Mr. Stuart Gilhooly:

With all due respect to the Minister, the comments he made sound fairly wide-ranging. There are a couple of things there with which we need to deal. The suggestion that there has been a widespread increase in claims is not borne out by the statistics.

In fact, there has, as we understand it from the Injuries Board, been a 6% increase in claims. The board tells us - and it is independent - that this is in line with what is to be expected in the economy, which is improving so there are more people on the roads, going to work, etc. It is fully to be expected that there would be an increase in the number of accidents and claims as a result.

The reference to the jurisdiction change is interesting. The jurisdiction change was carried out by the previous Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter, almost three years ago, in February 2014. In almost unique circumstances, that I can recall, the insurance industry and the legal profession were in complete agreement that it should not happen. Dorothea Dowling was very clear it should not happen. As far as I am aware, there was only one person in the entire country who thought it should happen, and that was the then Minister. He changed those jurisdictions. I think that was a mistake. I do not think it should have been done but that was a decision made by Government and not at the behest of anybody else. It could be changed back, although I doubt it will be. Even when considered logically, let us just assume - as it has happened - that if there are more cases now in the Circuit Court, presumably there are fewer in the High Court, which means the legal costs should be lower because Circuit Court costs are generally lower than High Court costs. There are fewer barristers and the fees tend to be lower. That does not make any sense. The argument is that damages are a little higher in the Circuit Court, and they are because the jurisdiction went up. That is inevitable. I am not sure, however, that it makes any sense about legal costs. I am not sure where the Minister is coming from in his point about the legal costs. There are many general comments in there but I am not sure there is anything specific.