Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)

I thank Deputies on all sides who have contributed to the debate. As I stated, I appreciate the Bill is wide-ranging, genuinely miscellaneous in the context of the number of areas it covers and ranges across provisions in 40 different statutes. I also appreciate the welcome given by Deputies on all sides to a variety of the provisions contained in the Bill. I also express appreciation for the co-operation we have received from the Opposition in being able to order Committee Stage relatively quickly so as to facilitate enactment of the legislation before the summer recess. This will be of particular assistance to a number of people, which is welcome. This is the type of legislation that we can deal with in this way.

I will do my best to respond to many of the comments that have been made. If I do not deal with some, I hope I will be forgiven because we will have an opportunity to deal with them more specifically on a section basis on Committee Stage. I will try as best I can to cover the broad range of issues that have been raised. At an early stage in the debate, Deputies Calleary and O'Brien raised issues arising out of representations they have received from the Irish Heart Foundation. Various Deputies raised issues with regard to work undertaken by an individual as a good samaritan who intervenes in an emergency, as prescribed by the legislation, or work undertaken by a volunteer acting under the aegis of a voluntary organisation. The Irish Heart Foundation has been in contact with my Department in the development of the provisions of the Bill dealing with volunteers and voluntary organisations. Its views have been taken into account and regard has also been taken of the report of the Law Reform Commission and the advice of the Attorney General and Parliamentary Counsel.

The further suggestions of the Irish Heart Foundation have been studied in my Department and were taken seriously. However, it is my view that the provisions in Part 3 with regard to the various definitions in question are sufficient and provide all of the various protections that are required in dealing with volunteers acting on behalf of an organisation such as the Irish Heart Foundation. It was of assistance and valuable that the foundation engaged with us. I give this assurance because I appreciate its concerns are genuine and come from a body that does important and valuable work and with which many people over the years have been engaged.

In the context of the general provisions relating to good samaritans, they are concerned with an individual who intervenes in what is described essentially as an emergency. This is where an event occurs and an individual, without any expectation of payment or reward, comes to the help of another individual. Some Deputies asked how one would know what expertise a good samaritan possesses. People may intervene to be of assistance to others in a broad range of circumstances. It may well be that a medical emergency arises and a qualified medical practitioner appears on the scene, intervenes and is of help. Equally, someone could have an accident or there could be a medical emergency and there may not be anyone nearby who has any qualifications and an ordinary, unqualified individual may try to be of assistance to someone who has been the victim of a car crash, has had a fall and broken a leg or has suddenly taken ill, for example, on a beach or golf course. Where someone in good faith seeks to intervene to be of assistance, essentially the legislation states that he or she will not be held liable in negligence. However, where someone intervenes in bad faith, for example, a person, knowing that he does not have a particular expertise attempts to do something of which he has absolutely no knowledge and does not know if he will be of any help to anyone, that person could be regarded as having intervened in circumstances in which he or she is being grossly negligent, knowing that he or she is going well beyond his or her competence to the extent that what he or she does may pose a danger to an individual. Whether someone has intervened in good or bad faith or is grossly negligent or merely ordinarily negligent, that is, where something goes wrong, although the person acts in good faith, are issues about which one cannot be absolutely exact. The courts have detailed the concept of negligence and differentiated it from gross negligence.

The recommendations and prescriptions of the Law Reform Commission in these areas were taken on board, together with the advice of the Attorney General, in drafting the Bill. Some of these issues are analysed in detail in the commission's report. The formula we have, dealing with matters that could be of concern when someone intervenes as a good samaritan or is engaged as a volunteer for an organisation, follows the recommendations received. The changes in the legislation should provide a degree of protection and comfort for individuals that is not provided by the current law and that I hope will be seen as particularly valuable.

A number of Deputies raised the issue of the licensing laws and liquor legislation. It is important that individuals drink responsibly, as those who have licences to sell alcohol, whether to be consumed on or off premises, should behave responsibly. On occasion, we may talk too much about those who sell alcohol and not enough about those who consume it. It is important that those who consume alcohol do so responsibly and take responsibility for their own actions. We are all thinking human beings. There are circumstances where people drink excessively, are not addicted and know they are drinking excessively. We cannot always blame the supermarket where alcohol was purchased for the foolish and unwise behaviour of individuals. We must take personal responsibility for our actions.

It is important that the licensed trade operates responsibly. There is and has been during the years a problem with alcohol being sold at a loss by retail outlets to attract custom. That can make alcohol more readily affordable and attract young people into acquiring more alcohol than they might normally do. It is important that outlets behave in a responsible manner.

Breaches of the guidelines envisaged in the legislation will not result in criminal prosecution. However, following the guidelines being put in place, if someone sells alcohol in a manner contrary to them and gives rise to problems, their failure to comply with them can be used to oppose their being granted a licence in the District Court. This will be an additional weapon for communities where a public house or an off-licence is being run irresponsibly and in the armoury of the Garda in raising issues in the annual licensing courts as to whether it is appropriate to renew a licence.

Deputy Calleary referred to the bankruptcy provisions, while other Deputies referred to them in different ways, some supportive and some critical. The Bill's provisions in the area of bankruptcy are interim arrangements. They are a small step along the road to introducing reform. A detailed insolvency Bill is being prepared in my Department. It will provide new mechanisms for dealing with insolvency and allow for insolvency issues to be addressed within structures outside the court system in a less expensive way. It will also prescribe a range of new rules. The Bill takes the first interim step in bringing about reform to allow bankruptcies in place for more than 12 years to be terminated and the office which deals with bankruptcies to write off the legacy issues that need to be dealt with before the new legislation is in place. I welcome the reactions of Deputies Calleary and O'Brien who were largely supportive of what we were doing.

In the Seanad and my Department we had a debate on whether the rule allowing bankruptcies to end at 12 years should be brought down to three or five years. There is no magic number. Deputy Durkan and others also touched on this issue. There is a range of problems in dealing with bankruptcy. There are individuals who have led responsible lives who, through no fault of their own, find themselves in substantial financial difficulty. This may be as a consequence of the reckless trading of someone else. I could be running a small business in a decent and responsible way and doing business with another firm for years and allowing it credit. In years gone by my bills might have been paid and over a period of time I might have allowed the credit made available to mount up. If the other business which is being run, perhaps, recklessly goes bankrupt, my debts will not be paid and my business will go to the wall as a consequence. I may be entirely innocent in the whole affair but could find myself facing bankruptcy in circumstances where I am a personal trader, not a limited liability company.

That is a profile of two bankruptcies. There is the innocent trader whose life is being brought to ruin and the reckless business for which that trader provided a product. The reckless owner may have drawn too much money from his business, bought expensive cars he could not afford and gone on expensive holidays, while the owner of the other business led a modest life. We must strike a balance within our bankruptcy laws where we do not reward those who trade recklessly and destroy other people's lives, while finding a mechanism to facilitate those who, through no fault of their own, find themselves facing bankruptcy to get out of that state, rebuild their lives and have the possibility of borrowing money and starting up businesses.

We decided on the five year rule to see how it would work. In the United Kingdom the five year period has been reduced to one year and I understand it is proving to be a problem. Difficulties are arising where people are abusing the bankruptcy laws to trade recklessly and reconstitute themselves a year later, leaving creditors in their wake who have no chance of recovering their assets. This is an initial step in this area. Under the EU-IMF agreement, we must produce comprehensive insolvency legislation by the first quarter of 2012. I am optimistic that we will manage to publish the Bill before the end of this year. I cannot guarantee this, but the work on the measure is at an advanced stage in my Department and I am hopeful we will achieve it. This Bill is an initial step. It is important that we take it, but it is not the end result to which we are heading.

It is important to keep the issue of bankruptcy in context because it is expensive to progress matters, even where people have substantial debts. There are very few bankruptcies. In 2010, despite all the economic difficulties and the many businesses and individuals that got into trouble, I am advised that a total of 27 individuals were declared bankrupt. We do not have a large number of people who find themselves bankrupt. However, we need a more balanced law. A more balanced law will achieve an important social purpose in this area.

With regard to the Coroners Acts, Deputy Calleary referred to the more comprehensive Bill that is to be published. Amendments to that are required in order that we can enact it and, hopefully, we can get that through in the autumn. The Deputy is also correct that we are working on comprehensive legislation to cover licensing laws. The legislation in that area is spread through a series of Acts. It is unnecessarily fragmented and too complex. I hope we will ultimately have a codified and reforming Bill in the House. We may not see that until after this year but work is under way.

Issues were raised by a number of Members in the context of changes in dealing with easements in what are known as profits á prendre. We can all conjure up the difficulties that arose in the well known play by a certain gentleman from Kerry, which resulted in the film, "The Field". It is not envisaged that this reform will generate such excitement because one can only use this mechanism if there is agreement. One cannot register in circumstances in which there is contention over land that might be utilised for a purpose or over the use of some resource on that land. Where there is contention, this mechanism does not apply. It is designed to ensure that where there is no contention, one can register one's interest in the Land Registry without incurring unnecessary legal costs and expense and without the necessity for heading down the court route. I hope that will be welcomed.

I cannot add much more to what I have said regarding the provision relating to the Irish language. The previous Government was going to insert a similar provision in the Bill it originally published. The previous Attorney General recommended that, as does the current Attorney General. It is there to resolve a difficulty. There is a timeline between when this House or the Seanad concludes Report Stage and completes the passage of legislation and the publication of the final version of a Bill. This is not about downgrading or undermining the role of the Irish language; it is simply about ensuring that when the Houses have done their business and completed the passage of a Bill, the final wording will be available electronically within a short time to Members, the public and those who may be affected by it in order that they have access to it rather than time elapsing before it becomes available. It is no more complex or mysterious than that. There is no hidden agenda in the matter and I hope this practical and pragmatic amendment, which is supported by my colleague, the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, will be supported by Members.

On the issue of human trafficking raised by Deputy O'Brien and others, the purpose of the provision is to ensure victims of human trafficking who, by their very origins, are unlikely to have any familiarity with the Irish legal system have available legal advice to them in order that they understand their circumstances and if criminal prosecutions are taken against those responsible for bringing them into the country or those who may have abused them by placing them in circumstances where they are sexually exploited, that they understand the benefits to them of co-operating with the Garda, their right to remain in this country for a period, how our criminal processes work, and what is their role and that of the prosecuting authorities and the defence lawyer.

They will be provided with a range of useful and important advice, which ensures we comply with our international obligations. The advice relates to their circumstances arising from the fact that they were trafficked to Ireland and the consequent criminal proceedings that may be taken against third parties. Witnesses in such proceedings in this State are not represented by separate groups of lawyers. If I am seriously assaulted as I leave this House this evening and criminal proceedings are taken on the recommendation of the DPP, State counsel and solicitors will be in court. A solicitor or a barrister would not represent me in court. The person who is represented in the court room is the defendant. This is the way our legal system works. It would be quite anomalous and, indeed, unnecessary to provide for separate legal representation by solicitor and counsel in the criminal trial for the victim in those circumstances. It is important that victims have access to legal advice in order that they can understand what is taking place. This is not a minimalist provision; this provision meets in full our international obligations. It is an important additional protection for the victims of human trafficking and it gives them formal statutory entitlements. It is again something I hope Members will support.

A number of Members raised the provision arising out of the recent court judgment, which will require non-nationals to produce identity documents to confirm who they are and to indicate whether they should be in the State. There is nothing exceptional about this provision. The difficulty that arose in the court proceedings was the vague nature of the legislation that applied. This legislation is more specific. In every country, there are rules about who is entitled to visit and immigration and to ensure the police force, in our case the Garda Síochána, can check the legality of the presence of individuals in the country. The necessity to do that is clearly evidenced by the fact that over the years a large number of people entered the country illegally as economic migrants and they were not validly asylum seekers nor were they here for any other purpose. It is important that we uphold our rules in this area to respect not only domestic law, but to show respect to those who come to this island from foreign parts lawfully. They respect our procedures and seek the appropriate entry visas if they are from outside the EU or from countries whose nationals are required to obtain visas and, where required, they seek the appropriate work permits. It is unfair to them that those checks do not exist.

Deputies raised other issues during the debate, not all of which I have time to deal with. The final matter I will briefly mention is imprisonment for non-payment of maintenance. There is a genuine problem in that individuals who because of sheer intransigent bloody mindedness and not financial difficulty will not support their wives and children, or, if they are not married, will not support children born to them. A number of individuals behave this way. In the absence of a sanction to compel them to make payments in circumstances where they are self-employed, they are given a free pass and there is no means of ensuring the law is upheld.

It is my view generally that we should not imprison people for debt if it can be avoided, but it is important - I will conclude on this - that a message goes out from this House that we expect those who have the financial means to do so, whether estranged spouses or simply parents of children born outside marriage, to meet their financial obligations to support their dependent children and spouses, and in particular we expect them to respect the laws of the country and the court orders made which require them to make particular payments. In the event of them defying court orders, taking no notice of what the judges say, it is essential the courts have available to them in their armoury the capacity to jail people for non-payment of maintenance. In my experience, very often the threat of that results in the recalcitrant, stubborn individual finally making the payments that he - in most cases it is a he - is obliged to make. That is why this particular change in the law to restore the position to where it was some years ago is so important.

See this speech in context