Máire Hoctor (Tipperary North, Fianna Fail)

Táim buíoch díot as ucht an t-am a thabhairt dom chun an tairiscint seo a phlé. I am unsure why exactly the Opposition brought this Bill before us today. While we can give it the benefit of the doubt by acknowledging that good intentions were involved, it is clear from the short summary of the Good Samaritan Bill that a lot more information must be gathered if this is to be taken seriously.

I draw Members' attention to section 2 which states:

(1) Notwithstanding the rules of common law, a person other than a health care professional acting in the course of employment who—

(a) provides emergency first aid assistance to a person who is ill, injured or unconscious as a result of an accident or other emergency,

(b) provides the assistance at the immediate scene of the accident or emergency, and

(c) has acted voluntarily and without reasonable expectation of compensation or reward for providing the services described,

is not liable for damages that result from his or her negligence in acting or failing to act while providing the services, unless it is established that the damages were caused by the gross negligence of the person.

This seems to imply that people who witness an emergency of somebody suffering from cardiac arrest could be deemed liable if they do not act at the scene. I will not pretend to be a medical expert but the bystander theory suggests that where a small group gathers around such incidents, a far greater expectation exists that one member of the group will act in time to intervene, hopefully in the better interests of the victim. However, the larger the number of bystanders at such a scene, the higher the likelihood that nobody will intervene. If this is to be carried through, the people who gather at such a scene could all be deemed negligent if they do not act appropriately. I ask the Opposition to define gross negligence. How bad must the negligence be before it becomes gross negligence? That is a dangerous road to take. It could be dangerous to the health and safety of a victim to be aided by someone untrained, even someone with the best of intentions. Serious spinal and nerve injuries, for example, are often features of accidents — the Acting Chairman, Deputy Cowley, would know more about this than I would. It is the opinion of most medical doctors that good samaritan assistance in terms of moving a victim from the scene of an accident could do much more damage than the good samaritan may ever realise. For example, when a car accident occurs and the car is possibly in danger of going up in flames, and a person in the back may have potentially permanent spinal damage, what is a person to do? We must rely on people who are medically trained rather than the ordinary Joe or Josephine Soap in the street feeling obliged to act or otherwise perhaps be seen to be negligent. Such an occurrence worries me.

Reference has been made to the use of defibrillators in GAA clubs, golf clubs and other areas where people are often gathered in large numbers and where the danger of cardiac arrest might be increased. We are still awaiting the report on sudden cardiac arrest syndrome which is due to be published shortly and which, I understand, will address the issues in greater detail. It is of the greatest importance that people who are trained in the use of defibrillators are the people to act, whether on the side of the street or in GAA clubs, for example, because the use of such equipment can pose great dangers to the victims or patients if those using it are not trained in its use.

I have great reservations in this area. I accept the Opposition brought this Bill to the House in good faith but it has not been sufficiently thought through. We are talking of human life in an emergency, where the swiftest action at the time must be the correct action. We cannot have people hesitating and then perhaps diving in to assist, feeling that they could be seen to be liable or negligent in not acting. Using the words "voluntarily" and "gross negligence" in the manner the Opposition does in its proposed legislation is dangerous. I am concerned about that. I also share the concerns of my colleagues and of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, who clearly outlined in the House last night his concerns. His legal expertise must be respected.

This issue should be given more time and thought, with more detail provided. We may have an opportunity to discuss it on another occasion and give it the time it deserves.

See this speech in context