Asking lawyers if they were in favour of the Personal Injuries Assessment Board would be like asking turkeys if they favour Christmas, writes Carol Coulter, Legal Affairs Correspondent.
There has been a predictable chorus of welcome for the announcement of the Personal Injuries Assessment Board, as insurers, hoteliers, employers and motorists look forward to the pending reduction in insurance premiums.
There is no doubt that Irish insurance premiums have risen alarmingly in recent years, and that the cost of delivering compensation through the court system is unjustifiably high.
The level of compensation in Ireland is also higher than in other EU member-states, which accounts for some of the higher premiums, but no one has been arguing, publicly at least, for a reduction in the level of awards.
It is also true that insurance premiums have started to come down, as the number of claims has dropped and anecdotal evidence suggests that the size of awards, and a changed attitude to dubious claimants, have reflected a growing concern in the courts about runaway insurance costs.
The setting up of PIAB on a statutory basis is seen as the centrepiece of a basket of measures aimed at reducing these costs. Others include enhanced road safety and court reform to speed up cases and punish those making exaggerated or fraudulent claims.
In this context the only people who are less than enthusiastic about the setting up of the PIAB, and who see flaws in the legislative proposals, are the representatives of the legal professions. Given that a large proportion of the work of certain practitioners is made up of personal injuries litigation, this is understandable, and their objections have usually been met with derision.
Lawyers voting for PIAB may be like turkeys voting for Christmas, but this does not mean that all their misgivings can be dismissed. They may be inadequate representatives for accident victims, but they are the only ones there are.
The insurance industry has articulate and vocal representatives on this issue, as do employers and even motorists, but there is no representative body for people injured in road accidents or through another person's negligence.
While defending their own interests, the lawyers' organisations are also raising issues of interest to potential claimants.
Most of their concerns relate to constitutional concerns about the fairness of the procedures. The chairman of the Bar Council, Mr Conor Maguire SC, pointed out that the respondent, normally the insurer, can agree to have a claim assessed and later reject the assessment and go to court, where it can then bring the issue of liability into play. The claimant has no such choice at the outset. The director general of the Law Society makes further points elsewhere in this paper.
PIAB will also be able to demand information about a claimant's income and other financial affairs from the Revenue Commissioners, which would not be allowed in a court case. That information could colour the approach of a respondent in any later litigation.
The Bar Council is also concerned about the section detailing PIAB's duty of care to vulnerable claimants, given that the board is made up various parties, including representatives of bodies like the Irish Insurance Federation and IBEC, which may have contrary interests.
Mr Maguire points out that there is no equality between a confused and possibly vulnerable claimant who can only have legal advice if he pays for it himself and well-funded insurers with lawyers in their employ.
We will see further criticisms surface in the coming days. However, it remains to be seen if any of these will be taken up by the opposition, or if they will be dismissed as self-interested sniping from the legal trenches.
'
A board that adds insult to injury: page 18