James Lawless (Kildare North, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the witnesses. It was good to listen to their presentation. I congratulate them on setting up the group and on coming before us to engage in respect of this issue. When one is trying to run a business, one has enough things to do in terms of one's shopfront or backyard without having to lobby or advocate for changes in legislation. I understand that the frustration they experienced led the witnesses to this point. The same is true of those in the Gallery. I read with interest about the number of stakeholders and component groups involved in the alliance; it is quite a significant body that is represented. It great to have the group before us.

The points addressed in the presentation all appear to be very sound and reasonable. Is it a ten-point plan? I hope we can progress the points in some shape or form, either at the committee or in the Houses, because they make a lot of sense.

I wish to inquire about a couple of matters. Reference was made - I have read details of this elsewhere - to sums being paid out in respect of minor injuries and other incidents without being challenged and even without the knowledge of policyholders. Ms Reid spoke about such a case. People representing businesses and employment agencies have come to see me at my constituency office to discuss workplace accidents whereby an employee is allegedly injured and when a claim comes in the insurer often settles it without contesting matters or ascertaining the details of who did what. Employers often say that claims are trumped up and that they did not get their day in court or anywhere else - such as at an employment tribunal or other forum - in order that they could trash matters out. They often say that if they were given the choice, they would have fought it tooth and nail. However, they do not get a choice because their insurers just pay out and if they query the matter, the insurer says that is the way it is and there is nothing to do about it but pay the premium the following year. Insurers say that is how they do business. That is extremely frustrating. Business owners have come to me with such cases and I will be interested to hear the experience of the witnesses in that regard.

Perhaps that comes under the point relating to the claims management companies. I have heard from people locally that there are websites and hotlines - offered through the medium of a variety of languages - people can ring in order to report accidents at work and the companies involved will chase the claims on their behalf. Such companies encourage or vet the process, which is unhelpful to say the least to the premium payer.

My final point correlates to all that I have just said. I noticed that much of the documentation provided refers to rising legal costs. I appreciate that this is a factor. I will put my hand up and say that I am a lawyer, but I do not speak for the legal industry - far from it. I am not practising at present but I hear from colleagues. Does the issue go back to insurers? I am interested to find out if the supposition is correct that the lawyers are creaming it and that legal costs are driving up costs overall. Colleagues who are practising tell me that since the PIAB was set up and insurers began to do the work in-house, there is very little work for them because there is not much litigation in view of the fact that many cases do not go to trial. Barristers find that they are not weighed down with injury cases coming their way. In fact, they say it is all going to PIAB or what is increasingly more common is that insurers say they will settle and that is the end of the story. That seems to be the big problem, namely, the lack of counter challenge whether it is in the courts or through an employer having his or her say or having some forum that can hear both sides of the case. The question is how it is even cost effective for the insurers to be doing that. Perhaps the answer is that they are ripping off the person who pays the premium and that is how it is cost effective, but it just seems that if that challenge was there it might be one solution to the problem. I would be interested to hear the views of witnesses on what I have said.