The whole question of farmers and other occupiers having a liability for accidents to people who may come on to their land uninvited has been under discussion now for far too long and cries out for immediate action to deal with the situation once and for all.
The Progressive Democrats Party recognised the urgent need for action in this matter when we proposed its inclusion in the Programme for Government 1989-1993. Unfortunately, the Minister responsible failed to bring forward the necessary legislation on public liability and it remained as an unfulfilled commitment when the life of that Government was brought to an abrupt end by the outrageous and unfounded allegations by the Taoiseach, Deputy Reynolds last October.
With the increase in the number of claims against farmers by people who were in effect trespassing on their land, the situation became intolerable and has resulted in farmers in many areas now erecting signs forbidding people to cross their lands. This is indeed an unfortunate development as it has been traditional over the centuries that farmers welcomed people on to their lands who wished to enjoy walking in the beautiful country side, or hunting, shooting and fishing.
The Progressive Democrats Party fully supports the Fine Gael Bill which we believe would be very effective in achieving the desired objective of protecting all land owners from any claims that might arise. There is no doubt that the law in this area is outdated and archaic in giving illegal trespassers and others the right to claim compensation for any injuries that might befall them while they are on a farmer's holding even though, as in most cases, the farmers would not even know such a person was on their property, not to mind the fact that they would be there without his permission.
The current position is indefensible, it defies logic, it may not have mattered in the past when the courts took a different view but now that the courts have decided that a real liability rests with the farmer in certain circumstances, it is clear that immediate action will have to be taken to alleviate the situation. Every day lost in amending the law in this area leaves tens of thousands of farmers open to serious liability way beyond their personal capacity to meet the type and size of claims that might be taken against them. Instant legislation can be produced by the parliamentary draftsman and approved by Cabinets in certain circumstances when it is desirable to do so, so there is really no justification for delaying the bringing forward of urgent legislation now required in this area.
Too often in the past, good Bills such as this have been rejected by Governments on the grounds that they were going to bring forward their own Bill to deal more comprehensively with the issue in question. We know from experience, however, that the promised legislation is often delayed for years or does not deal with the matter as expected when it is brought forward or indeed is never dealt with at all. I compliment Deputy Deenihan and his Fine Gael front bench colleagues for taking this initiative. It is timely and effective and deals satisfactorily with the issue. The Progressive Democrats Party will support this Bill and will vote for it at the conclusion of the debate.
I appeal to the Government parties to support this Bill and not to play the old political game so beloved of parties in power and so scorned by parties in Opposition, of voting down Opposition Bills on the pretext of pending legislation being prepared by themselves. The most recent example of this is the voting down of the Progressive Democrats Party Bill combating vandalism, loitering and unlawful assembly. Yet the promised Government Bill has not yet appeared. People have been injured and communities have been living in fear because of the lack of adequate Garda powers to deal with certain situations as was proposed in the Progressive Democrats Party Bill. However, the Government rejected the proposal when the vote was taken. Let us hope we will not have a repeat of that small minded attitude when the vote is taken on this Bill tonight.
Last week the Select Committee on Enterprise and Economic Strategy discussed the Estimates for the Department of Tourism and Trade in a very unreal atmosphere because of the inability of the Minister for Tourism and Trade to indicate to the committee whether this Bill would be accepted by the Government at tonight's vote.
It is a well known fact that access to the countryside by tourists for sporting and recreation activities contributes about £200 million to the Irish economy, a great part of which is actually spent in rural communities. This major section of our tourist industry is immediately under threat because of the decision of many farmers to refuse access to, or crossing of their lands, by third parties who do not have personal liability insurance taken out.
The tourist season of 1993 is already upon us and still no action from the Government to protect farmers against these liability claims. It is clear that there will be widespread chaos particularly if the action of Clare farmers in the Burren region is repeated nationwide.
This whole question of public liability has already become a nightmare for other owner-occupiers in the State who have been faced with massive insurance premiums to protect themselves against injury claims. One cannot blame individual farmers therefore if they refuse access to their lands in order to avoid similar heavy claims from potential trespassers.
The solution is clear as set out in this Bill — farmers and other land owners must have no liability for any person who comes on to their lands or trespasses for a purpose for which the farmer has no commercial interest.
With Common Agricultural Policy reform introducing set-aside, it is clear that more and more farmers are going to have to turn to agri-tourism to supplement their incomes. Agri-tourism by its very nature offers an invitation to people to enter onto farmland, so the inevitable increase in third party liability will occur at a faster rate.
The farming organisations have been expressing serious concern about this matter for a long time now and, as I understand it, the IFA position is that they require; first, that no duty of care be owed to trespassers; second, that licensees — invited visitors, picnickers, casual hunters, fishermen etc. in whom the farmer has no economic interest — be treated as trespassers; and, third, that invitees — postmen, shopkeepers, etc. — be afforded a reasonable duty of care, subject to certain conditions.
The position regarding licensees is of particular interest because a more complex situation arises where the claimant is of a category that farmers have traditionally welcomed and wish to continue to welcome on their lands, such as hunts, shooters, fishermen, tourists, sports bodies, ramblers, walkers, etc. However, these groups may unintentionally represent a major financial threat in the case of an accident.
The IFA have expressed the view that this area needs to be clearly defined so as to give a solid basis for the infrastructure of farm business and agri-tourism in the future. Among the features they list as being required are: first, notices and signs pointing out dangers should include liability even towards children; second, voluntary assumption of risk be accepted in practice and in law by all participants as in English law; third, protection from mischievous legislation from men of straw; the costs of defending such cases can be penal especially in cases where the litigant has small means or is sought after by certain solicitors; and, fourth, duties of care by the occupier should be balanced by duties of responsibilities by the third party.
The IFA have also highlighted the need for new legislation to cover voluntary assumption of risk, children trespassing and historical buildings specifically excluded from commercial insurance. There is a need to ensure that there is an onus of self-responsibility on the public in general while ensuring that land owners adequately warn potential trespassers of real dangers.
The Progressive Democrats believe the time has come for a different balance to be struck between the "rights" of trespassers and the rights of landowners. The law, in our view, has parted company with commonsense when landowners are held liable to foreseeable trespassers, whether children or adults. In our view, a landowner should owe no duty to trespassers, expect the duty not to create intentionally a man-trap.
For licensees, those entering lands or buildings with permission but not in the economic interest of the owner, the law should merely impose a minimum duty of care, to warn them against known and unusual dangers where such a warning is reasonable. I urge the Minister and his colleagues to support this Bill when it comes to a vote here tonight.
