Michael D'Arcy (Wexford, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I shall read my note and then deal with the Deputy’s comments. Amendment No. 1 is opposed on the basis that it travels with a substantive amendment to section 4, which is also opposed. It is intended that risks in the State would be defined by regulation, rather than in the primary legislation, to minimise the need to amend the legislation in future.

Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 are opposed on the basis that the incremental way in which relevant classes of non-life insurance will be provided for by in the database over time – we are starting with motor insurance - means that much of the text of the amendments would not be initially relevant or appropriate.

The definition of a "risk in the State", which is used by the Deputy, is that which is used in the Insurance Act 1964 in respect of the framework for compensation in the event of an insurance insolvency or administration. That 1964 Act definition is split out in terms of what risks are excluded and uses categories that may not be contemplated in terms of the database - for example, travel insurance. The current drafting requires the Central Bank to provide for the definition of an Irish-based risk in this Bill to be analogous to the 1964 Act definition while providing flexibility to vary it where appropriate. The Office of the Parliamentary Counsel believes the current drafting better serves the purpose of defining risk in the State for this Bill rather than using the definition in the 1964 Act.

It is matter of whether or which. The Office of the Parliamentary Counsel believes that what we have in place is better than what the Deputy is proposing. The aim is certainly is not to limit the definition in the legislation concerning what will be calculated by the Central Bank. It is quite the opposite. Rather than being prescriptive, we want to leave it open in order that all information from different streams can be calculated by the Central Bank.