Robert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

The Minister has yet to respond. It is ironic that we are debating this legislation the weekend after Amy Molloy, an investigative journalist with the Irish Independent, to whom I give credit, published details of an undercover investigation she carried out during which she found that at least seven firms are sending clients to the same orthopaedic surgeon. She also found that some medical reports were found to be copied word for word with incorrect patient names. Solicitors and claimants asked doctors to amend medical reports, including about physical examinations for whiplash.

Our payouts for whiplash are the highest in the world. The article states: "One solicitor claimed he is paying a GP in bulk 'for up to 10 medical reports at a time', but said they 'do not have a special relationship'." That shows the seriousness that currently pertains to this issue. I do not intend to tar every solicitor or GP with one brush, but some GPs and lawyers are bringing their own professions into disrepute, and through their actions are driving up the costs of premiums.

Another report published in the Irish Independent today related to a captain of industry, an entrepreneur who has created thousands of jobs throughout this country in many rural and isolated areas where there is no other employment. I am referring to Pat McDonagh of Supermac's. Over recent years, he has fought fraudulent or exaggerated claims on eight occasions. He paid out approximately €35,000 in claims but paid a further €380,000 in legal fees. I am only a layman. I am not a legal professional and do not claim to be, but that is exorbitant by any stretch of the imagination. We are fortunate that Mr. McDonagh has the resources to challenge the prevailing culture. On many occasions, insurance companies told him it would be easier not to fight the case but to surrender, raise the white flag, and pay out the damages, but he refused. The reason he did so is quite clear, based on some of the cases brought against him.

One woman claimed she suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder, PTSD, and stopped eating in restaurants after she allegedly found a thumbtack in her chips. However, she dropped the personal injuries case against Supermac's after footage emerged of her dining in a hotel at a time when she alleged she could not bring herself to go into a restaurant for food. In another case, a man went into a Supermac's in the midlands, took a photograph of the wet floor and then conveniently slipped. Again, he decided not to proceed with the case after footage of the incident was shown.

Mr. McDonagh is fortunate that he has the resources to challenge such cases. However, thousands of other small and medium-sized enterprises, including people who are self-employed, one and two-man operations, or those with five or six employees, working from week to week providing employment, do not have the resources to deal with court cases. They have no choice but to take on board what their insurance companies tell them and pay out the damages. When it comes time to renew their premiums 12 months later, if they can get a renewal, they then face huge increases.

Placing perjury on the Statute Book is not just about penalising those who commit perjury. It is also about preventing them from doing so in the first place. Tough sanctions may make people think twice about lying and perverting the course of justice. Making perjury a statutory criminal offence is not just about addressing fraudulent personal injury claims, although that is an important component. It is also about making accountable all those who lie in courts, commissions, or tribunals. This Bill proposes penalties of up to 12 months for conviction on a summary offence and up to ten years for conviction on indictment. The overarching objectives of the Bill are to provide for a statutory offence of perjury that can be clearly interpreted by investigators, prosecutors and courts alike; provide for statutory perjury related offences, including false statements under oath, false statutory declarations and false declarations; and provide for clear statutory penalties for perjury, to act as both deterrent for the offence of perjury and as sufficiently punitive penalties to reflect the substantial damaging effects caused by perjury. We want to achieve reduced premiums, not increased profits for the insurance companies. Addressing this is only one element of tackling the high costs of premiums. The insurance company cartel also needs to be addressed.

In that context, it is welcome that the Minister for Business, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy Humphreys, requested that the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission, CCPC, carry out a forensic audit of the public liability insurance market. She requested that study in the summer, after much pressure from across the political divide, because each and every one of us encounters this issue in our clinics daily and weekly. Four months later, in a reply to a parliamentary question I asked the Minister, she said:

The CCPC has commenced its study and I understand that a procurement process was launched to seek the services of external economic consultants to expedite the delivery of this study. These consultants will supplement the CCPC’s in-house expertise. The CCPC has advised me that the study is a priority and it will be concluded as soon as practicable.

If it is such a priority, why has the CCPC not set itself a deadline for when the study should be concluded? When asked at a committee meeting today, the Minister was unable to say when that might happen.

The crisis inflicted on small businesses and community groups by insurance premiums has been allowed drag on for far too long. This legislation will go some way towards addressing the increases in insurance premiums. I ask the Minister to take this opportunity to state clearly that the Bill will pass through the remaining Stages at an accelerated pace in order that it can be signed into law without any further delay. I also ask the Minister to address the two pieces of legislation my party has brought forward on this issue. Where do they stand and will the Government give them favourable consideration early in the new year, in whatever little time remains in the lifetime of this Dáil?

See this speech in context