Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour)

No matter how wealthy or poor we are, all we can rely on is the protection of the law. If we forget this, our democracy is in serious trouble. The amending Bill to the legislation will try to remove that protection. It will be challenged because it is constitutionally unsound.

The PIAB's chairperson was impressive when it was established, but had I been the claims manager of Iarnród Éireann, I would also feel strongly about people taking that body to court. Now, what I see are beggars on horseback. The Minister knows as well as I the old saying in Cork about putting a beggar on horseback and being ridden to the devil. This is what the amendment will do. We got a pound of flesh, but it is not enough because we want two pounds.

Someone may fall and be seriously injured. It could happen through negligence. I am a great believer in there being certain things as accidents and fault on both sides, but some people are injured through negligence on the part of the person with the duty of care. In my example, the person would need to go to the PIAB, but the Minister assured us that one could bypass the PIAB and go directly to court. The PIAB would decide that because of the person's circumstances and lifestyle — it is not a grand lifestyle and he or she does not have a lot of money or assets — €30,000 would be enough. There is an attitude that a Gucci suit will get someone before the courts more than something from Dunnes Stores.

As an offer of €30,000 would not be enough, the person would decide to go to court, but the first advice given to the person by those who know the law is that, if he or she goes to court, he or she may get a lesser award — it is the adviser's duty to inform the person of this — and become liable for costs. What would a person with no means or assets do? Would he or she continue in the hope of being brazen, then settle for half? He or she would accept the €30,000 knowing in his or her heart of hearts that it would be wrong to do so. It is like telling people to take their medicine or else they will be sent to hospital to have needles stuck in them. Fear is being instilled in people who have no means or assets.

The PIAB should not be chaired by someone with the chairperson's background. The instinctive reaction that everyone is a fraudster is not correct. Claims in respect of compensation for personal injuries had reduced regardless, but the screw is being tightened further. The Minister knows it is unconstitutional and it is staggering that his officials are allowing him to proceed with it. Who is pushing the amendment and on whose suggestion is it being made?

I am not a solicitor, lawyer or so on. My vested interest is in ensuring that people without means are protected, but this legislation does not protect them. The Minister should examine the aggressive advertising by insurance companies making millions of euro in profit, not tighten the screws on people and put them in positions whereby they will not access the courts for fear they will lose the little they have. The Minister should examine the amendment seriously and ask himself the questions each of us should ask ourselves, namely, who is pushing the amendment, what is the amendment's purpose and why is it wanted.

See this speech in context