JUDICIAL & LEGAL ISSUES
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.
Legal Fees (01/07/10)
Tribunals & Perjury (16/06/10)
Prison Development Bill 2008 (26/06/08)
Personal Injuries Assessment Board – Insurance Companies (19/06/08)
Motion re Building of Prison at Thornton Hall (18/06/08)
Prison Building Programme, North County Dublin (29/05/08)
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)
Back to top of the page
Legal Fees
01/07/10 - I refer to the story in The Irish Times today on legal fees. ….. I have been involved in the issue for many years and the idea is to keep the cost of claims reasonable. We (Injuries Board) have been fought every step of the way by the legal profession, as it is entitled to do. We seek to deal directly with people who make a claim. If a person is injured at work and makes a claim, we want them to receive all the correspondence. However, the legal profession fought against us with the support of the Law Society and took us all the way to the Supreme Court. We were told we could not deal with a client directly but that we could copy to him or her information on our dealings with the solicitor. That helped to ease the problem.
….. the legal profession is central to the democratic structure. I hold the profession in the highest regard and its input is of great importance in a free society. However, its members also have responsibilities to the citizenry. In this case they submitted a bill of €2.1 million in legal fees and the matter was appealed to the Taxing Master who hears appeals. He stated: “I have never encountered such grossly excessive fees being marked by learned counsel or solicitors.” He was outraged and expressed his bewilderment and disgust, words we do not normally see included in decisions handed down in court. People must be aware that Personal Injuries Assessment Board is working hard to reduce costs for clients and should be doing so with the total support of the legal profession which has a major role to play in that regard. If we are being fought every step of the way, with constant judicial reviews of the work of boards and constant attacks, I would like to receive the support of the House to make whatever changes are necessary to legislation governing the board to achieve what was intended by the legislation passed by the Oireachtas. I also ask for the support of the legal profession in so doing. It is appalling, a bill of €2.1 million in legal fees was reduced to €400,000.
Back to top of the page
Tribunals & Perjury
16/06/10 - Another lesson can be learned from the report in terms of the tribunals. It is interesting that there is a rule that people may not criminalise themselves in the evidence they give to tribunals, except in one significant regard, namely, that if they swear to tell the truth, they can be found guilty and charged with perjury, a serious charge. It is something worth remembering in the tribunals, given that issues arise in terms of obstruction and non-co-operation. …Those who do not tell the truth in their evidence to tribunals under oath cannot be dealt with by way of criminal charges, but I assume they can be charged with perjury.
Back to top of the page
Prison Development Bill 2008
26/06/08 - I declare an interest in that the proposed prison will effectively be in my back garden. My views are coloured as a consequence. I have often been asked about my view on the prison. It is very simple; I have always said the prison is to be located in the wrong place. However, I never opposed it for a number of reasons, first because it was my brother in law who sold the site. This was his right and I do not object at all to his doing so. Second, the prison is to be in my own back garden and I do not like the idea of NIMBY politicians. Although I dislike the location of the site, the decision thereon was taken democratically by the Government. I will have to accept this if this Bill is passed. My neighbours are very upset over the proposed prison, as much because of the impact on their community as anything else.
Our vote on this Bill will not be a vote for or against the prison but a vote on the confirmation of the planning process. The process is quite flawed because the needs outlined in the Bill have not been met. The Minister of State said he listened to the views of local community representatives. In this regard, Senator McDonald referred to the name of the prison. I raised this issue four times and made the point that the community is very small. I do not know if Members understand there is no pub, shop or business community in Kilsallaghan. There is a riding centre, the Thornton Park Equestrian Centre, which tells me it is losing business. Residents’ addresses include the names “Thornton” or “Kilsallaghan” and there are only 23 to 30 houses.
The Minister of State, Deputy Conor Lenihan, agreed with me that it is not unreasonable to change the name, as did the Minister Dermot Ahern. I ask again today that the name be changed. I do not understand why the prison cannot be called “the new Mountjoy” until another name is chosen. That is the obvious thing to do. …. although the Minister of State said that people are listening to residents, this constitutes an example in which they are listening but are doing nothing.
Amenities are another reason for concern. Were a planning authority to do what Members are doing at present, it would ask what benefits were coming back to the community. .. However, nothing has been given back to a community that will be overwhelmed by this development.
The Minister of State should understand this area lacks footpaths. There are no footpaths in Kilsallaghan and people go for walks along the road. Will footpaths be provided? As local residents have asked for them, would it not have been possible to build a footpath or walk along the planted hedgerow area? Does that sound like an unreasonable demand from local people to the Minister of State? However, given they asked for something that has not come to pass, how can the Minister of State assert they are being listened to?
The question of the height of the wall has been raised. I have asked this simple question four times, namely, why is the wall 7.2 m high?. It will be located close to houses which have a surrounding landscape of fields at present. This will be a complete change. The view was the wall either should be lowered or moved back. I do not know the reason for the height except the Department decided on it. One of the flaws in this process is that the Department can decide without giving reasons.
On the prison planning map, little red dots, of which there are only 24 or 25, signify residences. I asked that each house should receive a visit from the prison authorities to explain what was happening. I asked that they would explain the height of the wall and whether there would be noise pollution or light pollution at night. I refer to the question of a Garda presence. I note the Minister of State did not mention the welcome proposal to build a new Garda station. I hope I am not to take from his failure to mention it in his speech that it has been dropped.
I again ask that the Irish Prison Service should visit each local house. There are three local groups, namely, the concerned residents, the Rolestown-St. Margaret’s Action Group and a third group who live where the new waste water treatment scheme is to be located and who have particular needs. All three groups should be kept in the loop. Moreover, some people are not part of such groups and should therefore have the same authority.
In his response, the Minister of State should tell me whether I sound unreasonable in anything I have sought. Do I sound unreasonable in respect of any issue that I have put before the Minister of State on behalf of local residents? How can the Irish Prison Service be a good neighbour if it is unable to deal with such simple things? People will be unable to go for walks because of the excessive traffic volume on the road. I will not go into the other issues. These are not major issues and they should be conceded to people generously and easily.
Back to top of the page
Personal Injuries Assessment Board – Insurance Companies
19/06/08 - I wish to raise the issue of insurance premia, which tags on to the issue of prices. Members will know that I am the vice chairman of the Personal Injuries Assessment Board, which has now been rebranded as the Injuries Board. It is saving the State a significant amount of money every year, perhaps close to €100 million. It has also meant a significant increase in the profits of the insurance industry and insurance companies. For that reason, the idea of listening to some insurance companies purporting to put forward the case for increasing premia is unacceptable. A a time when the economy is on a downturn and there is increasing pressure on business, the cost of insurance is a significant factor.
… this is something on which we in these Houses can keep a sharp eye and ensure that the cost of insurance premia go down rather up. I strongly believe there is still an opportunity to reduce premia and that the insurance companies will still be the most profitable insurance companies in Europe. I ask for a debate on the insurance industry that would cover examination of the impact of the cost of insurance premia across personal, motor and business insurance.
Back to top of the page
Motion re Building of Prison at Thornton Hall
18/06/08 - I have a close personal interest in this matter but I am not raising it as a personal issue and I am not seeking an amendment to the Order of Business. However, this is different from almost any order the House has dealt with previously. The House is acting in loco for An Bord Pleanála under section 26 of the Act. My concern is that we are not being seen to exercise discretion when we propose to take this matter without debate.
I have spoken on this issue both in this House and in the justice committee … However, I am anxious to get a clear ruling on this. My view is that it is dangerous to take this matter without debate lest any Member wishes to say something about it. A number of cases have been lost in the High Court recently where similar decisions were taken by bodies which were not able to point to where they exercised discretion or formed a judgment. I believe this is an important issue. …. I am anxious to have it on the record that I raised this matter because I believe it leaves it open to challenge.
Back to top of the page
Prison Building Programme, North County Dublin
29/05/08 - I declare a strong and abiding personal interest in this matter in that my house will adjoin the prison wall and my brother-in-law sold the land for the prison site. I also want to make it clear that living beside a prison is not an issue for me. If I was given a straight choice between living next door to 1,000 houses, a landfill, an incinerator or a prison, I would choose the prison…. However, I believe it is the wrong location for an urban prison. … Despite my reservations over its location, I accept the decision was made democratically and I do not want to be seen to have NIMBY syndrome.
Even though it is less than 16 miles from this House, Kilsallaghan is a completely rural area. It does not have a pub or a shop and its community comprises a couple of hundred people. It is not a village or a hamlet; it is merely a spread of houses. I ask Members to consider what this huge development will mean for the area.
Thus far, the project has brought no return to the local community. Residents believe that they did not ask for a lot and that more should be offered to them. I acknowledge that the access road, which allows entry to the site directly from the N2, will reduce direct pressure on local roads, although there will clearly be a considerable increase in local traffic. In regard to the new Garda station, I have been burgled at least ten times in the 35 years I have lived in Kilsallaghan, so local security is important. Local people are concerned and a decision should be taken by the Minister of State to the effect that their home security will be upgraded. There is no reason this could not be done.
Cycle paths and footpaths must be put in place. Many people in the area like to go for walks. If there are 1,000 inmates in the prison — questions have arisen as to what will be the final number — and 2,000 staff, this new facility will have a population larger than those of many towns. Some locals asked that a perimeter footpath be put in place in order that people might walk in a safe environment. There is also a need for a bridle path to be installed because there are some horse-riding facilities in the area. People will not be able to ride their horses on the roads in the future and this will put some of the facilities to which I refer out of business.
The Minister of State referred to the local authority. A complex relationship exists among local authority planning, the county development plan and what is happening in this instance. It is not sufficient to say various things are being made available and that people should deal with the local authority. The Irish Prison Service and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform should discuss matters with the local authority. For example, the local authority should be informed that all houses in the area should be connected up to the sewerage system, that any homes requiring three-phase electricity should be connected to the relevant system and that broadband should be rolled out in the area. Even though it is located only 17 miles from the House, the area does not have access to broadband.
It is not sufficient to consult local people in respect of this matter. [The community in the area will be changed forever. It is not about consulting, it is about negotiating. The Department and the Irish Prison Service must negotiate with local people and not merely listen to what they have to say and then make a decision. An offer must be put to the locals, who must be allowed to indicate what they want and then an agreed position can be reached. The same process must be followed in respect of the local authority. The community in the area feels hard done by. The prison authorities now have a good opportunity to put something back into that community.
Back to top of the page
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.
Legal Fees (01/07/10)
Tribunals & Perjury (16/06/10)
Prison Development Bill 2008 (26/06/08)
Personal Injuries Assessment Board – Insurance Companies (19/06/08)
Motion re Building of Prison at Thornton Hall (18/06/08)
Prison Building Programme, North County Dublin (29/05/08)
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)
Back to top of the page
Legal Fees
01/07/10 - I refer to the story in The Irish Times today on legal fees. ….. I have been involved in the issue for many years and the idea is to keep the cost of claims reasonable. We (Injuries Board) have been fought every step of the way by the legal profession, as it is entitled to do. We seek to deal directly with people who make a claim. If a person is injured at work and makes a claim, we want them to receive all the correspondence. However, the legal profession fought against us with the support of the Law Society and took us all the way to the Supreme Court. We were told we could not deal with a client directly but that we could copy to him or her information on our dealings with the solicitor. That helped to ease the problem.
….. the legal profession is central to the democratic structure. I hold the profession in the highest regard and its input is of great importance in a free society. However, its members also have responsibilities to the citizenry. In this case they submitted a bill of €2.1 million in legal fees and the matter was appealed to the Taxing Master who hears appeals. He stated: “I have never encountered such grossly excessive fees being marked by learned counsel or solicitors.” He was outraged and expressed his bewilderment and disgust, words we do not normally see included in decisions handed down in court. People must be aware that Personal Injuries Assessment Board is working hard to reduce costs for clients and should be doing so with the total support of the legal profession which has a major role to play in that regard. If we are being fought every step of the way, with constant judicial reviews of the work of boards and constant attacks, I would like to receive the support of the House to make whatever changes are necessary to legislation governing the board to achieve what was intended by the legislation passed by the Oireachtas. I also ask for the support of the legal profession in so doing. It is appalling, a bill of €2.1 million in legal fees was reduced to €400,000.
Back to top of the page
Tribunals & Perjury
16/06/10 - Another lesson can be learned from the report in terms of the tribunals. It is interesting that there is a rule that people may not criminalise themselves in the evidence they give to tribunals, except in one significant regard, namely, that if they swear to tell the truth, they can be found guilty and charged with perjury, a serious charge. It is something worth remembering in the tribunals, given that issues arise in terms of obstruction and non-co-operation. …Those who do not tell the truth in their evidence to tribunals under oath cannot be dealt with by way of criminal charges, but I assume they can be charged with perjury.
Back to top of the page
Prison Development Bill 2008
26/06/08 - I declare an interest in that the proposed prison will effectively be in my back garden. My views are coloured as a consequence. I have often been asked about my view on the prison. It is very simple; I have always said the prison is to be located in the wrong place. However, I never opposed it for a number of reasons, first because it was my brother in law who sold the site. This was his right and I do not object at all to his doing so. Second, the prison is to be in my own back garden and I do not like the idea of NIMBY politicians. Although I dislike the location of the site, the decision thereon was taken democratically by the Government. I will have to accept this if this Bill is passed. My neighbours are very upset over the proposed prison, as much because of the impact on their community as anything else.
Our vote on this Bill will not be a vote for or against the prison but a vote on the confirmation of the planning process. The process is quite flawed because the needs outlined in the Bill have not been met. The Minister of State said he listened to the views of local community representatives. In this regard, Senator McDonald referred to the name of the prison. I raised this issue four times and made the point that the community is very small. I do not know if Members understand there is no pub, shop or business community in Kilsallaghan. There is a riding centre, the Thornton Park Equestrian Centre, which tells me it is losing business. Residents’ addresses include the names “Thornton” or “Kilsallaghan” and there are only 23 to 30 houses.
The Minister of State, Deputy Conor Lenihan, agreed with me that it is not unreasonable to change the name, as did the Minister Dermot Ahern. I ask again today that the name be changed. I do not understand why the prison cannot be called “the new Mountjoy” until another name is chosen. That is the obvious thing to do. …. although the Minister of State said that people are listening to residents, this constitutes an example in which they are listening but are doing nothing.
Amenities are another reason for concern. Were a planning authority to do what Members are doing at present, it would ask what benefits were coming back to the community. .. However, nothing has been given back to a community that will be overwhelmed by this development.
The Minister of State should understand this area lacks footpaths. There are no footpaths in Kilsallaghan and people go for walks along the road. Will footpaths be provided? As local residents have asked for them, would it not have been possible to build a footpath or walk along the planted hedgerow area? Does that sound like an unreasonable demand from local people to the Minister of State? However, given they asked for something that has not come to pass, how can the Minister of State assert they are being listened to?
The question of the height of the wall has been raised. I have asked this simple question four times, namely, why is the wall 7.2 m high?. It will be located close to houses which have a surrounding landscape of fields at present. This will be a complete change. The view was the wall either should be lowered or moved back. I do not know the reason for the height except the Department decided on it. One of the flaws in this process is that the Department can decide without giving reasons.
On the prison planning map, little red dots, of which there are only 24 or 25, signify residences. I asked that each house should receive a visit from the prison authorities to explain what was happening. I asked that they would explain the height of the wall and whether there would be noise pollution or light pollution at night. I refer to the question of a Garda presence. I note the Minister of State did not mention the welcome proposal to build a new Garda station. I hope I am not to take from his failure to mention it in his speech that it has been dropped.
I again ask that the Irish Prison Service should visit each local house. There are three local groups, namely, the concerned residents, the Rolestown-St. Margaret’s Action Group and a third group who live where the new waste water treatment scheme is to be located and who have particular needs. All three groups should be kept in the loop. Moreover, some people are not part of such groups and should therefore have the same authority.
In his response, the Minister of State should tell me whether I sound unreasonable in anything I have sought. Do I sound unreasonable in respect of any issue that I have put before the Minister of State on behalf of local residents? How can the Irish Prison Service be a good neighbour if it is unable to deal with such simple things? People will be unable to go for walks because of the excessive traffic volume on the road. I will not go into the other issues. These are not major issues and they should be conceded to people generously and easily.
Back to top of the page
Personal Injuries Assessment Board – Insurance Companies
19/06/08 - I wish to raise the issue of insurance premia, which tags on to the issue of prices. Members will know that I am the vice chairman of the Personal Injuries Assessment Board, which has now been rebranded as the Injuries Board. It is saving the State a significant amount of money every year, perhaps close to €100 million. It has also meant a significant increase in the profits of the insurance industry and insurance companies. For that reason, the idea of listening to some insurance companies purporting to put forward the case for increasing premia is unacceptable. A a time when the economy is on a downturn and there is increasing pressure on business, the cost of insurance is a significant factor.
… this is something on which we in these Houses can keep a sharp eye and ensure that the cost of insurance premia go down rather up. I strongly believe there is still an opportunity to reduce premia and that the insurance companies will still be the most profitable insurance companies in Europe. I ask for a debate on the insurance industry that would cover examination of the impact of the cost of insurance premia across personal, motor and business insurance.
Back to top of the page
Motion re Building of Prison at Thornton Hall
18/06/08 - I have a close personal interest in this matter but I am not raising it as a personal issue and I am not seeking an amendment to the Order of Business. However, this is different from almost any order the House has dealt with previously. The House is acting in loco for An Bord Pleanála under section 26 of the Act. My concern is that we are not being seen to exercise discretion when we propose to take this matter without debate.
I have spoken on this issue both in this House and in the justice committee … However, I am anxious to get a clear ruling on this. My view is that it is dangerous to take this matter without debate lest any Member wishes to say something about it. A number of cases have been lost in the High Court recently where similar decisions were taken by bodies which were not able to point to where they exercised discretion or formed a judgment. I believe this is an important issue. …. I am anxious to have it on the record that I raised this matter because I believe it leaves it open to challenge.
Back to top of the page
Prison Building Programme, North County Dublin
29/05/08 - I declare a strong and abiding personal interest in this matter in that my house will adjoin the prison wall and my brother-in-law sold the land for the prison site. I also want to make it clear that living beside a prison is not an issue for me. If I was given a straight choice between living next door to 1,000 houses, a landfill, an incinerator or a prison, I would choose the prison…. However, I believe it is the wrong location for an urban prison. … Despite my reservations over its location, I accept the decision was made democratically and I do not want to be seen to have NIMBY syndrome.
Even though it is less than 16 miles from this House, Kilsallaghan is a completely rural area. It does not have a pub or a shop and its community comprises a couple of hundred people. It is not a village or a hamlet; it is merely a spread of houses. I ask Members to consider what this huge development will mean for the area.
Thus far, the project has brought no return to the local community. Residents believe that they did not ask for a lot and that more should be offered to them. I acknowledge that the access road, which allows entry to the site directly from the N2, will reduce direct pressure on local roads, although there will clearly be a considerable increase in local traffic. In regard to the new Garda station, I have been burgled at least ten times in the 35 years I have lived in Kilsallaghan, so local security is important. Local people are concerned and a decision should be taken by the Minister of State to the effect that their home security will be upgraded. There is no reason this could not be done.
Cycle paths and footpaths must be put in place. Many people in the area like to go for walks. If there are 1,000 inmates in the prison — questions have arisen as to what will be the final number — and 2,000 staff, this new facility will have a population larger than those of many towns. Some locals asked that a perimeter footpath be put in place in order that people might walk in a safe environment. There is also a need for a bridle path to be installed because there are some horse-riding facilities in the area. People will not be able to ride their horses on the roads in the future and this will put some of the facilities to which I refer out of business.
The Minister of State referred to the local authority. A complex relationship exists among local authority planning, the county development plan and what is happening in this instance. It is not sufficient to say various things are being made available and that people should deal with the local authority. The Irish Prison Service and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform should discuss matters with the local authority. For example, the local authority should be informed that all houses in the area should be connected up to the sewerage system, that any homes requiring three-phase electricity should be connected to the relevant system and that broadband should be rolled out in the area. Even though it is located only 17 miles from the House, the area does not have access to broadband.
It is not sufficient to consult local people in respect of this matter. [The community in the area will be changed forever. It is not about consulting, it is about negotiating. The Department and the Irish Prison Service must negotiate with local people and not merely listen to what they have to say and then make a decision. An offer must be put to the locals, who must be allowed to indicate what they want and then an agreed position can be reached. The same process must be followed in respect of the local authority. The community in the area feels hard done by. The prison authorities now have a good opportunity to put something back into that community.
Back to top of the page
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