Perhaps the Minister might tell us something about this section. This is the replacement of the common law rule. It provides that the new arrangements will be in place of, and not in addition to, the common law rules. This is very relevant to the consideration of the rest of the Bill.
The common law rule refers to the law which is not passed by the Legislature but which has grown up over the years and from which the courts have given decisions in individual cases. It is preferable that the duties and liabilities between occupiers and entrants be clearly set out by statute, rather than the occupiers having to research the position from previous cases. That will be quite a substantial improvement for anybody dealing with this area. Replacing the common law rules will reduce the unpredictability of cases. People will be clearer about what is possible or not possible, what is allowed or not allowed and what is catered for or not. The duties to visitors, recreational users and trespassers are set out separately in sections 3 and 4 and obviously people will not have to search through all the cases decided by the courts in developing the common law rules. The courts will still have to decide what is reasonable in all the circumstances. The position will be much clearer.
I mention that because in our earlier discussions we were referring to later amendments to sections 4 and 5, having passed over section 2 without fully recognising that what is happening is a replacement of the common law rules. This section will make the position much clearer and we welcome it.
