When the debate adjourned before Question Time I was saying that this was a far-reaching Bill, the implications of which are crucial not only for landowners but for the community as a whole, and that it is vital to tackle the issues in order to contain soaring insurance costs and at the same time preserve and enhance our tradition of sport, recreation and leisure.
People have seen this Bill in a limited light, as affecting principally farmers and the farming community for whom it has major implications. Consequently, it is not surprising that landowners have taken a great interest and will have much to say on Committee Stage. People involved in recreational pursuits within the city areas will also be concerned about the implications of this Bill because it will cover access to community halls, school premises, swimming pools and children's playgrounds and will affect occupiers other than the landowner.
This is an era of community development and many local communities, with assistance from the State in many cases, are developing local facilities and amenities and extending their support to children and people in general in the community, and this legislation has implications for them also. That is why it is important on Committee Stage to consider the implications of the legislation for the local communities and development groups and provide support for them so that these measures will not prevent them from engaging in and extending these worthwhile community-based activities.
This legislation also has implications for the householder. There are many anomalies in the law relating to injuries sustained on the householder's property. There are large and small landowners around the country but there are many tiny landowners in cities and we must take care of their interests and ensure that the Bill meets their needs in this age. All of these matters fall to be considered on Committee Stage.
This Bill has been under consideration for quite some time and I congratulate the Minister on bringing it to the House. Although I may differ with the Minister as to the detail of it, its purpose and intention is good. However, the lack of precision in the law is the result of many court judgments over the years, some more and some less sympathetic to the interests of the occupier. The law is not clear. Each judge has to decide on the extent of the duty of care which the occupier owes. The test of reasonableness is applied and each case is decided on its merits.
The Minister is now essentially trying to codify the position and spell out the criteria and the factors which will determine the liability of the landowner. I am not convinced that the new code is any simpler or clearer than the existing law and I do not think the enactment of this Bill in its present form will reduce the volume of litigation or the insurance cost that landowners must bear. If anything, I think the proposed code is more complex than the case law it replaces and introduces into each case not fewer but more issues to be left to the judge to decide.
Will the Minister tell us the net effect he wishes to achieve in this Bill? He should have set out either in his speech or in the explanatory memorandum a comparison of the proposed and existing measures and, perhaps, some clear examples of cases which under the old system would give rise to liability for the occupier but for which under the new system the occupier would not be liable. Some of these examples would be very helpful to Members in understanding in a very clear way the implications of this Bill. They would also be helpful to the Minister and his staff in clarifying the impact of the measures we are considering. I find it very hard to beat a clearcut example when you compare what happens in present circumstances with what would happen under changed circumstances. It is when you get down to looking at it in that detail—perhaps the Minister may give us some examples of that kind on Committee Stage—that you begin to see the real implications and whether we are making any real progress or not or whether in effect it will be beneficial to the occupier or the householder as the case may be.
I am, of course, prepared to co-operate with the Minister on Committee Stage if the end result he has in mind is similar to what I have in mind. I was interested to note that the explanatory memorandum tells us: "(3) The proposals in the Bill, will not involve any charge on the Exchequer", yet the Bill imposes a level of liability on the Office of Public Works in respect of national monuments which may be more onerous than at present. It is a pity that in attempting to codify the case law the Minister has chosen to introduce new terminology such as "visitor" and "recreational user". The old labels were well established and could quite easily have been adopted and adopted as needs be. Instead we are to have a somewhat farcical result of a plaintiff seeking damages from an occupier in respect of an overcrowded dance hall having to prove at one and the same time that he was a "visitor" in respect of the state of the floor or the stairs, for example, and "an invitee" in common law in respect of the overcrowding.
What is an "entrant" and when is his or her presence unlawful? Why not call a spade a spade, if the Minister means a trespasser why not say so? May I make this helpful suggestion? Why not take the draft Bill over to the Insurance Federation and ask it for its views and the percentage it might reduce public liability premium by for farmers and landowners? The Minister may be surprised at the answer he will receive. The insurers will be particularly concerned about the impact of the Bill's provisions on occupiers other than farmers.
Perhaps the Minister did not consider the village hall, the school, the swimming pool, the railway station, the Garda station, the courtroom, the pub, the apartment block or the house in flats. All of these are issues which we must consider in greater detail for Committee Stage. We are all aware of increasing litigation in these circumstances which is leading to exorbitant costs and to almost insurmountable difficulties for people who wish to carry on business. We regularly get such complaints from people in the community who are trying to carry on a business. We need to explore and develop these issues on Committee Stage.
How are we to reconcile the farmer's legitimate annoyance about insurance costs with the freedoms we have all enjoyed such as strolling, hill climbing or sightseeing in the countryside? We must examine in particular the impact of the Bill's proposals on two groups, namely tourists and children. The last thing anyone wants to see is gates closing or warning notices indicating hostility to all strangers. Farmers have been very open and hospitable during the years and we should do our utmost to continue in that way.
I do not think the Bill should encourage farmers to erect warning notices as it clearly does in section 5 (5). Even if they only apply in the case of visitors the notices will no doubt go up and we will all be the losers. In section 5 (2) (a) another notice is suggested purporting to restrict the landowner's liability. Neither notice will be effective on a case by case basis and if they are of no real benefit to the landowner why encourage this form of visual pollution?
I am somewhat puzzled by the reference to the Bill in the new programme for Government which, states that the Bill would be "reviewed in the context of further careful examination of the legal and constitutional position as it relates to minors". Perhaps the Minister might enlighten us in due course. The Minister said "nonetheless I do appreciate that this issue is one which has given rise to some concern on the part of those who feel that their position is somewhat prejudiced by the proposed provision in relation to minors. I am at present reviewing the provision relating to minors in accordance with the commitment in the Government's programme." He then said, "I will listen closely to the views of Deputies as expressed in the forthcoming debate and the provision will be considered carefully by me in the light of those views and of others in advance of the Committee Stage". I would have thought that the Minister would have brought his views here today.