Seanad debates

Tuesday, 25 November 2003

Personal Injuries Assessment Board Bill 2003: Report and Final Stages.

 

Photo of Feargal QuinnFeargal Quinn (Independent)

I second the amendment. Senator Henry explained the reason for the amendment. The objective of the Bill is to reduce the astronomically high cost of insurance and to ensure it is done legally and in a way which is acceptable to both sides. The PIAB probably will only accept the reports it regards as coming from legitimate sources. The danger is that the claimant may believe that he or she has a report which was produced by a legitimate source, as Senator Henry said. However, the board may not regard it as that because the quack may not be recognised as legitimate by the board. That could cause delays because the board would have to write to the claimant to tell him or her that it cannot accept the report and that he or she must get one from a legitimate medical practitioner. That will add to the cost and to the confusion of the claimant.

It would be useful to find some acceptable words. I understand there may be some difficulty with the words Senator Henry proposed in that they may not cover all the areas required. I know the Attorney General probably has been consulted on this matter. The purpose of the amendment is worthy. We should find a way to accept either this amendment or a similar amendment which could reach the standard we hope to achieve.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.