I propose to take Questions Nos. 92 to 98, inclusive, together.
The recommendations in the Report on the Cost of Motor Insurance are being progressed in accordance with the Action Plan contained in the Report. The first quarterly progress update in respect of the implementation of the recommendations is now available on the Insurance Policy section of the Department of Finance’s website.
This update shows the progress to date on the overall implementation of the Report, with a particular focus on action points which were due for completion in the first quarter of 2017.
The 7 parliamentary questions which have been composited all relate to Objective 4 of the Report - Reducing the Costs in the Claims Process.
In respect of Recommendation 18 (Explore with the Judiciary how future reviews of the Book of Quantum/Guidelines might involve judicial involvement in its compilation or adoption) and Action Point 39 (Consultation with the Judiciary), it should be noted that a meeting between the PIAB and the Judiciary was held in March to initiate discussions on the next Book of Quantum. The matter will be progressed further over the coming months. As this work is ongoing, it is not possible to comment on the outcome of the consultation, or the details of a possible review and update of the Book of Quantum.
The position in relation to Recommendation 20 (Introduce more granularity into the Book of Quantum) and Action Points 41 (Consult with the Personal Injuries Commission and implement any recommendations arising from its Report) and 42 (Enhance the Book of Quantum upon each publication) is that the tasks are being considered in the context of the next review of the Book of Quantum, taking account of any recommendations which may emerge from the work of the Personal Injuries Commission. This work is ongoing and in this regard you will note that the Working Group recommended that the Book of Quantum should be updated every 3 years, therefore I expect that it will be completed within this period.
In relation to Recommendation 21 (Implement the Review of the Framework for Motor Insurance Compensation in Ireland) and Action Point 43 (Continue to implement the Review), work is well underway on the implementation of this recommendations and action point. In particular, stakeholders are being consulted and the drafting of the Heads of Bill is being progressed with a view to them being published by the end of Q2 2017.
In relation to Recommendation 22 (Examine the impact of legal and other fees on personal injury awards) and Action Point 45 (Establishment of reliable set of data and commence review), the review has been commenced. However, it has proven to be more difficult than anticipated to establish a reliable set of data and therefore the relevant action point has not been completed as scheduled in Q1. A data set based on the aggregation of cases submitted for adjudication will become available when the new Office of the Legal Costs Adjudicators (OLCA) is established in late 2017/early 2018. A steering group to migrate from the current Office of the Taxing Master to the OLCA was formed earlier this year and the underlying data requirements are being designed as part of the set-up process. There have been discussions in respect of alternative data set(s) in the interim period. The only usable data set in relation to legal costs available to the Working Group was provided by the insurance industry in response to a specific request and it is proposed that a quarterly reporting system on costs trends be put in place with the insurance industry until the OLCA is operational. Other discussions have taken place with the Central Statistics Office on improving the basis of collection of its legal costs data, and with the Office of the Taxing Master with a view to the possibility on an interim basis of aggregate data on costs profiles related to PI cases being extracted manually from its cases. The review has commenced and, following discussions with the Department of Justice and Equality, experts from the Courts Service are now examining existing database systems for the District, Circuit and High Courts to establish means of extrapolating the required data for a quarterly reporting set. Preliminary discussions have also been held with the PIAB with a view to it supplying data on trends from its own settlements spanning the period since the jurisdictional changes.
In respect of Recommendation 23 (Review the impact of the changes to the Court Jurisdictional Limits as they evolve) and Action Point 47 (Review to be commenced), the review has commenced and, following discussions with the Department of Justice and Equality, experts from the Courts Service are now examining existing database systems for the District, Circuit and High Courts to establish means of extrapolating the required data for a quarterly reporting set. Preliminary discussions have also been held with the PIAB with a view to it supplying data on trends from its own settlements spanning the period since the jurisdictional changes. It is expected that the report will be finalised in accordance with the Q2 2018 deadline set out in the action plan.
In relation to Recommendation 24 (Examine the setting of the Discount Rate (in Personal Injury lump sum awards), without prejudice to the outcome of relevant proceedings, and to be reviewed at regular intervals) and Action Points 49 (Review to be commenced) and 50 (Report to be submitted to the Cost of Insurance Working Group), the Department of Justice and Equality has commenced examination of this issue in consultation with the Department of Finance and the State Claims Agency, taking into account the judgments in the case of Gill Russell v HSE, and the recent discount rate changes in England and Wales. The State Claims Agency is also proposing to carry out some analysis on this subject. In the case of Gill Russell v HSE, the Court of Appeal upheld the determination of the High Court that the discount rate of 3% then being applied by the courts to personal injury lump sum awards was too high for cases involving significant long-term care needs. A key outcome of this process will be whether regulations should be brought forward to set the discount rate and if so at what rate should they be set.
