11 March 2004
Dr. Henry: I welcome the Minister and the Bill.
I will begin with the parts of the Bill I like best. I am delighted the Minister will spend dormant funds from suitors. We constantly hear complaints about the condition of many of our courts from witnesses and families of victims. I welcome the Minister's proposals in that regard. However, I think more resources will be required from the central fund because a great deal of money needs to be spent on the courts, an area in which we have not spent money for decades. We are unable to provide people involved in injury cases with private rooms to discuss issues with their doctors or solicitors. That proposal is to be welcomed. Like other Senators, I have some concern about the reduction to one year from three years of the Statute of Limitations. I was glad to hear Senator Kett make that point also, particularly in terms of personal injuries due to medical negligence.
There is a great deal of confusion about the ongoing discussion on enterprise liabilities as to who is liable for personal injuries. Are we still insured under the Medical Defence Union and the Medical Protection Society? There may be a state of flux regarding who is responsible for what here and it is hoped we will be able to settle many enterprise liability cases before they come before the courts.
From a medical point of view I am rather concerned about the disclosure of medical history in section 10. We have to be very careful with that. We cannot have people who suffered a serious back injury as a result of falling down the stairs in their own home while drunk coming in, having suffered a minor accident, and making a personal claim attributing all their problems to the new injury. In general, however, when a doctor has to complete claim forms he or she is supposed to record the past history of the patient and I would not like to think there would not be trawling, to use the word the Minister used, in that respect. We have to be very careful about that because that could be very wrong.
The mediation conference sounds like a very good idea but in view of the fact that we now have the Personal Injuries Assessment Board where those who are in agreement, and where liability is not disputed, have the opportunity to settle their cases before going to court, I wonder how many people will be able to get in an agreeable frame of mind to go into these mediation situations. They are very well described, and it is welcome also that any conversations that take place with whoever is the expert should not be disclosed in the court, but I wonder if this will be another layer of bureaucracy where matters will be delayed. Like Senator Kett, I am a believer in mediation and good luck to it. It will be great if it works.
I am concerned also about the experts. The Minister particularly referred to doctors but I wonder if he has talked to the medical profession about this aspect. I have complained in the past that the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform appears to decide that the medical profession will do something without having had much discussion with them. It would be terrible if we established a group of experts in the courts who were just a subsection of the medical profession. I would not welcome that. It is much better to have people in clinical practice who have to turn up for one or the other. I say beware of two expert people. Also, does the injured person have any choice as to whether they will accept the expert because it appears they will have to pay for them? Experts could become notorious and people might say they do not want this or that expert because they know what he or she said on a particular case. I am concerned about the experts in that section and I would like to hear some more about it.
I am very pleased that the Minister is changing the situation regarding the in camera rule in the family courts, an issue we have discussed with him here on a previous occasion. It is a welcome change but I am a little concerned that it is not what many of us sought. In 2001, the working group on a courts commission recommended that a barrister should be allowed go into court and report, in an anonymous manner, on cases while ensuring the privacy of those present, and that the people involved had to give their agreement. It does not appear to me that will happen. It appears some sort of transcript will come from the Courts Service. The Minister is shaking his head; I am delighted to see that. I hope that what was suggested by the working group will be implemented because we need someone to go into court and report these cases. I do not believe people understand the seriousness of the cases in the family law courts. This is a welcome move and it is important, from the point of view of sociologists, to be able to get some idea of the volume and type of cases going before the courts. Do many of them concern non-nationals? Is there a particular problem in various areas of the country that needs to be addressed? I welcome the fact that this area is being opened up because we might be able to make a difference to the lives of the people who go before the family law courts.
The Minister said in his contribution that he has had representations from various organisations, including Women's Aid and the Rape Crisis Centre, which he will examine. One of those is that a specialist from one of these organisations would attend the court with victims of domestic violence in particular. I am sure we can address that type of area on Committee Stage. I welcome the legislation and look forward to Committee Stage.
Visit the Irish Government Website for the full text of this speech: Click Here
