Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Likewise, I do not oppose the motion, but these amendments could potentially push the line further in regard to what is good law and what is constitutional. We will examine that in more detail on Committee Stage but I would not be surprised if a section of the amendment was challenged in the courts. I could speak more about that but our time is restricted.

Given the impact of what is proposed, it should have undergone pre-legislative scrutiny. The report has been available since the start of the year and it should have been scrutinised to give an opportunity to hear from other sides. I am aware that there is an insurance crisis which involves many factors but the Government seems to be fixated on the issue of fraud, which is an important issue but is not the only one.

At the committee meeting last week, insurers ran rings around the Minister of State, Deputy D'Arcy. It is time to pause and look at the actions. Why is the insurance industry time and again allowed to block or delay unfavourable measures while pushing ahead with favourable ones? This is a procedural motion to allow the Bill to proceed to Committee Stage, and I have no issue with that. While there are issues with the inference that could be drawn from the wording, which we should change from "may" to "shall", I would like to hear what impact a reduction of the prescribed period from two months to one would have on genuine claims. The House is united in its view that fraudulent claims need to be stamped out, but there also needs to be prosecution in respect of fraudulent claims. Suspect claims are coming from notable people but nothing happens. Other claims are thrown out of court when the judge deems them fraudulent, yet no convictions result.

The question I always ask is: where is the Garda fraud unit? We were told that there will be a meeting between the Minister of State, Deputy D'Arcy, and the Garda Commissioner. I made the point time and again, to the Minister of State's predecessor, Deputy Eoghan Murphy, and others, that the idea that a private enterprise would fund a section of the Garda is not right. It is a precedent we should not establish. I know it operates in London, but it should not happen here. We should not allow any private interest to fund a section of our police service. As I said to the Minister of State, he needs to make it clear on behalf of the Government that it and this House stand foursquare behind the Commissioner in terms of resources and personnel to establish a publicly funded Garda fraud unit. We should no longer tolerate people walking out of court after chancing their arms in the context of bringing fraudulent cases and knowing they will never be prosecuted, which is what happens. I would also like to hear an update on the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission's investigation into cartelism.

These issues will be examined in detail on Thursday. I am not opposed to them but they are only a part of the picture. While it is more of a justice issue than a finance issue, it should have been subject to pre-legislative scrutiny, or at least there should have been an option for the committee to tease out the wording of this in written format with other sectors. We are united in the idea of stamping out fraudulent claims. There is an issue with how long the video files can be kept, which I understand, but I would like to see what, if any, unintended consequences there are for genuine claimants.

See this speech in context