When I moved the adjournment I was demonstrating to the House that the jury system is not a significant factor as regards insurance costs but that there are a number of other areas where substantial savings could be effected if they were tackled by the Government. I outlined the effects on the overall cost of insurance of very expensive legal structures which require that two senior counsel, one junior counsel and a solicitor be in attendance. I asked the Minister to amend that requirement. This is a major contributory factor to the escalating cost of insurance and represents a significant proportion of the award which a plaintiff receives.
I also indicated that uninsured drivers were a contributory factor to the overall cost of insurance and I gave it as my view that there is need for an urgent review of the present system of collecting motor insurance and taxation. While Members may not agree with my point that motor insurance and taxation could more fairly and equitably be collected through a tax on motor fuel, this suggestion deserves the serious consideration of the House as a method of eliminating the unacceptably high number of uninsured vehicles.
We all know the trauma and turmoil which an uninsured driver can cause if he is involved in an accident. He would not have any insurance with which to compensate an injured victim. The State has imposed a substantial levy on insurance companies, and thus indirectly on those taking out insurance, to protect them in such circumstances. If we did not have uninsured drivers we would make a significant contribution towards reducing the overall cost of insurance. What we are discussing today is so insignificant in terms of its contribution to insurance costs that it hardly warrants debate.
If we take it that road accidents represent a high percentage of all insurance claims, then it is logical that the causes of road accidents should be identified and some means devised to reduce the incidence of such accidents. Successive Governments have not done sufficient to create an awareness that accidents contribute substantially to the high cost of motor insurance. Almost 50 per cent of all road accidents are alcohol related. I know the Government intend to bring in legislation to reform the licensing laws. We have not seen this Bill but if it is proposed to liberalise the licensing laws I will be opposed to it. It would be a step in the right direction to restrict the availability of alcohol and would make a major contribution towards reducting the level of serious road accidents.
Another contributory factor to the cost of insurance is the cost of hospitalisation. Orthopaedic hospital beds are a scarce commodity but 28 per cent of them are occupied by the victims of road accidents. That gives some idea of the money involved in providing health care for such victims. We have a large waiting list of people, particularly the elderly, who are in need of orthopaedic treatment.
I have made the point on many occasions that one cannot totally isolate one aspect of national administration from another and neither can one isolate the question of disbandment of the jury system and the cost of motor insurance from other areas such as that to which I have referred. There should be a co-ordinated approach aimed at reducing overall expenditure in the areas I referred to. We tend to overlook the level of State support in the form of disability benefits paid to victims of road accidents when we are considering the cost of such accidents. It is a hidden cost but we must bear it in mind when considering our approach to the Bill. It has been pointed out to me that the cost of repairing vehicles involved in road accidents had escalated in recent years as a direct result of Government policies. For example, because of the Government's rate of VAT a car wing costs £400 here compared to £150 in Northern Ireland. That difference in cost is reflected in insurance settlements.
I do not think the Bill is necessary and I do not know where the demand for it came from, but I suspect certain vested interests in the insurance industry were involved. In my view it is a gesture by the Government to placate those who complain about high insurance costs. I hope the debate exposes the Bill for what it is, an effort by the Government to pretend they are concerned about escalating insurance costs. I get annoyed when I think of the other areas which are major contributory factors to the high cost of insurance that should be tackled here. Those areas are being ignored by the House. The Bill proposes to dismantle the only provision in our judicial system that gives a citizen the right and the opportunity to participate in settling damages in civil injury claims. The Minister did not put forward a shred of evidence to indicate that the jury system has been a contributory factor to the overall cost of insurance. I have demonstrated that it is the least significant area in terms of its contribution to overall costs. The Bill should be rejected. It does nothing to achieve the objective, which presumably the Minister has, to tackle the escalating cost of insurance cover.