Ms Sara Moorhead:

The briefing document prepared for the then Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Paschal Donohue, which, as members know, was obtained by Mark Hilliard of The Sunday Timesunder the Freedom of Information Act, made interesting reading and corresponded with the type of research we had found ourselves. It reads: "It appears motor insurers are now imposing higher premium rates to return themselves to profitability or to boost profitability after a number of years of insurers competing for market share with prices driven down accordingly and possible underwriting losses in some cases." The anonymous civil servant who penned the document goes on to add an intriguing caveat: "The question does arise for motor insurers - if motor insurance is so unprofitable, why does anybody do it?". That of course comes back to the exercise in which Dorothea Dowling has engaged over time which shows that the discrepancy between the premium income that has come in and the actual payment out on awards - all awards, not just motor claims - is €1 billion.

That is the discrepancy. We absolutely accept that the committee wants to come up with solutions. It is going to be hidebound until it gets the information.

When we saw these headlines in March of this year, we immediately formed a sub-committee to find out why this was being said. Anecdotally, as someone who practises in personal injuries, I had not noticed any dramatic sea-change in awards. In fact, I would have said it was the other way around, because the Court of Appeal has been quite stringent in reducing awards. I certainly had not noticed the costs I was getting going up. I had not noticed more cases coming to court as opposed to being settled by the Injuries Board. We went back to primary sources, so we went to the accounts of the insurance companies, to see if we could get any information from that as to what they were settling, but de nada. We went to the insurance companies themselves to try to get information - we did a search of the Companies Registration Office - but we found nothing. Every time it is put to him, Kevin Thompson of Insurance Ireland does not deal with it and, frankly, the media let him go on unchallenged.

The Courts Service reports are available. They are not controversial; they are based on fact. There is the Central Bank report, which is based on fact, and the Injuries Board, which is based on fact. There are no major changes arising from any of those entities, none of whom are particularly lawyer-friendly, as they would say themselves. We have an excellent relationship with the Injuries Board in the sense that we have dialogue with it, but its role is to make sure people accept awards, do not go to the courts and minimise costs. Its representatives will say that to the committee tomorrow. Three separate entities cannot see any sea-change in the regime, yet we are told last year the premiums went up by 38%. We all know as drivers, that premiums are rising for no reason. I am the classic profile - middle-aged woman with a full no-claims bonus and no penalty points - and my motor premium went up by 25% last year. It does not make sense, but they will not answer the questions, and until they answer the questions and give the data, I do not know where one moves to in terms of solutions. What is really worrying at this stage is that they are already flagging that they will increase the motor premium again next year. How could they know what the claims history is for this year at present?

Deputy Paul Murphy also referred to the question of fraud. There is fraud in the system but the whole point of the 2004 Act was to introduce a system that dealt seriously with fraud. It is not just about fraud, it is also about exaggeration. One can have a case in which a person exaggerates a portion of what is actually a legitimate claim. For example, there is a reported case, heard by Mr. Justice Quirke, of a man who lost a portion of an arm in a very bad machinery accident. There was no doubt that he lost it and that there was negligence involved, but he exaggerated when it came to his earnings, what he was doing and what he could not do. As a result, he got nothing. He did not get a proportion because he was entitled to it, he got zero.

I agree with Mr. Gilhooly in that we do not know why insurance companies, even as a matter of sending out a message, do not go to the Director of Public Prosecutions and say it wants the case prosecuted. We see this sort of incident every day in the paper, where a case is dismissed on the basis that the claimant was dancing around on Facebook when they said they could do nothing. We all know that if a message went out from an insurer saying that this is wrong, it would have a significant effect. We do not want to be dealing with fraudulent claims and we certainly do not want to be representing fraudulent people. I dread seeing Facebook coming towards me in any court case, because one never knows what is going to be there. One thing one learns is how indiscreet people are on Facebook. Insurers have that power and they have had that power since 2004.

Senator Conway-Walsh referred to the book of quantum and what view the judges hold. They are keenly aware, despite the myth that they are out of touch, of concerns in respect of the quantum of damages. While we can always be troubled that we are perceived at the lower end of the scale to have quite generous awards but one must bear in mind that at the higher end of the scale we have very low awards. When one tells people that the limit on general damages for a person who is catastrophically injured, who is never going to be able to work or do anything again, is €450,000, the public is horrified. Time and again, the Supreme Court has said that must remain, for public policy reasons, as the cap on general damages. The Court of Appeal has said recently that one must now work backwards from that in respect of all other claims. That has had quite a significant effect in terms of general damages. Judges should be trusted in regard to that. This can never be resolved until we have the information, which we do not have.