Willie Penrose (Longford-Westmeath, Labour)

The people on the PIAB are eminent and competent and argue from another perspective. They have processed many cases. I have been asked to advise on awards and have told my clients that it would be difficult to better them in court. That is a professional opinion. Some insurance companies have computer systems which read medical reports and calculate the likely awards. I do not believe it is possible to computerise the calculation of a personal injury award. Two people in the same accident might sustain different injuries according to their predispositions, such as a weak back.

If a solicitor or barrister states that in his or her professional opinion €15,000 is not sufficient to compensate a person for injuries, the person will reject the award and go to court. The court may, however, award €14,999 because there are no rules for awards, apart from the books of quantum. The costs of the action are then levied against the person. The PIAB was set up for a good reason and was supported by almost everyone in the House. It has been subjected to various comments but has stood the test of time. While I understand the Minister's concerns in the situation I outlined the court would have no discretion but to impose a court order for the defendant's costs and the plaintiff would have to pay his or her costs too, despite having been professionally advised that the PIAB award was inadequate. That is one of the special circumstances covered by Deputy Lynch's amendment. That is what happened in the O'Brien case.

The PIAB has worked extremely hard, has made quick decisions and is accessible and helpful. I have made inquiries and have found it helpful in that regard. It appears insurance companies get the rub of the green because they do not pass on the benefit of their high profits to their customers. PIAB has helped to reduce premiums but was not the sole impetus behind that development.

This amendment will immutably hammer into the legislation that no discretion will be vested in a member of the Judiciary to examine the issue of costs from the perspectives I have outlined. I have no gripe against the PIAB.

I did not know about Gerard Hogan's opinion. I had my view on the matter and am glad it coincided with that of someone more eminent than me. I am astounded that section 51B subsections (1) and (2) exist. They add nothing to the Bill. Legal representation is more than advocacy. It is advice on the conduct of pleas at every step. For that reason people in the system who consider whether to accept their awards would have a legitimate right to expect their costs would be covered. I am as subject to correction as anyone else but as I understand these subsections those people no longer have that right and that applies retrospectively. That is an extraordinary proposition. The Minister is well aware of the case concerning long-stay charges in nursing homes that arose in 2005. This provision is suspect and one does not have to look back as far as the Heneghan case to realise it may be challenged.

Our job is not to act as promoters or cheerleaders for legislation. If we make valid points in the House I do not expect people to say we do so because we have particular interests. Our role is to ensure legislation is subject to detailed scrutiny, invigilation and critical analysis. Our points are bona fides, for example, that this provision may be constitutionally suspect. If so, it will be subject to judicial review. I have no special insight into this and have no personal interest in the matter. I do not have the time to even contemplate such a case but somebody will examine it. I did not know about Gerard Hogan's opinion when I read these provisions yesterday and thought they were fraught with difficulty. Gerard Hogan is an eminent constitutional lawyer.

That is the point I wish to make, maybe in a scattergun approach but we can be more focused on Committee Stage. I have no axe to grind with the Minister or anybody else but it is incumbent on me to scrutinise legislation fairly and impartially.

See this speech in context