Lisa McDonald (Fianna Fail)

I am not sure how long my speech will take because I have been thrown slightly by the fact that the legal ombudsman provisions are now in a separate Bill. In that context, if I have time remaining, I wish to share it with Senator Walsh, with the agreement of the House.

As several speakers have said, the Bill is a tidying-up exercise. I do not wish to repeat the changes contained therein for the sake of it. However, I have a number of concerns which I wish to raise. In particular, I am concerned about the legal aid situation, to which Senator Norris has just referred. He has made some very valid points and this is an opportunity to examine the legal aid system in its totality. Perhaps an overhaul of the system is required.

As a legal practitioner and a politician, I would consider myself to have a community of interests in this regard, as opposed to any interest that must be explicitly stated. I find in practice that a lot of my time is given up to giving free legal advice. The waiting list in my home town of Wexford is in an appalling state. Something must be done.

The area of family law clogs up the civil legal aid system to such an extent that it puts pressure on the Legal Aid Board itself, thus adding to the waiting lists that are already in existence. We must examine the possibility of setting up a new system of free legal aid and civil legal aid for the victims of family disputes. While I do not want to prejudge any particular situation, it is often the case that women are impoverished and do not have the means to go to a solicitor, are afraid to do so or do not have the education to realise that they can. With a legal aid system that has waiting lists of between seven months and a year, we are adding to the impoverishment, hardship and possible domestic violence being suffered by such women. That can happen to men too and I am not being exclusive in this regard. However, we must grasp this issue on Committee Stage and examine the civil legal aid system more closely.

The content of the Bill is fine in itself but it is adding to, rather than subtracting from, the problem. I am seriously concerned about the means test. There should be a simple means test for everything in the social welfare system, which should then be incorporated into the civil legal aid test.

The provision that allows the Legal Aid Board to bring a case in its name rather than in the name of the solicitor is a welcome change. However, the nettle must be grasped because the position is worsening. Unfortunately, marriages are breaking down at a more rapid rate than ever before and this is adding to waiting lists. This issue must be examined and I agree with much of what Senator Norris said in that regard.

Reference has been made to the legal profession. We are all too well aware of the dangers of leaving any profession to its own devices and most solicitors and barristers welcome changes in this regard and the higher scrutiny and standard required.

I refer to the issue of the landlord and tenant opt-out clause. Currently, when leases expire after four years and nine months, tenants whose businesses are doing well must move somewhere else because the landlord is reticent to grant a 35-year lease and, therefore, requires vacant possession of the building. Sometimes the tenant might not realise he or she should seek an opt-out clause at the commencement of a lease as opposed to at its expiration. Perhaps more clarity is needed. Will the opt-out be provided only at the commencement of the lease or can it be considered at the conclusion of the initial lease? This would give additional protection to the tenant.

The proposed amendments to the Succession Act will be equitable. Where two joint owners or spouses are deemed to die at the same time, it is equitable that their equal share should go to the estate of the other.

Parental leave is covered by a small section in the legislation but I was disappointed because it does not address paternity leave. This Bill is the perfect vehicle to introduce paternity leave. There is no point in providing that one parent can transfer his or her leave to the other parent because that will mean the woman will have more days to take care of the children, allowing the man off the hook. Until we move to a position where paternity leave is paid, equality will not be achieved. I sometimes wonder whether we want that. Clearly, the European Union and others need to get their act together to introduce proper, paid paternity leave.

Civil law matters relating to single fathers, automatic guardianship and an amendment to the birth registration legislation could be addressed in this Bill. The minor amendments to family law in respect of property adjustment are fine. While this is more a property registration issue than a family law issue, I query the provision whereby a non-owning spouse will be permitted to challenge within six years because that will create more uncertainty in finalising the family law issues. It may provide certainty for the purchaser of a property but the lacuna in the family law system must be examined. Consultation with family law practitioners in this regard would be good and perhaps the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights could examine this.

The Minister of State referred to the Road Safety Authority. Section 60 of the Civil Liability Act provides immunity from prosecution to local authorities in respect of road accidents and negligence for the way the roads are built and so on. This issue should be examined because it requires amendment. Somebody should be liable for poorly constructed roads or negligence in respect of a basic matter such as repairing a pothole. This is good legislation and, subject to the matters I have raised, I have no difficulty commending it to the House.