It is proposed that, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, speakers shall be called in Private Members' Time this evening as follows: 7 o'clock to 7.10 p.m., Opposition speaker; 7.10 p.m. to 7.25 p.m., Government speaker; 7.25 p.m. to 7.55 p.m., Opposition speaker; 7.55 p.m. to 8.15 p.m., Government speaker and 8.15 p.m. to 8.30 p.m. Opposition speaker.
Private Members' Business. - Insurance Costs: Motion.
The following motion was moved by Deputy J. Bruton on 23 February 1988:
That Dáil Éireann calls on the Ministers for Industry and Commerce, Justice, Environment and Labour to jointly set a timetable of actions to reduce insurance costs over the next eighteen months and in the light of these actions to obtain the agreement of the insurance companies to appropriate reductions in the insurance premia that would otherwise be charged to the public.
Debate resumed on the following amendment:
To add to the Motion:
"and calls in particular for the early reintroduction and passage of the Courts Bill, 1986 to abolish juries in civil cases, a reduction in the number of lawyers in such cases, a simplification and speeding up of the procedures in such cases and consideration of whether the assessment of damages could be done by a tribunal on an informal basis, as in the Stardust and criminal injury cases, rather than by a Court.
—(Deputy Cullen.)
In regard to the list that was read out by the Government Chief Whip, who was that agreed with?
It was agreed with the main Opposition party whose motion it is. There is no difference in the times.
The final division of the time is designed to enable myself and other persons an opportunity to contribute. I welcome it and I think we should agree with it.
I would like to reiterate a few points I made last night in order to crystalise them. Uninsured car drivers should face the same rigours of the law as drunken drivers. This is not the case at present and it is an absolutely ridiculous inconsistency in the law so far as safety on our roads is concerned, and there is the consequent cost of insurance. Driving a car without insurance should be as serious a crime as driving a car when drunk. People caught driving without insurance should be subject to automatic disqualification from driving on their first conviction as is the case with drunken drivers.
Just as serious in the overall national interest as the cost of car insurance is the outlandish cost of employer liability insurance. In a country with a quarter of a million people unemployed and up to 30,000 emigrating each year it is vital that we bring down the cost of employing people to the lowest possible level.
The Progressive Democrats' policy in this area is well defined. We want to shift the present excessive incidence of taxation on work by cutting income tax and PRSI and by widening the tax base. It is also vital in this context to tackle the incredible cost of employer liability insurance. Every Deputy in this House is familiar with cases of people who would start up new industries or expand existing ones but are pre-empted from doing so by the incredible cost of the insurance cover. It is time to introduce the equivalent of a no-claims bonus system to employer liability insurance which would take into account the good record of employers. It would also in turn lead, over time, to a reduction in the cost of such insurance for all employers. This would also greatly benefit the conscientious employer who maintains proper safety standards in the workplace, and it would be an incentive to employers generally to maintain the maximum safety standards in their premises. This is only one measure which is essential to get the cost of this kind of insurance down.
Another key ingredient in this regard would be the eventual adoption of the Courts Bill which would dispense with juries in civil liability cases. That measure is now long overdue. I particularly appeal to the Government to bring this Bill before the House as soon as possible for completion. It is the failure of the Dáil to deal quickly with legislation like this which gives this House such a bad name. We have the spectacle of the Dáil meeting for as little as half a week while it is vital that legislation like this is brought into the House, fully debated and passed into law as quickly as possible. This is the kind of priority we should be addressing rather than open ended interminable debates like those on the budgets.
While the Courts Bill will obviously be a step in the right direction, the House should also give consideration to a possible tribunal system as an alternative to the courts system for some civil liability cases. I outlined yesterday evening the example of the Stardust case in this regard.
Another point I would like to deal with this evening is the failure of us all, particularly the Government, to bring home to people the importance of the Single European Act in 1992. The effects will be huge in many areas and insurance costs is one area that will certainly not escape. In Europe today approximately 85 per cent of people in business are fully aware of the consequences of 1992. I would say less than 5 per cent of the people in business here are really aware of the consequences, of what can and will occur in 1992.
We have many problems in the insurance industry here. If we do not prepare the insurance industry for what is to happen in 1992 the consequences of the onslaught from the European side will be horrendous. There were good examples of this in the past. In 1972 we had a protocol in the Convention for the motor industry but we did absolutely nothing in the ensuing ten years to protect this industry. We have a protocol again on insurance in the present Convention and we are doing absolutely nothing to get our insurance businesses ready for the competition that they are going to face from Europe. If something is not done about it we will end up with no Irish insurance companies here because they will not be prepared to fight off the competition that will come their way unless the proper legislative matters are put in train and the industry itself is prepared to look inward and plan immediately.
While I do not want to take from the meeting of the Council of Europe in the last few weeks, and the Taoiseach's achievement in coming back with the doubling of the funds, it appals me that constantly we look to Europe with our hand out; we get the few bob in our back pocket and are sent back to Ireland and we are all suddenly happy. Will we never realise that we are an integral part of Europe and we can be leading the charge? The insurance business is an ideal example of where we should be preparing ourselves for the eventualities that will come our way.
Finally, I am pleased to see the way Irish Life is trying to set itself up by privatising so that they will be in a good position in future years. That example should be taken up by the insurance industry in general and by the Government in addressing the measures that have to be taken for our eventual grand market under the Single European Act when it comes into force in 1992.
I want to compliment the main Opposition party for bringing forward this resolution. It is timely and very useful. It is also thoughtful in its content. The Government are taking firm action to reduce the cost of insurance and to improve its availability. The programme laid out here last evening by Deputy Bruton coincides largely with the programme the Government are engaged in. To an extent our agendas are closely related. We will make certain that savings are passed on by insurance companies to policyholders in the form of reduced premiums, assuming that the savings are as large as we anticipate. My clear message this evening to this House is that the Government will ensure that such savings are passed on to the consumer.
The wide-ranging and decisive action — the legal reforms, important new legislation on safety and welfare in the workplace and more enforcement and improved safety on the roads — now being taken by Government will benefit the hard-pressed consumer. I do not disagree with any of the speakers in this debate to date that insurance costs are too high but I disagree that we have been doing nothing about it. We have been engaged in a programme and an agenda on which we have been working for 12 months and we have made some breakthroughs, arguably more than have been made in any previous 12-month period in the past decade.
I also want to take this opportunity of knocking firmly on the head the notion that the package which I negotiated on the non-life services directive in Brussels was over-protectionist or anything other than in the national interest. I want to respond to a suggestion made by Deputy Bruton last evening that perhaps it may have been over-generous. It was no such thing. I will expand on that matter later.
On my initiative, a partnership in the form of joint Government-insurance industry discussions has existed since June last. Its mandate is to identify new cost reduction plans and to make certain that improvements are speedily translated into real benefits for the community. In September last I asked the Bar Council of Ireland to come to see me to make clear to them the Government's determination to reduce the level of legal representation. I discussed with them the possibility of their making a gesture in this regard. In December last they announced that they had voluntarily abrogated the existing three counsel rule and I welcomed that as a first step. The Government have since gone further and have decided to give the Minister for Justice the power to tackle legal representation levels.
A number of speakers have asked when the Courts Bill will be introduced and referred to the delay in introducing it. The Courts Bill will be proceeded with as a priority measure and the Government are committed to the abolition of juries by 31 July 1988. I want to put that firmly on the record as the Government's clear intention — by 31 July 1988 we will have abolished the jury system in these cases. I can assure the House that the Government have no intention of allowing the benefits arising from an improved insurance environment to be dissipated or misdirected. Let us all be quite clear that the purpose of these measures is to improve the lot of the hard-pressed policyholder, be he employer, worker, householder or motorist. My partnership with the insurance industry will mean that this is achieved as soon as possible.
It is encouraging to see agreement on all sides of the House on the measures necessary to tackle the problems of cost and availability of some classes of insurance. We welcome good ideas and suggestions from every scource. I welcome, as I did at the time, the policy discussion document from Fine Gael published last August and the policy outlined in Deputy Bruton's address to this House last night. We welcome those as good ideas and good suggestions but in return I say that, given the complexity of the industry, we have been making solid progress for the past 12 months and our agendas coincide. I would argue that I am already more than half-way through the agenda which has been outlined to this House by Deputy Bruton and in the document of last August. We have a completely open mind on some of those suggestions and any other constructive suggestions which we get will be carefully considered. If they prove practical and workable we will put them into effect without any red tape.
I would now like to comment briefly on some of the points made in the course of this debate. Reference was made to the proposed legislation on product liability and the implications for insurance premiums. First of all, I would point out that the legislation is being implemented to give effect to the EC Directive on Product Liability. Britain has already brought legislation into force giving effect to this directive and all other member states, including Ireland, are in the process of doing so.
In order to ensure a full and open discussion on the implications of this directive, my Department circulated an explanatory and discussion document which outlined the various provisions of the directive and the proposed manner of implementation. All sectors of trade, industry and commerce were invited to comment and many detailed submissions were received. As far as the effect on insurance premiums is concerned, the general consensus among insurance experts is that until the effects of the impending legislation are known and seen in practice it will not be possible to estimate the precise implications for insurance premiums. However, it is to be expected that in the immediate situation following the passing of the legislation, premium costs in some industry sectors will probably increase to reflect the additional risk involved. However, it must be remembered that in the longer term the levels of insurance premiums will depend on the actual experience gained as a result of specific cases taken under the new legislation. The product liability directive was passed to improve the position of consumers and this should not be lost sight of.
Deputy Bruton raised the question of incentives by insurers to employers who improve safety procedures in their work-places. Firms who devote resources to improving safety and who, therefore, have a good claims record pay lower insurance premiums than those firms who are less safety conscious and, as a result, have a higher incidence of claims. Under the present rating structures these latter firms are heavily penalised. My colleagues, the Minister for Labour, is holding discussions with the Irish Insurance Federation on the introduction of safety audit procedures which would improve housekeeping by firms in the area of risk management and thus bring about lower premium rates.
Some Deputies have referred to the need for better services to the customer from insurers in such areas as information on policies, unfair selling practices, and difficulties in obtaining insurance cover in the liability classes. The Insurance Bill, 1987, includes important new provisions which will improve the information provided to consumers on policy conditions, rates, commission levels and other areas. These provisions will be of great benefit in tackling any information gaps which exist at present.
It was stated last night that there is no agreement with the insurance industry for dealing with declined cases for employers liability insurance. I want to make it clear that arrangements exist with the Irish Insurance Federation to assist, where difficulties are experienced, in obtaining liability insurance. Before a case can be referred to the federation it is necessary that at least half the market be approached without success. Evidence of these approaches, together with a brief synopsis of the risk, should be forwarded to my Department who will refer the matter to the federation. I must emphasise, however, that no guarantee can be given that cover will be forthcoming in every case referred to in this manner. It would be unreasonable to expect a guarantee of that nature.
A further welcome consumer measure is the new code of practice introduced recently by the life industry which allows consumers who take our new regular premium savings policies a 15 day period of grace in which to review and, if they wish, cancel their decision to proceed with the policy without loss to themselves. Much more information will also be clearly provided at the time a policy is issued in the form of a notice sent out by all insurers. This will certainly put the consumer in the picture from the very beginning and, I am sure, will help to reduce complaints and dissatisfaction in this area.
The EC is moving ahead quickly with its internal market programme for the insurance sector. I spoke about this at the outset. The major item is the non-life services directive. It is clear that freedom of services will represent increased competition and freedom of choice for consumers. The Irish non-life insurance industry must gear itself towards meeting the challenge of intensified competition by 1992. The temporary respite in the form of transitional arrangements for Ireland, among others — which I negotiated in Brussels — must be seen simply as a recognition by the EC Commission and the other members of the Council of the difficulties faced by our industry.
I should remind the House that, to my memory, the insurance industry was the only industry mentioned specifically in the Single European Act and was appended to that Act in the form of a statement by Ireland pointing out that we would seek special understanding at the time when we came to discuss the future of the industry. The Government of the day felt that the insertion of that statement in the Single European Act was important. It was the follow-up of that statement that led to the decisions that emanated from Brussels giving effect to the contents of the Single European Act.
The Government are committed to achieving a fully competitive insurance market in Ireland. The Irish market has, of course, been open to increased competition in recent years by way of freedom of establishment for non-life insurance companies. Many insurers have availed of this right to set up here.
It must be remembered that freedom of services will not, of itself, be a panacea for present high premium levels, in that claims experience in the Irish market will continue to be the major determinant in this regard. It is precisely for this reason that the Government are pushing ahead to achieve real and lasting reforms to bring about significant reductions in the cost of insurance to industry, motorists and the public generally.
In the two or three minutes remaining let me remind the House that the agenda which has been set out in this motion by Deputy John Bruton coincides broadly with ours, on which we have been working for some 12 months now. I would claim that, in the past 12 months, there have been two major breakthroughs: first, the progress on the Courts Bill which I have been able to state categorically this evening will be implemented by 31 July next and, second, the talks that took place with the Bar Council which led to their voluntarily taking a decision to abrogate one counsel in that area. As was announced last evening, I see in this evening's papers that some lawyers are threatening to increase fees as a result of what they regard as the Government decision — perhaps to go one step further and re-examine the number of counsel engaged on a case. I see in an evening paper reaction from the Bar Council to the statement by my colleague, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, last evening.
Let me make clear that what is involved here is that the norm in personal injury cases will be one counsel except where the court certifies that a second or, in exceptional cases, and for reasons stated, a third counsel is warranted. Perhaps the Bar Council have over-reacted in their statement this evening. It would be my hope that, when they reflect on the actual words of the Government statement last evening, they will reconsider their views — that it will be one counsel except where the court certifies that a second or, in exceptional cases, and for reasons stated, a third counsel is warranted.
It has been a year of considerable progress in tackling insurance costs in that, for the first time in many years, instead of just talking about it, we took some action. We have made progress on the Courts Bill and considerable progress in the area of legal representation and fees. That type of progress, given the complexities involved, is not to be underestimated.
I might refer again to the EC Directive because Deputy John Bruton seemed very interested in it last evening. We are not in the business of protecting the Irish insurance industry from competition. We are not in the business of cosseting them in an artificial way. They will face competition in due course. They already face substantial competition but, given the nature of that industry, it is legitimate and in the national interest to allow them a period of years so that they can adjust to the difficulties which will be experienced in the internal market.
Let me say to the insurance industry, crisply and clearly, that after 1992 — just some three and a half years away now — their gloves will be off, they will have to examine possibilities of rationalising the industry, perhaps mergers, perhaps acquisitions, whatever — I am not telling them how to run their business — but in every way possible they will have to be ready, come 1992, to tackle the flood of competition with which they will be faced. I hope that, by now, the industry are under no illusions but that they must be ready for free competition which, in itself, will bring down insurance costs on top of the already excellent record of this Government on insurance costs in the past 12 months.
The first thing I would have to say in relation to this whole debate is that the motion before the House is the most succinct comment I have seen from the major Opposition Party on the two most recent opinion polls. I believe it would be very difficult to conceive of a motion that is less contentious than this one. There is no Member of this House who would be likely to come in here and say that no action is necessary to deal with the costs of motor insurance. I cannot imagine that there is a single Member who believes that insurance policies are too low, or a single Member who would vote against any reasonable action that would help to reduce such costs.
At a time when the fabric of our social services is under daily threat, and when no Government action is being taken to stem the tide of emigration, it is a shameful waste of precious Dáil time to be debating so relatively trivial a motion as this. The subject matter of the motion is important — I do not deny that for a moment — but it could easily be dealt with by a Dáil question or by a letter to the Minister.
The only conclusion I can reach about the motion, therefore, is that its reason for being on the Order Paper at all is to ensure that the major Opposition Party will not cause any offence to the Government, at least for the moment. Can we look forward to a Private Members' motion from the major Opposition Party next week asking us to pledge our allegiance to the "Buy Irish" campaign, or asking us to declare ourselves in favour of virtue and apple pie?
The other thing that forces me to the conclusion is the complete absence of specifics from the motion. There is no criticism in the motion, despite the fact that the present Government inherited a programme of work already done in this area from the last Government. There are no concrete suggestions. There is nothing except a rather mild appeal to the Ministers, if they can see their way to it, to do whatever they think they should, before going, cap in hand, to the insurance companies.
The motion comes from a Deputy who, in fairness to him, has done a lot of work in this area. He has even published a detailed policy document on the subject on behalf of his party. He could, if he had wished, put forward the fruits of that work in this motion, rather than in his speech. But, of course, that might run the risk of a vote against the Government.
If I could deal with the subject matter of the motion itself, I would have to say that in this area it is time for some new and radical thinking. It is difficult to get hold of adequate statistics in this area. I was surprised, for instance, to discover recently that no Government Department gathers information on the number of cars insured in this country. It is difficult to see how policy can be realistically developed in the absence of such basic information. However, we do have some information available. On 1 December last, the Minister for the Environment told the Leader of the Labour Party in the Dáil that in 1986 there were 711,000 cars licensed in the Republic. On 27 January last, the Minister for Industry and Commerce informed my colleague, Deputy Brendan Howlin, that the amount of gross-written premiums in the motor insurance business was £361 million in 1986.
If we put those two figures together, it is easy enough to deduce that the average premium in 1986 — I am using that year because it is the most recent for which full data is available — would have been £491 for each car on the road. I use the phrase "would have been" because clearly, a large number of cars on the road at any one time are being driven without any insurance at all. It has been estimated that up to 20 per cent of cars are being driven without insurance. If this estimate is correct, then the true average cost of insurance, per car, is over £500 a year, or £10 a week.
This is clearly a very harsh imposition on the average driver. It puts the cost of motoring, and especially safe motoring, beyond the reach of many people, including most young people. Given these kind of statistics, it seems evident that consideration must be given to moving on three separate fronts; first the overall cost of insurance premia must be driven down; second, action must be taken to ensure that every driver on the road is insured; and third, the cost of insurance must be spread more equitably.
Now, if we are serious about this, I believe we have to challenge the two assumptions that underlie this whole debate so far. The first assumption is that if we deal with legal costs, it will be possible to radically reduce premia. The second assumption is that if we increase penalties for offenders, we will be successful in forcing everyone to insure themselves. Neither measure, on their own, will work. Neither measure will contribute substantially to reducing costs. And neither measure will help to spread the cost of insurance more fairly. We need, if we are serious, to consider going a great deal further.
First, if we are serious about reducing legal costs, we should consider introducing the concept of "no fault" insurance. It works very well in other jurisdictions, and it is a simple concept. It means that in the event of an accident, no matter what the circumstances, there is no onus on a driver to establish that the other driver was at fault before a claim can be met. Both drivers involved in an accident deal with their own insurance companies only, and the only issue that needs to be resolved is the issue of damages. At a stroke, the introduction of "no fault" insurance has virtually removed the need for litigation in the United States, for instance, and it is something that ought to be examined in our context.
Secondly, we have to give serious consideration to more realistic penalties for drivers who take cars on the road without insurance. I believe that in addition to the normal penalties that are imposed we should examine the possibility of two extra forms of punishment — automatic jail sentences for any habitual offender in this area, coupled with the confiscation of their car. Driving a car without insurance is the same as carrying a loaded and cocked gun without authorisation. Anyone convicted of the latter offence in our jurisdiction faces a stiff jail sentence, but respectable citizens frequently drive cars without offering the most basic form of protection that the community around them demands.
Thirdly, we have to face up to the fact that a significant number of cars on our roads are being driven regularly while they are in a dangerous condition. We must be one of the last jurisdictions in the world that does not demand a regular check on such basic facets as lights, brakes and tyres. The introduction of a compulsory MOT-style certificate, which would be a condition of tax and insurance, and which would have to be displayed on the windscreen, would go a long way towards increasing safety on our roads, and reducing the costs of insurance.
Fourthly, it is a fact that a substantial proportion of serious accidents on the roads are related to alcohol, but we still regard the drunk driver in our society as a "bit of a lad". How many cases have we seen of people convicted of drunk-driving offences for the second or third time? Perhaps in this case, too, the time has come to ensure that when someone is convicted of a drunk driving offence, their car is taken away from them also.
It is popular to blame the legal profession for all the excess costs involved in car insurance. I agree that it is long past time to remove the element of expensive litigation from this area, but it is misleading to suggest that the only factor here is legal costs. The instances I have mentioned above demonstrate that we will have some responsibility in this area. The measures I have suggested, although they are radical, would go a long way towards making our roads safer and that is the best way to reduce insurance premia.
If we can do that, and remove the element of litigation, we should then be prepared to move on the other two fronts I mentioned earlier. There is only one way to ensure that every driver on the road is insured in all circumstances, and only one way to make certain that the cost of insurance is equitably spread among all drivers. That way involves the introduction of a national insurance scheme, applicable to all drivers and based on the concept that risk increases with every mile driven. The way to pay for such a scheme is through the cost of petrol.
I have in mind a single scheme, operated by one insurance company on behalf of the State, which would automatically apply third party insurance to every driver on our roads. It would apply to visitors as much as to residents, and would be financed by a surcharge on the cost of a gallon of petrol. It would be possible within such a scheme to offer comprehensive insurance as an optional extra, and to remove the possibility of abuse by excluding, say, the first £100 of damages from any claim.
The amount of the surcharge would be dependent on a number of factors. It would depend principally on successful implementation of the kind of measures I mentioned, to make the roads safer and to remove the element of expensive litigation. At the present level of costs, a reasonable surcharge would provide every driver with third party cover, but to go further would require concentrated action to bring costs down.
In summary, if we are serious about this issue, we can bring about radical improvement. It requires a concentrated approach on a package of measures, and a willingness to confront established attitudes. It may also mean being prepared to risk offending vested interests. Those insurance companies who at present complain about their losses from motor insurance may sing a different tune if they discover they would lose the business. We are well placed to consider such an overall approach. The State is already in the car insurance business, through the PMPA, and there is no reason why we should be afraid to explore new ways of making insurance affordable to everybody.
The time allocated to the Opposition speaker was 7.25 p.m. to 7.55 p.m. There now seems to be a suggestion of sharing the time. Is this so?
Yes.
In that case, I will call Deputy McCartan. The Government speaker is due to come in at 7.55 p.m. and finish at 8.15 p.m.
I envisage completing my speech by 7.55 p.m. It is quite clear the insurance industry has now got completely out of control and the Government must take an initiative without delay to get it into line.
In regard to the Fine Gael motion before the House and the Progressive Democrat amendment, a feature or general implication to be found in both the approaches is one in which it is believed that the co-operation of the insurance industry can be secured. This is a point that causes grave concern to The Workers' Party because in the past — and we believe in the future — it was and will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to secure the co-operation of that service industry in dealing with and responding to initiatives from the Government unless there is an element of coercion in any initiative taken. However, The Workers' Party nonetheless welcome the debate initiated by the motion and particularly welcome the initiative that will necessarily flow from its terms in view of the multidepartmental initiative sought by the motion with regard to seriously addressing the problems of an industry and a service that is obviously completely out of control and exploiting a market for which it has a demand by legislation.
In this context it is important to say that we are not just dealing with motor car insurance. They are certainly a beleagured sector of the community; they are discriminated against through age, sex, status, employment and through a system of cartel blacklisting where not only people with a certain background but those from particular districts in cities and provincial towns are denied the opportunity of insurance cover. This discrimination and the practices of the cartel system of blacklisting and weighted disadvantage involved in the system must be weeded out of insurance. In addition there is a need to look at the question of public, corporate, company and employer liability. Right across the board it is clear that there is massive exploitation and over-charging of the consumer by the service industry of insurance.
The approach of The Workers' Party to insurance is basic and simple. We maintain that we will not achieve the type of fairness in this service until we have a comprehensive no-fault liability, State-controlled insurance industry. I am thinking of the type of service industry that applies in New Zealand where today the average car owner can secure comprehensive annual cover at a cost of £50. That is achieved on a no-fault comprehensive State run insurance scheme. The system compensates people not because they are in the right and the other party is in the wrong but on the basis that they are entitled to compensation for injury or loss of property caused by accident. People are not victimised simply because they may have been guilty of an error of judgment or contributed in some say to the cause of an accident. The system is based on fairness and recognises the duty of the community to help people who are put at a disadvantage in some way by reason of an unfortunate accident.
The scale of the problem was underscored 100 times by Deputy Bruton in the conclusion of his address last evening when he indicated that the package of proposals coming from his party would achieve in one year, if fully implemented, a saving of £65 million. On the face of it that seems to be an incredible achievement, if it was possible, but what would the net benefit be to the consumer? On his estimation, which I accept as being accurate, it represents a saving of £80 on the average premium in one year. That is an incredibly small achievement and those with insurance cover would want to know what has happened to the service that requires such drastic reform, that is making such huge capital savings on overall cost but at the end of the day turns up a saving which is a minute proportion of the average yearly premium. In my view an £80 saving on a premium will not be greatly appreciated. It is not a significant achievement but it is as much as we can hope for under the scheme suggested.
The sheer magnitude of the problem as highlighted by the figures quoted indicates that unless there is a radical overhaul of the system leading to Government control, whether by dictate or in the form of an appointed management team, such as in the case of the PMPA, we will not achieve any reform in the system that will prove of advantage to the consumer. There are specific proposals in the motion and the amendment. Many of them must be supported, such as the proposals to reduce the number of lawyers involved in insurance cases, the speeding up of pre-trial procedures and the introduction of tribunals. However, by themselves those changes will not result in savings to the consumer. At the moment many insurance companies impose the practice of one junior counsel until the day of the trial and one senior counsel at the hearing. They have been doing that for almost 18 months in the Round Hall but there has not been a penny of a reduction in the cost of insurance. The savings are going into the profit coffers of the insurance companies and that is where all the savings that will result from the reforms proposed will go unless the Government dictate the cost of the premium to the consumer. There must be price control if we are to bring premia down. Given the role of the Registrar of Friendly Societies and the role of the Minister for Industry and Commerce in the area of policing insurance companies, there should be no difficulty in a Minister indicating the profit level of insurance companies and, consequently, the price to be charged to the consumer for insurance cover.
The speeding up of procedures will not deliver a reduction in premia. The Stardust Tribunal was an effective and speedy way of dealing with the claims of litigants but it did not lead to a reduction in legal costs. Obviously, the whole object of the exercise is to cut back on the enormous legal costs. Without central dictate we will not achieve the type of reductions people are seeking. The Workers' Party are opposed to the suggestion that juries should be abolished but I do not know whether, with four Members, we will be able to do much tonight or when the Bill is brought before us before 31 July. We oppose the abolition of juries in civil cases because they represent the voice of the people in our courts. It is very important that the ordinary person is heard and is involved in our court procedures as much as possible. A story was told to me recently of a judge in a civil case disbelieving a plaintiff's action because he did not believe the plaintiff's evidence that as he got on the bus he was able to tell by looking at the face of the bus driver a certain fact. The last time that judge had got on a bus was through an open door at the back. The driver was closeted away in a compartment at the front. It was so long since he had been on a bus that he did not realise that the interior structure of buses had changed. That illustrates the importance of having the influence of the ordinary person on our juries.
An important area of law where juries are essential is in factory accident cases, in deciding on the liability of employers to provide a safe system of work for employees. I have no doubt that the capacity of workers to bring claims for occupational injury will be seriously undermined by a Judiciary sitting alone who will not appreciate or understand the workings of modern technology on the factory floor. In my view it amounts to sacrificing a very important feature of our courts system for the saving of £80 on an annual premium. I do not think that is a fair trading price. I should like to ask the Government to have another look at their decision to abolish juries. Juries are rarely employed to deal with civil cases but they are a safeguard for the ordinary person who takes to the courts for a fair hearing. We must remember that 99 per cent of civil cases are settled and that to have juries hearing civil actions is the exception. The important thing about them is that they are a safeguard, a sanction, an element of democracy on litigants, insurance companies and the Judiciary should the common person seek to have his case heard by his peers of 12.
I urge the Government not to go ahead at the breakneck speed they are talking about with the Courts Bill which contains a provision to abolish juries. It is more important that they should proceed at breakneck speed, because of the EC deadline of July next, to deal with product liability. When the Minister of State, Deputy Brennan, talks about legislation I hope he is referring to a Bill which will be brought into this House before July for our deliberation, not enactment by regulation as has been the preference in relation to EC directives.
The Workers' Party welcome any initiative in bringing light to bear on the operations of the insurance industry. It is an industry without sufficient controls which has exploited its market to the ultimate penny. Premia are out of control and there does not seem to be any rational basis for the level of insurance costs. I am not necessarily a defender of the legal profession but in recent times the premia imposed by insurance companies on professional liability have gone through the roof, with the result that the Law Society are attempting to establish their own internal means of self-insurance against professional liability. Overnight the insurance companies decided to increase premia three and fourfold. I know of many instances where companies had traded for many years without claim and were faced with a premium which had been trebled or quadrupled for no good reason.
This debate is useful because it helps us to understand the extent to which this House must go to achieve even a small reduction to the consumer. It is a problem of gargantuan proportions but at least we are starting to talk about it. I hope that the Government will take on board the points made on all sides regarding the need for reform, which must involve a measure of control and sanction. Otherwise the motive of increased profit will continue and ultimately, although not in the short term, there will be a reversion to the trend of increased costs to the consumer. All our work would then be set at nought and we would be back where we started.
I am glad to have the opportunity of contributing to this debate. I was somewhat disappointed at the attitude of Deputy Mervyn Taylor who feels the only thing the Opposition should be doing is putting down motions to embarrass the Government rather than putting down motions to which we can all make a positive contribution.
The need to reduce insurance costs, as far as practicable, is accepted by all Deputies on both sides of the House. This is one of the few major issues which we can discuss on a non-partisan basis. This is the spirit in which I approach tonight's motion. In responding to the motion, I would like to outline legislative and enforcement action taken to date, as well as to indicate areas where further action is under consideration, which might be of help in achieving the aim set out in the motion.
As Minister for the Environment, I am primarily responsible for road traffic legislation which makes third party insurance compulsory for motor vehicles used in a public place. I am also responsible for the Motor Insurers' Bureau of Ireland which compensates innocent victims of road accidents involving uninsured vehicles. Accordingly, I have a definite and strong interest in ensuring that the relevant legislation is both effectively framed and enforced. In this area, I work in close co-operation with my colleague the Minister for Justice, who is primarily responsible for law enforcement. I am also responsible for promoting good road standards, driver standards and vehicle standards, all of which have an impact on accident levels and on the volume of claims made on motor insurers.
The level of insurance evasion has a direct impact on insurance costs and premia because compensation payments by the Motor Insurers' Bureau are funded by motor insurers licensed to transact business in this country. The bureau paid compensation totalling £14.5 million in 1986 and had outstanding liabilities totalling £55 million. The bureau is faced with increasing liabilities due to implementation of the Second EC Motor Insurance Directive in Ireland. The directive requires the bureau to compensate victims of "hit and run" accidents for all personal injuries, from the end of 1988; and to introduce compensation for property damage caused by uninsured drivers, from the end of 1992. If the implementation of the EC directive is not to give rise to significant increases in premia, it is essential that the underlying level of evasion be reduced.
The first requirement is to establish the present level of insurance evasion. We can then use this data as a firm basis for tackling the problem. The Garda Síochána undertook a roadside survey of the insurance and tax status of a representative sample of about 24,000 vehicles in April and May 1987. The survey was supported by my Department and the Irish Insurance Federation. The detailed results will be published shortly. However, I can now inform the House that the survey estimates the national level of motor insurance evasion at between 6 per cent and 8 per cent of vehicles. I welcome the survey estimate, which is lower than previous estimates which generally ranged from 15 per cent to 25 per cent. There are some regional variations in the figures and the Garda authorities will use the result to identify areas where enforcement must be intensified. It bears repeating that the number of those uninsured is not anything like that suggested in this debate. The figure is between 6 and 8 per cent of all vehicles.
I think the decline in the estimated national level of insurance evasion is due to a number of factors. First and foremost, the Garda Síochána must get credit for the fact that they instituted 74,000 prosecutions for insurance offences in 1986. Secondly, the new insurance disc, operative since July 1986, has made it easier for the Garda to spot the evader. My Department have assisted enforcement by making available a computerised record of the insurance status of all 960,000 licensed vehicles to the Garda Síochána since November 1986. Finally, the Oireachtas itself has given teeth to the enforcement process by increasing the maximum fine for uninsured driving to £1,000 under the Road Traffic (Amendment) Act, 1984. In addition, the uninsured driver is liable to a jail sentence of up to six months and could lose his driving licence. A one year disqualification is mandatory for a second or subsequent offence.
Have we done enough to deal with the problem of evasion? I do not think so. No one can be happy that about 76,000 vehicles are going around uninsured and costing insurers about £28 million in lost premium income. This puts up the average premium of insured drivers by about £28 per annum. The uninsured driver is a menace to other road users. Individuals and families unfortunate enough to suffer death, injury or property damage due to the negligent driving of an uninsured vehicle are faced with financial uncertainty and hardship, unless and until they receive compensation from the Motor Insurers' Bureau. One way to teach those unscrupulous enough to drive without insurance a lesson might be to take their vehicles from them. Accordingly, consideration is being given to the inclusion, in a Road Traffic Bill next year, of a provision to enable the Garda to seize and impound uninsured vehicles, pending the production of the necessary insurance. I would like to hear if the House would accept that as a reasonable response and if we could agree on it across the floor then we might be making a step further down the road to decrease the 6 per cent to 8 per cent even further.
I advocated that reduction.
I think the Deputy was on the radio this morning doing it too.
As you were.
I was tempted to interject in the conversation between yourself and the presenter but perhaps it was not appropriate.
I think the Minister had more than enough time.
Some road accidents can be partly attributable to deficiencies in the road infrastructure. In recent years, successive Governments have devoted increased resources to the improvement of our road network and this has been reflected in the decline in the numbers of road accidents since 1978. Much more needs to be done however. I intend to publish within the next few months a Blueprint for Road Development which will consider the medium and long-term needs of the total road network and set out an outline of the proposed long-term strategy to meet these needs. The improvement of road safety will continue to be one of the main objectives of future road development policy.
A key factor which influences the selection of road improvement projects is the accident record of the particular stretch of road and special consideration is given to any project which will eliminate a high accident location. In 1985, An Foras Forbartha was asked to assist in the assessment of high risk locations identified by it in its blackspot reports and to make recommendations for low cost solutions at those locations. Initially, this assessment was limited to high risk locations on rural sections of national primary routes where realignment schemes were not contemplated in the immediate future. The reports and recommendations have been brought to the attention of local authorities for necessary action. Local authorities are now asked in the memorandum on road grants issued annually by the Department, to pay special attention to the elimination of accident black-spots on national roads and road grants are available for approved projects subject to the overall limit on resources.
I am very concerned at the sharp increase in road deaths during 1987 which was revealed in provisional road accident figures released recently by the Garda. The figure for road deaths last year at 461 represents a reversal of the downward trend which had been firmly established since 1978. While that figure is 19 per cent higher than the corresponding 1986 level, it is still however considerably lower than the 628 deaths recorded in 1978. In addition, available data for road deaths in the European Community as a whole show that, despite the increase in 1987, Ireland's record still compares reasonably well with most member states. Indeed, the rate of road deaths in Ireland per 10,000 population, now stands at 1.3 compared to an average for the Community in 1986 of 1.55. I would point out that road accident trends since 1978 have shown that measures taken to improve road infrastructure and vehicle safety, coupled with enforcement action taken by the Garda and the road safety campaigns, have contributed significantly to reducing road accident levels.
I would like at this point to refer briefly to the general question of drinking and driving and to record my own appreciation of the support given by various organisations to the drink-driving campaigns. These campaigns have undoubtedly achieved a considerable degree of success as is evidenced by the fact that between 1978 and 1986 the number of fatal accidents occurring between 9 p.m. and 3 a.m. — the hours most associated with drinking — fell by over 50 per cent. In particular, I am glad to note the significant financial support from the insurance industry with regard to the promotion of drink-driving campaigns.
In the final analysis, the primary responsibility for behaviour on the roads rests with the road users themselves. It must be remembered that nine out of every ten accidents on our roads are caused by human error and for this reason I would appeal to road users generally to abide by the rules of the road, to exercise both caution and courtesy when using the road and to be aware of the needs of other road users particularly the less protected groups such as pedestrians and cyclists.
More rigorous driving tests have been suggested. The Irish driving test already meets EC standards in this respect. Regulations which came into force on 3 November 1986 brought the standards of physical and mental fitness to be met by applicants for driving licences into line with an EC Directive on driver licensing. Since that date, persons applying for licences for the heavier vehicles — lorries, buses and articulated vehicles — must first obtain a certificate of fitness — issued by my Department on foot of a medical report from the person's doctor. In the case of the lighter vehicles — motorcycles, cars and agricultural tractors — persons must meet minimum standards of eyesight before they will be given an appointment for a driving test in the first instance.
Since 1964, learner drivers of the larger vehicles — lorries, buses and artics — must be accompanied by a qualified person, holder of a full licence for the particular class of vehicle being driven by the learner. It would not be practicable for motorcycles. As regards cars, the "accompanied driver" rule, which was revoked in 1979, was restored in a modified version in 1985 and applies to those who took out provisional licences for the first time on or after 12 August 1985. Under the new requirements, a learner driver may drive unaccompanied only during the period of his second provisional licence for the purpose of gaining experience. It was considered unrealistic to expect every ordinary car driver to get sufficient driving experience if he had to be accompanied all the time before taking the driving test.
The new system takes account of this with two important safeguards: the driver must be accompanied in the first year to acquire the basic skills under supervision; the driver must be accompanied after the "free period", the second year, until he passes the driving test — firstly to ensure that he does not "put off" taking a test and secondly if he fails he will not be able to continue to drive unaccompanied. It should be noted that the accident involvement rate for provisional licence holders is only 1.9 per 1,000 licences compared with 6.2 for "qualified" drivers.
Vehicle standards also have a role to play in promoting accident reduction and in reducing the risk of injury and death when accidents occur. New vehicles are generally designed and assembled outside Ireland. However, we have benefited from the worldwide trend of building safer vehicles to meet increasing consumer awareness of modern safety features — such as collapsible steering columns, anti-lock braking systems and so on.
In recent years, national regulations have been made to require the mandatory fitting of laminated glass windscreens to all new motor vehicles — thus reducing the risk of serious head and eye injuries to front seat passengers. The regulations also require the fitting of side guards and rear underrun protective devices to new heavy goods vehicles and trailers. These fitments reduce the risk of other road users going under the rear or side of heavy goods vehicles.
However, it is no good building and equipping new vehicles to a high standard if the vehicles are not properly maintained by the owners. I was concerned about some of the results of the recent winter check sponsored by the Society of the Irish Motor Industry and Dublin Road Safety Council. An analysis of over 1,300 check results showed that 53 per cent of vehicles had either defective brakes or defective tyres. The roadworthiness of heavy goods vehicles, buses and ambulances is checked annually as part of the EC compulsory roadworthiness testing scheme. The EC Commission has proposed the extension of compulsory annual roadworthiness testing to private cars and light goods vehicles over three years old. There are about 600,000 such vehicles in this country. A number of member states have entered reservations on this proposal and it will be some time before decisions are taken in Brussels. In the meantime, my Department are assessing the detailed implications of the relevant draft EC directive. I propose to consult interested motoring organisations and insurers about the possibility of setting up a private body — representative of both private interests and my Department — to supervise the scheme, if extended to car testing. Such supervision arrangements operate quite successfully in Germany and Sweden.
I would like to think that my contribution to the debate here tonight has clearly underlined my interest in taking all practicable steps to reduce road accidents, the related loss of life and personal injuries, the level of insurance evasion and claims on both the Motor Insurers' Bureau of Ireland and licensed motor insurers. There has been a good response from the various Ministers and Departments as outlined in the motion. More needs to be done but at least we can report that the number of uninsured motorists using our roads has dropped dramatically. What is necessary now is to catch the other 76,000 through whatever means we can agree on here together. After that it comes down to driver care and courtesy and a greater understanding of just how important it is to have good sound roadworthy vehicles.
I thank all of the Deputies who have contributed to this debate. I believe, contrary to Deputy Taylor who contradicted himself in making a very well thought out and interesting contribution, that this debate did serve a very useful purpose. It even gave Deputy Taylor an opportunity to say what he did say. One of the key elements of this motion is the commitment to a timetable of action by all four Government Departments. While the contributions from speakers on the Government side in this debate were interesting and useful they made no reference to a timetable and there was no indication as to exactly when particular measures will be introduced nor were there any contributions in this debate, which is perhaps understandable in the limited amount of time which was available, from the Minister for Labour or the Minister for Justice both of whom are directly involved. I hope when this motion is passed the Government will act on its terms and put together a specific timetable for the bringing about of these changes and for tying in the insurance companies, as the motion requires, to implement reductions in premia following the actions taken by the Government.
This is not a one-sided approach. We are not simply looking to the Government to take certain actions, we are also looking to the insurance companies to respond in a quantified fashion to the initiatives being taken here by the Government with the consent of the House. I would like to say that it is extremely important that the insurance companies also be given a timetable for their response. Let me illustrate this by referring to something for which the Minister for Industry and Commerce received reasonably favourable, if rather repetitive, publicity yesterday. This was the question of getting a commitment from the insurance companies that if a young driver has a good driving record on somebody else's policy, for instance his parents, that that good driving record would be recognised in a lower insurance premium when he or she comes to insure in his or her own name.
Let me recall the history of this as it indicates the slowness of the insurance companies in responding to matters such as this. This matter was first taken up with the insurance companies by the then Minister of State at the Department of Industry and Commerce, a very able Deputy who happens to be related closely by blood to me, Deputy Richard Bruton——
What?
——back in 1986 when he asked them to do exactly what Deputy Reynolds is now announcing they will do sometime later this year.
Someone has already done it.
Be quiet now. Deputy Bruton who was then the Minister of State at the Department of Industry and Commerce took this initiative and they said it was a very good idea and would do something about it. A year later in August of last year Fine Gael published our discussion document on insurance. The present Minister of State, Deputy Brennan, came into this House and said that the Government were going to do something about this and that they were going to try to get insurance companies to give this discount to young drivers. That is a great example of the very well-known Irish failing, of verbalising a problem and thinking by so doing you have solved it, of the politics of announcements being the equivalent to action. Deputy Brennan got lots of publicity. The Minister, Deputy Reynolds, also got lots of publicity yesterday for making the same suggestion——
Deservedly so.
Why not?
——but it has not happened and I am afraid that if we put down another motion on this subject——
It has.
——in six months time the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Deputy Reynolds, if he is still in that position, will again come into this House and announce that the insurance companies are about to introduce discounts for young drivers in line with good driving experience. That is the politics of announcements. What we want and what this motion requires is not a timetable for more Government announcements to an unsuspecting and not particularly attentive press but rather a timetable of action. That is not particularly forthcoming from the Government.
Let me give another instance of lack of action on the part of the Government in regard to insurance. Why is the Courts Bill still at Committee Stage? This Bill was published by the previous Government and it has the support of all sides of the House bar Deputy McCartan and I will give him an honourable and lonely exception to this consensus that the abolition of juries would be a good thing.
It would be a disaster.
Why have the Government stalled——
You know well why he would not agree to it.
——in putting this Bill through Committee Stage? What are they waiting for?
The Workers' Party——
I am sure it is not fear of The Workers' Party that is holding it up. Having said that——
Can you think of any other reason?
Inertia — two words as the late Deputy Flanagan used to say. I would like to refer to a number of proposals which I made in my speech last night. It was very generously acknowledged by a number of contributors to this debate that my speech did contain a very comprehensive range of proposals. I would particularly like to advert to the measures which the Government have not responded to in this debate. They have responded to a number of them but I would like to single out the ones which they have not responded to.
There was no reference in this debate to the very high level of management expenses of the insurance companies themselves. I quoted figures where these have been increasing well in excess of the rate of inflation. What are the Government doing about this? Are they satisfied with the level of management expenses in insurance companies? Why are they shielding the insurance industry from more competition from overseas which would force them to be lean, mean and hungry and competitive in offering the most competitive rates to the community and keeping their expenses down. Where I part company with Deputy McCartan and Deputy Taylor is that they essentially want a State monopoly in the insurance area. I believe all economists, including Vladimir Ilitch Lenin, would agree that monopolies tend towards inefficiency. Monopolies controlled by either the public or private sector tend towards inefficiency. One of the problems in the insurance industry in recent times is that we have had through the PMPA a sort of private sector monopoly.
Deputy McCartan will understand that, he is a disciple of Trot-sky.
I do not think replacing the inefficiencies of a private sector monopoly, which has at least some element of competition from other people who are free to enter the market, with a public sector monopoly would be a particularly good idea. However, that is a matter for debate at a very high and interesting level on another occasion.
(Interruptions.)
I suggest that Deputies cease having chats.
There are a number of other matters on which the Minister should have acted. I suggested the introduction by the insurance industry of an insurance ombudsman who would look into claims of maltreatment of companies and individuals by the insurance companies. In my view the Government could usefully have acted on this proposal. I also complained of the 10 per cent loading on disabled drivers charged by the insurance companies which has no actuarial foundation. No ministerial statement was made indicating an intention to act on that matter and I regret that. I believe there are delays in the courts which could be assisted by reducing the level of representation and so on, and the appointment of two or three additional High Court judges would be useful in this regard.
The Government, in proposing the introduction of pre-trial procedures in legislation to be brought before the House by the Minister for Justice some time in the future, are long fingering that matter. I would like a specific commitment from the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Minister for Justice as to when that legislation will be law, not when it will be introduced in the House to be left languishing indefinitely in Committee Stage like the Courts Bill, but when it will actually become law. I hope the Minister for the Environment and the Minister for Industry and Commerce will ensure that the Minister for Justice lives up to the promise made on his behalf by Minister Reynolds and that the legislation will be introduced very quickly.
I also made the suggestion that in regard to reducing the cost of claims it would be useful if people were awarded annuities rather than lump sum damages in every case. In some cases an annuity would be more relevant and ultimately could be less costly to the insurance companies. I would have liked the Minister to reply to that suggestion. I also believe there is a clear need where employers institute agreed safety procedures that there should be a definite recognition in the form of a reduced premium. The Minister of State referred to the fact that the Minister for Labour was having discussions about the introduction of safety audit procedures which would be related to this matter, but there was no commitment by the Minister of State or the insurance companies to the effect that if an employer applies agreed safety procedures there will be a reduction in his premium. That is essential if we are to get employers to spend extra money on safety. There must be an up front financial reward of some kind.
It is in place at the moment.
I do not believe it is. As in the case of motorists, there should be an acceptance of the principle of a no-claims bonus in respect of employers who have not made claims in respect of accidents occurring in their place of work.
I would like to refer to a number of suggestions I made in regard to the improvements in road safety which were not responded to in the announcements by the Minister for the Environment, good as they were. These are: the possiblity of having a restricted driving system as applies in Northern Ireland for younger drivers and the possibility of requiring off-the-road lessons before people even receive a provisional licence — some formal instruction in the rules of the road would be a useful prerequisite to the issuing of a provisional licence. I also suggested the possibility of on-the-spot fines for non-use of seat belts and for driving vehicles with obvious faults, and the extension of the powers of traffic wardens to enable them to detect and impose on-the-spot fines for vehicles, parked in controlled areas, which have obvious faults.
I am glad the Minister for the Environment responded positively to the suggestion I made last night that one penalty which could be imposed on uninsured vehicles was the impounding of such vehicles in addition to the imposition of a fine. That is a useful recognition of my suggestion and vindicates the value of the debate. Another suggestion I made with regard to road safety was the automatic retesting requirement to apply for a new licence and a new test for drivers who have been convicted for drunken or dangerous driving. That would be useful in ensuring that those people did not repeat that error.
The Government need to look at the law in regard to public liability of property owners. At the moment the extent to which property owners can be laible for injuries inflicted on themselves by visitors to their premises or property is far too wide. This is a source of great worry to a number of organisations representing land owners, farmers and the like. In my view, the grounds are too wide and, therefore, the insurance premia which have to be paid for public liability insurance are too high. The basis on which claims can be made in this area ought to be narrowed somewhat, not to the extent of giving no reasonable rights to compensation but to bring the matter to a greater degree of reasonableness.
I was interested that the Minister for the Environment admitted there had been a substantial increase in the number of road deaths in 1987, and he consoled himself that at least the numbers were not as bad as in 1978. It is interesting to note that in 1978 we had the highest number of road deaths in our history. It was also a top year in another respect. Anybody interested in Irish social statistics might remember that 1978 was the year, courtesy of the 1977 manifesto and the three stage rocket of the economy which was being launced, when we had the highest alcohol consumption in history. I think there is a direct connection between those two social phenomena. The Minister ought to investigate and report to the House on the reasons for the increase in road deaths in 1987. I do not believe the explanation was the same as in 1978 and, in my view, this deserves some study and the Minister should make a report to the House. That in itself will ultimately be reflected in the higher level of claims——
On a point of order——
I have not finished.
Perhaps the Deputy would respond to the fact that I raised all those points in 1986 in the report of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Small Businesses when we were discussing the insurance problem.
That is hardly a point of order. Deputy Bruton is in possession.
Why was no action taken by the Deputy at that time?
The Deputy will recall that at the time I was preparing a budget. I welcome the fact that the Minister has given information on a reduction in the level of uninsured driving.
A very interesting statistic.
Yes. I believe even the level of uninsured driving that continues is one that justifies the measures to which I have referred. The last point relates to the compulsory testing of the roadworthiness of vehicles. It is obvious that unroadworthy vehicles are a continuing cause of accidents second only to the ingestion of alcohol. Will the Minister indicate whether Ireland supports the EC Commission proposal for an annual roadworthiness test? When referring to the subject the Minister said that certain member states had reservations but he did not say whether we had reservations and he succeeded in talking about the subject without giving any indication as to his or the Government's attitude in the matter. I invite the Minister to use the 30 seconds available to indicate the position of the Irish Government in this matter and if they have not got a position on it I do not know why the Minister should have referred to it in his speech.
I have no problems with the addendum to our motion which is being proposed by the Progressive Democrats. It singles out a few measures which are some of the ones we are advocating and by singling them out it could be argued that it excludes others. Therefore, I am not violently in favour of the Progressive Democrat amendment but if the House was to add that on to my motion I have not the slightest worry on the subject and I am happy to accept it.
Does the Minister wish to comment?
I indicated last night that I was accepting the motion. I have agreed to accept the addendum as well. I have no intention of dividing the House after a worthwhile, constructive debate. Much of what is in the addendum from the Progressive Democrats I undertook to consider last night.
Is the amendment in the names of Deputies Cullen and D. O'Malley agreed?
No, it is not agreed.
I am putting the Question.
You are being very naughty again, Deputy McCartan.
Item No. 36——
(Interruptions.)
Order, please.
You did not listen to what I said.
Deputy McCartan, order. Will the Deputy desist. The Question is: "That amendment No. 1 in the names of Deputies Cullen and D. O'Malley be made". Will the Deputies who claim a division in respect of this matter please rise in their places?
Deputies Mac Giolla, Desmond, Stagg, McCartan and Sherlock rose.
Order, please. As fewer than ten Members have risen in their places, I declare the amendment carried and the names of the Deputies who claimed a division will be recorded in the Journal of the Proceedings.
The question now is: "That the motion, as amended, be agreed."
Question put and agreed to.