Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 25 May 1995

Vol. 143 No. 11

Occupiers' Liability Bill, 1994: Second Stage.

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

The aim of this Bill is to abolish the common law rules governing the liability of occupiers for injuries to entrants on their property and to put this branch of the law on a clear and firm statutory basis. I think it will help to put the provisions of the Bill in proper perspective if I set out briefly the common law on occupiers' liability and how it has developed in the last two decades or so.

Under common law entrants to property are placed in four categories for the purpose of determining the extent of an occupier's duty towards them. They are classified as contractual entrants, invitees, licensees or trespassers. Contractual entrants are those who are present in pursuance of a contract with the occupier and the occupier's duty is to take reasonable care in relation to them subject to any express provision in the contract extending or restricting the duty.

Invitees are entrants who confer a material benefit on the occupier, such as a customer in a shop or a paying patron at a dance. In that case the occupier's duty is to use reasonable care to prevent injury from unusual danger of which he or she knows or ought to know.

A licensee is an entrant who is permitted to be on the property but does not confer a material benefit on the occupier — for example, a person asking for directions or using a public park. Here the occupier's duty is to warn of hidden dangers of which he actually knows. As regards trespassers, the only duty owed is not to injure them intentionally or act with reckless disregard towards them. The distinctions between the different degrees of liability appropriate to the various categories are largely artificial and not surprisingly have proved extremely difficulty to apply precisely in the circumstances of particular cases.

In recent years these common law rules have been developed considerably by the courts. The distinctions between the categories have been further blurred and in particular the duty owed by occupiers to trespassers has been placed almost on a duty of care basis. The result has been a perception by occupiers, especially farmers, that the law is biased against them, particularly as it relates to claims by injured trespassers.

The Bill seeks to clarify and simplify this area of the law as far as possible. Instead of four kinds of liability to entrants there will be only two. These are the common duty of care which will be owed to what the Bill defines as visitors and a much lower level of duty which will be owed to all other entrants; that is a duty not to injure them intentionally or act with reckless disregard for their presence on the property. The provision of this lower level of duty to trespassers restores the position in this respect to what it was traditionally under the common law.

The Bill provides for three classes of entrant: visitors, who attract the higher level of duty; and recreational users and trespassers, who are owed only the lower level. Visitors are, broadly speaking, entrants who are present at the invitation or with the permission of the occupier or a member of the occupier's family living on the premises. Included also are resident members of the occupier's family, contractual entrants and entrants who are there as of right, such as inspectors under various enactments.

A visitor will enjoy this higher status only so long as he or she is on the premises for the purposes of the invitation or permission or as the case may be of performing the contract or exercising the right. That is an important element of the definition. If the visitor engages in some activity which is inconsistent with the purpose of the entry and is injured, he or she will lose that status and the lower level related to trespassers will apply.

The second category are called "recreational users". These are persons who enter property without charge to engage in recreational activities conducted in the open air, such as team sports, hill walking, etc. Cave exploration and visits to historical sites are also included. Even if the occupier gives permission for the activity to be carried on, the entrant will not thereby become a "visitor" unless a charge is imposed on entry or unless the entrant is either expressly invited by the occupier or a family member to participate in the activity or is permitted to do so for social reasons connected with the occupier or family member. The latter situation would arise, say, where a neighbour's children were on the premises playing with those of the occupier.

The inclusion in the Bill of this separate category of recreational users, to whom the lower duty is owed, has been generally welcomed both by the many organisations representing those users, by those bodies anxious to develop the tourism industry to its full potential and, not least, by the main farming organisations.

The third, residual, category is that of trespassers; that is, entrants who are neither visitors nor recreational users. In other words, they have no right to be on the property and are not engaging in a recreational activity. The duty owed by the occupier to both recreational users and trespassers is set out in section 4, to which I will come in a moment.

I will mention some further definitions because, although technical, they are crucial to an understanding of the Bill. First, the definition of "danger" makes clear it is only injuries or damage arising from the state of the property which are covered by the Bill. Dangerous activities by an occupier, such as the operation of machinery, are outside its scope and are dealt with under a separate branch of the law.

Second, "occupier" is defined as the person in occupation of the property for the time being and who has sufficient control over the state of the property for it to be reasonable to impose on him or her a duty towards entrants in respect of a particular danger on the property. Sometimes there may be more than one person on the property who may come within that definition, as where an owner of premises would grant a licence to an individual to allow part of the premises to be used by both of them. In such a case each of the occupiers could have different duties to a particular entrant, who might be a visitor in relation to one occupier but a trespasser as far as the other is concerned.

Finally, the Bill extends to all kinds of premises; the definition of "premises" includes land, buildings, water and movable structures such as scaffolding. It covers also vessels, vehicles, trains and aircraft, although of course only in relation to injuries caused by the state of those vehicles rather than by their operation. The Bill has therefore a wide scope and affects occupiers ranging from companies owning the biggest supermarkets or factories to the individual farmer or urban householder.

The key provisions of the Bill are those in sections 3 and 4, which set out the duty owed by occupiers to visitors and to recreational users and trespassers. In the case of visitors, the duty is a duty of care, that is, a duty to take such care as is reasonable in all the circumstances to ensure that a visitor does not suffer injury or damage by reason of a danger existing on the occupier's premises. In assessing whether an occupier has fulfilled this duty in a particular case, account will be take of the care the visitor may reasonably be expected to take for his or her own safety and, also, if the visitor is accompanied, of the extent of supervision and control the companion may reasonably be expected to exercise over the visitor's activities. This concept of care is well established in the law of negligence. As a general rule, the plaintiff must convince the court that, on the balance of probabilities, the occupier did not exercise reasonable care in the particular circumstances of the case. It is the standard of care that occupiers themselves would expect to be shown when visiting another premises.

The duty owed to recreational users and trespassers is pitched at a lower level. It is expressed in section 4 as a duty not to cause injury or damage intentionally or act with reckless disregard for the person or property of the entrant. As I said earlier, this will restore the law relating to the liability of occupiers to trespassers to what it was some decades ago.

Section 4 goes on to set out various criteria to assist in determining whether an occupier has acted with reckless disregard. The first three are basic. The occupier must know, or must have reasonable grounds for believing, that a danger exists on the premises and also that a recreational user or trespasser is, or is likely to be, not only on the premises but in the vicinity of the danger. If that is not the case, clearly the occupier will not be liable. Even where these criteria do apply, regard must then be had to all the other criteria in the section before it can be determined that an occupier has acted with reckless disregard. These include the burden of eliminating the danger, or of protecting the entrant and the entrant's property from the danger, having regard to the difficulty, expense or impracticability of doing so; the tradition of maintaining open access to property used for recreational activity; the care the entrant might reasonably be expected to take for his or her own safety; and the nature of any warning of the danger given to the entrant.

Section 4 also provides that where a person enters premises for the purpose of committing an offence, or commits and offence while there, the occupier will not be liable for injury or damage unintentionally caused to the entrant unless a court determines otherwise in the interests of justice. This provision results from an amendment made in the other House. The Bill had already provided that the conduct of the entrant was to be a relevant criterion in determining whether an occupier had acted with reckless disregard, and on that basis it seemed unlikely in the extreme that any court would award damages to a burglar, or any other persons engaging in such criminal conduct, who had been injured by some danger due to the state of the premises. However, there was strong support for making specific provision in the Bill to ensure that such an award could not be made, and the amendment achieves this while recognising that there could be exceptional circumstances where the prohibition may have to be modified if justice is to be done.

The remaining provision in section 4 relates to structures which have been provided primarily for use by recreational users, such as equipment in a playground, benches in public parks, viewing points in scenic areas and so on. In those cases, subsection (4) of the section imposes on occupiers a duty towards such users to take reasonable care to maintain the structures in a safe condition. These structures do not include gates, stiles and the like which farmers and their families use in the ordinary course of farming. Specific provision is made to that effect in a proviso to the subsection.

The remaining provisions of the Bill are of lesser importance. Section 5 allows an occupier to extend or restrict his or her duty to entrants by express agreement or by notice. If the duty to visitors is to be restricted, the restriction must be a reasonable one in all the circumstances. If the restriction is by notice, the occupier must take reasonable steps to bring it to the attention of visitors but the occupier will be presumed to have done so if the notice is prominently displayed at the normal means of access to the premises. Needless to say, in no case may an occupier's duty to visitors be reduced below the level owed to recreational users and trespassers.

Section 6 provides that an entrant who is not a party to a contract cannot have his or her rights as an entrant taken away by the contract. If, for example, an occupier contracts to allow certain persons to carry out some work on the premises, the contract cannot contain a provision that the duty owed by the occupier is to be only that owed to trespassers.

Section 7 provides that an occupier who has taken all reasonable care when engaging an independent contractor will not be liable for injury or damage caused to an entrant by the contractor's negligence unless the occupier knows, or ought to know, that the work was not properly done. However, section 8 preserves the liability occupiers may have under the present law for certain duties which they may not delegate to independent contractors — for example, duties in relation to inherently dangerous work.

Section 8 contains other savers for existing common law and statutory provisions that impose responsibilities on particular classes of occupiers and which are greater than those imposed by the Bill, such as those imposed on hotel proprietors. It also makes it clear that the Bill does not prejudice the law governing actions taken by occupiers in self defence, the defence of others and the defence of property.

These then are the provisions of the Bill. When enacted, it will represent the considered views of both Houses as to what should be the appropriate balance in present day terms between the rights and obligations of occupiers and those of entrants to their premises. There has been close consultation with the farming organisations before and since the Bill was published. The other House dealt with this measure in a most constructive fashion and made a number of significant improvements to it. I now look forward with confidence to an equally constructive approach in this House and I assure Senators that I will give careful consideration to any views expressed by them in the course of this debate.

Finally, I take this opportunity of acknowledging the extremely valuable work done in this regard by the Law Reform Commission, which produced a well researched consultation paper and final report on this complex subject, thereby ensuring that our debates could be conducted in a fully informed manner.

I welcome the Minister and this Bill. I also compliment Senator Neville who introduced a Private Member's Bill in 1994. The Progressive Democrats also made an attempt towards the end of 1993 to highlight the inadequacies in occupiers' legislation which was affecting farmers, particularly in regard to trespassers. I am sure that Senator Neville appreciates that the right decision was made to wait for Government legislation. While I was not present for the vote on his Bill, the right decision was made on that occasion. Senator Neville's Bill referred to land occupiers, but this wide ranging Bill covers all recreational use etc.

This is an important and far reaching Bill. Its implications are crucial, not only for land owners but for the community as a whole. It is vital that we tackle the issues involved if we are to contain soaring insurance costs and at the same time ensure that our tradition of sports, leisure and recreation is preserved and enhanced. Hunting and fishing affect farmers and landowners, who have generally been very co-operative and welcoming in allowing access to their lands, forests, rivers, mountains and heritage monuments. Now, because of litigation and rising insurance costs, they must seek to protect themselves. This legislation is, therefore, timely and highly relevant.

The issues which concern us are far wider than might at first appear and include access to community halls, school premises, swimming pools, children's playgrounds, etc. Local parks, playgrounds and amenities proposed by local community development groups are also seriously affected by issues relating to occupiers' liability. GAA grounds and other sporting venues would also come under that heading. One of the greatest anomalies in civil law relates to the liability of the humble householder for injuries to trespassers, especially when the trespasser has an illegal purpose. All of these matters should be considered in the context of this Bill.

This is a good Bill which is worthy of support. It improves the position for occupiers and landowners, especially in relation to trespassers and recreational users. Provisions relating to the duty of care which must be provided for minors, and liability for the maintenance of structures and sites provided for the convenience of recreational users are necessary. The Bill was sufficiently amended in the other House to cover this concern.

If this Bill fails to allay the fears of occupiers, the cost will be the closing of much of the countryside to the public. It was wisely amended in the Dáil, which I am sure was to the relief of many landowners, especially the farming organisations. The object of the Bill is to clarify an unclear area of law to meet, in part, the demands of farmers and landowners and in so doing to reduce the insurance costs they have to bear. The lack of precision in the law arises because the current position is the sum of many different judgments in court cases over the years, some more and some less sympathetic to the interests of the occupier.

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 that we must create a climate which will not deter occupiers from making land available for such use for fear of being sued for personal injuries. 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? Even when these machines are not in operation, perhaps at night, children can visit the lands and climb up on one of them. Adults could also do so and run the risk of injury, so this would have to be taken into consideration.

Serious consideration needs to be given to the issue of the use of sprays used for the curtailment of weeds. These sprays are essential for growing crops. In one case recently a farmer got very upset when his cattle trespassed onto neighbouring land that was sprayed with weedkiller. He was very concerned for the welfare of his cattle and was inclined to sue the man if any were poisoned. He did not understand the law properly, but as the cattle were not poisoned there were no further problems. These are some of the issues which worry farmers 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, although that is very rare. The majority of farmers, especially in County Limerick and in my area, would not like to have to resort to such measures. There is a lack of understanding among visitors and others about their concerns. Many farmers do not realise the risk they face. A survey some time ago showed that only 40 per cent of the farmers in the area had insurance against this type of claim, which in itself is a very serious problem. If we do not put this legislation in place before claims become the norm, then farmers who take out insurance will find doing so very difficult and costly.

I thank the Minister for introducing the Bill, which had been promised by previous Ministers in Government. The Minister did not delay in bringing forward the Bill, especially since he promised Senator Neville when he brought his own Bill into this House that he would do so. I compliment him on that. I hope he will take account of the anxieties and worries of landowners and all property owners. I trust he will introduce the necessary changes to the Bill. He has done a good job in the other House in amending the Bill to please the farming community and owners so that we can all live together for the betterment of the nation. This Bill will help the development of the tourist industry because people have to get on to land in tourist areas to fish, to hunt and for other social activities. This issue has a role to play in the future development of tourism and I hope the Minister will be successful in his efforts.

Landowners near towns and villages are more at risk than landowners in the country. I live in the country and there is very little trespass. There is no national monument or tourist attraction near me. However, in towns where there is an influx of young people after dances, if they see something in a field, they might like to explore it. That should be taken care of and I am sure the Minister will do so. I welcome the Bill.

I welcome the Minister for Equality and Law Reform to the House. I welcome the introduction of the Bill and look forward to its speedy passage through the House, with full debate of all the issues. It is important to the occupiers of all property to have this Bill signed into law and operational as quickly as possible. This Bill is similar to the one which I introduced into this House in May 1994, and I thank Senator Kiely for his references to that.

Ireland is one of the most litigious countries in Europe. The compensation culture is like a cancer eating our society and almost borders on the immoral. The State must move quickly to halt the slide down a slippery slope where all commercial and service facilities will eventually grind to a halt. This problem must be recognised and action taken. I ask the Minister, if he has not already done so, to request the Law Reform Commission as a matter of urgency to examine the situation around this development and issue recommendations.

We must reverse the development of the claims culture, which is now an open wound in our society. Members of the public are encouraged by a small number of unscrupulous lawyers to view a minor scratch, fall, graze or pulled muscle as a means to obtaining a fortune. Apart from the insurance complications for employers, motorists and public authorities such as county councils, corporations and so on, this trend has other enormously negative effects. No area of human activity has been spared the paralysis that has accompanied the escalation in the number of claims. For example in schools, teachers can no longer send a student to the nearest shop for a message. Farmers can no longer open a drain without worrying if somebody will fall into it. Open season has been declared on public houses, clubs, hotels and supermarkets for people who simply fall on their premises. The compensation culture is pervasive and is on its way to destroying the ordinary decent person's enjoyment of society. The playground, where so many young children have enjoyed themselves over the decades in parks and at seasides, is almost a thing of the past. It is now almost impossible to obtain insurance cover to operate swings, slides, climbing frames and so on.

I especially welcome the changes in the Bill as originally published which remove the specific provisions in regard to minors and persons with a mental handicap. These deal with a duty owed to recreational users and trespassers. The original provisions in these subsections were the most controversial of the Bill and it was the area which most contrasted with the provision included in the Private Members' Bill introduced to this House this time last year. I would especially like to congratulate the Minister for re-examining that situation in line with the present Programme for Government. I always commend a Minister who makes a decision, looks at the provision objectively and decides a change would improve the situation.

It is important to note that even though there are no special provisions in the Bill to deal with minors, a court can never be entirely prevented from taking the capacity of a child plaintiff into account in its findings. Factors such as the age of the child and his or her ability to appreciate danger will therefore continue to be material in any case coming before the courts notwithstanding the removal of the express provisions from the original text of the Bill as first published. The removal of the provisions will allay the fears of many organisations and individuals who saw in them the imposition of a special duty of care towards children who are either recreational users or trespassers.

The changes introduced by the Minister have met the serious concerns of many reasonable people who raised them in many for a throughout the country. The objective of the Bill before the House is to increase the protection of occupiers of land against claims by trespassers and recreational users. It is important that recreational use of land is facilitated to the widest extent possible. It is important to create a climate where occupiers will not be deterred from making their land available for such use because they fear being sued for personal injury. The situation at present where farmers are liable for all accidents occurring on their land, even if the person who has an accident and makes a claim is trespassing, is intolerable.

We have a long history of allowing sporting and recreational events to take place on farms. The Bill, when enacted, will facilitate the continuation of this traditional activity and the high level of goodwill between the farming community and various sporting organisations, which has been present for many centuries.

The Bill provides for three classes of entrant: a visitor, a trespasser and a recreational user. A visitor is a person whose presence on the premises is lawful. As such, the term covers those invited on to the premises by an occupier, as well as those permitted by that occupier to be there. It also includes entrance as of right, such as those authorised under statute to enter premises for some official purpose.

A trespasser is a person whose presence on the premises is unlawful. A third class deals with recreational users. These are defined as those who, without payment of any charge, enter the premises to engage in a recreational activity which is conducted in the open. This category will also apply to those who visit sites and buildings of historical, national or scientific importance. The fact that an occupier gives permission for such an activity to be engaged in will not result in the entrant being elevated to visitor status.

Section 3 sets out the duty owed by an occupier of premises to a visitor. This is the common duty of care, which means a duty to take reasonable care that the visitor does not suffer personal injury or damage to his or her property by virtue of any danger existing on the premises. The duty owed to recreational users and trespassers is that the negligence principles will not apply. Instead, the duty is not to injure such users intentionally or act with reckless disregard for them. The approach taken is that trespassers and recreational users should in the main be able to take care of themselves and the occupier should not be liable, except where they behave with reckless disregard for the presence of such entrants.

We must examine the open sore of the claims culture which permeates society. Perhaps the Minister could consider the way in which New Zealand has dealt with the problem, where a State run, no fault insurance scheme was introduced. Perhaps this measure could be considered in an effort to reduce the spiralling cost of insurance premia. The scheme provides universal, 24 hour no fault insurance cover for employers, workers, non-workers, including children, the unemployed and visitors to the country.

The New Zealand Accident Compensation Act established one of the world's most progressive schemes for compensating injured people. I discussed this matter with lawyers and they suggested that there may be some constitutional difficulties, but it should be examined. The scheme in New Zealand was established as a pay-as-one-goes system and funded by premia payments from employers, the self employed, motor vehicle owners and drivers.

Participation in the scheme was compulsory and the right to sue for negligence through the courts was abolished. Employers premia were set by the Government at a flat rate to cover the cost of non work related injuries. However, a range of different industrial classifications was established for work injuries. Once the scheme was introduced, people were entitled to immediate compensation if injured regardless of fault. They were also entitled to compensation for permanent disability and loss of income equal to 80 per cent of their weekly income, on which a ceiling was imposed. Compensation was also available for temporary or permanent disability, with adjustments for inflation, and provision was made for the needs of the dependants of victims. The effect of the scheme has been to remove the business of personal injury cover and compensation from the ambit of the commercial insurance industry and the legal profession. It has created a completely new situation in the country. Perhaps this prototype would not be suitable for Ireland, but given the way things are progressing, we must seriously examine the entire area of insurance cover, payments and the claims culture.

I also acknowledge the valuable work of the Law Reform Commission in producing a consultancy report and a final report with recommendations on this issue. These reports were well received throughout the country by organisations which are concerned about this area. One of the commission's reports was the document most studied by the public. I commend the Minister and I look forward to the speedy passage of the Bill.

I am delighted with the provisions of the Bill, which take a common sense approach, and I am sure it will meet with almost universal approval. In the course of the Bill's preparations the Minister consulted a wide range of interested parties and it is important to note that he listened to their views. It seems to me that Ministers usually set out with good intentions, but form a circle of advisers around them and do not listen to grassroot views. This accusation cannot be levied at this Minister because he listened to what people had to say.

I pay special tribute to the IFA and the National Game Council at both local and national level for the way in which they approached this legislation. While the Bill will affect all property owners, the IFA and the game council took the most interest in it and its excellence is due in no small way to their input.

The Bill will make it clear to occupiers that they have a duty towards three classes of entrants: visitors, recreational users and trespassers. They will know exactly where they stand in relation to these three categories. Almost all farmers are anxious to allow people on to their land for recreational purposes, such as those who want to go for a walk and breath fresh air or those who want to shoot and hunt.

Farmers were afraid because they did not know where they stood if an accident happened. This was particularly the case for small farmers, who could be taken to the cleaners. They may have been forced to sell up if the accident was sufficiently serious. I recall that Muintir na Tíre organised a collection outside church gates in my parish, when a case was taken against a farmer, to ensure that he would not be forced from his property. The situation was quite serious. The Bill will completely clear up this area and farmers will know where they stand.

The Bill was required and it will help stop the move down the slippery slope of compensation claims. This took off to an alarming degree in recent years and it affects everybody — big and small farmers, people living in cottages and those working on building sites. I welcome the Bill and I hope it will be enacted as soon as possible. It is essential and should not be delayed a day longer than necessary.

I welcome the Minister to the House. I am sure, once the Minister has heard the views of the House, that he will make this a most workable Bill. I speak on this Bill as one who over the years has become very much involved in community activities in my town and barony. Playgrounds and the like have been forced to close due to litigation. Because of the existing legislation on occupiers' liability, this country will become a paradise for insurance companies and legal institutions but will become intolerable for the community at large.

Minors and toddlers who use slides and swings in town parks have to be accompanied by adults who have to be responsible for them while they are in the playground. If equipment in a park malfunctions or breaks and causes injury to a child, the responsibility lies solely with the owners or committee of the park. However, after closing time, when it is dark, parks have been used by minors for cider drinking and other undesirable activities. They have been known to uproot flower beds and break shrubs. In the event of any of them being injured they should be prosecuted as trespassers rather than being allowed to take action against park committees.

In my area minors have entered a building site, where 12 or 14 houses are being built beside housing estates which are already occupied. The have gone over eight foot palings, have torn down signs which indicated they should stay out and have caused devastation inside and outside those unfinished houses, putting the contractor to enormous expense. If a night-watchman was employed there, his life would become intolerable because he would be engaged at one side of the housing estate while the devilment went on at the other side. These children, while carrying out this devastation, were in a position to injure themselves severely. The building contractor should not be responsible. Their parents should be made answerable for the damage their children caused and should be made pay for it.

I have a failing in that I have never passed a national monument without investigating it. Farmers are under extreme pressure when they let people through their land to visit monuments or historic sites. If pathways could be established through farmers' lands to sites, preferably on a bounds ditch, such pathways should be taken over by the Office of Public Works to become its responsibility and to be maintained by it. If there are any briars, rabbit holes or badgers holes on pathways, they should be looked after by the Office of Public Works. This onus should not be on farmers. In this way the Office of Public Works would alleviate farmers of a great deal of responsibility.

For those not familiar with farmers' lands and who think they have access to it, and where there may be dangerous or cross animals, farmers should be obliged to place notices on gates to indicate this fact. As a young boy, when fishing on a river bank on one occasion I was confronted not by a wild bull or cow but by a puck goat. He was bent on making an impression on me, but fortunately was not able to do so because I was able to climb a fairly supple ash tree.

In my home town there is a fishing club of 90 members, consisting of youths and adults. Of the membership fee of £6, insurance accounts for £2. Its members have an arrangement with the farmer through whose land they have access to rivers that their membership cards will be presented on demand by the farmer. This has worked well in my area and in other areas throughout the country. The club provides stiles over bounds ditches and these reduce accidents. This is with the co-operation of the farmer. Those stiles are maintained by the fishing clubs.

Many farmer own guns and are attached to the local gun club. There is an inbuilt insurance in the gun club's membership fee. Many accidents have taken place during morning shoots. Such mornings have often started pleasantly but finished with fatal accidents.

These are the issues which must be addressed locally. If such clubs are restricted, the activities of the people of rural Ireland would be severely spancelled. No tourist brochure could be issued outside the country inviting tourists here if these aspects were not included in it. I am sure the Minister will address these issues and present a package which will be capable of attracting the tourists we badly need and will discourage the compensation culture.

I sincerely thank all Senators who contributed so constructively to the debate on this important Bill. Its importance is that for the first time occupiers will have a statutory set of principles which will govern their liability to all categories of entrants, whether they are visitors, recreational users or trespassers. The liability to the last two categories has been spelt out in detail in the Bill so that the courts, when they come to apply the concept of reckless disregard, will have a number of specific criteria to guide them when coming to a proper decision. The uncertainty which now surrounds this area of occupiers' liability not only makes it difficult to predict what the outcome of any claim might be but causes anxiety on the part of large sections of the farming community.

Senator Rory Kiely mentioned some of the concerns farmers have about the possibility of large claims being made against them for injuries sustained by recreational users and trespassers on their land. I appreciate those concerns and know they are genuinely felt. They were fully articulated by the main farming organisations with whom I and my Department maintained close contact before and since the publication of the Bill. I am glad that its provisions, as initiated and subsequently amended, have been welcomed by those organisations.

Senator Neville spoke about the difficulty of getting insurance cover for sporting activities because of the high incidence of claims. The Bill should help to improve the situation in this respect by setting out clearly the exact extent of an occupier's liability to the different categories of users and, in the case of recreational users and trespassers, setting out the series of guidelines for the courts which will enable them to determine the issue in accordance with the Act. Insurance companies, therefore, will find this additional clarity a facility to enable them to resist unwarranted claims to a far greater extent than they can at present and so reduce the number of cases where settlements are made before the trial of the action. We are talking about unwarranted claims. Claims that are genuine and warranted and due to unacceptable fault on behalf of an occupier or a car driver, have to be dealt with by the courts.

There is a lot of talk about the claims culture in this country, but at the end of the day our courts exercise their functions in a careful and responsible manner. Cases have to be proved and if injuries sustained are insignificant, damages will not be awarded and if the claims are minor, minor and trifling damages would be awarded. The courts are skilled and experienced in dealing with these matters. We have to be careful that we do not throw out the baby with the bathwater in this kind of situation; we must distinguish between genuine and other claims. When people have claims based on wrongs committed by occupiers or anybody else, those rights have to be preserved.

This Bill incorporates the results of many of the representations made not only by the farming organisations but also by sporting organisations. I have also taken account of the debates in the Dáil which were conducted, in a similar manner to this debate, in a constructive spirit. I assure Senators that I will give careful consideration to what has been said in this House and to any amendments that may arise on Committee Stage.

Question put and agreed to.

When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?

On Wednesday, 7 June.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 7 June 1995.
The Seanad adjourned at 3 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 30 May 1995.
Barr
Roinn