James McDaid
Ceist:13 Dr. McDaid asked the Minister for Equality and Law Reform the plans, if any, he has to review the operation of the Occupiers' Liability Act. [6867/97]
Priority Questions. - Occupiers' Liability Act.
The Occupiers' Liability Act to which the Deputy refers came into operation on 17 July 1995. It contained specific provisions which were intended to facilitate the use of land for recreational activities. It was also designed to simplify and clarify the law on occupiers' liability by putting it on a firm statutory basis.
The legislation in question was preceded by a Law Reform Commission consultation paper, published in 1993, and by a final report, published in 1994. Because the introduction of the Occupiers' Liability Bill was so proximate to these reports, it inevitably took on board all the recent developments in this area of the law. In addition, in drawing up the Bill, I engaged in a very wide consultative process. Members of the farming community had a particular input in its provisions and I am glad I was able to accommodate many of their concerns.
It would be premature to review the operation of the Act at this stage. Since the Act was passed, I have had very little correspondence on this issue which, to my mind at least, suggests that its key provisions are generally regarded as satisfactory. Furthermore, legislation of this kind can be assessed properly only when it has been tested within the context of court litigation. Such litigation would, as a matter of course, be monitored by my Department. However, I am confident the principles which the Act contains will safeguard occupiers against unmeritorious claims.
I am not happy with what is happening in Ireland today. Does the Minister agree that one of our greatest assets is our openness to tourists? Why is the second largest farming organisation erecting luminous signs quoting part of the Act and stating that "unauthorised persons will be prosecuted"? That is, in effect, telling tourists to keep out. Is the Minister aware that people in certain areas are charging tourists to cross their lands to climb mountains and so on? If section 5-(2) of the Occupiers' Liability Act is working so well, why does the ICMSA feel it necessary to erect such posters?
Tourism is an important industry and everything possible should be done to facilitate it. I am not aware and cannot accept that the operation of the Occupiers' Liability Act causes any problem in that regard; the contrary is the case. I and my Department had extensive consultations with the IFA and the ICMSA and many of the clauses and subsections in the Act result from representations made to me. I am prepared to keep the operation of the Act under review but there is nothing in it which should cause any undue problems for farm owners or members of the IFA or ICMSA. Since the Act was passed, I have received no representations from the ICMSA or anyone else indicating a problem or difficulty with it. If such representations are made to me, I will examine them carefully.
I accept the Minister is unaware that the ICMSA has put up signs. I was informed today that a sign has been placed on Bray Head, which is a public right of way. Perhaps the Minister could ask the ICMSA why it is afraid of the Occupiers' Liability Act and why it is putting up these signs on public property. Does such action not ruin our tourism industry and our image as "Ireland of the welcomes"?
If the property referred to by the Deputy is public property to which the public has right of access, then no person has any right to block it off. As far as private property is concerned, if there is no right of way over it, a land-owner has a right, guaranteed under the Constitution, to prohibit access to it by any member of the public. During consultations on the Occupiers' Liability Act it was made clear to me that farmers had no wish to do that and were prepared to welcome recreational use of their land provided certain provisions were included in legislation to protect them from unmeritorious complaints and claims. Those suggestions were taken on board and both farming organisations expressed their reasonable satisfaction with the terms of the Act which changed the previous common law position that had led to problems for their members. They felt that unmeritorious claims were being sustained by the courts against them. However, the Act has dealt with that, so there is no reasonable basis for members of either organisation to feel their position is being interfered with unduly. If they feel that a particular case has given rise to problems, I will be happy to look at it.
As far as I know, few, if any, cases have reached the courts under this legislation. There is no reason farmers should fear they are leaving themselves open to compensation claims in unreasonable circumstances. We must monitor this situation but we must also give the Act time to operate. We must wait to see what type of decisions the courts will make pursuant to this Act and then review the matter if necessary.
I am sure the Minister agrees that such action is intimidatory to recreational users and tourists. Is the Minister suggesting that a court case should be taken to test the Occupiers' Liability Act?
Far be it from me to suggest that anybody should bring a test case. The type of cases which could arise under the terms of this Act could be wide and varied. The primary thrust of this legislation is to deal with recreational users or trespassers. The extent of a land-owner's liability to recreational users or trespassers was covered in section 4. It is a limited liability which provides for liability in only two cases. One is if the land-owner injured the recreational user or the trespasser intentionally or acted with reckless disregard for such a person. That is a restricted form of liability. There can be borderline cases in any situation that arises and I have no doubt the courts will form their own interpretations. It may be a long time yet before cases reach the courts.
The fact I have had no letters of complaint or adverse comment about the Act suggests it is working reasonably well. I urge farmers and landowners to give recreational users and tourists the maximum possible access to their lands because it is an important factor in the tourism industry, which led to this Act in the first place. I agree with Deputy McDaid that everything possible should be done to encourage them to do so.