Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 17, between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following: “Amendment of section 69 of Principal Act

19.Section 69 of the Principal Act is amended, in subsection (2)—

(a) in paragraph (c), by the substitution of “a member of staff of the Board,” for “a member of staff of the Board, and”, and

(b) by the insertion of the following paragraph after paragraph (c): “(ca) a person appointed under section 18D, and”.”.

Gheall mé ar Chéim an Choiste go mbeadh leasú agam faoin alt seo. On Committee Stage I indicated I would bring forward an amendment to introduce a new section to the Bill to ensure that the mediators appointed from a panel are provided with the same level of indemnity as mediators who are staff members. This amendment introduces a new section 19 to provide for this indemnity.

Section 69 of the Personal Injuries Assessment Board Act already provides for indemnification of certain persons regarding work undertaken by them on behalf of the board. Under section 69, employees, advisers and consultants are indemnified by PIAB against all actions or claims, however they arise, in respect of the discharge by that person of those functions. Mediators may be employees of the board or appointed from a panel of mediators. Mediators appointed from such a panel are not members of the staff of the board and, therefore, an additional reference is required to provide indemnity for such individuals. This follows the approach already taken in section 168 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004. This indemnity will only be provided where the board is satisfied they have undertaken their work in an appropriate manner and in good faith.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Tá an leasú seo tábhachtach agus loighciúil mar tá sé déanamh leathnú ar an gcosaint atá ag idirghabhálaithe maidir leis an obair atá á ndéanamh acu sna cásanna seo. Aontaím leis an Aire Stáit go bhfuil sé tábhachtach go bhfuil an indemnity seo atá á ofráil ag clúdach oibre agus go bhfuil an obair sin déanta i gceart. Is é ceann de na fadhbanna is mó ná ceann maidir le hobair na n-idirghabhálaithe a bheith carried out in a professional manner. It is important that any work by mediators is i gceart agus thar ceann an Stáit. Caithfimid smaoineamh faoin bhfáth a bhfuil sé seo ag tarlú chun déanamh cinnte de go bhfuil cosaint dóibh siúd atá gortaithe agus don Stát, go bhfuil gach rud i gceart agus féaráilte agus nach bhfuil botún á dhéanamh as a dtarlaíonn cásanna cúirte, mar a atá feicthe againn thar na blianta. Ba cheart go mbeadh rudaí i gceart. Is céim loighciúil atá i gceist anseo le go mbeidh an tAire Stáit ag leanúint an méid atá ag tarlú agus atá sa reachtaíocht reatha agus reachtaíocht roimhe seo.

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Teachta as an tuiscint don leasú seo. Mar a dúradh, tá sé tábhachtach le haghaidh cúram na n-idirghabhálaithe agus d’fheidhmeanna an Bhille agus muid ag dul ar aghaidh.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will move on slowly in case there are Members who have not realised we have started on the Bill. Amendment No. 2 arises out of committee proceedings. Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 are related.

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 17, between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following: “Review of amendments effected by this Act

22.(1) The Minister shall—

(a) not later than 18 months after the commencement of this section, commence a review of the operation of the amendments effected to the Principal Act by this Act, and

(b) not later than 12 months after the commencement of a review under paragraph (a), or on the completion of the review, whichever is the earlier, prepare a report, in writing, of the findings of the review and of the conclusions drawn from those findings and cause copies of the report to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas.

(2) In conducting a review under this section, the Minister shall consult with the Board and such other persons as the Minister considers appropriate for the purpose of the review.”.

I thank Deputies O'Reilly and Shanahan for their engagement with me and my officials since Committee Stage. Deputy Shanahan was particularly keen that we introduce a review provision in the Bill. I note he has his own amendment which he will move shortly. Having engaged with the Deputies and the Office of the Attorney General on the matter, I have decided that a review mechanism, considering the new provisions introduced by the Bill, as proposed by Deputy Shanahan, is appropriate. This amendment introduces a new section 22 which provides for a ministerial review of the new provisions contained in the Bill 18 months following its commencement.

Section 22 also provides for the laying of a report on the review before both Houses of the Oireachtas within 12 months of the review being commenced. In conducting the review, section 22 provides that the board and other appropriate persons shall be consulted. The text of the amendment is based on recent provisions contained in section 4 of the Housing (Regulation of Approved Housing Bodies) Act 2019 and is appropriate to the new functions provided to the board by the Bill.

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State and his officials for their engagement on this. Of course there is nobody here to see it, but it is one example of when we work together we work very well and can get stuff done. I do not have any amendments to this section. Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 are grouped. They are not massively dissimilar. That does not mean I oppose the Minister of State's amendment; rather, I feel Deputy Shanahan's amendment is stronger. I am minded to support it and abstain on the Minister of State's amendment. It is not my intention to oppose it.

I would be interested in hearing from the Minister of State why it is the case that what is essentially the stronger amendment of the two is the one that is not accepted by him. We all are agreed on the need for review. The question is what we will review, for how long and who is going to do it. I ask the Minister of State to comment on the section in Deputy Shanahan's amendment which would compel the Minister of State or the Tánaiste, as the senior Minister, to act on any review or report with amendments to the legislation. I need to know why the Minister of State would not support Deputy Shanahan's amendment. The two amendments seem broadly similar.

Matt Shanahan (Waterford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State for engaging with us in his new brief. To be fair, the former Minister of State, Deputy Troy, also engaged on this. Deputy O'Reilly and I are members of the Joint Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment and the subject came up in the pre-legislative scrutiny work of the committee. Insurance reform has been a long-running saga in Ireland, to say the least. As I said to the Minister of State and Tánaiste in the committee, I seem to remember a Fine Gael Minister in Wexford who came and went trying to deliver insurance reform. It was not possible.

We implemented PIAB in 2003, to a lot of fanfare, and I believe people expected significant things from it in terms of reform. It was supposed to streamline the process and try to reduce costs on the award side, as well as the cost of claims and legal fees. For a while, it seemed as if it was going to have some success but unfortunately, over a period of time, a march came along and, as the Minister of State is aware, the majority of cases are not now going to PIAB and are instead going towards the direction of the courts or are being settled out of court.

We then had the appointment of a judicial review council to try to arrive at a better foundation for the claims outlook to try to get a fair book of quantum, especially in mind of how most of insurance is underwritten from the UK and elsewhere. Our book of quantum is completely out of whack with theirs. All of this was done as part of the ongoing PIAB legislation. We now have a book of quantum that is agreed, and we have judicial guidelines around that. It has still not happened but we hope to see the Law Society taking stronger notice of those guidelines.

The amendment I have proposed to the Minister of State was quite clearly prefaced on the basis of having a recurring review procedure to ensure that all facets of the PIAB and personal injuries resolution board, PIRB, legislation will work as designed and we see whether we are making progress on the areas on which we need to make progress. I was looking at the legal services legislation of 2015 in which there was an in-built review procedure. It essentially asked that the Minister of State would do a review within 12 months and no later than 18 months of the initial enactment. It also asked that the Minister of State would provide a periodic review and report to the Houses of the Oireachtas every three years further that. Any resulting recommendations could be brought in amendments to try to change the founding legislation. That was the reason.

As I read the Minister of State's proposed amendment, I do not see how we can get back to the founding legislation. His amendment only speaks only to the latest legislation. That is a misstep. I accept the Minister of State's bona fides when he says he will leave no stone unturned and will make sure that he will look at this in detail. However, I would prefer to see something in the legislation that speaks to that. I accept he has agreed to a review and I am sure that was not easy with regard to where the Department wished to be. It may be very onerous on the Department. He has committed to a review and maybe we can still get something done if he is prepared to accept some periodic review procedure. It is needed, first and foremost, for transparency.

I was interested in listening to a recent radio debate about insurance. We have a very difficult insurance market as the Minister is well aware. A significant number of underwriters and players have left the market. In order to try to entice new competition into the sector, which is what we all wish to see, we must have better transparency as to where the payout and claims situation will land. I understand the Minister of State is working on the duty-of-care and occupiers' liability insurance legislation. Liability insurance, as the Minister of State will be aware, has risen by almost 50% for many businesses this year. Businesses who have not made any claims have suddenly seen an increase of 50% in their insurance.

The problem is largely that we have many latent claims still lying around but there is no security in the insurance sphere. We have had a reduction in motor insurance which is to be welcomed but we have had a dramatic rise in liability insurance at the same time. The difficultly I see is that when the Minister of State brings in the duty-of-care legislation, we will probably be bound up in this process again, but we will not have a review process beyond this one look-back.

I ask the Minister of State to outline what more he can give. I do not want to use the word "guarantees" because that is not fair, but I ask what his office can give. He may not be the one to occupy that chair in the future. Maybe somebody else will. How can we bind the Department to a meaningful review of this legislation once enacted to try to give us the look-back and understand the legislation is working as required? That will clearly mean that more cases will go through PIAB.

Whether they go through PIAB or the courts, the sum of the awards are nearly the same but the legal fees are dramatically different. I looked at table earlier today which showed that cases in PIAB were being settled for €1,018 whereas they were costing €23,000 in legal fees through the courts. That makes no sense and it is damaging credibility and is absolutely hurting businesses and policyholders. We have to get to a point of insurance reform in which people can believe.

The Minister of State and I spoke earlier. He outlined his position, which, I accept, is difficult, but I ask him to highlight what kind of guarantees he can give that we will have a robust process with regard to this review. If the review brings something up, what is the legislative procedure to bring further amendments? How does he see that happening? It would be a help if he were able to highlight that.

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I appreciate Deputy Shanahan's amendment. I also appreciate both Deputies remarks on the work we did on this.

Deputy Shanahan's amendment is based on the provisions contained within the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015. The PIAB was established in 2004 and has been making assessments for more than 18 years. The legislation under which it was established has been reviewed several times since enactment. We have had amending legislation twice since I entered this House, in 2007 and, most recently, in 2019. The legislation has not been static. It has been reviewed even without a formal review clause.

The Bill is the result of a thorough examination of the legislation and the operation of the board. It included extensive engagement with stakeholders. While I was not the Minister of State at the time - Deputy Troy was - the pre-legislative scrutiny was especially helpful. It has led us to introduce this new function for the board through mediation. We all agree that a review of these new powers of mediation is appropriate. I am concerned that a statutory requirement for a constant rolling review of the legislation, which is what is envisaged in Deputy Shanahan's amendment, will result in a certain element of paralysis within the system in which there are constant reviews and people are constantly preparing for or responding to a review. I wish to see whether the mediation will work. I wish that the mediation be given the space to work and that the PIRB be given the time and space to make mediation work. We all hope that mediation will result in a much better outcome for those going into it. I wish that the board be given that.

The statutory provisions with regard to the Legal Services Regulatory Authority require the body to review itself and the operation of its own Act and make recommendations to the Minister, having done the review. The amendment I have tabled on behalf of the Government proposes that the Minister of the day will undertake the review rather than having the PIRB reviewing itself. The Minister of the day is answerable to the House. I do not know who will be here, but he or she will be more answerable to the House than the PIRB.

Matt Shanahan (Waterford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I accept the Minister of State's bona fides with regard to the difficulties he envisages and the reasons he has put forward as to why he feels that a periodic review will be difficult. We differ on that, but I accept that is his position. With regard to the commitment he has given within the amendment to engage with stakeholders, is there something that could be written within that to ensure that the Minister of the day and the Department will engage with umbrella groups or representative groups of stakeholders? I worry about who will be speaking to the policyholders. It is very important in that if we are talking about insurance reform, we are talking about try to reduce costs. There is no point in talking to other people about the process if we are not talking to those who are paying the costs and bills and supporting the activity.

The review the Minister of State proposes will be undertaken by the Minister of the day. I can see how that would probably make sense but the question is as to whether it will be done through an external appointed body. Is the plan be to appoint some external review process or will it be done in-house as a report the Minister will present to the House? There are obvious difficulties with that. We do not wish to go back to second guess legislation or reform but that is exactly what we should be doing to be quite frank. Considerable legislation is passed in this House for which we should have some kind of a look-back facility.

I know the Minister of State said it is possible for Members to bring forward a Bill or a Private Member's motion, but it would be far easier if the process were set in the context of the enactment of the legislation. I have spoken to the Minister of State a number of times on this matter. I thank him for that engagement.

It has been positive but the proof is going to be in the pudding. The Minister of State has committed to a review. It cannot be comprehensive and wide-ranging enough. I would like to see recommendations resulting from it as well that might make their way back into the House at a future point.

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As I said, I support the idea it would be done by the Minister. That is a good thing. However, there seem to be some mechanisms of that which still have to be worked out, including how it is going to happen and when. We all know the power we have to compel a Minister. It is small when one is in opposition, and the Minister of State knows this. We can reserve the right be in a bad mood about it but if we do not have the numbers there is nothing we can do about it, so the Minister of State should not be pretending we are getting something we are not getting. Having said that, he might elaborate on how he sees this working. Perhaps there might be some element of that as part of the Seanad debate that could be recorded as well to give people comfort that at the very least, there will be a halfway house between the rigorous review proposed by Deputy Shanahan and the one proposed by the Minister of State. I do not suggest the Minister of State's proposal is not rigorous but perhaps there could be some kind of halfway house that could be discussed between now and the Bill making its way to the Seanad. I think we are all agreed this should go through. People are waiting on it, we want to see it, it is progressive etc. Perhaps there is an opportunity there.

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The ministerial amendment is clear that "the Minister shall consult with the Board and such other persons as the Minister considers appropriate". It is deliberately not prescriptive because in a couple of years' time, there could be relevant persons who do not exist now, but it puts a requirement on the Minister to consult people in this space. If there is one certainty it is that the officials or their successors will be there when we are not and they have done huge consultation and shown great co-operative spirit in trying to make this work. That will continue within the Department.

My reading of Deputy Shanahan's amendment is that it is a rolling review rather than a periodic one. That speaks to my concern that this would be constantly under review and that we will not get the space to get the function up and running. My review is targeted at the mediation side of things because as I said, since 2004 we have had two separate items of legislation, in 2007 and 2019, updating the whole thing and this will be third Bill related to the PIAB. We have not left it there. We are watching it. We are not throwing it out there and going away. It will be under constant scrutiny. The review process as laid out in the Government amendment provides for consultation that must be done within a given time period.

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 18, to delete lines 8 to 11 and substitute the following: “(2) This Act shall come into operation on such day or days as the Minister may appoint by order or orders either generally or with reference to any particular purpose or provision and different days may be so appointed for—

(a) different purposes or different provisions, and

(b) notwithstanding the generality of paragraph (a), the commencement of section 9,insofar as that section relates to the insertion of Chapter 1A of the Principal Act, with reference to a different class or classes of civil action to which that Act applies.”.

I thank both Deputies on their engagement on amendments Nos. 2 and 3.

The third and final Government amendment is a technical one relating to commencement matters for the provisions of the Bill. The amendment provides the new mediation function may be commenced separately for different classes of claim. This models how the original Act was commenced in 2004. The Second Stage debate stressed the importance of a properly-operated mediation function. Providing that mediation may be commenced in a staggered manner will allow the board to manage the introduction of mediation in a careful and considered way. Providing the board with additional functions to increase the number of claims settled through its process will increase the number of claims that are settled faster and, as Deputy Shanahan referred to, at less cost than other settlement channels. This in turn should have a knock-on effect on the cost of insurance. I will speak to that at the end of the process.

I again thank Deputies for their engagement to date.

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I feel rather like the rugby player who got the ball just before the try line and threw it over the line. I acknowledge the huge work Deputy Troy put into this legislation. He engaged in a lot of consultation previous to this. I thank Deputies O'Reilly and Shanahan, who have been especially engaged with this. I also thank the committee and Senator Mullen as we proceed to the Seanad. I thank the officials involved who are present, John Maher and Anne Barrett, as well as the team in the Department, who are continuing to put extraordinary into this.

I wish this function every success. We all have a stake in it being successful and I wish the team at the PIAB every success. We are doing a lot of heavy lifting in this House on insurance. We are working across parties here and also at Government level. The work we are doing should be resulting not just in reduced motor premiums but reduced premiums on employers and on public liability. A message needs to go from this House to the insurance industry that we are doing heavy lifting for it and it is time it passed on the benefit to customers. The public can be assured we will continue to sit on the insurers until they pass on the benefits of this legislation to customers.