Vol. 432 No. 6
13 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Minister for Enterprise and Employment the way in which he proposes to introduce a cap on awards for pain and suffering at the courts in light of his reply to Parliamentary Question No. 71 of 19 May 1993; and if he proposes to do so by way of legislation or a constitutional amendment.
80 Mr. Allen asked the Minister for Enterprise and Employment the way in which he proposes to introduce a cap on awards for pain and suffering at the courts in light of his reply to Parliamentary Question No. 71 of 19 May 1993; and if this will require legislation or a constitutional amendment.
29 Mrs. Doyle asked the Minister for Enterprise and Employment the way in which he proposes to introduce a cap on awards for pain and suffering at the courts in light of his reply to Parliamentary Question number 71 of 19 May 1993; and if this will require legislation or a constitutional amendment.
42 Mr. Lowry asked the Minister for Enterprise and Employment the way in which he proposes to introduce a cap on awards for pain and suffering at the courts in light of his reply to Parliamentary Question No. 71 of 19 May 1993; and if this will require legislation or a constitutional amendment.
66 Mrs. Owen asked the Minister for Enterprise and Employment the way in which he proposes to introduce a cap on awards for pain and suffering at the courts in light of his reply to Parliamentary Question number 71 of 19 May 1993; and if this will require legislation or a constitutional amendment.
23 Mr. Shatter asked the Minister for Enterprise and Employment the way in which he proposes to introduce a cap on awards for pain and suffering at the courts in light of his reply to Parliamentary Question No. 71 of 19 May 1993; and if this will require legislation or a constitutional amendment.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 13, 23, 29, 42, 66 and 80 together. As I indicated in the answer given to Parliamentary Question No. 70 of 16 June 1993, I am concerned at the adverse impact which the present level of liability and motor insurance costs has on the business environment. The Government is considering means of reducing some elements of personal injury compensation.
While all of us appreciate the high cost of motor insurance, particularly for young people, would the Minister of State comment on the inter-ministerial review which targeted certain safety aspects which might be considered, particularly suggestions by the Insurance Industry Federation that their members would be sympathetic if they felt there was more rigorous enforcement of safety standards? While appreciating the contribution the Insurance Industry Federation has made — in excess of £2 million — towards safety, would the Minister of State comment on that aspect? In concentrating on capping as what appears to be an obvious target in relation to high personal injuries the Minister may not necessarily be analysing the overall problem.
There are a number of factors which contribute to high insurance costs. The Deputy is quite right that safety is a major one. A number of measures have been taken arising from recommendations of the inter-ministerial group. For example, there has been stricter enforcement in the drink-driving area; more cases have been moved to the Circuit Court with a consequent saving on some legal fees. In regard to that area in general the abolition of juries and the employment of fewer senior counsel are measures which have been taken, although I personally remain to be convinced of their effectiveness.
It costs more now.
Would the Minister accept that part of the problem is the current litigation climate, which is added to very considerably if one looks at something like, say, the Golden Pages carrying full-page advertisements by solicitors specialising in what they term “slip and fall” cases which I would describe as “dive and sue” cases? Would the Minister consider it is time to question whether competitive advertising for compensation in such circumstances is not undesirable? In cases where people are awarded huge sums of money, would it not be better to establish a trust fund so that damages awarded in those circumstances would revert to insurance companies rather than devolve on the relatives of the plaintiff should the plaintiff die? Would it not be sensible to introduce a measure to prohibit courts from awarding damages to plaintiffs where any part of the plaintiff's claim is made dishonestly? I have seen many cases where the plaintiff may run, say, three legs to his or her claim, one of which is proven to be an entire fraud; yet, as the law now stands, such people are entitled to be compensated for the two legs in respect of which they are not found to have been dishonest?
I am amused to hear Deputy Michael McDowell worried about the effect of competition among solicitors. It is one of the side effects of de-regulation that solicitors may advertise or pitch for business, though I do see the serious side of what he is suggesting.
Senior counsel would never do that.
They do not need to.
They do not have to compete. The idea of a trust fund is certainly a worthy one but there are some legal complexities in that area. It is an idea well worth studying and I shall examine it further. I also take the Deputy's point about claims made dishonestly. I will study both those suggestions.
(Laoighis-Offaly): Is the Minister or his Department aware of a small but significant number of cases relating to a small number of insurance companies which appear to be frustrating the efforts of people in quite straightforward circumstances to advance claims? They do not even provide proper legal representation for their own side but appear to drag cases on in the hope that people will eventually drop them. Is he or his Department aware of this practice in the case of specific companies and, if so, would he say what action he proposes to remedy it?
I am not aware of specific cases being dragged on deliberately. I have received no specific complaints in that area. However, I am aware of a general problem prevailing in that area and will ascertain what I can do about it.
Does the Minister consider there is any danger that he will run into constitutional problems in capping the pain and suffering element of a claim? Would he say also whether he is thinking, on the wider issue of quantums of damages of introducing some general guidelines on the level of settlement for different forms of injury or, alternatively, whether he is considering annuities as a possible form of settlement other than lump sums?
There are possible constitutional difficulties enshrined in any proposal to cap insurance awards in the pain and suffering area. I am at present examining those very carefully. There are divided views on that subject. In regard to the quantum guidelines, this is a very frustrating area in which small companies experience great difficulty in meeting their premiums and some people, particularly young people, having to pay more for insurance than they do for a car. That simply cannot be allowed to continue. If I thought a list of guidelines would automatically improve the position. I would set about going in that direction. I should like everybody involved to know that this is a serious issue which will be tackled strongly on this occasion. For different reasons over many years, we have all played around its edges. It is a difficult, complex area involving a lot of personal suffering. We simply must mean business this time. If I thought the quantum guidelines would work I would gladly travel that road but I am not personally convinced it would make much of a difference.
Has the Attorney General been consulted yet on the constitutional aspects of capping and, if so, would the Minister say whether he has given a response?
I have had some initial informal responses from the Attorney General on the matter but it is an ongoing process and we must have further consultations.
When does the Minister expect to know one way or the other whether he has to proceed by a constitutional amendment route or if legislation will suffice? Would he put any time limit on that aspect of the examination?
Perhaps I should, but I have not actually done that yet because it is something I want to get right. I recall, when previously holding this portfolio, being involved in the removal of juries and reducing the number of senior counsel. I remember the commitments given at that time by a number of people that that change would make a big difference. My understanding is that it has made little difference. I do not want to rush into something again which we all think will work, only to discover later it does not. I have not placed a time limit but the matter is urgent. I will not delay.
Would the Minister examine the whole basis of civil liability and explore that as an area for reducing employers' and motorists' liability? It seems that people claim huge sums for whiplash injuries arising out of comparatively minor tips between motor cars. If one were to go out to Bray, one would see more extensive tips taking place on the dodgems, yet people do not stagger directly out of them to their solicitor. Would the Minister agree it is time that the Judiciary and the State became involved in a deep analysis of whether we, as a society, can afford to pay out the present levels of compensation to plaintiffs?
Civil liability is something I would have to discuss with the Minister for Equality and Law Reform and perhaps also the Minister for Justice. I will contact both Ministers about the Deputy's suggestion.
Would the Minister comment on the number of fraudulent claims made, and on the activities of the Garda Fraud Squad in this area? What are the insurance industry doing within their network to ascertain whether fraudulent claims are being made? There has been much publicity about scams in this area.
Insurance companies are very vigilant and extremely professional in using all the professional expertise and mechanisms at their disposal to ensure they are not hit with fraudulent claims. That is probably the most effective deterrent.
