Mr. John Maher:

I thank the Deputy. I will work backwards. Mr. Newham set out the mediation piece. Mediation is a closed box between the parties to agree whatever the issues are, with PIAB facilitating the resolution of issues. No matter what we do, keeping it in the PIAB process will reduce costs. It is going to be cheaper. In terms of the larger claims, 70% of claims made to PIAB are in the motor sphere and of those, about 80% would be back- and neck-type of injuries that would have relatively speedy recovery times. The awards reflect that.

The public liability is around 17% and the employer liability around 13% of the claims. They would be the ones where there might be more serious injuries. They would be reflected in the quantum. As Mr. Newham said, sometimes there may be issues around liability and that is why the cases may proceed to a court and have a higher cost. What we see at an aggregate level in the NCID are differentials between the cases that are settled pre-PIAB, immediately after PIAB and in litigation. It shows very clearly that the PIAB and the cases immediately after PIAB are far cheaper that those that go all the way.

On the Deputy's point about the free bet and cases settling on the steps of the court, the parties have a right at any time in the process to resolve the matter themselves and settle. Nothing can be done about that because that is a matter for the parties to agree. Claims can be withdrawn from PIAB. What we need to see in the coming years is cultural change. We need to see respondents settling through PIAB. We need to see consistency between what the courts are doing and what PIAB is doing. We do not yet have the guidelines and the mediation in place and the courts are not yet making judgments on the guidelines because to a large extent the claims before the courts were instituted before the commencement of the guidelines. There is, therefore, a time lag in terms of what we are seeing between the PIAB process and what is in the courts. Mr. Newham referred to a chilling effect. We think that when those legal challenges are concluded, we will have greater certainty in the injuries and claims environment. That should contribute to lower costs.