The Government's duty to legislate for the appropriate use of the countryside by tourists and other recreational users, while respecting the rights of farmers, has been thrown into sharp relief by a judgment in the High Court last week. A traditional pathway used by locals and hill walkers at Enniskerry, Co Wicklow, was found not to be a public right of way and the owner was permitted to fence it off.
The ruling could affect a great number of other walking routes throughout the State and it underlines the unsatisfactory nature of the current situation.
At a time when the Government is in negotiation with various farming organisations over the terms of an Agricultural and Rural Development Plan, 2007-2013, which may transfer about €6 billion in grants and funding to the agricultural sector, urban taxpayers are surely entitled to ask if this process is a one-way street.
Because individual farmers have closed off their land to hill walkers and recreational users, this section of our tourist industry has declined by about 20 per cent in recent years. And the situation is getting worse. The reaction of the IFA has been to warn the Government against the introduction of legislation and to propose, instead, a countryside walkways initiative, whereby farmers would be paid on a voluntary basis for allowing visitors to cross their lands on maintained paths.
It is an inadequate response. The introduction of a charge could make farmers liable for any injuries suffered by visitors, unlike the present legal position. And the voluntary nature of the scheme would not guarantee access to some of our major beauty spots. Something more is required.
As Mr Justice Seán O'Leary said in his High Court judgment: it is open to the Oireachtas to legislate to provide facilities for walkers while respecting the rights of property owners. And he noted that a reliance on public rights of way or the revival of old rights for walkers was unlikely to lead to a satisfactory, overall solution.
So far, the Government has been unwilling to legislate for a "right to roam" in mountainous and uncultivated areas, such as exists in Britain. But controlled access to a network of clearly identified walking routes in both lowland and upland areas is urgently needed and should be provided for in law.
The behaviour of walkers will have to be circumscribed, and the privacy of farmers and their families protected. If rural tourism and hill walking are to be developed for the common good, some new legal mechanism will have to be introduced to balance farmers' rights and urban interests.