Paul Coghlan (Fine Gael)

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 10, line 44, after "advice" to insert "and legal representation".

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Michael Ahern, to the House. I gather the Tánaiste was not prepared to accept my amendment yesterday which was moved by Senator Phelan in my absence. She argued that as the PIAB will not be dealing with legal issues, there will be no need for claimants to have legal representation. She also argued that the PIAB will be a lawyer free zone and will deal directly with claimants.

Two issues arise from her reply. It is a fundamental tenet of our constitutional democracy that people are entitled to seek legal advice. Having access to legal advice is meaningless where somebody is effectively denied legal representation at their own request and expense. The Tánaiste's refusal to give way on this point will be a petard for the PIAB. It will give people the opportunity to claim that the forum and process are unbalanced and that the procedures are designed to minimise the rights of ordinary claimants. She is denying claimants the right of access to representation in circumstances where the respondents will have a full range of advisers available to them. This is not a level playing pitch. Not all members of the public have the same confidence in State institutions as people in business. If they seek to be legally represented, the State and its organs should recognise their right to do so.

It is nonsense to suggest that the PIAB will not be dealing with legal issues or otherwise be affected by the law. Will the PIAB be operating in some sort of legal lacuna where issues of law, which affect everybody, will not apply? Will the PIAB, for example, be determining issues of contributory negligence in reaching assessments? Will it decide who is the proper respondent when a claimant makes a claim? Will it not have to operate in accordance with the law, both in terms of its procedures and with regard to general issues of administrative law? Of course, the PIAB will deal with legal issues. It is nonsense to imply otherwise. The reason that representation should be provided for in the Bill is that it is central to the basic rights of citizens, particularly with regard to a procedure that they will not be entering voluntarily.