Mr. Neil McDonnell:

I will deal with that point first. We have covered it on page 7 of our submission. There may be reluctance on the part of defendants, by which I mean policyholders, and insurance companies to invoke the fraudulent claim clause under section 26 of the 2004 Act. There is case law on this. We have quoted it on page 7. Mr. Justin Kevin Cross said that because, in his view, the 2004 Act is so pro-defendant, with which we have an issue in the first case, aggravated or exemplary damages is the only real deterrent to an irresponsible or, indeed, over-enthusiastic invocation of such a plea. In simple English, that means that if a defendant suggests in defending his or her claim that the claimant is making a fraudulent claim and does not succeed with that assertion, not alone will the plaintiff get damages but he or she can also get aggravated or exemplary damages. That is crimping a lot of activity in the sector.

The Deputy implied that if awards came down, premiums might not. I will qualify his perspective very slightly for him. In our view, premiums absolutely will tumble, but in a competitive market only. We have CSO data on that. PIAB was established in 2003. The CSO tells us that, from peak to trough, the cost of motor insurance came down 41% in four years since PIAB's introduction. One should bear in mind that PIAB was not reducing awards in that period. It was paying out what the judges were paying out but doing so on the basis of payments of €45 being made to it. The motor insurance market is a competitive market and one is legally obliged to have insurance. Some of the problems the Deputy has heard about today concern those with a single underwriter. To qualify this, if awards are reduced in a robust, competitive market, premiums will fall, but only where there is more than one underwriter.