---

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Surely landowners might decide to eliminate all man- made features--for example, bridges--on the grounds that they would not be liable if a person struggled across a stream, but would be liable if they went across a bridge which proved to be defective. The same would apply to stiles. The sensible farmer might remove what is currently provided for the benefit of those using the land.

Mr. Green: My right hon. and learned Friend is characteristically right. In Committee, we had discussions along these lines. The effect of the Bill is to induce perverse and damaging behaviour on the part of farmers and landowners. The Minister might find that the Bill was considerably improved by acceptance of the amendments.

If the Minister does not wish to take my word for it, I recommend that he read the advice of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, which says:

If the public are given a new statutory "right of access" . . . they must accept that the countryside contains hazards and they might cause themselves injury.

That is fair enough.

People who damage themselves while trespassing are less likely to try and sue the estate than people who have a right of access. Suing is increasingly a problem because of the rise of the no-win no-fee solicitors who advertise their services widely.

The Minister is in danger of creating a mare's nest; the combination of other factors with this inadequate part of the Bill could lead to an increase in insurance premiums which would badly affect hard-pressed farmers and lead to an increase in frivolous litigation. If the Minister and the Government admit--as they clearly do in the amendments they propose--that natural features should be defined so widely as to try to encompass everything on which walkers could injure themselves, why do they not go the whole hog and omit the word "natural"? Occupiers' liability would thus be removed if walkers damaged themselves on features of the landscape.

7.30 pm

Mr. David Heath: I thank the Under-Secretary of State for accepting the principle underlying the point I made in Committee on plants and trees. There was obviously a problem; a certain liability had not been considered. I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for doing as he said and introducing an amendment.

I remain concerned about the word "natural". I share many of the anxieties expressed by the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green)--although not when he says that, in order to avoid liability for the effects of plants and trees, landowners will create stockades of cactuses around their estates.

Mr. Green: I was making that point in relation to small parcels of land. Of course, people would not erect such

13 Jun 2000 : Column 853

constructions around estates, but they might do so around those small pieces of land that the Government do not want excluded from the Bill.

Mr. Heath: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that helpful explanation. However, the fact that there was no liability in respect of accidental harm to a person using the land would not remove responsibility for maintaining access if the land was designated access land; there would still be an obstruction. However, I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was making a serious point.

The key problem relates to natural features of the landscape. Everyone who has read the Bill dispassionately has latched on to that term and wondered what it would mean in law. We discussed the difficulties in Committee. We referred to man-made, but historic, features; for example, former mineral workings. Does a pit from which building stone or lead is being extracted form a natural feature, or does it not? Are we not simply creating work for lawyers?

I am indebted to the hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas), who was most helpful to us in Committee. He referred to the degree of liability that would apply under the measure as drafted. The hon. Gentleman is learned in the law and, in his view, the duty of care that would apply to a person using land for access would be that specified under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984. He gave that definition as

such care as is reasonable in all the circumstances of the case to see that he--


the trespasser--


does not suffer injury on the premises.

We went on to discuss whether a greater duty of care would be implied under the measure, because it dealt not with trespassers but with people who had a right of access to land. Did that imply that a slightly higher duty of care would exist?

We did not receive a wholly satisfactory answer from the Minister for the Environment. He said that

such liability would be at a very low level--the duty of common humanity--as set out in the case of Herrington v. British Railways Board.--[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 18 April 2000; c. 391-98.]

Is that a correct interpretation of the level of care required? What are the implications for a landowner? If the amendment is not accepted, how will a landowner ensure that he or she is properly undertaking that duty of care to a person walking on his or her land in respect of hazards that are not natural?

There would be some difficulty in complying with that duty. If the feature was something that could be repaired--for example, the bridge to which the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) referred--the best solution would be to remove it altogether. However, if something was not repairable--a hazard in its own right--presumably landowners would have a duty to provide warning signs, unless, of course, they were likely to find themselves in breach of clause 14 by erecting a notice that deterred people from access to the land.

There is a significant problem that has not yet been addressed. The word "natural" is unhelpful in this context; it merely provides the grounds for legal challenge. Ministers must reconsider the matter before it reaches another place, where people with far more knowledge of

13 Jun 2000 : Column 854

the law than I will dissect our considerations and come to a view that will, I suspect, not be helpful to the Government.

Mr. Simon Thomas: I too want to make a few remarks on amendment No. 8. I welcome the opportunity to discuss that important provision, because it tests the Government's thinking on the matter.

The farming communities in which we live are all man-made. The features of the landscape that we see every day are man-made--that is one of the joys of our countryside. It has an intimate link with the population that has lived there for many thousands of years.

There is an example on my doorstep. I live near an iron age Celtic fort. It is much walked and may well come under the provisions of the Bill--depending on the exact definition of cultivated land--because there is grassland around it. On top of the fort, there is a 19th-century structure. I am told that it is supposed to be one of Wellington's cannons--to commemorate the battle of Waterloo.

Sometimes students from the university try to climb up or abseil down that cannon. According to the definition in the Bill, the cannon would be a man-made structure. What liability would apply to its private landowner? If a person on that land was injured, how would the landowner be liable? Would it be for the fort, the dykes, the ditches, the cannon, or the access to the land--the fences, the stiles and steep grazing land?

More thought should be given to that aspect of the measure. There is a real fear that farmers will be liable for actions over which they have no control. When farmers have access land, they cannot control where individuals go on it. They might erect signs, but they cannot mark every danger on their land. If they put up a general sign, they might fall foul of other provisions, as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) pointed out.

There are other hazardous items on farmland--especially in upland areas--such as small reservoirs or abandoned farm buildings. Electric fences are sometimes used to move stock from one piece of grazing land to another. How would those be brought within the ambit of the Bill? Amendment No. 8 offers a considerable improvement by removing the word "natural". Unless the Government can produce a clearer definition of "natural", we shall have some difficulties.

Public liability insurance is another consideration. That may put an extra burden on farmers and landowners. I do not know how many farmers are able to keep up their insurance payments in these hard times; such payments may be the first to go. However, under the provisions of the Bill, there is no doubt that there will be an increase in public liability insurance payments. I hope that farmers will not face too large an increase in those payments. So that they do not, I hope that the Minister will give a more detailed explanation of the liability provisions in relation to man-made and natural features on a landowner's land.

Mr. Bennett: I shall be brief. I do not support the Opposition's amendment, which would remove the word "natural", but I think that the Government should give a little more thought to the issue. It is not a question of exempting the landowner totally from responsibility, but the Government should consider the possible application of health and safety legislation to this issue.

13 Jun 2000 : Column 855

It is reasonable that landowners should take the precautions that are necessary to make their land safe for the people who work on it. Anything that makes that land unsafe for the people who work on it should be considered the liability of the landowner, but anything that occurs as a result of the activities of someone walking across the land should be a matter for which the walker should consider having insurance. One of the messages that the Bill should send out is that walkers should consider insurance cover for what they may do to others and for the accidents that may occur for which no reasonable landowner could be held responsible.

The Government should not accept the amendment, but they should give the matter a little further thought. The extent to which landowners should be liable should be based on the provisions in the health and safety legislation which say that the landowner should ensure that his estate is safe for the people who normally work on it.

---