Paul Coghlan (Fine Gael)

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 14, to delete lines 1 to 6.

I see the two amendments to sections 16 and 32 as being central to the core of the PIAB. I do not believe it to be equitable that an insurer can compel a claimant to go to the PIAB and then reject the assessment issued by the board in order to take full-blown legal proceedings dealing with both liability and quantum. This is unjust and unfair and amounts to double jeopardy for claimants. The Tánaiste rejected both amendments yesterday on the basis that she did not believe insurers would abuse the PIAB system in circumstances where they were paying for the PIAB. If she is so confident on this point, then let the legislation reflect it. If a respondent compels a claimant to go to the PIAB and subsequently rejects the assessment of the board, that respondent should be fixed with liability. This does not prevent the respondent from subsequently challenging the extent of any assessment through the courts.

The Tánaiste seems to believe the insurance companies are the good guys in all of this and that they would never have impure motives. Part of the reason the current mess has arisen is that insurance companies have been lax in defending cases or settling them early on. There is no doubt the legal profession has a case to answer, but the insurance industry has a fair degree of culpability. The insurance sector must not be allowed to abuse the board and forum shop at will. The Tánaiste should not invest too much hope and confidence in the insurance industry delivering cheaper premiums without some element of compulsion or shame. By refusing to compromise on these amendments she is helping to create a board that will be subjected to general concerns about its fairness. Her unwillingness to compromise on these basic issues will come back to haunt her in 12 months time. However, as she indicated, she may perhaps have moved on at that stage.