Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)

I wish to clarify that the legal issues were raised by the ICMSA and by Keep Ireland Open. They were agreeable to the proposition that these would be examined by either the Attorney General or the Law Reform Commission. An expert group involving the various offices is regarded as the best method. The IFA did not raise legal issues. I note there is no fundamental difference between my position and that of the IFA which has conceded it is looking for maintenance money.

I am not a member of Comhairle na Tuaithe but my officials are members. I understand the IFA wanted its specific proposal to be accepted by Comhairle na Tuaithe, that maintenance money would be paid by rote, irrespective of whether a farmer had a lot or a little maintenance on his land. This is not a good way of proceeding for a number of reasons. My door is open to discussion and negotiation. The IFA is no longer looking for money for access because it accepted since it published a document that it is not a tenable argument.

The suggestion made by the Deputy is that anybody on their own private land can charge for access and earn more if they allow more people on the land. I agree that private landowners can do so. However, what was in question was the idea of the State paying for access and I said this would not happen. This was taken on board by the IFA and it published a document. It suggested a payment of maintenance by rote. I am not keen to go down that route for a number of reasons.

I have fully accepted the principle that farmers should not have to expend any of their money in maintaining a walkway if they are not receiving a direct benefit. The State or somebody else, but probably the State through the rural social scheme, should bear the full cost of maintenance.

The issue is that if the land of 80 farmers is on a walkway — my view is that each one should maintain their own land — the first practical issue is that many of them might not be capable of maintaining their own land, as in the case of 80 or 85-year-old farmers in hilly areas. The second issue is why should everybody be given the same when the work might be very different? The third issue is that if each one does their own, there may be a way of supervising——

See this speech in context