Rónán Mullen (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State for his very comprehensive reply to my Bill and my proposal on this matter along with all my Seanad colleagues for their contributions. The Minister of State deserves great credit for the work he has been doing to date. I certainly look forward to his wider set of PIAB-related proposals in the legislation he promised to bring forward this evening. I also welcome his statement that there may be merit in introducing a further offence concerning the provision of false information to PIAB along the lines of that in the Bill. He can certainly rely on it. There is merit in this proposal and this legislation is about no mere duplication of existing provisions. The Minister of State will have the opportunity to look at what I have put before the House this evening in proposing this legislation. We have examined this in great detail. There are several circumstances where the existing legislation would not be adequate to deal with the various kinds of mischief on offer.

This particularly applies to a situation where a false statement might be made to PIAB but where no award is made. There is no legislation dealing with the fraud involved there. It might also apply to a situation where the matter goes on to court in the absence of an agreement as to PIAB's assessment or indeed the eventual award it proposes to make and where the false claim set out at the PIAB stage is dropped from the subsequent court proceedings. I put it to the Minister of State and his officials that there are gaps here that the law cannot reach. The Minister of State cited the fact that the reason the PIAB Acts do not provide for any penalty or sanction is because PIAB does not investigate the circumstances of claims or address the issue of liability but those are two different issues. There are lots of bodies that are not responsible for investigating issues of liability. Nonetheless it is an offence to give them false information. It might come to PIAB's notice that false information has been placed before it and as the Minister noted, it brings that to the attention of An Garda Síochána but the question is whether the law to prosecute it on that basis exists. In certain cases, it does not, particularly where no award has been made but possibly where an award has been made in the context of court proceedings subsequently.

Many of the examples given by the Minister of State relate to offences that are undoubtedly there regarding what happens in the context of court proceedings. The work of former Senator Pádraig Ó Céidigh and others has been very valuable there. However, there is a gap regarding what may falsely be put before PIAB and there are circumstances where there is no law that can reach that. It is not necessarily only PIAB that might come to the knowledge of that fraudulent intent. It might be due to circumstances that somehow come to light.For example, imagine collusion between two parties where, in an employer's liability case, somebody makes a claim and is colluded with by an employee on the other side so that false information is put before PIAB. If, for whatever reason, that ends up before a court, then a fraudulent presentation has been made to PIAB. It might not come to PIAB's notice at that point, but it might come to light in some other way at another stage. That is what the criminal law is for. The mere existence of a criminal provision does not mean that it will always be possible to get the information needed to investigate and prosecute it. The hope is that it acts as a deterrent in the first place and that when information comes to light, it might sustain a prosecution such that a prosecution can happen. My legislation creates a deterrent in circumstances where there is no current deterrent. It also offers the hope that where information comes to light that would satisfy the needs of a prosecution with regard to false provision of information, a prosecution might then be possible.

I wish the Minister of State well with his Bill. He may well decide, having examined this more closely with his officials, to incorporate my proposals into his Bill. From what I have heard so far, they are not currently envisaged. However, the chances are that I might get to the floor sooner rather than later in an attempt to bring this further. I ask the Minister of State and his officials to look at this in the near term. I ask the Government to consider giving me time to progress this small but significant and necessary Bill through the House, once the Minister of State has satisfied himself that there is no duplication and that there are no unforeseen consequences. From what I have heard today, there is nothing in the legislation proposed by the Minister of State that would in any way be contradicted by what is contained in my Bill. On that basis, I thank the Minister of State for his positive response and I look forward to it becoming even more positive as he gets a chance to examine this legislation further as it hopefully continues to Committee Stage.