Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)

I am glad to have an opportunity to speak on this legislation, which I regard as extremely important. I compliment the Minister on bringing it before the House. The only point that worries me is that it affects many facets of our lives. It spreads the net very broadly in terms of the application of the law. It contains many improvements, such as the good samaritan provision, the provision of legal advice to victims of human trafficking, the codes pertaining to intoxicating liquor, which were mentioned by other Members, and measures on bankruptcy.

I welcome the proposals on the good samaritan. Will the Minister refer in his reply to the question of proximity and the degree to which a good samaritan can, in good faith, attempt to offer assistance in an emergency given that he or she may find out later that somebody else may adjudicate on whether he or she should have offered assistance at the time in question? Reference was made to the degree of competence of the good samaritan. The Bill will insert section 51D to the Civil Liability Act 1961, under which there must be close proximity between the apprehended injury and the intervention. In other words, if a person is in serious and imminent danger of loss of life or worse injury then an intervention should take place for which somebody would be covered under the Act. However, I ask the Minister to clarify in his reply the situation whereby a person does not have an adequate level of competence to be able to make a determination as to what is imminent and serious.

We all know the old story of the well-meaning and well-intentioned person who offers assistance at a roadside crash. There may be imminent tragic circumstances such as a danger of the vehicle going on fire with obvious consequences. However, if this is not the case and a serious back or neck injury ensues after a person who is not qualified attempts to offer assistance, to what extent will this person be covered? I ask the Minister to make reference to this.

The Bill does not address the question of whether a duty of care exists in any particular circumstances. It is silent on what categories of intervention would attract a duty of care. Must a good samaritan intervening in a particular situation make a commitment to continue in attendance at whatever cost? There may be other imminent and pressing dangers. These issues need to be brought into focus. I note the Law Reform Commission has made a number of recommendations in this area.

Reference has been made to human trafficking. We all know of cases where there has been clear evidence of trafficking of children and teenagers. Unfortunately, ample evidence exists of many such people having gone missing in this jurisdiction but no evidence exists of where they ended up. This is sad and I hope the provisions in this Bill will deal with this. The Bill also makes reference to the harvesting of organs and all that goes with it.

I have two views on bankruptcy. In many cases, bankruptcy is harsh and may unnecessarily inflict huge penalties on a person doing his or her best trying to remain solvent, to discharge his or her debts and to be of good behaviour in this regard. Others have made it a badge of honour to avoid their responsibilities and every possible opportunity of discharging their financial responsibilities. They will use every loophole possible available to them and sometimes the law appears to assist them.

Will the Minister give an indication on the case of a householder with a liability of €500,000 who discharges €400,000 but is then put into bankruptcy because he or she has not discharged the remainder? I dealt with a case of this nature in the very recent past. This is unfair. In the case with which I am familiar, it was unfair of the financial institution to proceed in this fashion. It took mean advantage of the situation and has unnecessarily penalised the unfortunate person, who will be forced to remain out of business. Even the length of time envisaged in the Bill would be too great a penalty in this case.

The provisions in the Bill on the enforcement of maintenance orders are a good idea. It is important also to recognise that in the present economic climate it is difficult to enforce maintenance orders because the person against whom the order is about to be made may well be unemployed and may have the entitlement of a single person receiving a social welfare payment or a basic payment. The possibility of putting the person in prison until payment is made is not a worthwhile proposition. In all the cases which I have dealt with over the years one would tend to be cautious when asking people who have limited means to go through legal channels to enforce maintenance orders. Agreement between the couple, if possible, is a better option.

The proposals on the requirement for immigrants to have identification papers or passports is a good idea. However, people have arrived on our shores with no identification whatsoever. Perhaps their families have been summarily executed; this is not the normal situation but it has happened. I am sure everyone in the House has come across cases where a person was the only remaining living member of a family, because the rest of the family was murdered or slaughtered or however you want to phrase it. Will the Minister dwell on this for an instant to determine what type of identification papers might be acceptable in such cases?

I am most concerned about easements. For those of us who, for our many sins, live in rural Ireland the definitions of a right of way, an easement, or a liability accruing therefrom can raise the temperature very considerably. I have dealt with cases on this, as I am sure has everyone else in the House. It is the easiest thing in the world for a person who has no entitlement to anything on somebody else's property to pretend he or she has and to proceed to register an entitlement or an implied entitlement over a long period of time. I have very little respect for people who spend their time eyeing up other people's property with a view to getting a share of it or an entitlement to part of it or to being compensated in order to relinquish part of an alleged entitlement as a result of their clever manoeuvring of the system over a period of time. I realise fully that what is proposed is to ease the system to be more amenable to e-registration. Will the Minister respond to this?

I am concerned about the e-system. Some weekends each of us receives 500 or 600 e-mails. I often ask myself what people do in their spare time if they have the time to write 600 or 700 e-mails.

See this speech in context