Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 are alternatives to amendment No. 23 and all may be taken together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
SECTION 4.
I move amendment No. 23:
In page 5, lines 16 to 19, to delete subsection (5).
Section 4 (5) states: "Notwithstanding subsection (1), where an occupier of premises provides a structure thereon for use primarily by recreational users, the occupier shall owe a duty towards such users to take reasonable care to maintain the structure in a safe condition."
The purpose of this subsection is to provide that where an occupier provides a structure for use by recreational users he will be liable to maintain it in a safe condition. While this subsection is limited to structures provided for use primarily by recreational users this, predictably, would extend to a wide variety of structures. Where, for instance, a farmer does not wish his gate to be continually left open and provides a stile beside the gate for recreational users to use instead of the gate, he would be liable for any injuries sustained as a result of the condition of that stile. Where an occupier provides something in the nature of a park bench for the benefit of recreational users on his lands he will be liable for the maintenance of same.
The result of this subsection will be to ensure that no occupier will ever again provide any structure to assist recreational users. Indeed, it is likely that occupiers around the country will remove structures they may have provided for the benefit of recreational users to eliminate potential sources of liability on the premises. There is real concern in relation to the issue of stiles, for example, and while the subsection is designed in the first instance to limit the liability it would be preferable to remove it.
It is important to draw a distinction between a situation where an occupier provides a structure primarily for use by recreational users and where the structure exists mainly to facilitate the occupier in moving about his or her property. In the former case, it is proper that such a structure should be maintained in a safe condition. For example, if a platform is provided to enable a panoramic view to be obtained over a forest park the person standing on that platform has the right to assume that it will support his weight. Similarly, if children are playing in a publicly funded playground it is appropriate that the structures in that playground are maintained in a safe condition. Deputy Woods's amendment would have the effect of removing the legitimate protections which should exist in these cases.
Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 are for the purposes of clarification. Concern was expressed that the mere presence of a stile or a gate on property used for recreational activities could be construed as an invitation which would have the effect of putting a recreational user into the visitor category. I do not believe that this argument was well founded but I am happy to introduce the necessary amendment to assuage the fears of those who may have had misgivings in relation to this matter.
The net effect of not accepting the amendment and deleting the subsection is that if there is a property which attracts recreational users and on which there may be a structure which the entrant may use, although it is not provided primarily for recreational users, if the occupier takes the trouble to provide something to facilitate recreational users, a platform or a stile for example, the occupier is discriminated against, because they will have a higher duty of care in respect of it than in respect of any other structure.
The occupier, in going out of his way to facilitate and encourage recreational users — one of the primary purposes of the Bill is to ensure that occupiers do not keep out recreational users — is discriminated against because he is put in a worse position than somebody who does not provide something to help them. That strikes me as invidious.
Deputy O'Dea's comments are strange, even bizarre. If an occupier intends to provide a structure to facilitate recreational users in their enjoyment of the property, unless he provides a safe structure it is better not to provide any.
The legislation is encouraging him not to provide it. Nobody will provide such structures.
If it is not going to be done so that it is safe than it is better not to do it.
If he provides it in a safe manner he still has to maintain it subsequently.
Absolutely.
There is no suggestion that he would not provide it in a safe manner in the first instance, but he would then be obliged to maintain it. It seems to put it clearly to the farmer or land owner, or Coillte or the Office of Public Works who might provide facilities for recreational users that they should not provide them at all.
That is up to them. If they provide them they must be safe and they must be maintained to keep them safe. Otherwise, people are given licence to put up ramshackle, dangerous structures and make them available for people. We cannot allow that. The thrust of the Bill is covering the natural event, but in this case the occupier intervenes in the natural state of affairs on his land and builds something. People are entitled to expect a structure to be reasonably safe and that is all the section requires.
Yesterday I defended occupiers and said they should not be liable for trespassers' expenses. I agree with the Minister that if someone provides a facility they should ensure its safety. I have sympathy for a farmer if a gate, which he thought was up to standard, falls on a trespasser's toe. The farmer did not advertise his facilities. If I go into the cinema, I expect the seat to bear my weight.
The Deputy is a visitor there and that is a different category.
I know, but facilities should not be abused by people. There is an onus on the owner of a swing on the bank of a river to ensure it is properly used and in good condition but its abuse is a different matter. The same applies to a viewing platform.
I agree with the Minister. Perhaps my amendments have given protection to the occupier, as Deputy Browne said. If my children, for example, were recreational users, I would expect that the facilities provided for their recreational use would be properly maintained and that they would not be in any danger. It is reasonable to expect that would be done. I do not see the point made on this side, although I agree with many other things said by Members on this side.
I will explain the point to Deputy Keogh and others. The Minister spoke about people interfering with nature and setting up something. Under this legislation — even if the subsection was excluded — if someone builds an artificial structure, he is obliged to keep it safe, otherwise he could be liable for the expenses of trespassers or recreational users who are injured. For example, if it is unsafe, he could be seen to be grossly reckless. The Minister and the section, if it is not amended, are saying that if the landowner provides a structure to facilitate recreational users, he must have a higher standard of care. He has an obligation to make the structure as safe as possible and to maintain it on a continuous basis. He has a higher standard of care than someone who provides a structure for his own benefit or enjoyment and not for recreational users. In other words, the landowner has an obligation to make any structure on his land safe, otherwise he could be held liable for gross recklessness, as the Bill states. However, the landowner who goes out of his way to facilitate recreational users, which we should encourage, must maintain a higher standard of safety because it is easier for him to be found liable and that is wrong.
During Second Stage the Minister told us it did not apply to a stile. He now says, after we tabled an amendment, that it applies to a stile, a gate, a footbridge, etc. There are potentially wide implications in subsection (5). Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 are in the Minister's name. Amendment No. 24 states: "to insert ‘in respect of such a structure'.", while amendment No. 25 states: "Provided that, where an occupier of premises provides a stile, gate, footbridge or other similar structure thereon not for use primarily by recreational users, his or her duty towards a recreational user thereof in respect of such structure shall not be extended by virtue of this subsection". The Minister is trying to come part of the way in meeting the difficulties in the subsection and this means he is admitting such a difficulty. He is faced with the danger that structures could be removed.
We are not talking about visitors, but about a recreation user who, under the new definition, freely walks through fields. It is a different situation, therefore it requires different care from that for a visitor or someone who pays a subscription. It has brought this issue, which is bigger than it appears to be, into the open.
Another one of my amendments states that the Minister for Finance would indemfify landowners who provide such recreational facilities. That was ruled out of order as it is as potential charge on the Exchequer. The Office of Public Works must upgrade the free facilities it provides and must consider the fact that it will now be liable under this section for anyone who has a minor accident on a bench or seat. There is a danger it will not want to extend the facilities because that will extend the risk. At least the State can pay to indemnify those facilities, but it could be open to substantial claims in the future under this section. The landowner or farmer will soon have to treat people as visitors. Visitors will now visit a farm or land, rather than what is normally understood as recreational users.
The Minister does not want to accept the amendment, but this is an important issue. I ask the Minister to consider this matter further. He has already looked at it to study its implications. He is putting forward two amendments and I accept they are beneficial in the circumstances which will result from this subsection. I appreciate that the Minister is trying to be helpful. However, there is concern about this section and a strong view that it will lead to the removal of facilities throughout the country, which could be detrimental. Perhaps this could be prevented if the tourist board provided a general indemnity for such a facility.
These issues must be addressed by the people who open their lands or farms to recreational users. The Minister's amendment almost suggests that this is primarily for the farmer's use. Anyone who visits their land knows it is primarily for that use. Farmers and landowners will have to use the clause set out in section 4 (3) which states ". . . not for use primarily by recreational users. . ." to get out of liability and an extended duty of care. This is where the concern arises. The Minister understands it quite well and has gone some of the way to meet it. However, it can still lead to considerable difficulty.
I am unable to see the difficulty which Deputy Woods appears to have with this issue. Section 4 (3) states: ". . . Provided that, where an occupier of premises provides a stile, gate, footbridge or other similar structure thereon not for use primarily by recreational users,. . .". This addresses the situation where a farmer has a gate or a footbridge for his own use he would not be caught by somebody who fell off it or suffered some such incident. This is distinct from the case where somebody erects a special structure as recreational equipment. The distinction is clear to me and I am surprised that Deputy Woods does not understand it.
I do not wish to curtail the debate in any way, especially on a very important point, but I ask Members to bear in mind that we are under severe restraint, that we are only on section 4 and that we are not yet half way through the Bill. I call Deputy Fitzgerald and I know he will heed the advice of the Chair.
There is a point being made on this side of the House which the Minister recognises in the amendments he brought forward. It is fair and reasonable to say that there is an extension of care involved for the occupier of a property if that occupier provides an additional facility for people who are not invitees. There is a middle ground between what our spokesperson, Deputy Woods, is proposing and the point made by the Minister. The Minister, by order, would rule out the next amendment because it imposes a charge on the State. In response to Deputy Woods, will the Minister advise that on Report Stage he will introduce an amendment stating he will make the provision to encourage owners of land and property to provide these extra facilities which the State would indemnify? Such a provision would get us out of this dilemma.
I am not in a dilemma. The Deputies on the other side of the House appear to be seeking, and it is something I am not prepared to concede, a licence to occupiers of land to provide unsafe, ramshackle structures. This is what the amendment in the name of Deputy Woods, in effect, seeks to achieve — that a landowner would be entitled to erect what would be a ramshackle and dangerous structure to an adult and/or child which could put their life or limb in danger. Nobody asks him to do what it would be better not to erect any structure than to erect an unsafe or dangerous one.
On the issue of upgrading facilities and having a higher standard, let us call a spade a spade. What we are talking about here is a simple notion — safety for people and children. The situation is not, as Deputy O'Dea appeared to indicate, that the "reckless disregard" standard, the visitors' standard of care, applies to all buildings on the land.
I did not say that.
The Deputy appeared to be suggesting this.
I said the opposite.
That does not apply to the ordinary farm buildings and so on so far as trespassers or recreational users are concerned. Only the "reckless disregard" provisions would apply in those cases if a recreational user or trespasser wanders into one of these.
However, this is a special position where, uncalled for and albeit for good motives, the landowner decides to provide a structure. It is welcome if any landowner is motivated to do this and we all appreciate it, provided that it is safe. That is the standard we seek — safety for people, adults and children. If he is not prepared to make it safe the best thing would be not to do it, because at least people will not be misled and children will not be put in danger. There are hazards on land in its natural state, this is a case where a landowner takes the field, puts in something artificial and new, where he is not obliged to do it, and it is like everything else: if he does it, that is fine, but he must do it safely.
The position with regard to amendment No. 25 is quite different. It refers to the situation where there is a stile, a gate or a footbridge or something of that nature which the landowner has on his premises primarily for his own purpose and use. He has a gate to enter through and so on. It may be that, incidentally, a recreational user may use that as well, but it was not put there primarily for the recreational users. In those circumstances it would be unfair, because a casual recreational user happens to use the land owner's own facility that thereby the responsibility of the land owner under the section should be extended. I am not prepared to go that far.
However, what I am discussing, along with Deputy Woods, is the deletion of that protective safety provision in the Bill and to delete it for adults and children. When the landowner provides a structure primarily for the recreational users, we must expect that he does so in a safe manner. We must think of people and of children. They will not know whether the structure is dangerous or not. It could be a ramshackle, landing stage over water. Somebody could be drowned if it is not safe, and yes, not only when he constructs it and puts it in place, but he must maintain it as safe. If he is providing it, and he knows that people will go along to use it — both children and adults — he must maintain it as safe or otherwise remove it as it would be better off given that at least it will not cause an accident.
I do not wish to prolong the debate unduly, but I must correct the Minister as he appears to misunderstand what we are saying. Is the Minister suggesting that if a landowner provides a structure for his own use and it is quite dangerous and he knows that entrants — including children — on to his land for recreational purposes commonly use it, even though it is not for their use as it is primarily for his own use, that under the provisions of the Bill, that he would not be liable in respect of somebody who was injured thereby? If the structure is obviously dangerous — as in the example given by the Minister — and he knows that entrants will use his land and are in the habit of using the structure, even though it is not there primarily for their use, surely he would be liable for gross recklessness? Is that not the general standard laid down for recreational users in the Bill?
Yes, he could be liable for reckless disregard if he come within the parameters set down in section 4, and rightly so.
"Reckless disregard", exactly. Why is it easier to recover if that structure is provided to facilitate people rather than the landowner for his or her own use? The Minister said on Second Stage, if I understood him correctly, that we must ensure that recreational uses are allowed to come on to property and that everything is done so that landowners would not be discouraged to allow them to come on their property. Surely we cannot now go in the reverse direction and bring in legislation which discourages land owners from facilitating those recreational users in every way? If the land owner is guilty of reckless disregard he will be liable in any event. People could get into the habit of regularly using a structure on somebody's land. There will be a fine point to be decided by the courts as to whether that structure was provided primarily for recreational users if the original purpose for which it was provided by some landowner in the dim and distant past has been forgotten and it is now used almost exclusively by recreational users.
I thought were were trying to make the law simpler in this area, to help people to understand their rights and obligations rather than making the issue more complicated by introducing new distinctions and questions to be decided by the courts.
Deputy O'Dea is well aware of the major distinction involved. When a farmer has a gate or a stile or a facility on his land for his own purposes his reasonable and proper responsibility is not to act with reckless disregard to a recreational user who might use that facility. There is a major distinction between that position and the position of a landowner who erects a structure to be used primarily by recreational users. There is no obligation on him to do the latter; nobody has asked him to do it. Whether it is Coillte or a private owner who decides to provide a structure for recreational users we expect them to fulfil a simple and obvious requirement: to ensure that the structure is safe for recreational users. That obligation would not be there unless we specifically provide for it in the Bill. It puzzles me that anybody would seek to delete that obvious safety provision for people who will use such structures.
That is covered in the Bill in any event. The example given by the Minister, where somebody carelessly erects a ramshackle structure, would surely come under the provisions regarding reckless disregard for the safety of the people involved.
This provision — and the Minister has not denied this — extends the duty of care. The Minister has gone some way in defining this. He is going further than he was prepared to go on Second Stage. I propose that we accept the Minister's two amendments and consider the subject further before Report Stage bearing in mind the Minister's comments today. However, if this section is included in the Bill the Minister should — as was the case with other legislation — send a notice to relevant bodies such as the IFA, Coillte and the Office of Public Works, advising them that their duty of care is altered and clearly specified under this legislation and advising them to examine the new situation.
The Minister puts great emphasis on safety and other major issues. However, as I pointed out yesterday, between 80 and 90 per cent of claims are for minor sprains, bruises, scratches and so forth and it is important to bear that in mind in looking at this situation.
As a result of this subsection many farmers and landowners will be inclined either not to erect the structures in the first instance or to remove structures that are already there because this provision insists that the farmer maintains them at a certain standard. What standard? That question involves us in the issue of standards and the cost of maintaining them. It is easy to say that there is only one good safety standard. However, if one travels the thousands of acres of land in this country, one will see many standards and most of them are adequate. However, if somebody from a separate body comes along to make a judgment on those standards, one is immediately involved in expenses and that will discourage people from providing such structures.
We will look at the situation again on Report Stage.
With regard to Deputy Woods's suggestion that I send notifications to Coillte and other bodies, it would be reckless on their parts if they did not study carefully the terms of this Bill when it is passed.
I agree with the Minister. However, we are not talking about reckless disregard here, unfortunately. It is a much wider duty of care and responsibility which, in financial terms, would be reckless disregard.
I was being humorous.
I realise the Minister was joking.
We should send a notice to all occupiers that they should immediately dismantle any structure they have provided to facilitate users because of the terms of this legislation. The standards are set impossibly high. This provision flies in the fact of the purpose of the Bill, which was to encourage occupiers to allow people on their property.
We should not do that. We should, if we should do anything, notify all such people that if they have provided structures on their land or intend to provide them for recreational users they should ensure that they are safe.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 24:
In page 5, subsection (5), line 18, after "users" to insert "in respect of such a structure".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 25:
In page 5, subsection (5), line 19, after "condition" to insert the following:
"Provided that, where an occupier of premises provides a stile, gate, footbridge or other similar structure thereon not for use primarily by recreational users, his or her duty towards a recreational user thereof in respect of such structure shall not be extended by virtue of this subsection".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 26 has been ruled out of order as it involves a potential charge on the Exchequer.
Amendment No. 26 not moved.
I move amendment No. 27:
In page 5, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following subsection:
"(6) An occupier shall not be liable to a recreational user or trespasser in respect of any injury to the person or damage to the property of such person sustained or contributed to by reason of the ordinary use or storage of agricultural machinery for farming purposes.".
This amendment refers to an issue discussed on Second Stage and about which there is great concern, particularly among people in the farming community. The ordinary use of machinery could refer to a combine harvester which is left three fields away from home and not brought back to the farmyard overnight or in the short periods between harvesting. There is a great rush during harvesting and equipment might be left in a suitable location on the farm rather than brought back to the farmyard. With regard to such equipment, we propose that the occupier would not be liable to either a trespasser or a recreational user for an injury sustained in those circumstances.
I understand why the Deputy tabled this amendment which is designed to deal with problems which may arise in regard to agricultural machinery. However, it is equally the case that similar problems may arise in regard to machinery not dedicated to farming purposes and it would be invidious to single out a category of individuals for the indemnity the Deputy appears to be proposing. Leaving aside the fact that the injuries occasioned by the use of machinery are outside the scope of the Bill, I do not favour the blanket exemption in this proposed subsection. There are also definition difficulties; for example, what constitutes ordinary use or storage? The Bill, as drafted, protects an occupier who has not acted with reckless disregard. This protection is sufficient and adequate for the purpose envisaged by the amendment. I regret that I, therefore, cannot accept it.
I am disappointed at what the Minister said. I was born and reared on a farm and although I have lived in the city for many years I am still reasonably familiar with the rural way of life. I endorse what Deputy Woods said; not only at harvest time but at other times of year a plethora of operations take place on farms, whether it is combine harvesters, silage makers or agricultural contractors. These operations always take place at speed for weather and other reasons. Invariably the farmer or contractor whose contract extends overnight will leave machinery on the farm on the assumption that it is safe unless thieves or vandals damage it. That has been the practice for as long as I can remember.
Deputy Woods's amendment is, therefore, reasonable and the Minister should give more consideration to it. In response, the Minister said traditions and practices in rural Ireland should change overnight because he is not prepared to give blanket cover. Deputy Woods is not suggesting such a cover but the traditions and practices have existed for a long time and could not be regarded as constituting reckless disregard for the safety of others, particularly in the context of trespassers or recreational users. The Minister's point is valid where invitees are on the farm or stay overnight while the machinery is being used. However, I cannot see his point in regard to recreational users or trespassers. I am disappointed with his response.
This amendment returns us to the core of the Bill; we are trying to tilt the balance back in favour of the occupier rather than the trespasser, who has had inordinate rights up to now. The amendment serves this purpose. The last two speakers from this side mentioned agricultural machinery being left overnight but an accident can happen easier than that. For example, when a farmer who is working three fields away from his house goes for his lunch it is not reasonable to expect him to spend hours making a long detour to put away that machinery while he eats his lunch and having to take it back in the afternoon. The machinery will be left at the site of his work.
I am curious about the Minister's response; he mentioned not only agricultural machinery but other machinery. Does he mean this subsection does not go far enough and, perhaps, should be extended to include other machinery? There is another way the subsection could be extended. It is unreasonable to expect a farmer who may be spraying dangerous chemicals to spend an hour putting away equipment before he goes to lunch and to have to take them out again. This amendment is eminently sensible and if it has a fault is that it should be extended.
I have much sympathy for the amendment because we have gone out of our way to protect the occupier or owner of property. So many activities take place on property which are not connected with farming; painting around the house, etc. Is there another way the owner can be protected? For instance, if a trespasser or recreational user does not take reasonable care, is he automatically disqualified from claiming for his injuries? If that protection does not exist the amendment will save people from paying compensation to someone who should have minded his own business and left the property as it was.
The amendment will not radically change the nature of the Bill. As the Minister will appreciate, if machinery is being used in a negligent fashion the plaintiff can take a negligence action; he will not have to sue under the provisions of this Bill. I take the Minister's point about storage; unless the machinery is stored in such a way as to constitute reckless disregard for a person's safety there will be no grounds for an action. Nevertheless there is a fear; many claims against farmers, whom we are talking about in this section, dealing with agricultural relate to accidents involving machinery. As Deputy Fitzgerald said sometimes the machinery is stationary or has been left overnight.
The farming organisations have threatened to close their land and stop people doing what they have done for generations, walking across fields on Sunday afternoons, visiting historical sites, etc. Acceptance of this amendment would not greatly alter the number of cases which would be decided differently; nevertheless it would send a signal to the farming organisations and farmers who have taken the risk of allowing people on their land.
No farmer is obliged to allow people on their land but they are facilitating people who want to do so. The Minister said the primary purpose of this legislation was to permit farmers to continue to do that. The danger still exists and uncertainty will remain when the Bill has been passed. Farmers will turn their fields into fortresses. Concentration camps will be created, except on this occasion they will be designed to keep people out rather than in.
Acceptance of this amendment would give a measure of reassurance to the farming organisations. It would send a signal that we are sympathetic to their position and that we realise they are doing recreational users a favour by allowing them to walk their land, look at nature, visit historical sites or other structures on their lands. We want to encourage that.
Acceptance of the amendment would only make a minor change to the legislation because of the reckless disregard requirement and the fact that one can be sued for negligence if machinery is used in a negligent manner. There would be little difference in the number of cases decided but it would be a powerful signal to farmers that we appreciate what they have been doing, although they were not obliged to do so, and that we want to encourage them to continue to do so.
Is this a minor change which will make little difference, Minister?
I would not say it makes any difference and it has the major disadvantage of isolating one type of situation from many others.
The object of the Bill is to strike fair and reasonable balance between occupiers, visitors, recreational users and trespassers. The position of recreational users or trespassers is clearly laid out and well protected in section 4 of the Bill which states, "In respect of a danger existing on [the] premises...". Before any liability under that section comes into play, the first condition is that there must be a danger on the premises. The sort of situations indicated by Deputy Kenneally and others would not come within that ambit. A danger is a specific, unusual, not normal type of situation. It is no more a danger to leave a piece of machinery there than it is to leave your car outside. A car is also a piece of machinery.
If there is a danger on the premises then the further requirement is that the occupier must not act with "reckless disregard" for people in respect of that danger. Now those two specifics set up an appropriate standard as far as the relationship between an occupier and a recreational user or trespasser is concerned, first, the existence of a danger and, second, the conduct by the occupier vis-�-vis the recreational user that would amount to reckless disregard of that danger. The kind of situation envisaged here quite clearly would not come within that ambit so the structures of the section and the parameters of liability are being carefully thought out and examined. They well meet the needs of the situation and landowners need have no fear if there is no danger or, if there is a danger, if they do not act with reckless disregard in respect of it.
To give isolated examples would cause more problems and I am not prepared to go down that road. For that reason, unfortunately, I cannot accept the amendment.
The Minister talked about danger and if there is danger, the issue of reckless disregard arises. You can have dangers without reckless disregard. That is the problem—
People would not be liable.
They can be sued.
Anybody can be sued. You cannot stop people suing. That is their constitutional right.
Obviously, the occupier cannot act with reckless disregard. Therefore, that will deal with situations in which he is careless about machinery which can be dangerous. Almost all machinery is dangerous. Even when it is standing still in the field it is dangerous depending on what you do with it and that is where the problem arises. In a factory, for instance, when you had finished with a machine, it would be put in a static position. We are dealing with fields and the farmer or occupier will be out in different parts of the farm and may not be able to store a machine properly. They could be liable. All this seeks to do is to clarify that position for the farming community because it is the main issue which has been raised and about which concern has been expressed.
The Minister says there could be other categories. If the Minister can think of other categories, he can provide a measure that will meet those needs but this is certainly one of the biggest categories over the whole country that would occur on a regular basis. It is a reasonable provision and it would be fair to provide this kind of exclusion for the farmer or landowner.
The difficulty here is that you can leave a machine overnight, as mentioned. It can be a particular type of machine and it could constitute a danger. As the Minister rightly says, in many cases that will not constitute reckless disregard so the plaintiff will not be successful but the difficulty is that the plaintiff can sue and the farmer can be dragged into court. The Minister said the plaintiff has a constitutional right to sue and, of course, he has but the farmer has no constitutional obligation to allow the plaintiff on his land and the plaintiff has no constitutional right to go on the farmer's land. Farmers will turn their fields into fortresses and we should be doing everything here, as legislators, to discourage them from doing that.
This simple amendment in the name of Deputy Woods which, as the Minister says, will make little difference, will make the difference of sending a powerful signal of reassurance to farmers and the farming organisations that we appreciate the fact that over the years they have been doing recreational users and their urban neighbours a favour by allowing them on their lands. That is all we seek.
Is the amendment being pressed?
Yes.
Amendment put.
The Select Committee divided: Tá, 8; Níl, 12.
|
Tá |
|
|
Browne, John (Wexford). |
O'Dea, Willie. |
|
Fitzgerald, Liam. |
Smith, Michael. |
|
Kenneally, Brendan. |
Wallace, Dan. |
|
Keogh, Helen. |
Woods. Michael. |
|
Níl |
|
|
Ahearn, Theresa. |
Mulvihill, John. |
|
Broughan, Tommy. |
O'Keeffe, Jim. |
|
Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny). |
Sheehan, P. J. |
|
Crawford, Seymour. |
Taylor, Mervyn. |
|
Flanagan, Charles. |
Timmins, Godfrey. |
|
McDowell, Derek. |
Walsh, Eamon. |
Amendment declared lost.
Section 4, as amended, agreed to.