James Reilly (Dublin North, Fine Gael)

I asked the Minister on Committee Stage why the level was set at 40% here when it is 25% elsewhere. Perhaps that is what the Minister said she did not know.

Anybody looking in from the outside will see a country applying a very high solvency requirement for any new companies coming in and insisting they meet the requirement while giving a derogation to its own company in this regard. This would be clearly construed as a form of protectionism, which is bad for the country's reputation. I still do not understand why the requirement is set at 40%.

Let us not go down the road of talking about regulation. The Minister is right; it leaves much to be desired. If the solvency requirement were not set at the level it is, the VHI could be authorised. There is more than one way of authorising it. It is not a chicken and egg situation. Why is the same rule not applied to all our insurers? That is why we do not have more competition in the market. This is an indirect means of blocking proper competition. Has our own Competition Authority been asked for its views on the Health Insurance (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill? Could the Minister outline what these views were? How does she now purport to address the issue of the VHI, given that the reserve fund seems to be falling rather than rising? We were told last year the fund would soon reach the required level but it fell from 33% to 27%. Are VHI customers sufficiently protected? Will we have regulation by 30 September? How much will it cost the State when we are fined by the European Court of Justice for being in breach of competition rules? What is the view of the Competition Authority on this? Was it asked for an opinion or did it request the opportunity to offer an opinion?

See this speech in context