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

I will discuss section 14 afterwards, if the Deputy does not mind. In my view and in the view of several businesses who have presented to me, this is almost 100% complete. The number of occasions when fraudulent claims show up and they have no evidence that an incident did not happen is significant. Heretofore, before the change in the data protection laws on 25 May, they could keep the footage for as long as they wanted - months, two years, whatever. Now the law of the land says that footage must be deleted after one month. It is only appropriate that we equalise the period for which the footage must be retained and the period within which people have to be notified of a case.

We are in no way removing the court's flexibility in dealing with somebody making a legitimate claim. It is important to put on the record that whenever I meet businesses or groups who are concerned about insurance, everybody wants to ensure that the legitimate claimant is compensated, as we in this House do. We provide for reasonable cause in the section to ensure that if somebody has a legitimate and reasonable cause for not notifying the party against whom they are making a claim, the court will consider that. This does not impact upon that.

However, the matter of inference arose in the working group. In this amendment, the inference pertaining to the plaintiff remains in cases where there has been a failure to notify without a reasonable cause. If somebody rocks up with an insurance claim one year, 11 months, three weeks and three or four days later, we are again in a situation where the person against whom claims are being made has no evidence. Staff members might be gone. The respondent might not even know who was working on the night in question. This situation could last for two, three or four years. Drawing a negative inference in cases where there is no reasonable cause is a matter for the court. It is important that we have enough protection for claimants with a reasonable cause for not giving notification. We are here to protect the individual who has a legitimate case for damages against his or her person. We are all at one in wanting to protect those people. However, we have to move to a new space. The period of one or two months and the provision for inference is crucial to make an impact. We could pretend to make an impact and make a provision that is not legitimate. I am not about that and I do not believe this committee is. If we want to make an impact, this section is crucial.

We are not imposing on the courts. Yesterday, the Attorney General gave his opinion and he is comfortable with this. I am meeting Garda Commissioner Harris on 11 December. I continually have to say that I am not opposed to the establishment of a Garda insurance section within the Garda National Economic Crime Bureau. As a personal view which I aired a long time ago, very early in the job, I am opposed to the industry funding the section directly. If the industry provides the money to the Minister and the Minister provides it to the Garda Síochána, I am 100% comfortable with that. That arrangement does the same thing. Funding is provided to the Exchequer, which, in turn, provides the same funding. I would look for additional funding to establish the insurance section. That is what I would prefer. The cost of insurance working group, which was present before I came into the job, also highlighted that. It is the UK model. However, it is a matter for the Garda Commissioner. He will speak with the Minister for Justice and Equality about the establishment of the section and how it is funded.