Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

It strikes me that despite insurance being a business that deals in risk and does not produce, manufacture or build anything or engage in any other service except for the management of risk, there have been significant efforts on the part of the State to reduce the risk. The companies pass much of the requirement on to the State to reduce the risk and many efforts have been made to reduce the level of risk for insurance companies and their actions, yet we are hearing these startling figures reflecting the rise in premiums. This might be a question for Deputy Pearse Doherty too. Looking to what the premiums were and what they would have been is a good drilling-down exercise. Nevertheless, it strikes me that insurance companies are focusing less on the actuarial assessment of risk and more on the assessment of opportunity, and that the opportunity seems to be found in a small market, with the State underwriting much of the risk and offering potential for greater profits. In pulling out that information on how the margin of profit on certain kinds of insurance product, particularly in regard to liability, has increased, the return to shareholders and the relationship between that, is that a factor that should be taken into account?

There is also that question of over-provisioning, whereby the companies maintain we need to wait some time to see how this will play out. If it turns out the insurance industry has overestimated for a period, say, from 2021 to 2023 or 2024, should there not be a carryover to some extent of that over-provisioning period to 2024 or 2025, rather than simply beginning to give a different form of assessment in 2024 and 2025? Has the industry made any indication in that regard? It will have had a period in which its calculations expected greater payouts than it was required to make.

I worry that the narrative has often related to the relationship between the duty of care and the claimant. That becomes the dynamic, rather than this question of the margin taken by companies, although I appreciate Deputy Doherty's Bill for refocusing on that. Mr. Boland might comment on this because the alliance has a range of members, not least in terms of liability. There is a risk in allowing the current model of insurance to continue with too many public policy goals. It is not about ensuring just that the insurance companies are not taking up their responsibility in respect of risk. They are, in fact, creating risks, for example, to the State on issues such as the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, whereby all people are meant to be able to participate fully in public life. Similarly, we have had reports of insurance companies requiring trees to be removed by local authorities even though we have climate and biodiversity targets that those local authorities need to meet through these pre-emptive measures. This element is not just bad in itself but is distorting other aspects of the public policy landscape and the public good landscape, as the alliance’s members will agree.

The State is not just underwriting the risk but also creating opportunities for the insurance companies because it is rightly requiring insurance from those who bid for contracts and those who provide services. In fact, insurance requirements have put many NGOs and voluntary organisations in a position whereby they cannot equally tender for the provision of services or, in some cases, cannot even apply for State grants because they cannot meet the same insurance costs as, for example, a private operator. I do not want Mr. Boland to name specific members, but he might comment on whether they are elements that have been identified.