Michael D'Arcy (Wexford, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank everybody who participated in the debate. I accept everybody's bona fides that we are here to try to do what we can to improve the insurance sector for those who require insurance at every level, whether it be car insurance, employer's insurance or any other version of insurance. We must, however, accept a couple of things. First, there is no silver bullet here. We have had reports and I thank those Deputies who have read the reports. I note some Deputies have said things this evening that are the complete opposite of what is actually in the report.

I will read this speech. In broad terms, the main objective in many respects of both the motor report and the employer and public liability report is to try to ensure consistency of award levels through the regular use of the book of quantum. In essence, this should mean that no matter what way a claim is settled, whether directly by the insurer, through the Personal Injuries Assessment Board or as a result of a court decision, the outcome should be broadly the same. Involving the Judiciary in the compilation and adoption of the book and introducing a greater granularity into it through the work of the Personal Injuries Commission, as recommended in the motor report, will hopefully be a significant step forward. If consistency of awards can be applied in a broad sense, particularly for soft tissue injuries, it should have two very significant effects. The first is that there should be less reason for cases to go to litigation, as the level of awards granted by the courts will be aligned with those provided by the PIAB. This in turn should mean a reduction in legal costs. Second, a stable claims and awards environment should mean that the reserves put aside by insurers to meet future claims would not have to be regularly adjusted to reflect new developments, such as increases in awards. Unfortunately, right now, there is uncertainty about such matters and insurers tend to reserve more prudently, which is ultimately reflected in increased premiums.

I recognise that to get a sense of how the claims environment is evolving, there is undoubtedly a need to have greater transparency about how and where insurers are settling claims. For instance, we have little insight into award levels settled on the steps of the court post PIAB. This information is important if we want to achieve the objective of greater consistency of awards and this is why the implementation of the national claims information database is so important.

I acknowledge the issue of insurance for rural businesses is something about which Members are concerned and the working group's newly published report on employer and public liability is relevant. The focus is on three areas, namely, improving transparency levels, reviewing the level of damages in personal injury cases by requesting that the Law Reform Commission undertake a detailed analysis of the possibility of developing constitutionally sound legislation to delimit or cap the amounts of damages which a court may award in respect of some or all categories of personal injuries and improving the personal injuries litigation framework.

I will try to deal with as many of these matters as I can as quickly as I can. There is the matter of young drivers. The reality is they are also the highest risk drivers on our roads. There are higher premiums for young drivers. There is the opportunity for young drivers to use telematics, as Deputy Martin Kenny mentioned. The use of telematics represents an opportunity and would decrease the premiums by a significant amount. I find it amazing when I make this point to people, particularly young drivers, who then say they would prefer to pay the €3,000. That is an unfortunate position I find alarming. People are prepared to pay an extra amount rather than use telematics. A box is presented, attached to a car and the insurance company then knows every movement, of the car, the speed of the car, the speed of the car in a particular speed zone and more. If the car moves 1 ft backwards, it is recorded, but people will not use the box. They will not take up the opportunities.

See this speech in context