Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)

Twenty whole minutes, I thank the Ceann Comhairle. I am glad to have an opportunity to speak on this Bill which contains much material that affects the everyday life of people in this country, in both the commercial and the personal areas, and may have wider implications than we think. The purpose, according to the explanatory memorandum, is "to introduce amendments to the Civil Legal Aid Act of 1995 to allow the Legal Aid Board give legal advice in relation to criminal matters to alleged victims of human trafficking".

There are various forms of human trafficking. We believe that in times of economic recession such as the one in which we now live a greater danger exists that in a series of areas people may find themselves in a vulnerable position and, due to lack of resources, cannot afford to obtain various forms of legal advice that might be available to them. In order to ensure their rights and entitlements are maintained under the law they have a right to legal aid. It is appropriate this should be given, as in this Bill.

The Bill will cover a wide variety of situations. I am not certain whether the Minister of State is fully aware of the fairly substantial wider implications. The Bill will be called on to a much greater extent than is thought possible. The funding resources required because of the Bill will be much greater than anticipated at present. I say this because enormous backlogs already exist in regard to legal aid. There is difficulty even in trying to obtain an appointment. Along with the Bill there must be some recognition of the fact that the present system is totally clogged up. There is a requirement for the provision of some rules or regulations to speed up the process and to try to ensure the people who have an urgent need to have recourse to legal aid will be able to do so much more quickly than appears possible at present.

The Bill also aims to amend the law relating to civil liability for acts of good Samaritans and volunteer organisations, as has been mentioned by several Members. It is sad, a sign of the times and of developments in society that are not of a positive nature, that a person who volunteers to assist somebody could find himself or herself liable. There have been numerous such cases. It is sad that in some cases some people have become so mercenary as to use that kind of situation for their own benefit, exploiting the public concern of the good Samaritan. This situation is when a person sees something going wrong and decides to intervene.

That is a wider issue than people might assume at first sight. It is not always a case of a person rescuing another person, or interfering in a positive way to assist for a charitable purpose, or whatever. There have been numerous instances throughout the country where a concerned citizen has intervened in what appears to be a situation of civil disorder or general nuisance-causing in the context of social misbehaviour. We have come to know that by a different name nowadays because it is referred to as anti-social behaviour. In any event, there have been cases where people have been severely incapacitated as a result of becoming involved in such a situation. I am sure other Members of the House have met and dealt with such situations. When one sees the scars that may have to be carried by a victim for the rest of his or her life from some of this more serious antisocial behaviour, it is a timely reminder that provision must be made to safeguard the rights, entitlements and indemnification of a person who might intervene in such a positive fashion.

The Bill also proposes to introduce support for codes of practice on the sale of alcohol. I do not know whether this legislation will improve or amend the situation at all, but there are some serious problems with substance abuse in Ireland at present. This has become particularly evident with the closure of a number of pubs in the country, with the discouragement – for valid reasons – of people travelling to licensed premises for social purposes. There has been a growth in unsupervised house parties, with no bar staff or anybody to tell people they have had enough or ask them whether they have a home to go to.

The old social norms have been replaced by endless drinking, where there is no control whatsoever. As other speakers have said, this is fed by cut price drink that is freely available throughout the country. I cannot see this as being in any way beneficial to society. Worse still, it has caused serious social problems in many cases, often culminating in injury or worse. Whatever else is being proposed, in the context of this Bill, that needs to be looked at again, with a view to finding out what may be done to ensure that such situations are recognised.

Amendments are proposed as regards strengthening the provisions of the Private Security Services Act 2004 in relation to the licensing, enforcement and collection of fees. That is an issue about which I have tried to elicit some information in this House over the years, without success. I tabled a question to the Minister recently about the quality and ordering of security services, with particular reference to intruder systems. The Minister replied to the effect that this was a matter for the service providers. Clearly, it is not. Some standards and code of practice must apply to those who are involved in the very sensitive business of security systems installation, obviously. If a person has a security system attached to a house, factory, institution or whatever, and three our four days later the premises are broken into, he or she would be justified in asking serious questions.

I discovered something following a number of queries that arose in my constituency. Reputable people, including institutions, are providing intruder systems which are not reliable, and this is clearly known in advance by potential intruders. Members of the public only find out when they have become the victims of theft, or a break-in. The extent of the knowledge concerning defects in the system is well known throughout the security industry. For some unknown reason, Ministers past and present have either refused, failed to recognise or are reluctant to move in that area.

Something that needs to be known is that there is a requirement for a back-up system. If a back-up GSM system is not provided, the system is not secure. All that is needed is a power cut and the security has vanished. This is the first thing anybody thinking of breaking into a premises will consider. There is no difficulty in effecting a power cut, and professional burglars are adept at it. I know of a particular case where it was a week before the alarm system alerted the house owner or factory owner as to what had happened. That is a crazy system.

To my mind it is incumbent on whatever regulatory system is in place, who provides and offers a licence, to ensure that the householder, business premises or factory owner is protected in those circumstances. There is no sense in Ministers asserting that this is a matter for the service providers, in which case there is no regulation at all. In the event, there is no sense in having legislation and no point in asking questions in the House about this.

If the Ceann Comhairle is as frustrated as I am in dealing with those types of situation, he would be jumping up and down in the Chamber every morning, except it would not reflect well on the dignity of his office. However, I can assure him that it would motivate him because it is enormously frustrating and it is a major flaw in the whole security area that nothing is being done about it.

I was reading the provisions about the installation of security systems in relation to a person who installs, maintains, repairs or services electronic or other devices, constructed or adapted to give warning of, or record unauthorised entry or misconduct on or in the vicinity of the premises – the scanner systems, etc. I refer to section 6(a) in Part 4 of the Bill, and I hope it means something because the current situation is totally unsatisfactory. Countless people are being ripped off and can claim no compensation from anybody.

Will the Minister of State say whether there will now be provision for compensation for such people after the passage of this Bill? For example, if a house is cleaned out and a licensed security company has provided the intruder services, will there be a liability to ensure that the victim of the intrusion is protected? Otherwise, there is no sense in having an intruder system.

Alternatively, why not alert the entire population to the fact that several thousand premises throughout the country have alarm systems that do not work effectively? They do not work in the event of a power cut or where there is an interruption on the part of the telephone services, and as a result they are not satisfactory and do not do the job they were supposed to do. I believe this is an area that should be focused on as a matter of some urgency. It has caused me a great deal of annoyance, as I am sure it has done for other Deputies, over the years.

I promise not to digress and am being a very good lad on this occasion, a Cheann Comhairle, but the following has caught my eye, "amendments of the Equality Acts, to improve inter alia, the procedures of the Equality Tribunal,". My attention is drawn, in particular to the word "tribunal" and I do not know when we will ever see the end of the tribunals in this country. They should be able to do the job and wrap up. It should not take forever, because it is getting very costly. I appreciate there is only passing reference, and it is not directly targeting the Equality Tribunal at all, but refers to tribunals in general. The word "tribunal" is the trigger mechanism there. If that word were incorporated in alarm systems throughout the country, they would always work.

The Bill also proposes amendments to the Bankruptcy Act 1988 to allow for the application of a reduction in the discharge period from 12 to six years and to provide for automatic discharge of bankruptcies existing for 20 years or more. That is not before its time. Other speakers referred to the fact that in the current economic climate there will be many more bankruptcies and businesses going into liquidation than has been the case heretofore. Apart altogether from the current economic crisis, we need to modernise the law in regard to the length of time a person should have to remain in fallow land before being allowed to re-enter business.

I cannot understand the provision for automatic discharge of bankruptcies existing for 20 years or more. In some countries, people can have gone into liquidation or bankruptcy five or ten times in 20 years. I am not suggesting it should be easy to do so but I would be inclined to reduce the 20 years somewhat further. I do not believe that provision serves any useful purpose at present and will set out my reasons in this regard.

Nobody is anxious to see a situation whereby firms, groups, bodies or agencies become bankrupt in order to avoid discharging their liabilities. This does happen, has happened in the past and will happen again in the future. It has happened in the recent past to fairly big groups, bodies and agencies with huge assets or what appeared to be huge assets. These groups, bodies and agencies got to where they are now by whatever means and a new situation is now arising. The question that arises is should they be banned for 20 years or more? I believe that in any situation a reasonable time must be allowed to ensure people discharge their liabilities in so far as possible. Regard must also be had to their ability to discharge.

I am sure the Ceann Comhairle and other Members of the House have dealt in the past couple of years with constituents who will never be able to discharge their debts. On top of those debts are mounting legal and consultancy fees, interest penalties and so on. If that is not bad enough, a person in financial difficulty must also pay sheriff's fees of €5,000 to €10,000 on top of all that. In the mad rush for everybody to get a handful of goodies, the result will be collapse of the business with everybody getting a reduced amount.

Section 21 refers to the sums liable to be discharged in bankruptcy cases. It then sets out the level of fees that might be apportioned. Section 20 states: "The Bankruptcy Act 1988 is amended in section 61(3)(h) (amended by section 34 of the Courts and Court Officers 15 Act 2002) by the substitution of "€10,000" for "€7,000"." In 2004 we discussed the difference between these two amounts. It must be recognised at all times that there is a huge difference between €7,000 and€10,000 in terms of impact on small and big business. The impact of the extraction of the maximum amount of fees and liabilities on the smaller operator can have a devastating fact while the large operator might be able to survive.

I would like to have had time to deal with matters relating to family law. However, I will have to leave that to another day.

See this speech in context