Seán Kyne (Galway West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I compliment Deputy Robert Dowds on his well drafted and constructed Bill. I am sorry I did not get an opportunity to meet with him in advance of the debate to discuss his proposals. I understand he consulted with the Irish Farmers Associations among others. However, several landowners in my own area in Connemara have contacted me to express their concerns about what might be proposed in the Bill. I told them not to worry, that the legislation was unlikely to see the light of day for a year or two. Deputy Dowds is to be congratulated on being fast out of the traps in terms of the lottery system.

I accept all that has been said about the dangers of obesity and the importance of providing facilities for leisure and exercise. I have concerns, however, about some of the provisions contained in the Bill. In my own area, Galway county and city councils are supportive of projects that improve leisure accessibility and infrastructure. The Minister of State at the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Alan Kelly, was in Galway yesterday highlighting some of those initiatives. We have all heard of the success of the cycle way in Mayo from Achill to Mulranny. I hope some day we can all experience the pleasures of a cycle way stretching from Clifden to Oughterard and on through my own village of Moycullen to Galway city. Some of that cycleway has already been designed and passed by An Bord Pleanála, but it requires negotiation with landowners to proceed. Some progress has already been made, the plan being to begin in Clifden and work from there. Some of the landowners who have concerns about the initiative might be more amenable when they see what is being done. Such co-operation is vital because local authorities are understandably reluctant to go down the route of compulsory purchasing of these areas of greenway. Other initiatives in Galway include Slí Chonamara and the Western Way, which are very successful. Some of them are dependent, however, on continued funding under walks schemes post-2014.

While there are many similarities between Ireland and Britain, it must also be acknowledged, as Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív pointed out, that farms in this country are generally much smaller than those in Britain, including, for example, in the Scottish highlands and elsewhere. There are also ancient pathways in that jurisdiction, which I understand are not always popular, that were laid down over the centuries. Deputy Finian McGrath referred to access to recreational land. The reality, of course, is that we are talking about farm land which is worked by farmers. I welcome the comments by the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Brendan Howlin, regarding the Commission for the Economic Development of Rural Areas, CEDRA, under the stewardship of Pat Spillane.

Before the Bill proceeds further we must have a more localised and informed debate on its provisions, in consultation with interested parties. The concern expressed to me is that it represents a direct attack on farmers' places of work. Under the Constitution, landowners have the right to earn a living and to the use of their property. The State is under a duty to protect citizens' right to work and earn a livelihood from unjust attack. The Bill, however, proposes a right of access to a farmer's place of work, thus diminishing the land value and possibly causing nuisance and interference in the proper and efficient use of that place of work. This would have a direct impact on the income of farmers. The Bill, in fairness, acknowledges the likelihood of a significant diminution in the current-use value of land and provides that a farmer or landowner should be compensated for same. There is no template, however, in terms of how that compensation will be calculated. Moreover, the Bill goes on to state that local authorities shall not pay any compensation or make any other form of payment to persons with an interest in the land. In other words, loss of livelihood as a direct result of land being deemed access land will result in zero compensation to landowners. In addition, there appears to be an inequity under section 5 in that compensation may, under paragraph (a), be made for a loss of value due to an access designation but, under paragraph (b), compensation cannot be made for loss of income. Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan went even further than this in her indication that she disagrees with any type of compensation. That would create great difficulties and concerns for landowners.

The Constitution declares that the State will vindicate the property rights of every citizen. This means that a person has a right to own, transfer and inherit property - which I appreciate is not under threat in this legislation - and the State guarantees to pass no law to abolish those rights. Article 43 acknowledges that the rights ought to be regulated by the principles of social justice. In other words, the State may pass laws limiting an individual's right to private property in the interests of the common good, in which case it may be required to compensate that individual for the restriction. The designation of the right to access land areas as set out in the Bill is not in the common good of those that earn a living from those areas. It might be in the common good of society in general, but that does change the fact that it may well be contrary to the interests of the landowners concerned.

The areas most likely to be selected for access under this Bill are areas of high scenic amenity, up to class 5, including mountain and coastal areas and, as specified in the Bill, all land situated 200 m or more above sea level, along rivers shores, paths etc. The sheer weight of EU directives, regulations and restrictions in this area has curtailed severely the viability of many farms. Section 3(2) of the Bill comprises a list of criteria to which a local authority shall have regard in declaring land to be access land. The section further provides that regard must be had to the designations of lands under European Union law, encompassing special areas of conservation and special protection areas, and national law, which refers to national heritage areas. Farmers in rural Ireland, particularly in disadvantaged areas of the western seaboard like Connemara, who have already sacrificed a great deal to comply with the plethora of laws, such as the habitats directive and the requirements regarding the destocking of sheep, are the ones most likely to be impacted yet further under the proposals in the Bill.

Farmers and landowners have acted as guardians of these areas for centuries and their contribution should be acknowledged. People who wish to access rural Ireland must abide by the restrictions to which farmers in are subject. The latter are paying a high price for the protection and enhancement of habitats in these vulnerable areas. Some can no longer farm at sustainable levels due to environmental restrictions. The only resource left to them is the beauty of the mountains and coastlines. Any benefits that derive from this precious resource should be harnessed for the benefit of farmers and landowners.

Discussions in the past with groups such as Comhairle na Tuaithe were part of the effort to have a reasoned debate on how farmers and walkers can coexist. There was not, however, a particular focus on the environmental degradation of SACs and areas of class 5 scenic amenity and the direct impact on the ecosystem of thousands of walkers. Farmers and landowners are gravely concerned that the single greatest threat to the conservation of the landscape, mountains and coastlines may now be from recreation. Many do not want their place of work to become a playground for walkers and hikers. Walkers may contribute to the problems of blanket bog erosion and the formation of new route ways in the mountains which result in landslides that expose the rock and lead to the depletion of our much valued heathers.

In recent times the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government and the Connemara National Park said walkers were the sole cause of blanket bog erosion and damage to heather on Diamond Hill in Letterfrack. Their solution was to impose a complete ban for three years on access to Diamond Hill. This shows that the State was willing to pay taxpayers' money to sort out a problem and that the Government recognises that walkers could cause damage in these areas. We also have to acknowledge that the same problem exists on all neighbouring mountains, coastlines and places like Connemara. The solution in Diamond Hill was to construct a pathway over the blanket bog. I do not know if Deputy Dowds has ever been there but it is a wonderful facility and it is very well used but there is erosion on certain parts of Diamond Hill because of this continuous use. There is concern that if free access was given, as set out in this Bill, there would be a degradation of the habitat in some of the most scenic areas and accessible hills - not in all farmland - that the EU is seeking to protect. That is a matter of concern for farmers.

Farmers have complied with EU laws and adjusted their lives and places of work at a financial loss to protect this landscape. This access Bill will in some cases further threaten these farmers, whilst having a greater benefit for society. These areas are very sensitive. I have spoken to farmers who say they have no problem with a couple or a family coming in to their land but they would have a problem with a bus load of 20, 30 or 40 people. If that were to happen regularly on the most accessible, beautiful lands closest to a public road it could have a serious impact on the habitat that the EU laws are trying to protect. If there are 200 small sheep on a hill eating the herbage and the numbers increase to an unsustainable level that will create bare patches which can be degraded and removed by the heavy rain that one finds in Connemara. Similar damage can be caused if there are large numbers of walkers in these areas. That is a concern which the Minister also raised for these areas of special designation. Many farmers and landowners wish to work in a close partnership with recreational interests to find a long-term workable solution to this problem. There have been initiatives in this direction.

In respect of insurance, section 4, "Consequences of declaration that land is access land", subsections (1)(b)(i) and (ii), indemnify landowners against people who come onto their land. If people, for example, choose to access hills with dogs and the dogs worry sheep or cause them harm, is that covered by the Bill? Deputy Ó Cuív is from the same part of the world as I and we have attended many meetings about SACs and IFA meetings where questions arise about compensation, designation and de-stocking. If this issue were being debated in Connemara and some people suggested that there would be no compensation if land is described as recreational rather than farmland and if the county council granted a right for carte blancheaccess to all of a certain area that would be of grave concern to people. I know that Deputy Dowds has not suggested this but others have. I understand his point of view on this issue and I fully accept the potential that is there for rural pursuits and for job creation. Many areas where the farmers do business would benefit from initiatives to get more tourists and walkers into the country but the farmers themselves may not benefit. That is of concern.

The most important point is the need for greater consultation and negotiation for any scheme. We are all aware of problems in the past with rezoning but under this Bill giving carte blancheto a council and in some cases maybe putting pressure on members of the council to designate lands would be the opposite because there may be many landowners who would be reluctant to have their lands designated. People who are well connected and tied in might put pressure on councillors not to designate their lands, while others might find that their lands are designated without their having known much about it. We need to ensure that any proposed access is determined through negotiation and consultation. I cannot stress those words strongly enough. There have been very positive examples in my area of farmers who have built their own car parks and have welcomed people and that is their choice. There are others who would be gravely concerned about this. That is why there must be full negotiation and consultation with the relevant people.

Points that farmers have made to me include the effect on their livelihoods, erosion of property rights, problems with SACs such as damage to heather or bare ground, dumping and pollution, effects of trampling, damage to fences and gates, worrying livestock and so on. I welcome this debate and know the Minister is considering other areas, that CEDRA has been set up under the chairmanship of Pat Spillane and there will be more regional meetings about these areas. I welcome the debate and fully acknowledge that a great deal of work has been put into this Bill based on the potential for this development but I have concerns and urge more consultation and negotiation in the affected areas. I appreciate there may be specific areas in Howth about which I do not know but in my part of the world there are farmers who have no problem with the principle but are worried about busloads of people coming in and the impact that would have on their ability to farm. The Deputy has to accept that on hill sheep-farms there are sheep which do not come into contact with many people because of the nature of the area and he must consider the impact that may have on newborn lambs in certain cases. This causes concern. I commend Deputy Dowds on the spirit of the Bill. I understand his point of view and accept that there is potential in this area but it has to come about through negotiation with those affected.

See this speech in context