit Ireland, I remember learning the number of visitors, registered as walkers who visited the Lake District. There were 6 million registered walkers in the UK, our nearest neighbour. That is the reason I am concerned about certain elements that have been flagged by Comhairle na Tuaithe. The point has been made that if existing trails, cycleways and other infrastructure are not maintained to an adequate standard, then they will fall into disuse and disrepair, resulting in the waste of the initial capital investment. I presume that is a matter of grave concern to the witness. If the applications have closed because of budgetary constraints, I would like to explore if the allocation for maintenance from the budget is sufficient to ensure the existing trails are maintained to the highest standard. It would be disastrous if they were allowed to deteriorate. I appreciate that the country is broke but at the same time the Government sets out priorities. I would like to think this committee would add its voice to ensure there is a proper budget for the maintenance of existing trails so the scenario that has been outlined will not happen.

Ms Moylette referred to additional agencies that could support further development if they were given a specific mandate from the Government for such activities. Will she expand on that point? Perhaps some of the major multinationals could be engaged to sponsor the development of walking trails. I am not sure whether Ms Moylette has considered this or whether it would be a practical to try to do so. I like everybody else is looking around at ways and means of funding activities.

I think Ms Moylette has made superb points. She referred also to the role of rural recreation officers who were originally employed by the 12 local development companies, as an important point to source information as well as an important point of contact for inquiries about support and funding for local initiatives and large scale developments. The Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Hogan, has outlined in the action plan "Putting People First" a scenario in which the local development companies will be abolished or integrated into the local authority structures and come under a new grouping called social and economic committees. The Minister has not gone into detail on his plans in this regard and I know he is engaged in negotiations and discussions with the representatives of the local development companies who employ some 1,200 people and who are delivering this service. Does Ms Moylette have a view on the proposals? I appreciate that she could be somewhat constrained, as we all are for different reasons, for my part I do not know how this new configuration will work and the impact it will have on the existing local development companies, LDCs. Has Ms Moylette given some thought to it, or whether she will make a submission based on her perspective of the local development companies' mandate?

Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wish to raise a number of points. I live in County Wicklow and the National Waymarked Trails, the national trails strategy has worked very well. Much of the access to the open countryside has necessitated going through land that is privately owned or owned by Coillte but an issue that is now being aired is dogs roaming on the open hills on which there are existing rights. Deputy Ó Cuív referred to commonage. The practicality of commonage is under threat, unless the code of leave no trace is developed to include guidelines on dogs which are then implemented. In most cases there are other lands that are publicly owned that are more suitable for allowing dogs to be let off the leash. I know of an access route in Glenmalure that is heavily used with the full support of the landowner, but now at the weekends, he has to go out to look after his stock because of the threat that dogs pose to them. There seems to be a lack of awareness or an unwillingness to take that point on board by some members of the public. It is undoing a great deal of the good work that has been done since the years 1999-2000. Perhaps Ms Moylette will comment on that point.

Ms Finola Moylette:

A range of topics have been covered. We are at the very early stages of the negotiations on the Common Agricultural Policy programmes. As far as I am aware, the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine which takes the lead has recently instigated its ex-ante evaluation in advance of the next programme and has begun very tentative discussions with various bodies. To date, we have had no direct discussions with the Department on commonage and rural recreation and so on but no doubt that will happen in the future. As part of Comhairle na Tuaithe we will engage with the Department on these issues.

As far as I am aware, Mountaineering Ireland has a proposal on the potential to introduce a scheme similar to an element of REPS 1. That is at the very early stages. At this point, I cannot say what will happen.

Insurance is a major issue in that there is a perception by land owners who may see a threat to their livelihood from silly claims for compensation and the like. We are working with all the organisations on Comhaire na Tuaithe to try to iron out all of these issue. We are trying to make progress on an indemnity scheme. We are trying to put in place a pilot scheme in the Macgillycuddy's Reeks area but we have come to the conclusion that a pilot scheme for a single mountain is not practical and we need to look at the reeks in the round because there are multiple access routes and all sorts of different approaches to it. We are looking at a wider scheme but as a precursor to a national scheme across the board. If we can put an indemnity scheme in place in that area, it probably will solve many of the worries and issues around access to land in general. The bottom line for farmers and landowners is that they are worried about insurance claims against them. They are not particularly against access as such but would like it to be structured in a way that it would not impinge on their livelihood's or what he or she does.

Comhairle na Tuaithe is working with many groups. My colleague, Mr. Des Moore will give an update on the North Kerry line.

Mr. Des Moore:

I can give an update on the Great Southern Trail, which already is in excess of 40 km from Rathkeale down to Abbeyfeale. It is the intention to progress it across the Kerry border into north Kerry. Our aspiration in supporting the funding of the development of that trail is that it would eventually link to Tralee. We have already provided some funding support to Kerry County Council in relation to the development of the Tralee Spa-Finit line as well, which is already being progressed. I am aware that there are some concerns among landowners on the Kerry side in particular, however, my understanding is that while the line is not in use it is not abandoned. It is still in the ownership of CIE. There are significant issues around encroachment on both abandoned and disused railway lines which are impacting on the ability to develop those routes in a timely manner. They are being addressed on an ongoing basis. We work closely with the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport and we have contact with CIE on occasion on resolving issues that can arise on those routes.

Disease has not been raised with us as an issue, although obviously in the context of an outbreak of foot and mouth or other disease the Department would normally be responsible for introducing restrictions on access routes and trails that are managed by it with the support of local development companies or rural recreation officers. We would close them as well because they are permissive access routes, other than the railway lines which are in State ownership. Where there is permissive access, if a landowner has a legitimate reason to seek to close a trail, we would deal with that.

The issue of dogs was raised as well on uplands areas. Our colleagues recently issued a press release on the management of dogs. The Department, on behalf of Comhairle na Tuaithe, also intends to issue a number of press releases outlining the dangers associated with dogs in the countryside. In particular on mountain access projects and permissive access routes it is landowners who determine the criteria for access to the trail. Anywhere landowners do not wish dogs to be allowed on trails, signage is put on the trails to say “No Dogs Allowed”. There are stronger versions of the sign in certain areas of the country. The education of the public is an issue in terms of paying attention to what is required. The provision of dog-friendly trails is also an issue. There is a big demand from pet owners in this country and from those in the UK as well.

Coillte is a good partner of ours. The vast majority of Coillte trails are accessible to dog owners without any restriction, because interaction with livestock does not arise. We are conscious of the need to develop dog-friendly trails but, in general, they will be on State lands rather than private lands in the future.

Ms Finola Moylette:

On the point about putting people first, socioeconomic committees, SECs, and the abolition of local development companies, at this stage the Minister’s plans are not fully developed but as far as I am aware there are no plans to abolish local development companies. The plans are focused on better alignment of local development and local authority delivery. There is no plan, as far as I am aware, to abolish local development companies or to lose the expertise they have built up over a couple of decades.

On the number of trails, infrastructure and funding for maintenance, our walks scheme currently maintains the 40 trails that are part of the scheme and we will continue to do so, but for the wider national network there is no funding available to continue their maintenance. We are currently trying to put together a package of proposals for Government that will address the issue. We can see that a serious issue will arise in that regard if we do not manage and continue to maintain the infrastructure we have, let alone develop new infrastructure, which is vitally important for us. In terms of additional agencies we want to bring on board, the likes of Coillte has a mandate and responsibility for recreation but CIE and local authorities do not. We would like to bring more such bodies into the net, in that they would have an official responsibility in the area. Those are all issues we are currently examining. Perhaps Mr. Moore could address anything else that we have not covered.

Mr. Des Moore:

There was a suggestion that we would bring all functions under the one Department. To add to what Ms Moylette said about local development companies and the Minister’s plans in terms of putting people first and having an enhanced role for local authorities, our primary focus in recent years has been operating through 12 local development companies that employ 12 rural recreation officers. The majority of additional trail development and the development of recreational facilities has been funded by Fáilte Ireland. We need a national footprint for the delivery of the national countryside recreation strategy.

We would very much welcome the involvement of local authorities in the process in partnership with the local development companies. It has been clearly stated to us where that engagement currently takes place, that local authorities see the rural recreation officers and local development companies as significant actors on the stage in that issues exist between landowners and local authorities over previous planning applications that have been refused, compulsory rights of way, and other such issues. Rural recreation officers and local development companies are seen as honest brokers and a good buffer between the more formal structures of the local authority and private landowners. We would welcome the intervention of local authorities in terms of their capacity to develop by-laws and a legislative structure to address issues that impact in sensitive areas, such as the use of motorised vehicles, for example, scramblers and quads. Another issue on which we would welcome greater engagement with local authorities relates to signage from public roads.

Comhairle na Tuaithe works well. Ms Moylette referred to State agencies. We are currently meeting with the landholder State agencies. We have developed a draft national plan for the development of State lands and waters and it is currently being discussed with the agencies. We hope to conclude discussions on the draft plan early this year. We are reasonably happy with the structures, not alone those supported by the Department under Comhairle na Tuaithe, but we also work closely with the national trails office of the Irish Sports Council and we participate actively in the national trails advisory committee. Those structures bring most of the agencies together. The City and County Managers Association is represented at both of those structures. There is good capacity for engagement. As there are many specific actors on the stage it is difficult to get everyone together in the one room at any one time. Needless to say, we endeavour to get around those issues.

Ms Finola Moylette:

It is difficult to see how the area could be brought under a single agency or umbrella organisation because it is so diverse and widespread and there are so many different agencies that must be involved and work together. From the Department’s perspective, we are the honest broker in trying to get all of the groups around the table, including the landowners, those who want to be involved in recreational activities and the other agencies that can assist in that regard. While progress might appear to be slow – it is painstaking – it is being made nonetheless and is being well made. We are building a solid foundation. I hope that if we can manage to get across the indemnity hurdle in particular, and we get the plan agreed by the State agencies, we will have progressed matters considerably in the not-too-distant future.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am very concerned that because of the lack of importance attached to rural recreation and also the fact that it is at the moment being done on a permissive basis that landowners might do something that would seriously upset the apple cart and set back the situation by five or six years to a time when people put up signs on their farms to say “No Access”. That very nearly happened at the latter end of 2012 when the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine proposed to introduce commonage framework plans that would have been totally unacceptable to farmers and would have meant a huge loss of income for many of them. My guess is that if the Department had done that without consultation that farmers would have decided in its absence that they would withdraw permissive access. As the witnesses are aware, there is no arrangement on 99% of hills; people just go there because farmers allow them.

The effect of that would be terrible on the rural recreation scene, but particularly on rural tourism in the year of The Gathering. If such a thing happened, the consequences in terms of loss of money would be very significant. I understand that the number of visitors who said that walking was one of the activities in which they engaged while in Ireland reduced from 500,000 to 200,000. While I do not know the most recent figures, it was a growing activity and was considerably more important than golf for tourism.

I am surprised that the Department of Agriculture, Food and Marine has not engaged in consultation with Comhairle na Tuaithe on its plans for hill farmers. This committee should ask the Department to meet Comhairle na Tuaithe to discuss the implications of its plans for commonages. I know we will be discussing commonages again on rural recreation because there is no point in doing damage to work that has been painstakingly done by all the members of Comhairle na Tuaithe since its establishment in 2004. That is nine years of hard work getting people to reach agreement. If that agreement were to be lost, the whole thing would fall apart. We shied away from legal prescription because it would have been too difficult to do and one would never have got agreement for it. Most people accept that how it has been done has worked well. However, it is always subject to somebody doing something stupid which raises the ire of hill farmers.

Martin Heydon (Kildare South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I apologise for missing the start of the presentation. I thank the witnesses for appearing before the committee on an issue that is extremely important. I am a farmer and my holding contains the ruins of a castle and an old graveyard. I am well aware of the importance of people being able to access that graveyard in which the last burial was in 1974. It dates back to 1798 and is of great historical value. As a farmer, there are concerns about people crossing my land regarding livestock, safety, closing the gate, etc.

I also accept the point that this covers many agencies and many aspects that make the work of Comhairle na Tuaithe very difficult. I take it that the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government is the lead Department in this. I note Comhairle na Tuaithe has used the Leader structure to hire some rural recreation officers. I ask the witnesses to explain the Comhairle na Tuaithe funding model in general terms. Is it geared to try to access funding through existing schemes such as Leader?

Ms Finola Moylette:

In response to the issue on commonage framework plans, the Department of Agriculture, Food and Marine did not approach us, but we will approach it, which is probably the way to go. I am happy to suggest that its officials would meet us to discuss in general what they intend to do and allow us to talk to them about rural recreation and issues generally, and see where that goes. Other than that, I am not sure what we can do. I have no problem initiating that.

Deputy Heydon asked about funding. We are the lead Department. Comhairle na Tuaithe is a wide group of agencies and interested parties, including farmers, walkers, Coillte, Fáilte Ireland and the local authorities. The Department itself has a small budget for carrying out the walks scheme and also funds the rural recreation officers. The idea is to get things started and to develop it into something bigger so that it can continue on its own essentially. Some areas outside that through local development companies will fund Leader projects but that is not done on any planned or coherent basis. It depends on what is required in the area or who is interested in doing any particular project. Much new rural recreation tourism-type infrastructure has been developed in that way.

In many ways the funding is ad hoc. We get some funding through Fáilte Ireland. Depending on who wants to do what or what its plans are, we try to spread the resources we have. We would much prefer if we had a more structured funding regime for all that with a more permanent funding stream or structure and a proper plan in place, and we continually work towards that. The whole thing has grown incrementally over the years and people are beginning to see there is value to it. It is not simply access to the countryside; the whole tourism issue is significant as is the health issue. I believe most walkers are locals who are out doing their half an hour or hour in their own locality. Along with all that the whole tourism side of things is growing significantly. There is considerable benefit to be gained, but at the same time we need to be very careful with the infrastructure we have, managing the land we have properly and dealing with the thing in a holistic way. We are making progress slowly but hopefully it will be quite transformational by the time we get through with it. We have our work cut out and I suspect we will still be working away at this in a decade's time.

It is a whole complex area involving several Departments. The Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport in particular, and the Department of Agriculture, Food and Marine, need to become more involved and hopefully we can continue to progress matters.

Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Ms Moylette. The discussion today has informed us and reassured us that there is an entity within a Department that has a grasp of all the issues. Ms Moylette mentioned she would approach the Department of Agriculture, Food and Marine, which is very important. To be fair, that Department was handed the draft commonage rules from another Department, the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, and in ways was handed something of a hot potato, but now is the time to engage.

The same applies to Pillar II rural development money. Ms Moylette said it was at an early stage. The CAP in general is at an advanced stage but the details of Pillar II and how it will be funded is at a preliminary stage. Now is the time to get involved. Both of those are interlinked with the issue of access. Given that Comhairle na Tuaithe has a forum that brings everybody into the one discussion group in order to develop an understanding, it will be important that the commonages and the rural development funding both have a resonance with regard to access into the future. The same applies to dogs and the leave no trace code being developed. In the area where I live many of the public lands need to be accessed through private properties in the first place. Somebody mentioned that one Department would be helpful, but I do not believe it is feasible to do it. As an entity within the lead Department, Comhairle na Tuaithe is ideally placed.

I wish the witnesses well. As we will discuss later, we plan to invite officials from the Department of Agriculture, Food and Marine and the National Parks and Wildlife Service to come and discuss commonages. They are at a developmental stage. There was concern before Christmas that letters would be written to farm landowners about having to sign up to these, which really raised the ire about the whole issue. Access may have been a casualty of that.

I thank the witnesses.