Rose Conway Walsh (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for their presentations. I agree with a lot of their analysis, particularly the clearing up of the so-called facts that have had too much influence on this debate to date. That is not to say that, as part of the system which includes politicians, insurers and others, there is no role for legal practitioner to play in reducing premiums.

That is not to say that, as part of the system, there is no role for the legal system and legal practitioners in reducing premiums, as there is for politicians and insurers. For some time now, including this morning, we have heard calls for whiplash to be singled out as a special case and for a special regime to be put in place for compensation for whiplash. It has been suggested to me not only that this would be unfair, but also that it may well be unconstitutional. As has been said, it was made clear in a recent Court of Appeal judgment that it is important that when compensation is awarded by the court in respect of pain and suffering, it should be reasonable and proportionate in all circumstances. The court further stated that damages awarded for pain and suffering must be reasonable, having regard to the injuries sustained, and must also be proportionate to the awards commonly made to victims in respect of injuries which are of significantly greater or lesser import. That would seem to imply that any sort of British-style care-not-cash system would be legally difficult to implement. Do the witnesses have a view on whether such a scheme would be compatible with Irish law, or with the Constitution? Likewise, this committee has heard calls for certain injuries or cases to be excluded from the courts. Can the witnesses confirm that ultimately, each person has the right to seek damages in a court, regardless of the Injuries Board process?

I believe the main reason we are seeing increases is the insurance industry's investment policies. No amount of spin can change that. If there are other things we can do - things that should be happening in any event - we need to look to them. For example, greater competition within the legal sector might help to bring down legal costs. It is my understanding that the EU has cited the Law Society's current regulations regarding advertising by solicitors as being in contravention of the services directive. Do the witnesses believe the advertising guidelines are fit for the modern world of smartphones and rapid transport? I do not think anybody would agree that an American-style ambulance-chasing system would be an appropriate solution. Given that there is always the likelihood of a judge awarding costs against an alleged victim, however, the "no win, no pay" line will not work here. The EU believes the current system is illegal. The Competition and Consumer Protection Commission has reported on this wider issue, which is relevant to today's discussion. The new Legal Services Regulatory Authority has the power to update these regulations. In the opinion of the witnesses, will that help to reduce legal costs for people seeking insurance claims? There has been a great deal of expectation regarding the revised book of quantum. As we know, it is due soon. Given that time has passed, it is likely the revised book it will show an increase in most awards, rather than a reduction that would be consistent with what we are trying to do here. We have discussed the lack of transparency on the industry side. Would it be possible to have an accurate updated book of quantum, given that the industry does not seem to be fully disclosing all of its data? I appreciate that the witnesses do not speak for the Judiciary, but I would like to know whether they believe there is an appetite within the courts for a newer book of quantum. In their opinion, will the judges use it in the way it is intended to be used?