Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour)

I think we should clarify our position on section 1 of the Bill, though the Minister has done his best to distort it.

We sought a body such as the PIAB for years and, as in the case of the small claims court, its establishment was welcomed by all sides. An efficient structure was required for dealing with personal injuries claims and the PIAB has benefited many, including 35,000 individuals who availed of its services last year. It facilitates people who would not normally pursue a personal injury claim through the courts because it is such a stressful process. With few exceptions people would prefer to be anywhere but court.

Opposition spokespersons teased out the legislation establishing the PIAB at length. We were given repeated assurances on Committee Stage that the safety net allowing people to take a case to court would be retained.

We have no choice but to repeat many of the arguments. I am not convinced by the Minister's argument for introducing the legislation. Of the 40,000 personal injury cases registered last year, 35,000 went before the PIAB and 5,000 went to court. Surely these figures demonstrate that the introduction of such draconian legislation is unnecessary. If only 5,000 of the 40,000 people who could have taken a case to court chose to do so, this legislation is redundant.

People of no means or property will be most affected by the Bill and will be deterred from taking cases to court. We should not allow those with valid cases to be dissuaded from going to court. In recent months, several high profile people pursued cases through the courts with no regard for the consequences or costs. People of no means or property will not pursue cases in the courts because they will be afraid of losing what little they have and finding themselves in debt for the rest of their lives.

Who is driving the Minister's agenda? Who asked for the amendments to be made? One sometimes finds that those who have acquired a little power want to amass more power. In this case, the PIAB is not satisfied that 35,000 cases appear before it each year and wants all personal injury cases to come before it. In acceding to this demand the Minister is undermining the constitutional protection to take a case a court. This legislation will be challenged and struck down.

The Chair's ruling on the amendment is unfair and should be reconsidered. We must assume that those who take cases to court will win and are not all fraudsters. What is the potential charge? The figure cited of €75 million is clearly calculated on the basis that the 40,000 individuals who took a case last year would all win cases in court.

The legislation is deeply flawed and unnecessary. Legislation considered necessary is sometimes found to be flawed. In this case, the Bill is unnecessary because it relates to 5,000 people who are dissatisfied with the award they receive from the Personal Injuries Assessment Board. The courts vindicated a person who took a case to court. Is information available on the number of other successful court challenges to PIAB awards? The House needs an answer to this question.

It is wrong of the Minister to twist the facts concerning our position on the PIAB. All Opposition parties voted in favour of its establishment. However, the amending legislation before us is stand-alone in nature and goes too far.

See this speech in context