Seán Power (Kildare South, Fianna Fail)

I thank all the Senators for their contributions. We are attempting to cover a wide variety of areas under the remit of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. Some Senators referred to it as a tidying up exercise. Being the month of April, it is probably appropriate that we do some spring cleaning. Most Senators were supportive of the Bill, although some criticisms were expressed about certain aspects of it. I will try to deal with as many of the issues raised as I can in the time available. In the event that I do not deal with some of them, no doubt we will have plenty of time on Committee Stage to deal with them.

A number of Senators mentioned section 67 which deals with technical changes to be made to the Civil Legal Aid Act regarding contributions to be made by the recipients of legal aid. I am aware of one non-governmental organisation which perceives this amendment as in some way requiring legal aid clients to make greater contributions than they do at present. This is not the intention of the amendment, rather it is the reverse. The Legal Aid Board's advice on the matter is that the existing provisions give rise to doubt. The new provisions are designed to remove that doubt and give the board greater freedom to reduce or waive contributions in appropriate cases.

The question of providing a definition of "hardship" was mentioned. I am not sure how a word with such a plain meaning might be defined further. It is perfectly understood, I believe, by a majority of the population. I am not sure how it might be defined more clearly. However, I shall be more than happy to listen to any suggestions from Senators in that regard on Committee Stage. We are in regular contact with FLAC. It rarely keeps any views it has to itself and it is in regular discussion with the Department. No two organisations in discussion will agree on everything but we very much respect FLAC's views. On this issue, however, it has misinterpreted the proposal. When the Bill is enacted, it will become clear that what we are saying here will happen.

Senator McDonald requested clarification on the proposed changes to the Landlord and Tenant Act. I was asked whether they would apply at any time during a lease and not just when the lease was agreed to. I confirm this will be the effect of the amendment and, as such, it will allow not only persons entering into a lease after the commencement of the Act but also persons committed to a lease to avail of this opt-out at any time before the renewal date. This is provided the parties are satisfied following independent legal advice that the opt-out is suitable for their particular circumstances.

Senator Walsh questioned the effect of the renewal of section 24 of the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act. I can clarify for the Senator that any hearing of an appeal from the District Court is by way of a complete rehearing which would render any note kept of the evidence useless. In practice, a note of the evidence is not kept. The District Court dealt with more than 560,000 cases in 2006. Given that type of statistic, it is clear it would not have been possible for judges to keep notes of evidence in each individual case. In addition, I remind Senators of the introduction of digital audio recording in the courts. The timeframe for that project provides for completion in all courts by the end of 2009.

Mention was made of the risk of intimidation of juries if they were allowed to separate following a trial. This provision is at the discretion of the judge who will not permit the jury to separate if he or she believes such a risk exists.

A number of Senators referred to the Succession Act and clarification was sought on what was being proposed. It pertains to a situation where people who own a property as joint tenants die at the same time. A Senator asked me to explain what would happen in that particular situation. Take the example of a husband and wife who own their own family home as joint tenants and are killed in a car crash. As it is a joint tenancy, if one spouse had died, the surviving party would become the sole owner automatically without the deceased's share ever forming part of the estate. However, the question is what would happen if both died and there was no serving joint tenant to assume ownership. The law at present is silent on this question and as a result, there is no certainty for the surviving relatives of the deceased couple. In addition to dealing with the grief of the double loss, the family are forced to go to the courts to determine what should happen to the family home. The proposal we make in this Bill will clear up matters and provide certainty as to the disposal of the jointly owned property. In the example that was raised, half of the value of the house will go into the estate of each deceased spouse and will be disposed of in accordance with the terms of the wills made by either party.

Senator O'Donovan mentioned the Government's commitment to tidying up the entire body of law. The Government has established on a statutory basis the codification of the criminal law review group which is in the process of codifying the entire body of criminal law. As a solicitor, Senator O'Donovan will understand the enormous task the group has in hand and I am sure we will come to appreciate the benefits the completion of the work will bring to the clarity and accessibility of the law. However, it is a time-consuming task, so we shall not see progress overnight. There are also plans to consolidate and restate the law covering the courts and court officers. This is the largest body of civil law on the Statute Book and therefore has been singled out for immediate attention. The Law Reform Commission is advancing that work.

Senator Alex White highlighted the need for clarity in the law. I remind the Senator that this area is included in the Law Reform Commission's third programme for law reform. Following completion of the Law Reform Commission's review of this area of law, the Government will address any changes recommended, including changes to ensure clarity. The proposal in the Bill relating to juries will not prejudice the commission's valuable work in this matter.

Several Senators touched on a number of aspects concerning the legal profession. It was not unexpected that a number of Senators who are members of the legal profession participated in today's debate. From a professional viewpoint their contributions were very interesting and are very much respected. In the contributions a number of aspects of the legal profession were touched on, including disciplinary matters and the question of costs. I have no doubt these matters will be ventilated fully when the Legal Services Ombudsman Bill, at present before the other House, comes to the Seanad. The Minister is preparing a Bill to address the question of legal costs which will provide a further opportunity to debate this issue. Senator Alex White obviously was very keen to have the matter discussed. I am sure Senators will use the opportunity that presents itself to debate the issue.

I was interested in Senator Paschal Donohoe's contribution, especially on paternity leave. Very often when we are wrapped up in proceedings in this House and talking about particular issues, we believe the world is listening to us. Very often we pass legislation in the House that goes almost unnoticed outside the House. It is important the provisions in the Bill pertaining to paternity leave be publicised. It is important employers and employees are made aware of the changes we are introducing.

I thank the Members for their contributions and look forward to further dialogue with them on Committee Stage.