Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 13 Nov 1991

Vol. 130 No. 7

Motor and Liability Insurance: Motion.

I move:

That Seanad Éireann notes with concern the cost of motor and liability insurance; and requests the Minister for Industry and Commerce to take urgent steps to remedy the position.

At the outset I declare my interest in this debate. I have an interest both as an insurance broker who worked within the insurance industry from 1956 to 1968 before starting up my own insurance brokerage and also as a public representative. The problem of high levels of insurance premiums has been mentioned to me both as an insurance broker and as a public representative. Within the last 48 hours I attended a meeting where the question of the high cost of motor insurance in particular for young people was discussed at length. At a meeting of the General Council of County Councils some months ago in Ennis a long and very similar discussion took place.

Insurance premiums for motorists employers' liability and public liability are very high in this country for many reasons. We have become a litigious minded race and there is a high level of claims consciousness in this country. Secondly, the number of accidents on our roads and in the worksplace has increased over the last number of years. Thirdly, the cost of settling claims has increased dramatically and fourthly, the very high number of uninsured vehicles on our roads contributes's to premium costs.

I share the concern of insurance companies operating in this country, a concern shared by the general public and indeed by the Government on this question. In my 23 years as an insurance broker the possibility of young drivers getting a quotation, not to mention a reasonable premium, has never been as bleak. It is a well known fact that motor insurance premiums are higher in this country than in most other European countries, and not merely for young drivers. Internationaly, young drivers constitute a high risk group for the purpose of motor insurance and their premiums tend to be well above average as a result. In general male drivers constitute a higher risk than female drivers. Consequently young male drivers pay the highest premium of all.

In relation to any risk group the premiums are largely determined by the claims experience of the group. Unfortunately Ireland has a particularly high accident rate which results in the large number of claims in proportion to the number of insured vehicles on the road. We also have relatively high levels of compensation for personal injuries, high vehicle damage and repair costs and high legal fees. These combine factors result in a high average cost of claims compared to other countries. The combination of high average claim costs and high accidents and claim frequency results in very high total claim costs. These costs have to be funded from premiums and dictate the rates charged to policyholders whether old or young.

It should be stressed that even with these high motor insurance premiums, I have been informed that the insurance industry has made substantial underwriting losses in recent years. In 1987 the loss was £33 million, in 1988 it was £49 million, in 1989 it was £116 million and an estimated £130 to £140 million in 1990. It is clear, therefore, that the premiums currently charged are inadequate to meet claims and expenses, even though they are extremely high for young drivers in particular.

To some extent insurance companies are partly to blame for some of their current problems. During the period form 1987 to 1989 excessive competition prevailed in the motor insurance market resulting in rates being depressed to uneconomic levels at a time when both the number and the cost of claims were rising. Insurance companies made substantial losses, as I have outlined, in order to place their business on a sounder financial footing and have had to increase motor insurance premiums very significantly during the past year. Unfortunately it looks as if further increases will be necessary in the year ahead.

When we look for the reasons insurance costs are so high in this country compared to most other European countries, three basic issues stand out. Firstly, we have more accidents per head of population than other European countries. For example, in motor insurance, the number of people killed on our roads each year expressed as a percentage of the number of registered vehicles is double the UK and significantly higher than most other European countries. Secondly, we pay accident victims substantially more in compensation than do most other European countries. I read recently of a victim who lost the sight of one eye having compensation for pain and suffering in this country estimated in the region of £83,000 to £85,000 whereas in the UK for a similar injury the victim would receive approximately £30,000; countries like Portugal and Greece the figure would be in the region of £3,000 to £5,000. A whiplash injury in Ireland would cost the insurance company in the region of £15,000 to £18,000; in America a whiplash injury entitles one to $4,000 to $5,000 only.

Thirdly, the cost of motor insurance is exacerbated by the national level of uninsured driving which is significantly higher than most other European countries and is currently estimated at between 6 to 8 per cent of the total number of registered vehicles, whereas the average in Europe is less than 1 per cent. I mention these points as practical reasons for the continuing high cost of motor insurance premiums, especially for young people.

The cost of motor insurance in Ireland cannot be reduced unless and until we decrease our accident rate and reduce also the level of compensation paid to accident victims. We cannot have a substantially greater accident rate than most other European countries, pay subtantially more compensation to our accident victims and yet expect insurance companies to sell insurance at prices comparable to other European countries.

There is no doubt that with the right commitment from the relevant authorities significant progress can be made in reducing our road accident rate. During the major Garda clampdown on drinking and driving during December 1990 the number of road deaths was reduced by almost a third. I am glad that this campaign will be repeated again this December and I congratulate the Minister for Justice for doing so.

There is an urgent need to change the attitude of road users towards road safety generally. There is evidence that the public favours stiffer action against those who drink and drive. The insurance industry, through the Insurance Federation, has recently launched in conjunction with the National Safety Council a major publicity campaign costing about £200,000, which will, I hope, change the attitude of the public towards road safety and towards law enforcement generally.

The task of reforming our legal system and reducing the high level of settlement claims in Ireland is much more difficult. Previous attempts to change the legal system through the abolition of trial by jury has not led to expected savings in legal costs. In addition, the level of damages awarded by judges sitting alone are higher in many cases than those that were given by juries. In the past number of years insurance companies have proposed many reforms with a view to reducing premiums. The Courts Bill — which abolished juries — was one. Another was the rule to remove the necessity for two Senior Counsel and another introduced restricted fees for Junior Counsel. There is no indication that these innovations have served their purpose. Instead, the level of insurance premiums has gone up, particularly in the case of young drivers. It has been very strongly suggested to me that under the present system awards issued by judges are higher than in the pre-Court Bill days.

The high cost of public and employers' liability is adding enormously to the costs of industry, including retail and wholesale outlets, payment of tradesmen, builders and many other enterprises. There is no doubt that jobs are lost due to the excessive cost to public liability and employers' liability premiums. Local authorities in particular are very badly hit. Boards such as health boards, vocational education committees and other local authority bodies are finding the burden of public liability premiums in particular extrememly onerous. All of them are experiencing great financial difficulty, and the high cost of public liability, in particular for county councils and corporations, has led in many cases to dramatic increases in the rates. County Councils are at present examining this situation and I am informed that Limerick Corporation have been charged a premium this year in excess of £2 million for public liability alone. That has been reduced subsequently to £1.8 million. Cork County Council will be charged a premium of £1.5 million. My own county of Westmeath is being charged a premium of almost £0.25 million for public liability.

In 1987 the company which transacts the business of most public authorities, the Irish Public Bodies Insurance Company, was obliged to introduce a £5,000 excess on every public liability claim. The bill for that first year of the £5,000 excess has now been handed to Westmeath and it is £41,170; and obviously that will grow larger each year. Having made the point about the Irish Public Bodies Insurance Company, I want to make it clear that I have great respect for them. They are a small company who are doing great work for the local authorities of Ireland and if local authorities were to seek insurance elsewhere tomorrow I do not think they would secure it as efficiently and as expertly as with the Irish Public Bodies. I have been a long-time friend of the Irish Public Bodies Insurance Company; indeed Senator Honan is a director of that company and knows its business affairs very well.

Recently a high level of fraudulent claims was disclosed. The number is growing constantly and is causing serious concern. I have been informed many times of the famous incident where five men in this city fell into the same hole on the same night after leaving a pub and they were all far from their road home. People in the Irish Public Bodies Insurance Company could reveal hair-raising stories of fraudulent claims. Local authorities are vulnerable to such claims on public liability insurance and this, of course, has a bearing on the cost of insurance.

A new system will operate after 1992 when European companies will be allowed to compete fully in this country but there is a naive view abroad that this development will produce a miraculous drop in the cost of insurance in Ireland. The advocates of that point of view seem to be unaware of the fact that by European standards the Irish market already has the highest foreign penetration level of any insurance market in Europe. Over 75 per cent of the total premium income generted in the Irish market is now controlled either by branches or subsidiaries of overseas companies. Most major European countries already have a presence in the Irish market.

Much could be done to improve the insurance situation. Strict enforcement of the laws regarding seat belts would help as would compulsory checking of cars. Further information and further checks on safety in the workplace would help. Additional reform of the legal system would help, as would the introduction of minimum fines for uninsured drivers. The Garda should have power to impound uninsured vehicles. All of us have a role to play in reducing insurance premiums whether as legislators, policy holders, members of the insurance industry or Government.

The decision to set up an inter-ministerial committee on motor insurance is a clear sign the Government recognise the problem of high insurance costs and that it must be addressed as a matter of priority. We must all support any proposals which will reduce the number of claims and thus enable insurance companies to bring down the cost of insurance for Irish policy holders, and in particular for young drivers. It is clear, however, that if insurance costs are to be reduced the inter-ministerial committee will have to take a number of very difficult decisions if we are to achieve a substantial improvement in our accident rate and reduce the level of compensation paid to accident victims.

Insurance is an issue in which I have a particular interest. I accept fully that we have problems regarding motor insurance and public liability and liability generally. I recognise the unfortunate position that insurance companies find themselves in: if they do not get in the premiums they cannot pay out the claims; hence they are forced to charge high premiums. I recognise that we have a role to play and I am looking forward to hearing what the Minister of State, Deputy Leyden, has to say to us this evening regarding this matter.

Mr. Farrell

I second the motion. I have been interested in this question for a long time because I feel very hurt and annoyed at the way young drivers are being dealt with by insurance companies. Unfortunately it is the most industrious minded who get themselves a job and are prepared to work who find they cannot insure a car to take them to work. Very often they endanger their lives and jobs by hitching, and the wage or salary is not sufficient to pay for accommodation in the town where they are working. The present high cost of motor insurance militates against an industrious young person who wants to work but needs a car to do so.

In February 1989 the underwriting criteria for accepting young drivers was age 17 with or without a full licence. The car had to fall into a particular group of up to 1300cc which includes Ford Fiestas and similar type cars. After applying the relevant loadings for age, licence, etc., the maximum premium the person would have to pay was £700 plus the Government levy of 3 per cent. In June 1989 the general insurance rates were increased by 4½ per cent; in August 1989 they went up by another 4½ per cent and in February 1990 they went up by 14 per cent bringing the maximum premium for young drivers to £1,000, plus 3 per cent Government levy for a Ford Fiesta type car. In August 1990, the young driver premiums went up to £1,100 and in December 1990 that figure went to £1,240.

The underwriting criteria changed to the following: in order for Guardian Royal Exchange to quote the insured must have had some record of having driven under a Guardian Royal policy — I think there is no harm mentioning them. One would have to be a driver with their company before they would quote you at all, which made it impossible for many to get a quote. In May 1991, maximum premiums increased to £1,470, two months' wages for any young worker. That is the rate at which insurance costs have risen — from £700 in 1989 to £1,470 at present. How can anybody justify that? However, that is not all.

The difficulty in obtaining a quotation for female drivers is not as great as for male drivers. The maximum premium for third party insurance for females is only £940, so, as we try to eliminate sex discrimination, we find insurance companies discriminating against young men by charging them £400 more than women drivers. That is unjust as they are all youthful drivers.

Apart from the Guardian Royal Exchange insurance company the only other company prepared to offer a quotation to young drivers at the moment is the PMPA — and Guardian Royal Exchange own the PMPA. To approach Irish National one must be over 30 years of age and have two years' no claim bonus; the situation is similar with the Hibernian Insurance Group. Other insurance companies such as ICI and the Norwich Union apply the same criteria. In order to be insured with Church and General, one must be over 30 with one year's no claims bonus. How can one have a no claims bonus if insurance is not obtainable in the first instance? To be insured with Shield Insurance Company one must be 25 years of age with two years' no claims bonus, and for Sun Alliance one must be over 28 years of age, with one year's no claims bonus. Those are the facts about insurance for young people; it is becoming impossible for them to get insurance.

Guardian Royal Exchange issued a document referring to the age of drivers, driving records, medical records, etc., and I agree with some of it. Insurance is loaded against people engaged in the following occupations: betting shop proprietor, market trader, general dealer, cattle dealer, casual traders, hawker, horse dealer, taxi driver, gaming club proprietor, bookmaker, professional sports persons, including jockeys, boxers, etc., scrap merchant, turf accountant, etc. Where is this going to end? How many people will be put out of work if present rates continue to rise and if this type of system continues? Proposals from musical groups or their members, are discouraged; bands give a great deal of employment but the music industry is being discriminated against for insurance purposes. This official list identifies proposals from members of the armed forces of other countries, proposers or any driver engaged in the entertainment business, radio, television or film personalities as insurance risks to avoid. Who gets reasonably priced insurance when you exclude those I have mentioned?

In this list Ireland is divided into five different areas. I suppose we are not as unfortunate as we might be in rural areas because a young driver can get insurance there at £1,470 but in Dublin the premium is £1,750 for owners of group two cars, small 1300 cc cars with the bare minimum right to the road, and for third party fire and theft policies.

Significant loadings are imposed on young drivers: for a driver aged 17-20 there is a 150 per cent loading with a provisional licence, a 100 per cent loading with a full licence and a full licence taken out today must be held for 12 months before it is recognised as such by an insurance company. A full licence held for 11 months and 29 days, is a provisional licence and will incur loading at 150 per cent; the full licence must be held for over a year. A driver aged 21 with a provisional licence incurs a loading of 115 per cent with a full licence and 75 per cent with a full licence; 22 year old's incur 90 per cent loading with a provisional licence and 50 per cent with a full licence; at 23-24 years it is 80 per cent with a provisional licence and 50 per cent with a full licence; at aged 25-29 a provisional licence has 50 per cent loading and a full licence has 20 per cent loading; from aged 30-70 there is a loading of 30 per cent for a provisional licence and no loading with a full licence. Many of us on this scale will start being loaded again when we reach 70 years of age in a few years time.

The Senator has another few years to go yet.

Mr. Farrell

I have another six years, but it does not take long to come around. They are getting us at both ends of the scale. Given the present situation it is time we took a serious look at the insurance business.

Why is insurance so high? It is amazing that in Beleek a car can be insured for about one third of what it costs in Ballyshannon. No one can tell me the driver in Fermanagh is better than the driver in Donegal. I have cited those figures before in relation to cars. It is another part of the imbalance.

Our system is terribly wrong. We have passed Bills to cut down on the number of legal representatives in court and to stop the use of juries in these cases, but still, the cost of insurance is not coming down. In fact it is rising. Insurance companies are to blame for much of this. For example, a car stopped quickly in front of a colleague of mine who was going to a meeting and he stopped and skidded. There was little damage to the cars but the other driver got out and said: "You had better be well insured". He said he was and the other driver then said: "You had better be. There are a number of whiplash cases in this car". Somebody in the back of the car then said his hand was injured. That person went to the doctor, who could find nothing wrong, even looking at X-rays. The insurance company refused to contest the case and paid £5,000 to settle it against the wishes of my colleague. This was a case where absolutely no claim whatsoever was due.

Somebody referred recently to ambulance chasing. Some time ago, at a meeting of our own organisation, I said that something would have to be done about this "no foal no fee" system. Now legal people are advertising to represent any claim at all. I would like to issue a word of warning. I met somebody recently who went to a solicitor and was told he had a claim. The case was contested and he lost. His solicitor did not charge anything but the defendant's solicitor charged him and he finally had to pay £17,000. Claims should not be paid in lump sums, but so much annually. Claimants should be checked every year to see how they are getting on because people claiming do not recover as quickly as people who are not claiming. The long wait destroys them and by the time they get the money and repay the banks they do not have very much left.

We also passed a Bill although it was not brought into operation, and if there was an accident and victims were brought into a hospital a blood test could be taken and the result made available to the Garda who could prosecute if the driver had been drinking. The present position where, once the person has been taken into an ambulance the Garda cannot take any action should be reconsidered. There are many claims involved.

I appeal to the Minister to look at this serious problem. Our own young people in the Fianna Fáil organisation made a study of this subject because the youth of this country are crippled by insurance, employment is suffering, and it is time we did something about it.

At the outset I wish to inform this House on developments regarding the Inter-Ministerial Group on Motor Insurance. The group's report, which was endorsed by the Government in July of this year, identified a comprehensive list of measures which have the objective of improving the environment for insurance. While the group's work was primarily concerned with motor insurance costs, those of its recommendations which are designed to impact on the cost of personal injury compensation, particularly the legal costs associated with such compensation, will, it is hoped, have a positive impact on the cost of settling all personal injury claims, including those claims covered by the employers and public liability insurance. The agreed measures identified by the inter-ministerial group have already been communicated to the Dáil and, indeed, have been announced by the Ministers who have responsibility for their implementation.

I consider that it would be helpful to this discussion to give a summary of the more immediate measures. The motor insurance claims rate in Ireland is one of the contributory factors to the present level of motor insurance premiums. This claims rate has shown a close correlation with the motor accident rate in terms of the rate of road accidents as a proportion of the number of licensed vehicles on our roads.

In an effort to reduce the road accident rate, the gardaí are maintaining strict and sustained enforcement of the road traffic laws, particularly breaches of the drinking/driving laws. Road traffic deaths showed a decline of 11 per cent in the period January to August 1991 on the comparable figure for 1990. Similarly, accidents which involved injuries declined by 10 per cent. In addition to the need for stricter enforcement of existing road traffic laws, the Minister for the Environment is preparing a major amendment to the Road Traffic Acts, which will include provisions for an increase in the minimum disqualifications from one year to two years for dangerous or drunken driving convictions. Disqualification would be subject to review by the court after 12 months instead of the present six months; convicted drivers would be required to repeat the driving test; the introduction of a mandatory disqualification period for those convicted of drunken driving; the impounding of uninsured vehicles where proof of insurance has not been produced to the Garda within ten days of a request for same; a reduction in the permitted blood alcohol level; breath testing and closing of loopholes in drunk driving legislation, etc. The Minister for the Environment has already launched a road safety awareness plan as part of the road safety campaign by the National Safety Council which receives substantial funding from the Irish Insurance Federation.

In an effort to encourage safer driving by young drivers in particular, the Department of the Environment have invited the national association representing driving instructors to formulate proposals for the establishment, by the association, of a register of driving instructors. A crucial aspect to this initiative will be the adoption of criteria for driving instructors, including improvement of the content of driving lessons, in consultation with the Irish Insurance Federation.

The cost of personal injury compensation is a major factor in the current level of insurance costs, both for motor insurance and employers and public liability insurance. Initiatives by the Minister for Justice which should have a positive impact on the level of such compensation, in particular, the legal costs associated with personal injury claims, include the Courts (No. 2) Act, 1991, which was enacted on 16 July this year, increasing the monetary jurisdiction of the lower courts in civil liability cases. It is expected that the increase in the monetary jurisdiction of the Circuit Court from £15,000 to £30,000 should result in the Circuit Court dealing with about 35 per cent of the personal injury actions which otherwise would be disposed of by the High Court, thus providing a saving in legal expenses. Also included are legislative proposals which will contain a number of provisions of importance to the objective of improving the environment for insurance, including the establishment of a court of civil appeal, with very limited rights of further appeal to the High Court, in personal injuries actions, an extension to the powers of the taxing master in an effort to re-introduce a degree of control on legal costs in personal injury actions, and giving power to the master of the High Court for the introduction of pre-trial procedures.

The above initiatives, including an increase in the number of judges in the courts, should assist in enabling speedier court settlements of personal injury actions in addition to having a direct and positive impact on the level of legal and other costs associated with such actions. The impact of these measures and other proposed initiatives which are under consideration on motor and liability insurance costs will ultimately depend on the timing and extent of their implementation and, most importantly, the attitude of the insurance industry, the legal profession, other professions, including doctors, and the general public including businesses, employees and road users.

I have to say at this stage that while the road accident figures have shown a decline in the period 1 January to 31 August this year, the current rate of improvement is not quite as impressive as in the first six months of the year. Continued improvements in road safety, and even a stabilisation in the motor insurance claims rate, require co-operation of all road users and particularly motorists. In addition to the important life and health aspect of road safety, road users must appreciate that greater attention to safety on the roads is essential if the objective of improving the environment for motor insurance is to be achieved.

In relation to the achievement of greater safety in the workplace, employers and employees should cooperate with the National Association for Occupational Safety and Health. Again, improvement in the law and the enforcement of the law needs to be accompanied by a greater awareness on the part of the general public of the need to sustain the improvement of safety standards and safety records. While the road accident statistics and data on the motor insurance claims rates are already well documented in the public domain, I would like to draw the attention of Senators to the fact that the claim numbers in the liability insurance area have increased in recent years, for example, from 21,100 claims in 1988 to 23,100 claims in 1990. Clearly, if the claims rate keeps rising we must expect the insurance costs to rise also. Thus, the need to stress the need for greater attention to safety on the roads, in the workplace and in public places.

While the claims rate is a significant factor in motor and liability insurance costs, I would like to turn now to the question of the level of compensation in personal injury cases. The Government are endeavouring in the courts system to ensure that a speedier, more efficient and less costly method of settling personal claims is made available. It is now clear that initiatives which go beyond the objective of the Courts Act, 1988, which abolished the rights of trial before a jury in personal injury actions are required if compensation costs and associated legal costs are to be stabilised, much less reduced. I hope the Government and the Oireachtas will proceed with legislative proposals. I must stress at this point that there appear to be constitutional limits to what can be achieved by amendments or improvements to the existing statutory provisions which impact on the cost of the resolution of personal injury claims.

There are also other limits in the sense that in a democracy Government policies and attitudes must reflect the values and aspirations of society in general. We cannot and should not expect that insurance costs will be stabilised or reduced when, at the same time, we as a society expect, and even demand, the level of personal injury compensation that now obtains. Indeed, I note that a recent report by the Consumer Association stresses the responsibility that motorists themselves have, not just in relation to road safety but also in relation to the cost of insured injury compensation.

Research carried out by my Department suggests that the average cost of motor insurance claims in Ireland is considerably higher than in most of the other EC member states. Thus, it is not surprising that an EC-wide survey carried out by a French research company in 1990, based on a selection of family cars, found that Ireland had the highest third party motor insurance rates in the EC, while Irish comprehensive rates were the third highest. Individual insurers who operate in both jurisdictions have also cited examples where personal injury compensation in Ireland is considerably higher than awards made in the UK for similar injuries. In addition, it is expected that a consultancy report funded by the Irish Insurance Federation will shortly give further evidence that the compensation levels in this country substantially exceed those in the UK and Northern Ireland.

It is, of course, the Irish economy and Irish social attitudes that must sustain and accept the level of compensation for personal injuries caused by accident in this country. The total cost to motor and liability insurers of claims is almost 3 per cent of GNP. While this claims cost includes the cost of property damages as well as the most substantial cost of personal injury compensation, it does not include uninsured costs arising from personal injuries such as some social welfare and health costs, nor indeed the cost to the economy of production loss as a result of the inability to work because of injury. Can we really expect that our economy can sustain the current or possibly the even higher level of compensation, or will we continue to believe it is equitable to expect motorists and employers to continue to pay the level of insurance premiums that are economically necessary to sustain such levels of the compensation?

The chairman of the Motor Insurance Bureau of Ireland, the MIBI, in his address to the annual general meeting of the Bureau on 13 May 1991 concluded that their ratio of the cost of some of the Bureau's personal injury cases to similar claims in the UK was 4:1. In other words, the experience of the MIBI suggests that personal injury compensation in Ireland can be up to four times the UK level. The chairman of the MIBI also drew attention to the incidence, mentioned by Senator Farrell, of whiplash claims in Ireland and the mystery that tends to surround the accepted extent of the injuries that result from suffering whiplash.

The mention of whiplash brings me to the problem of spurious, dubious and sometimes fraudulent claims. Recent court decisions highlight the manner and perhaps the extent to which unscrupulous claimants seek to exploit the availabiity of personal injury compensation. This ongoing problem of spurious claims must be resolved. I have exhorted the insurance companies to do their utmost to resist these claims to the extent, if necessary, of providing available evidence which could assist the prosecution of wrongdoers in this regard.

It is well known by now that insurers suffered substantial losses in the underwriting of motor and liability insurances in 1989 and 1990. Rather than dwell on the statistics there is, I believe, a limit to the extent to which insurers can realistically expect to recoup further increased losses should these occur. Indeed in some instances there is resistance on the part of policy holders, or in some cases inability to pay the increasingly high rates that insurers consider necessary to sustain prudent underwriting. In addition, a motor insurer, albeit a company with a relatively small market share, recently announced it had decided to terminate the underwriting of motor insurance for the Irish market. This development serves as a reminder that the continuation of the present level of claims settlement, allied to the claims rate, may result in other insurers reviewing the desirability, from their own perspective, of continuing to provide motor or perhaps liability cover in the Irish market.

As demonstrated by the resumé which I gave earlier on the measures identified by the inter-ministerial group, the Government have and will continue to bring forward initiatives designed to improve the environment for insurance. Although I have no statutory role in this regard, I would expect insurance companies to control those factors within their ambit so that inefficiencies in the insurance sector do not give rise to any unnecessary costs which have to be borne by the community as a whole. However, neither Government, individual Ministers, the Oireachtas nor the insurance companies can do it all. Clearly we need, as a society, to review our attitudes to safety and to the level of personal injury compensation.

I will conclude by commending, for discussion during this debate, the fundamental issues I raised in this regard and I want to express my appreciation to Senators for raising this issue. It is a vital matter which affects the economy. We must ensure that we all take more care on the roads to prevent accidents in the first place.

The points made by Senators Farrell and Fallon and others clearly show the claim rate in our jurisdiction is very serious. I am delighted the Seanad decided to debate this issue and highlight the situation clearly. My Department and I are paying special attention to the contributions made in this House which will be of assistance to us in this matter.

I am glad to hear of the Minister's and the Government's concern about this ongoing problem.

In 1988, I bought a car in Germany, insured it in Belgium and, in 1990, brought it back to Ireland. I insured it in Ireland with a subsidiary of the company I was insured with in Belgium. Although the car was two years older it cost two and a half times as much to insure it here as it had cost when I insured it, brand new in Belgium. A quotation I obtained in Newry for the same car was slightly less than one third of what I had to pay in Cork. But the problem was that the insurance certificate I would get in Newry would not be acceptable to tax the car in Cork.

We have a serious problem here. While the Minister recognises it now, perhaps this is like the recognition of the Minister for Industry and Commerce some years ago when he said the cost of insurance would come down when we got rid of the jury system. In fact, the cost of insurance went up.

Excellent contributions have been made here tonight by Senators Fallon and Farrell and I agree with everything they said. We must accept, however, that the responsibility for changing the situation is in the Government's hands. It is difficult but it must be done. I was lucky enough to be able to pay the increased insurance for my car in Ireland, but there are hundreds of thousands of young people trying to obtain insurance and they cannot afford it. Some of them have been unable to take up jobs because employers would not accept them unless they were fully insured, with a full driver's licence. I heard an employer in Galway, on the radio recently, complaining about this. He had found an excellent young man but could not take him on because of the insurance problem.

We have a compensation conscious environment in this country now. This is disgraceful but we are not tackling it. Reference was made by a previous speaker to five people falling into the same hole, on the same night, in Dublin. I listened to the Gay Byrne Show where a young man admitted that he had planted himself in a hole in the road in Dublin and when he heard people coming he began to shout for help. He was lifted carefully out of the hole and taken to hospital. He later received and award of £2,500 from Dublin Corporation. Our best known broadcaster used the national airwaves, at the taxpayer's expense, to have a young man tell others how to defraud Dublin Corporation or any other corporation. Last week Bus Átha Cliath pointed out that insurance claims cost them £11 million last year, a rise of £3 million on the previous year. Only the Government can deal with such a situation.

Senator Fallon made the point that the derogation we obtained for insurance companies would not have made much difference. Perhaps this is so in the car sector, but why then did the Government had to ask for the derogation for their total non-life sector? It was a mistake. We should have allowed our drivers to go to Northern Ireland or elsewhere for their insurance certificates. That would solve the problem fairly quickly. Such certificates should legally be acceptable for taxation purposes. That would be a step in the right direction.

Having received this frightening quotation for the car I brought back, I went to the insurance company, told them I was insured with their parent company and asked them what was going on. I was very quickly told that, because of the legal situation in Ireland, car insurance in Ireland costs at least £70 more than the cost per driver in Belgium, that uninsured drivers cost a further £20 per car and a further £10 was added for the problems created by the collapse of PMPA. Straight away there was a £100 difference between the cost of insurance in Belgium and Ireland. This is intolerable and we are not doing anything about it.

The Minister referred to awards being four times as generous in Ireland as in Great Britain. I accept that awards are extremely generous. The Minister for Industry and Commerce admitted that some years ago, and promised that as soon as the jury system was abolished the matter would be rectified. The juries went, the judges took over these cases and the awards increased. Awards in this country are inconsistent as is sentencing for crimes. Judges require in-service training but they also need guidelines. In other countries, there is a figure set for particular types of injury, for example, the loss of an eye, the loss of a limb, or whiplash. Judges simply make the award that is due. Awards are now so generous that some people deliberately damage cars and make very substantial profits. They buy a secondhand car for little or nothing, insure it and get a friend to run into it with a tractor or some such thing. Such action pushes up the cost of insurance but, unfortunately, we seem to be incapable or unwilling to do anything serious about it.

Senator Fallon said, rightly, that insurance companies are very often unwilling to fight claims. This is because the legal costs would be greater than paying the award. Our problem is not unique. New Zealand, for instance and the State of Ontario in Canada had the same problem and tackled it. The Ontario plan was interesting. This is the information I was given:

The Ontario protection plan is a new insurance system that balances the goal of affordable insurance with the need to provide swift, humane and adequate compensation in the event of an accident... The new plan is designed to keep automobile insurance rates as low as possible and to ensure that more of the premium dollar goes to those who need it most, those injured in accidents. If you are injured in an accident you will be protected by the guaranteed benefits available under the new plan and in cases of serious injury you will continue to be able to sue for additional compensation. Serious injuries are those which meet what is known as "the threshold". The threshold is defined as "death, permanent, serious disfigurement or permanent serious impairment of an important bodily function caused by continuing injury which is physical in nature.

The Ontario motorists protection plan also introduces a new approach to vehicle damage. It states:

Under the new plan you will recover to the extent that you are not at fault for damage to your automobile and its contents from your own insurance company. For example, if you are 75 per cent at fault for the accident you would receive 25 per cent of your loss. If you have purchased optional collision coverage it will make up the other 75 per cent for which you were at fault.

I will read the concluding paragraph of this long document:

The new system is the Government's response to public concern that car insurance in Ontario was becoming too expensive. The new plan should help to stabilise costs and premia.

That is the kind of positive action we need to take in Ireland. We simply talk, moan and groan about it. I wish we could implement something like that in Ireland because it is totally unacceptable that so many young people are unable to get insurance and that those who get insurance have almost to pay more for their first year's premium than they paid for the car. It is totally unacceptable that we have to pay three times as much for car insurance as those in another jurisdiction which we are so critical of at times, that in addition to the fact that we are already paying substantially more for our cars than the British and the British, in turn, are paying substantially more for their cars than anybody else in the Community. We are caught in a situation here where the cost of motoring is prohibitive.

Cars are no longer a luxury, they are an essential for most people, even for young people. We urgently need action to be taken on this. I sincerely hope we get it because if we do not we will become less and less competitive. The cost of insurance, both motor and public liability, will make it unattractive to locate industry in Ireland and impossible to continue doing business here. I plead with the Minister to make a stronger case to the Government to get on with it and do something about it.

I welcome the debate and the wording of the motion "That Seanad Éireann notes with concern the cost of motor and public liability insurance and requests the Minister for Industry and Commerce to take urgent steps to remedy the position."

This was a particularly bad year for general insurance with record underwriting losses in motor and liability accounts. The deterioration in the underwriting results meant that the general insurers in the Republic lost an estimated £167 million on general insurance during 1990 compared with a loss of £90 million in the previous year. New claims rose by 14 per cent. A complaint made against insurance companies is that insurance costs in Ireland are substantially higher than in most other European countries. We have had more accidents per head of population than most European countries. We pay substantially more out in compensation to accident victims. These amounts, of course, are determined by the courts, or the standards are set out by the courts. Ireland has the highest level of uninsured drivers in Europe. During the past decade the number of claims has increased dramatically and the population has become very conscious of the legal aspect. The question must, therefore, be asked: are the courts too generous with damage's awards or too lenient, and do they make it easy for the plaintiff to succeed?

Aside from the increase in the numbers of claims and in fraudulent claims, the main reason, I understand, why insurance costs are so high is that the level of awards to accident victims is much higher than elsewhere. It is quite clear that while policy holders are happy enough to see accident victims paid large amounts of compensation they are not prepared to pay ever-increasing insurance premiums. From the insurers' point of view it is clear that as long as we continue to pay our accident victims substantially more in compensation than most of our European partners, our insurance costs will remain significantly higher than in other countries, even if the number of accidents is reduced.

Looking at the issues that confront the insurance industry in Ireland at present, one predominates all others and that is the high cost of insurance. The insurance industry has received adverse publicity over the past year following a number of significant increases in the cost of motor insurance. There is understandable concern at the high cost of insurance here and the insurance industry shares this concern on how to bring about a reduction in high insurance costs. The difficulty for the industry is that there is no direct control over the main factors which contribute significantly to the high cost of insurance. We do not police road traffic law. We do not determine the level of damages to be awarded to victims nor can we ensure that all motorists are insured.

There is a naive view in certain quarters that the opening up of Irish markets to foreign competition will somehow produce a miraculous drop in the cost of insurance in Ireland. Those who advocate this point of view seem to be unaware of the fact that by European standards the Irish market has the highest form of penetration of any insurance market in Europe. Over 75 per cent of the total premium income generated in the Irish market is now controlled either by branches of or subsidiaries of overseas companies. Most major European companies already have a presence in the Irish market. We are not talking about waiting for all these European companies to come here. They are here already.

We must realise that no company would be foolish enough to accept business from Ireland at rates which are likely to incur substantial losses. The high cost of insurance here at the moment is dictated by the high costs of claims and, consequently, no insurance company whether based in France, Germany, the UK, or wherever they may be can afford to undertake business in Ireland at rates which do not reflect the underlying cost of claims in this country.

The attitude of the courts probably encourages people to claim. It is difficult for large bodies and this was referred to by Senator Fallon; local authorities, semi-State bodies and insurance companies can hardly succeed in the courts at the moment. I will not further comment on that. It is generally known. I understand that solicitors are now to be allowed to advertise and I wonder how this will contribute to further costs.

Senators from all parties who took a stand and opposed doing away with juries were criticised by colleagues and some of us were lashed by our leaders. What have we today? It was a mistake to do away with juries. We were told at the time it would reduce the cost of insurance but it has gone the other way. I would like to pay a tribute to the Irish Public Bodies Insurance Company who have all our lives insured. Since the foundation of that company they have covered local authorities, all health boards and vocational education committees and have played an extraordinary role protecting all those groups.

This is a very important debate and I ask the Minister of State to convey our concerns to the Minister, Deputy O'Malley. I know the Minister and the style in which he does things and I ask him to look closely at the high cost of insurance. Young people cannot get insurance. That is tragic. Young people lucky enough to have a job have been quoted £2,000 and over for insurance if they do not have a full driving licence. That is extraordinary in today's world. We talk about Europe and what should be done at Maastricht, yet we have one of the highest insurance costs in Europe. I request the Minister for Industry and Commerce to take immediate action on this and I am sure the Minister of State will convey my message to him. I support the motion.

Who could disagree with this motion? We would love the price of everything to come down. It would be wonderful to pass a motion every week calling for the Government to take action to reduce the cost of insurance, excise duty, stamp duty on property and so on. The principle one agrees with but what is worth examining, I hope without any unnecessary filters of my judgment is the situation that pertains and what might contribute to it.

It is indisputable that insurance costs here are dramatically higher than in other countries. One of the problems appears to be that we allow the loading of insurance costs which makes it very difficult for those least likely to be able to pay the high cost to get insurance. It is an indisputable fact that insurance costs are out of line. Incidentally, the high cost of car hire is largely a consequence of the high cost of insurance. I would love to know how insurance companies work out the charge for insurance for car hire fleets. Is it on the basis of historical records? One cannot but be sceptical if it is based on the number of foreign tourists involved in accidents that result in court cases which, in turn, result in the award of damages or in the agreement of damages between two insurance companies or between a plaintiff and the insurance company.

I would like to know if they have been asked to explain and justify the way they target certain groups selectively. One case I regard as a scam is where a married couple have one car between them. One of that couple ceases to be the insured person but continues to drive as a adult over 25 years and under 70 fully covered by the other person's insurance. If after a few years the couple buy a second car they will discover that virtually every car insurance company will treat the second person, who gave up insurance maybe ten years ago, as a newly insured person and will not allow any of the previously earned no claim bonus. That is an unchallengeable fact, I have it confirmed in writing. The principle is that if you were not insured for more than three years you lose your entire no claims bonus whether or not there were claims. I do not believe there is one scrap of evidence from the courts or of judicial awards to justify that. That is a classic example of the lack of refinement in many of the financial services in this country: if you do not know, you charge high.

I can understand there are problems with certain groups, for instance, motor cyclists, because there are higher risks involved. However, there is no evidence to suggest that, in the example I gave, the person should be treated as a new case. I believe if you argue with them they will give you a different deal but their starting position is that you lose your no claims bonus because you stopped being an insured person.

In my experience taxi-drivers must be experienced drivers. They obviously have a personal interest in preserving their car and safety because their livelihood is at stake. I am profoundly sceptical about the basis on which insurance companies argue their case. They argue their case for rates on the basis of lack of profitability. You are in an unprofitable enterprise either because your income is too low or your costs are too high. I do not know why the costs of the car insurance industry are too high. It could also be because awards are too high. Maybe they are, I do not know. It could also be because they are inefficient and sloppily run with enormously large overheads. The suggestions made from time to time that there will be some sort of derogation from 1992 for the Irish insurance industry confirm one's suspicion that there must be something of a scam going on.

I know that various Ministers have investigated this industry. I am not suggesting that it was not done with the best of intentions, but I am sceptical about the real degree of competition in the business. I am amazed every so often when suddenly somebody discovers a category which can be given special offers. It took them years to realise that it might be reasonable to suggest that a person who does not drink is a lower risk than a person who does drink. That is perfectly reasonable. The Minister of State is a lesser risk driving a car than I am and I say that quite happily. He will never succumb to the temptation to be in charge of a car while intoxicated. It is, therefore, perfectly reasonable and logical to argue that he should be charged a different rate of car insurance to me — not that I will do much out of the way on that score anymore. I am too sensible at this stage in my life to do things like that and what happened to my colleagues on my left and on my right taught me a lesson.

The insurance companies then discovered that women were safer drivers than men. Not so long ago I heard an insurance company tell a woman, the joint owner of a car, that she would have to get her husband's signature. This was before we changed the law. It suggests to me that our insurance companies, particularly in motor insurance, have not had much of an incentive to go and look at the spread of risk. For instance, why do they not talk about different degrees of driving skill among young drivers? Why do they not offer young drivers an incentive to develop their driving skills? Why do they pretend there is no difference between a young person who has been a named driver on his or her parent's insurance and a young driver who has no driving experience? It is nonsense to suggest that there is no difference between them. The insurance companies pretend there is no difference.

It is like the classic case of the airline pilot where the number of hours solo flying one does determines one's degree of expertise, although one is also expected to have been a co-pilot. This means there has been a build up of experience. To suggest that a young driver who has considerable years of experience as a named driver on somebody else's insurance is the same in terms of risk as somebody who has not had such experience is nonsense. We ought to build into the pricing structure of car insurance incentives for young people who have documentable driving experience to underline the fact that they are not just raw recruits.

Insurance companies are not market driven. I am not a great believer in market economics but one of the things I know about is that it never works. Adam Smith said 200 years ago when he developed his famous theory that you did not have a real free market unless no participant in the market was so big that his absence would affect the market. In other words, there had to be so many people in the marketplace for the departure of one of the alternative providers of a service not to affect the market. Does anybody believe that the departure of one of the major motor insurers would not affect the market? Of course it would. Therefore, we are not in a real free market. In effect, the insurance industry have a gun which they can put to the Government's head: we cannot make money, therefore we must increase charges. It is not politically feasible for a Government to carry out a detailed assessment of their claim.

I agree with Senator Honan, not for the first time. I never believed that the abolition of juries would make the least bit of difference. I must be careful not to get into big trouble——

I said it.

When Senator Honan hears what I have to say she will realise why I have to be careful.

I would not rely on her.

I am tempted to enter into controversy but it is late and I will not. I never fall into these temptations as you know.

In determining an average judge's view of what is reasonable minimal compensation is liable to be substantially bigger than that of an average jurer because what a judge regards as a small sum is quite different from what an ordinary citizen with an ordinary income would regard it. Recently a relative of mine — I am delighted for her — was awarded more by an eminent judge than either the insurance company's solicitor or her solicitor sought. The figure her solicitor sought and the insurance company offered was actually less than the eminent judge awarded her because this man's view of what was reasonable compensation, like the rest of us, was influenced by what he was used to. It was always a bad idea and there is no reason we should not have cases heard by juries. There is nothing as good as public opinion to keep things under control. We would find that juries would take a more rational approach to what was an allowable level of compensation. If the damages awarded are excessively large——

I have no objection, and I am sure the House has no objection, to the Senator continuing to 8 p.m. On the other hand, Senator Ó Cuív is present.

How much time have I left?

Two minutes.

I will be finished in two minutes if Senator Ó Cuív wants to speak. I would be the last Member to want to be in breach of Standing Orders.

In the circumstances, if the House agrees I have no objection.

Connemara time; it is always a few minutes after ordinary time.

The other side of the argument is to find out why we have a high incidence of road accidents with consequential court cases and why we have high insurance costs. Every person paying any kind of insurance in this country is paying for the PMPA debâcle.

With the fortunate exception of the drink driving regulations, our rules of the road are unenforced. How many people take the speed limit remotely seriously any more? How many Members of this House or of the Dáil, including myself, would say conscientiously, with their hand on their hearts, that they watch the speedometer on an open road to make sure it does not exceed the official speed limit? For a long time I was not sure of the official speed limit. How many people travelling through small towns and villages actually slow down to 30 mph? Most people slow down from 70 mph to about 40 mph and find that so tediously slow that they cannot bring themselves to slow down any further. If you slow down to 30 mph you will have a queue of cars shooting past. If an impatient garda is waving you through a junction and you go through at 30 mph in an urban area you are liable to get very dirty looks from him.

I do not think we take the rules of the road seriously. We do not take car safety seriously. We have a mixum-gatherum of rules which are rarely enforced. How often is somebody penalised for having bald tyres on a car, except when there has been an accident? The purpose of enforcing rules like the quality of tyres is to prevent accidents not to penalise people after there has been an accident.

If you are driving from Dublin to Cork and meet one speed trap along the way, you can take it for granted you can travel at whatever speed you like for the rest of the journey because the chances of meeting a second trap are close to zero. We do not seriously enforce any of the rules of the road.

In city driving people regard traffic lights as a delay rather than something that actually stops you and people, particularly cyclists and to a lesser extent motorists, ignore traffic lights. They judge for themselves on the basis of what traffic is coming whether they will break the lights. Look at the thousands of journeys people make every day and look at the small number of people who are prosecuted for not wearing a seat belt, for instance. This disrespect for the law results in an excessive number of accidents causing injuries and involving excessive costs for the average driver. There is sufficient evidence and considerable suspicion abroad that these companies are not efficient. We are urgently in need of what I regard as a necessary part of any coherent road safety policy which is an independent traffic police force established exclusively to enforce the rules of the road. This would save not only money but lives also.

Debate adjourned.

When is it proposed to sit again?

At 10.30 a.m. tomorrow.

Top
Share