Paul Connaughton
Question:6 Mr. Connaughton asked the Minister for Justice whether any time limit has been set on the study by the Law Reform Commission of occupier's liability in view of the increasing concern about this issue in rural areas.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Occupier's Liability.
John Connor
Question:17 Mr. Connor asked the Minister for Justice whether any time limit has been set on the study by the Law Reform Commission of occupier's liability in view of the increasing concern about this issue in rural areas.
Patrick D. Harte
Question:23 Mr. Harte asked the Minister for Justice whether any time limit has been set on the study by the Law Reform Commission of occupier's liability in view of the increasing concern about this issue in rural areas.
Andrew Boylan
Question:26 Mr. Boylan asked the Minister for Justice whether any time limit has been set on the study by the Law Reform Commission of occupier's liability in view of the increasing concern about this issue in rural areas.
Charles Flanagan
Question:29 Mr. Flanagan asked the Minister for Justice whether any time limit has been set on the study by the Law Reform Commission of occupier's liability in view of the increasing concern about this issue in rural areas.
John Bruton
Question:34 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Minister for Justice whether he told an IFA seminar in Dublin that new legislation on occupier's liability will be before Dáil Éireann before the end of 1993; and if this represents an advance on previous commitments given by him to the Dáil itself on this matter.
John Browne
Question:39 Mr. Browne (Carlow-Kilkenny) asked the Minister for Justice whether any time limit has been set on the study by the Law Reform Commission of occupier's liability in view of the increasing concern about this issue in rural areas.
Donal Carey
Question:43 Mr. Carey asked the Minister for Justice whether any time limit has been set on the study by the Law Reform Commission of occupier's liability in view of the increasing concern about this issue in rural areas.
Michael Finucane
Question:47 Mr. Finucane asked the Minister for Justice whether any time limit has been set on the study by the Law Reform Commission of occupier's liability in view of the increasing concern about this issue in rural areas.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 6, 17, 23, 26, 29, 34, 39, 43, and 47 together.
This area of the law is complex and involves a wide range of interests, some conflicting. The Government are aware of the concerns of the farming community in relation to claims for compensation by persons who are injured while on their property and that the State itself, local authorities and other interests may be vulnerable to similar claims. As I have already indicated in my reply to Question No. 159 of 24 March 1992, the Attorney General has decided to refer the matter to the Law Reform Commission for examination and report. That is a desirable first step towards the formulation of new legislation in this area because of the many interests involved who need to be consulted and have their views taken into account. In accordance with normal practice, no time limit has been set for completion of the commission's work in the matter by the Attorney General, but I would not expect their report to be long delayed.
The Government made it known last January that they intend to bring forward any legislation that may be required on the subject during the lifetime of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress, that is, before the end of 1993. I reiterated that promise at a recent seminar organised by the IFA.
Is the Minister aware of the enormous anxiety felt by farmers and landowners concerning their liability in the event of accidents occurring to a vast range of people, gun club and hunt club members and others who pass over their lands and subsequent possible claims arising from such accidents? Will the Minister comment on the widely held perception that, irrespective of whether permission was given by the farmer to such outsiders, liability rests with the landowner? That is most important. I am very disappointed to find there is no deadline for the report of the Law Reform Commission. Obviously, no legislative measures will be introduced until that report has been received. I hope the issue will not drag on for years.
The Deputy is right that it would not be wise to pursue the matter until the report of the Law Reform Commission has been received. I have asked that the report be treated as a matter of urgency, and I indicated that to the organisation referred to in the reply. I regard this matter as important. There are also many side issues attached to the matter, some of which the Deputy mentioned. I should like the matter to be pursued. The Deputy may rest assured that, as a countryman like Deputy Connaughton, I am anxious to give some assurance to landowners. We depend on them to further the tourist industry and so on.
Landowners will not allow anyone else in unless something is done.
I should point out that the law is concerned with the duty of care which an occupier of property must observe towards entrants on his or her property. Those can range from contractual entrants to the trespasser, who may be a person on the property without permission and without any malicious intent.
It should not be forgotten that we are talking about an insurable risk. I understand some attention has been given to that aspect by farming organisations and insurance companies. Insurance is not always the answer. As I said at the seminar, no matter what happens, no Government could give the farmers complete immunity from liability. I got the impression from those at the seminar that that was understood.
Even if people were——
Order. I observe that Deputies Connor and Finucane have questions tabled on this subject. I now call on them.
I was surprised to hear the Minister say there are major conflicting interests. I do not know what conflicting interests there could be or what interests conflict. Will the Minister elaborate on that?
It means putting on the record the occupier's liability understanding as we now know it. The term refers to the rules of law that govern the imposition of liability for injuries that occur to people when they are on the property of another. Apart from the Hotel Proprietors Act, 1963, and particular provisions in the Civil Liability Act, 1961, those rules are contained in the common law as opposed to statute law and they are judge made originating in the middle of the last century. Since the decision of the Supreme Court in 1974 the law in this regard has been in a state of transition. The case for having the law in the matter accessible and stated in statutory law is now accepted. We are taking the advice of the Law Reform Commission because of that change and the complexities attached to it.
We have become so litigation conscious here that it would be wrong to regard this as a rural issue exclusively. I am sure the Minister will agree with me on that. While certainly the issue affects the farming community, it has to be made a national issue that involves urban communities. If one trips on a mat or in the yard of another person's property the same issue is at stake. Would the Minister agree, having regard to the encouragement given to agri-tourism and so on nowadays, that we need a deterrent in relation to this vexatious issue. Would he assure the House he will ask the Law Reform Commission to move with haste to expedite the issue?
The Deputy stated the reason for taking the matter to the Law Reform Commission and, as he said, the issue is complex and does not concern only farmers. In fairness to farmers, they are the people who are keeping up the pressure in this regard in that the issue affects their lives. They are concerned that they might find themselves in some way seriously disadvantaged if pursued. Farmers are put in the position of inhibiting access to their lands, when we would like them and the majority of them are willing to do so, to accomodate the new trends in agri-tourism and permit the people pursuing leisure activities——
Like walking.
——to cross their lands. I have to say, to judge by the reaction at the seminar I attended, that landowners feel somewhat exposed to liability. It is for that reason they want the matter sorted out. They are willing to accept that that should be done statutorily. They are also willing to await the result of the examination by the Law Reform Commission, because that will give them the opportunity to consult the Commission. I invited them to do that and I think they will take up that offer at an early date.
While I do not wish to take away from the anxiety of farming interests in relation to this issue, I ask the Minister whether he agrees that the issue should also be looked at from the point of view of the person who has enjoyed the general right of cross over for centuries. That tradition in Ireland is very important and should be protected. Does he agree that whatever scheme is ultimately put in place it should be one that will avoid the construction of fences or obstacles, that it should help to maintain a very laudible tradition that has existed for centuries? By and large, landowners welcome the general public not to abuse but simply to cross through their lands. In that regard, does the Minister consider that the Law Reform Commission might have regard to a proposal contained in the report on the legal profession by the Fair Trade Commission to introduce a no-fault liability national scheme? However the issue is dealt with, insurance will inevitably prove costly. A scheme based on a Government bank, no-fault system, is perhaps the only real way the issue might be addressed.
The Deputy seems to be making the point made by Deputy Connor. The issue is complex. The cross over element arises. In fairness to the farming community represented at the seminar to which I referred — and many views were expressed there — I have to say that that was understood. The farmers did not wish traditional understandings to be set aside and were most reluctant to erect fences to keep people out from places they knew full well the public would like to enjoy. Landowners just want some level of statutory protection.
There is an enormous cost attached to a no-fault liability scheme, as the Deputy knows. However, if the Deputy wishes that matter to be considered by the Law Reform Commission it certainly will.
I have been told that because of the backlog of work the Law Reform Commission have to deal with it could take a long time before they reach this topic. Can the Minister enlighten the House in that regard? Farmers genuinely believe that the issue could drag out for a long time.
I have been making inquiries and I recognise no reason that the issue will be delayed. There is no intention to stall the matter. I take it the report will be universally well received——
This year?
I would be happy if the Law Reform Commission reported on the matter this year, so that legislation could be introduced and put through the House before the Government's commitment at the end of 1993. I look forward to that.