Newsletter No 30 Autumn 2006
Editorial: Occupier's Liability
It has to be said that Hitler's Third Reich was certainly correct in one respect: if you say something often enough and loud enough it is taken to be the truth, even if it most certainly isn't. Reading through the submissions to Comhairle na Tuaite's recreational strategy, or a recent issue of Outside magazine, or indeed anywhere two or three walkers are gathered together, you hear the same refrain: landowners have a real problem with claims if recreational users suffer an injury to their property. It is nonsense.
Fact: Farmers themselves played a major role in the Occupier's Liability Act 1995 (the current legislation) and were satisfied enough with the result.
Fact: The landowner is never to blame for accidents to persons who were not invited into his/her land (i.e. recreational users and trespassers) unless s/he shows 'reckless disregard' to quote the act.
Fact: There were only two cases in the eleven years after the Act came into force and in both cases the ruling was in favour of the defendant who was in neither case a farmer. The second of these cases is described elsewhere in this issue.
If you want a clear confirmation of these facts how about this: 'IFA welcomed the 1995 Public Liability Act which protected the rights of landowners against trespassers and uninvited guests. The recent Donegal case has reaffirmed the rights of landowners.'
So who made this definitive statement? Well, the IFA did and this is the sum total of their statement on this subject in their recent submission to Comhairle na Tuaite.
It is really a pity that the IFA and the other farming organizations do not inform their more nervous members of these facts. But traditionally they have not: on the contrary their usual stance is to encourage these irrational fears with, one can only suppose, the hope of extracting payment for access.
Where does the €400 m per year come from?
KIO's claim that the IFA's Walkway Scheme will cost €400 m per year has entered the media dialogue. You may now be wandering how we arrived at such a huge sum.
Look at it this way. England and Wales has 225,000 km of rights of way and the much bigger France has 120,000 km (or at least it had in 1990, the last date for which we had firm statistics- chances are it's more now). Suppose we end up with a modest 80,000 km, which would be a greater density than France's and less than England and Wales' (both jurisdictions, incidentally, have much greater areas in National Parks). So 80,000 km multiplied by €5,000 per km gives us €400 m. Per year!
But our critics are correct in one respect. We have omitted the €1,000 that the IFA are demanding per farm per year: we have in fact underestimated what their projected smash-and-grab raid (sorry, Scheme) would cost. We suspect that every farmer in the country- and there are at present about 125,000- would be happy to join the Scheme if these were the terms, so that's up to €125 m more per year winging its way to the 'guardians of the countryside - at a price'.
A Hill Walking Voice for Hill Walkers
If there is sufficient interest, the Irish Ramblers Club intend to launch a national hill walking group.
They would like to hear from clubs (or individuals) who want to promote a strong voice for hill walkers at national level. They envisage that there are issues on which a policy would have to emerge, for instance on national parks, mapping, challenge walks, access to the countryside and the environment. There are also services that a hill walking group might provide, for instance insurance, photography, shared holidays, and discounts in retail outlets.
In the North, Rambler representatives have already had an exploratory meeting with the Ulster Federation of Rambling Clubs. The Ramblers would like to work in close co-operation with them, especially since they provide a similar service there.
In the first instance the Ramblers will be sponsoring a website and then intend to have a meeting of interested parties early in 2007. Interested? Then please contact:
By e-mail to : HWGComment@yahoo.ie
or by post: Hill Walkers Interest Group, 17 Balally Drive, Dundrum, Dublin 16.
Access Problems, What Access Problems?
We are constantly hearing that there are in reality very few areas which recreational users cannot get to, so we have very little cause for complaint. Apart from the fact that unlike other European countries, we have no legal right to put a foot onto private land, and that farmers are once again threatening to block off their land (see elsewhere in this issue), this comforting assumption is just not true. We have a leaflet, now partly out of date, detailing some 30 - 40 access problems all around the country. Here are a few of the latest ones.
Shillelagh, Co Wicklow: There is a bitter dispute here over an old graveyard at Ballisland outside this village in south Wicklow.
The twelve Bens: A new access problem here in a favourite walking area. An angry farmer stopped a group of walkers and noted the registration numbers of their cars in a laneway leading to Letterfrack from the west side of Ben Baun.
Dispute in Clare: About 30 locals have provided affidavits in the district of Aughinish, Ogonneloe in Co Clare seeking a writ ordering a local landowner to cease attempting to fence of a long-standing walking route at the side of Lough Derg. The case was up for mention in Ennis Circuit Court in mid-October and is due to be tried at the same court on the 20th November. The route in question is a public access to Aughinish woods.
Old coach road, Glencree Valley: The Kilmolin Upper - Curtlestown section of the ancient road from Dublin to the Glencree Valley remains in dispute owing to the unreasonableness of one landowner, who insists that it was extinguished by a previous landowner but has failed to produce any evidence for his claim. Walkers are still subject to periodic harassment. And here are a few disputes that have been running for decades ....
Uggool beach and access to Mweelrea mountain from south: One of the most disgraceful access issues in t he country. This running sore has been allowed to fester since 1989 when a local farmer, Gerard Burke, was allowed to erect an illegal fence which blocked off part of the beach. The Ombudsman is yet again considering what to do about Mayo Count Council's signal failure to deal with the issue - now complicated by their having paid Burke €60,000 for a useless strip of land to create a small car park near the still-inaccessible beach down to Killary inlet.
Gleniff/Benwhiskin, Co Sligo: The Ombudsman is also considering the ludicrous on-going saga in which the publicity-obsessed Andrew McSharry, already convicted of assault and harassment, continues to block a fine walking route. Significantly and pathetically, he still enjoys support from the IFA and the ICSA.
Lammore, Aughagower, Co Mayo: A unique pre-patrician inscribed standing stone ahs now been blocked off to the public for more than 10 years. Though in the care and protection of the Heritage Trust as a national monument, it is denied to the people through the action of a single farmer, though it stands on ground useless for farming.
If you know of access problems in your area, please don't assume that we are aware of them. We probably aren't, so please let us know by e-mail, letter or phone (01-493 4239)
The Media
The aftermath of the Glencree judgement , which means that only rights of way which the landowner has specifically dedicated or the mere handful listed in county development plans can be considered as such, continued to generate much media attention.
In late September, Albert Smith, now on KIO's committee, had a long article in the Irish Independent titled 'The year of the Hikers: €5 per euro along the green mile? which was answered by an IFA representative bemoaning the fact that that Minister O Cuiv would not consider the IFA's 'modest proposal' which would cost the taxpayer €400 per year if Ireland is to have a decent network of rights of way ( this figure is discussed elsewhere in this issue). T
he Sunday Times ran a similar article in which Richard Oakley derided the IFA demand and seriously questioned Minister O'Cuiv's description of the results of the C na T deliberations as 'a marvelous breakthrough'. It quoted both our chairman Roger Garland and Con Moriarity. The latter, a Kerry-based mountaineer and tour guide, related a disturbing incident involving two Scottish ladies and claimed that 'I could bring you to 50 places in Kerry where there are Fan amach [Keep Out] signs'.
The Irish Times had an editorial 'Walking the Land' on September 5th. It outlined the present impasse and came down strongly in favour of giving rights to recreational users, starting (correctly) that this had been done in other European countries. It also called on the government to take action.
The Farmers' Journal issue of late August had the results of an Agri Aware survey that claimed that 84% of its respondents 'believe that the Government must intervene to introduce solutions for both landowners and users of the countryside with regard to land access issues'.
In late October the Secretary of the Western Branch of KIO had a letter in the Irish Times supporting the Western Rail Corridor and making the point that what walkers wanted was not a single A to B route designed originally as a rail line but a comprehensive network of rights of way.
Comments needed on newsletter: While we get some feedback on the newsletter we would like some more of your comments, particularly if you don't agree with something you read or some statement in the media. As we are hoping to start a 'letters page' it would be great if you would agree to have your letters published.
C na T's National Countryside Recreation Strategy
Thus commission, set up by Minister O'Cuiv has laboured hard over nearly 3 years but unfortunately this particular mountain has produced a none too impressive mouse.
The report is long on 'encouragement' mostly the encouragement of landowners to open up their land and of local authorities to do what they should have been doing for decades: to take some measures to implement walking routes. However it is very short on what the Government is actually going to do, other than make a comparatively small sum of money available to landowners for developing and maintaining walkways and appoint 'walking managers' in each county whose role would appear to be solely to consult and negotiate with landowners.
All the signs are that the one essential measure, that is new legislation to regulate the legal to give some rights to recreational users, is not being considered.
For instance, take this quote from the Report (our italics):
Access to the countryside must be based on .....
* Acceptance of the rights of farmers and landowners access to their land.
* Acceptance of the needs of recreational users to have reasonable access.........
* Acceptance of the aspirations of recreational users to lobby for legislative change.
Clear enough then. Landowners have rights. Recreational users have needs and aspirations - and there is nothing in the report to suggest that the Government is going to do anything to convert recreational users 'needs and aspirations' into rights.
Contrast also the time scales envisaged. Access to the countryside was referred to the Law Reform Commission - a recipe for a fifteen years delay. (KIO later got this amended, as the story below explains). On the other hand the landowners' demand for the amendment of the Occupiers' Liability Act to eliminate any liability for mishaps on their property is to dealt with " as a matter of urgency".
Meeting with Minister O'Cuiv
The general tenure of the C na T Report was so much biased in favour of the landowners/farmers that we had serious misgivings about our continued support. We contacted the minister to express our extreme dissatisfaction and he gave a commitment when launching the document at the Ploughing Championship that he would give priority to 'the broad issue of general access to the countryside for recreational users by referring the issue to "an expert group" headed by a Senior Counsel, with a remit to report within six months.
At a subsequent meeting with the Minister we made it clear that we would agree to continue as members of C na T only if the terms of reference of the group were sufficiently wide to cover our minimum demands for legislative change. As requested we have forwarded what we consider the terms of reference should be. We will have no hesitation in "pulling the plug" if our reasonable demands are not largely acceded to.
Ten walks in the district of Enniskerry
This may turn out to be a famous booklet as its publication led the authors and publishers to the High Court and resulted in the present disheartening legal situation regarding rights of way in this jurisdiction. This is of course not a criticism of the book: we were bound to find out the sad truth on rights of way (Irish style) sooner or later.
This is a new edition. It is beautifully produced, has excellent sketches and sketch maps and is a great source of information on walking areas around Enniskerry that you probably do not know about. It costs a mere €5 and can be obtained in bookshops and other outlets in the Enniskerry area. Plus, it incorporates an application form for KIO. What more do you want?
Correspondence
If you have any comments on the newsletter or any other aspect of our campaign or if you would like to describe your own problems with access to the countryside send correspondence to
The Secretary, KIO, 56 Pine Valley Avenue, Rathfarnham, Dublin 16
Links to Affiliated organisations
Association of Irish Riding Clubs
Federation of Local History Societies
Catholic Girl Guides of Ireland
or e-mail : info@keepirelandopen.org
Previous Newsletters: July 1999, October 1998, July 2000, May 2002 Nov 2002 February 2003 May 2003 August 2003 Winter 2003/2004 Spring 2004 Summer 2004 Winter 2004/2005 Spring 2005 Summer/Autumn 2005 Winter 2005/2006 Spring 2006 Summer 2006 Autumn 2006 Spring 2007
If you would like to inform us of any problems in your area please email us at info@keepirelandopen.orghome | aims | issues | policies | role & tactics | newsletter | How to Join | letters | contact