Ivana Bacik (Independent)

I welcome the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Alan Shatter, to the House. We have seen much of him already and I expect we will see more, even in this session, as he continues to introduce justice legislation. Support is forthcoming from both sides of the House for this Bill and I am pleased to offer my support on behalf of the Labour Party. As Senator Jillian van Turnhout said, it is a type of lost property compendium. All human life may be found in the legislation, from good samaritans to bankruptcy, from family break-ups to coroners, via immigration, human trafficking and domestic violence by way of meals on wheels and girl guides. As the Minister observed, the Bill refers to more than 40 Acts, comprises 15 Parts and has 14 separate themes. There is a great deal of content in it and I am pleased we will have plenty of time next week on Committee and Report Stages to tease out some of the detail. Having said that, I accept that some provisions are relatively urgently and that it would be good to see the Bill in force by the end of the session. Some of the provisions are more in the nature of tidying up, some were prepared under the previous Administration, and some reflect commitments in the programme for Government. Overall, it is very welcome legislation.

Although it is common practice to have this type of compendium legislation both in civil and criminal law, it is not ideal. Where possible, we should seek to avoid making reform piecemeal. It is inevitable that it must be done on occasion, but there is a merit to emphasising codification. A criminal law codification project was commenced under a previous Minister for Justice and I understand that work is ongoing. It is cumbersome to have to review so many different statutes in particular areas. The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Brendan Howlin, remarked yesterday in the House that he had to trawl through 200 statutes in order to draft the Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) Bill 2011 because there has never been a codification of responsibilities in that area. I am conscious that there has been some codification in some areas and that we have a useful resource in the www.irishstatutebook.ie website in terms of being able to see where amendments have been made. Nonetheless, we should emphasise in this House the need to codify where possible.

That quibble aside, the Bill is very welcome and will bring serious improvements to the way in which the law affects many aspects of people's lives. The Minister has indicated that his Department will introduce more comprehensive reforming legislation in respect of some of the issues on which the Bill merely touches, notably domestic violence, where there is a commitment in the programme for Government to introduce consolidated and reformed law. I hope we will also see consolidated sex offence legislation, an area in which there is a compendium of different primary and amending legislation. It would be better to have a single Act to tidy up that area.

There is also a commitment to introduce comprehensive reform of the immigration, residency and asylum systems, including a statutory appeals system. Although the Bill includes some provisions relating to immigration and citizenship, a codified law in this area is long overdue. I have two concerns in this regard. First, it was highlighted recently that we have the lowest recognition rate of asylum seekers in the European Union. I accept that the numbers coming to this country seeking asylum have fallen in recent years but our recognition rate remains very low. International bodies have expressed concern about this and we need to examine it when reforming the law on asylum. Second, there are serious problems with the citizenship application system, with outrageous delays in naturalisation and citizenship processing. I am sure every Member has had representations on these issues. I have spoken to people whose cases are relatively straightforward but who have been waiting two years or more for recognition. Like Senator van Turnhout, I welcome the citizenship ceremony as a very positive initiative, but we must tackle the delays in the administration of the system.

We all welcome the extension of the Civil Legal Aid Act, in Part 2 of the Bill, to the victims of human trafficking. However, I join Senator van Turnhout in asking the Minister to review the extent to which legal aid is provided. The Immigrant Council of Ireland has expressed concern that the provision should extend beyond simply legal advice to cover legal representation. The Free Legal Advice Centres have also suggested the provisions do not go far enough in that the provision of legal advice to victims does not extend to representing those victims in court, nor does it protect victims of the sex industry who fall outside the narrow definition of trafficking. I hope we can examine on Committee Stage how to extend these protections.

The Minister remarked that the bankruptcy provisions of the Bill have attracted the most attention. There is a commitment in the programme for Government, under the heading of supporting small and medium enterprise, to fast-track substantial reforms to bankruptcy legislation to bring us into line with best international standards. The Minister indicated the Department is fast-tracking a personal insolvency Bill which will provide more comprehensive reform in keeping with the Law Reform Commission's report last year on this area. However, notwithstanding that we are awaiting more comprehensive reform, it is possible to include more radical reform in this Bill. For example, I support Senators Denis O'Donovan, Paul Bradford and others in regard to the period for discharge. It is extremely welcome that an automatic discharge is being introduced for the first time, but 12 years is far too long. The Law Reform Commission's report is highly critical of the current regime and of the Bankruptcy Act 1988, which it describes as ineffective. The report includes a useful table comparing Irish law on discharge with that in other countries. It is immediately obvious that 12 years to automatic discharge is much longer than in any comparable jurisdiction. In England and Wales, for instance, automatic discharge applies 12 months after commencement of bankruptcy, while in Australia and New Zealand a period of three years applies.

The commission recommended that bankrupt debtors should be automatically discharged on the expiry of a period of three years from the adjudication of bankruptcy. The report points out that having a more flexible regime on bankruptcy will provide a way of encouraging and promoting entrepreneurship and that this has been an influential consideration in leading policy makers to propose bankruptcy reforms. That view of bankruptcy is not present in our current law. We are moving towards it with the provision that people may apply to the court after five years and will be automatically discharged after 12. However, this reform is insufficient. I was threatened with bankruptcy at the age of 21, having been taken to court by the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children because of work I did in Trinity College's students union. My colleagues and I were told that if declared bankrupt, it would be 12 years before we could apply for discharge. At that age it seemed an unfeasible long time, almost a lifetime. It is still seems to me an unfeasibly long term under any modern legal system. I urge a review of those provisions before Committee Stage.

The changes in regard to coroner's courts are largely technical and the Minister has indicated that comprehensive legislation in this area is in preparation. I take this opportunity to commend the work of AdVIC, a non-governmental organisation which advocates on behalf of the families of victims of homicide. It has made useful commentary on the law on coroner's courts and the reforms that could be introduced.

We all welcome the good samaritan provisions which are in keeping with the recommendation of the Law Reform Commission that we have a different approach in regard to the liability of the passing stranger and of those engaged in voluntary work. I echo concerns raised by others as to the definition of voluntary work in section 4. Does this go far enough in protecting everyone? For example, persons involved in providing voluntary tuition for children do not seem to fall within any of the categories of voluntary work catered for in section 4. Perhaps further consideration might be given to this matter.

I commend the Minister for his comments on the Licensed Vintners Association and the Vintners Federation of Ireland and their withdrawal of support for the MEAS code. That is an extraordinary decision, of which I was not aware until the Minister referred to it. There is no doubt that it is worthy of criticism in the House.

There was a need to reform the law on immigration in the wake of the decision in the Dokie case and this is being done in Parts 10 and 11. Why are Irish-born non-nationals not specifically referred to in section 24 which amends the Immigration Act 2004? We may return to this matter on Committee Stage because there is an amount of interest in it.

Like Senator Jillian van Turnhout, I welcome section 37 and the broadening of the protections for victims of domestic violence. It is commendable that we are moving away from the geographical constraint and recognising that the reality is that persons with a child in common, even if they have never lived together, may well be at risk in circumstances where one partner is abusive. I echo the concerns expressed by others about the stalking of ex-partners. The provision on stalking in the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act provides for a very high threshold. In that context, it would be preferable if victims had a remedy available to them which would be equivalent to a barring or a protection order.

It would have been useful if the wording used in section 38 which amends the Official Languages Act of 2003 had been included in the Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) Bill. We debated this matter yesterday in the context of the delay in its translation. As the formula used in section 38 of the Bill before the House might be more useful, there is an argument in favour of a greater degree of joined-up thinking on the part of the Parliamentary Counsel in this regard.