Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

Absolutely, but it was always with due regard for the environment and ensuring that proper conservation was applied. There are people who do not have such regard for the environment and who consider they have the right to do as they wish on either public or private property, and that, unfortunately, is where the conflict arises. I do not feel I have the right to travel onto somebody else's property and treat it as if it were public property, showing disregard for the rights and entitlements of the owner, which are protected by Article 40.5 of the Constitution, an issue which will undoubtedly arise. What concerns me most is litigation, which is a minefield ahead. While I acknowledge the provision in the Bill in regard to indemnification in respect of individual landowners, the cost to the State could be colossal. The tendency to litigation is such that there would be a huge welter of claims that we can ill afford at any time. There is also the issue of the safety of walkers. In modern agricultural holdings it is very difficult to allow public access with bloodstock and bulls, as it is impossible to guarantee anybody's safety. Countless accidents have occurred in which landowners and farmers have been attacked and were seriously injured or killed. In the past, relatives of mine have suffered greatly as a result of being attacked by animals. Animals are animals. It is impossible to guarantee the safety of the individual, whether he or she is an experienced walker or not. It is as simple as that and I can see no way around it. No matter what level of insurance is provided, the insurance premium would be such as to make it virtually impossible for a person to get cover. At the same time, in the event of insufficient or inadequate cover the State would have to pick up the tab, which in turn would be a huge bill.

It is no harm to have this debate. References to other jurisdictions are not necessarily relevant. I know about the other countries throughout Europe, including the Scandinavian countries and Scotland, and must point out that these are not necessarily the same, because we have our own written Constitution. Under existing law and case law, various grounds have been laid out already to the effect that when individuals do not provide for eventualities, such as the protection of people who inadvertently walk on to private property and injure themselves, liability falls on the individual landowner. That has been determined by the courts already and is a serious challenge. I welcome the publication of the Bill, the merits of the discussion and the motives behind it, but there is a huge challenge that needs to be dealt with very carefully before anybody proceeds further.

See this speech in context