Vol. 570 No. 2
75 Mr. J. O'Keeffe asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment her views on whether referring proposals to establish a personal injuries assessment board to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business would be a useful contribution to the debate, particularly if accompanied by hearings involving the attendance of interested parties. [18252/03]
The Tánaiste appeared before this committee in March of this year to discuss the insurance reform programme. She acknowledges the work of the joint committee in its consideration of insurance reform and is aware it has met various interest groups on the topic. The Tánaiste, myself and our officials have also met various interest groups in relation to the reform programme, including the establishment of the personal injuries assessment board.
Furthermore, the general scheme of the Personal Injuries Assessment Board Bill has been published on my Department's website, www.entemp.ie to fuel debate and discussion on the issue. Comments on the proposed legislation are welcome from interested parties.
My concern is that the proposal for a personal injuries assessment board may be just a sticking plaster solution and will not lead to any reduction in the cost of insurance. It may be a bit like the famous solutions of abolishing juries or the two seniors rule.
Let me make it clear, as a non-practising lawyer, that I am not against the proposal but the onus of proof is on those who say it is going to work. That has not been done, which is why I am suggesting that the heavyweights from the interests involved – the Insurance Federation, the interim board of the PIAB, the Law Society and the Bar Council – be brought before the enterprise committee of the Oireachtas and allowed to prove their case and answer questions.
A precedent has been set in that regard, and I was a member of the all-party committee that held the abortion hearings. That led to a lot of clarity, but there is no clarity on this issue, as far as I can see. There are conflicting views, as well as concerns on the part of legislators like me that no benefit to anybody will arise from this proposal and that it will be just another useless layer of bureaucracy.
One would expect Deputy Jim O'Keeffe, as a lawyer, to say what he says, but there is no doubt that the costs of delivering insurance compensation at present are way above what they should be and way above what they are in any other European country. This is largely due to the costs involved in the present adversarial system.
The PIAB is designed to reduce the cost of delivering compensation. As the Deputy will be aware, the Motor Insurance Advisory Board recommended strongly that the PIAB would have a significant impact in terms of reducing the costs of delivering compensation. Legislation is now being prepared by Government and the proof of the pudding will be in the eating when the board is established.
That is the very point – the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. I will ignore the rather superficial reference by the Minister of State to my position as a lawyer. I pointed that out to declare an interest, but I speak as a legislator who is anxious to ensure that we have an efficient system here, which we have not got at present. The onus of proof is on those putting forward the view that the PIAB will produce an efficient, cheaper system.
That is why I issue a challenge to the Government to bring those who propose that view before the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business. Let those who hold a different view also be brought before the committee. Out of that, let us have clarity and light rather than the leap in the dark that is now being proposed. I am neutral on this issue and have an open mind. If this proposal is going to produce benefits, then so be it, but that has not been proved. My concern is that it is a leap in the dark that will bring no benefit to anybody and that will, as I have said, be just another useless layer of bureaucracy. Bear in mind that anybody who is not satisfied with the decisions of the PIAB cannot even go to court. Where is the advantage, therefore, of having a PIAB?
I have a couple of brief supplementary questions. I am more convinced of the value of the personal injuries assessment board than my Fine Gael colleague, Deputy Jim O'Keeffe, but when is it envisaged that we will have this enacted? It is not the direct responsibility of the Minister of State, Deputy Fahey, but I ask about the parallel development of a courts (amendment) Bill to deal with the issue of taking sworn affidavits. Will there be a perjury Act, which was also called for in the review?
These are vital matters that I have already raised in my priority question. We need action rather than further review, and I hope there will not be further long-winded debate on the merits of this proposal. We need action for the very people I mentioned in my priority question, who cannot continue surviving, month-on-month, with the insurance rates now being heaped upon them.
It is intended that legislation will be enacted by the end of the year—
Which of the Bills?
The PIAB will be established on a statutory basis. I take the point made by Deputy Jim O'Keeffe, but he is the only legislator I have heard that has doomed the personal injuries assessment board to failure. It is—
No, I have questioned it.
The concept is working successfully in many European countries and I have no doubt it will work successfully here.
What about the other Bills?
Provisions on perjury, untruthfulness and so on are provided for in the legislation.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
