Pa Daly (Kerry, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for her contribution. There may be a number of queries or questions regarding what she said in relation to it. Have there been representations in respect of what she said about the timeframe of 30 days for An Garda Síochána to make an application on behalf of the applicant? It seems like a very tight space of time.

The Minister mentioned the PIAB. We have seen over the past 15 years of its operation that the PIAB does not necessarily speed up claims. In fact, it can contribute to claims taking much longer. With regard to what the Bill says about applying to the District Court, I am not so sure that many members of the Garda will want to take cases into the local District Court but we will see how those cases proceed.

Sinn Féin will be supporting the Bill through to Committee Stage. As I said, we have some concerns that we will seek to raise in the form of some amendments at a later stage. Overall, however, it seems to be a positive Bill. This is provided that the provisions prove to be effective. It is worth outlining some of what the Bill does in order to set this in the correct context. The primary innovation is in reforming the current system relating to compensation for death or injury suffered by gardaí in the course of their duties. Currently, an injured member of An Garda Síochána, or his or her dependents in the case of death, may petition the Minister for Justice in order that he or she can apply in turn to the High Court for compensation. This is an archaic practice and reflects the need for reform to the system and the police as a whole in the State.

The arm's length operation of An Garda Síochána, which is still ultimately responsible to the Minister for Justice, is a delicate process.

The Bill will do the right thing in simplifying this process. That the Commissioner will replace the Minister for Justice in adjudicating whether the injury is eligible is, in the round, the correct step to take. Perhaps after the reform of policing is complete - a number of pre-legislative scrutiny reports were before the Joint Committee on Justice earlier - this could be re-examined, given that it seems to be a good function for the proposed Garda board or the Policing Authority to examine. Either way, there is currently a long delay within the status quoprocess and the Commissioner will be a more expedient judge of these cases. The right to a review on the part of applicants is also an important part of the Bill and, as with any process administered by the State, natural justice must be done and be seen to be done.

If an applicant is found to be eligible, whereby his or her injury has been deemed to have occurred in a malicious incident, an application can be made to PIAB which will then assess quantum in line with the usual process. PIAB has seen much reform over the years, mostly at the behest of the insurance industry, and payouts have decreased, albeit not with any great reduction in insurance premiums. Over the past 30 or 40 years, whenever the industry has promised lower premiums in exchange for reforms, the reductions do not seem to have been delivered. The industry asked for juries to be removed from personal injury cases and that was done, and that two fewer senior counsel would be required in cases and that was done. In addition, it asked for the PIAB system to be introduced, which was done, and for extensive dual-pricing reforms to be implemented, but we have not yet seen any results in terms of a reduction in premiums.

In any event, as was reported by The Irish Times recently, 49% of awards in 2021 were under €10,000, compared with just 12% of awards in 2020, while the overall average general damages award for motor, employer and public liability claims amounted to €11,583, a drop of 47% on the €21,850 average in 2020. Meanwhile, there has not been a decrease in premiums, despite the Irish insurance industry enjoying a year of record profitability due to decreased numbers of claims overall and decreases in the sums awarded. Decreases in the number of claims and in awards have not necessarily meant a decrease in premiums. I am on record in the House as predicting insurers would not act in good faith once these changes had been made and my party colleague, Deputy Doherty, has moved legislation in this area that would compel insurers to pass on the savings to the consumer.

I am somewhat concerned the Bill will fit in with the wider trend of shifting the costs and risks away from insurance companies or whoever pays for them and their ability to generate profits through ordinary citizens more generally. Sworn members of An Garda Síochána have bills to pay and are suffering from the cost of living crisis, as are many others. The fact that they face on-the-job risks must also be borne in mind, and wider Government failings on insurance and personal injuries should not ensnare them. The Minister might comment on this in her response.

To return to the Bill, the PIAB process will proceed in the usual manner, subject to one or two changes, and it will be only when a claimant or respondent is dissatisfied with the outcome that he or she will be given leave to apply to the court. While I understand that the aim here is to speed up claims, I wonder whether this will mean delays will continue while the process is lengthened. The respondent in subsequent proceedings will be the Commissioner, reflected in the change whereby the Commissioner will be responsible for HR affairs in the Garda, a change to be introduced by the policing, security and community safety Bill, the report on which was, as I said, before the justice committee earlier. Perhaps there is something of a conflict of interest in respect of the Commissioner having to assess eligibility for individuals who will later become plaintiffs in proceedings against him or her. The synergies and issues between the Bill and the changes brought about in the policing, security and community safety Bill, are something the Minister might address.

The inclusion of trainees in the Bill is important. The training of gardaí is changing rapidly and more and more on-the-job training seems to be coming to the fore. This brings risks with it, however, and it is right and proper that if a trainee were seriously injured or killed, he or she should also be eligible for compensation, which I welcome. There remains something of a backlog in Garda numbers due to Covid, which compromised class sizes. Accordingly, getting in more trainees in order that numbers will keep pace with population growth will be important. At the same time, proper resources and policing plans need to be implemented, which will keep people safe as much as increase Garda numbers. That the Bill takes in a wider definition of eligibility, including if the member is off duty or is formerly a member and has been injured as a result of that, is also welcome.

Finally, legal costs can, of course, increase the cost to claimants where they retain a lawyer from the beginning of the process. The Bill should reduce the need to retain lawyers for hearings, although it remains likely that even in engaging with the process, legal advice will be required, as should be the case. The system will need to retain the confidence of the Garda in order that it will not be totally redundant. Currently, the fact a judge may not rule in respect of an injury suffered in pursuit of a suspect or in a road traffic accident caused some anxiety for members of An Garda Síochána. If this new system will provide more certainty and justice along with it, it should be embraced. In that regard, the six-month timeline for claims to be lodged, as set out in the legislation, may have to be re-examined on Committee Stage along with a few other matters. In regular personal injury cases, of course, the period lasts two years. We will be supporting the Bill passing Second Stage.

See this speech in context