Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)

This amendment is to substitute "two years" for "one year" in the Long Title. On Committee Stage, I undertook to examine the issue of the limitation period with my colleagues in Government and the outcome of my consideration of the matter is that I am prepared to accept amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 11, as tabled by Senators Terry and Henry. For completeness, I shall be proposing a consequential amendment to the Long Title at the end of our debate on Report Stage.

Also for completeness and having considered the debate we had here the other day, I believe a common limitation period should apply to all personal injuries actions. Providing a separate period for medical negligence actions could give rise to confusion, especially in the case of mixed actions with a little medical negligence and a little non-medical negligence involved. Therefore, I have introduced amendment No. 10, which is necessary to bring subsection 5(1) of the Statute of Limitations (Amendment) Act 1991 into line with the other provisions under that Act.

In the course of the debate on Committee Stage, I mentioned that my preference was for a limitation period which would apply across the board. There must be clarity on the issue. While I have some sympathy with the points raised by Senators regarding medical negligence claims, I consider that a two year period from the date of accrual of the cause of action or from the date of knowledge of the injury is sufficient time to lodge a claim for medical negligence. It is not my intention, therefore, to exempt medical negligence from the general limitation period of two years.

In addition, it is not my intention to accept amendment No. 9, which would have the effect of leaving the limitation period for a person under a disability at three years. I have outlined my reasons that a common limitation period should be in place for all personal injuries actions and, therefore, I do not propose to accept the amendment.

I brought this matter to the Government today and secured its agreement to this proposal. In addition to what I have just stated, I am conscious that the one year period is being introduced in the context of an obligation to send the initial warning letter, which is provided for, and also in the context of an obligation not simply to issue a plenary summons before the expiry of the statutory period, but, in the case of a claim for damages for negligence, at the end of the limitation period to issue the personal injuries summons to which this applies setting out the case in extenso. This has to be a very significant statement of one's case and not just a two line formula. In those circumstances, those who may feel disappointed that I am deviating from the one year rule should bear in mind that there are compensating issues, such as the obligation to send an initial letter and the obligation to state one's case in full in the initiating legal document.

In a personal injuries case involving medical negligence, I could well imagine someone having a traumatic event in a hospital, taking months to recover from it, then going to a solicitor, the solicitor having to spend months researching what actually happened to the client and then, as frequently happens in a small medical community such as Ireland's, having to get a foreign expert to say negligence has occurred which justifies initiating proceedings and to agree to testify to that effect. All that could take quite an amount of time. If it were all to be done within 12 months there was a danger that the courts might have felt that the Bill was a disproportionate interference with a litigant's right of access to the courts.

In those circumstances, I have decided to accept the spirit of the amendments tabled by Senators Terry and Henry and to introduce a two year limitation period across the board.