Déirdre de Búrca (Green Party)

I welcome the Minister of State and the opportunity to comment on the Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2006. As Senator Alex White said, the Bill contains amendments to 30 pieces of legislation. The changes are mostly to non-criminal areas of law. There are many small but important changes and I will refer to some.

I refer to the creation of the office of the legal ombudsman. Other speakers said the purpose of the Bill is to make the courts and legal services more professional and efficient. However, the issue of addressing confidence and public trust in those services is important. I understood the purpose of creating the office of the legal ombudsman was to enhance the transparency of, and public confidence in, the system of regulation of the legal profession. As other speakers said, the number of recent high profile cases in regard to certain members of the legal profession have served to undermine public confidence. I do not mean to cast aspersions on any members of the legal professions in this House or outside it but, unfortunately, people feel very vulnerable when dealing with legal professionals if they do not get the professional service they require.

Some of the recent high profile cases have shown that even where the professional bodies have investigated those who have been the subject of complaints, the outcomes of those investigations were not always very satisfactory. I look forward to the creation of that office and emphasise the Green Party's hope that the person appointed is seen as independent in the performance of his or her functions. That will possibly be difficult to achieve. Certain professions will be excluded from those considered eligible for that position. However, the independence of the position and the perceived independence of the person who will hold that position will be important.

The Bill addresses the issue of the collection of court fees. The transfer of this function to the independent Courts Service, which reflects what already takes place, is a welcome provision. The Bill clarifies also the situation in respect of the electronic issuing of summons, especially where these are issued electronically through an outside controller. The clear definition of what is meant by "electronic means" is helpful.

I welcome that the Bill provides for video conferencing in civil proceedings. This is provided for already in respect of criminal proceedings and is a welcome development. The Bill also allows for the county registrar to take on additional functions of an equivalent office. This will serve the purpose of freeing up judicial time and will allow for the disposal of a number of matters, including family law matters, in the Criminal Court. This will be helpful given the congestion that already exists in the family courts and in family law matters.

The Bill provides for the appointment of three additional judges of the District Court as part of the Government's strategy to address youth justice issues. This will enable more District Court judges to deal with cases required to be dealt with under the Children Act 2001, which is to be welcomed.

Section 51 addresses the issue of the language used in the First Schedule of the Juries Act 1976 and makes changes in that regard. This provision is also welcome. Senator Alex White used the term "Victorian" to describe certain aspects of older legislation. I agree that the language used in previous legislation could be deemed offensive in today's terms by potential jurors. The use of language such as "incapable persons" and "unfit persons" is being done away with. The Bill is now more non-specific in respect of juror infirmities which would make it impracticable for a person to perform a juror's duties. I welcome this important and appropriate change.

Section 59 provides, as stated by Senator McDonald, that parents employed by the same employer may transfer all or part of their parental leave to the other relevant parent subject to the employer's agreement. I welcome this change which seeks to achieve that previously attempted by a previous amendment to the Parental Leave (Amendment) Act 2006. I echo Senator McDonald's comment that while this is welcome, it is only a small step in terms of the direction we should be taking in respect of parental leave. I hope it is not the case that we will have to wait for the European Union to push us into adopting the type of paid parental leave provisions available in many continental European countries.