Michael D'Arcy (Wexford, Fine Gael)

Good samaritan laws or Acts protect from liability those who choose to aid others who are injured or ill. They are intended to reduce bystanders' hesitation to assist for fear of being sued or prosecuted for unintentional injury or wrongful death.

In Canada, a good samaritan doctrine is a legal principle that prevents a rescuer who has voluntarily helped a victim in distress from being successfully sued for wrongdoing. Its purpose is to keep people from being reluctant to help a stranger in need for fear of legal repercussions if they were to make some mistake in treatment.

Good samaritan laws vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, as will their interactions with various other legal principles, such as consent, parental rights and the right to refuse treatment. Such laws generally do not apply to medical professionals' or career emergency responders' on the job conduct but some extend protection to professional rescuers when they are acting in a volunteer capacity. While US laws focus on shielding from liability those who choose to help in a situation they did not cause, European laws criminalise failure to help in such a situation. In Europe, people who do not help are convicted.

During the recent cold spell, I spoke to the director of transport in Wexford County Council. An offer to help grit the county roads was made by the farming community who had machinery capable of spreading the grit, more capable than that of the local authority. The director of transport was concerned, however, that for health and safety reasons he would have to leave the roads in a dangerous and unsafe condition. At some stage, someone will have to shout "Stop". Farmers were informed that the local authority would provide grit and that they could act in the common good by gritting the roads but that they would be open to prosecution if something went wrong. The law, as it stands, does not provide legal protection should an accident occur in such circumstances. At the start of the second decade of the 21st century, it is madness that this is the case.

The Minister of State, Deputy Curran, worked into the Charities Bill positive amendments tabled by this side of the House and thereby improved the legislation. I am at a loss to understand the reason the Government has decided not to accept this Bill, as we do not want similar legislation to be introduced in six months or six years. In October 2007, when the Labour Party introduced the Civil Partnership Bill, the Government indicated it would produce its own Bill. It failed to do so for a further two and a half years.

As I stated, the Minister of State is a positive member of the Government. Perhaps he will be promoted in the coming weeks, in which case I will extend my best wishes to him. However, having observed the operation of the Oireachtas since my election in the summer of 2007, I do not believe the House is fit for purpose. Its mode of operation dates from an earlier era and is a legacy of the early years of independence. For the life of me, I cannot understand the reason only three Private Members' Bills have been enacted in the past 30 years. While I accept that criticism can be levelled at the Fine Gael Party in government on that score, the Fianna Fáil Party has been in government for four out of every five years since independence. Since the establishment of the Dáil in 1919, approximately 30 Private Members' Bills have been accepted. If we are to continue along these lines, any attempt to reform the House will be a waste of time. I speak in a positive vein but if individuals choose not to participate in the political system and do not try to change it, they allow it to take charge. The system is not working or fit for purpose. As the guardian of the House, the Chamber of the people, the Ceann Comhairle must know that its structures must be changed to make it fit for purpose.

See this speech in context