Mr. Peter Boland:

We have no objection to the Central Bank collecting and collating the data, but we have a major issue with it analysing and reporting on it because of its dual role in respect of the insurance industry. It has a prudential role which always seems to receive priority and a consumer protection role which appears to be ignored. As one of the Deputy's colleagues said at a meeting of another committee a few weeks ago, the bank is a dog that does not bark, never mind bite when it comes to customer protection. We would strenuously object to the bank taking on that role.

With regard to the information not being supplied, the simplest reform the Government could implement is to tell the Cental Bank to reinstate the blue book. The blue book was a set of industry data which, while not perfect, gave an overview of what was going on in the industry and a sense of profitability. Profitability is complex in the insurance industry and can only be interpreted over a number of years, if not a decade, because of claim trends and other issues. However, the blue book provided clarity, but the Central Bank summarily cut it and 2015 is that last year for which data are available. The blue book has been replaced by a set of Solvency II data which are unintelligible, even to actuaries, and of no use from a consumer point of view. From claims up, all of the data are available. The PIAB collects the data constantly because all claims must initially go to it. It is a matter of collating the data and reporting on them, as the PIAB is well placed to do so.

I refer to the question about the three actions the Government should take. The actions we have suggested are granular and defined enough to be acted on because there are different people who could act on each. If the Deputy wanted something to be done before close of play this evening, I suggest the establishment of a Garda insurance fraud unit. Gardaí had reached the stage where they had met their colleagues in the United Kingdom where they looked at a similar unit, but that initiative seems to have shuddered to a halt

Everybody is in agreement that it makes sense so we are not entirely sure why it has shuddered to a halt. That would be number one.

Number two would be asking the Judiciary to express why judges are going beyond the book of quantum in the context of general damages. I want to emphasise here that we are always looking at protecting the plaintiff on this, so we are not talking about special damages, which are for loss of earnings or other expenses. We are talking about very specific general damages which apply in cases of injury. They are measured in the book of quantum but they are constantly being overruled in the courts. We cannot and do not want to interfere with the role of the Judiciary in this country but we want an explanation when the book of quantum is breached.

The Insurance Ireland-IBEC protocol on dealing with claims is absolutely dogging the entire small and medium enterprise sector at the moment. Ms Reid will probably say the same in a moment. I refer to claims are being settled without any consultation with policyholders. It is a matter of natural justice and it is creating a fog in this area, which makes it very difficult to find out what is going on because there is so little transparency on the part of the insurance companies. The protocol is there. It has been properly parsed and written. I assume it has been legally vetted because it was signed off and agreed by Insurance Ireland's predecessor in 2003. It is just a matter of them getting off their asses, if members will excuse my expression, and implementing it again because nothing has changed between then and now that might bar us from using it.