Right to Roam: Insurance Claims (Hansard, 30 March 1999)

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, no.

§ Lord Renton of Mount Harry
My Lords, I suggest that the Government do so. Not knowing how those exercising the right to roam will be compensated for accidents is another deterrent to landowners who might otherwise enter into voluntary agreements in relation to increased access to land. Does the Minister know that even in my gentle part of the Sussex downland, a large area, under the Minister's proposals, may well become available for free access? It is possible when climbing a fence to put one's hand on rusty barbed wire and contract tetanus, or walk through grass, put one's foot into a badger hole and break one's leg. Potholes do not exist only in Regent Street, as mentioned by my noble 201 friend Lord Elton. Who will pay the vast claims that might arise? The Government should give thought to that.

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, the Government do not expect the new statutory right of access on foot to open countryside to have a significant impact on public insurance costs for landowners. Their liability to people who are exercising that right will be the same as the liability which they already owe to those who are not on the land by their invitation or licence. Therefore landowners and their advisers will wish to decide whether and to what extent insurance, including public liability insurance, is appropriate for their needs. An economic appraisal study by independent consultants for the Government suggests that any increase in the public liability insurance premium will be very small.

§ The Earl of Radnor
My Lords, does the Minister realise that this will add another expense to farmers' accounts at a difficult time? Further, does he realise that the right to roam and the use of the countryside by people who do not understand it is growing apace? People do not know the difference between a bull and a cow; do not know that a cow with her calf is very dangerous; and do not know that allowing dogs to go everywhere can excite all the animals. It is not just wire fences; I suspect that soon someone will be killed.

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, the assessment by independent experts does not suggest that the insurance costs to landowners will be significantly greater than now. Your Lordships are aware that the right of access does not apply to cultivated land; it applies to moor, heath and downland. There is not therefore the direct effect on farmed land that the noble Lord assumes.

Viscount Bledisloe
My Lords, if, contrary to the Minister's expectation, the cost of insurance increases substantially, will the Government be prepared to indemnify the landowner against that added cost? If the answer is no, will the Minister explain why the landowner should bear that added cost as a result of rights imposed upon him for others to roam on his land?

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, all occupiers of premises or land owe to some degree a duty of care to those who are there whether or not by invitation. It varies, but there is a duty of care. There is no reason why countryside landowners should be treated and indemnified any differently from owners of other premises and property.

§ Lord Campbell of Alloway
My Lords, is the position that the liability of the landowner will be no different to the liability as it now exists as regards trespassers to deter the laying of mantraps, or is a greater duty of care to be imposed? I did not understand what the noble Lord was saying.

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, the noble Lord's presumption is correct. There will be no difference in 202 liability in kind as compared with the current liability in relation to trespassers or to anyone else who is there not by explicit invitation.

§ Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
My Lords, does the Minister accept that there are bound to be some difficulties concerning land over which people have the right to roam? I know the Countryside Agency is mapping the areas, but there will be some on the margin. Does he further accept the undesirability of what insurers may demand of landowners? I refer to signs mushrooming up everywhere saying, "Beware cliff', "Beware deep ditch". Does the Minister not feel that that will be an undesirable outcome? Is it not a pity that the Government will not give more time to working with landowners on such issues?

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, the noble Baroness is correct. A detailed mapping exercise is envisaged as part of the process of introducing the right to roam. In some areas it will be a complex task. In relation to warning notices, it is already the case that, where landowners are or ought to be aware of hazards, they have a duty to point them out. That will remain the case. I do not anticipate a large number of notices appearing all over our open countryside, which I believe is the nightmare envisaged by the noble Baroness. There is already a requirement on landlords in that respect.

§ Lord Ackner
My Lords, is there anything in the proposed legislation to stop the landowner exhibiting a notice disclaiming all liability to those who wish to roam his land?

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, there is nothing to stop him displaying it, but there is in existing law a liability which he cannot escape.

§ Baroness Byford
My Lords, does the Minister not consider that those who ramble actually have responsibilities themselves in this regard? Surely the responsibility should not be placed on landowners. Will the noble Lord also agree that his honourable friend, Mr. Bennett in the other place, who I understand is a keen rambler himself, acknowledged only last Friday that ramblers have a responsibility and should not expect to be able to sue the landowner for accidents that they might have caused? I believe he also acknowledged that the matter needs sorting out.

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, my right honourable friend Michael Meacher and all spokespeople on this proposed legislation have always emphasised the responsibility of the ramblers as well as that of the landowners. However, this potential situation can be exaggerated. If we take the kind of land which, in a sense, is more or less the equivalent of National Trust open countryside property, which has had 50 million visitors over a five-year period, we can see that there were precisely 47 incidents only one of which ended up with a settled claim amounting to less than £2,000. Therefore, I hope that noble Lords will not exaggerate the problem.

§ Baroness Young of Old Scone
My Lords, in passing this very welcome legislation to allow people to fall into 203 badger holes should they so wish, can my noble friend assure the House that the Government will also pass accompanying legislation to ensure that the protection of sites of special scientific interest is enhanced and properly assured while access is increased?

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, I am not entirely sure that I accept my noble friend's description of the legislation. However, it is certainly the case that landowners and the statutory agencies will be able to indicate where there is danger to wildlife or natural features. Closures and restrictions with the authority of the statutory agencies would be appropriate in those circumstances.

§ Lord Rotherwick
My Lords, where damage is caused by a rambler to an SSSI, can the Minister say whether that damage would have to be put right by the landowner at his expense?

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, in normal circumstances and in terms of existing legislation, I believe that the answer to the question has to be yes, whether the damage was caused by a trespasser or anyone else.

§ Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish
My Lords, does that mean that a landowner of an SSSI can actually keep people off that land? Further, is the Minister aware of the number of hectares that are covered by SSSIs and, consequently, the number of often very beautiful parts of this country that will not be available to the public?

§ Lord Whitty
No, my Lords; it does not mean that. Indeed, no reading of what I said could mean that. I have indicated that in certain specific circumstances where there is obvious danger to sites or to wildlife, the statutory agencies will have the power to introduce some restrictions. That is all I have said. In general, SSSIs will be available for access to the vast majority of people in this country, After all, that is what the legislation is about.

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, how can a person be liable for damages in respect of something that someone else has created?

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, I fear that that situation arises in many walks of life. Unless you can actually catch the perpetrator, it is unlikely in this or in any other circumstance that the responsibility for repairing that site can be removed from the its owner. That is the situation. As the noble Baroness pointed out, the responsibility of ramblers themselves will be part of this approach, as will the responsibility of the statutory authorities to protect such areas in particular.

§ Lord Renton of Mount Harry
My Lords, can the Minister tell the House the name of the independent assessors to whom he twice referred in answering my Question? Further, can be say what agricultural experience they have?

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, at this moment I cannot give the House the information required. However, I shall write to the noble Lord. I can say that they were, 204 in general terms, experts in the insurance business rather than in the agricultural business. Indeed, I assume that agricultural insurance is a major area of concern to landowners and a major area of expertise within the insurance industry.

§ Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, leaving aside the question of SSSIs, can the Minister tell the House whether a landowner might have any legal redress against a rambler who caused damage—perhaps even wilful damage—by starting a fire and otherwise causing damage to his property?

§ Lord Whitty
Yes, my Lords. If he could identify the perpetrators, he would certainly have redress.