John Bruton
Question:9 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the plans, if any, the Chief State Solicitor has for his office to sign on to an insurance risk service; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12678/00]
Ceisteanna – Questions. - Insurance Link Service.
This matter has been under consideration by the Office of the Attorney General, including the Chief State Solicitor's office. They believe that the most effective approach is to facilitate entry to the insurance link service by those Departments with a significant volume of personal injury claims rather than providing a central service through the Chief State Solicitor's office. I understand that Departments will shortly be asked to consider joining the service and advised on the steps necessary for them to do so.
How will the insurance link service work?
As I understand it, if a Department wishes to join on an individual case, it must provide all the information to the insurance link service and provide the relevant data. If one is a member, any data required will be checked within the system. It is working and I have seen what happens concerning individual cases. If one has a case or a complaint, one gives the full data and it is checked through the system.
The insurance link system will give one the information. If an individual – Mr. X – has lodged claims against corporations, health boards or private sector companies, the system can provide a full profile of that individual. There are problems and a number of legal issues have been considered involving the Data Protection Act and the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act. There is also a need to consult Departments and to put clear procedures in place regarding the nature of information for release to the insurance link service. This is what has delayed it.
There are also difficulties with giving PRSI numbers but one would have to give all the information. It would be necessary to advise claimants that information supplied could be provided to the insurance link service and shared with insurance companies and other bodies. However, that information has to be given if one is a member of the system. The advantage is that one can check within the system whether a person has lodged multiple claims and where they lodged those claims, thereby reducing the risk caused by people who are abusing the system.
In view of the fact that Exchequer funds are the target of such claims, why is the Government taking the view that it is optional for each Department to join the insurance link service? Surely there is an overriding and comprehensive Government interest in ensuring that vexatious and repetitive claims against Departments by litigious individuals are monitored as a national overriding interest rather than dealing with this issue on a case by case, option by option departmental basis as to whether we pool the information?
The only reason is that some Departments have little or no claims against them. Large Departments which have a number of claims against them will join. However, some Departments have little or no claims against them and they are the only ones which have been opting out.
If they have no claims against them there will be no traffic between them and the service, so what is the problem with them joining?
It is on cost grounds. There is no point in getting into the cost factor for those Departments that have little or no claims.
What cost factor?
If a Department joins the insurance link, there is a cost attached to that. One cannot join the service without paying the cost involved. There would not be any point in Departments that have few or no claims joining the service. Departments can decide to join the service.
I do not understand this. What cost is involved in joining an information pooling system? The cost will arise only in regard to individual transactions of pooling of information. If a Department did not have any claims, it would not have any information to pool. Therefore, it would not have any costs associated with transmitting the information, or is there some fixed fee per Department joining this system, regardless or whether it has any claims, and, if so, why?
I understand there is a cost involved. If a Department joins the service, it must pay the cost. I am told there is no point in some Departments joining it as they have few or no claims and will not require the service.
What costs would they have if they do not have claims?
They are the ones that will hit them between the eyes.
Why can it not be made obligatory on all Departments to join?
Exactly.
The reason I have in my note is that there is a cost factor involved.
What is it?
There must be a cost involved.
A commencement fee?
What is it?
There must be a cost involved if a Department joins the service.
What is it?
What does the Deputy mean by that?
What is the cost involved? If there is no fee and a Department does not have any claims, what is the cost involved?
There must be a fee, if a Department joins the service.
The Taoiseach said there must be a fee. He is answering questions. He should tell me the answer rather than what must be the case. He is in charge of dealing with this matter.
I am not.
He is.
I am trying to get people to join this service to make sure we can cut costs, as I do not want to create more costs.
We are talking about people who work for the Taoiseach, not anonymous figures in the mist – they are his servants.
We cannot conduct Question Time in this manner.
Deputy Bruton should focus on the big picture.
If the Taoiseach answered questions, we could focus on the big picture.
Some Departments have indicated they will not join as they have few or no claims and do not need the service.
If that was applied to motor insurance, we would be in a queer fix.
We would. While some Departments would not have any claims, the large Departments will have claims and if they join the service, there will be a cost involved. All the large Departments will join the service as soon as we can deal with matters related to the Data Protection Act and the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act.
The Taoiseach's answers are not satisfactory. This is Question Time. I asked a reasonable question about the cost of joining a service, in respect of which I tabled a question with due notice to the Taoiseach. I can understand he does not have the answer with him, but his brief should be prepared more thoroughly in future so that he can answer a very foreseeable supplementary question of this nature.
As I said in my original reply, the matter has been under consideration by the Office of the Attorney General, including the Chief State Solicitor's office. They believe the most effective approach is to facilitate entry to the insurance link service by those Departments with a significant volume of personal injury claims, rather than providing a central service through the Chief State Solicitor's office. I understand Departments will shortly be asked to consider joining the service and will be advised on the steps necessary for them to do so.
The Office of the Attorney General and the Chief State Solicitor's office consider that some Departments – I am not sure of the number involved – need not join the insurance link service because they do not have a volume of personal injury claims that would justify their joining it. Some Departments may not have personal injury claims or the claims they have can be handled easily in the traditional way or the claimants involved are not abusing the system. The insurance link system is designed to catch abusers and check who is abusing the system. If there is not an advantage to a Department in the link system because it does not have claimants who are abusing the system, there is not any point in it joining. That is the answer to the Deputy's question.
If a Department has very few claims and on that basis does not join the service and it is the victim of claims from a serial claimant, is it not the case that it will not know a rare claim it receives is being made by a common claimant who is claiming against other Departments because the Government has told it that it does not have to make a decision to join this scheme? They can opt out or opt in if they so wish. Is one of the purposes of Government not to simplify decision making? If a single decision could be taken by the Cabinet that all 17 Departments should join, it would be over and done with. If, on the other hand, the Government adopts the approach it is taking, where each of the 17 Departments has to make its own separate decision, God only knows when they will join the scheme. That is not efficient, to use the terms of the strategic management initiative, about which the Taoiseach has been holding forth with such eloquence for the past half hour.
I happened to have the benefit of listening to Deputies' ill-informed questions. Will the Taoiseach agree there are many Departments in the public service which have little or no likelihood of having a personal injuries claim? Will he agree that the Deputy could possibly illustrate a number of Departments such as the Department of the Public Service, the Department of Foreign Affairs and many more that have never had a personal injuries claim? In those circumstances will the Taoiseach agree that the case he has consistently presented is one that should be credible even to Deputy Bruton?
In reply to both questions, that is obviously the attitude of the Attorney General to the Chief State Solicitor's office. In reply to Deputy Bruton who asked if all Departments could join, under the Data Protection Act it is not just a question of all Departments signing up, there is a need to consult Departments. Clear procedures have to be in place regarding the nature of information to be released under the service. They have to advise claimants and must have a system to do that.
What about—
The State has been around a long time and so too has the Attorney General's office and the Chief State Solicitor's office. Obviously they have come to the view that there are some agencies, as Deputy O'Kennedy pointed out, that do not have a significant volume of personal injuries claims. Probably there is no question of abuse and they do not need to be in the service. They arrived at that view having considered these issues. It is not an unrealistic view if that is the experience.
There are some that will never be named as defendants in any litigation—