Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

This amendment to reduce the notification period for the serving of a letter of claim from two months to one month, in the context of data protection and GDPR, seems sensible. I do not have an issue with that as such.

I have an issue with the other parts of what the Minister of State has done here. The Minister of State has removed the words "or as soon as practicable thereafter", which allows for the court to decide whether it is practicable.

The Minister of State has then determined in law that the court shall draw an inference and while the note he provided to us states that such inference can be positive, the language is negative and it is designed to be a negative conclusion. The court has the power, if it so wishes, to draw an inference. The reason it is written in that way is because inferences are negative so that it can draw a negative view in relation to this. Now the Minister of State is saying they shall do it but it kind of states this is good and there is nothing negative there. There is a serious issue in that regard.

The amendment to section 14 of the 2004 Act is tinkering around the edges. I am not sure about it. I have not heard any reasonable explanation for why a fraudulent claimant would delay his or her own proceedings. I do not understand why that would be the case, but that is not the core issue, which relates to a number of steps that are being taken in the amendment. We all want fraudulent claims to be stamped out. I will give the Minister of State the opportunity to outline to us his conversations with Garda Commissioner Drew Harris on the establishment of a funded insurance fraud squad within the Garda force. The official position is that such a body should be funded by the industry. A number of steps are specified in the amendment. It specifies a reduction in the notice period from two months to one month and proposes the deletion of the phrase "as soon as practicable thereafter". Another phrase is used that is still more restrictive. A further proposed change is that the court "shall" as opposed to "may" draw an inference. The penalty for genuine claimants who fail to fulfil the terms of subsection (4) is that an order of costs could be made against them or the costs for that part could be made against them. The change is far-reaching and for this reason, I cannot support the amendment.

I support the core principle of the amendment, namely, the proposed change in the term from two months to one month. I do not have a problem with that, but the Minister of State needs to revisit the amendment on Report Stage. If a court decides there is a reason for the claim not being been served on an individual, it is up to the court to draw a conclusion. Courts are empowered to draw conclusions and we should allow them to make such decisions rather than dictating to them by using the word "shall". The problem is that the change would make it harder for genuine claimants.

We are correctly coming at the legislation with the intention of stamping out fraudulent claims and driving down insurance premiums. However, there is also a responsibility on us to look through the lens of people who are making genuine claims. We must ask whether this is proposal will create three further hurdles that will allow insurance companies, which are multi-billion industries with lawyers akin to Goliath, to go up against individuals who were genuinely injured having been involved in a motor or other accident. The Bill provides additional ammunition for the industry to tackle fraudulent claims but the approach would also have an effect on genuine claims. We have got the balance wrong here.