Skip to main content
Normal View

JOINT COMMITTEE ON ENTERPRISE AND SMALL BUSINESS debate -
Thursday, 9 Jun 2005

Reform of the Irish Insurance Market: Presentations.

I welcome representatives from the Irish Hotels Federation and the Alliance for Insurance Reform who are here to assist the examination of the reform of the Irish insurance market. Our consultant, Mr. Miles O'Reilly, and Ms. Linda Morris are also welcome. Mr. John Power represents the Irish Hotels Federation, of which he is chief executive. He is welcome. Mr. Barry English and Ms. Catherine Logan represent the Alliance for Insurance Reform. They are also welcome.

Before asking Mr. Power to commence his opening statement, I draw the witnesses' attention to the fact that members of the committee have absolute privilege. This same privilege does not, unfortunately, extend to visiting guests. Members are also reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that members should not comment on nor make charges against any person outside of the House or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I invite Mr. Power to begin and he will be followed by Mr. English. A question and answer session will follow the statements.

Mr. John Power

I thank the committee for inviting us back to provide an update on developments in insurance costs as seen within the hotel industry in the past 12 months. Without being patronising, it should be noted that it is owing to the work of the committee, the commitment of the Tánaiste in her former role as Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, that a culture of insurance cost management is now evident in Ireland. We believe that this culture is heading in the right direction.

When we addressed the committee in April 2004, a survey of our members indicated that insurance premiums were, after a prolonged period of increase, showing signs of decrease. Reductions in premiums at that stage ran as high as 46% to 48%. In the past month this survey has been updated, and it shows that the trend of decreasing premiums continues. In the past 12 months, with regard to hotels, premiums have been reduced by an average of 22%. Variations exist within this, as a very small number of hotels have had no reduction but a number have had reductions of up to 49%. Renewals in the past two years in general have shown premiums reduced by about 50%.

This is following an increase of up to 350% from 2000 to 2003.

Mr. Power

Absolutely. We are returning to a level similar to what was evident perhaps in 2003. As I outlined last year, we are still out of line with competition in Britain, our nearest neighbour, even with these reduced premium rates. We use the rates in Britain as a benchmark. Our premiums, even at the present rate, are 40% to 50% higher than in Britain with regard to liability insurance.

Much more can be done. The setting up of the Personal Injuries Assessment Board is to be welcomed along with its announcement in early May of initial awards to personal injury victims, 80% of which appear to have been accepted. However, the level of these awards still causes concern. The settling of claims within nine months rather than up to four or five years is also a positive development, probably producing savings in cost of around 30%.

The levels of guidance values set out in the book of quantum, developed by the Personal Injuries Assessment Board, are much too high. We have examined similar quantums applying in England and Wales. For example, in Britain a minor soft tissue injury, or a strain, lasting up to a year can be settled for between £500 and £1,000 sterling, which is €750 to €1,500, according to British guidance notes. These settlements can rise to £4,000 sterling or €6,000 for injuries lasting about two years. The book of quantum published by the Personal Injuries Assessment Board gives settlement guidance on soft tissue injuries for thumbs, fingers etc. of €16,000 to €18,000. This is where substantial if not total recovery has occurred.

The next challenge facing Government is to ask the Personal Injuries Assessment Board to review the book of quantum to bring it in line with quantums applying in competing countries, especially Britain. A successful outcome in this would lead to further and sustained premium reductions.

Last March the Competition Authority published its final report and recommendations on competition in the non-life insurance sector. We call on this committee to influence the Government to implement, through the Irish Financial Services Regulatory Authority, most of the recommendations therein. Particular attention should be paid to the need to give adequate notice of renewal of public liability insurance to allow opportunity to seek alternative insurance quotes. The report's recommendation is for an eight-week period.

The report also contains a praiseworthy recommendation that a certified claims history be made available. An excellent suggestion in the report is that the cost of providing insurance be surveyed in various sectors to determine profitability for the insurance company of issuing liability insurance to the various sectors. Fees and over-riding commissions for brokers should be transparent, including details of how these are calculated. Competition should be developed in the broker and intermediary insurance provider sector, facilitating change of brokers and simplification of procedures.

It is an encouraging sign that over the past five years, Fáilte Ireland has monitored annually issues of concern to businesses. One of the questions asked in the survey is to list the main operating issues for the sector. For the three years to 2004, insurance costs were top of this monitor. It is encouraging that insurance costs have fallen to second place and that other operating costs are top of the list. Credit for this is due to the work of this committee, the commitment of the Tánaiste, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and all parties. That is how matters stand. To coin a phrase, a lot has been done but there is a lot more to do.

Mr. Barry English

I thank the committee for inviting us back to present an update on behalf of the Alliance for Insurance Reform. The Alliance for Insurance Reform was formed in 2002 and now has a membership of 1,800 businesses. In conjunction with groups such as this committee and other interested parties, much has been achieved. On the positive side is the establishment of the Personal Injuries Assessment Board, the enactment of the Civil Liabilities and Courts Act 2004 — which deals with perjury and fraud — and the change in the public attitude to fraud as a result of the campaigns that have been carried on by the Irish Insurance Federation. While good work has been done, it has not been followed through and the benefit will not be delivered in reduced premiums. Some of the good will be unravelled by vested interests.

Among the current issues are lack of political will. There is a division of responsibility between the Department of Transport and the Irish Financial Services Regulatory Authority. We note that a Minister of State, Deputy Callely, has been appointed with sole responsibility for this area. However, giving the responsibility to a Minister of State rather than to a senior Minister shows the position it occupies on the political agenda.

Members of the legal profession have been relentless in attacking the Personal Injuries Assessment Board. They were caught on the hop and did not believe it would ever be established. We do not believe they will give up without a fight. They took a case in the High Court for representation of PIAB claimants. They won in the High Court. The case is being taken to the Supreme Court. We believe that legislation will have to be introduced if they win in the Supreme Court. Otherwise, there will be disaster.

I echo what Mr. John Power said regarding the misuse of the PIAB book of quantum by both solicitors and the Judiciary. The book of quantum was developed by the Personal Injuries Assessment Board based on previous claims experience. It was a given and they could do nothing about it. The book is quite complicated and requires factorisation in the interpretation of claims. However, solicitors and judges are using it as a quick reference guide. It was never designed for that purpose and this is resulting in much higher claims.

Solicitors cut deals before a claim goes to the PIAB, using the book of quantum as a guide. People are being steered into areas they do not understand. Judges refer to the book of quantum without reference to how it should be factored. As Mr. Power pointed out, it might mention a claim of €16,000 but when one reads on one discovers that should be scaled back 10% in respect one issue and 20% in respect of another. However, the higher amount is used and that results in higher claims throughout the system.

Uncompetitive practices between insurance companies and insurance brokers have never been tackled. We have heard on many occasions that new entrants to the market will result in greater competition. However, there is no sign of a new entrant. We welcome the fact that a Minister of State has been appointed with full responsibility for the issue but this has not received much publicity. It was barely mentioned in the newspapers. Again, the issue has dropped down the political agenda and it will take a great deal to bring this home. A new radical player must be brought into the market. The Competition Authority's recommendations, which we support, need to be implemented.

Unless the relationship between brokers and insurance companies is severed, there will never be true competition in Ireland. Brokers control the market. They are incentivised to keep premiums as high as possible because everything they do is based on a percentage of the premium. They get a bonus on loss ratio, which is the ratio between claims and the premiums paid in previous years. They get volume discounts. All these are still in place. We feel that brokers should become advisers. They should be paid a fee by the policy holder and the relationship should be between the policy holder and the insurance companies. That, coupled with bringing new entrants into the market, is the only way we will have competition.

If the committee wants to see the net result of lack of competition, Quinn Direct, the newest entrant to the Irish insurance market, proudly announced that the company's minimum year on year growth is still 38% per annum and its profit is 33% per annum. I do not know of any other business or any other sector where a new entrant could grow so fast and achieve such inordinately high profits. I mention Quinn Direct because, together with FBD, it is one of the stand alone Irish companies that can redirect its profits to an offshore company, like the rest of the operators here.

On the book of quantum, more education is needed so that people do not use it incorrectly. Work needs to be done with members of the Judiciary. If the Judiciary keep driving claims up and out of scale in comparison with those which obtain in other countries, tariffs will — as has been the case in those countries — perhaps have to be imposed on it.

Nothing has been done regarding adequate notice and claims history. People are not given enough time to renew. They are given their claims history in time. We would like to see legislation introduced to require at least two to three months' notice, especially in respect of large insurance renewals. At least two months is needed to achieve a proper competitive quotation.

I thank Mr. English. He has given the committee much food for thought. What has been the experience of the Alliance for Insurance Reform in terms of reduction in premiums since the group last came before us? On the previous occasion on which Mr. Power was here, we asked him to conduct a survey on behalf of the hotels sector. The Alliance for Insurance Reform represents 1,800 members. What has been the experience of those members? Has there been a reduction in their premium costs?

Mr. English

We surveyed our members. One third of them experienced an increase in 2004 over 2003. This is down to the issue of competition and brokers. We found that members who are proactive, who understand what they are doing and who go to two or three brokers obtain extremely competitive quotations. Members who followed the traditional method of going to one broker maintained the same level of insurance premium or experienced an increase.

The consumer who does not shop around is not getting value for money.

Mr. English

Yes. Unfortunately, people believe that by going to a broker they are shopping around because they are under the impression that the broker goes out to get the best deal. In fact, brokers do not appear to be doing that. My experience over the past two years, when I used multiple brokers, has been a phenomenal reduction in my insurance costs.

Is it Mr. English's advice that consumers should go to many brokers?

Mr. English

We believe that the entire status of the broker is fundamentally flawed. Brokers are meant to achieve the best premium for the customer but it is not in their interests to do so because they are paid a percentage of the premium. That can never work.

I thank Mr. Power and Mr. English for their contributions. In the context of completing the reform package on insurance, Mr. English mentioned the division of responsibilities between IFSRA and the Department of Transport . He stated that this decision by the Minister ensured that, despite insurance reform having progressed significantly, it has come this far only to teeter on the brink of collapse. That is quite a serious statement to make and Mr. English might elucidate on it.

Second, Mr. English stated that brokers control the market. I listened carefully to what he said about shopping around and going from broker to broker. Some brokers have more agencies than others and it is quite wise to shop around because not all of them have the full range of company agencies. The Alliance for Insurance Reform has stated that information about brokers controlling the market is being deliberately withheld from consumers. Will that information be made available to the Competition Authority for investigation because it is important that the matter is resolved?

What additional reform ideas does Mr. Power feel we should implement at this stage which are not covered in the report of the joint committee? Do his colleagues abroad have any additional information which we could bring to bear here? As Mr. English pointed out, new entrants have not been encouraged to come into the market or they do not feel the market conditions here are appropriate. That is a serious issue about which this committee is concerned. We have the existing five or six players who have the market sewn up and we do not get the normal transparency in terms of reducing premia, given the huge profits which were made in 2004. We want to see what ideas the delegation might have which would help the committee to get more competition and new entrants in the marketplace.

Mr. English

As regards how brokers control the markets, Deputy Hogan made a good point. He knows about multi-agency insurance agents and brokers. However, the public does not understand it. We have raised that with the Competition Authority. We gave a two and a half hours taped interview on those points. It is part of its final report and it has proposed some solutions. We have already made some of the proposals about which we spoke this morning.

As regards the brink of collapse, the legal industry did everything in its power to prevent the Personal Injuries Assessment Board coming in. If this is going to work, the insurance companies will take a hit in their profits. While it was high on the political agenda originally, it is not high on it now. If it is not, these people will keep digging and weaving away, as in the challenge in the High Court between the legal industry and the PIAB. They will not stop until they get back into it again and it is back the way it was. That is only natural because it has taken away a lot of their income.

It might be overstating it a little to say it is on the brink of collapse.

Mr. English

I do not agree.

Mr. English thinks what we have done up to now as a committee and the MIAB report are futile and that it is on the brink of collapse.

Mr. English

A phenomenal amount has been achieved. It does not have to be at the top of the agenda, but if it is not kept high on the agenda it will go back the way it was. That is why we are making this presentation this morning.

If we look at the Government's performance in terms of the request made by this committee, it introduced four Bills, which is unprecedented. The Government made insurance its number one priority in 2003 and 2004. The four Bills have now been enacted. I understand another health and safety Bill will be considered in the Dáil next week. As far as we are concerned, this is our third interim report. This committee is keeping it at the top of the agenda. The statements made by the delegation this morning are alarming. We will have to evaluate your submission and ensure that the fears expressed do not become a reality. We assure your organisation that it is the number one issue for this committee. That will continue to be the case until the date of the next general election.

We would like your organisation to carry out an in-depth study of what has happened in terms of the premia your members are paying. Before the third interim report is concluded, which we hope will be the end of October, we would like to recall you to give further evidence on the data you are supplying for the report. It is alarming if one third of the sector you represent has to pay higher insurance premia. That flies in the face of the spirit in which the industry has worked with the committee over the past three years. We have not found that to be the case in any of the evidence supplied to us by other individuals or groups on behalf of their companies or organisations.

Mr. English said that one third of his members have experienced increased premia. Does he know what sectors were affected by those premia increases?

Mr. English

We have not categorised them.

That would be interesting because the liability in certain sectors could still be a problem. We would welcome that information.

Mr. English

As regards competitiveness, while much good work has been done in terms of reducing premia in some cases, it has increased insurers' profits substantially. We feel that benefit should go back to the premia holders. As regards my insurance renewal, I went to the broker last year who went to the Irish market and the best I could get was a premium of €165,000. I went with a Lloyds' syndicate abroad and got it reduced from €165,000 to €108,000. That tells me there is little competition.

In what sector is Mr. English involved?

Mr. English

The construction industry. This year the best price I could get in Ireland was €160,000. My turnover has gone up by 35% and my renewal is €103,000 from Lloyds.

We want some documented evidence from your organisation. We would like your organisation to carry out research on behalf of this committee so that we can have it available for our consideration. We would also like to recall you for a brief morning session before we put together our third interim report. Is that agreed? Agreed. I call Mr. Power on Deputy Hogan's point.

Mr. Power

As regards our recommendations on improving competition in the market, insurance companies, like every other business, are in business for profit and they do not make any apologies for that. They are attracted to environments in which they can make the maximum amount of profits. We have a benign corporation tax environment and that is a noted and important advantage. There must be another barrier to them coming into the market.

The Competition Authority made six or seven recommendations in its report on the barriers to entry to Ireland, which related to regulatory requirements and various solvency ratios. I add the comments I made earlier in the submission, namely, the costs of settling claims in Ireland. They do not have to bear the same level of costs in other jurisdictions. If a company in Zurich or Frankfurt looks at the cost per claim in Ireland and then at the lower cost base in Britain, Belgium or the Netherlands, it will be deflected from those other bases. There must be more focus on reducing the cost base of settling claims. We must also reconsider the regulatory requirements and implement the recommendations of the Competition Authority.

Given the evidence of Mr. English to the committee this morning, did the Irish Hotels Federation seek quotes outside the country, as his company seems to have successfully done?

Mr. Power

The advice we give our members by e-mail five or six times a year is that if they are not getting reductions, they should look for alternatives because there should be reductions. We saw a couple of new entrants coming into the market, such as St. Paul's insurance company. Quinn Direct and FBD substantially reduced their premia. Where people sought extra quotes or alternative brokers, they succeeded in reducing their costs. When any people telephoned my office, not that many, in the past 12 months to say they got no reduction in their insurance or that their insurance was the same as the previous year, I told them to go back and ask their broker for another quote. I gave them one last chance to seek alternatives. I gave them some leads and told them that if their broker would not give them a reduced quote they should look for another broker. All of the people who telephoned me came back within a month to say they had succeeded in getting substantial reductions. It is a question of going out and using one's muscle in the market.

Mr. Power came to this committee previously and was of considerable help to it. Members would all agree that the Irish Hotels Federation has been of enormous help in our deliberations to date. However, we have witnessed increases from 200% to 350% in this sector of the industry, in which I admit I have a vested interest. While we acknowledge that no profits were made for one or two years in the industry, we asked the industry and insurance companies to reduce their prices back to 1999 levels, considering the profits now being made. Where do the Irish Hotels Federation members stand with regard to 1999 price levels?

Mr. Power

We are probably about 20% in excess of 1999 levels. It is difficult to make an exact comparison because the values insured would have increased and inflation and the size of the risk must be taken into account. People have added on spas or leisure centres and the insurance companies must re-examine the premises in terms of risk exposure. Comparison is not an exact science, but generally levels are approximately 20% higher than 1999 levels.

It strikes me from what we have heard from Mr. Power that his main problem is with the book of quantum but that Mr. English considers the legal profession the problem. It interests me that Mr. Power no longer makes reference to problems with the legal profession. It is interesting that two bodies with a direct interest in reducing insurance costs have separate issues they want to put before the committee and that there is no crossover between the two.

The Alliance for Insurance Reform referred to a lack of political commitment. In what respect is there a lack of political commitment or who is to blame for it? Mr. English also said that his members report that solicitors misuse the book of quantum when negotiating settlements on behalf of claimants. How do they misuse it and is there evidence for this? I know the alliance explained one reads one thing but then finds that it is qualified further. However, where is the evidence? It is all very well to come to the committee and claim this or that, but if we are to get any benefit from the contribution, we need evidence. If we want to include something in our report, we must be able to back it up. Therefore, we need evidence of solicitors misusing the book of quantum. Mr. English said there was misuse of the book when negotiating settlements on behalf of claimants. With whom are the solicitors negotiating?

Mr. English also said the legal profession continues to protect its interests in personal liability litigation. How does it do this? He gives the example of the recent High Court decision requiring the PIAB to correspond directly with claimants' solicitors when directed. Of what relevance is that to Mr. English as a person with problems with the high cost of insurance? What relevance has that to the issue?

Our main problem with the legal profession and with professionals within the insurance system is the high costs involved with regard to professional fees. How does the issue of costs come into it through the PIAB being obliged to correspond with the claimant's solicitor? How does this create a problem with regard to the high cost of insurance?

The alliance says that a conflict in the profession's behaviour is evident and that this includes widespread flouting of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1994. If Mr. English is aware of any flouting of the legislation, does he not have an obligation to ensure it is reported to the appropriate authorities. If he accepts he has that obligation, has he reported the flouting of legislation?

I dispute Mr. English's claim with regard to the Judiciary and the book of quantum. He claims judges are wrong to make statements in open court that they are obliged to refer to the book of quantum. They are right to do so as this was included in recent legislation. Is Mr. English right in what he says?

Mr. Power also spoke about the book of quantum. His concerns were an issue for this committee previously. We had the strong view that international comparisons should be made in drawing up the book of quantum. This was not done. This is an issue which I feel we should revisit in future reports. We should examine whether there is any merit in pursuing an international comparison.

The delegations have recommended that the recommendations of the recent report of the Competition Authority should be implemented as soon as possible. I am concerned with regard to the recommendation that the certified claims history should be available. Does this not involve issues of privacy and confidentiality?

Before we go further I seek the permission of members to allow members of the press, who have not made a request, who are in the gallery today to have the two submissions which were made by the two visiting groups. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. English

I will begin with the legal profession. It never thought the PIAB would become reality and when it eventually saw it happening it fought against it tooth and nail. The fact the legislation was enacted and the PIAB is up and running does not mean the legal profession will stop fighting it. It is clear the PIAB has removed a large proportion of the income of some legal practices. I know of one practice that has let eight solicitors go. The legal profession is not going to lie down.

This ties in with political commitment. Committee members may remember when the PIAB was number one on the agenda. It was dealt with by the joint committee and by Deputies Harney and McDowell, two senior Ministers. When the various legislation was enacted one area was passed to IFSRA, one to transport and no senior Minister was given responsibility for it. We welcome the fact that the Minister of State, Deputy Callely, has now taken responsibility for the area. We feel there must be a guardian of the good work done. There has been two to three years of hard work from everybody involved but because there is not a guardian on the political side people wheedle away.

The Deputy raised some of the points already in asking how solicitors negotiate claims. They are encouraging claimants not to go to the PIAB and offering to cut a deal with the insurers, which they are doing. The only reasons solicitors are doing so——

Are claimants not obliged to go to the PIAB initially?

Mr. English

No, there is an obligation on claimants to go to the PIAB before going to court. There is nothing to stop anybody from settling a claim without going near the PIAB. The PIAB certificate is only required before going to court.

Mr. English is making the assumption that insurance companies are running to catch up with claimants before the claimants get anywhere, which I find very hard to believe.

Mr. English

Solicitors——

Traditionally insurance companies shied away and let people sweat for as long as possible. Mr. English is suggesting this is no longer the case and that insurance companies are waiting for the accidents to happen so that they can——

Before Mr. English replies, I wish to ask a question. Does Mr. English have some experience of or has he heard of solicitors settling claims before they go to the PIAB?

Mr. English

Absolutely, because the only way a solicitor can get a fee out of this is by preventing it going to the PIAB. At present this does not cost the policyholder or the insurer any money. However, as soon as the solicitors get their foot inside the door again they will expand their activities. They have gone to the High Court to insist that the PIAB must write to them. So they are now getting themselves back into the loop. They will find every angle they can. We need a guardian to make sure that the good work is not undone.

When the Supreme Court makes its decision, does Mr. English believe the committee should recommend to Government that legislation might be needed if the Supreme Court decision does not work out the way he wants?

Mr. English

Absolutely and that is what the PIAB has stated it requires.

Has it also stated so?

Mr. English

Yes. The legal profession is not costing us, the policyholders, any money now. The profession is basically costing the claimants money. By allowing the correspondence to go to the solicitor, the claimant must pay out of the settlement received either from the PIAB or elsewhere. The legal profession is trying to get again at the thin end of the wedge.

Mr. English seems to be saying that insurance companies believe they would get a better deal by negotiating with solicitors than by going through the PIAB, which suggests the insurance companies have no great faith in the PIAB.

Mr. English

The insurance companies will treat every case individually. The Deputy earlier suggested that insurance companies put settlements on the never-never. Insurance companies are now much more proactive about getting claims settled and out of the way. My personal experience and that of my members is the same. They want to get insurance claims dealt with. In the past the insurance companies had their reasons for doing so including that it helped to keep reserves up and to keep their profits down until the 12.5% corporation tax was introduced in 2003. They are dealing with claims and if they can cut a deal with the solicitors, which they believe to be good value, before going to PIAB they will do so.

I ask Mr. English to respond to the other points made by Deputy McHugh.

Mr. English

Regarding the misuse of the book of quantum, the PIAB obviously understands the book of quantum very well. The solicitors seem to have found a way of getting around some of the nuances in the book. In time, the insurance companies will also get up to speed. The solicitors are putting it to the insurers that if the book of quantum quotes €20,000 for whiplash, that is what the client would get in court. I believe it is not mandatory for judges to look at the book of quantum. While we welcome the use of the book of quantum, judges should use it correctly.

The terminology is that they must "have regard to" it.

Mr. English

While they are having regard to it, they are not using it correctly and are paying the unfactorised amounts.

That is quite a charge to make without presenting evidence. Mr. English is claiming that solicitors and the Judiciary are wrong.

I will allow Deputy McHugh to come back in with supplementary questions later. The questions asked are very searching and need to be teased out. I ask Mr. English to respond.

Mr. English

We did not refer to abuse of the Solicitors Act because a detailed report by Dorothea Dowling shows how solicitors misuse the Act. We felt we should keep our report concise and let our points stand out rather than have a high volume of them.

Mr. English will have another opportunity to address the committee before the third interim report is concluded.

On a point of order, the abuse of an Act of the Oireachtas is a very serious charge. Dorothea Dowling is very influential in Irish society. I am amazed she has not brought the matter to the Oireachtas or the relevant Minister to institute prosecutions in the area.

I remind members of my introductory remark. Members are reminded of a long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House, or any official by name in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. As the chairperson of the PIAB——

She is involved in the whole arena.

—— she will come to assist the committee in our deliberations. I ask Mr. English to continue his response to Deputy McHugh's questions.

Mr. English

The chairperson of the PIAB has made a detailed report. I understand the procedure for misuse of the Act is that such solicitors should be reported to the Law Society, which is a self-regulatory body. I hope I have answered all the Deputy's questions.

I call Mr. Power.

May I ask a question of Mr. English?

We will hear from Mr. Power followed by Deputy McHugh after which I will come back to Deputy Ned O'Keeffe.

Mr. Power

In response to Deputy McHugh's question, the recommendation by the Competition Authority is quite benign. It really only requires the insurance company to provide a certified claims history to any buyer upon request. It is reasonable for someone buying insurance to ask an insurance company to provide a certified claims history that can be submitted to other potential insurers at the time of renewal. I would not have any concerns about confidentiality as the insured is paying.

Mr. Power has pointed out that premiums in Britain are 40% to 50% higher than here. Based on his submission, would it be right to assume that the main reason for this is the book of quantum and the amounts included therein?

Mr. Power

I believe it is related to the level of claim settlements and the book of quantum, which has given a rationale to the level of settlements. A similar book of quantum exists in the UK although it is not managed by a statutory body.

I welcome the delegations. I have questions for Mr. Power of the Irish Hotels Federation. It is great to see the 50% reduction in the cost of insurance. Within public liability insurance does a no-claims bonus system exist as with motor insurance? Mr. Power and Mr. English spoke about whether the levels of guidance value in the Personal Injuries Assessment Board's book of quantum should be based on the experience in Ireland or the experience overseas. There was a need to set the levels in the book of quantum at a reasonably high level when the PIAB was being established. If the levels were quite low and the courts started to award higher levels of compensation, everybody would go to court and the credibility of the PIAB would be completely diminished. It is right to ensure that the courts and the PIAB are singing from the same hymn sheet before one reconsiders the levels in the book of quantum.

I would like to ask a question, although I should know the answer to it. Are industries and businesses legally bound to have insurance? If not, is it the case that many businesses have no form of insurance cover? I would like to hear the delegation's views on the matter.

Mr. English mentioned that he is dissatisfied with the current provisions in respect of brokers. He said that one has to shop around to get a reduction in one's insurance. We will have to examine this matter seriously. We need to ascertain whether the hands of brokers are tied. If one stays with one's broker one does not benefit from any reduction, but one can get a serious reduction if one shops around. We have to investigate that matter.

Mr. Power

The no claims bonus system for hotels is slightly different to that for drivers. Some insurance companies offer a rebate on one's premium if one's claims ratio does not reach a certain level. Such a version of the no claims bonus system was more common in the past, when people tended to stay with insurance companies for a longer period of time. It is less common at present because people tend to avail of the competition between various companies. I am not sure how widely used the system is within the industry.

Deputy Callanan also spoke about the need to set the levels in the PIAB's book of quantum at a high level. The Irish Hotels Federation started to express its concern a number of years ago about the size of awards being granted by the courts. People were attracted by the prospect of making claims when they learned about the level of awards being granted by courts. There was a snowball effect. People thought the insurance companies would settle claims without going to court because they would be nervous about going before particular judges. There was a belief at the time that the awards made by judges were higher than the amounts agreed on in settlements.

The objective of the establishment of the PIAB was to reduce the level of claims. The levels of guidance value in the PIAB's book of quantum are based on awards made in this jurisdiction. The IHF believes that the levels are much too high when compared with levels in other jurisdictions. The courts awarded too much money in the past because they did not take cognisance of what was happening in competing jurisdictions. People argue that claimants will not use the PIAB mechanisms and the book of quantum will not be applied if the figures are not attractive. That should not be a reason. If the levels are too high, they should be challenged, brought into line with what is fair and made relevant to the suffering and inconvenience of the unfortunate claimants.

Unlike other jurisdictions, Ireland does not impose a legal requirement to have any form of public liability or employers liability insurance. Businesses would be foolish not to have such insurance. The only legal requirement in the business sector relates to certain businesses. If a person involved in the entertainment business — I do not refer to the Chairman — seeks the renewal of a dance licence, he or she will generally have to give the court evidence that he or she has taken out public liability insurance. There is no such statutory legal requirement, but a condition is imposed by a number of judges in such instances.

Normal prudence dictates that one should take out insurance. A hotel can face substantial expenses if a claim is taken against it because many people come though its doors. I encountered a number of cases three years ago of people operating without insurance because they were unable to get insurance cover. I do not advise members of the IHF to engage in such a hair-raising experience. The establishment of a system in which one absorbs a significant proportion of the loss has been proposed, but small operators would not have the capacity to meet the terms of such a system.

Does Mr. Power think businesses should be legally bound to take out public liability insurance?

Mr. Power

I do not think so. We are engaging in deregulation in most areas. The prudence of individual businesses will determine whether they take out insurance or carry the risk. That is the way it should be.

I ask Mr. English to expand on his suggestion for dealing with the manner in which the legal profession is co-operating with the insurance industry to avoid paying less compensation to claimants. Do I understand correctly that solicitors are getting claimants to settle their claims before getting involved in the PIAB process because that is the only way that solicitors can receive a fee on foot of a claim? Do I understand correctly that insurance companies are co-operating with solicitors to reach settlements that are worth less than the amount the claimant would receive if the matter was brought before the PIAB? I will not refer to this system as a scam because it is a legitimate way of doing business. Insurance companies are receiving good value because they do not have to pay as much money as they would under the PIAB structure or in court. Solicitors are getting fees from the claimants, which would not be the base if the matter was handled by the PIAB. Claimants are the only people who are losing under this system. Do I understand Mr. English's suggestion correctly?

Mr. English

That is exactly what I said. At present, the solicitors are costing the claimants money. The Alliance for Insurance Reform does not represent claimants because it is not a consumer association. It represents the businesses which are paying premiums. The alliance is concerned that solicitors are starting to get involved in the loop again.

Solicitors cannot get involved unless they are producing the goods. Mr. English has suggested that they are able to produce the goods with the co-operation of the insurance companies, which understand that if they strike deals with the solicitors, claimants will get less than they would if they went through the PIAB process. The claimants are losing because they are receiving settlements which are worth less then the settlements they would receive under the PIAB structure. They will also have to pay their solicitors' costs.

Mr. English

Yes.

That should be highlighted.

Mr. English

The insurance companies also benefit because they no longer face the risk of what the PIAB might award. One will usually prefer to settle for €15,000 than to go to the PIAB, which might award €18,000 or €12,000. The natural thing for one to do is to accept the €15,000 and to move on without wasting any more time. If the insurance company is not getting a good deal, it will go to the PIAB rather than settling. It will have no reason not to go to the PIAB because it will cost just €1,000. The barrier to using the PIAB system is quite low. The Alliance for Insurance Reform would not have a problem if that system were to continue forever. However, it has a problem with solicitors having two ways of getting involved — by making a deal before the PIAB process is initiated or by proceeding as they are at present. I refer to the process whereby the PIAB must write to the claimant's solicitor as well as to the claimant. In that way, the solicitor can take some money from the claimant's award. Solicitors can also make money if the claimant appeals the award to the courts.

It is fair to say that claims are being settled much quicker than they were in the past.

I agree with the point being made by Mr. English about this serious situation. I am concerned that claimants are receiving awards which are substantially less than those outlined in the PIAB's book of quantum. The Tánaiste established the PIAB to ensure that claimants do not have to pay legal fees, but it is important to highlight that they are still paying such fees.

If the claimant goes to the solicitor, the solicitor has a constitutional obligation to give the best advice possible to the claimant. There is a relationship between the solicitor and claimant. We have a job to do but people traditionally place their trust in their solicitors. We take the Deputy's point and the response to it but that is as far as we can go on the question.

It is important to highlight the cosy relationship developing now between the legal profession and the insurance profession. When the insurance companies appeared before us over the last two years, they talked about the legal costs for their business. Now, however, we see a cosying up of the two professions that is not in the interest of the consumer, particularly the claimant.

What future is there for the PIAB? To date, it has only dealt with 26 cases since it was established 12 months ago. There are probably 10,000 cases in the pipeline.

Mr. English

The PIAB has a future and must be maintained. We can already see the benefits it has had for the industry. I am not here to defend it but I willingly endorse it. Any claim takes a minimum amount of time to settle because the claimant writes to the PIAB, which then writes to the defendant to find out if he is contesting or accepting blame. If the case is contested it goes to court but if blame is accepted, the PIAB takes the case on. The PIAB must then receive a submission on the claim which is assessed by the medical board and other experts. It takes eight to ten months. It was established in June 2004 and the fact that 25 cases have been heard already is excellent. There will be many more in the near future.

The PIAB was set up to take on many cases based on the historical numbers. The numbers coming before it now are small so either there are fewer fraudulent claims or people are settling before the case reaches the PIAB. Anything that keeps cases out of the courts and that prevents the substantial legal costs must be good.

This committee can take credit for getting the Government to introduce the Civil Liability Bill last year to deal with fraudulent claims.

There was a paragraph in the submission by the Irish Hotels Federation which caught my eye. It stated that in the last few years, Fáilte Ireland had put in place a barometer system to monitor issues of concern to business and tourism. It looks for the main operational issues for the sector and for many years insurance was the highest ranking issue. The cost of insurance is now in second place and has been overtaken by running costs — local authority charges, waste water charges and so on. What is the issue of concern in that paragraph, rates or other costs?

Mr. Power

Rates, refuse charges, water charges and other costs, such as for putting up signs to hotels or guesthouses in particular areas. Insurance is no longer the number one priority because of the work done by the committee and the Government. Local authority charges are the number one concern for our members. If I could make a request of the committee, it should look at that because it might enjoy the same level of success in this area. Local authorities have placed enormous burdens on small businesses without being accountable for them.

IBEC stated two days ago that it was concerned about the burden borne by business through rates and excessive local authority charges. I will bring this issue to the attention of the committee for consideration; the convenors might discuss at their meeting when arranging our business.

The charge that the legal profession is colluding with the insurance companies to the detriment of the claimant is very serious and we should immediately try to get to the bottom of it. It should be one of the first issues we address at our next meeting.

We will do that. I thank the representatives of the Irish Hotels Federation and the Alliance for Insurance for being here this morning. We have collected a lot of evidence that we will consider. We look forward to the groups coming back to us and to seeing the research they will carry out on behalf of the industries to see how we can further enhance our work in reducing insurance premiums. That is the business of this committee.

The joint committee adjourned at 11 a.m. until 9.30 a.m on Wednesday, 15 June 2005.

Top
Share