Gerald Nash (Louth, Labour)

The witnesses are very welcome. This is an important interrogation of issues that concern all of us. Hardly a week or two goes by when I do not receive a call about them. I imagine colleagues are in precisely the same situation.

The calls are received from local businesses and voluntary groups, and indeed from ordinary consumers. They ask why, if there has been all these reform over the past few years, and acknowledging the Government has done a good job in driving the agenda, they are paying more this year than last year. They ask why they have exclusions they were not made aware of and that have been imposed on them without their direct knowledge, maybe through not having read the small print.

I want to give the Government credit on this and some members of the Opposition who have driven this agenda. Deputy Doherty did a particularly good job over the past few years on motor insurance and so on. We are united in our concern and frustration but it seems we are dealing with a business and a sector that is utterly shameless. There is no justification for this level of profit in the context that both guests have described and in the context of the information we now have in this new era of transparency, in which things are clearer in terms of costs and all the various factors concerning the sector. It is very difficult to justify.

Let me pick up on the last point that Deputy Timmins made, which Mr. Hanley addressed to an extent.

The mind boggles when one considers that all the evidence shows that comparable awards are made whether people go through the Injuries Resolution Board or they go down the litigation route. In fact, they are better off choosing the former as going down the litigation route takes longer. If people want a more expeditious resolution, they should go through the Injuries Resolution Board. There definitely is work to do in educating people on this. Culturally, we are used to going to our solicitor, who may, depending on the severity of the case, brief a barrister and then seek to secure the client the best possible outcome. A culture change is required and we all have a responsibility in that regard.

I am interested to know what level of engagement the Alliance for Insurance Reform has had with the Law Society of Ireland, the Bar Council and the relevant Department, whether that is justice or Finance, on the question of legal costs. With the Bar Council especially in mind, I can imagine the very haughty, boring and long-winded justification for its bizarre Byzantine fee structures, which are far from transparent and impose a huge cost on consumers and on business. What kind of response do the witnesses get when they raise the issue of control of legal costs, which is feeding into the issues we are discussing, with Departments or the Law Society?