Michael D'Arcy (Wexford, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

The items mentioned in amendment No. 3 already fall within the existing definition. The approach of individually specifying this level of detail is not in keeping with the general drafting approach taken in the Bill. We propose to set down in primary legislation a framework within which the Central Bank will establish an administrative claims database that will allow the specific approach to evolve over time. It is intended that the data to be collected from insurers will be defined by regulation, rather than in the primary legislation, to minimise the need to amend the legislation as the level of data collected in the future becomes more detailed. The Central Bank has informed me that it will take the substance of the amendment into account when it finalises its data specification in order that the data outlined are collected in this way.

On the Deputy's point about distortion in bookkeeping exercises, they are not going to be acceptable to anybody, let alone the Central Bank. It is a sharp practice that certainly could not be accommodated anywhere.

Amendment No. 7 is being opposed on the basis that it comprises detail which is unnecessary to drill down into the primary legislation and that is appropriately covered in the existing text. In that regard, the existing provision which provides for "the employment of the procedures under the Personal Injuries Assessment Board" covers all of the cases which come within its scope, including those set out in the amendment. It is similarly covered already.

The Office of the Parliamentary Counsel has also highlighted in respect of this provision that there are deficiencies in the terminology used in the amendment. As such, it does not properly reflect the wording of the original Personal Injuries Assessment Board Act 2003 which is referenced. In addition, in trying to break down the Personal Injuries Assessment Board process into a series of component parts we run the risk of missing out on certain elements. For example, having consulted directly with it, we understand the proposed amendment may not cover cases that the board releases almost immediately under section 17 of the Personal Injuries Assessment Board Act 2003 where consent has not been sought from the respondents. These may be cases such as psychological bullying, abuse, etc. that may ultimately be settled after concluding the Personal Injuries Assessment Board process. This means that there is a possibility that it would not allow for all settlements made in the Personal Injuries Assessment Board process to be captured, thereby unintentionally decreasing the scope of the information that might be requested. On the basis that the existing text captures all scenarios within the Personal Injuries Assessment Board process, I do not think it advisable for the committee to accept the amendment.