Skip to main content
Normal View

Personal Injuries Assessment Board.

Dáil Éireann Debate, Wednesday - 15 November 2006

Wednesday, 15 November 2006

Questions (16)

Jim O'Keeffe

Question:

79 Mr. J. O’Keeffe asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment if his attention has been drawn to the backlog of claims to be dealt with in the Personal Injuries Assessment Board; the reason for this backlog; the number of staff involved; the annual budget of the PIAB; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37756/06]

View answer

Oral answers (21 contributions)

I am aware of recent media publicity concerning the Personal Injuries Assessment Board. The PIAB has received 36,000 cases since it was established. I understand from the PIAB that 6,000 of these were settled up-front from the outset, 9,000 cases were settled between the parties during the PIAB process, more than 5,000 assessments have been made, and an estimated 4,000 cases are heading into litigation, although not all of these will necessarily go to a full hearing.

This leaves 12,000 cases which are currently in the PIAB system. Some 7,500 of these are in the assessment phase and I am assured by the PIAB that they will all be dealt with within the statutory timeframes. The balance of cases is awaiting documentation from one of the parties or a decision from the respondent to consent to process.

The Personal Injuries Assessment Board Act 2003 provides that the board must ensure that assessments are made within a period of nine months beginning on the date on which it receives the respondent's consent to assessment, or in circumstances where it appears to the board that it would not be possible or appropriate, because of the particular circumstances of the claim concerned, to make an assessment within the nine month period, the period for making an assessment may be increased to 15 months. I am advised by the board that 93% of assessments are made within the nine month period; the remaining 7% are assessed within a further six months as allowed by the legislation and these would normally be cases where a stable medical prognosis is not available in the nine month period.

The board has assured me that it has the capacity to deal with the volumes of cases on hand and projected to come before it. Currently 72 staff are employed by the board. This is expected to rise to 85 by the year end. In addition, the board outsources claims preparation and helpline services to a contracted service centre, which provides flexibility and the capacity to expand processing volumes quickly to meet increased demand. Based on statistical and actuarial trends, the PIAB has projected annual volumes of cases rising to 25,000 per annum, 40% of which are expected to be resolved between the parties following contact with the board, 20% are expected to head into litigation but not necessarily to a court hearing and the remaining 40% will be assessed by the PIAB.

Total expenditure by the PIAB in 2005 was €8.08 million. This was funded by a €2.5 million Exchequer grant, €5.2 million in fees received and €384,000 from other income sources. The board is expected to be self-funding in 2006 in respect of operational costs.

The success of the PIAB represents a good news story for consumers who can now have their claims processed much more quickly and will receive the same level of awards as made in the courts without the trauma of litigation. The average time which it takes the board to assess cases is 7.2 months from the date of consent. Under the previous litigation-based system cases took three to four years to be settled. The costs associated with settling claims under that old system averaged 46% of the cost of awards, which compares to costs of approximately 7% under the PIAB system. In addition, a large number of cases have been removed from the courts system, freeing up the courts to deal with other matters.

The achievements of the PIAB to date are significant, delivering as it does a fast, efficient and, above all, fair personal injuries claims settlement system in such a short period since its establishment. The challenges the PIAB has overcome, logistic and legal, have been formidable and while the board continues to operate in a difficult environment, I have every confidence in its ability to deliver a quality service within its statutory timelines.

From discussing the issue with many people who are involved, I present a different view from that presented by the Minister and one that is based on consideration of the independent assessment of the board by journalists. Does the Minister accept that some of those views include headlines carried in The Sunday Business Post recently to the effect that “insurers are the big winners from injuries claims board”, “injuries board needs treatment” and “injuries assessment board needs an urgent overhaul”? Does he accept that at this stage the board is a basket case?

I wish to put some specific questions to the Minister. Why have so few awards been made? Why is it that from July 2004 until now out of 36,000 applications only 4,400 awards have been made? Is it correct that what has happened here could best be described as adding another layer of bureaucracy, cost and delay to the claims process? Where is the current annual report? Why has it not been published? Is it being hidden? Does the Minister agree or is he aware that the acceptance rate for awards has fallen from 75% to 60%? Will he advise the House why many claimants are abandoning the process?

Why do the lawyers to whom I have spoken seem very happy with the system? When I see lawyers happy with the money they are making under a system, I am concerned, having been a former lawyer.

I emphasise the criticisms I put forward do not come from any vested interests but from respected journalists such as Ms Deairbhail McDonald in the Irish Independent and Mr. Pat Leahy in The Sunday Business Post. The Minister might take on board the views of Mr. Eamon Devoy, one of the chief people in the Technical Engineering and Electrical Union. I gather that his view of the PIAB is that it is a fiasco. He represents the country’s largest craft union and he has said that a number of the members of his union are injured and some are killed every year and he is of the view that the PIAB is a disaster in dealing with such claims. Is the picture we have of the Government one that is full of the self-satisfied rhetoric of Government and of the PIAB or is the Minister’s eyes closed to all these problems?

I take strong issue with Deputy Jim O'Keeffe's use of the term "basket case". There has been an ongoing attempt to undermine the PIAB and it is regrettable that the Deputy should add to what has been a sustained campaign by vested interests to undermine the board.

What about Mr. Devoy's view?

The Deputy would have been aware of that campaign from the outset. Many solicitors for obvious and understandable reasons from their point of view were against its establishment. However, a number of solicitors I have met have admitted that it is working, although they acknowledge it has resulted in a significant loss of earnings for themselves and their companies.

That is Dorothea Dowling talk. It is rubbish.

Even The Sunday Business Post article to which the Deputy referred acknowledges that insurance costs have decreased. Motor insurance and home insurance costs have fallen to 1999 levels.

I refer the Deputy to a recent IBEC press release dated 2 November, which carried the heading "Rate of personal injuries claims falling". It was reported on "Drivetime" on Friday, 10 November that the number of employee insurance claims in recent years indicates a downward trend in claims against business by as much as 40% in real terms, from almost 12,000 claims per year in the period to 2002 to approximately 7,000 per year in the past three years. Court writs in personal injury claims which numbered on average 33,000 per year up to 2004 were down to 4,000 in 2005. That is not a basket case of an enterprise.

Insurance costs also show significant decline with room for further improvement on an ongoing basis. Insurance costs have come down. The chairperson of PIAB addressed an Oireachtas committee on 18 October at which meeting I understand Deputies and Senators welcomed the positive impact of the PIAB. The commentary at that meeting does not fit neatly with Deputy Jim O'Keeffe's commentary this afternoon.

I am glad the Minister has taken note of what we are doing in that committee. He does not always acknowledge or heed it.

I welcome and am a great admirer of the work of the committee from time to time, although not on all issues. It is important to have a sense of perspective in this debate. Deputy Jim O'Keeffe's comments on his assessment of the PIAB lack perspective and balance.

As I stated, PIAB deals with cases. As Deputy O'Keeffe knows, cases are settled within two to seven months compared to three or four years under the old system. Costs were reduced to 7% compared to 46% under the old litigation-based system.

Above all, through this programme, the Government helped to reduce motor and home insurance costs.

The consumer gains nothing from it. The only people who gain from the process are the insurance companies. They clean up because of the reduction in fraudulent claims, which has nothing to do with the PIAB, and increased competition in the market. I speak for the ordinary claimant and consumer who is met with delay. Mr. Devoy of the TEEU represents ordinary claimants who find the process a fiasco.

I will make a sporting offer to the Minister. Will the Minister forget the rhetoric he is fed by the representatives of the board and accept a case exists for an independent review of its operations? That is all I want. An independent review is necessary. The Minister and those involved in the board are blinded to the facts of the situation. I will be happy if the Minister agrees to an independent review of the operations of the board which, I repeat, has not produced its annual report.

I must respond — this is not rhetoric. Data from the Central Statistics Office show motor insurance costs for September 2005 dropped to levels last seen in September 1999. It also shows the cost of home insurance in September 2006 dropped below November 2001 levels. This is not me or any fancy rhetoric. It is Central Statistics Office data.

I agree the insurance industry has higher profits. Will Deputy O'Keeffe meet with the chairperson, Senator O'Toole, who is the vice-chair and a Member of the Oireachtas, and the chief executive officer——

I will meet with anybody.

——and put his issues to them?

An independent review of the operations of this——

They would be more than willing to deal with Deputy O'Keeffe's questions and explain to him the progress being made.

The Minister has not dealt with it.

I have. I met with them, put these questions to them, received responses and articulated them to the House. I ask the Deputy——

I want an independent review of the operations of the board.

——to go to the board himself and not to add to the sustained campaign by vested interests to undermine it.

Top
Share