Last evening I mentioned the insurance companies' attitude when a possible change of legislation appeared to be imminent. Everybody knows that high insurance premia have been a bone of contention with the insured public for a considerable time. Many people, private citizens, those in the insurance business and Members of this House, have spent considerable time and effort trying to identify the causes of high premia. Invariably they come back again and again to the possibility that high claims and high payouts were a major contributory factor.
Deputy Cowen mentioned that a different system prevails in the United Kingdom, not entirely what is proposed here, but that they do not have the same problem with high insurance premia. I know there are other circumstances involved but it is my belief that, notwithstanding the claims now being made by some insurance companies, a new system would have the net result of somewhat reducing insurance premia. That being the case, one would automatically assume that the proposed change will be of benefit to the insured public. The case being put, and rightly so, is whether the ordinary citizen will be given his or her rights under the new system.
We then must ask ourselves if the jury system or the one or three judges would eventually result in the injured person or the claimant getting his or her rights. I have no reason to believe other than that three judges would in their wisdom arrive at an amicable and equitable resolution to the problem. I know that the court system is somewhat archaic and that the degree of representation by counsel required under the present system and so on is extremely unwieldy and exceptionally expensive and long drawn out. Nonetheless I see no reason to believe that anything would go wrong or that the claimants' interests would be misrepresented or ignored.
There is considerable merit in changing the system. The reverse side of the argument is whether it is better to have representatives selected from the general public, as jurors are, to represent the interests of members of the public who are involved in claims of this nature. I am always loath to refer to class distinction because it is something that we can well do without, but perhaps it can be argued that maybe jurors could more readily identify with an aggrieved person than would, say, three judges, because there are those who believe there are still class barriers in some quarters, although I do not accept that. Judges who are appointed to the Bench do a good job and, provided that the case is presented properly and that the usual procedures are gone through, I see no reason why they would not be in a position to achieve an equitable decision. That would have the result ultimately of reducing the cost of claims — admittedly it is only one contributory factor — and would be of benefit to the general public.
Another matter which would have an effect on the reduction of the cost of claims would be a speeding up of the procedures in the courts and a rationalisation such as was pointed out here yesterday evening by Deputy Yates and by Deputy Cowen on the other side of the House. That should be examined in far greater detail at this stage and we should not necessarily proceed merely to abolish the juries in civil cases. The whole system should be examined and reorganised with a view to ascertaining how best the public interest could be served by a rationalisation of the court system in civil cases or personal injury cases. In that way the benefit of this legislation to the general public would be tremendously greater than merely selecting one item as we are proposing at the moment and removing juries.
Speaking again as a non legal person, I believe there should be no great difficulty in introducing an entirely new system separate from the court system as we know it for dealing with such cases, with provision for appeal to the courts if agreement could not be reached. For instance, those of us who are members of local authorities have often come across very contentious cases in land acquisition which have been referred to arbitration. In most such cases agreement can be and has been reached and a satisfactory settlement achieved without any of the paraphernalia of going through the expensive court system. In those cases also there is provision for reference to the courts if all else has failed and that is found necessary.
There may be good reasons why this cannot be done in the type of case we are considering, but are we serious about tackling what I see as an insurance problem? Everybody recognises that insurance is necessary but, because of the high cost of insurance at present and the prospect of ever-escalating costs of premiums, we should take a very careful look at all the ingredients in those high costs and endeavour to find a better and more efficient system. I put forward that suggestion as another way around the problems that have arisen in an effort to speed up and rationalise the procedures and I hope that, as a result, we will be seen to be doing something definite in this House about that insurance problem.
Let me refer again to the general public and their attitude to insurance. At present everybody recognises readily that the cost of insurance is exorbitant. One can refer to costs down through the years and compare them with costs in other similar countries, and in all cases that I am aware of we seem to reflect very poorly any attempt to keep those costs in check. For that reason, keeping in mind that quite a large section of the public who should be insured at present find it more profitable and even necessary in some cases—and highly illegal—to go without insurance, our duty as legislators is to try to bring the system within reach of such people in so far as we can. In so doing we could reduce the burden on all of those who are legally paying insurance and at the same time reduce the possibility of people going about without insurance and consequently having claims registered with the bureau and so on. That problem is very involved and I am not sure the Bill before us tackles it sufficiently. I would like to see much more comprehensive legislation coming into the House to deal with the problem and to attract the imagination of the public in such a way that they would be able to see the net result as being in their interest.
The insurance companies are always good at displaying the béal bocht when it comes to this issue. As I mentioned at the outset, they were quite capable of telling us over the years that the high claims were a very serious problem when it came to high premiums for the consumer. They told us that their huge losses and at the same time they seemed able to open up brand new offices in plush surroundings all over the country. I find that incompatible with the fact that they tell us about the massive losses they have. I know they must attract investors, investment and so on, because that is necessary in any financial institution. Nonetheless, a great proportion of the public believe that a considerable number of premiums could be reduced considerably without affecting the liquidity of the insurance companies concerned. I know we have had one problem in that area but I do not think high claims caused that problem.
Last night Deputy Yates and Deputy Cowen mentioned the possibility of introducing a no fault system. That has merit in that it would reduce contention and would speed up the process, but it would also reduce the incidence of claims. After all, in a country that has become very fond of litigation, we should be very wary of giving even tacit encouragement in any way to anybody who might feel that even if they were at fault they were entitled to be covered by insurance. There is a considerable lobby of opinion in favour of the reverse, but, nonetheless, we should all be conscious of the need to ensure the highest possible standards of safety in industry regardless of the sector. For that reason, a no fault system would perhaps be open to abuse and, whatever else we do, we should not encourage such abuse.
I also wish to refer to costly delays. Last night Deputy Cowen spoke about the need to ensure that full medical reports are made available before a decision is taken. Delays in producing these reports can also hold up court proceedings and increase the cost, which places a further burden on the insurance system and is not necessarily beneficial to the claimants or the person or agency against whom the claim is lodged.
In the course of my ordinary constituency work I have seen conflicting medical reports and a good counsel would obviously have a field day in expounding on the case presented to him or her on the basis of such medical evidence. Such medical evidence, although conflicting, can appear very conclusive and in such cases perhaps a tribunal could be set up to examine all the medical evidence at an early stage and put the onus on those producing such evidence to bring it forward as quickly as possible. I know the argument can be made that it may be some time before the full extent of injuries is known and that it might be more beneficial for the claimant to avail of a medical report emanating a year or two years after an accident. However, the general interest should be kept in mind and I see no reason for not setting up a tribunal which could deal with medical evidence and where documentation could be dealt with and processed to a high degree without going to court. That might eliminate the problem of the cat and mouse game to which Deputy Yates referred last night, where in some cases agreement is reached on the steps of the court, depending on the ability of one side or the other to put forward the strongest possible case at that time which could have an overall effect on the outcome. I see no reason for the present delays as medical evidence should be able to determine the degree of injury even at an early stage. There is nothing unusual in medical reports setting out the degree of injury likely in two or three years or, indeed, even a longer time.
Fears have been expressed in some quarters that the ordinary citizen may not necessarily, by virtue of his or her social class, identify with the person or persons adjudicating on the case. Such people feel that they may be at a disadvantage. I do not accept that argument because the system has shown itself to be reasonably workable and those appointed to do a job have done it well and conscientiously. I do not see any militation against the interests of the injured party if the jury system is abolished and replaced by judges or a tribunal. However, there is an obvious need for any change to show a reflection in the level of insurance premiums. I do not accept the arguments now being put forward by the insurance companies that awards are only a contributory factor to the high cost of insurance and that a change would not have a major impact. It should have, because the jury system has been put forward as a contributory factor to high insurance premiums over a long number of years and I cannot see how it would change dramatically overnight. Opinions have only been changed by virtue of the imminence of amending legislation.
