I recognise that the Minister of State at the Department of Tourism, Fisheries and Forestery is reading the speech, but has it not been possible to get the Minister for Justice or his Minister of State to come into the House? Was any attempt made to get one of these Ministers here to reply?
Courts Bill, 1986: Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
Both the Minister for Justice and his Minister of State are officially paired.
There can be no more important work for a Minister than replying to a Bill in this House. Will the Minister not be in the House today to reply to this Bill? This is something of a farce.
The Minister who started the reply to the debate must conclude.
As regards the medical and specialist expert witness costs in personal injury cases, it is hoped to introduce legislation fairly soon that will facilitate the introduction of a system of pretrial procedures in civil cases in the High Court. The object of this would be to streamline procedures in these cases and to reduce to the minimum the issues that have to be tried by providing new procedures to agree medical and expert witness reports between the parties before the trial. It would be the type of reform Deputy Yates would like to see made. The elimination of civil juries in these cases would assist this process.
The point Deputy Woods made in relation to over-compensation for injuries because social welfare payments were not deducted in assessing damages for personal injuries in a civil liability case is no longer valid since the enactment of the Social Welfare Act, 1984. Section 12 of that Act provides that the amount of disability benefit, associated pay-related benefit, or invalidity pension payable for up to a period of five years to a person arising from injuries received in a road traffic accident shall be taken into account in assessing damages for personal injuries.
On a point of order, I notice the Minister is reading one of the sections which has been excluded. Is it now intended to included that section?
It appears it is when the Minister is reading it.
On the points raised about more law enforcement and accident prevention measures, Deputy Woods referred to the Minister's recent statement about the considerable drop in incidence of stolen and rammed cars. The statistics for the State as a whole show a decrease of 20 per cent in the number of unauthorised taking of vehicles in 1985 as compared with 1984——
Since the Minister is reading paragraphs which should be excluded, could we have a guide as to which parts of the speech will be excluded and which will be included?
The Chair has been trying to guide you all day.
It makes it difficult to——
When the Minister concludes you may ask questions.
The statistics for the State as a whole show a decrease of 20 per cent in the number of unauthorised taking of vehicles in 1985 as compared with 1984 and the figures for the first three months of 1986 showed a similar decrease of 20 per cent in the number of unauthorised takings as compared with the same period last year.
That is the case I was making. Since these figures are coming down, insurance rates should be coming down.
The reduction in the rate of road accidents should also help to stabilise motor insurance costs.
In recent years there has been a significant improvement in road accident trends. The number of road deaths dropped from a peak of 628 in the year 1978 to 410 in 1985, a reduction of 35 per cent, and provisional figures for the first four months of 1986 show a reduction of 25 per cent on the same period in 1985. There is also a significant decrease in the number of injuries reported from 9,313 in 1984 to 7,327 in 1985. I understand that the total annual road deaths are now lower than at any time since the present system of accident reporting was introduced in 1968 when there were only 500,000 registered vehicles compared with the present day figure of over 900,000, and that we compare very favourably with other EC countries in this regard.
A contributory factory in the improvement of road safety is Garda traffic law enforcement particularly in relation to drink and driving, and dangerous and careless driving. The number of proceedings taken for these offences is evidence of Garda attention in this area. Provisional figures for 1985 show 8,219 prosecutions for drink and driving offences of motor vehicles, and 10,925 for dangerous and careless driving. The Garda are now giving special attention to vehicle defects and the wearing of safety belts.
The point Deputy Woods raised about the possible introduction of a system of periodic payments and of risk reviews to relate compensation more closely to the real needs of injured persons is an interesting one that could, I feel, be studied. However, that would be an exercise that would have to be done separately from consideration of the proposal in this Bill. I am aware that provisions for interim and provisional awards have been introduced in Britain. They have one considerable disadvantage in that they have the effect of prolonging litigation. On the other hand the introduction of a system whereby damages are paid in the form of periodic payments has been firmly rejected by the authorities in Britain. I think that this area would be a suitable one for consideration by a specialist body here.
The question of adequate accident preventive measures in the workplace is primarily a matter for the Minister for Labour and I understand that this matter will be dealt with in the context of proposals for legislation which he is developing arising from the report on safety, health and welfare to which Deputy Woods referred.
Deputy Skelly thought the proposal was anti-social legislation. He was concerned that the result of this measure will be to deprive citizens of rights and to introduce financial hardship for unfortunate people who are the victims of accidents caused by the negligence of others. The Minister indicated in his opening speech that he does not believe that this will be the outcome and gave reasons why awards are unlikely to fall substantially in the new situation where a judge sitting alone will decide all the issues in personal injury cases. In so far as some people are worried about reports that judges award significantly less damages in Britain compared with juries here, reasons were given why the position in England has no valid comparisons for us. I have no doubt that our judges will exercise the functions granted to them under this Bill fairly and properly and with compassion.
Deputy Skelly was critical of the behaviour of insurance companies particularly in regard to their unwillingness to settle cases earlier and in dragging out serious cases without attempting to settle. The insurance spokesmen have stressed that the new arrangements will enable them to settle cases earlier and that savings in insurance costs will result from this. The Minister for Industry and Commerce will be monitoring carefully the results of the new arrangements and their effects on insurance costs to ensure that savings arising from the implementation of the proposal in the Bill will be passed on to the public. A general trend towards earlier settlements will have obvious benefits also for injured parties, who will receive their compensation earlier and be able to make more use of it during their lifetime.
Deputy Hyland and Deputy Doherty covered much the same ground as Deputy Woods in his contribution. I have to correct Deputy Hyland on one point. He said that the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Small Businesses, the most recent body to consider the matter of civil jury trials — and the only one composed of public representatives to do so — recommended that the system be retained. That is not so. That committee referred in their report to the Government's proposal contained in this Bill to abolish civil juries in terms that I would interpret as implying support for the measure. They certainly had no objection to the proposal. The Chairman of the Committee, Deputy Yates, has spoken in favour of the measure during this debate.
I do not share Deputy Cowen's concern that injured parties will not be able to afford to appeal low awards made by judges sitting alone to the Supreme Court. Under the existing system juries may occasionally make awards that are too low. In a case reported last month, the Supreme Court, on appeal by a plaintiff, increased a jury award on the grounds that it was too low. Deputy Taylor referred also to that case.
Deputy Cosgrave and Deputy Flynn stressed that more far-reaching reforms are needed to deal with the problems of insurance costs and availability. I would accept that, and repeat that the abolition of the civil jury system is the first essential step in dealing with these problems.
Deputy Flynn accepted the important influence which jury awards in a very small proportion of cases can have over settlement costs in the vast majority of cases which do not go to trial.
Deputy Flynn suggested that the Minister had not acknowledged the fact that judges sitting alone decide civil cases in the lower courts. That is not correct. The Minister referred to the matter in his opening speech. He said, and I quote:
Furthermore judges sitting alone have been deciding personal injuries cases in the Circuit Court since 1972, and there has been no public reaction as far as I am aware against the level of damages awarded in the Circuit Court. Since the jurisdiction of that court to hear tort actions was increased to £15,000 in 1982, more serious cases are now being decided in the Circuit Court and I am not aware of any claim that Circuit Court judges are making inadequate awards, even in cases where minor injuries are involved.
Deputy Flynn said that provisions should have been included in the Bill for a book of quantum of damages for personal injuries. A book of quantum exists in Britain, but it has no statutory force at all. It is simply a collection of data on all judicial decisions on personal injuries, which may be referred to by lawyers and judges. It is published privately, and first appeared in 1954—almost 30 years after jury trial was replaced by a judge sitting alone in personal injury cases in England.
Deputy O'Kennedy said or implied that the Minister in his opening speech had misrepresented the views of the judges of the superior courts, who were consulted by the Minister's predecessor, to the effect that the majority of the judges were in favour of the change proposed in the Bill. This is incorrect. The Minister in his speech said that the views obtained from the judges indicated that they were sharply divided on the issue.
Deputy O'Kennedy suggested that there may well be an increase rather than a decrease in the number of cases that will go to trial under the new arrangements proposed, based on experience in Britain where, he said, 42 judges had to be appointed following the abolition of juries. However, insurers have stated that the change proposed will enable them to settle more claims more quickly and there has been criticism in the past, and during this debate, of insurers for making unrealistic settlement offers and thereby drawing out the process of settling claims to the last moment.
In Britain the statutory changes relating to civil juries date back over 50 years. I would suggest that it is much more likely that any expansion of the Judiciary in Britain since then would have been caused by increases in the volume of litigation and crime in the intervening years and in legal remedies in, for example, the labour and employment areas. In his opening speech the Minister referred to the fact that the number of judges sitting in our High Court had quadrupled from four to 16 since the issue of civil jury trial was first considered by the Committee on Court Practice and Procedure in 1965. That was due simply to increased volume of litigation. I have already indicated that the volume of jury actions disposed of by the High Court increased by about 260 per cent between 1978 and 1984.
On Deputy O'Kennedy's point about consistency of awards, I would reiterate what the Minister said in his speech, that even allowing for some possible differences between judges, there will be more consistency when personal injury cases are being decided by a group of 16 judges, compared with the present jury system.
Is the Minister aware of the fact that a survey carried out among the Judiciary showed that in 75 per cent of cases which had been tried by a judge and jury, the jury agreed with the amount of compensation suggested by the judge, that in 15 per cent of cases the jury awarded a lower figure and that in 10 per cent of cases the jury awarded a higher amount? Does the Minister agree that that survey gave a reliable result in contrast to what he said earlier? In another survey, a majority of the Judiciary were against the abolition of juries and indicated that they would prefer cases to be tried by juries instead of judges sitting on their own.
I am not aware of the results of surveys to which Deputy Woods referred but I am sure adequate time will be given on Committee Stage to raise these points with the Minister for Justice.
This indicates the problem of putting questions to a Minister who, I appreciate, is not directly involved in this matter. A questionnaire was sent by the Minister to try to establish what the Judiciary thought in regard to certain matters. It has been done twice in the recent past and, on both occasions, the results indicated that there were as many in favour of a jury sitting as there were for a judge sitting alone. The Minister also said that insurance spokesmen stressed that the new arrangements will enable them to settle cases earlier and that there would be savings in insurance costs as a result. Will there be any savings to the motorist as a result of the measure he is proposing?
I am convinced that some savings will result when the measure is passed. However, these questions would be much more appropriate on Committee Stage.
On Committee Stage we will be limited to particular amendments and sections. In the part of the speech marked for omission, the Minister gave very valuable information which shows there is a striking reduction — and that there will be further reductions — in the accident levels and, therefore, it should be possible for the Minister and the insurance industry to say if there will be reductions. The abolition of the jury system will not lead to a reduction in costs for the motorists; this is a red herring. I know this part of the speech was intended to be left out but I am thankful that we heard it——
I thought the statistics were very good.
Yes, I congratulate the Minister of State on his observations in that respect because they are very good. They are also relevant to the debate and indicate that the cost of insurance, especially to the motorist, should be coming down now because of the reductions achieved last year and at present. I am grateful to the Minister for indicating that because it puts the irrelevance of the measure which we have been debating here in true perspective. Our accident rate is twice that of Great Britain but, as a result of various actions taken by successive Governments, it is now being reduced. However, I accept that there will be no reduction in any real sense in the foreseeable future as a result of the abolition of the right which the ordinary man in the street has to elect for a civil jury trial in such cases.
I should like to call the attention of Deputy Woods to the statement by Deputy Flynn on 29 April in which he was critical of the Government for not introducing the legislation which they are introducing at present——
(Interruptions.)
As far as that is concerned, the parliamentary party make the decisions. I note that the Minister read large tracts from statements made by the insurance industry. Deputy Flynn was expressing his own point of view.
Deputies will have an opportunity to raise points on Committee Stage.
I regret that at the conclusion of this very important Second Stage debate on the right to a trial by jury in a civil case——
Acting Chairman
The Deputy is making a speech.
The measure will affect paraplegics and other victims of road accidents and it is regrettable that the Minister or the Minister of State did not turn up.
Question put and declared carried.
I take it that the Minister will now withdraw Committee Stage as a result of requests from backbenchers of his own party?
Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 24 June 1986.