James Reilly (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I reiterate that Deputy Neville was very keen to be here today for this but he is also Fine Gael's lead speaker on mental health and is on the Joint Committee on the Future of Mental Health Care, so there has been a clash. He was here for the quorum at the start of the meeting to enable it to begin. I just wanted to put that on the record because, like Deputy Quinlivan said, this is an area in which Deputy Neville is particularly interested. I am also very interested in it because being a GP means running a small business, and owning a shopping centre has all the problems the witnesses have outlined. However, I am very interested in it from the point of view of the consumer and the Government. I really welcome the witnesses, the presentations they have made and the document they have given us because they have very clear, concise, reasonable suggestions, some of which I wish to discuss with them because I want to see what the blockage is.

I have heard very clearly what they have said and I agree with them 100%: where vexations complaints are made, there must be consequences for those who go beyond vexatious to fraudulent, and let us call a spade a spade. We want to ensure that any citizen who is injured and is entitled to compensation gets it, but it should be reasonable and proportionate.

The comments regarding putting in place legislation that would put an onus on members of the Judiciary to explain the reason they have departed from the book of quantum in terms of an award make perfect sense and I hope they would not see issue with that. Nobody wants to interfere with the independence of the Judiciary or the individual case because all cases are different but, at the same time, an explanation would be welcome.

I refer to some of the comments made. The witnesses have given us some anecdotes, including Mr. McCambridge of McCambridge's in Galway, with which I am very familiar, my wife being from Galway, but they are anecdotes. It would be very useful if there was some study done that gave evidence to the fact that X number have not been able to expand and Y number of jobs have been lost. On many occasions in the voluntary sector, I have seen people who have not been able to set up facilities, perform a service or even run an event because of insurance costs. There is no question about that. I welcome, and I will continue to say this, that the witnesses have given us some clear suggestions. The suggestion on the Garda fraud unit makes absolute sense to me. There must be consequences for those who commit fraud.

I do not know what issues we will face in terms of whether there should be an automatic referral between section 26 and section 25 but nonetheless we must explore that to identify the problems.

I want to discuss regulation of the claims management companies. Mr. Boland stated this had been done in the United Kingdom in 2007. Have the witnesses been given a rationale for the absence of such regulation? Have they been told the reason we do not have such regulation or what the blockages are in that respect?

Regarding the legal costs, there is no doubt, as the witnesses have acknowledged, that very often insurers will not go to court because it is cheaper to settle the claim. That is a problem but it possibly would not be as much of a problem if there was a consequence for those who made false claims. The insurance company could then set about clarifying what happens to people when they do make false claims. As a doctor, I see the other side of this in my surgery with people who have been injured but I have also had experiences, and I am not getting into the blame game, of where I have been instructed by "the lawyer" representing the client to refer them to a particular consultant, which I will always put in the report because I do not believe that is appropriate. It is a particular problem for crèches and childcare facilities also. We want children to play in a normal environment outside, get dirty and allow them graze their knees. That is the reality of life and to put in place anything that would block that seems detrimental to me.

All I ask of the witnesses is for them to identify the problems as to the reason the blue book has not been reinstated, particularly the 2003 IBEC-IIF protocol. Have they had discussions with the Minister or the Department on that and, if so, what has been their response as to the reason that has not happened? I will be very supportive of many of the issues the witnesses have raised today and will pursue them with the Ministers and the Departments relevant to them.

Do the witnesses have any thoughts on the need to have a policyholder advocacy office, as raised by Deputy Kelleher, in terms of consumer protection in the future? We all know this is a dynamic area and as soon as we solve one lot of problems, another lot will present themselves. It is the idea of who might be appropriate for that.