Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

I commend the Regional Group on using its Private Members' time to reintroduce this Bill to the House and for giving us the opportunity to debate it. When it previously passed through the Seanad, it was seen as a positive sign that the Government of the day was giving proper consideration to Opposition legislation. In the previous Dáil, the legal services section of the Houses of the Oireachtas was enhanced. I think we will benefit from that and that a constructive approach will be taken by virtue of the fact that the Government will accept legislation from the Opposition and will work constructively with us.

Perjury is a somewhat unique concept insofar as it is a legal term that is widely understood by the public yet lacks a dedicated legislative underpinning. While the provisions of this Bill have existed within common law for quite some time, the organic manner in which they have developed has resulted in this area of law being in a somewhat "haphazard state", as described by Mr. Justice Peter Charleton. As a result, I fully support codifying the courts' existing practices by placing perjury on a statutory footing. Not only does doing so bring greater clarity to the law in this area, but it also demonstrates the seriousness with which we must treat cases of intentionally misleading the courts. It is particularly welcome that the initial legislation has been amended to clarify that the remit of the legislation goes beyond the courts and is equally applicable to tribunals of inquiry and commissions of investigation. While the specific offence of giving false evidence to a commission or tribunal already exists under section 18 of the Commissions of Investigation Act 2004 and section 3 of the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence)(Amendment) Act 1979, this Bill makes it clear that there is no distinction between those forums and the courts. That is right and proper and I hope it acts as a deterrent to those who might consider misleading such proceedings.

It is important to note that this Bill is just one of a number of things that need to be done to deal with the insurance industry. It is not a silver bullet. I am not entirely sure to what extent it will make a difference. Indeed the value of this legislation may end up being more symbolic than practical. England and Wales have codified perjury legislation which has been on their statute books since 1911 and perjury convictions there have averaged around 100 per year. This figure might sound quite high, but in the context of 1.19 million convictions in the same jurisdiction last year, it is a fairly rare offence. We should not take our eye off the ball regarding the range of things that must happen to address insurance costs.

As regards proof, I think the right balance has been struck in the legislation. Under the common law tradition, conviction usually requires the corroboration of at least two witnesses. This legislation retains the corroboration requirement but clarifies that convictions can be handed down on the basis of one witness's testimony where there is clear corroborating material that implicates the accused.

My only major concern is not with the legislation itself but with the discussion around it, especially it being framed as a tool to drive down insurance premiums. As I have said, it is just one small part of a much bigger piece of work that needs to be done, not least within the insurance companies themselves. First, I am against making sweeping changes to the law surrounding perjury in all cases to address insurance costs alone. That would be akin to using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Second, I fail to see how it would have such an immediate and material impact when fraudulent insurance claims are already criminalised under section 25 of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004. It is an offence under that Act to give false or misleading evidence in personal injury actions, but the number of prosecutions brought under that section has been minuscule. Whether this is the result of a lack of cases or of a lack of Garda resources to pursue such matters is not entirely clear. The suggestion that this Bill will change the situation is a bit of a smokescreen which has been promoted by the insurance industry. It is worth remembering that figures used by the industry to support the idea that fraudulent claims are an epidemic are not reflected in the number of cases referred by the Garda each year. Whether the legislation will materially lead to a greater number of convictions for perjury generally will depend on whether the resources will be available to pursue cases. That said, I believe the legislation stands on its own merits.

We will be supporting the Labour Party amendment, as that Bill must also be enacted quite urgently. The different kinds of interactions young people have nowadays in their use of digital media is astonishing. Some sort of mechanism is needed to bring balance there.

The book of quantum, which has been discussed in reference to insurance claims, must also be delivered on quickly. A lot of work has been done and many promises have been made in recent years, and they must be brought to fruition if we are going to address the insurance issue in a comprehensive way. I commend the former Senator, Pádraig Ó Céidigh, on bringing this legislation to the floor of the Seanad. No one will be happier than him to see it progress further.

See this speech in context