Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I am pleased to present this Bill, which will give effect in Ireland to the mandatory introduction within the European Union of unisex premiums and benefits in private insurance to which Council Directive 2004/113/EC applies. This directive, known informally as the gender goods and services directive, implements the principle of equal treatment between men and women in the access to and supply of goods and services. In its decision of 1 March 2011, in case C-236/09 taken by a Belgian consumer rights organisation, the Court of Justice of the European Union declared that Article 5(2) of this directive was invalid, with effect from 21 December 2012. This decision, known as the Test-Achats ruling, is binding on all member states of the European Union. The provision thus struck down had allowed an exception from the principle of equal treatment enunciated in the regulation so that insurance companies could price life and motor insurance products differently for men and women, where this difference is reasonable and supported by actuarial or statistical data.

Ireland availed of this exemption in the Equal Status Act 2000, permitting gender differentiation to continue in the areas of motor insurance, life assurance, critical illness cover, income protection cover, and private annuities and pensions. The effect of the ruling is that Ireland is obliged to prohibit by law the selling of private insurance products which differentiate by gender on price or benefits and to have such provisions in force on or before 21 December 2012. The unisex rule will apply to all contracts concluded for the first time as and from that date. It also applies to agreements between parties, as and from 21 December 2012, to extend contracts concluded before that date which would otherwise have expired.

The European Commission has issued guidelines on the application of this judgment on national legislation transposing directive 2004/113 and on insurance industry practice. I have taken due regard to this guidance and to the intention stated in the directive to avoid sudden readjustment of the insurance market in determining the amendments to the Equal Status Acts necessary to comply with this ruling. As I will explain shortly, these amendments are largely technical in nature. For me and for my colleagues in Government, this ruling highlights the crucial importance of achieving legal clarity in the drafting of legislation at European level to ensure that such instruments are interpreted and have the intended impact.

The Government is conscious of the potential for confusion and misinformation among consumers and insurance providers alike resulting from these changes to the private insurance market. For this reason, in October the Department published an information note for consumers on the new rules on the permitted use of gender by insurance providers and sources of further information and advice. The information note is widely available through public information channels such as the Citizens Information Board. I would like to express thanks to the industry bodies - the Irish Insurance Federation, the Irish Brokers Association, the Professional Insurance Brokers Association and the Society of Actuaries in Ireland - who contributed to the preparation of this advice for consumers. I also thank the Department of Finance, the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, the Department of Social Protection, the Central Bank, the National Consumer Agency, the Citizens' Information Board, the Pensions Board, the Equality Authority and the Financial Services Ombudsman's Bureau.

I would now like to highlight some of the main provisions of the Bill. Section 2 provides for amendment of section 5 of the Equal Status Act 2000. It limits the existing derogation from the prohibition on gender discrimination in specified insurance products, provided in section 5 of the Equal Status Act, to contracts concluded before 21 December 2012. This is to ensure the prohibition on gender-differentiated insurance, with effect from 21 December 2012, does not affect existing contracts lawfully entered into before that date. The scope of the prohibition is then expanded by providing in a new subsection (4A) that all contracts within the categories of motor or life insurance concluded for the first time as and from 21 December 2012 must comply with the unisex rule. For the avoidance of doubt and because to determine otherwise would result in a sudden readjustment of the motor insurance market, contrary to the intention of the directive, the second paragraph of the new subsection provides that mid-term adjustments to motor insurance contracts concluded before 21 December 2012 are not considered to be new contracts for this purpose.

Finally, this section provides that the obligation imposed on the Central Bank of Ireland to compile, maintain and publish data to support the existing derogation ceases to have effect from 21 December 2012, while not affecting its obligation to maintain and publish data compiled before that date. Consequential to the cessation of this obligation, section 5 provides for the amendment of section 41 of the principal Act. It has the effect of terminating the Minister's power, which is no longer required, to make regulations with regard to the data to be compiled, published and maintained by the Central Bank.

Section 3 provides for amendment of section 14 of the principal Act to clarify that insurance providers may continue to collect, store and use gender status or gender-related information which is genuinely intended for the purposes of reserving and internal pricing, reinsurance pricing, and life and health underwriting. For example, it is envisaged that insurance providers may continue to gather and use gender data in connection with offering gender-specific insurance products and options within contracts to cover conditions which exclusively or primarily concern males or females, such as breast cancer and prostate cancer.

I have also taken the opportunity afforded in this Bill to address a minor procedural issue regarding equal status complaints referred to the Equality Tribunal for mediation. Section 4 provides for amendment of section 24 of the Equal Status Acts to extend the time available to persons who have referred such complaints to apply for resumption of the hearing in instances where mediation has not resolved the dispute between the parties. The amendment will extend the period, after the issue of a notice of non-resolution, within which a complainant is allowed to make an application in writing for a resumption of the hearing, from 28 days to 42 days. This amendment applies the same conditions to complaints under the Equal Status Acts on failure of mediation as are already applicable to resumption of complaints under the Employment Equality Acts. The remaining provisions are of a standard or technical nature.

Before concluding, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the technical nature of these amendments, while reiterating that the State has no option but to ensure national law complies with the European Court of Justice interpretation of the gender goods and services directive in this instance. I thank the Members of the House for their attention and I look forward to a detailed discussion on the Bill. I commend this Bill to the House.

Niall Collins (Limerick, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Fianna Fáil supports this Bill.

Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Sorry to interrupt, but I wish to apologise for not having a copy of what was a very technical speech available for the Deputies.

Niall Collins (Limerick, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is fine. I thank the Minister of State. We accept that we have to amend our legislation because the derogation period is coming to an end. On that basis, we understand where the Minister of State is coming from. We are supporting the Bill. We do not have any particular issue with it.

When the Equal Status Act 2000 was introduced, it was a ground-breaking measure. Its effects on people's participation in civil society were felt throughout the country. It was right that so many sections of society, including religious and political organisations, had to ensure they offered a level playing field to both genders. It was important that many clubs and associations in this country experienced a mini-revolution when they had to rewrite their constitutions and go about their business differently. It went a long way towards promoting a greater mix and a greater balance with regard to the participation of women in organisations. Unfortunately, there were one or two high-profile instances of organisations in Dublin not abiding by the new law. One particularly high-profile golf club refused to amend its rules to allow women to become full members. It was regrettable that they did not comply with the spirit of the legislation. Neither I nor my party would subscribe to the notion of having exclusive men-only organisations in a modern society.

Perhaps we should review the complete effectiveness of the Equal Status Act 2000 by carrying out an audit, in so far as possible, of how it is being complied with by organisations throughout the country. That could be done in many ways. Our local authorities, for example, have a substantial active database of all community and voluntary organisations, including sports clubs and non-sporting organisations. If we could audit and monitor the level of compliance with the 2000 Act and the impact it has had, it would be a worthwhile exercise as it would be something we could refer to in time. If that is done, I am sure it will find that the legislation in question has had a very positive effect on the promotion of gender balance and a greater mix of participation by both genders.

One of the major concerns associated with the Bill before is that it will lead to an increase in the premiums to be paid across a number of insurance policies. I suppose the week after the budget is probably a bad week to discuss another increased bill that households will have to face. Given that the derogation will cease on 21 December next and will not apply to new insurance policies written after that date, it is unfortunate that so many insurance premiums are renewed in early January. The timing of this measure is particularly cruel because it means that many people will face increased insurance premiums late this year and early in the new year. In that context, I would like to know whether any regulatory impact assessment was carried out by the Department. Was that possible? If so, was it published? It might serve to inform the public.

The final issue I would like to raise with regard to this Bill relates to the financial services industry. Many of the organisations that underwrite this business are banks. As we know, some banks are involved in insurance as well as banking. Insurance is one of the many aspects of their financial services activity. We will have to keep an eye on how they treat the application of this change in the legislation. We must ensure they do not use it as an excuse to hike up premiums further than the actuarial people tell them they need to do. In other words, they must not use it as an opportunity to try to grow their capital bases further, or engage in another capital-gathering exercise. People are being squeezed by the banks on many fronts. This should not be viewed by the banks as an opportunity to squeeze the consumer a bit more. Consumers are being absolutely squeezed dry. The Financial Regulator and the Central Bank should have a role in ensuring the banks do not engage in opportunism. Unfortunately, we have learned to our detriment from our experience that the banks will take every opportunity possible to add a greater margin to the margins they are already squeezing out of people with the other products they are selling. Did we get the observations of the Financial Services Ombudsman's Bureau of Ireland as part of the regulatory impact assessment? Did that office make any input during the drafting of the legislation? Has the Department had any particular interaction with the ombudsman in that regard?

Sandra McLellan (Cork East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As this is a very technical Bill, I will not take up too much time. This Bill has had to be introduced on foot of the ruling by the European Court of Justice that the derogation in the EU gender directive that allows gender to be used as a risk factor in determining insurance costs is illegal. While we are on the matter of European courts, I would like to mention briefly that it is a shame the Government does not seem to hold the European Court of Human Rights in the same regard. I assume that is why it has not legislated for the X case as required by the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of A, B and C v. Ireland. There is a point to be made here about the role of statistical evidence about risk factors when the price of insurance is being determined. Insurance premiums are based on risk factors. In general, women receive lower premiums as there is a lower risk attached to them. Geographical location is a further risk assessment factor. Insurance costs are much higher in some parts of the country than in others because a higher proportion of road traffic accidents takes place in such locations. My concern about this Bill is that it will not result in lower insurance premiums for male drivers, but higher premiums for female drivers. While it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of gender, I am aware of some insurance companies in Britain that have introduced interesting initiatives to ensure women are not unfairly penalised in their insurance claims. Some insurance companies in Britain are offering discounts for young driver schemes, as well as safe driver schemes in which premiums are reduced for both genders where there is a demonstrable record of safety over a period of time. I hope insurance companies here will do the same.

Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank both Deputies. I assure Deputy Niall Collins that there was extensive consultation with the entire insurance industry, as well as with the Departments of Finance, Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation and Social Protection, the Central Bank, the National Consumer Agency, the Citizens Information Board, the Pensions Board, the Equality Authority and the Financial Services Ombudsman's Bureau of Ireland. The level of consultation was quite significant. People will always say there could have been additional consultation, but in this case I do not think that would have been possible. Anyone who was seen to be a stakeholder in this sector, including the consumer, was consulted.

As we all know, this measure has resulted from a case that was successfully taken at the European courts by a consumer group in Belgium. I know people are very conscious of what others pay for their insurance. We tend to know what is being paid. I appreciate what Deputy Collins said about the mortgage protection, income protection and life assurance products offered by banks. This Bill will not affect life assurance unless it is to be taken out after 21 December next and is therefore considered to be an ongoing contract rather than a new contract.

Where the major impact will be felt is in regard to new car insurance after 21 December.

Equality is a funny thing. As a woman, I see how it will affect women but, on the other hand, as Deputy McLellan rightly said, if we take out the gender issue, insurance companies will surely be able to take account of the fact that someone is a safer driver, as they have done in the past. No matter what gender they were, in the past unsafe drivers would see their insurance costs rise if they were involved in crashes. It is this type of detail that will be necessary.

Equality is a funny thing. As a woman, I see how it will affect women but, on the other hand, as Deputy McLellan rightly said, if we take out the gender issue out, insurance companies will surely be able to take account of the fact someone is a safer driver, as they have done in the past. No matter what the gender was, in the past an unsafe driver would see their insurance cost rise if they had a crash. It is this type of detail that will be necessary.

While I hate to say the following, it is a fact. People taking out insurance products, whether from a bank, a broker or directly from an insurance company would be wise to get at least three quotes. Just because a person is getting a mortgage from a particular lender does not mean the person must take insurance from that lender. Sometimes people do not realise this or forget it, and while there can be a degree of pressure, customers should resist it.

Comprehensive and detailed information leaflets are available both on the Department's website and on the website of the Citizens' Information Bureau. These have been available on the Internet for some time because we knew this was coming, and all the information the average citizen will need is available.

This is a brief but significant Bill that will have an impact on people's lives in the future. I hope those in the insurance industry will be sensible and take into account that someone is a safe driver, whether male or female.

I thank the two Deputies. It is late on a Thursday evening and I know what it is like to have to stay when the Dáil sits late.

Olivia Mitchell (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Bill will now be sent to the Seanad.