Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 8 Feb 1995

Vol. 448 No. 7

Occupiers' Liability Bill, 1994: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Deputy Treacy was in possession and he has eight minutes remaining.

This is a very important Bill and has been a long time in gestation. Because we have waited so long it is important to get the legislation absolutely right. In my earlier contribution last week I talked about the primacy of the parliament and the necessity for Government and legislators to acknowledge its primacy, that we all make our contributions and achieve a consensus which is in the best interests of our people and the many visitors who will come to enjoy the facilities offered by this great land.

We have a unique history of friendliness, openness and hospitality. Since 1987 my party in Government placed a strong emphasis on heritage tourism and gave a major impetus to the promotion of Irish tourism around the world. I am pleased that the Government is prepared to follow that track because tourism can underpin the buoyancy of economic growth. While we anticipate that much of today's budget may be depending on buoyancy, despite all the leaks, it is important to create opportunities to increase our economic growth. As an island nation it is vitally important that we get as many people as possible into Ireland to spend their money to underpin economic growth so that we can achieve an acceptable standard of living.

When facilities are used whether in the private sector, owned by farmers and property owners, or in the public sector, owned by the State or semi-State organisations or voluntary bodies, we have an opportunity to enshrine in law immunity for people who have made their contribution either by making their facilities available on a voluntary basis or by working together, in a voluntary capacity, to provide new facilities or by the State providing modern facilities. I refer to forest parks, national parks, special heritage areas, major tourist scenic areas and religious and heritage areas throughout the country, all of which are visited by millions of people annually. It is important not to enshrine in law obligations which heretofore did not exist. While there has been a broad welcome for this Bill there are latent worries about it imposing responsibilities and obligations on property owners and organisers of various facilities which would render them liable, in certain circumstances, for people on their property.

I suggest the insertion of a new section in the Bill to give immunity to farmers, property owners, the State itself or voluntary bodies in relation to people who enter their properties voluntarily, to enjoy their facilities and to voluntary organisations, sporting organisations such as the GAA, golf clubs and so on. Not alone can they use the facilities for their enjoyment, they can also take people to court. It is important to have clarity on this issue. I would like a new section inserted in the Bill to give immunity to all those property owners. Following my contribution last week I had a short discussion with the Minister during which he made some important points. While I take some of them on board there are sufficient laws in the State to protect the rights of individuals. We are all protected under the Constitution and we have property rights. There are laws on the Statute Book which give us other rights protected in criminal law and there are also common law rights.

We have more than enough legislation but we must protect those generous enough to make their facilities available to other people. Voluntary bodies who provide facilities for a commercial charge have obligations in the area of public liability. People who use these facilities for enjoyment do so of their own free will and we should not put into law measures that would place serious liabilities on the organisers, trustees and owners of properties. I would ask the Minister to consider that and to ensure that this Bill will provide for the freedom set down in our Constitution, the freedom of movement enshrined in the Treaty of Rome that is so important in the single European market to all the citizens of the European Union.

Ireland should have a law that is simple and crystal clear. Perhaps lawyers would say there is no such thing as simple law and as a consumer I would probably agree, but it is important that the message goes abroad that Ireland of the welcomes, of opportunity, hospitality, welcome and warmth, is a country where people can enjoy themselves, where properties are available for use and enjoyment provided people behave themselves. Responsibility for those who come onto property lies with themselves and not the owner of the property. All of us are obliged to respect people's right to move and speak freely. Property owners or organisations who provide facilities for the use and enjoyment of others should not become victims of this Bill or any other laws.

I thank the Minister, his officials and the Law Reform Commission for the time they have spent on the Bill. I served for almost eight years in six Government Departments and I know how much time it takes to get legislation through. I am aware of the dedication of public officials who work on legislation and of the exigencies in the offices of the Attorney General, the parliamentary draftsmen and Ministers of the day in bringing legislation to Government and taking the advice of Members of this House. I hope that collectively we will ensure this Bill serves our tradition and not only the people of Ireland but those who come to visit our country will enjoy our properties.

I pay tribute to the Minister for Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Taylor, on bringing the Bill before the House. I requested this legislation on many occasions in my two years in this House and I lobbied for it for many years in my role in a farm organisation. In this period of openness and transparency it is important that I state I am still a farmer and property owner and therefore I have a personal interest in this Bill.

I acknowledge the considerable work done by the Minister and his Department in addressing the issue of responsibility on property owners, particularly farmers. Farmers and property owners generally have traditionally extended hospitality to tourists, visitors, sportsmen and others, which has resulted in the development of the Irish tourism industry and sporting activities. We do not wish to see this development threatened. Amendments must be made to the Bill to address the child trespasser issue and to take account of farming and business practices that may pose a threat to entrants to property, in order to safeguard continued unrestricted access to the countryside.

I welcome the Minister's proposal to increase protection for occupiers of land against claims by trespassers and recreational users, which in turn will ensure that the recreational use of land is facilitated to the widest possible extent. I agree with the Minister we must create a climate where occupiers will not be deterred from making land available for such use for fear of being sued for personal injuries.

This is an important and complex Bill and I do not have the legal training to debate it line by line. I appreciate the Minister has accepted there is much anxiety among property owners about its complexities particularly the proposed provision on minors, and I am glad he has agreed to review it, in accordance with the commitment in the Programme for Government. He and his Department have been in close contact with the main farming organisations, and senior farming organisation leaders have strongly rejected the idea that farmers would be responsible for minors who enter their lands.

Following a meeting last October between the Department of Equality and Law Reform and an IFA delegation, the IFA issued a statement that the strong indications were that nonacceptable provisions would be included in the Occupiers' Liability Bill to the effect that farmers and house holders would have an additional duty to care for child trespassers and other children who are not visitors entering land or household property. This unacceptable and grossly unfair additional duty is over and above that owed to adult trespassers. It would not be the intention of farmers and householders to injure people intentionally or to act with reckless disregard to their presence. The statement warned that the Bill, if unamended, would not go far enough to protect landowners' interests and would not ensure continued unrestricted access to the Irish countryside. Those are not my words but those of senior farm organisation officials who gave the best advice possible in order that tourists, farmers and property owners in general can live, work and enjoy life together for the betterment of all concerned.

With the ceasefire and the possibility of increased tourism North and South, this Bill is vital. In common with other western democracies Irish society has become more claims conscious than ever before, as has been reflected in the increased number of claims for personal injuries. There is greater need to reform legislation to allow for the increased use of the countryside for sporting and recreational purposes.

A few days ago in this House we discussed the Heritage Bill and the importance of many of our national monuments and fine buildings. Free and easy access to all these structures is of major importance to the promotion of our country and particularly to our emigrants and their families who may wish to come back to their ancestral homes and trace their roots.

Last night I spoke to people involved in community work who are trying to obtain grants to improve fisheries and other activities in the Border region. These people visited all the farmers in the region and received verbal approval for the building of stiles and so on which would allow for the activities to take place, but when they contacted the fisheries board they were advised that unless they had written agreement the grants would not be forthcoming. Farmers in these circumstances are reluctant to sign agreements accepting responsibility for fishermen and their families, which could include minors, entering their property. This will have a major impact on whether grants will be paid, whether communities can go ahead with their proposals and whether tourism will become the major earner in the future. All these matters are very important.

There is another issue that affects areas in such as my constituency of Cavan-Monaghan. The Minister referred to the problem of open drains, shucks or whatever one wishes to call them. In some areas people can see the drains full of water and are aware of the dangers. However, in my area where there is drumlin soil the trenches are ten-12 feet deep. Will I have to erect fences around these trenches to ensure that children who stray on to my land do not fall into them? Recently I visited similar areas north of the Border which have received much more grant aid than we have to erect such fences. Yet the people there are still worried about allowing free access to their land.

I am glad some Opposition Deputies have reconsidered their position on this Bill. I do not wish to refer to personalities but the Fianna Fáil spokesperson on Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Woods, has set up a special party committee to consider the changes required to the Bill so that his party can support it. Deputy O'Dea said that Deputies on this side of the House had done a U-turn on this issue. Fine Gael Deputies have always raised questions about this issue and when in Opposition the Minister of State, Deputy Deenihan, introduced a Private Members' Bill. The Minister promised to follow up on the issue after the publication of the Law Reform Commission's report, we appreciate his decision to re-examine it, as it is vital to everyone's interest.

We are not just talking about landowners, we are talking about business people who have expressed serious concerns about the Bill. If these people are left to carry the can for children who trespass on their land then there will be serious implications. The legal advice to most people is that it is better to settle a small claim than waste money fighting the case in court. If this Bill gives out the wrong vibes then there could be many more claims, rightly or wrongly, against the owners of property. The Bill gives us the opportunity to make the law in this area as straightforward and simple as possible.

Farmers, property owners and others want to make their premises and lands available to tourists and others but they cannot be expected to put their livelihoods and future of their families at risk in doing so. Last week there was a debate on heritage issues. In many cases the only access to important buildings and sites is through farmers' land. A farmer with a suckler herd has to keep a bull and there will be serious implications if he is responsible for children who enter his land and are chased by that bull. This is just one of the problems which may arise. Is it not proper that farmers should have the right to look after their own business?

Problems can also arise in regard to the use of machinery during the cutting of silage and other crops. Will a farmer be solely responsible for children if they are around these machines when they are in operation? Will their parents or guardians have any responsibility for them? Serious consideration needs to be given to this issue. There was a reference to the use of sprays which are essential for growing crops. Will property owners be responsible for children who, without proper guidance or care, enter such land?

These are just some of the issues about which farmers are worried and which must be seriously considered if people are to be allowed open use of the countryside. In some counties farmers have taken strong measures and will not allow people to use their property. The majority of farmers in my area would not like to have to resort to such measures, but there is a lack of understanding among visitors and others about their concerns. Many farmers do not realise the risks they face. A recent survey by a branch of the IFA found that only 40 per cent of the farmers in the area had insurance, in itself a very serious problem. If we do not get the law right and claims become the norm then farmers who take out insurance will find it very difficult and costly.

I thank the Minister for introducing this Bill, which had been promised by previous Ministers and Governments, and hope he will take account of our anxieties and worries. Regardless of the comments made both inside and outside the House, I hope he will introduce the necessary changes in the legislation to ensure that property owners, tourists, etc., can live and work together for the betterment of our nation. This issue has a major role to play in the future development of tourism and I hope the Minister is successful in his efforts.

I welcome this long overdue Bill. In recent years questions were asked almost on a daily basis about the introduction of the legislation. The people who raised them knew that the Law Reform Commission had been asked for its views on the matter. The previous Government was concerned to ensure that it would receive the best possible advice, and this is evidenced by the two Law Reform Commission reports. In recent years farmers, property owners and community groups have become very afraid of claims being made against them.

Traditionally, farmers and landowners were co-operative and would not dream of denying access to their property to huntsmen, fishermen or recreational users and those who did were subjected to much criticism. When I was a youth there was a belief that the entire community should be allowed to make the best use of land and property. I spent most of my spare time fishing and hunting. It would be regrettable if the freedom the general public enjoyed for so many years was curtailed because the Government failed to introduce adequate legislation to protect the rights of property and landowners.

The goodwill of landowners was reciprocated by land users who took the utmost care and acted responsibly. They seldom had to be reprimanded for failing to close gates or causing damage.

The Minister stated it was time the principles governing occupiers' liability were put on a statutory basis. The Programme for Government refers to a further careful examination of the constitutional and legal position as it relates to minors. Would it not be more appropriate for the Government to give us its collective view on this matter which has been a bone of contention? During the past few weeks in the chamber of my county council, members of the Government parties, both Oireachtas Members and county councillors, seemed to be promoting the Bill proposed by Deputy Deenihan but having listened to Government speakers in this debate it seems very few of them are subscribing to what was contained in it.

The Law Reform Commission expressed the view that the Bill proposed by Deputy Deenihan was stark. It argued that we would turn the clock back in regard to common law and was scathing in its remarks. Now when the promoters of that Bill have an opportunity to promote it they have failed to take it. There are conflicting views and this is an indication of the muddled thinking of a muddled partnership Government. We would have expected the Bill to be more specific given that the Government parties have for years been vociferous in arguing that if they were given the opportunity they would introduce a clear and definitive Bill.

The Law Reform Commission has expressed the view that if a special exemption is not provided for child entrants the legislation could be found to be unconstitutional. I hope that will be addressed in the Bill. Trespassers, even those who enter property to engage in illegal activity, can claim for damages and have been known to be successful. The Minister will have to rectify this serious anomaly.

There have also been variations in court judgments whereby judges have taken differing views in almost identical cases. No matter how long it takes it is imperative that all Members should express their points of view on Committee Stage to ensure that the best possible legislation is put on the Statute Book.

The explanatory memorandum states that this Bill will not involve any charge on the Exchequer. This would be a first as practically all Bills have imposed a charge on the Exchequer, either directly or indirectly. In this instance reference is made to the Office of Public Works which has responsibility for national monuments. It is being given extra responsibilities and this will lead indirectly to a charge being imposed on the Exchequer.

Much interest is being shown in historical sites at present, including castles and holy wells. These could be used to attract foreign visitors, forty per cent of whom indicated an interest in this area. In many instances in order to get to these sites one has to cross fields and laneways so it is important that measures are taken to safeguard the rights of landowners.

Bord Fáilte has placed special emphasis on angling to attract foreign visitors. This is evident from the £13 million allocated under a recent tourism programme to the fisheries board for the development of waterways — this matter has been a bone of contention also. This is a clear indication that Bord Fáilte sees opportunities to promote regions such as my own constituency which would be an attraction for fishermen given the number of lakes and rivers in Cavan-Monaghan.

Recently — this relates to the peace initiative, the promotion of good community relations in the region and the development of cross-Border structures — the Dungannon Development Association has been in contact with Monaghan County Council, to discuss proposals for major development of the Blackwater river. The Office of Public Works carried out arterial drainage work to restore it as a salmon river. Along with the Ulster Way, this region could be developed for the benefit of cross-Border communities. Because of this, it is important that we get this legislation right. Efforts are being made by local groups to provide the necessary amenities in those areas, including accommodation on lakes and rivers, boats, fishing gear, etc. The success of this depends almost completely on the good will of landowners in giving access to those facilities. That highlights the importance and the necessity for this legislation.

Walking as a leisure activity was not engaged in by people many years ago. In more recent times, however, people travel to Austria and other European countries for walking holidays. It has also become a much more attractive leisure activity here.

The Minister must get the balance right in this legislation. I wish him well in his efforts. He is engaged in a man sized job and if he manages to please everybody at the end of the day, he will deserve a crown.

That will not be easily done.

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on this Bill which is a major step forward in helping to resolve some of the uncertainty surrounding farmers, and other occupiers' rights and legal obligations to entrants onto their lands. This Bill, when finally enacted, will put the principles governing occupiers' liability on a statutory basis but it is extremely important that we get it right on this occasion and that uncertainty is finally eradicated. A clear statement of legal rights, obligations and liabilities must be fully set out.

The Bill is important also for the development of our heritage tourism. This is now a major area in the context of promoting economic growth due to the huge number of visitors to sites of archaeological interest, which has been referred to by previous speakers. It has important positive implications also for sporting and tourism interests and, indeed, for other property owners. Where I believe there are inadequacies or shortcomings in the Bill, I intend to highlight them with a view to having the Minister study and evaluate same. Hopefully, he will then be in a position to bring forward suitable amendments on Committee Stage to incorporate some of the concerns that have been outlined eloquently in this House to date and some which I intend to outline.

The law on occupier's liability and the exposure of property owners to substantial legal and financial risks has been of increasing concern in recent years due to the fact that landowners could be held responsible for any personal injuries sustained by people on their property. In Ireland, the law on this matter was governed by common law precedent as established by judicial decisions handed down in previous court cases. In Britain and Northern Ireland, the situation has been updated and regularised by statute law enacted through parliament, namely, the Occupiers' Liability Acts of 1957 and 1984. It is important that farmers have available to them a clear statement of their rights, obligations and potential liabilities towards the various classes of entrants onto their holdings or properties.

It is useful to evaluate the impact of this proposed legislation by a perusal of the position on occupier's liability as it stands today. In Ireland, landowners' liability up to now has been broadly categorised, in the absence of statute law, under the common law and judicial precedents as follows: (1) In the case of invitees, who are people present on a person's land with that person's consent and from whose visit or presence a property holder may benefit in some way, the duty was to protect them from unusual dangers, which they would not expect to find; (2) with regard to licensees, people who are allowed on the land for activities such as hunting, shooting, etc. — and since these people are getting free access onto the land, they must take the land as they find it — the duty was to prevent injury from hidden dangers upon the land, if the farmer or property owner was aware of such dangers; and (3) the main area of concern for farmers and property owners alike involved trespassers.

As a result of the increased use of the countryside for sport and recreational purposes, farmers in particular found themselves in a situation whereby they were uniquely exposed to the danger of claims and legal costs arising out of personal injury to entrants while on their lands. Indeed, it must be recognised that farmers, as custodians of the countryside, have been extremely generous in ensuring that there was relatively unhindered access for sports people or tourists, despite the problems arising from the possible threat of personal injuries claims. This hospitality and generosity to tourists, visitors and sports people has resulted in considerable benefits to the development of our tourism industry and sporting activities.

If I were to summarise the reservations expressed to me by farm organisations and others concerning the contents of the Bill, they would revolve around the special status afforded to children and, more especially, the departure from the Law Reform Commission's majority recommendation that there should be no special status for children. I appreciate that two members of the Law Reform Commission felt that any exception in this regard would be unconstitutional and they recommend an exception for child trespassers under the age of 12 on the basis of legislation enforced in Alberta, Canada. I am aware of the difficulties in this regard but I am setting out what has been related to me by various people and organisations.

While undoubtedly the Bill recognises the special position of children, and in determining whether an occupier's duty has been discharged, the child's age and his or her capacity to appreciate danger will be taken into account. This is counterbalanced somewhat by the recognition that where a child is accompanied by another person, such as a parent or guardian, account will also be taken of the extent of supervision which such a person might reasonably be expected to exercise over the child's activities. It would also appear, on reading the Minister's Second Stage speech, that this might be as far as he can go to meet the concerns of occupiers dealing with minors as there well could be a question of constitutionality if the Minister did not make special provision for children.

While a minor is classified as somebody under 18 years of age, and while the courts would be in a position to differentiate between children who were close to adulthood — somebody of 17½ years of age — and those of very tender years — somebody of 7½ years of age — Perhaps the Minister might consider defining a minor for the purpose of this Act as somebody who is of an age less than 18. I appreciate this might prove difficult due to the requirement of consistency of definition of "minors" for other legislation, especially in the social welfare and family law areas, but I believe in this case an examination along those lines might be warranted.

I have listened carefully to the contributions of the various speakers in this important debate. They were reflecting the concern of the main farming organisations who feel that they should not be held responsible for children trespassing on their land. They believe this would place them in the role of childminders. They are concerned also about the additional duty which is being imposed over and above that which is afforded to adult trespassers. The question posed by these organisations, and which obviously must exercise our minds as legislators, is this: why should a farmer or a home owner be held responsible for children he or she did not know were coming onto their land or property? That is the kernel of their concern if one were to summarise the position. It might be useful to explore the concept of concurrent wrongdoers. Possibly in the case of minors the device of the rebuttable presumption might be inserted in section 4 (3). My suggestions are intended to be helpful and I understand the legal constraints but they might exercise the Minister's mind between now and Committee Stage.

The ICMSA has indicated that there should be a clear definition of "unlawful" set out in section 1. I would be in favour of inserting such a definition to avoid doubt. An unlawful entry or presence might be defined as "the entry upon land without the expressed permission of the occupier or remaining thereon after his right to remain on has been withdrawn by the occupier or has ceased to exist". This would mean a consequential adjustment in the definition of a trespasser.

The aim of the Bill is to increase protection for the occupiers of land against claims by trespassers and recreational users. For many years farmers and landowners have allowed unhibited and unrestricted access to their properties. The Bill deals with the conditions of the premises, i.e., danger is defined as that which is due to the state of the premises only. Premises has been defined widely to include land, buildings, scaffolding and electricity pylons, dwellinghouses, playgrounds, etc., so that the Bill covers much more than agricultural land. That is to be welcomed.

The Bill provides for three classes of entrant — visitors, recreational users and trespassers. These categories are somewhat vague. It is for this reason that I have suggested that "unlawful" be defined more precisely as clarity is important in a Bill of this nature.

Section 4 sets out the type of duty which an occupier owes to recreational users or trespassers. That duty is (a) not to injure the person or damage his property intentionally, and (b) not to act with reckless disregard for the person or the property of the person.

The section then goes on to state seven circumstances all of which shall be taken into account in determining whether an occupier has acted with reckless disregard. Does the occupier have to satisfy all seven tests enumerated in section 4 (2) in order to be judged not to have acted with reckless disregard, or is it necessary just to meet some of the tests? It would appear that the tests enumerated in the section deal specifically with the occupier's knowledge, actions or inactions, or the character of the premises in question. What obligation does the recreational user or trespasser have as an entrant on to a premises? A case might be made for the elaboration of such obligations, if any, by means of tests enumerated in section 4 (2).

Section 5 deals with the modification of the occupier's duty to entrants. It provides that an occupier may by agreement or notice restrict, modify or exclude his common duty of care towards visitors and, by so doing, decide that it should only be the duty which is owed to trespassers. For such restriction to take effect it has to be reasonable. For example, where the occupier uses a notice, he or she is obliged to take reasonable steps to bring the notice to the attention of the visitor. The exact mechanism by which the occupier's duty of care to a visitor can be modified or restricted should be more clearly defined. The reasonable steps required to ensure the notice is brought to the attention of the visitor could be outlined in the Bill. For example, should a notice placed at the entrance to the property, or a notice circulated in a local newspaper, be sufficient to exclude or restrict the duty?

Each year there are notices circulated relating to shooting on certain lands which serve as notice to the general public that a landowner will not allow shooting on his land. Sometimes formal notices are put up on trees by gun clubs with the permission of the landowner; some are put up by landowners themselves. Is that what is intended? It would be helpful to set out exactly what is envisaged to ensure absolute clarity. Further, are there subdivisions of the visitor category; does the same notice cover any or all of such subcategories?

I pose these questions to indicate the difficulties that might be experienced in the absence of clear guidelines. Such warnings are important because, if they are heeded by the visitor, they absolve an occupier from liability. Therefore it would seem important to set out the means by which such notices should be brought to the attention of visitors. If we could provide that a notice at a gate or usual entrance to a premises is sufficient, we will have done a good day's work.

I appreciate what the Minister said on Second Stage indicating that the purpose of the Bill is to strike a balance between a wide range of competing interests and note that he remains open to workable amendments. I have suggested some that I think might be workable. I hope due consideration will be given to them between now and Committee Stage because they might meet some of the concerns of farming, sporting and hill walking organisations and the assortment of organisations that have expressed their worry.

It is vital also that the views of the farming organisations and other groups, such as the National Association of Regional Game Councils, are listened to carefully as their legislation is very important, particularly in rural Ireland.

I compliment the Minister on bringing forward this legislation which is important also to landowners who have national monuments and other items of our heritage located on their property which attract thousands of visitors. All such monuments are part of our national heritage and it is in everyone's interests that access to them is not constrained by unnecessary fears about potential liabilities.

I hope the Minister will note Members' reservations and concerns about the Bill. When enacted, I hope the legislation will allay the fears of property owners who have given unhindered access to their properties for many years.

Cuireann sé áthas orm fáilte a chur roimh an mBille seo. Tá go leor daoine sa tír a chuirfidh fáilte roimhe freisin mar go bhfuil go leor acu buartha faoin gceist áirithe seo.

I welcome the Bill. Occupiers' liability is an issue that has come to the forefront of the public consciousness in recent years and it is about time we grasped the nettle and dealt with the issues that have to be resolved. However, I agree with the previous speaker that we need to strike a balance.

In the explanatory memorandum I noted references to common law principles which presumably predate the Constitution. However, I would have thought that the criteria that would apply to a Bill being introduced at this time is the Constitution. The way to find out whether the limiting of liability to children is constitutional is to pass the law and let the courts decide. Over the years many issues were said to have raised constitutional difficulties but with the passage of time, without constitutional amendment, they tended to fade away. In the sixties and seventies there was a great debate on setting limits to compensation in certain cases of planning and so on which it was felt could not be brought in because of constitutional difficulties, but the law was changed and it seems to have been effective and there has been no change in the Constitution in that regard. If people are citing constitutional difficulties — and I note the comments in the Law Reform Commission report — it is important that they are spelt out clearly and if there is a doubt about the constitutionality of the issue, the way to find out is to refer the matter to the courts. I have no doubt that if there was a question about the constitutionally of a matter, the President, in her wisdom, would refer the Bill to the Supreme Court.

We are trying to strike a balance between the rights of the property owner and the rights of a person using property but I think it should go further and strike a balance between people's fair right to compensation in certain circumstances without making things so restrictive that property owners cannot allow people on their land, in other words, if we make it so difficult for property owners in general to allow people on to their property we are, in effect, curtailing the right of the individual. A case in point is children's playgrounds in rural areas. It became so impossible to get insurance for such playgrounds that, effectively, we were taking away the right of community groups to provide such facilities. Not only were you causing problems for the land owner you were also causing problems for people who legitimately want to provide recreational facilities for children in reasonable circumstances. We heard from insurers and others that even if you had a ten foot fence around a children's playground which was locked every night and somebody climbed over it in the middle of the night, you could be held liable if they injured themselves.

Debate adjourned.
Barr
Roinn