Tony Kett (Fianna Fail)

I welcome the Bill. The Minister is to be congratulated on his ongoing commitment to ensure that the changes required in legislation for the times we live in are occupying his mind. While I might feel overworked as a result of this, I believe the Minister is making a meaningful contribution to the laws of this land.

This Bill will be welcomed by many, particularly those who have been taken to the cleaners by unscrupulous individuals over the years. The Bill provides for changes in actions to recover damages for personal injuries and the disposal of parts of the funds of suitors vested in the accountant of the courts of justice. It also amends the law on civil liability and the in camera rule on family law procedures, to name but afew.

With the help of our new-found friend, the closed circuit television camera, we have seen some unscrupulous individuals setting up fraudulent claims. On national television we have seen someone acting his best and falling in a public toilet, with the help of his comrades in arms. People were doing these things because they knew that under the existing laws the chances were that they would get away with them. Insurance companies will not fight a claim for €5,000, or maybe even €10,000, because they believe it is a cheaper option for them to settle. That has certainly been the case.

I was involved in a case where an individual brought a claim against the company for which I worked which was completely fraudulent. I presume the individual's solicitor took the case on a no foal, no fee basis. They assumed it would be settled on the steps of the court. That did not happen in this case because I decided that the company would fight it all the way. The solicitor walked into court on the morning the case was due to be heard and stated that his client was not pursuing the case any further. He then walked out and we were left with a bill of £5,500. In a case like this, the solicitor involved should have borne the brunt of the costs as we were left with a bill for a bogus claim. There are solicitors out there who encourage people to take this kind of action on a no foal, no fee basis. They know that if it goes to court they will lose, but they work on the basis that it will not go to court. Therefore they will end up with a fee and the individual who brings the action will end up with a fraudulent claim. Sections 21 and 22 will take care of this situation as it will now be an offence to knowingly give false information in a personal injuries claim, either to swear it by affidavit or through a solicitor. Under section 25, if people give a false declaration, they will be liable to a fine of €100,000, ten years in prison or both or, if summarily tried in a District Court, they will be fined €3,000 or receive one year in prison or both. That will focus the mind, if I have read it correctly.

The Bill also proposes that the proceeds of dormant funds will be used for the maintenance and general upkeep of court services. There is an urgent need — I am sure the Minister, as someone who works in the industry, will agree with me — to bring our criminal courts up to speed. We must ensure that people assisting the State as witnesses are provided with a proper waiting area and are not placed in situations which would allow them to be intimidated by the accused or his or her friends. They should also be permitted to enter the court by a different entrance and should remain out of the gaze of the accused or his or her friends because it is possible to identify a person from afar. The current system, because of the lay-out of our courts and so on, places witnesses in situations where intimidation can occur.

The Accounting Officer for the Courts Service, when before a joint Oireachtas committee, informed us of plans to develop a new complex. I believe the complex in Lagan is a sight to behold. Hopefully our complex can be developed in a similar way. The Minister said he has available to him €6.4 million in dormant funds and perhaps some of that money can be used to support such a development.

What onus is on the courts' accountant to seek out the owners of dormant funds, some of whom may be deceased or may not, for whatever reason, be in a position to claim them? Given that such funds are held in the courts' bank accounts, which the accountant controls, does he or she have authority to invest such funds in an investment portfolio? If he or she does so and is fortunate to make money on them, will that be courts' money or will it be used to enhance the value of the award made in the first instance?

I believe I am correct in assuming that where the accountant in his or her wisdom decides to spend a portion of those funds and a person later makes a claim, the Minister for Finance must make up the difference and the Minister will then have a hand on the court accountant in terms of how much he or she can spend? Is it true that the accountant can spend all but 2.5% of the funds?

Other speakers referred to mediation. I fully agree with the provision whereby the courts may now request a party to a personal injuries claim to mediate, where possible. It is also proposed that the court will, if it sees fit, appoint a chairman with the agreement of all parties to oversee such mediation. I understand such a chairperson can be a barrister of not less than five years' standing. It is important to note that the chairperson, if appointed, cannot reveal his or her notes and they cannot be used by either party in terms of a defence thereafter. That is a wise provision. I would encourage mediation which is always the cheapest option. This provision will encourage people to use the facility rather than take the expensive route of court proceedings. Also, the chairperson of such mediation must submit a report to the courts based on his on her findings. It is important to note that a person who fails to comply for any reason may be subject to all costs. Mediation should be sought in the first instance because it is less threatening, out of the public eye, confidential, more humane and a saving on court, barristers' and solicitors' time. In that situation, everyone can be a winner.

We recently discussed the issue of domestic violence and Senators availed of the opportunity to commend the work being done by voluntary organisations in this area. We heard many staggering statistics during that debate. The family law courts do vital work in ensuring women and children receive necessary protection from abuse and violence. The most recent figures available indicate that in 2002, 4,067 barring orders were applied for, of which 1,740 were granted, and of the 2,840 safety orders applied for, 1,187 were granted. Women also access the courts for maintenance, custody and judicial divorce and separation orders. It is an indictment of the male population that 90% of all applications are from women. The Minister will be pleased to note that Women's Aid, one of the fine organisations of which I am speaking, supports the Bill, in particular the relaxation of the in camera rule in a manner which protects the privacy and anonymity of those accessing the courts. That organisation believes that rather than deterring them, this will encourage women to take cases in the future.

I welcome the reduction in the Statute of Limitations from three years to one year. It will, apart from anything else, alleviate much of the pressure on courts. However, I wonder whether a problem arises as regards a patient damaged as a result of medical negligence. I am sure the Minister is aware of the current debate on historic medical indemnity whereby doctors and consultants are seeking the protection of the Minister for Health and Children regarding past events. Experience indicates that people generally do not pursue medical negligence for compensation. They take such actions based on the fact they do not feel well and following consultation with their GPs or staff at the hospital where the procedure was performed. Also, they often discover having watched a medical programme on television that the problems they are encountering are caused by a procedure they underwent in the past. Can an extension to the one year be applied in cases where people do not discover for many years that their problems were caused by a procedure they underwent in the past?

I welcome the Bill which, like all other legislation introduced by this Minister, is thought provoking. The Minister is bringing us into the 21st century in terms of legislation in this area. I wish him well with the Bill.