Michael D'Arcy (Wexford, Fine Gael)

I was surprised to see this Bill being brought before the House with such haste. The Minister describes the PIAB as making an independent and impartial monetary assessment of damages based on medical evidence in a non-adversarial way. It does not have a monopoly. In a number of cases it made offers that were declined and the courts made significantly higher awards.

The idea was to have the PIAB legal free but this is a misconception. Insurance companies are stacked with legal opinion and the PIAB has significant legal knowledge. The claimant is legal free, which is unfair. The evidence does not stack up, given that 90% of those who make a claim through the PIAB have some legal knowledge or backup.

The direction of the PIAB is a concern. Deputy Flanagan referred to it becoming a puppet of the insurance industry. It accepts that a wrong has been done and that the only matter to be agreed is the amount of damages to be paid. It does not have a monopoly. Speaking as an employer, the benefit of the current health and safety position of employers is as a result of claims made in the courts and the PIAB. However, the profits of insurance companies have continued to rise dramatically, despite the existence of the PIAB. Premiums have not been reduced to reflect the decrease in the cost of claims.

The consumer does not benefit from the PIAB and will certainly not benefit from this amendment. The proposal is designed to force claimants to make an assessment of what is offered without legal advice. That is wrong and I am surprised it is proposed. Now, if a case proceeds to court after undergoing a PIAB assessment and the courts do not award higher damages, the claimant must pay for legal opinion out of his or her own pocket. These are strong arm tactics that benefit the PIAB. Joe and Josephine Soap who we accept have suffered a wrong are not getting the benefit of legal advice. They are playing Russian roulette with the court system. To Deputies Flanagan, Creighton and Penrose who are professionals in the legal world, this is wrong.

As an employer, I suggest this measure should not be taken. Evidence suggests it may be unconstitutional. If someone receives an increased amount from the court system, he or she does not have costs of the PIAB application covered. How can the Minister support this? The legislation is designed in order that people make a legal assessment without legal advice. Insurance companies and the PIAB have legal advice, while Joe and Josephine Soap do not. I refer to the final point in the Minister's speech, that the Bill will in no way limit claimant's range of choices or access to the courts. That is incorrect. The Bill will exclude people by using the fear that they will be left with a significant legal bill if they take a case to court. That should not be the aim of the legislation.

I have only been a Member for a number of weeks. It seems the mighty are being facilitated to grow mightier. There is nobody as mighty as the insurance companies. The Bill will lead to increased profits and the ordinary citizen will not receive a just amount for the wrong done. That is unjust.

See this speech in context