Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 19 Dec 2012

Vol. 220 No. 1

Equal Status (Amendment) Bill 2012: Second Stage

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Minister of State at the Department of Justice and Equality (Deputy Kathleen Lynch)

I am pleased to present to the House the Equal Status (Amendment) Bill 2012, which will give effect in Ireland to the mandatory introduction within the EU of unisex premiums and benefits in private insurance to which Council Directive 2004/113/EC applies. This directive, informally known as the gender goods and services directive, implements the principle of equal treatment between men and women in access to and supply of goods and services. In its decision of 1 March 2011, in a case taken by a Belgian consumer rights organisation, the Court of Justice of the European Union declared that Article 5(2) of the directive would be invalid with effect from 21 December 2012. This decision, known as the Test-Achats ruling, is binding on all member states of the EU. The provision that was struck down had allowed an exception from the principle of equal treatment enunciated in the regulation so that insurance companies could price life and motor insurance products differently for men and women, where this difference is reasonable and supported by actuarial or statistical data. Ireland availed of this exemption in the Equal Status Act 2000, permitting gender differentiation to continue in the areas of motor insurance, life assurance, critical illness cover, income protection cover and private annuities and pensions.

The effect of the ruling is that Ireland is obliged to prohibit, by law, the selling of private insurance products which differentiate, by gender, on price or benefits and to have such provisions in force on or before 21 December 2012. The unisex rule will apply to all contracts concluded for the first time as and from that date. It also applies to agreements between parties as and from 21 December 2012 to extend contracts concluded before that date, which would otherwise have expired. The European Commission has issued guidance on the application of this judgment on national legislation transposing Council Directive 2004/113/EC and on insurance industry practices.

I have taken due regard to this guidance - and to the intention stated in the directive to avoid a sudden readjustment of the insurance market - in determining the amendments to the Equal Status Acts necessary to ensure compliance with the ruling. As I will explain, these amendments are largely technical in nature. For me and my colleagues in government, this ruling highlights the crucial importance of achieving legal clarity in the drafting of legislation at European level to ensure that such instruments are interpreted and have the impact intended. The Government is conscious of the potential for confusion and misinformation among consumers and insurance providers alike of these changes to the private insurance market. For this reason, in October the Department of Justice and Equality published an information note for consumers on the new rules on the permitted use of gender by insurance providers and sources of further information and advice. The information note is widely available through public information channels such as the Citizens Information Board. It is also available on the Department's website. I wish to again express our thanks to the industry bodies - the Irish Insurance Federation, the Irish Brokers Association, the Professional Insurance Brokers Association and the Society of Actuaries in Ireland - which, along with the Departments of Finance, Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation and Social Protection, the Central Bank, the National Consumer Agency, the Citizens Information Board, the Pensions Board, the Equality Authority and the Financial Services Ombudsman's Bureau, contributed to the preparation of this advice for consumers.

In some quarters, the potential for this change to lead to increases in the premiums charged, not least in motor insurance and life assurance, has given rise to concern. The Government takes seriously concerns expressed about the risk that some providers might seek to exploit the change to maximise their profits to the detriment of consumers. It was made very clear to the industry - in consultations on the Bill - that the State's consumer protection and insurance regulatory bodies do not view such developments favourably. The Central Bank, the National Consumer Agency and the Competition Authority each has specific statutory roles in promoting and protecting consumer interests, which will be engaged as needed. This is in addition to the investigative and advisory powers of the Equality Authority in respect of discriminatory practices by insurance providers and the existing individual complaints mechanism under the Equal Status Acts, which will continue to apply.

I should stress that it has also been made very clear to the industry that the European Commission intends to monitor the evolution of the insurance market and of overall price levels post-December 2012. The Commission has not ruled out taking appropriate action in the event of anti-competitive conduct by insurance providers.

I now wish to highlight some of the main provisions of the Bill. Section 2 provides for the amendment of section 5 of the Equal Status Act 2000. It limits the existing derogation from the prohibition on gender discrimination in specified insurance products - provided in section 5 of the Equal Status Act - to contracts concluded before 21 December 2012. This is to ensure that the prohibition on gender-differentiated insurance, with effect from 21 December 2012, will not affect existing contracts lawfully entered into before that date. The scope of the prohibition is then expanded by providing in a new subsection (4A) that all contracts within the categories of motor or life insurance concluded for the first time as and from 21 December 2012 must comply with the unisex rule.

For the avoidance of doubt - and because to determine otherwise would result in a sudden readjustment of the motor insurance market, contrary to the intention of the directive - the second paragraph of the new subsection provides that mid-term adjustments to motor insurance contracts concluded before 21 December 2012 are not considered to be new contracts for this purpose. The section also provides that the obligation imposed on the Central Bank of Ireland to compile, maintain and publish data to support the existing derogation will cease to have effect from 21 December 2012. The bank's obligation to maintain and publish data compiled before that date will not be affected. Consequential to the cessation of this obligation, section 5 provides for the amendment of section 41 of the principal Act. This section will have the effect of terminating the Minister's power, which is no longer required, to make regulations in respect of the data to be compiled, published and maintained by the Central Bank.

Section 3 provides for the amendment of section 14 of the principal Act in order to clarify that insurance providers may continue to collect, store and use gender status or gender-related information which is bona fide intended for the purposes of reserving and internal pricing, reinsurance pricing and life and health underwriting. For example, it is envisaged that insurance providers may continue to gather and use gender data in connection with offering gender-specific insurance products and options within contracts to cover conditions, such as breast cancer or prostate cancer, which exclusively or primarily concern males or females.

I have also taken the opportunity afforded in this Bill to address a minor procedural issue regarding equal status complaints referred to the Equality Tribunal for mediation. Section 4 provides for the amendment of section 24 of the 2004 Act to extend the time available to persons who have referred such complaints to apply for resumption of the hearing in instances in which mediation has not resolved the dispute between the parties. The amendment will extend the period after the issuance of a notice of non-resolution within which a complainant is allowed to make an application in writing for a resumption of the hearing from 28 days to 42 days. This amendment applies the same conditions to complaints under the Equal Status Acts on failure of mediation which are already applicable to the resumption of complaints under the Employment Equality Acts. The remaining provisions contained in the Bill are of a standard or technical nature.

I reiterate that the State has no option but to ensure that national law complies with the European Court of Justice's interpretation of the gender goods and services directive in this instance and I again draw the attention of the House to the essentially technical nature of these amendments. I thank Senators for their attention and I look forward to the detailed discussions on the legislation. I commend the Bill to the House.

Senator Denis O'Donovan

I welcome the Minister of State. Fianna Fáil will be supporting the Bill. It is unfortunate that it has become necessary to legislate in this area as a result of the ruling handed down by the European Court of Justice. I understand the legislation must come into effect on 21 December next. This is not happening before time. I would go a step further in respect of this matter and demand that those who, in an aggressive fashion, took large sums of money primarily from young men - 98% of whom are very responsible - should be obliged to reimburse them for a risk that never existed. When he turned 18, my eldest son purchased a car for £1,000 and was obliged to pay insurance of £2,900 in respect of it. His sister, who is a year older than him, learned to drive the following year and obtained her insurance for £700 as a result of her gender. That was absolutely scandalous. My son has been driving for 12 years and he has never had an accident. Active discrimination of this sort was commonplace at the time. The excuse that young men are responsible for many road accidents has never been good enough. I am glad the European Court of Justice has taken action to compel the Government to introduce legislation. I am not making a political point here, because the previous Government should have acted in this regard. This matter did not arise overnight and something should have been done about it long ago. This is one of the areas in respect of which insurance companies are very quick to manoeuvre situations to their financial gain.

Flood alerts have been issued in respect of Skibbereen and Bandon today. Many business people and householders in these towns are no longer in a position to take out insurance on their properties as a result of previous flooding. Where is the risk equality in such circumstances? I have made the point on previous occasions that every person should be entitled to insurance, particularly in circumstances in which whatever happened is not his or her fault. The towns to which I refer were not built on flood plains but they are now, as a result of climate change or whatever, being flooded quite regularly. Some of the buildings in Skibbereen and Bandon are 200 or 300 years old. There is no fairness in respect of this issue.

The Government must ensure that the changes proposed in the Bill will not, as some observers fear, result in riskier behaviour on our roads. A number of strict measures introduced by successive Governments and the Road Safety Authority, which deserves great credit, have made Irish roads substantially safer. I predict that the figure for deaths on our roads this year will hopefully be the lowest recorded in my lifetime. In the 1960s and 1970s, between 600 and 700 people were killed on our roads each year. I accept that the condition of roads then was bad, but there were two thirds fewer vehicles on them. I am glad we are going in the right direction in this regard.

Overall insurance costs must be kept down for ordinary consumers who are struggling to make ends meet. The changes that are being implemented on foot of the decision of the European Court of Justice should spur the Government on to tackle insurance costs in respect of all insurance holders. Insurance companies should be encouraged to find ways to better measure risk taking by drivers in order to ensure that the costs are fairly borne by those who present the greatest threat.

Perhaps the Minister of State and the Government will take the points I have made on board. There is a need for a wide-ranging debate on insurance. This is an old hobby horse of mine. Many places throughout the country, including Kilkenny, Ballinasloe, Fermoy and Cork city, have been affected by flooding, which is very unfortunate. I wrote to the Irish Insurance Federation in respect of this matter and I have raised it in the House on a few occasions. I would laud any Minister or Department that tries to tackle the great injustice that exists in this regard.

There was a time when I used to insure my car and house willy-nilly. I never bothered to check my policies. However, in the past four to five years - perhaps as a result of the recession - I have shopped around. Many people now shop around in respect of their car and, in particular, house insurance. It is worthwhile doing so because one will obtain value for money. In one instance, I saved almost €300 by shopping around in respect of my house insurance. Perhaps solicitors were to blame but people used to be afraid of under-insuring their properties because they believed that, in the event of a fire or whatever, their claims would be paid on a pro-rata basis and they would not receive the full amount. The wheel has turned full circle because property values have fallen to such a degree. Members of the public should be conscious of ensuring that realistic values are attached to their homes. For example, a family home that was valued at €400,000 five to seven years ago is probably worth only €185,000 now.

Senator David Norris

The cost of rebuilding must be taken into account.

Senator Denis O'Donovan

Building costs have also fallen, as have site values. Consumers must take action on this matter because an insurance company is hardly going to highlight the fact that someone's home is worth a great deal less than used to be the case.

If a customer does not seek to establish a realistic value for his or her house, an insurance company will not come out to one's house and say it is worth much less than the value the customer has put on it. I am aware of a house that was built by a local authority on Bear Island for a family in need. The site was owned by the family. There was a delay in building it and the cost involved fell from €200,000 to approximately €105,000. Value for money could be obtained and builders were competitive in their prices. As many people who worked in the construction industry are unemployed, one can get good value for money if one shops around.

We fully support the Bill. As a result of a lack of action dating back not only during the term of this Government but a number of years, Europe has propelled and forced us to make changes that I view as very appropriate. It is probably a little too late for many people who have suffered.

Senator Paul Bradford

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Lynch, to the House and I also welcome this legislation. I would make two points that may be slightly irrelevant but in a sense they are connected to the debate on this legislation and to the previous debate given that the Minister of the State is taking the Bill. They relate to the question of the equality of what is being forced upon us or the measures we are bringing about as a result of a European directive. The Minister of State will probably concede that her political career took off in a major fashion, certainly in a public way, arising from a European directive on equality of social welfare treatment. It was a campaign which the Minister of State, who was then I presume a councillor, led in the Cork region, which was under way for a long time and eventually, from a social welfare perspective, women throughout the country benefited from a decision taken in Europe.

However, it is interesting we are having this debate immediately after the debate on the foggy area of health insurance and risk equalisation, and decisions apparently being forced upon us from outside this House. Decisions coming from Brussels are generally beneficial, as was the equal status in terms of social welfare treatment. If this legislation was to result in the cost of insurance dropping for every citizen in this country, we would welcome it with open arms, but we have to be a little more cynical and patient and ask what exactly will be its impact. The march of equality in this regard will result possibly in car insurance premiums being increased for every female driver in the country. That is a little ironic but I suspect there will not be any corresponding drop in the price of motor insurance for male drivers. That will have to be strongly monitored.

I agree with a good deal of what the previous speaker said, whether we are discussing the subject of car, house or health insurance. The response of the consumer during the past decade sadly has been to pay the higher rate and to concede that the battle has been lost. The response of every Government during the past ten or 15 years on the health insurance area has been to sanction increase after increase. The previous Health Insurance (Amendment) Bill, which I reluctantly had to support, will not help in that regard. Judgments from Europe are fine and generally they are helpful but we have a big job of work to do at home to ensure, whether we are discussing equality or any other measure, that the consumer gets the best possible deal.

The headlines we read about this legislation did not indicate, as sadly I noted, that male drivers will pay less but rather that female drivers will pay more. That might be equality but it is not the best form of it. We have said in the Seanad on many previous occasions that in regard to every item of legislation we pass, whether it be European or domestic legislation and whether it be on health insurance, car insurance, equality directives or other measures, we should ask ourselves what will be the impact of the legislation in terms of jobs. Will it result in the Irish economy being more competitive and creating more jobs? The jury is out in regard to this.

The Government must be much more proactive in trying to drive down costs. The income of every citizen of this country has been substantially reduced compared to their income three of four years ago. Every worker, be he or she in the private sector or the public sector, is receiving less and yet the service providers employing some of those workers are not charging less on the whole. I acknowledge that is a slightly sweeping statement. We need to engage in a war against costs. In the 1980s there was an active campaign to tackle inflation and it resulted, sometimes at painful costs excuse the pun, in reducing inflation from 20% to lower figures. We have to tackle costs. Perhaps it is the mentality of the Celtic tiger but we have not been challenging enough, be it of insurance companies, health providers or others, of the costs being imposed on the consumer. I will not say that this decision is being forced upon us but the European institutions have made a judicial decision and we must live with it. It will not benefit as far as I can gather male drivers, rather it will penalise female drivers. They will pay more. We have to look at the broader issue of how we can drive down the cost of insurance.

I welcome the legislation in the sense that it is a fait accompli. From an equality perspective, perhaps it is the correct decision in this wonderful world we are trying to create of having everything equal where everybody will be alike and think, talk, walk, work alike - the nirvana of equality. However, in the practical world in which most of us live and from an economic perspective we must be more vigilant. As a Government and an Oireachtas, we must be more proactive to drive down the cost of living for the very hard-pressed consumer. I look forward to seeing how this legislation will work in practice. We need to monitor the figures and statistics because we have given too much of a carte blanche to all service providers, be they insurance or other providers, during the past decade and the consumer is paying too much for too many things.

Senator Feargal Quinn

The Minister of State is welcome although I cannot say the same for this legislation. It is interesting to note that Ireland, the UK and Spain are the countries believed to be the ones that will be most affected by this ruling because gender-based pricing is most commonly used in them. I would like to know if a cost analysis has been done of this. It was interesting to hear the two previous speakers talk about costs. How will this legislation affect the consumer? I draw attention to the fact a think-tank called Open Europe last year estimated that on average a 17 year old female driver will now have to pay roughly an extra €5,000 in insurance premiums by the time she reaches the age of 26 and that is as a consequence of this ruling. Unfortunately, in a general sense, there is too little consideration in legislative measures of the immediate effect of their provisions on citizens and businesses. Has the Government come up with its own figures on this?

I broadly welcome the principle of not allowing companies to discriminate according to gender. In a similar way, employers are not allowed to discriminate against women on the basis that they may have children and are more likely to take leave for maternity purposes but not all women become pregnant, and in a similar fashion, not all men are high risk.

On a broader level, I wonder if we can discriminate on the basis of age. We recently discussed legislation in the Seanad on not forcing employees to retire at a certain age, on which Senator White expressed a strong view. Does this mean that in principle the Europe Union finds gender discrimination wrong but age discrimination is okay? That is an interesting question to consider. Medical and insurance companies would have to massively change if a case regarding age discrimination came before the European Court of Justice.

My first concern as somebody who has been involved in business is that, on paper, insurance companies will say that premiums will generally fall for young men and will rise for females. The two previous speakers have also said that there is a danger that insurance companies will simply use the opportunity to raise the rates for females and keep the rates for young males the same. The Minister of State said, "The Central Bank, the National Consumer Agency and the Competition Authority each has specific statutory roles in promoting and protecting consumer interests", but I have grave doubts as to whether they will happen. I believe it will be a win-win situation for the insurance companies. How can we ensure that savings will be passed on to consumers? Can the Minister of State comment on this type of monitoring or will the insurance companies be big winners in this? I would like to know if the Financial Regulator, the Department of Transport, Tourism or Sport or even one of the multitude of quangos is planning to check whether the 25 year old will get a drop of €250 in his insurance premium? Will he simply have to trust the insurance companies?

I am very concerned that there are other underhand methods of profiling drivers. Insurance companies use other statistics to find out the gender of a driver. For instance, they may determine how many drivers of a particular type of car are women. They may ask the percentage of nurses or primary school teachers who are female. Such data will likely be used in what the insurance companies call "profiling". Company car drivers are more likely to be male and could be charged more.

It has been suggested insurance companies may try to get around the rules by putting cars typically bought by young men in a higher insurance category which, in turn, would increase their premiums. What is the Government planning in this regard? Will the insurance companies effectively ignore the ruling, use their vast databases and come up with their own methods of identifying gender? As anybody who makes an inquiry of an insurance company knows, rates vary widely and can drop dramatically when one says one intends to change insurance company. The consumer is often not in a strong position if his or her insurance product which may be offered by only a handful of companies is one that he or she is legally compelled to buy. There is no strong competition in the sector.

I would like to see an investigation into practices in the insurance industry, including cost of repair pricing. It is common knowledge that there are two prices, one of which is charged for repairs commissioned by the insurance company. This is sometimes twice the price charged to an individual who goes into a garage on his or her own to have a vehicle repaired. When somebody dents the bumper of a two year old car, the insurance company will often state it is too uneconomical to repair and offer the consumer €100. This is not to mention the struggles consumers face with certain insurance companies for an award if they make a claim. The consumer would benefit greatly from a wide-ranging investigation into common practices in the insurance industry. The consumer feels powerless to do anything.

An interesting and slightly philosophical point concerns the increase in bicycle use. Should we consider a small premium for those who use their bicycles, especially those who commute? After all, bicycle users are road users also. Surely we should not discriminate against different road users. According to the RSA, in 2010 five pedal cyclists were killed and 399 were injured in collisions. Pedal cyclists constitute approximately 2% of all road fatalities.

Does the ruling mean that more young men will be able to start motoring at an earlier age? Does this increase the risk of accidents occurring?

Will the Minister comment on the position on pension annuities? The decision of the European Court of Justice will also affect the cost of buying an annuity, an annual pension income, as women live longer than men and thus receive a smaller annual pension for the same pot of money. Men will receive a smaller annuity income than they do now when their benefits are brought into line with those for women. I am worried that this will lead to a lowering of pension incomes. Will the Minister of State comment on this? There is a clear difference in average life expectancy for men and women. This change of circumstances could affect both sexes in different ways.

Will the Minister of State confirm that insurance companies will in no way be able apply provisions of this ruling retrospectively to long-term policies such as life assurance policies? This is to allay people's concerns completely on the matter.

I have asked many questions and hope we will have time to debate the matter fully. I am aware that there is an earlier signature motion and that the Minister of State referred to the deadline of 21 December, but there are a number of questions we really need to answer.

Senator Susan O'Keeffe

I thank the Minister for attending.

Like others, I welcome the Equal Status (Amendment) Bill. It is not often we welcome a measure that could increase prices, at least for people like me, but I understand most of the price increases affecting women will affect younger women. Once one is over the age of 40 or 45 years - sadly, I am in this age bracket – the price difference becomes much less significant. Therefore, as Senator Feargal Quinn and others implied, price changes will occur at the bottom end of the market where there has been such a difference. Senator Denis O'Donovan referred to the weighting for his son and younger men.

My understanding of the legislation is that insurance companies will continue to use gender but will not be able to base their decisions on gender alone. Companies set up to sell insurance to women will not be able to say that because one is a woman, one's premium will be lower. Although one's gender will be taken into account, other factors, including one's driving record, will also be taken into account. Given that there is confusion, the Minister of State may be able to clarify the matter. Insurance companies will not rule out the fact that an individual is a woman or a man, but they will have to regard that fact as just one factor in the mix in determining the rating of his or her insurance premium.

Drives for equality are always welcome, although they do draw attention to some complexities. I concur with Senator Feargal Quinn on some of his queries on this matter. I appreciate that the Competition Authority is set to put a mechanism in place to monitor the price change that is inevitable. The difficulty it will face is that it will not be able to do so in the shorter term. We will not be able to see trends emerging in the shorter term, unless insurance companies are very blatant about how they change their prices. If they are more subtle and there is a focus on individual cases, it will take longer to work out whether prices are being increased simply because of this legislation.

I trust that the Competition Authority's mechanism is already properly developed and that we will not see big lags. On 22 December, when the legislation will allow insurance companies to change their prices, we must not be left waiting for the Competition Authority. We cannot wait until the middle of March, April or July for it to be up and running; it ought to be up and running straightaway. The Department of Finance and the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation have stated they will organise a large-scale review, but this is dependent on the Competition Authority's monitoring of price changes. Therefore, there is considerable opportunity for the slippage that nobody wants to see. As various Members have said, we are more than aware of the need to try to contain costs at this time. Senator Paul Bradford referred to this difficulty.

The next matter I wish to raise relates to health insurance. I am not clear whether some health insurance premiums are weighted for women. Since women live longer than men, will their insurance policies be more expensive? If one is living longer, one is more inclined to be ill. Is the Minister of State in a position to clarify the matter?

I concur with those Members who asked for a debate on the broader issues that arise. We are here today to pass this legislation which we are forced to pass by the European Union.

Calls have been made in the United Kingdom for the use of black boxes. Individual drivers could have their own black box, with which term we are familiar from aeroplanes. With the black box, each driver would have a record of how he or she drove. Just as personalised health products are coming down the tracks – drug companies are now much more capable of providing drugs tailored to people's needs – we will have personalised insurance products. I suspect this is not as far off as it sounds. Does the Government have plans to encourage, introduce or legislate for the use of black boxes? Might having them result in greater equality? It would not matter whether one was a man or woman; what would matter is how one drove. That is at the heart of the matter, particularly where motor insurance is concerned.

Senator David Norris

I oppose this Bill, as it is a load of nonsense. The insurance market depends on the calculation of actuarial risk. Women comprise a distinct group and carry a particular actuarial risk. It is perfectly appropriate that insurance companies deal with them in that manner. The same applies to young people, although it may be unfortunate for the good drivers within that group. As that is how insurance works, this legislation is complete and utter nonsense.

The legislation is also contradictory. The Minister of State indicated gender-specific insurance groups and we are catering for gender specificity in that regard. This legislation derives from the European Union. Just because it behaves in a nonsensical way, we are coerced into doing so. This is direct rule by European Union. I hope there will be a vote and look forward to voting against the Bill for the reasons outlined. It is political correctness gone mad.

On road safety, I commend Gay Byrne and Mr. Brett on the wonderful job they have done. I sat in this House while the Senator next to me on the university benches derided Gay Byrne. That was in a previous Parliament. Gay Byrne has done a wonderful job. It may seem silly, but even on his Sunday radio programme he affects the consciousness of people on this issue. He constantly reminds them of the issues. It is wonderful our road fatality rates have dropped as they have. The crucial issue is that we must watch to ensure insurance premiums reduce, and we will be forced to do this by Europe. It would not be appropriate that on the basis of a ruling such as this, insurance companies would make a profit.

When I saw the words "equal status (amendment)" in the Title of this Bill, I thought this was good and that the Government was at last going to do something about the exemption of the churches in the operation of equality legislation. That would be interesting. Will the Minister of State bring that message to the Government? It is nonsense that we exempt religious bodies so that they can, for example, fire people from schools. They have not done that, but they can do it. That is a real equality issue, particularly with regard for jobs paid for by taxpayers.

I am also interested in the question of marriage equality. We had a nonsensical -----

Acting Chairman (Senator Pat O'Neill)

The Senator should deal with the Bill before us. He can raise those other matters on the Adjournment sometime.

Senator David Norris

I will deal with what I want to deal with and will continue to say what I want to say. I thank the Chair for his advice and I will note it.

It would be more appropriate to deal with this. We dealt with a Bill on this issue, the Civil Registration (Amendment) Bill, which provided quite openly that humanists and wizards and witches and holy rollers of various kinds can perform marriages. I now find myself in a State where, as a second-class citizen, I can be married by a witch, but I cannot be married as or to a fairy. I honestly think the Minister of State should take that under her wing and bring it back to Cabinet, because that is a human issue that affects people, not the nonsense we are dealing with today. I hope there will be five upstanding persons, of whatever gender, here to enable me to register my vote of protest against Europe.

Acting Chairman (Senator Pat O'Neill)

I am delighted the Senator clarified that it was not the Senator beside him now to whom he referred.

Senator Cáit Keane

I welcome the Minister of State. It is with some reservation that I welcome this Bill. I must accept the inevitable. It is a lovely Christmas present for the women of Ireland to know that one of the presents they will receive is an increase in their car insurance, not because they are a higher risk, but because they are women. I would love equality legislation to apply everywhere, but this legislation states clearly that the legislation does not apply to employment or occupational pensions.

I raised an issue in the Seanad yesterday with regard to the new OECD report which indicates women pay a high price for motherhood. It has been demonstrated that the earning power of women who were top earners decreased as the number of children they had increased. The same thing seems to be happening in the case of driving. It is not that women are more of a risk, but that they happen to be women.

Senator David Norris

They do not have to insure against prostate cancer.

Senator Cáit Keane

The Senator is worse than Senator Norris now, deviating from the issue before us.

Senator Cáit Keane

I am not. I am making a point.

Senator David Norris

Deviants are wonderful people.

Senator Cáit Keane

I am talking about equality. The explanatory memorandum and the Bill mention this amendment does not apply to employment. I am putting on the agenda that it should apply to employment. I also point out that because of our bureaucrats in Europe, probably mostly men, the legislation does not apply to all aspects of being a woman. Just because a man cannot have a baby does not mean women should be discriminated against in the workforce.

Senator Denis O'Donovan

Perhaps the Senator could explain how women live longer.

Senator Cáit Keane

I would like to see the cost of insurance for young men and women who are not a risk reduced. Risk must be a factor. I welcome this Bill, with reservations. Women are as good drivers as men any day.

Senator Susan O'Keeffe

Better.

Senator Cáit Keane

I agree there should be equality. I am prepared to pay and to be tested alongside any man, but insurance should be based on risk, not gender. Rather than the cost for women going up, the Consumer Association of Ireland should ensure the cost for men reduces. A survey should be carried out on this. Some Senator has said we all think alike, walk alike and will soon dress alike. We will not. We do not think alike, act alike or do anything alike. The one bank in Iceland that did not fail was the one led by a woman. Companies that have women on their boards are -----

Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh

Maybe we should have followed Iceland's economic policy and burnt the bondholders.

Acting Chairman (Senator Pat O'Neill)

Senator Keane should conclude. Somebody said this would be an easy Bill to get through the House.

Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh

Tá Sinn Féin i bhfábhar an Bhille seo mar gur athrú teicniúil atá i gceist go bunúsach agus go bhfuil sé ag teacht, mar a dúradh, leis an rialú atá déanta ag an gCúirt Eorpach.

With regard to insurance, we should consider the role of statistical evidence about risk factors when the price of insurance is being determined. Insurance premiums are based on risk factors. In general, women receive lower premiums as there is a lower risk attached to women drivers. Geographical location is a further risk assessment factor. Insurance costs are much higher in some parts of this country than in others because a higher proportion of road traffic accidents take place in such locations. There is for and against this. I feel this policy can be quite punitive for some areas, but it is the reality.

We have concerns that the legislation will not result in lower insurance premiums for male drivers, but higher premiums for female drivers, as has been highlighted. I note the Minister of State has alluded to the organisations that will look at this. Is she happy the safeguards she has outlined will be sufficient. If not, are there any steps the Government and the Department of Transport intend to take to ensure this does not transpire and that insurance companies do not take unfair advantage of this legislation? This is pertinent when we consider what happened with the Bank of Ireland and credit cards. We have seen much good will with regard to legislation passed in these Houses, where the banks and other institutions are supposed to do what they are told, but when it comes to the crunch that does not happen and the consumers end up paying. I fear the same will happen with the insurance companies. Despite all our good will and good intentions, insurance companies are there to make a profit, and they will do that. I call on insurance companies to behave responsibly and to incentivise good driving. Insurance companies in Britain offer discounts for young driver and safe driver schemes, through which premiums are reduced for both genders where there is a demonstrable record of safety over a period of time. I hope insurance companies here will do the same.

I also take this opportunity to note recent commentary on the equal status Acts. The Ombudsman, Emily O'Reilly, came before the Public Service Oversight and Petitions Committee recently, where she outlined a report she has laid before the Houses that shows the Minister for Health is blatantly in disregard of the equal status Acts. I am concerned that if the Minister shows disregard for the equal status Acts, we can hardly expect insurance companies to take them seriously. Will the Minister of State bring this issue to her Minister and will she tell us how she feels about the Ombudsman's report and what she had to say on these matters? The Ombudsman said she could not imagine that a parliament would find this behaviour acceptable because, implicit in the Minister's position, and she was speaking about the Minister for Health, was an expectation that the public generally, and Oireachtas Members more specifically, would agree that his rejection of her recommendations was rational and reasonable. She went on to say that on this approach, the law is optional and not binding. We can decide when it suits us to obey the law and can disregard it where it is troublesome or inconvenient to abide by it. I concur with her on that.

I would welcome the Minister of State's comment on this. We need equal status and must ensure people are not discriminated against on a gender basis. However, when it comes to legislation, we need the Government and Ministers to act as they would have others act. They must respect Acts like the Equal Status Act. The insurance companies should toe the line and the Government should hold them to account.

Senator Sean D. Barrett

I agree with Senator Norris that this is a silly Bill and I wonder what was the gender breakdown of the court that handed down the decision. Why can a woman not be more like a man? I certainly hope women cannot be more like men in the context of road safety, because their record is much better than that of men.

The model that seems to underpin the decision is that women achieved a form of dominance over the insurance industry and set out to charge men more but the opposite was the case. Men dominated the industry. They realised women were much safer drivers and rewarded them according to what their actuaries had worked out. This is the kind of measure that gets the European Court of Justice a bad name in that when we attempt to reward good behaviour we are penalised. It is silly.

I always welcome the Minister of State to the House. I accept what she said at the end of her contribution about the Government having no option but to do this because of the European Court of Justice decision. In the earlier debate the Minister for Health had no problem ignoring European court decisions but this Minister is right to adhere to it. It is welcome that she has put the Central Bank in charge. The Minister for Health appears to have difficulty in relying on it to regulate the insurance industry.

We can now look forward to more bogus equality decisions. The markers of the leaving certificate always mark women much higher than men. That is based on their abilities but it is unequal. I have no doubt their learned lordships in Europe are working on that.

The other person who must be brought in for punishment under this measure is the angel of death who is likely to call on the male Members of the House at least five years earlier than he will call on the Minister or Senators Keane and O'Keeffe.

There is a great deal of daft equality stuff coming out of Europe, and this is part of it. Those lower premiums rewarded people for safe driving and as Senator O'Donovan said, we have reduced the number of deaths on the road from 650 in the 1960s and the 1970s to 150 or 160 this year. We have to get around the moral hazard problem and if their lordships in Europe have never heard of it, we ought to look askance at some of their decisions.

This is a silly decision. I regret the Minister of State was forced to implement it as she said in her contribution. It is the kind of thing that gets Europe a bad name. I look forward to more findings on the standard European sausage because as far as I am concerned this measure comes from the same kind of sausage factory. This penalises people who drive safely and in terms of those who have a record of saving lives, and I refer to all the work Gay Byrne has done, I wonder what planet those judges live on.

Minister of State at the Department of Justice and Equality (Deputy Kathleen Lynch)

It took about 25 minutes to take this Bill through the Dáil. Apart from myself there were few contributors to the debate on it. It was straightforward and everyone accepted that it had to be done. It proves to me once again that the Seanad is a far more interesting place and-----

Senators

Hear, hear.

Acting Chairman (Senator Pat O'Neill)

The Chair would like to endorse the Minister of State's remarks.

Senator Denis O'Donovan

The Minister might whisper that in the Taoiseach's ear.

Deputy Kathleen Lynch

-----the diversity of views is always enlightening.

Acting Chairman (Senator Pat O'Neill)

It was diverse today anyway.

Deputy Kathleen Lynch

I am not certain I agree with all of them but it is always interesting to listen to them. One will always learn something in this House.

I see Senator Norris entering the Chamber. On the issue in regard to education, that will be dealt with. The Minister, Deputy Shatter, has given a firm commitment on that. We will send the various details that we have to the Senator.

Senator David Norris

Perhaps the Minister of State could sneak in marriage equality as well.

Deputy Kathleen Lynch

That is something on which we would agree, as the Senator probably knows.

On the general point made in terms of equality, as Senator Bradford stated, as someone who has been involved in the equality area for as long as I can remember, my instinct tells me that as a woman I will not like this direct imposition but it is something that must happen. I am not happy about the cost of my insurance and that of all women increasing but in terms of equality it has to happen.

As Senator O'Keeffe rightly said, this is not simply an issue of gender in terms of insurance. There are other factors that must continue to be taken into account, namely, one's record on road safety, whether one has a no claims bonus for ten years and so on. We need to become blind to gender to a great extent. There will be exceptions in some cases in terms of the maternity aspect, for instance, and the obvious issues that directly affect one gender or the other. As I said in my contribution, breast cancer or prostate cancer are gender specific. We must be conscious of those and take them into account.

To refer to the education aspect and Senator Barrett's observation in terms of the leaving certificate, I have always believed that we have in-built biases that make us do things in certain areas that we would not intentionally do. It is not obvious that we are doing it but if we want true equality in regard to employment, for instance, there should be no indication of gender on curricula vitae, and it would be interesting to see who would be called for interview. In some instances the name of a secondary school on a CV will indicate whether the person is male or female.

In regard to Europe the equality agenda has been very good to this country.

Senator Cáit Keane

Extremely.

Deputy Kathleen Lynch

We have not quite managed it in all areas but in terms of equal pay, the maternity aspect and so on, Europe has been extraordinarily good to us. We cannot pick and choose in that respect. It would be lovely if we could but we cannot do that.

In terms of Senator Quinn's observation, it was clearly pointed out that it will only apply to private pensions, which is a very small portion, and as we know, fewer women than men take out private pensions. It will not apply to work-based pensions.

The Central Bank has a good deal of statistics on the cost of accidents, the age of people involved in accidents and whether they are male or female and we will send those to the Senator.

On the general theme of gender, it does not give me any joy to say that insurance costs for women will increase. The suspicious side of my brain tells me that is what will happen but it should not automatically follow. We have sufficient protections in the Bill in terms of the National Consumer Agency, the Equality Authority and the Central Bank. It is something that must be given particular attention in the first 12 months.

There is no retrospection in terms of the Bill. For instance, it cannot apply to life insurance, health insurance, car insurance or any of the insurances covered that were taken out before 21 December. We made that very clear and ensured that in this amendment Bill we do not want the unintended consequence to apply.

If we are serious about equality we need to put on a blindfold.

Senator Cáit Keane

Grin and bear it.

Senator David Norris

A very good metaphor. The Minister of State has made my point. We are walking into a blindfold.

Deputy Kathleen Lynch

It will not make life more enjoyable but it will make us more equal. Then again, with the blindfold on it might make life more enjoyable; one would not know.

Senator Susan O'Keeffe

Interesting.

Deputy Kathleen Lynch

It is a question of balance, and sometimes we must take the rough with the smooth. In general, Europe has been good for society here when it comes to equality.

Question put:

The Seanad divided: Tá, 45; Níl, 4.

Tá

• Bacik, Ivana.
• Bradford, Paul.
• Brennan, Terry.
• Burke, Colm.
• Clune, Deirdre.
• Coghlan, Eamonn.
• Coghlan, Paul.
• Comiskey, Michael.
• Conway, Martin.
• Cullinane, David.
• Cummins, Maurice.
• D'Arcy, Jim.
• D'Arcy, Michael.
• Daly, Mark.
• Gilroy, John.
• Harte, Jimmy.
• Hayden, Aideen.
• Healy Eames, Fidelma.
• Henry, Imelda.
• Higgins, Lorraine.
• Keane, Cáit.
• Kelly, John.
• Landy, Denis.
• Leyden, Terry.
• MacSharry, Marc.
• Moloney, Marie.
• Mooney, Paschal.
• Moran, Mary.
• Mulcahy, Tony.
• Mullins, Michael.
• Noone, Catherine.
• O'Brien, Darragh.
• O'Donovan, Denis.
• O'Keeffe, Susan.
• O'Neill, Pat.
• O'Sullivan, Ned.
• Ó Clochartaigh, Trevor.
• Ó Domhnaill, Brian.
• Power, Averil.
• Sheahan, Tom.
• van Turnhout, Jillian.
• Walsh, Jim.
• Whelan, John.
• White, Mary M.
• Zappone, Katherine.

Níl

• Barrett, Sean D.
• Crown, John.
• Norris, David.
• Quinn, Feargal.

Tellers: Tá, Senators Paul Coghlan and Aideen Hayden; Níl, Senators David Norris and Feargal Quinn.

Question declared carried.

An Cathaoirleach

Senator Mary M. White recorded her vote from Senator Wilson's position. However, this does not alter the result of the vote.

Question declared carried.