Mr. Dermott Jewell:

It seems to be. I raise it because it is another factor that must be examined by an independent body to determine whether it is reasonable. It must be looked at because many motorists are at a disadvantage in the sense that they do not have access to such schemes. If one takes the example of health insurance, members of group schemes are entitled to a discount but individual consumers are also entitled to ask for that same discount and can receive it from insurers. In that context, it makes sense to bring a review body together, similar to the Motor Insurance Advisory Board, MIAB, for a fixed term of no more than 12 months. A lot could and should be done in that period, particularly by picking up threads from others who are currently working on and engaged in this area. The body should be able to look at any and all increases in premiums.

Access to information is vitally important. What happened with the last MIAB was that all of the data from the insurers was anonymised. The data was then provided to an individual who was able to analyse it and come up with a set of statistics, based on pure data, on costs and problems. If a new analysis of the data were to find that the problem is indeed the cost of claims or the age of vehicles, that would be great because it would restore confidence in the market, something which is missing right now among motor insurance customers. It would also enable those in the industry to say that they are doing their best and to ask what else they can do. An independent analysis will allow for a better understanding of all of the factors giving rise to increased motor insurance premiums.

While I am consistently referring to the MIAB, I must point out that I am just using it as an example of a body that could be reconvened. The legislation can be re-enacted, made workable and moved upon.