The Opposition has strongly criticised a Bill due to be passed by the Dáil today changing the way the Personal Injuries Assessment Board (PIAB) conducts its business. Fine Gael and Labour claim the legislation would infringe the constitutional rights of citizens while the Law Society has campaigned against its introduction.
The Bill is designed to improve the efficiency of PIAB but Fine Gael enterprise spokesman in the Seanad, Paul Coghlan, said the Government's attempt to ram through changes was trampling on the legal and constitutional rights of citizens.
The purpose of the Bill was to cover a situation where a claimant rejected a PIAB assessment and then failed to win more than the amount offered by the board when they went to court, he said.
"This makes sense because nobody wants to encourage frivolous claims," he said, "but this Bill is a step too far, aiming to restrict the legitimate democratic and legal rights of citizens to take their claim to the courts."
While the board had done great work, it was not designed to deny people access to or to seek independent legal advice but that was what the Bill involved, he said.
Labour's enterprise, trade and employment spokesman Ruairí Quinn said the Bill would be open to constitutional challenge. While it was attempting a necessary reform, some changes were needed in order to avoid a potential challenge in the courts.
"Removing the discretion that a judge would normally have to allow for exceptional circumstances means that this Bill may be unconstitutional," he said.
Ken Murphy, director general of the Law Society, which represents solicitors, said the Bill could not be dressed up as a pro-consumer measure as it was actually hostile to consumers.
"This Bill is clearly designed to further load the dice against accident victims and in favour of the powerful business and insurance interests who lobbied to have the PIAB established in the first place," Mr Murphy said. "The people who suffer injury through the negligence of others have no organisation, no lobby and no voice." It was disturbing that while the unconstitutionality had been pointed out, it was being proceeded with regardless, he said.
