Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 14 Mar 1995

Vol. 450 No. 6

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

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

On 8 February, the last occasion we dealt with this Bill, I spoke about the question of children's playgrounds. If a person unlawfully enters a playground in the middle of the night and is hurt, under present legislation the courts may award damages against the proprietor. This matter should be reconsidered under the provisions of this Bill. If people cross antipersonnel fencing — as opposed to fences around farms to keep livestock in — to gain access to property, the occupiers should be indemnified against claims arising from accidents that may occur on such property. Should we not include a provision in the Bill excluding occupiers from liability in cases where people enter property by climbing over a fence specifically put there to keep people out? It is nonsensical that an occupier should be held responsible for a person who gets hurt after entering property by climbing over, say, a ten foot fence in the middle of the night. Such people, even if they are minors, should be held reponsible for their actions.

We are trying to strike a balance in this Bill, not between occupiers and entrants, but between legitimate compensation and providing reasonable access to facilities. Because of the way the law operates at present many legitimate users of, for example, children's playgrounds, are deprived of such facilities. It is no longer feasible for communities to provide those facilities because of high insurance costs. As a result legitimate users — people willing to take a reasonable amount of risk — are deprived of valuable community services. All community organisations are faced with this problem and our young people, in particular, are affected. The question of liability in respect of youth clubs and so on must also be addressed; if people enter properties during the time they are closed, the occupiers' liability provision should not apply.

Another important matter is the right of people to use public facilities at their own risk. If a sign at the entrance to a playground states that children under the ages of 12 or 14 years should not enter without being accompanied by an adult, people should adhere to such regulations. If, however, a child enters those premises under the supervision of an adult and is hurt, not due to the malfunction of any equipment there, liability should not attach to the occupier but to the person who brought the child into the playground. I fail to understand why adults should not take responsibility for minors they take to such facilities.

Responsibility for young people is a vexed question. We can deprive our young people of facilities by placing too much onus on the occupier. A number of Deputies pointed out that we must stress the need to attach liability to parents and guardians to ensure the safety of young people. If young people wander all over the place and are hurt in the process, one must ask how they got there in the first place. We must strike a balance between ensuring that people are not put at unfair risk and ensuring that the position is not so penal as to deprive people of many facilities. People have told me that it is becoming more and more impossible to provide facilities for young people because of the insurance quagmire.

It is important that the traditional access to properties that has always been enjoyed in rural Ireland is maintained. I live in an area of wide open countryside where the potential for tourism as an income earner is great. It is important to strike a balance. Huge areas of the countryside where I live are unfenced and open to the public and I would hate to see farmers forced to restrict entry on land, mountains, etc. Contrary to popular opinion, there are designated owners of all the land in places like Connemara — all the hills are owned by somebody, in common or exclusively. Traditionally ownership meant that one had the grazing rights, not that one could prevent somebody from hill-walking. Until recent years nobody either worried about liability — because it was considered that there was none — or thought of excluding people from such property. It is important that access to the land and mountains be maintained, but this can only be done if the Bill operates on the basis of reasonable care being taken and nothing being done materially to put people at risk. In other words, it would be taken that bog holes in open countryside would be treated as a natural hazard and that an occupier would be at no risk as long as he did nothing to increase the inherent risks of mountain climbing or walking across bogs. It must also be provided that, where in the normal course of farming activities tractors are left unattended in farm yards or in fields at lunch time or in the evening, nobody would be entitled to compensation if they interfered with such machinery and put themselves at risk.

Many farmers have historic monuments and sites on their land which are subject to preservation orders. This means they cannot be knocked down, which is good because nobody wants historic buildings, towers, etc. to disappear. On the other hand, many are on private land and in a bad state of disrepair, having exposed stairways, etc. I do not know what the situation would be if somebody came to grief at one of these historic sites on private land. It seems the land owner would be in a invidious situation. He cannot knock the building down, for good reasons. Can the Minister confirm that he cannot be held liable for the disrepair of the building? If the answer to that question is not in the affirmative, something will have to be done within the context of the Bill to exclude liability for such sites as long as a sign is put up warning people that they enter the site at their own risk. I cannot understand why we cannot have the concept of "own risk" in certain circumstances. The putting up of signs is mentioned in the Bill but there is no guarantee that in such a situation the occupier would not be at risk of being held liable in the case of injury to a visitor.

In the final analysis the measure of effectiveness of this Bill will be in how the insurance companies amend the premia they charge for occupiers' liability insurance. If rapidly soaring insurance costs do not drop it will mean the Bill is a failure because it will not have addressed the crucial balance of which I speak. If insurance costs drop and we achieve a reasonable balance between the rights of the individual who is injured and those of the occupier, that will be a fair measure of the success of the Bill. If, in three or five years' time there has not been a knock-on effect on insurance premia and the compensation being paid out is the same or spiralling, as at present, we will have to come back and re-examine the situation. The present situation cannot continue whereby reasonable enjoyment of the pleasures of life is becoming more restricted because of the fear of being sued for damages.

Ar deireadh, creidim gur Bille fíorthábhachtach é an Bille seo. Caithfidh mé a rá gur cúis aiféala dom gur cuireadh siar ar feadh míosa é. B'fheidir gur cuireadh siar míosa é nach raibh mórán gá leis. Creidim gur píosa reachtaíochta é seo, nuair a chuirfear tríd an Dáil agus an Seanad é, a bheidh an-tábhachtach i saol an ghnáthphobail. Tá tábhachtacht leis ó thaobh na feirmeoirachta de. Tá tábhacht leis do úinéirí tithe. Tá tábhacht leis ó thaobh dream ar bith atá i mbun gnótha. Tá fíor-thábhacht leis do chuile duine atá ag plé le cúrsaí pobail, cúrsaí spóirt nó cúrsaí caithimh aimsire. Bheadh súil agamsa, nuair a bheidh an Bille seo rithte, go mbeadh cóimheas ceart ann do chearta an té atá i mbun sealbhachais agus go mbeadh na cearta sin cosanta ar bhealach cothrom. Bheadh súil agam, ag deireadh an lae, go mbeadh deis ag daoine taitneamh a bhaint as sealbhachas, go mbeadh an lucht úinéireachta in ann deis a thabhairt do dhaoine taitneamh a bhaint as an sealbhachas atá acu, go mbeadh cosaint ann don té a dhéanfar dochar dó agus go mbeadh níos mó saoirse ag an bpobal, rud atá á cheilt orthu i láthair na huaire.

This is one of the most important Bills to go through the House in many years. It stems from the fact that, in keeping with other developing societies worldwide, there has been a massive increase in litigation against owners of property. Substantial public liability claims against local authorities, factories, builders etc., are the order of the day. It is right that individuals should have the protection of the law where the fault is not theirs, where defective and sloppy work practices lead to serious personal injury or damage. However, a new culture has emerged which is insidious and gravely worrying. It centres around bogus claims against the so-called soft targets like the local authorities where million of pounds are paid to con-men who manage to fall into the same payment cracks with alarming frequency.

The logical extension of this new bogus claim culture is not lost on landowners. Farmers cringe at the thought that persons who are unwanted, uninvited and trespassing might, under certain circumstances, be able to bring successful personal damages claims against them. As a farmer I have always objected to this legal interpretation and I am joined by almost every other farmer and land-owner in Ireland.

The Bill is a huge improvement on earlier legislation and clarifies many of the grey areas concerning occupiers' liability. I acknowledge the commonsense approach by the Minister, Deputy Taylor. Much work has gone into this legislation and it is immeasurably better than what we had. It loads the dice against trespassers and there is now less doubt about where landowners stand.

I have one enormous, fundamental reservation about the Bill. It refers to the position of minors in relation to occupiers' liability. My understanding of the provision contained in this Bill is that minors, through either their parents or guardians, may have a reasonable opportunity to successfully claim damages against landholders even though the minors themselves are trespassers. This will have awesome ramifications for thousands of farmers. The mind boggles at the number of opportunities that could be presented to trespassers who are regarded as minors. For example it would be the most natural thing in the world for a group of children, on a lovely May morning, to jump over a fence into a field owned by a farmer adjacent to a town or village and run, jump and play. However, they are to be regarded as trespassers as they were not invited and, because of the legal position, were not wanted. Should one of them fall into a disused pit, trip over an electric fence or walk into an old harrow or other piece of machinery, and break a limb is it possible that under this Bill the farmer would be held liable?

What about a youngster who swims in the local river, goes fishing along the river bank or accompanies his parents or guardian when they go shooting? If he ambles off on his own and is involved in an accident, is it possible that the farmer would be held liable bearing in mind that the parents or guardian would not be held responsible if a similar accident was to occur elsewhere? The law must be clear and unequivocal on this point. In the first instance minors must be the responsibility of parents or guardians. But if the legal position were otherwise and farmers and landowners were not held responsible when minors trespassing on their lands are involved in an accident, one could visualise immediately a change in attitude towards families who like to walk along a river bank or take a stroll across the green pastures of Ireland. With the fear of liability put to bed, most farmers would extend the hand of friendship to the teeming thousands from our towns and villages who love country life. Many new relationships between urban and rural dwellers could be formed as a result with urban dwellers being presented with an opportunity to enjoy the many and varied aspects of country living. If farmers and landowners were satisfied that minors were covered by the Bill much of the anxiety and opposition would evaporate.

Recently I was elected chairperson of the agricultural committee of the Fine Gael Parliamentary Party at which this issue has been raised on a number of occasions. I have no doubt that farmers have made rural Deputies aware that they are vehemently opposed to this aspect of the Bill. It is an issue that has been raised at every meeting I have attended in east Galway during the past eight to 12 months. While this Bill swings the pendulum towards trespassers in cases involving adults there is a perception that in certain circumstances land owners and farmers could be held liable if a minor is involved in an accident. If the Minister gives an undertaking before the Bill is signed into law that parents or guardians will be held responsible for the actions of minors this legislation will be acceptable to most people living in rural Ireland. As a farmer with a lifelong association with the agriculture industry, I am convinced that such change is necessary.

I am concerned, too, about other aspects of the Bill. On the various categories of entrant I have no difficulty with the provisions dealing with trespassers, which are clear, but the provisions dealing with recreational users and visitors dovetail. I cannot see where the dividing line is. It appears that under this Bill entrants will be given, as of right, visitor status. These include members of the Garda who on occasion have to call on farmers, officials of the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Food, employees of the ESB, Telecom Éireann and the county council. Where would the land owner stand if, for instance, the local dog warden in removing an unlicensed dog trips over an electric fence and injures himself? Who would be held responsible?

What will be the status of signs in the future? How often have we come across signs stating "no trespassers"? What significance in law will such a sign have? Does this Bill provide for the location and size of signs? What about those who are illiterate or have poor eyesight? In such circumstances is it possible that the farmer would be held liable in the event of an accident? It is important to strike a balance.

If implemented, parts of this Bill will make a dramatic difference, particularly in the tourism sector. My constituency colleague, Deputy Ó Cuív, referred to walkways along river banks and hills. There is a reservoir of goodwill among the farming fraternity most of whom like to see the hunt, tourists and hill walkers pass by, provided that they conduct themselves, do not leave gates open thereby allowing stock to wander but they will never accept that if, for any reason, an adult or a minor trespasses on their land without invitation they are liable in court for whatever might happen to that person. That is the fundamental issue. In an urban area, if a person, who is uninvited onto a property, breaks his or her foot while tripping over, say, a child's toy in a front garden, is the owner of that property liable for the medical expenses of that person? That is the central theme of my contribution today.

I compliment the Minister, Deputy Taylor, on his serious approach to this issue. Many Ministers before him shirked from dealing with it. We should not have had to wait until 1995 for this Bill. I have listened to various shades of opinion on this matter over the past ten to 15 years. If the Minister accepts my suggestion in regard to minors and sees fit to introduce an appropriate amendment, I will roll out the red carpet for him. Failure to do this will mean that an otherwise good Bill will be regarded less favourably, which is unfortunate. I cannot suggest a wording for the amendment but with the Minister's legal background he and his officials will have little trouble in coming up with the appropriate wording. Such an amendment to the Bill would benefit thousands of people.

(Wexford): I welcome the Bill, particularly the principle enshrined in it. Many of us have reservations about certain sections of the Bill but what the Minister is setting out to do is worthwhile. Over the years. Deputies from all parties have sought the introduction of the Bill and various Ministers shied away from dealing with the issue. The previous Government was very much to the forefront in trying to bring this Bill before the House. On two occasions, the Law Reform Commission prepared and published reports on this matter, having been requested to do so by the Government of the day.

Farmers, property owners and community groups were to the forefront also in recent years in calling for the introduction of the Bill because of the fears of claims being made against them and the rising cost of insurance. I, like other Deputies, attended many meetings in recent years of farming, business and community groups, representatives of gun clubs and people who were generally interested in such a Bill. As public representatives we were urged by those people to bring the Bill before the House as soon as possible. I thank the Minister for doing so and, more importantly, for remaining in the Chamber to hear the many views of Members.

Traditionally, the majority of farmers and landowners here have made their lands available to the general public for hunting, shooting, fishing, dog walking and recreational use generally. There has never been a problem with farmers in this regard. In my area, greyhound walking is a common activity and almost every morning of the week one can see greyhound owners walking their dogs through lands without any objections from farmers. Many people living in urban areas avail of the generosity of the farming community, particularly those farmers whose lands lie adjacent to towns. They engage in hare and rabbit hunting which is a way of life for many townspeople.

In recent years, however, farmers have become very conscious of people making claims against them for damages and injuries and, as a result, sought this legislation. It is understandable that farmers, business people and others would become concerned that what was acceptable here some years ago does not appear to be acceptable now. We have become a claims conscious nation and there has been an alarming increase in the number of people claiming compensation for injuries and damages, many of which have been of a dubious nature. As a result, insurance costs have escalated causing severe hardship for those who have to pay such insurance costs, namely, farmers, business people and community groups.

I am concerned about the attitude to claims in recent years. Local authorities have found that the number of claims against them have increased substantially and they are paying out millions of pounds annually as a result. I accept some claims are serious and warrant the payment of compensation but some are dubious. In some cases local authorities, insurance companies and people against whom claims are being made pay compensation far too easily. As a result, people are now making claims willy-nilly. In my area, if a person loses a toenail by accidentally kicking against a step going in or out of work, he or she is usually guaranteed a couple of thousand pounds in compensation. This has become a serious problem here and rising insurance costs are affecting job creation and additional facilities that might be provided by farmers.

Questions have been raised about the actions of some solicitors who advertise in newspapers looking for business. In my area it is well known that if one goes to solicitor A, one has a better chance of winning a case and getting more money than if one goes to solicitor B or C. Of course, everyone is going to solicitor A.

Some people call that competition.

(Wexford): Cases are taken on a no foal, no fee basis and if the case is won there is a 10 per cent charge by the solicitor which I believe is a rip-off. The substantial increase in the number of claims has caused great concern among farmers and that is why the Bill is before us today.

When the Minister introduced the Bill I was a Minister of State in the previous Government. I attended a public meeting in the local IFA centre in Enniscorthy approximately three days after the Bill's introduction. Farmers, business people, members of gun clubs and others were in attendance at the meeting. I was the only Government politician in attendance and, of course, I was fair game for almost everybody in the hall. My Opposition colleagues, who are now in Government, promised radical changes in the Bill if they ever got into Government. They are now in Government and I hope the commitment given in regard to the radical changes promised that night by Minister Yates and Minister of State Doyle will be honoured. Some of those promises were feasible but others were not.

There have been many discussions on the Bill and I am sure the Minister has received many deputations from the IFA and the ICMSA and is aware of their concerns and of the concerns of farmers generally. The major concern seems to centre on the liability of farmers for children who enter their lands without a guardian or other person in charge. To say that farmers must be responsible for minors is unacceptable, particularly considering the definition of a "minor". I appreciate the difficulties for the Minister because, constitutionally, a minor is defined as a person of 18 years and under. I understand that the Law Reform Commission had difficulty in advising the Government in this regard. The farming community in particular is very concerned about this measure. They made representations to the Minister to the effect that a minor should be defined as a child up to 12 or 14 years of age and I ask the Minister to seriously consider that suggestion.

As Deputy Connaughton said, farming nowadays is very sophisticated and modern, with state-of-the-art machinery, silage and slurry pits, bailers, combine harvesters and all types of modern equipment. Whenever children are in the vicinity of machinery when farmers are cutting corn or silage, or bailing hay, will they be responsible if a child is injured? That is the major concern of farmers. The Minister should take on board some of the suggestions put forward by farming groups and clearly outline how he intends to exempt farmers from responsibility. I accept farmers must ensure safety is a priority on their farms and that they should be responsible up to a point, but they believe they should not have to accept full responsibility for children who enter their farms, particularly without a guardian.

With the advent of agri-tourism, where farmers have been encouraged to diversify into deer farming, animal farms and other types of farming new to this country, many more young people from urban areas wish to travel to villages and farming communities to visit such farms. It is important that these young people be allowed visit farms, but there must be a balance between the responsibilities of the farmers on the one hand and the parents of the children on the other.

The Minister should see if it is possible to redefine a "minor" for the purpose of this Bill. At a public meeting in Enniscorthy the message to me and other Deputies was that farmers do not want to be child minders. They want to be as flexible as possible and to allow people from urban communities to untilise their land and enjoy themselves, fishing, hunting or in recreational activities, but they believe they should not be responsible for children who enter their lands. The Minister should seriously consider that matter.

In many towns and larger villages there are no facilities for children. Community groups are often hindered in their efforts to open facilities such as playgrounds. In many cases there is little space for playgrounds in large housing estates. I am glad we are moving away from building large housing estates, but in many such estates there are no community facilities. The first facility housing committees try to put in place is a playground, but they are often prevented from doing so because of high insurance costs. As a result in most towns there is no playground for children. The reason given for high insurance costs is that many claims are made, often as a result of the actions of people who have nothing to do with playground facilities. People who injure themselves breaking into playgrounds are rewarded with substantial financial payments. It is unfair that because of the actions of people such as these many areas are not in a position to provide playground facilities.

In the south-east there are more historic sites than in most areas and people travel from abroad and from various parts of Ireland to visit them. Most of the buildings are on private property, farming property or property owned by landowners. With the exception of some buildings that have been taken on board by the Office of Public Works and restored to reasonable status, most of them are in bad repair, with walls falling down and the surrounds in decay. Farmers who have historic sites on their lands are concerned about who will be responsible if there is an accident, such as a wall or boulder falling on a person. The Minister should say who will be responsible in these cases.

In many areas there are signs on entering historic sites to the effect that you enter at your own risk and must take full responsibility for injury, damage or loss incurred, but what is the status of such signs? On the entrance to GAA grounds there is usually a sign stating that you enter the grounds at your own risk and if you lose an item, you do so at your own risk, but I am told by the legal profession that these signs are of very little value and that people may claim in the event of an accident which, fortunately, does not happen very often. The status of such signs should be spelled out clearly by the Minister. Many farmers are of the view that if they erect signs on their lands they will be exempt from claims made.

The Minister has a good idea of what Deputies on all sides of the House are requesting. The major concerns relate to children entering property, the status of signs, historic sites, playgrounds and so on. I ask the Minister to take on board our views as we are expressing the concerns of the farming and business community and community groups generally.

The principle behind the Bill is very good. As a result of the decisions of judges on issues down the years doubt exists as to the responsibilities of farmers and people entering farm lands. The Minister is trying to introduce a law that will deal with these matters and I appreciate his difficulty in trying to make everybody happy. A law was never introduced that satisfied all sections of the community. Generally there has been a very good relationship between the farming and urban communities. The farming community has a good relationship with tourists who wish to use their lands for recreational purposes, be it mountain climbing, walking along the river banks or fishing. It is important that the good relationship continues. There seems to be confusion among the farming groups on whether this Bill will operate in their long term interests. The Minister has to convince the farming community and Deputies on all sides that he is striking a balance between the rights of those who use land for all the purposes I have outlined and the rights of farmers who should not have to carry an unfair burden. People may enter on land without permission and at all times the farmer is aware that he may be responsible if something happens and this may put an additional financial burden on him. If the Minister cannot strike a balance — and I think what the farmers are looking for is not extreme — we could find ourselves in a position where farmers say people are no longer allowed to enter their lands. That would have serious consequences from an economic, social and recreational point of view.

I am sure the Minister will take those views on board as he will want to see the Bill working in the best interests of people generally.

I wish to share my time with Deputy Seán Kenny.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

The Minister may feel that the points are being repeated but this mirrors the concern being expressed by our constituents in rural communities. The farming community is especially concerned. I know the Minister has met the farming organisations and listened to their concerns.

I compliment the Minister on his swift introduction of the Occupiers' Liability Bill following the final report of the Law Reform Commission. This matter has been discussed for many years and my colleague, the Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry, Deputy Deenihan, when in Opposition, introduced a Private Members' Bill on occupiers' liability. That probably initiated the discussion that took place around the country and stimulated interest in this Bill. It is symptomatic of the times we live in that there is undue concern not alone among business people but among the farming community. It was an intrinsic part of rural life that the public had access to land and it was accepted as a public right. There was camaraderie between the farmers and the community but with the compensation culture of recent times and associated increases in insurance costs, farmers have become extremely concerned about the grey area of whether a person is trespassing or otherwise.

It would be a pity if the Occupiers' Liability Bill did not strike the right balance. It would be regrettable if people in rural areas lost the freedom — which is unique to Ireland — to walk along someone's lands without being reproached. In recent times there has been an expansion in activities such as hill walking, rock climbing, mountaineering and mountain trekking. Field sports are being encouraged and in that encouragement there is the associated risk to the landowners involved.

In April the Minister will be announcing Leader funding for projects around the country. It is likely that there will be a further expansion of interest in all these activities. To a degree they are the bedrock activities that attract tourists to different areas where the Leader programme operates. It would be a pity if a caveat was included and people were prevented from engaging in certain activities or were allowed into a forest only at their own risk. That would probably stop tourists participating in these activities and we would lose part of our heritage.

The Bill provides for two classes of users, visitors and trespassers, but the farming community has asked the Minister to consider another category, the recreational user. The points I raised earlier show the validity for considering that. The expansion in the numbers involved in recreational activity has made an impact on our tourism industry, and this gives rise to the possible validity of introducing this category. The Minister will be aware from his research that many states in America have introduced this category successfully. I am sure he is aware of the approaches in different countries and the strategy they have adopted.

The undercurrent in most speeches is concern with regard to minors, especially children. The Minister indicated on Second Stage that he would consider carefully the various views expressed by Deputies and would try to encapsulate a certain amount of their thinking before Committee Stage. Farming by its nature is inherently risky and because people are so familiar with the activity they probably expose themselves to risks. Farmers and farmers' children have lost their lives in tragic circumstances on the farm. Consider the situation where children who trespass onto the farm may walk into a potential minefield. One would have to empathise with farmers concerned about this. Farmers whose lands adjoin cities and towns face the inherent risk of trespassers. I would like the Minister to guarantee the farmers and occupiers of land that they will not be liable for accidents when children trespass on their land. In that situation we are possibly putting the onus on the parents and guardians of those children. I know there are legalistic arguments in that regard. If we are to be seen as striking a balance in the Occupiers' Liability Bill we would need to make progress in that area. If farmers were granted immunity under this Bill, it would go a long way.

There are many laudable aspects to the Bill. It is widely acclaimed as being a good one. In many cases playgrounds were erected in housing estates in the days when people were not concerned about occupiers' liability and children continue to use the equipment which is rusty and defective. There is the risk of actions being taken against the council even though in many cases it may have relinquished its involvement to various community associations. At the end of the day, if an accident occurs the council picks up the tab. That is why one discourages residents associations from erecting playgrounds.

Mention is made of historic sites. County Limerick is steeped in history and we have castles and historical buildings all over the county. We encourage people to visit these areas. The Office of Public Works has done great work in restoring castles. It is doing a remarkable job on Desmond Castle in my town of Newcastlewest. It has also done work on a castle in Glenquin. There is an inherent risk in people using such sites and that is why the Bill is timely. I hope the Minister strikes the right balance and will be hailed as the Minister who introduced progressive legislation.

I welcome the Bill, the main aim of which is to increase protection for owners of lands against claims by trespassers and recreational users. One of the main objectives is to ensure recreational use of land is facilitated to the widest possible extent. It recommends that entrants onto land be divided into two categories — visitors and trespassers.

Section 1 defines recreational users as those who enter onto property without payment or charge to engage in recreational activities such as hill walking, visiting sites and buildings of historical, national or scientific importance. The duty owed to recreational users is set out in section 4. I am looking at the Bill from a different perspective, coming from an urban constituency which has within its boundaries open space and amenity areas, some in public and some in private ownership. I wish to refer to a case in point in my constituency, an area of high amenity which is in private ownership in the Howth East Mountain area.

There are fears locally that the scenic East Mountain portion of Howth Head may be sold by the owner and its recreational use changed. It could be completely removed from the scope of this Bill. The following is an extract from a recent report by An Taisce, Hillwatch and a local environmental group in the area, Howth-Sutton 2000:

The East Mountain of Howth is the most extensive open natural landscape left in the Dublin area. It is a multifaceted resource in that this extensive area, which mostly consists of heather and low land heat vegetation, is notable for its absence of roads and is one of the few areas in the greater Dublin area where pedestrians have primacy. There are magnificent views over this low level vegetation out over Dublin Bay. On fine days one can see spectacular views over Howth Harbour and Ireland's Eye towards Lambay and up the north Dublin coast towards the Mountains of Mourne and Dalkey Island down to Bray and even Wicklow Head on the south side. One of the interesting features of this area is the almost complete absence of houses except at either end of the area or where it meets modern development on the western edge of the East Mountain. There are some ruin structures from the past like Alice's Cottage, Gilmore's Cottage at the Kilrock end and the abandoned Heather Cottage. Due to the absence of trees, structures and roads it is an area where nature has primacy and thus it is not unrealistic to describe it as a wilderness. It is all the more remarkable that it has survived as such considering it is so accessible to people and particularly to those in the greater Dublin area.

Howth Head itself on the north side of Dublin city overlooking Dublin Bay has been at the centre of controversy before as it continuously comes under pressure for new housing development. We have a continual clash between the interests of landowners who wish to maximise the development of their land and those who wish to retain it for recreational use.

Two years ago, while Dublin County Council was considering its draft development plan drawn up by its planners and engineers, there was a proposal by members of the county council to completely rezone 14 acres of the East Mountain area for a development of 56 houses. That proposal ran contrary to the zoning in the existing plan which was zone F, high amenity. In their draft plan, the planners recommended an even higher zoning, zone G. This led to controversy in the area for some months. The matter was eventually resolved when the rezoning motion was withdrawn. It represented a victory for the local people who at the time wanted to maintain the amenity and recreational use of the area. Very often, when one attempt fails another is made.

The East Mountain has been advertised for sale and is going to tender on 31 March. A reported figure of £1 million is sought. Local community groups are urging that Fingal County Council, the local authority for the area, be vested with these lands to protect the high amenity zoning of the area. The area is not just of importance to local residents but to the people of the wider Dublin region. It is a green lung for the city and a potential amenity for one-third of the population of the State as well as for tourists. It is easily accessible by DART and bus from the city centre. Its sale and development would lead to closure of rights of way, loss of recreational use and would remove the area from the scope of the Bill.

In the past, planning permission for a luxury housing development on 2.5 acres was overturned by An Bord Pleanála following an appeal by An Taisce on the grounds that the development would constitute an obtrusive element in an open landscape of high amenity and would be out of character with the area. Now that the owner, Mr. McGuinness, is seeking to sell, local residents wonder what a new owner would propose and call for the Howth peninsula to be given protection under a special amenity area order to prevent the area being saturated with development. The natural landscape in the area compares to that in the Wicklow mountains or scenery and landscape in the west.

Yesterday, at the monthly meeting of Fingal County Council it was agreed, following a proposal by the Cathaoirleach, that the council should seek EU funding to ensure the rights of way to the public at the East Mountain are preserved. In a report to the motion the county manager stated that it was a council objective that the present situation continue, that development should not be permitted and that the provisions of the county development plan should be adequate to ensure that this objective is achieved. He went on to say that there was no justification for the price of £1 million sought by the owner. A similar motion, which I proposed, was adopted at a meeting of the Dublin City Council's planning committee earlier today.

There is a continual clash of interest between development land and land which is in a high amenity and scenic area. From a development point of view, housing developments would fetch enormous prices but would remove an amenity which has been enjoyed by the residents of the east coast through the centuries. This is European National Conservation Year. I call on Mr. McGuinness to enter into talks with Fingal County Council regarding the future use of the East Mountain area of Howth.

I join in welcoming the Bill and compliment the Minister on its introduction. It is welcomed by the farming community and those organisations which represent them, many of whom the Minister has met. I deduced from my meetings with them that their general desire was that the Minister would examine the responsibility of those described in the Bill as minors. The ICMSA went so far as to say that the Bill, in its present form, will create greater confusion and uncertainty on the part of landowners unless amendments are tabled. I hope the Minister will be in a position to bring forward such amendments. In particular the ICMSA made the case that, unless such amendments are forthcoming, the definition of "entrant" could mean an uninvited person being deemed a "visitor". A letter I received — which I am sure was received by all Members — stated that a "visitor" or invited person should mean someone with permission to enter premises and that all others should be regarded as trespassers. The matter of minors should be investigated because organisations I met, including the IFA and the Galway Game Hunting Association, claimed that if responsibility for minors could be taken on board by the Minister, they would be quite happy.

With so many schemes in existence to help farmers, such as the rural environmental protection scheme, known as REPS, or those covering areas of scientific interest, farmers must be very conscious of our environment if they are to receive grants under their provisions; indeed, they are very interested in the whole matter of conservation. If they allow visitors on their land, for example, visiting school tours, or if they are involved in the farmhouse holiday scheme, they need to know their exact position with regard to public liability. All these organisations, particularly gun and hunting clubs, have said repeatedly they want to reap the benefit of such conservation schemes and make people feel welcome. While generally farmers are hospitable to those entering their property, they are anxious that their public liability be clarified. The ICMSA put forward five proposals on which they sought the Minister's clarification. The first was the greater definition of "entrant", second, the greater definition of "occupier", third, a clarification of their liability with regard to minors on their land, fourth, entrance as of right and the fifth point they made was on the title of the Bill. They made the case clearly that, until adequate amendments were effected, farmers would have no option but to restrict entry to their property or lands, in so far as possible, to safeguard themselves and their families from being sued. It would be a very sad day if farmers, through fear of being sued, erected signs and refused entry to their farms.

I am aware that the provisions of the Bill are not concerned merely with the farming community but also with access to community halls, school premises, swimming pools, children's playgrounds, affecting people other than landowners. Acknowledging that we live in an era in which there is tremendous community development we must recognise that it is difficult to promote and develop such goodwill within the community. People want local facilities and amenities yet may find themselves very frustrated from fear of being sued. For example, the remit of the county enterprise boards and the Leader programme will be extended this year and will not be as limited as heretofore. In County Galway, the second largest county, only one application has been submitted, so I hope that it will be successful. All these groups will be very frustrated if they do not receive adequate clarification of their public liability.

We can observe the tremendous work being undertaken nationwide by the Office of Public Works. I have always been loud in my praise of the Office of Public Works but, in many instances, it too has been frustrated as a result of court decisions. I do not want to go into detail with regard to areas where the Office of Public Works has endeavoured to provide facilities, particularly with regard to our heritage, but it is quite obvious that much of its work will have to cease.

I note the Minister said that the provisions of this Bill would not impose any charge on the Exchequer, something I find difficult to understand, because the Office of Public Works is in need of funds for the continuation of its preservation works and further development.

Will the Minister spell out clearly what difference the provisions of this Bill will make since we are not clear on the position? I endeavoured to table parliamentary questions on public and employer liability but I encountered considerable difficulty in getting one on the Order Paper, as the Department of Enterprise and Employment stated that its Minister was not responsible for such matters. In this respect I came across an article written by the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, Deputy Rabbitte, in the magazine Insurance Update, Issue No. 36, March 1995, on the basis of which I understand I will be able to table a question on tomorrow's Order Paper. In a question and answer-type interview with Mr. Mark Thornburgh, Chairman of the IIF's Accident Standing Committee, the following specific question was posed by Mr. Mike Kemp, non-life insurance manager of the Irish Insurance Federation:

Do you have any views on the likely impact of the proposed occupiers' liability legislation on public liability rates?

Mr. Thornburgh's reply was:

As proposed, the legislation will provide an improved situation over the existing position as it clearly defines the liability which occupiers have towards different types of entrants to their premises. Entrants will be defined as either visitors or trespassers. The only liability that occupiers will have towards trespassers is that they must not injure trespassers intentionally or act with gross negligence towards them. Recreational users of lands on a non-paying basis will be treated as only having the same rights as trespassers but fee paying recreational users will have the same rights as visitors.

I believe that the proposed legislation will only have a minimal effect on public liability rates. The legislation will only affect a relatively small part of the overall public liability market. For risks affected by the legislation, it is unlikely that rates would reduce, but they will probably stabilise. Insurers will need to wait to see how the legislation is interpreted by the courts before rates would be affected.

This question of public liability constitutes a real problem, not merely in rural areas, but nationwide as in some cases it is difficult to obtain such cover. I have come across a number of people — indeed it is now almost the norm — who have had to resort to foreign insurers to obtain public liability cover — Lloyds of London being one obvious source — or other insurance companies on the Continent. One insurance broker told me that owners of premises such as sawmills, joinery works, discos or livestock marts, experience enormous difficulty in obtaining public liability cover. I know the FBD are usually supportive of such premises. I have observed that, while it is sometimes easy to obtain public liability cover for a publichouse, if there is a dancing area attached, it becomes that much more difficult.

Soaring insurance costs are very much tied in with the provisions of this Bill in that we must endeavour to contain them while maintaining and enhancing our great tradition in sports, leisure and recreational activities. The provisions of this Bill will attain that objective if the Minister takes on board some amendments to be tabled later.

Generally farmers and landowners have been very amenable to allowing the public access to their lands, to forests, rivers, mountains and monuments, a tradition which I hope will continue. Unfortunately, because of litigation arising from public liability claims and increasing insurance costs access to property has become a matter of concern. Speakers have referred to a compensation culture. Recently "The Late Late Show" devoted a programme to the issue of public liability claims. Dublin Corporation in particular was mentioned on that programme but local authorities throughout the country encounter serious problems dealing with public liability claims. It is unfortunate that a compensation culture has developed. An example was given on that programme of 40 claims being submitted following a bus crash in the United States involving 20 passengers. Allegations were made on that programme that some members of the legal profession follow ambulances taking injured persons to hospitals. It is sad that claims for compensation are encouraged in that way.

Trips by school children and their teachers to farms, heritage sites and national monuments are part of civic and nature studies. An excellent interpretative centre was built in the village of Aughrim near Ballinasloe to commemorate the Battle of Aughrim. It includes the land on which the battle was fought. It is a matter of concern to landowners in that area that accidents might happen while school children, particularly the very young, are visiting that site. I hope such trips will be organised in the future and visits to heritage monuments and sites will not be prevented because farmers may be afraid of being sued as a result of an accident on their property.

Cultural tourism is developing and many tourists from Europe visit cultural sites. My area of east Galway is not known as a major tourism area compared to west Galway, but increasingly history students, particularly from Germany, France and Spain, visit the area to study monastic and heritage sites, particularly the Battle of Aughrim site. As our tourism industry is developing, we would not like tourists to see locks on gates and warning signs indicating that they are not welcome.

The ICMSA has been concerned about tensions in this area, but members of the farming community have been warm and hospitable in their dealings with visitors. It is difficult to envisage how farmers may be reckless. Examples were given of buildings which may be left in an uncompleted state. Others have mentioned that a bull may be left in a field near a site, but I do not believe that would happen, although accidents have occurred with animals at various times of the year. By and large the farming community has been very responsible and I hope the Minister will achieve the balance he is seeking between the occupier and the entrant.

I am most familiar with the local authority in County Galway. Down through the years various requests for playgrounds and playground equipment have been made to the council, especially from people in new housing estates. It is disappointing to get letters such as the one I received last week in reply to a request that the council take responsibility for a play area. That reply is similar to others I received in the past. The council stated that its policy is not to take over playgrounds because of the requirements of its insurers. Most councils have insurance with Irish public bodies and it appears that increasingly local authorities are losing court cases. Galway County Council lost a case some years ago and is afraid of potential claims in the future. It would be very expensive for that council to employ a caretaker from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. in every playground, but accidents may happen after 5 p.m. or when a caretaker is absent for part of a day while having a break or ill. It is unfortunate that advantage can be taken of such circumstances. I hope this problem can be resolved. It is easy to say that an exemption should be given to local authorities. Some assistance should be given to them as, in many instances, they provide beautiful playgrounds and the finest equipment but cannot get insurance cover because of the requirements of brokers. It would be nice to think that local authorities, tourism bodies and property owners would be exempt from the provisions of the Bill, but their concerns reflect many of the problems related to its provisions.

I hope the Bill will serve the people well. I believe the Minister has struck the right balance. I hope the Bill will facilitate the tourism industry and that the people who visit our country to enjoy our hospitality will always be welcome and able to visit monuments and sites of cultural interest.

I am glad to have an opportunity to speak on this Bill. The area covered in the Bill is of particular interest to Deputies from rural Ireland. Many landowners in my constituency of South Tipperary have expressed a good deal of interest and concern about this subject over a number of years. The House briefly discussed the concept of liability of occupiers in respect of those, invited or otherwise, who use their land. During the debate on a previous Private Members' Bill my colleague, the Minister for Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Taylor, who is responsible for this Bill, promised that his Department would prepare legislation, the substance of the Bill before us. That legislation was prepared after detailed consideration of all the aspects of this problem by the Law Reform Commission.

I admit it has been said by some of my colleagues and others that in the Law Reform Commission there was a 3:2 majority in favour of the provision concerning responsibility for children. Of the two people who expressed a different view from the majority, one is now a Supreme Court judge. That should be sufficient to caution people that some of those who held a contrary view now hold a position where they may have to adjudicate on this legislation.

The purpose of the Bill is to simplify and clarify the law on occupiers' liability and to give it a statutory basis. At present the law in this area is governed by common law principles. The Bill contains specific provisions designed to facilitate the use of land for recreational activities and implements many of the recommendations contained in the Law Reform Commission's report on occupiers' liability. We all need to be aware that this is a highly complex area of law. It deals with private property and the obligations that go with its ownership, which is protected in the Constitution. Irish people have a particular regard for land and land/and home ownership. Everyone aspires to the ownership of property as opposed to leasing or renting. Property, whether land or houses, confers a special constitutional privilege, particularly in rural areas.

Land ownership, because of its special place in the Constitution and the privileges conferred in it, imposes certain obligations. The owner of a property has an obligation to third parties — particularly if there are areas which are a risk especially to people unaware of that risk — to minors and to those incapable of reading or being warned of an impending risk following entry to property, whether invited or not. The owner of property may be informed by the Electricity Supply Board of dangerous wires in a particular field or over a fence and advised to remove his stock from the field for safety purposes. The wires are the property of the Electricity Supply Board but are on the land of the private property owner. A dangerous wire may lie across a path traditionally used by people. In rural areas there are many such paths leading to churches and other facilities where the right of way is not written into them, as we understand it as members of local authorities, where there are recognised rights of way over roadways. Traditional Mass paths are used and the owners of these properties welcome such people.

If the landowner was aware of the fallen power line which was a risk to livestock, took no action to ensure its safety and if a child entered that property, somebody would have to accept responsibility. That responsibility rests on the property owner. When we say it is simple to ensure that people have all the rights to protection we must impose responsibility where those rights are protected. The Bill is balanced in that respect. It was introduced by the Minister at the request of many Deputies from rural areas and other public users, following serious consideration and on the understanding that it was a major improvement on the present position.

We should look at the Bill in a positive light as the Minister did on the day he launched it in the presence of many of the farming organisations, who expressed a general welcome, with some reservations about certain sections. On that day the Minister committed himself to listen to the debate in the House, which has gone on for a lengthy period, to examine whatever areas could be improved on and to protect the whole concept of what the Bill proposes to do. At the same time we must ensure that people have freedom of movement, within reason, in rural areas for sport, fishing or the hunt which has had a traditional history in Ireland. This freedom to traverse land and property was usually welcomed by the farmer. There was a tradition that any damage caused by hounds and huntsman to property would be repaired. Unfortunately, because of negligence by some in the past, people became conscious of their right to claim. As the Minister will confirm and as we are aware — as members of local authorities — when claims are made to local authorities or anybody else found negligent by the court the court compensates the person, not for the injury they received but because the accident was caused by somebody else's negligence.

We all — particularly members of local authorities — complain about people making claims, and insurers will not accept a risk for children in a playground because if somebody has an accident they will make a claim. I remind insurers, particularly insurers of local authorities, that it is their duty and the duty of local authorities where services are provided for the public to make every effort to ensure the safety of that service or facility. If it is safe no case will be taken. If there is a claim it is substantiated in court, not in an insurance company's office or in the middle of a local authority meeting. It is decided by a judge, sometimes a jury, if the accident is serious. It is usually decided by people who have considered all the aspects. Let us not criticise people who make a genuine claim following injury as a result of somebody else's negligence. That is a basic right. People have a constitutional right to that protection. In conferring that right and balancing it with the right of property owners there are constitutional rights on both sides.

There was a reference to heritage, archaeological and historical sites. There are hundreds of such sites in my constituency — the Rock of Cashel, Cahir Castle, Carrick-on-Suir Castle, the Westgate in Clonmel, the Swiss Cottage and so on — visited by thousands of visitors each year. Some 150,000 people come to see the Rock of Cashel. Although it is dangerous to go up on the parapets people come to visit it because the State guarantees, within the limits available to it, that all precautions will be taken to safeguard them. Claims are rarely made except when people have a genuine accident. The State has properly protected these monuments and sites for the benefit of children and tourists and we should always promote them as places which people can visit. They should not be dealt with under this legislation which deals mainly with people's right of access, by invitation or otherwise, to land and the right of the farmer to take action against people who trespass on his land.

I ask the Minister to consider the points made during the debate. This is not a black and white issue and he will have to make the best possible judgment. Aside from the debate, the consideration of the matter by the Law Reform Commission, the advice of the Attorney General, the facilities available to him and his expertise in this area, the Minister is aware that at some stage somebody might find a loophole in the legislation and challenge it in the courts. That is the basis on which we must proceed.

This legislation is a substantial improvement on the previous totally unsatisfactory situation where owners of land were responsible for injuries sustained by those who used it. This has to be balanced with a farmer's responsibility to ensure that people who use his land will not be injured. As a Minister of State recently said, many accidents occur on farms during the course of normal farming activities. There is now a greater risk of accidents occurring on farms and farmers are aware of this. As the main occupiers and owners of land in rural areas, farmers are extremely concerned that they will be open to claims being made against them for accidents for which they believe they do not have responsibility.

On the day he launched the Bill the Minister said he would listen to the points made and consider all the genuine cases put to him. It is only when one travels abroad that one realises that people who enter farmers' land in Holland, Belgium, Spain, etc., are immediately removed. However, some continental tourists who visit Ireland set up camp on land without asking the permission of the farmer or owner. They know that people in rural Ireland welcome visitors, particularly those from Europe.

The Minister is also responsible for looking after the rights of minorities, including those of travellers. Travellers who set up unauthorised camping sites on a regional or county road cause enormous damage by deliberately putting horses into fields irrespective of the risk of infection or damage to livestock. Travellers who do this have a total disregard for the rights of people. Those of us who are members of local authorities use the powers conferred on us by the Minister to do something about these unfortunate people who are basically homeless and who, if they got the opportunity, might send their children to school.

Until such time as this problem is properly addressed travellers will have to understand that they must show some respect for private property; otherwise they will become their own worst enemies and members of local authorities will be isolated in the community for wanting to help people who have a total disregard for property, livestock and old people who live in fear. I would not mind if travellers who go around begging were in genuine need. However, they do not seem to be poverty stricken as many of them own new vehicles and equipment. If these people set up camp along a road we are powerless to move them on. Farmers are worried about the damage they will cause to their land, yet when they try to talk to them it usually ends up in a fight. People must respect other people's rights. We cannot disregard the rights of landowners or the State. Likewise, those people who are privileged to own property cannot disregard their responsibilities to the users of that land.

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on this very important legislation. It is fair to say that the contributions so far have tended to concentrate on its implications for the farming sector. This is understandable as, even though some of the more worrying aspects have been addressed the legislation will still have implications for farmers. However, there are also other groupings in society for whom this legislation has clear implications. I am thinking in particular of local authorities, the boards of management of primary, post-primary and third level schools and voluntary organisations who provide community facilities and amenities for children and manage and operate community centres in towns, villages and cities. The reality is that occupiers' liability extends to all these people and the legislation is relevant to them.

Farmers are terrified that people will use their land. Gun clubs have tried to assuage the fears of farmers and endeavoured to convince them that their insurance provides for a certain level of indemnity. On closer examination, it was discovered their cover is inadequate under the present provisions.

School boards of management are constantly concerned and local authorities have had to close playground amenities to reduce the number of claims against them. The Minister need only speak to any county manager or secretary to discover the astronomical premium demands placed on urban and county local authorities to cover public liability claims.

This legislation should be considered in tandem with the long promised legislation on the control of insurance costs. I accept that legislation is not the responsibility of the Minister for Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Taylor. Responsibility for the overall insurance industry rests with the Department of Enterprise and Employment and, under present arrangements, the Minister of State at that Department, Deputy Rabbitte. On foot of prompting from constituents, on a number of occasions I raised their concern about what is happening in the area of insurance premiums, public liability, motor insurance and employer liability. For some peculiar reason there appears to be a lack of appreciation and understanding of what is really involved and the implications for jobs in the annual premiums many sectors have to meet. For example, the owner of a small hotel in my constituency rang me a few months ago and told me he had been paying £25,000 per annum in public liability insurance cost for his hotel, but on foot of a pending claim his premium increased to £40,000. Between full-time and casual employees, that man employs approximately 30 to 35 people and is actively considering the viability of his business. When the implications of insurance premiums reach that stage there is need for urgent action and the necessary legislative changes to be put in place.

I am not sure if the Minister is aware of the very important conference organised by Muintir na Tíre that was held in the community centre at Santry a few weeks ago.

I apologise, that is correct. Unfortunately, because of my commitments to the House on that day I was unable to attend. It is noteworthy that that conference was organised by Muintir na Tíre, the umbrella organisation for community organisations. That it was considered necessary to bring a speaker from New Zealand to outline how the insurance industry operates there underlines the concern about insurance matters here. Insurance premiums here cost considerably more than those in other member states of the European Union or in jurisdictions outside the Community. There must be a fundamental reason for that. We have a relatively well developed infrastructure and I am sure our range of facilities and our position regarding land ownership are similar to those in the United Kingdom or New Zealand. There is an obvious need to address the legislative position of the insurance industry.

The implications for jobs is underestimated. I was contacted recently by a constituent involved in the meat sector who is encountering grave difficulties in getting quotes for public or employer liability. We cannot allow people to operate plants in such high risk areas without adequate insurance. I accept that much of what I said may not be directly relevant to the Minister, the question of legislation on insurance costs is a matter for another Minister.

Anyone interested in collecting newspaper cuttings will be familiar with the utterances of successive Ministers for the Environment lamenting the fact that local authorities are paying huge public liability insurance premiums annually, money that could be much better spent on the roads of my constitency and, indeed, that of Deputy Boylan. I am sure the county secretary or manager of Cavan County Council could tell us of the astronomical amount of public liability insurance premia that local authority pays annually to meet its commitments. On the basis of present figures, however, no Minister in recent years has sufficiently tackled the position. I have not had an opportunity to examine the papers presented to the conference at Santry by the insurance industry expert from New Zealand, but it would cost nothing if we could learn something from the New Zealand experience. I am sure the Minister will agree this Bill should be considered in tandem with legislation on the control of insurance costs.

I do not believe the New Zealand system would be acceptable here.

I will not prejudge the matter before considering it.

It is commonly believed that there is a difficulty regarding the submission of fraudulent claims. A minority of solicitors are in the ambulance chasing business and a minority also operate on the basis of "no foal, no fee". If a person believes he or she can easily obtain money from submitting a claim, an offer of "no foal, no fee" will be very attractive, particularly if the case is doubtful. This matter must be addressed. I do not have the answers. Perhaps it is an attitudinal problem; if so, it should be dealt with by providing leadership.

I welcome the Bill and the opportunity of expressing my views on insurance cover and the obligations of occupiers, whether farmers or those managing our wide range of community facilities. It is important that their interests are addressed. We must strike a balance between responsibility to them and the need to allow people feedom of movement. At a time when I hope we are on the brink of realising the full potential of our tourism industry there should be minimum restrictions on people who want to visit our national monuments or simply walk around our farm lands, parks and mountains. Occupiers' liability is integral to tourism development. It is vital that the legislation be conducive to attracting people to walk the land while appreciating and protecting the interests of the people who own property and have attendant responsibilities.

I welcome the opportunity of speaking on the Bill. I compliment the Minister on behalf of thousands of land and property owners for having the courage to introduce it. For too long we have waited to have this serious matter addressed.

I support everything Deputy Kirk said about public liability insurance which has become a major obstacle to people setting up business. The problem has got out of hand and the cost of insurance is beyond reason. Public liability insurance for hotels, small factories, local authorities etc. has become a major burden. It is not unusual for local groups providing an amenity to hand it over to the local authority as soon as the work is completed because of the fear that, having opened the amenity, somebody will be injured and the trustees will be held responsible. That is not acceptable. I am not saying that there is a compensation culture sweeping the country. Far be it from me to say that people are not entitled to compensation if they are injured. However, the figures published in our national daily papers are astronomical. First time insurance cost for motorists is outrageous, but the Minister, Deputy Taylor, is listening and, being a capable legal person, perhaps he will tackle the problem after this Bill is passed by both Houses.

As a rural Deputy I have a particular interest in this Bill. I am well aware of the fears of many landowners. Our farms have traditionally been open to people who wandered in and were welcomed. Perhaps that was taken too much for granted because we are talking about private property, not an open common. Farmers have welcomed people on to their lands and like to see them coming from the towns and villages to enjoy the countryside. Until recently there was no question of the owner being liable. A person who fell and was hurt went home and nursed the injury. That has changed and farmers have become fearful.

Ten years ago there was a tragic accident in the west which probably began the present trend. The circumstances were rather bizarre — two people, one of whom had a gun, were out game shooting; the man carrying the gun tripped and accidentally shot his friend in the ankle. The legal advice they got was to sue the farmer. The action was successful and the farmer had to pay £75,000 in compensation. In today's money that would probably be £250,000. What made headlines in the farming journals was the fact that the judge berated the farmer for being careless. It seems the man carrying the gun had tripped on a piece of wire which was lying under flattened grass. It is usual to allow the grass to grow over a broken fence until the farmer has time to mend it. A countryman would understand that and take care; the people in question were from the town.

The farmer had to sit for ten or 15 minutes listening to a judge tell him how he should run his farm; the same judge who may not know a cow from a bull, took it upon himself to tell the farmer how to manage his farm.

The farmer had not invited the two men in question, had no knowledge that they were on his land, but was held responsible. That is how the fear spread among landowners about leaving gates open and allowing people enter the land. That is sad in many ways because people got great enjoyment from spending summer afternoons in the countryside, travelling along the banks of a river with a fishing rod, being welcomed by the local farmer and having a chat. Tourists found it strange that they had the freedom to walk unhindered through the countryside. However, they quickly took this concession for granted.

English fishermen are real gentlemen and never enter land without first calling at the house to ask permission, and offer thanks on leaving. It is nice that people do that even though they know they are welcome — they realise that the property is not theirs. One cannot open a door in a town, city or village and walk into a person's private house, make onself at home and watch television. One cannot go on to a person's private lawn and have a picnic. The person who would do so would soon be told by the owners to get out. Those same people expect to be allowed wander around the countryside to enjoy themselves. While they are welcome there must be standards and they must accept responsibility. However, that is not the case, landowners are held responsible. I am glad the Minister is qualifying this in the Bill.

In passing, I wish to mention that all landowners are not farmers. There are people who have a big business in the city and, as a sideline, they own land and a country residence. Such people may not be as generous as the traditional farmer in allowing strangers pass through their land.

Property owners are still liable in the case of minors. Farmers fear young people wandering on their land in the summer time to play games, kick football, fish etc. or in the autumn to watch the chestnuts fall. If one of them trips and falls, who is responsible? Surely the landowner cannot be held responsible. Parents or guardians must be responsible for their children. There can be no grey area. The responsibility should not be shifted on to the farmer. It is expected that this will be a boom year for tourism and tourists generally come as families with their children. Farmers want to know where they stand.

Historic monuments and places of interest have been mentioned. It is lovely to see them and people are welcome to do so, but they are generally located on private property. The question of who is responsible for people making their way to and from these monuments must be addressed.

It is only right that I should say that farmers and landowners are, broadly speaking, the essence of decency and are glad to promote tourism in any way they can for the benefit of the country. While I do not wish to point the finger at any particular nationality, many foreigners buy up property adjacent to lakes, rivers and picturesque areas and, no sooner have they acquired their cottage and five or six acres than they erect four rows of barbed wire around it, often cutting off a right of way to a river bank. Are they entitled to do that? Under law is there a right of way along every river and lake or are people allowed to fence them off? There is a belief that people can make their way along a river bank unhindered, that it is public property. It is wrong that property owners can erect a fence with barbed wire up to the edge of a river. Are they allowed to do this? Who will be held liable if someone is hurt trying to cross such a fence?

Under this Bill where a local authority and a community group come together to provide an amenity such as a play area, including swings, or a pitch and putt course, will the trustees continue to be held liable? It is well high impossible to obtain public liability insurance. I hope that farmers or their spouses will not lie awake at night worrying about a claim for compensation when someone is involved in an accident on their farm. We should not entertain this. Can the Minister give a guarantee that they will not be held liable? Is it possible, legally, to give such a guarantee?

No matter what Bill is introduced there will be a court challenge, given that solicitors offer their services on a no win no fee basis. Will farmers and landowners continue to be taken to court when there is no risk for the person taking the case? There are many property owners who lead quiet and peaceful lives, who have never seen the inside of a courtroom who are fearful that a claim will be made against them and they will be dragged through the courts. They should not have to live with this fear because they have been generous in providing an amenity or facility for people to enjoy. They can live and farm better without them. They do not wish to stop them using the amenity but they fear that they may be sued. Will they be able to recoup their costs? If a person is seriously injured and has to give up his job he should receive compensation but I fail to see why a landowner should have to sell his property to meet a huge award.

The Minister should address this issue and put the minds of those living in rural Ireland at ease. They are only too glad to see people like the Minister and others from this large city visit the countryside. He will be welcome on many a farm.

There is now a compensation culture and the cost of public liability insurance is soaring. Farmers and landowners in particular are encountering difficulties in this respect. It is the desire of each Member that the law should be changed and measures taken not only to indemnify those involved but also to reduce insurance costs.

It is crucial that we address the issues involved to reduce the cost of insurance to farmers, landowners, businesses and local communities. It is important that we offer our thanks to farmers and landowners for being so generous to people living both in and outside the local community. They have never been slow in allowing them access to their lands to enjoy forests, rivers, lakes, mountains and our natural heritage, including national monuments, such as Mass rocks, Celtic crosses, and other areas of interest. They have been more than willing to cooperate and in many instances were the instigators in the development of agri-tourism which continues to flourish. Because of the threat of litigation they are asking whether they are being foolish in allowing people easy access to places of interest on their land. This Bill therefore is timely and relevant.

Apart from landowners and farmers, there are others covered by the Bill who are looking forward to its enactment. I am referring to the question of access to community centres, parks and playgrounds. In recent times the humble householder has also been affected as a result of the inadequacies of the current legislation. Some have been subject to claims for compensation by trespassers who were injured while engaged in illegal activity. These matters are dealt with in the Bill and for that reason it is worthy of support.

Debate adjourned.
Barr
Roinn