Eoghan Murphy (Dublin Bay South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Paul Murphy referred to the managing of expectations. I just want to be upfront about the challenges facing us. As we cannot control price directly, we must ensure we are building appropriate actions into a plan that everybody can buy into in order that we can get something done about the issue. I do not want to give people the false expectation that by October they will see premiums coming down because I have given a report to the Minister, Deputy Noonan. That is why I would have mentioned it a few times when speaking publicly about it this morning.

The Deputy asked what we ruled out. We ruled out setting the price because that is illegal. I have not ruled out any legislative changes relating to regulation but none has been requested to date. The Central Bank has representatives on the committee and is playing a very active role. That will come immediately to my attention if there is a required need. The Deputy mentioned that we have been here before, which is correct. One of the subgroups is considering why the structural changes did not happen or perhaps did not work. There is a race to the bottom that undermines the market. One of the reasons given for increasing premiums is that they come as a result of provisioning rules and enforcement by the Central Bank.

However, it will not be tinkering. Establishing a claims register to detect fraud by sharing information would not be tinkering. In fact, it would be quite radical, as would giving stronger powers to the Injuries Board whereby the cases before it would have some sort of legal footing so that people would not be starting from scratch again if their claims had to go before the courts anyway. The legal profession and the Injuries Board would not call that tinkering but a big deal. It will require a great deal of work, but that is the way that we want to go. Putting in place a data hub that affords the transparency that everyone has been discussing is not tinkering. It is not impossible to do, but it would not be tinkering if we actually achieved it.

These major changes will have a significant impact. We need to break down the constituent elements of setting a premium and tackle each. If we believe that fraud accounts for €50, what are the necessary fraud measures? A national claims database, new technology to read number plates and linking the NCT to insurance discs and taxation would knock €50 to €80 off the premium, according to the industry. These would have a dramatic impact on the price.

I understand why the Deputy might prefer some profit models from abroad, but I prefer the care-not-cash model. This would not be tinkering if we could achieve it. I do not like the pay-at-the-pump model because it penalises people who drive more and takes the onus off the insurance sector to be a part of the reform and to provide greater transparency. It also removes the onus from the legal profession, which is another contributing cost.

Provisioning rules and what has happened in the market have made it more difficult to book a profit. The data that I have seen show that a number of the companies operating in Ireland are doing so at a loss when the provisioning is taken into account, given future uncertainty. This situation may change. Some of the people whom the committee will be meeting might claim that we have just about reached the appropriate premium pricing and profit is returning to the system. This point should be examined. We have discussed related issues in respect of the operation of different industries and the appropriate approach to take. I have not examined the pay-at-the-pump model in detail yet, but I have explored it a little with a few people. It would remove the onus to reform in other parts of the sector and penalise people who drive more.

These hearings are necessary and helpful because they are in public. During some of the chats that I have been having in private, I have sat there and hoped that others would tell the committee what they were telling me because people need to hear it. It is not a duplication for this reason, but also because, based on the list of stakeholders with whom the committee is engaging and our own provisional list, we and the committee are meeting different people, which means that we will get different aspects. The committee might place more of an emphasis on examining consumer concerns, for example, whereas the working group will have to place a balanced emphasis across those who are involved in the industry. This committee is important because we will need to make legislative changes, which will require buy-in if we are to make them quickly. There is no point in my going away with a group of interdepartmental officials and devising an action plan that the committee does not support. That is not in anyone's interests.

We do not know what is happening, so we need the data. We have too many worrying anecdotes. For example, one might hear anecdotes from the insurance sector. I do not know whether it is possible, but the committee might request a presentation from someone who once worked in that sector and no longer has an interest in keeping schtum. The industry might be open about this matter, but one hears anecdotally about how and why industry is so quick to settle, the balance of probabilities that it takes into account, etc. This is worrying at an anecdotal level, so we need the data. They are there. We must ensure that we can pull the data together, interrogate them and put them to good use.

The book of quantum is published in other jurisdictions. In the UK, I believe it is published by the judiciary. In such a scenario, there is buy-in from the judges. We must consider how to strengthen the book of quantum. I do not want to pre-empt the Injuries Board's appearance before the committee, but it will discuss improvements that it has made to the book of quantum. They sound like good improvements, although more can be done. I suppose it will also mention its engagement with the Judiciary, but I do not want to discuss that, as it is for the board to comment on that matter. It is important to understand that the book of quantum quantifies costs awarded and does not try to set out what costs should be. However, compiling the awarded costs is helpful, and it is helpful for the Judiciary if those costs are stuck with.

However, one hears complaints about how changes in jurisdictions have introduced awards that have created uncertainty about what average cost levels should be. Some of them are doubling. If a company is trying to provision for possible claims in so far as it is meant to do under Central Bank rules, uncertainty about what the courts will award poses a problem. The company will try to keep a matter out of the courts by settling more quickly. We need to weed out and address the many perverse incentives that are in the system.

Technology is key to improving driver behaviour. The AA will probably discuss its survey of the level of buy-in from its members to the concept of sharing technology freely as long as they own the data, just as one owns the data in one's mobile phone. One is probably not aware of what some of the apps are picking up in terms of mapping, etc. As long as people owned the data, many would be willing to share it, be it from their phones or their cars' telematics. I like the idea of average speed cameras.

I can refer to recent personal experience of Garda enforcement. I have seen quite a number of camera vehicles on the roads clocking drivers, with penalty points and fines arriving in the post. I have seen increased Garda enforcement as more resources have been devoted to that area by the Tánaiste and the Department.

The question of tracking every car relates to telematics. Were it to be put that way, though, one would hit data privacy concerns, with people saying, "No way". It is a longer-term issue, given how the car industry is beefing up and improving its technologies. We need to find the right way to achieve buy-in. Dublin City Council is trying to introduce mandatory 30 km/h speed zones around schools and other areas. What I would like to see in that regard, although it might be future tech, is inhibiting technology that automatically reduces speed. That is not Big Brother, but prudence and safety. That is down the line, though, and there is no point in our focusing on it in the next weeks or months. There would be no harm in exploring it, of course.

Ireland has a problem with whiplash. The committee will hear more about that from witnesses.

We will provide as much data to the committee as we go. Senator Horkan suggested that we revert to this committee in October to share what we have learned. Many people will watch this committee closely, but it will not be able to see the work we are doing. Reverting might be a good way of showing where we are. However, I will consult the Minister, Deputy Noonan, before giving a definite commitment.