Madam, - I was slightly disappointed to note the prominence your paper chose to give the comments of Mr Roger Garland of the Keep Ireland Open movement on foot of the All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution published last week. I do not, of course, dispute the right of Mr Garland to make any kind of comment he desires on any subject of his choice. We can both agree on his right to ramble across the boundaries of logic and established practice.
If, however, that subject is as contentious and prone to misrepresentation as the so-called "right to roam", then it seems to me to be incumbent on any party loudly proclaiming a solution to show - at the very least - a nodding acquaintance with the problems the solution is ostensibly designed to address. Mr Garland nowhere shows such an acquaintance. What is proffered instead is the usual peremptory demand for legislation "to regularise the situation on hill-walking".
I'm afraid that this is all rather typical of Mr Garland and his movement. My association can only wonder when Mr Garland intends turning his attention to a regularisation of "the situation" for the land-owning farmers. Perhaps he roams across their land so quickly he fails to notice them, but he may take my word for it: they exist, they fully intend exercising their rights both on and to their own property, and they absolutely refuse to have their perfectly legitimate concerns about the matter of liability airily dismissed by Mr Garland and his supporters.
Insofar as a matter so emotionally charged as this can be made amenable to reason, the situation is as follows. Any person coming onto a farmer's land or yard can establish rights under law and expose the farmer to liability for injury suffered to that person. This is the fact of the matter under the law. If Mr Garland chooses to ignore this fact, it is a matter for himself. But he will understand, I'm sure, the reluctance of the thousands of farmers utterly exposed to the very real possibility of ruinous civil suits to share his blissful disregard of that reality.
The relevant legal term here is "common duty of care", a duty that is interpreted by the courts as meaning the obligation due to a family member or person employed by the farm. This is a very high level of obligation. The Occupier's Liability Act of 1995 is designed to reduce the legal exposure of farmers but this limit on liability refers only to trespassers and recreational users. It does not apply to people who have a right to come on to the farms, or to people who have been invited or given permission. This limited protection was hard fought for by my own association, among others, in 1995 and it represents the absolute minimum protection that could have been offered to the owners and occupiers of the land, the people whose rights are so easily disposed of by Mr Garland.
The position of the ICMSA is perfectly clear and reasonable. Under the present situation, where no gain accrues to the farmers and where the possibility of liability occurs, farmers, as the owners or occupiers of the land in question have an unqualified right to refuse access to that land. Indeed, it would be rash on their part to do anything else.
If Mr Garland, or anyone else, expects us to apologise for insisting on adequate protection under law where uninvited, and indeed often disruptive, ramblers cross land and make its rightful owners liable for any injury they are deemed to suffer, then he is, to be frank, not living on any planet I recognise. - Yours, etc.,
PAT O'ROURKE,
President, ICMSA,
Dublin Road,
Limerick.