Tom Hayes (Tipperary South, Fine Gael)

I would like Deputy Collins to listen and bear with me for a minute or two. The most regulated business in the country, and the most successful during this era when the country is going badly, is agriculture. For the past ten years regulators at the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food watched over everyone involved in the industry and now we have the most transparent business in the country. We can boast about agricultural production and tell the world how successful it is because the regulators and those in charge watched farmers and watched the animals from birth until slaughter and everything was able to be traced. Agricultural regulators looked after their industry but financial regulators did not.

Deputy Collins and her people who come to the House week in and week out are anti-private enterprise. It is high time for them to blame the real people at fault, and these are the regulators. The world and its mother outside the House knows this and it is high time we dealt with it and were honest with ourselves, rather than taking a populist stance and going for the people experiencing difficulties. I ask Deputy Collins to look at this in future.

Of course we would have liked more time to discuss and scrutinise the Bill. Much dismay has been expressed at the speed with which this amending legislation is being progressed, but I remind my colleagues we are doing this for the sake of the country and for the betterment of people in the industry. A total of 1,600 jobs are at risk if we do not facilitate the sale of Quinn Insurance on 4 October. The interest expressed by Liberty Mutual is conditional on funds being available to cover the losses on the Quinn Insurance books. None of us is comfortable with having to cover these losses, but we would be far more uncomfortable contemplating the loss of 1,600 jobs.

The second point to be made is that at present the Insurance Act 1964 is in contravention of an EU directive. Article 46 of the third non-life insurance directive precludes a member state from applying an indirect tax on insurance risks outside its jurisdiction. Without these changes, no levy, regardless of size or reason, could be placed on insurance policies in the State. Over the summer months, there was a great deal of confusion about this matter and I thank the Department of Justice and Equality for clarifying the issue. What we must decide today is whether we let 1,600 hardworking and loyal employees take the hit for Quinn's mistakes, or whether we as a country shoulder the burden together. Neither choice is perfect, but only one is right.

Of course, I share concerns about the current cost of insurance in this country. These costs are often prohibitive for my constituents. On several occasions, I have spoken in the House about the cost of insurance for young people and in these difficult times, we should be seeking ways to reduce these costs. Transition year in schools is an ideal opportunity for learner drivers. Those completing such a course during transition year would be in a better position to drive a car when they come of age. I urge the insurance companies to allow at some stage a reduction in charges for people who have completed a transition year driving course. The insurance companies and the Department of Education and Skills should be encouraged to do this.

Businesses, particularly small businesses, are under enormous pressure due to the cost of insurance. Yesterday, I dealt with a constituent who has a small business who was not able to afford to pay fire or public liability insurance because it would mean not taking money home to feed the family. If at all possible, the cost of insurance should be reduced.

Health insurance policies have been excluded from this legislation, partly due to the increased number of people failing to renew their cover. This is another practical problem faced by many households. The bills received, particularly by those with two, three or four school going children, are astronomical and it is very difficulty for them to pay these bills on an annual or monthly basis. At all times, we should encourage people to pay their VHI bill or bills from other health insurance providers and make it possible for them to do so. I appeal to the Government to consider, if at all possible, including tax deductions to make it possible and feasible for people to pay their VHI or other health insurance bills.

Given that the levy is expected to raise approximately €65 million per year, a period of ten years should be enough to cover what I see as a conservative estimate of €720 million. The Minister has not put a time limit on this levy given the volatile nature of such estimates, but I would like to hear a commitment from him or the Department that the levy is solely associated with the Quinn Insurance issue, and that my constituents will not see this levy as a permanent fixture in their insurance premiums.

Many of my constituents have raised this issue with me and are sceptical about the levy being a temporary addition to the insurance industry. A commitment such as the one I mentioned would go a long way towards easing their concerns. It is my understanding that a reduction to a 1% levy may be possible if claims were to be front loaded. Such a possibility must be considered by the Minister in an effort to reduce the burden placed on many households.

See this speech in context