David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

On amendment No. 1, unfortunately I cannot accept this amendment. Section 51L(2) provides that a review of the efficacy of the HICP index be carried out after an initial five-year period. Deputies Wallace and Daly's proposed amendment would reduce that to three years. I am sure Deputies will recognise that to get an accurate representation as to whether the HICP index, as the reference index on the basis of which PPO annual payments are adjusted, is working to the benefit of catastrophically injured persons, it will be necessary to have a sufficient number of cases and allow a sufficient amount of time to determine the efficacy of the index. There are, thankfully, relatively few cases coming before the courts on an annual basis and in that context I consider that five years is the correct time period to establish whether the HICP is the appropriate index for use in cases involving catastrophically injured persons. We are far more likely to have a good volume and range of cases on which to make an assessment after five rather than three years. Therefore, while I appreciate the Deputies' intentions in seeking to accelerate the review, I believe that the best outcome for assessing the efficacy of these new measures can be achieved on the basis of a five-year review and am not accepting the amendment.

By way of further information, I am advised that there are approximately 20 catastrophic injury cases involving State defendants per annum and an equivalent number involving non-State bodies. Not all will involve PPOs as many will be resolved by lump sum payments. The analysis of this index over three years could be too volatile, given the small number of cases. The UK experience is that the CPI performed better over the past eight years than the earnings index. There are good reasons for not doing that.

On amendment No. 2, section 51L(4) provides for the making of regulations where a review of the prevailing index has concluded that an index other than the HICP would be more appropriate for use in catastrophic injury cases. Deputies Daly's and Wallace's proposed amendment would make it mandatory for the Minister to make such regulations. We have looked closely at this and can see merit in the proposal. It makes sense to me that if an alternative index were considered more suitable for use than the HICP, the Minister should be required to make the necessary regulation, subject to the consent of the Minister for Finance. In that context, I propose to accept this amendment.

See this speech in context