Billy Kelleher (Cork North Central, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I expressed some reservations about this issue on Committee Stage on foot of Deputy Quinlivan's amendment. Having studied it and analysed it, and having read the recommendations in the context of the Comptroller and Auditor General's recommendation, I believe that we do not have to have a huge reserve for the PIAB to operate. Any excess moneys should be returned to the Exchequer. That is a reasonable point as long as the guarantees are given by the Minister to the House in terms of the operational and capital costs and the contingency reserve that would be required for the PIAB to function normally in its day-to-day business and in its further strategic planning.

There is no doubt that we do not need undue delays or for us to read in a PIAB annual report that waiting times for assessments have been further lengthened because not enough money has been allocated. We need assurances - and the commitment should be given - that this amendment is unnecessary, bearing in mind that it was put down for the reasons we all have, namely, to ensure that the PIAB is a functioning entity that can carry out its duties in a timely manner and with a strategic plan in front of it.

The PIAB has been around for some time and the broader issue is the continually escalating award system in place for personal injury claims. It appears to be the case that one award sets a precedent and then it seems to continually creep up in personal injuries' assessments. Ireland is completely out of kilter with European norms and completely out of kilter with the UK in personal injuries' assessments and the awards made for similar injuries. I do not believe that the Irish neck is any stronger or weaker than the British or European neck but we have this continual increase in personal injury awards, which is causing alarm among businesses and among individuals who take out motor insurance. Those people are law abiding in that they have an obligation to have liability cover but if they have a claim it seems to be for inordinate amounts.

I have said previously that fraud is not a victimless crime. In the insurance context, insurance scams are not a victimless crime. They impact on businesses and on the ability of a business to employ people and to function. To put it mildly, we have been lethargic in our approach to addressing this issue. While I believe this amendment is unnecessary for making sure that the PIAB has enough resources available to it, the broader issue is the support from Government through policy and resources to ensure we do not have abuses carried out continually in the insurance business by fraudsters and chancers.

When one speaks with those who are insuring businesses and insuring motorists there is no doubt that fraud is no longer anecdotal; now there is empirical evidence that there is wholesale abuse and fraud in the system. It is resulting in increased costs to motor insurance cover and business public liability cover. For all of those reasons the PIAB is one particular area that we must address to ensure it can make timely assessments and awards. The PIAB can take out the costs that would be incurred if cases were taken through the courts where they are more robustly defended and have extra costs incurred. The broader issue of fraud and claims made off it must be addressed.

Two recommendations were made previously. One recommendation was that a Garda insurance fraud unit be established. I am still of the view that this should be done, and that the Minister is wringing her hands of this particular proposal. The insurance companies could make a contribution to the Exchequer, or directly to the Garda fund. I am not quite sure how it could be done but equally I believe that something must be done to investigate continual fraud by individuals who see it as just another money-making racket.

If a person walked into a shop, jumped over the counter and robbed a few euro from the till there would be a Garda investigation and probably a criminal sanction. However, a person can walk into the same shop, fall in the toilet area and make a fraudulent claim but nothing happens with regard to a sanction. The person goes to the court and if he or she is awarded compensation it is better again for the fraudster. If the person is not awarded compensation the case is just struck out and that is the end of it. There are no prosecutions for perjury or for fraudulent claims presented to the courts by chancers and criminals. I put it to the Minister that she and her Government have been very slow in accepting and recognising this fact, which is no longer based on anecdotal evidence and is supported by the empirical statistics to which the Minister and all of us have access. It is now time for us to send a very clear message to law-abiding people that the State, through the Garda Síochána, the courts and the prosecution services, will stand by people who are doing their duty in taking out motor, civil and public liability insurance. That is an obligation the Minister should take seriously and the Government should support her in that endeavour.

I will not support the amendment tabled by Deputy Quinlivan because a recommendation has already been made by the Comptroller and Auditor General as the constitutional officer. The issue of the broader supports required by insurance companies and the courts must be supported by the Minister and her Government.

See this speech in context