18 Mr. Barry asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he has seen a report from the Irish Insurance Federation which suggested that Irish motorists, particularly those under 25, will be facing large increases in motor insurance for the next five years unless there is a dramatic fall-off in personal injuries claims; if this is in contradiction to the undertakings given by insurance companies when juries were abolished; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I have seen no such report. I understand that a recent article in a national newspaper refers to the likelihood of motor insurance premia continuing to rise for the foreseeable future. The Irish Insurance Federation have assured me that they have not produced a report which concludes that Irish motorists, including those under 25, will be facing large increases on motor insurance for the next five years.
However, I have to stress that it is not realistic to expect a reduction or even stabilisation in motor insurance rates when the cost of claims and the claims rate are going in the opposite direction.
I have heard that sort of reply from the Minister on so many occasions that is has become boring. Will the Minister agree that the reality is that motor insurance premiums — particularly in respect of young drivers — are increasing on a regular basis? Is he not alarmed at the fact that there are now between 80,000 and 100,000 uninsured drivers on our roads? Will he also agree that the more premiums increase beyond the reach of the average individual the more likely it is that the figure will get bigger? Will he also agree that it is time for him to enter into discussions or — as I suggested some months ago — to set up a review body to examine ways and means of (a) implementing our existing laws to ensure that they are kept, particularly in respect of the Road Traffic Acts and (b) that alternative methods of underwriting motor insurance will be examined, such as insuring the individual as distinct from the vehicle? Will he also agree that the policy to date of allowing matters to drift——
This is a very long question.
The only statement from the Department has been that their responsibility is to see that underwriters remain viable. That is no answer to the average individual who is paying an enormous price for motor insurance.
Let the Deputy come to finality, he is embarking on a speech.
Deputy Barrett takes a rather simplistic view of a complex area.
I am not taking a simplistic view.
Deputy Barrett seems to take the view that underwritings are a matter of simple solution. In 1987 the underwriting for motor insurance totalled £32 million; in 1988 it was £48 million and in 1989 it was nearly £100 million.
Is the Minister referring to losses?
Yes. An international survey put Ireland top of the league for road deathsper capita——
What are the Government doing about it?
Let us talk about this. The Deputy made the point on a number of occasions in the House that the Government are reneging on their responsibilities in this area.
They are.
I am giving the Deputy some of the detailed facts——
We all know the facts.
——which pose fundamental difficulties, not only for the insurance companies but in relation to problems which require a different solution from what the Deputy proposed. Why are we so much out of line? Why is insurance here twice the level of that in other countries?
That is for the Minister to decide.
It is comparable to the incidence of fatalities, accidents and claims.
The Minister is part of the Government, he should do something about it.
Let us hear the Minister's reply. Deputy Barrett asked some pertinent questions and he should listen to the reply.
I did not interrupt Deputy Barrett.
The interruptions must cease.
I am making the point, as strongly as I can, that where statistics of that nature are so much out of kilter with what is happening elsewhere, the simple solution of telling the Government to bring down insurance costs is not practical.
I did not say that.
A number of attempts have been made in relation to the Courts Act and barrister's rules and it will take some time for these to work through the system because there have not been any cases. Something like 40 per cent go to the Supreme Court. We must all be much more careful in relation to driving——
The Government should see that the law is upheld.
Too many people are losing their lives or ending up in hospital because of road traffic accidents. By any stretch of the imagination, Ireland is totally out of line in this area with the rest of the Community. We must all realise that there is a sense of urgency——
Who is responsible for the 100,000 uninsured drivers on our roads?
The Government are not responsible for every accident on our roads.
This is not good enough.
Is it not a fact that the Minister's predecessor, Deputy Séamus Brennan, promised consumers a better deal on insurance following the abolition of juries? Will he agree that the situation has disimproved to the extent that tens of thousands of young people under 25 cannot viably get insurance? Has any progress been made on the suggestion by the Minister for Industry and Commerce that a form of tribunal be established to hear cases in this category?
With reference to the Courts Act, 1988, something like 303 cases have been heard since its implementation, over 40 per cent of which await appeal to the Supreme Court. It was hoped that, in the process of time, implementation of that Act would bring greater predictability of awards so as to avoid the necessity for fully fledged legislation or court proceedings in all cases. Unfortunately it will take a little time to assess that but it does appear at present as though it is not having — though it is early days yet — the kind of effect which the insurers had indicated would be the case should that Act be put in place.
Therefore, we must examine broader measures. Regrettably one of those is that we are proving to be — by any comparative statistic on which I can put my hands — rather careless on the roads and, as a consequence, the incidence of accidents, fatalities and costs on all fronts are exceedingly high, running at twice the European average. I take the point that there are considerable numbers of people who have been unable to get insurance cover. But there are others who decide for one reason or another — I am not going to go into the question of whether they can afford it — they will not take insurance cover. The numbers of people driving uninsured vehicles is approaching a national scandal.
Would the Minister not agree it is a fact that, before the Courts Bill was introduced, the insurance industry themselves said that a major element in insurance cover cost was the high level of awards being made by the courts and that the introduction of non-jury trials in accidents involving motor insurance claims would have the effect of reducing the cost of insurance to all motor drivers? Have the Government put that contention to the insurance industry? Have they got from the industry an undertaking that they will live up to the promise they made when the Government facilitated them by the introduction of that legislation?
I accept Deputy Barry's point that there was very good faith on all sides at the time of introduction of that legislation that its provisions would have the beneficial effect of reducing premia. Since the enactment of that Act, something in the region of 303 cases have arisen, almost half of that number still subject to appeal. At this stage there is not sufficient evidence to suggest that it is having the beneficial effect — even though, as I said, it is early days yet— we all considered it might have. I might add that the total legal cost in the context of insurance premia represents about 20 per cent.
It is not a fact that the insurance industry——
Order, please, a number of Deputies are offering. Clearly we cannot debate this matter today. I will hear Deputies Barry, Durkan, Michael Higgins and Garland if they will be very brief.
Would the Minister agree that the insurance industry did not speak about evidence being accumulated but rather that if trials were initiated of a non-jury nature costs would be reduced? Since that is not so now, would the Minister go back and face them with what is fact?
We are having argument and repetition. This is not good enough.
Would the Minister agree that the one counsel rule as a method of reducing legal costs clearly has failed? Would he agree that the Government should now consider the no-fault insurance scheme operated in New Zealand which would lead to the reduction of legal costs to a minimum with a consequent reduction in claims costs generally?
I agree with the Deputy that the one counsel rule certainly has not contributed to lowering of premia. In fact, I can tell the House that the average costs of the present changed system appear to be on a par with what was the position obtaining before those changes were effected; it does not seem to be realistic. Nevertheless those are the figures available to me.
In view of the information the Minister has given the House regarding the level of claims here would he say whether any study has been undertaken of a comparison between the level of individual claims here and those in, say, Great Britain, France or Germany? On the basis of any such comparisons, would he indicate to the House the specific areas in which the disparity arises and how he feels such disparity should be dealt with?
Of 19 countries — which included those mentioned by the Deputy — Ireland figures worst in a survey undertaken on this matter; on average our costs of motor car insurance premia are double those in other EC countries. I do not have the kind of detailed information the Deputy seeks with regard to the various areas in which this arises. It would be no harm if we could put all that together and have it assembled in a way which would have an effect on the public mind and attitude, indeed on all our attitudes in this area. We dearly want to be able to compete better in this area. I realise that there are people finding it difficult to meet the cost of car insurance premia and there are others avoiding paying for their own purposes but, one way or the other, our costs are too great in comparison with those of our competitors. We are the cause of it in that we are so careless on the roads. The answer would appear to lie in a number of remedies but the one that will have the most beneficial effect — apart from those already mentioned by Deputies — would be more care being exercised on the part of the public themselves.
Has the Minister, his Department or the Government requested talks with the insurance industry?Has a date been set for such talks?
I do not have specific information on that except to say that, as a matter of course, we have ongoing discussions with the industry. I cannot say whether there is an immediate arrangement for a further meeting but I will contact the Deputy in regard to that matter.
That disposes of questions for today.
I gave you notice, Sir, of a Private Notice Question in relation to a racist editorial in theSun newspaper this morning advocating the sending of SAS troops into the Republic in hot pursuit.My question asked whether the Minister for Foreign Affairs intended to raise this matter with the British Ambassador, with the Foreign Secretary or in the context of the Anglo-Irish agreement. I am asking you, Sir, what mechanism is now available to me if you have ruled that the matter lacks urgency whereas it appeared to me that that editorial this morning established its urgency.
There are other avenues open to the Deputy. He has already sought my permission to raise a matter on the Adjournment today. He would hardly wish to duplicate that now, would he?
Not at all.
Fine. If the Deputy raises the matter with me again I will see what my office can do to facilitate him.
