Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour) | Oireachtas source

We welcome the motion. We will be supporting it. I believe the Minister of State to be genuine in his attempts to deal with this issue. If we had one criticism, it would be that some of the deadlines should be sooner rather than in quarters three and four of this year.

I wish to speak briefly to some of the issues inherent in the update of 3 May, as presented by the Minister of State. Recommendation No. 6 relates to ensuring greater consistency of treatment for returning immigrants. When the Minister of State is responding, I would be very grateful if he could let us know whether there is scope within the recommendation to ensure such a protocol is achieved, perhaps by the end of quarter two or three, because it is such a vital issue. I do not need to rehearse in the House the issues that affect returning immigrants but if the protocol could be designed in a way to ensure it may be implemented with greater haste, it would provide a lot of confidence for people who are returning from abroad.

On recommendation No. 7, on the subjection of the declined cases agreement to ongoing review to ensure transparency, we welcome the progress. I seek clarification on the exact position at present. Bearing in mind the review, the Minister of State will correct me if I am wrong on Insurance Ireland's updating of its website. My understanding from the report of 3 May is that Insurance Ireland has actually updated the website. Again, I want clarification on that.

On recommendation No. 8 of the Minister of State's report, dated 3 May, there is a to be a protocol for policyholders to be notified of claims made against them before settlement date. I seek a real-time clarification from the Minister of State on that. That was a matter of some discussion today in the media. The Minister of State and Deputy Michael McGrath referred specifically to it. I was listening to the discussion in passing. What is the position on that?

There is a school of thought that such a recommendation should be much stronger and that defendants should be given an opportunity to mount a defence instead of an insurer deciding that it is uneconomic to defend and going to a default payment mechanism. I acknowledge Deputy Michael McGrath on that point because he raised it on the Sean O'Rourke show earlier today.

We all want to ensure the cost of motoring will be reduced for every motorist, regardless of his or her demographics and the age of the vehicle. I was a member of the finance committee that reported on this issue and one of the major issues was related to older vehicles. If an older vehicle passes the NCT, the owner should not be discriminated against because of its age. That does not make an ounce of sense as the NCT is subject to the law of the land.

I have serious difficulties with the issue of transparency because we were told all along that the reason for the stark increase in the cost of premia was the provisioning that was necessary on the part of insurance companies to cover losses. There is nothing in the reports about this, but I have a great difficulty with the amount provided for. People will accept an increase in their premia, but they cannot sustain the increases they have had to sustain in the past 12 months. The insurance industry is telling us a corrective mechanism is in place whereby premia have been reduced by 40% in some instances. A component has to be pure and utter profit. There is no transparency on that profit making.

Another issue I have is that Insurance Ireland seemed to speak for the industry at the committee hearings. It is not about personalities, but I found it difficult to understand why one person with one voice seemed to represent the entire industry. Will the Minister of State outline whether the working group has heard from voices other than Insurance Ireland? In other words, have the chief executive officers of insurance companies dealt directly with him? What has been the nature of the engagement between them? Consumers would not necessarily recognise Insurance Ireland as the sole voice of the sector. It would be useful for us to have some insight from the Minister of State into what his engagement was with them. It would be even better if he named the individual companies. I doubt that he will, but I make the request respectfully.

We support the motion. I recognise the work the Minister of State is doing, but I would like him to ensure the goals to be attained within certain quarters are fast-tracked, particularly in the case of returning emigrants. Perhaps he might have something to say about that. It would be useful and send a signal. I would also like him to comment on the issues affecting older drivers, drivers of older vehicles and public service vehicles and the distinction between taxis and so on and SMEs that have fleets but which find their insurance costs have gone through the roof. He should ensure a level playing field in respect of transparency on the difference between the provisioning and the corrective measures he has said are being introduced and the profits generated. People want to feel that they are not being screwed. I do not know if the word "screwed" is unparliamentary language, but I am speaking in the vernacular. It is unfair that consumers find themselves in this position at this time. I have no doubt that I will receive a letter if the word is deemed to be unparliamentary. I read the list of prohibited words lately and the term "corner-boy" was proscribed. Perhaps that is now anachronistic, but it was appropriate at a certain time.

See this speech in context