Feargal Quinn (Independent)

It is a delight to find a Minister who hits the ground running, comes into office and states he will get things done. It is quite novel to come up with a civil law (miscellaneous provisions) Bill where one lumps so many matters together and the Minister has done so with an ability to get them passed quickly. I encourage him to continue doing that.

Numerous matters were covered by the Minister to whom I listened carefully here today. In particular, I do not understand the area of gross negligence and negligence in law. It seems that the law is correct. It states that if one is negligent, one is guilty. However, it seems on so many occasions the courts state that a poor woman fell in a shop or house or on a street, it was not her fault and she must get an award. I do not quite understand that. Particularly in the case of public parks and other places where children are running or something happens, the law states that one must be negligent and I do not understand cases where negligence is not enforced on that basis. The Minister's good Samaritan provision is good.

There was an incident years ago in one of our supermarkets where a customer entered in the whole of her health, slipped on a grape and cracked or hurt her ankle badly, and she later sued and we went to court. We were able to bring in to court in our defence that at the time we had two trained staff working on cleaning the floor and they were interviewed by the judge. The judge then stated that he could not find the company negligent. Even though the woman entered the store in the whole of her health and cracked or broke her ankle, she did not get a penny. She could not understand that because her lawyer had said she would get a few thousand for this. The law is quite solid, stating if one is negligent then one pays.

It is interesting that we are using the term "good Samaritan" from the Bible. On one occasion in Israel, the guide showed us where it all occurred and it was only after we had gone away that we realised this was a parable and did not actually happen. It is a reminder of how the term has come into the language, and what a good way to come in. I am sure the Samaritans were not terribly happy with always being treated in a different way. I mention it because recently I saw two men on the road where I live and spoke to them about what they were doing there. They were repairing potholes on a voluntary basis. I did not know them but they lived somewhere in the locality and there were potholes, and they were merely going around repairing them. Somebody said to me afterwards that if they were volunteers, there was a danger that they could be found negligent if somebody had a fall. I hope this provision will be able to solve that.

I am particularly pleased that the Minister outlined the instance of those who clean the footpath outside their shops. On a programme I have been doing recently, we got a number of the traders in one area to agree that they all would sweep the street outside their shops on the days the local authority did not do so, but then one stated that there is a danger they could be held liable. That is good Samaritan territory. We should find a way in Ireland where we are able to do things on a voluntary basis. Others have mentioned it, for instance, Senator Mullins spoke about sporting activities. There is little doubt that much can be done in that regard.

I really was impressed with what the Minister stating about the voluntary MEAS code for moderate drinking if it is not accepted by the two organisations, which I did not realise were not supporting it. It is quite serious if an organisation will not abide by that voluntary code. There is something else behind this, although I am not quite sure what. Maybe the organisation must pay a good deal of money for it or, more likely, feels it favours off-licences over public houses and there may be a split in that regard. The way to proceed is to state that where one is in danger of being in breach of that code it would be taken into account on applying for a licence.

A number of Senators, including Senator O'Donovan, spoke of bankruptcy. I am delighted the Minister has reduced the waiting period from 12 years. On Senator O'Donovan's point, we must take into account that in Britain the waiting period is only one year under certain conditions. I well remember many years ago a man who had opened a business, done his best and not succeeded; he was still being blamed years afterwards. I do not think he went bankrupt but when he got a job elsewhere, those to whom he owed money and had let down did not forgive him. He was able to get back on his feet, although he had not actually been bankrupt. F.W. Woolworth, 130 years ago, went bankrupt three times before he succeeded in becoming the wealthiest man in America. There is a different attitude in the United States and in other parts of the world that entrepreneurs do not always succeed first time to which we need to give consideration. I question whether five years is even too long, particularly if Britain finds that it is working quite well with one year. I can well understand the concerns of those who have been let down, are owed money and are deeply frustrated at the fact that they see the person who owes them money back on his or her feet again and in business, but we need to encourage entrepreneurship.

Senator Bradford mentioned Senator Leyden's Registration of Wills Bill 2011. I am not sure what is happening to that reintroduced Bill. If the Minister has such civil law legislation covering so many matters, perhaps something like that could be considered at this stage as well.

I congratulate the Minister. Today's debate was good, but the areas he covered were much wider than I had anticipated. It is valuable to have the Bill introduced in the Seanad.