Young drivers are in an absolutely deplorable position as far as getting motor insurance is concerned. Insurance companies pluck figures out of the air when they give a quotation to a young driver and this is widespread. During the local elections no fewer than six young people in a small area raised their predicament with me. The quotes they received for insurance cover were from £1,750 to £2,250. I know many of those young people. They are students from very good families with no claims history, no accidents and no convictions. They were given the brush off by the insurance companies and airily told to take the quote or leave it because the insurance company did not want their business. Indeed, some companies were not prepared to give a quote, which is unacceptable. Some young people may be a high risk because of convictions or whatever, but are all young people seeking a licence and insurance cover who act within the law to be treated in that way? Adults too are being priced off the road by insurance companies. We must remember that for many people a car is not a luxury, it is an absolute necessity. It is a requirement for their livelihood particularly if they live in rural areas where the public transport system has been run down by the Government and goes nowhere towards meeting the needs of them and their families.
We often wonder why there are so many non-insured drivers. Part of the reason is that the insurance companies, with the aid and connivance of the Government, pitch their premiums so high that many people are priced off the road, they cannot afford it. Let us consider the position of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, and his Department, on this issue. The Minister, in reply to a parliamentary question in December, said, and he repeated the same sentiments yesterday, that his:
... main and indeed statutory authority as the insurance supervisory authority, is to ensure that insurance companies meet their statutory reserve and solvency requirements. In this regard I must respect the right of insurers to accept or reject risks in the light of their underwriting experience. There is no legal obligation on any insurer to quote in respect of any risk or to quote in any particular manner or at any particular premium and I cannot compel them to do so. I am not responsible for the day to day operations of insurers or the exercise of business acumen on their behalf.
That sums up the attitude of the Government to the whole insurance industry. The Government do not want any responsibility for ensuring that the insurance industry operate fairly and in the interests of the community and not just for their own profit margins.
It must be remembered that the Government make it compulsory for everyone who drives a car to have third party insurance cover at least. There is an obvious dichotomy here. If motor insurance is compulsory, as it ought to be, the Government cannot wash their hands of a situation where motor insurance is not accessible to some people and not affordable by many other people who need a car for their livelihood.
The first issue that must be addressed is the extent to which the Government are prepared to get involved in the effective control of the industry. When the Government bring in rules and say, rightly, that insurance cover is compulsory they cannot say, as the Minister for Industry and Commerce said, it is a matter for individual insurance companies to decide who they will insure and at what premium. That is not good enough. As I said last night, and it bears repeating, insurance companies are profit making organisations, they do not operate in the interest of serving the public and they do not purport to do so. They are not an arm of Government. They are a business and they aim to make as much profit as they can and pay a dividend to their shareholders. They have to be controlled by the Government.
The Government say that a citizen must have insurance cover and the profit-making insurance companies are the only companies who can provide cover but the Government must control them. However, there is not anything like the degree of control there should be. I know there is an arrangement under which a person who can prove he cannot get a quote from five insurance companies can make an application through the Minister for Industry and Commerce to a special committee representative of the insurance industry to get a quote. That is totaly unacceptable as consumers are not represented on that committee. It is not an independent body and is made up of insurers. Many people claim, and I suspect they are right, that they are treated very unfairly, that they do not get a fair or just hearing and that they are given short shrift by the insurance companies.
Insurance companies adopt the attitude they have all the business they want, do not need certain categories and the person who gets a quotation for £2,000 or £3,000 for motor insurance can take it or leave it. When people go to other insurance companies they are asked on a form whether they have been refused insurance cover by another company and if they answer truthfully "yes", they will not be considered, their application will be thrown out doubly quick. Their position then becomes desperate. Many people young and not so young, are forced into breaking the law by driving without insurance. What are the Government doing about this? Absolutely nothing. They put forward the argument for private enterprise. The Minister tells us insurance companies are not obliged to take on any insurance risk, that it is not for him to say whether the figure they quote is fair and reasonable. It is his obligation and he should ensure that citizens get a fair crack where insurance is concerned. Most important of all, we must have an independent appeals procedure. If a citizen feels he is not given a fair response from an insurance company when he looks for insurance for his car, whether it is turned down altogether or offered insurance at such a prohibitive premium that he cannot afford to take it out, there must be an appeals procedure. I am calling for, for want of a better description, an insurance ombudsman.
If the Government were concerned they would set up an independent person, and not a representative of the insurance industry, like the Ombudsman to hear complaints and investigate them. That person should have the power to decide whether a quotation was fair and to direct the insurance company to examine each case and, if necessary, to provide a policy for a person if it is considered fair and reasonable to do so. There is no appeal. The insurance companies do their own thing in their own way, motivated very often by pettiness and by profit and greed in the interests of their shareholders, not in the interests of the public at large. The insurance companies are the greatest whingers in God's creation. No matter what one does for them, they are never satisfied. They wanted juries abolished, so we abolished them. Were they satisfied? No. They claim they are still making losses here and losses there. Perhaps we should not regard their so-called losses as Gospel truth. We all know that bookkeeping and accountancy arrangements can be "readied up" in a variety of ways. They come up with loss figures so that they can come nagging and whingeing to the Minister seeking increases in premiums.
The insurers are the wealthiest and most powerful of companies. Look at their buildings and places in O'Connell Street, Dawson Street and Henry Street. The are doing very nicely, thank you. Their constant whingeing cuts no ice with me and should not cut any ice with the Minister. They complain about the lawyers, the courts and judges, and they used to complain about the juries. They claim the judges are giving awards which are too large, that the lawyers are creaming off the costs and the doctors are charging too much. Everybody is at fault, according to the insurance companies, except themselves.
We should look at how they organise their affairs. For the most part it is an utter disaster. They are among the most inefficient of organisations in cutting their own costs and in reducing the compensation and legal cost figures about which they complain so bitterly. They will not settle cases early when they could do so cheaply, at a fraction of the eventual cost. They run everything up to the door of the court. Anyone who goes to the Four Courts on a High Court sitting day will see throngs of barristers, solicitors, doctors, engineers and photographers brought in at enormous expense, which is paid for initially by the insurance companies but ultimately by the citizen by way of increased insurance premiums which are permitted by the Minister. Why does the Minister not tell them to be more sensible in their approach to claims, thereby saving millions? The time to settle a case is at the earliest possible moment before a writ is issued. Instead the matter is allowed to run on for years before being settled at the door of the court. At that stage there are two large sets of legal costs to meet, those incurred by the plaintiff — the person who suffered the accident — and their own.
Let us talk for a moment about the charges made by the witnesses. In every case there could be two or three doctors, an orthopaedic surgeon on each side, a GP and perhaps some other specialist. These doctors know how to charge for attendance at court. It can range from £300 or £400 a day up to £1,500 a day, payable in advance. Let no one talk about the taxing master cutting it down. They are not interested in that. A specialist witness whose presence is required in court on a particular day will agree to be there provided he is paid up front. The insurance companies pay and they say they need increases in premiums to cover their costs. The Minister does nothing about it. People are being priced out of the insurance market while insurance companies whinge about their own affairs but do nothing.
The Minister for Industry and Commerce and I met representatives of the Law Society last night and discussed some aspects of this matter. Members of the Law Society, the president and others, told the Minister that there are cases on record of specialist doctors requiring £1,500 up front to come to court. That does not apply to all of them but the norm is £300 or £400 upwards. If the case runs on for a few days, the charge is so much per day. The engineer who drew the road maps and the photographer must also be paid. Why do the companies not settle such cases at an early stage? I have been dealing with them for 40 years and I know it is not their way. One cannot persuade them to be sensible and settle a case quickly.
Most people would settle a case for far less if it could be concluded quickly. They cannot wait two or three years to get the car repaired. The system is inadequately staffed as a result of the deficiencies of the Minister for Justice in failing to provide adequate staffing. Most people would willingly settle for a modest but reasonable sum provided they could do so quickly. The insurance companies will not, however, comply and they insist on dragging the matter to the door of the court. At the last minute they start negotiations, by which time the costs have gone out of all control. Then they come complaining that they are losing money. This is a major factor in their losing money but the Minister and the Government condone it. Instead of complaining about uninsured drivers the Minister should tell the insurance companies to control their premiums and set maximum premiums for different categories of people. Unless that is done, the whingeing and moaning will continue.
