Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour) | Oireachtas source

We support the motion. Setanta's collapse has left in its wake 1,700 open claims for compensation, which remain unsettled at a cost of approximately €95.2 million. The collapse of Enterprise Insurance has left 14,000 motorists with €6 million outstanding. One company was regulated in Malta, the other in Gibraltar. Of the 39 insurance companies listed as members of the Motor Insurance Bureau of Ireland, 11 are domiciled in Gibraltar when one excludes the Lloyds list.

The proceedings before the Supreme Court allow interested parties to hide until such time as the Supreme Court has found in favour of one side or the other. The Government may also be hiding behind the Supreme Court decision because, although it announced the extension of the insurance compensation fund in July 2016, it seems the Minister is now saying a legislative proposal to implement the report will be brought to Government for approval in the coming months. He did not use the words "heads of a Bill" and there seems to be some slippage already in the timelines for legislation to provide certainty in this matter.

The finance committee has done much work to tackle the issues articulated by Deputies Neville and Ó Laoghaire on the particular circumstances in which motorists find themselves, particularly those who have been priced out of the market by virtue of the fact that they had to emigrate and are now returning home. We require certainty to plug the glaring lacuna in the legislation around this matter. If it is not addressed, there is the prospect of motorists having loading costs on their premiums of up to €80. The MIBI documentation contains estimates that the cost of claims for their members, against uninsured and untraced drivers, is north of €58.4 million. The MIBI states that Setanta poses a liability of €90 million, the impact of which is an additional €52.

The Supreme Court has to iron out how Irish law understands the responsibility of MIBI. Other Members have referred to timelines but this goes back to September 2015 and the first High Court judgment. The latest instalment was the October 2016 reserve judgment. I am delighted that the Government is abstaining on the motion because there is agreement on the broad principles of the motion. The consumer demands are very clear.

They want transparency and easily accessible information on the products they are purchasing. They also want to know, in a simple format, if the liquidity and provisioning arrangements for those insurance houses, from which they are purchasing products, are robust so as to offset the risk of non-payment of claims in the future. Consumers quite simply demand transparency and easily accessible information, which is something that will have to be dealt with.

I acknowledge what the Minister said about the Central Bank conducting a thematic review and inspection of managing general agents or MGAs. However, we need further information and clarity on what that means.

While we support the motion, it is important to have legal certainty on the Setanta issue and other insurance houses. Motorists with legitimate expectations have been waiting too long for justice, despite having judgments in their favour for recognised claims.

See this speech in context