JUDICIAL ISSUES & PERSONAL INJURIES ASSESSMENT BOARD (PIAB)
Each speech listed here is an edited speech. If you'd like to see the speech or debate in full, please go to the Oireachtas website and click on "Seanad Eireann" and then "Seanad Debates" and click on the relevant date as listed with each speech on this page.
Law Society – Self-Regulating (19/02/08)
Court Cases (06/02/08)
Personal Injuries Assessment Board (Amendment) Bill 2007 (03/07/07)
PIAB and Insurance (12/10/06)
PIAB and Insurance (12/10/06)
Statutory Rape Legal Loophole (31/05/06)
Statutory Rape Legal Loophole (30/05/06)
Law Society – Self-Regulating
19/02/08 - In the past two months a number of people have raised the question of the Law Society and how it deals with its members. .. two further members of the Law Society have been dealt with, which amounts to six or eight in the last couple of months. I do not know what is going on in the Law Society, but it seems it only supervises, investigates, takes action or visits members when there is a complaint against them. If there is to be self regulation, it must be proactive. I would like the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to come to the House to explain to us what it means to be a member of the Law Society, what is required of the society and its membership and how it ensures its members are acting properly within its rules. Is the society proactive or reactive?
Back to top of the page
Court Cases
06/02/08 - … there has been a major row in France between Ryanair and the President about an advertisement but that is not the issue I wish to raise. The President of France, as a citizen, took a case against Ryanair seven days ago which was disposed of in the French courts yesterday. I would like to know how that happened. I would like to hear from a representative of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform what we would need to do to get such a prompt reaction for a person who feels aggrieved by the State. We can learn from what happens elsewhere in Europe on this issue. I am sure our colleagues involved in that field of work would have something to say on the matter. I do not understand it but think it is fantastic and something we should consider.
Back to top of the page
Personal Injuries Assessment Board (Amendment) Bill 2007
03/07/07 - I must declare a vested interest in this as I am vice-chairman of the Personal Injuries Assessment Board. I am proud of what it has achieved and to have been part of that.
First, I will clarify what we are doing tonight. We are correcting an issue in the Bill. The PIAB conducts a constant assessment of how the legislation works and its efficiency. It is our hope that towards the end of next year we might examine this and decide whether some things need to be changed. There will be time for consultation with all groups and the joint committee on enterprise and small business might deal with it at that stage.
I will explain what happens in simple language. The PIAB goes through a process and arrives at a figure, which is offered to the claimant. That might be the end of it; the claimant might accept the figure and the case is over. However, because of another court award, we are unable to deal directly with most of the claimants. Now, the solicitor claims that he or she might be happy with the amount being offered but is not happy with the legal costs. The costs are sent to be taxed, assessed and paid by the registrar. We are effectively dealing with a situation where there is a cost of up €1,800 being placed on something which we assess as being worth €80. This is one of the issues raised. It does not deny anybody his or her day in court.
Prior to the debate, Mr. Conor Maguire of the Bar Council came before the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Business and Small Enterprise and told us the answer was to make personal litigation what was termed a “lawyer-free zone”. He introduced this phrase to the debate.
There is no cost to the State. The PIAB is self-sufficient and self-funding and will continue to be. It has a maximum of 85 employees at full flow.
I had to hold the hand of my colleague, Senator Leyden, after the debate because he was extremely concerned. He had spoken to local solicitors who thought they would be out of work. I am glad he made the point today that they have plenty of work. The view stated was that the PIAB was established to get rid of lawyers and that they would have no more work. This was despite the fact we stated at best 25% of cases would go to court whereas at the time only 10% went to court because 90% were settled. A threat to lawyers never existed.
In the Minister’s speech, he stated the PIAB is challenged regularly and the Government will take whatever steps are necessary to ensure the board is not undermined in its work. I ask the Law Society who will receive a report on it to read this. It is simple, primary school sixth-class English. This is the will of the people and the legislators and it will operate. If difficulties exists they should sit down with us and tell us what are those difficulties and we can work them out. We do not need to be at war with each other.
We have reduced from three years to seven months the settlement of cases. …. my colleague, Senator Coghlan, ….. made a valid point on the premia. Unfortunately, the PIAB does not have any control over premia.
However, may I state gently to my colleague Senator Coghlan it is incorrect to state a U-turn on the right of appeal has occurred. There is no U-turn on the right to appeal. What we are saying is that if people go to court their costs should be awarded on the basis of the work of the solicitors in the court or attached to the court case, not attaching to the work done by the PIAB. If this legislation is not passed this evening we would go backwards.
In regard to consulting with the Attorney General …. I know he would have to have seen the legislation but I would like to hear the Minister put that on the record and that we are not making this up as we go along. This is pro-consumer legislation.
Apart from not costing the State anything, the PIAB has one third of a billion euro and is at full flow and meeting every target. Much debate took place in the media before Christmas to the effect that we would never reach full flow. Misinformation was put out that we would need to deal with 200 odd cases per week and that we were dealing with an average of only 45 or 50 cases or whatever. I told the House that was not the case and that, in fact, we were close to that number. We have now reached that number and have met all targets and are still assessing where we are going.
The PIAB is pro-consumer and is doing the business. It exists for us and for the people. It is a winner for everybody, including the lawyers. The lawyers have not been put out of business nor will they be. It is in nobody’s intention to do that. Our intention was simply to deal with cases that never went to court in any case. I could give the Minister 12 examples on the lack of stress. A number of people who have gone through the PIAB process have told me they were dreading the thought of going to court, of having to give evidence, of being cross-examined and so on. There is a great sense of relief and freedom from stress.
I compliment the Minister for putting the PIAB in place. It has met all targets set by the Oireachtas. .. Under constant attack from all sides we want the Oireachtas to understand that we are doing what the Oireachtas sought of us. I commend the Bill to the House. It is important, effective and key to the continuing success of the PIAB.
……….
I wish to focus on the issue of access to the courts. … if the PIAB was doing anything to curtail the rights, constitutional or otherwise, of any citizen, I would be opposed to it. Not only has this matter been examined by two Attorneys General, the board’s lawyers have considered it.
The entire point of the PIAB is conflict resolution. It represents a method of doing business without conflict. It offers a mechanism to resolve all those cases in which it was asked why those involved did not settle and in which people were afraid to settle because of issues of liability, etc. Anyone who is unhappy with the PIAB should have no second thoughts about taking a case before the courts. The important thing to remember is that people will not lose anything by doing so.
Another aspect of this matter is whether the PIAB is blocking people from accessing the courts. The answer is “No”. .. if that matter is brought to the attention of the board, the Minister will not be obliged to wait because its members will approach him and highlight the fact that a flaw exists and must be dealt with. It will not happen and, under current structures, it is not happening.
If anyone peruses the contributions I have made in the House over the past 20 years, they will discover that I am one of the few Members who does not criticise lawyers in respect of the fees they charge. I never heard of a person who was in trouble seeking a cheap lawyer. Lawyers earn their money when they go into court and I do not have a difficulty with that. They are entitled to whatever fees they command. That is not the issue. The issue is about being awarded costs of, for example, €1,800, to do something we would carry out in our office at a cost of €80. That is a major mismatch. This is all we are trying to deal with here. It is no more than that.
Back to top of the page
PIAB and Insurance
12/10/06 - Yesterday, Senator Morrissey referred to the importance of the Personal Injuries Assessment Board. While I should declare my interest as vice-chair of the board, I would welcome a debate on the matter. The annual report of the PIAB is awaiting Government approval, if it has not already been approved. Through the intervention of the PIAB, the price of premia has been reduced to an extraordinary extent and the cost of settling claims stands at 10% of the previous figure. That represents significant savings for the State and for people purchasing insurance.
However, a problem arises in that we are coming to end of the first cycle and we need to be careful to ensure that we continue our work. The insurance market in Ireland needs to attract more people. I hope this House will offer its support because everything the PIAB does is challenged by some group or other. Every month, there are challenges to its work in the courts and elsewhere in order to prevent it from achieving its aims.
Back to top of the page
Statutory Rape Legal Loophole
31/05/06 - The points the Minister made that the existing charges of rape and various forms sexual assault remain and that children are not unprotected should have been put on the record yesterday. It would have been very helpful, although I accept he would not have had all the information.
Having heard the debate, I do not want to see legislation next week. I am prepared to take the stick I will get for saying so. I would like to see the legislation published next week and opened to public discussion for a period before we start to deal with it.
I said yesterday that there were three parts to this issue. First, I wanted the Minister to come into the House and explain the position and we would argue the toss. Then I wanted to distinguish between the age of consent and the current problem with the law. The Minister tonight roughly outlined the impact of the current situation. Assuming that he deals with that and there is an audit, at least we will know the confines of the problem facing us.
There seems no reason to pass legislation next week. The public needs to know that if someone is facing a charge the DPP has a choice of charges to lay before that person. The legislation should be published. There should be some debate on it among all who are interested. Early publication is more important than early legislation. Let us see the Minister’s thoughts, respond to them, get a general view, and deal with the issues as they come forward.
I thank the Minister for coming into the House, although it would have been better to have this debate yesterday. We need to scotch certain issues and hard questions need to be answered.
Back to top of the page
Statutory Rape Legal Loophole
30/05/06 - While there has been much discussion in the recent past about the question of statutory rape, in most cases people are talking about consenting teenagers and consenting people over the age limit. The young girl in this case was 12 years of age, she was filled with drink and was raped. Under no circumstances would anybody show tolerance in this regard. ...this matter should be debated today. ….this is not an issue on which there is political division; it is simply a matter with which we need to deal.
There are a number of reasons we should debate this matter today. We should get a clear outline of how the Government intends to deal with this matter and since the Cabinet discussed it this morning and the Minister and his Department have been dealing with it for the past week, it should be available and we should be brought into the loop in terms of what will be done.
There are two issues with which we must deal, namely, the age of consent and closing the loophole in the current legislation. We need to address this in two stages, leaving the age of consent issue to another day because it is not one on which there will be wide consensus. To close the loophole we need to introduce an amendment that will allow a defence to be entered and to allow a judge to make a decision that an incident may be statutory rape. Something as simple as that could be dealt with in the next 48 hours. The broader legislation which is also required to deal with the age of consent issue will take longer.
Back to top of the page
Seanad debates are available in full on the Oireachtas website
Each speech listed here is an edited speech. If you'd like to see the speech or debate in full, please go to the Oireachtas website and click on "Seanad Eireann" and then "Seanad Debates" and click on the relevant date as listed with each speech on this page.
Law Society – Self-Regulating (19/02/08)
Court Cases (06/02/08)
Personal Injuries Assessment Board (Amendment) Bill 2007 (03/07/07)
PIAB and Insurance (12/10/06)
PIAB and Insurance (12/10/06)
Statutory Rape Legal Loophole (31/05/06)
Statutory Rape Legal Loophole (30/05/06)
Law Society – Self-Regulating
19/02/08 - In the past two months a number of people have raised the question of the Law Society and how it deals with its members. .. two further members of the Law Society have been dealt with, which amounts to six or eight in the last couple of months. I do not know what is going on in the Law Society, but it seems it only supervises, investigates, takes action or visits members when there is a complaint against them. If there is to be self regulation, it must be proactive. I would like the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to come to the House to explain to us what it means to be a member of the Law Society, what is required of the society and its membership and how it ensures its members are acting properly within its rules. Is the society proactive or reactive?
Back to top of the page
Court Cases
06/02/08 - … there has been a major row in France between Ryanair and the President about an advertisement but that is not the issue I wish to raise. The President of France, as a citizen, took a case against Ryanair seven days ago which was disposed of in the French courts yesterday. I would like to know how that happened. I would like to hear from a representative of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform what we would need to do to get such a prompt reaction for a person who feels aggrieved by the State. We can learn from what happens elsewhere in Europe on this issue. I am sure our colleagues involved in that field of work would have something to say on the matter. I do not understand it but think it is fantastic and something we should consider.
Back to top of the page
Personal Injuries Assessment Board (Amendment) Bill 2007
03/07/07 - I must declare a vested interest in this as I am vice-chairman of the Personal Injuries Assessment Board. I am proud of what it has achieved and to have been part of that.
First, I will clarify what we are doing tonight. We are correcting an issue in the Bill. The PIAB conducts a constant assessment of how the legislation works and its efficiency. It is our hope that towards the end of next year we might examine this and decide whether some things need to be changed. There will be time for consultation with all groups and the joint committee on enterprise and small business might deal with it at that stage.
I will explain what happens in simple language. The PIAB goes through a process and arrives at a figure, which is offered to the claimant. That might be the end of it; the claimant might accept the figure and the case is over. However, because of another court award, we are unable to deal directly with most of the claimants. Now, the solicitor claims that he or she might be happy with the amount being offered but is not happy with the legal costs. The costs are sent to be taxed, assessed and paid by the registrar. We are effectively dealing with a situation where there is a cost of up €1,800 being placed on something which we assess as being worth €80. This is one of the issues raised. It does not deny anybody his or her day in court.
Prior to the debate, Mr. Conor Maguire of the Bar Council came before the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Business and Small Enterprise and told us the answer was to make personal litigation what was termed a “lawyer-free zone”. He introduced this phrase to the debate.
There is no cost to the State. The PIAB is self-sufficient and self-funding and will continue to be. It has a maximum of 85 employees at full flow.
I had to hold the hand of my colleague, Senator Leyden, after the debate because he was extremely concerned. He had spoken to local solicitors who thought they would be out of work. I am glad he made the point today that they have plenty of work. The view stated was that the PIAB was established to get rid of lawyers and that they would have no more work. This was despite the fact we stated at best 25% of cases would go to court whereas at the time only 10% went to court because 90% were settled. A threat to lawyers never existed.
In the Minister’s speech, he stated the PIAB is challenged regularly and the Government will take whatever steps are necessary to ensure the board is not undermined in its work. I ask the Law Society who will receive a report on it to read this. It is simple, primary school sixth-class English. This is the will of the people and the legislators and it will operate. If difficulties exists they should sit down with us and tell us what are those difficulties and we can work them out. We do not need to be at war with each other.
We have reduced from three years to seven months the settlement of cases. …. my colleague, Senator Coghlan, ….. made a valid point on the premia. Unfortunately, the PIAB does not have any control over premia.
However, may I state gently to my colleague Senator Coghlan it is incorrect to state a U-turn on the right of appeal has occurred. There is no U-turn on the right to appeal. What we are saying is that if people go to court their costs should be awarded on the basis of the work of the solicitors in the court or attached to the court case, not attaching to the work done by the PIAB. If this legislation is not passed this evening we would go backwards.
In regard to consulting with the Attorney General …. I know he would have to have seen the legislation but I would like to hear the Minister put that on the record and that we are not making this up as we go along. This is pro-consumer legislation.
Apart from not costing the State anything, the PIAB has one third of a billion euro and is at full flow and meeting every target. Much debate took place in the media before Christmas to the effect that we would never reach full flow. Misinformation was put out that we would need to deal with 200 odd cases per week and that we were dealing with an average of only 45 or 50 cases or whatever. I told the House that was not the case and that, in fact, we were close to that number. We have now reached that number and have met all targets and are still assessing where we are going.
The PIAB is pro-consumer and is doing the business. It exists for us and for the people. It is a winner for everybody, including the lawyers. The lawyers have not been put out of business nor will they be. It is in nobody’s intention to do that. Our intention was simply to deal with cases that never went to court in any case. I could give the Minister 12 examples on the lack of stress. A number of people who have gone through the PIAB process have told me they were dreading the thought of going to court, of having to give evidence, of being cross-examined and so on. There is a great sense of relief and freedom from stress.
I compliment the Minister for putting the PIAB in place. It has met all targets set by the Oireachtas. .. Under constant attack from all sides we want the Oireachtas to understand that we are doing what the Oireachtas sought of us. I commend the Bill to the House. It is important, effective and key to the continuing success of the PIAB.
……….
I wish to focus on the issue of access to the courts. … if the PIAB was doing anything to curtail the rights, constitutional or otherwise, of any citizen, I would be opposed to it. Not only has this matter been examined by two Attorneys General, the board’s lawyers have considered it.
The entire point of the PIAB is conflict resolution. It represents a method of doing business without conflict. It offers a mechanism to resolve all those cases in which it was asked why those involved did not settle and in which people were afraid to settle because of issues of liability, etc. Anyone who is unhappy with the PIAB should have no second thoughts about taking a case before the courts. The important thing to remember is that people will not lose anything by doing so.
Another aspect of this matter is whether the PIAB is blocking people from accessing the courts. The answer is “No”. .. if that matter is brought to the attention of the board, the Minister will not be obliged to wait because its members will approach him and highlight the fact that a flaw exists and must be dealt with. It will not happen and, under current structures, it is not happening.
If anyone peruses the contributions I have made in the House over the past 20 years, they will discover that I am one of the few Members who does not criticise lawyers in respect of the fees they charge. I never heard of a person who was in trouble seeking a cheap lawyer. Lawyers earn their money when they go into court and I do not have a difficulty with that. They are entitled to whatever fees they command. That is not the issue. The issue is about being awarded costs of, for example, €1,800, to do something we would carry out in our office at a cost of €80. That is a major mismatch. This is all we are trying to deal with here. It is no more than that.
Back to top of the page
PIAB and Insurance
12/10/06 - Yesterday, Senator Morrissey referred to the importance of the Personal Injuries Assessment Board. While I should declare my interest as vice-chair of the board, I would welcome a debate on the matter. The annual report of the PIAB is awaiting Government approval, if it has not already been approved. Through the intervention of the PIAB, the price of premia has been reduced to an extraordinary extent and the cost of settling claims stands at 10% of the previous figure. That represents significant savings for the State and for people purchasing insurance.
However, a problem arises in that we are coming to end of the first cycle and we need to be careful to ensure that we continue our work. The insurance market in Ireland needs to attract more people. I hope this House will offer its support because everything the PIAB does is challenged by some group or other. Every month, there are challenges to its work in the courts and elsewhere in order to prevent it from achieving its aims.
Back to top of the page
Statutory Rape Legal Loophole
31/05/06 - The points the Minister made that the existing charges of rape and various forms sexual assault remain and that children are not unprotected should have been put on the record yesterday. It would have been very helpful, although I accept he would not have had all the information.
Having heard the debate, I do not want to see legislation next week. I am prepared to take the stick I will get for saying so. I would like to see the legislation published next week and opened to public discussion for a period before we start to deal with it.
I said yesterday that there were three parts to this issue. First, I wanted the Minister to come into the House and explain the position and we would argue the toss. Then I wanted to distinguish between the age of consent and the current problem with the law. The Minister tonight roughly outlined the impact of the current situation. Assuming that he deals with that and there is an audit, at least we will know the confines of the problem facing us.
There seems no reason to pass legislation next week. The public needs to know that if someone is facing a charge the DPP has a choice of charges to lay before that person. The legislation should be published. There should be some debate on it among all who are interested. Early publication is more important than early legislation. Let us see the Minister’s thoughts, respond to them, get a general view, and deal with the issues as they come forward.
I thank the Minister for coming into the House, although it would have been better to have this debate yesterday. We need to scotch certain issues and hard questions need to be answered.
Back to top of the page
Statutory Rape Legal Loophole
30/05/06 - While there has been much discussion in the recent past about the question of statutory rape, in most cases people are talking about consenting teenagers and consenting people over the age limit. The young girl in this case was 12 years of age, she was filled with drink and was raped. Under no circumstances would anybody show tolerance in this regard. ...this matter should be debated today. ….this is not an issue on which there is political division; it is simply a matter with which we need to deal.
There are a number of reasons we should debate this matter today. We should get a clear outline of how the Government intends to deal with this matter and since the Cabinet discussed it this morning and the Minister and his Department have been dealing with it for the past week, it should be available and we should be brought into the loop in terms of what will be done.
There are two issues with which we must deal, namely, the age of consent and closing the loophole in the current legislation. We need to address this in two stages, leaving the age of consent issue to another day because it is not one on which there will be wide consensus. To close the loophole we need to introduce an amendment that will allow a defence to be entered and to allow a judge to make a decision that an incident may be statutory rape. Something as simple as that could be dealt with in the next 48 hours. The broader legislation which is also required to deal with the age of consent issue will take longer.
Back to top of the page
Seanad debates are available in full on the Oireachtas website