Mr. John Maher:

I thank the Senator for her questions. On her first point, on head No. 22 in respect of the courts, we modelled this on existing legislation, namely, the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004. While it is, for want of a better description, refining the discretion available to the court, the court still has the power to state that in the proceedings, the costs are going to be awarded because the court feels that an injustice may have been done. The court is still free to make that decision and it is provided for in the general scheme.

On the separation of functions, the Senator is 100% correct, in that there has to be clear water between the mediation process and the assessment process. That is something that PIAB will take forward in how that will work and be configured within the organisation. It would not make sense if one was mediating on a case and that one would then go in and assess the same case, for example.

Therefore, there will be a very clear distinction between the mediation function that is undertaken and the assessment. Again, that is something we can work out with PIAB. The Senator is right there needs to be separation.

PIAB is a very rich source of data. It is really important for it to make the data publicly available. It has data on the types of accidents and the types of injuries. It can be very useful to get regular data on that to understand what the most common types of injuries are and how they are happening. Are they happening at night or in certain premises etc.? That information can help with risk reduction.

PIAB has data that is almost complementary to what is in the NCID on claims, settlements, length of time etc. Again, it is about PIAB using those data and publishing them regularly, thereby increasing information and transparency in the claims environment. Again, we think that will help.

The Senator had one other question which I do not recall.