Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)

I found the Minister's response to the Second Stage debate entirely unconvincing. The fact that he pointed to vested interests and U-turns is indicative of the paucity in his own case. He is unable to address the points raised by Deputies Kathleen Lynch, Quinn, Penrose, Hogan and Creighton or to deal with them in a constructive manner. Accordingly, I am anxious to make a brief contribution.

My question concerns the nub of the argument. Is the PIAB on the side of the victim or biased against the claimant? Where stands the Personal Injuries Assessment Board vis-À-vis the victim? The Minister says the PIAB is the defender of victims' rights for €50. The basis of the establishment of the PIAB in 2003 was to reduce the costs and overheads involved in personal injuries. If we take that as the sole objective, which we must, given the speech on Second Stage by the Minister's predecessor, I must question the assertion of the Minister today that PIAB is on the side of the claimant and the victim. I question it because many claimants are unhappy.

I am a member of the Law Society but do not engage in these cases at all, being primarily a conveyancer. However, I raise the issue in the context of public policy and the entitlement of the citizen of the State to pursue an action where the person believes there is a wrong or an unfairness. The Minister is closing a resort that has been heretofore available to deal with such people's grievances. It was perfectly in order in the parent legislation of 2003 to go to court following the rejection of an assessment but the Minister, in passing today's legislation, is stacking the odds very unfairly against the victim, the claimant, the applicant and the plaintiff to the court and that is where I have a difficulty.

Lawyers and the parties involved are obliged before an action under family law to engage in counselling. The opportunity for counselling before proceeding to court is a good thing. Similarly, in the personal injuries legislation, there is an opportunity for an assessment without the need to resort to court. I accept the fact that professional costs were high and I also accept the general principle of the legislation. However, the Minister is now closing that opportunity and stacking the odds very much in favour of the PIAB. It is a group that has been, and will be, on the side of insurance companies. Being respondents to actions, insurance companies have the best legal brains available to them as well as the biggest pockets with which to engage them. The fact that insurance companies will not be devoid of legal representation in the form of the highest professional expertise available compounds the unfairness.

The Minister is now telling the victims that if they are not happy with the PIAB, they must proceed to court very much on their own. He is creating such a disincentive that it actually will not happen. He is denying the claimant the right to seek recourse to the courts, which is where we have the constitutional difficulty about which Deputy Penrose spoke. The Minister is introducing an indirect prohibition on legal representation and I agree with the well-reasoned points made by Deputy Penrose on that matter, which I will not repeat.

It is a pity there was no public consultation or committee hearings on the issue. There were no opportunities for Dáil Deputies, as elected Members, to make representations on behalf of the public or put questions to the Personal Injuries Assessment Board, which has driven this legislation from start to finish and ensured the Minister moved quickly without the opportunity for public debate. It is disingenuous of him to point to the fact that the legislation was published in April. He knows, as does everybody, that there was no political debate in April or May other than on the big issue, the general election. It is nonsense to suggest there was adequate opportunity for debate.

The taking of all Stages of Bills in one day is fraught with difficulties but suits the strong arm of the ministerial Department in that it ensures there is neither adequate debate nor adequate time for amendments to be tabled. Amendments are ruled out of order at the drop of a hat, which brings this House into disrepute.

Finally, many claimants are unhappy and the level of frustration with the personal injuries process is far higher than the Minister acknowledges. By his actions today, he is further bolstering the edifice of the PIAB against the rights of the individual and I believe this measure will be struck down as constitutionally repugnant.

See this speech in context