Feargal Quinn (Independent) | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State is welcome although I cannot say the same for this legislation. It is interesting to note that Ireland, the UK and Spain are the countries believed to be the ones that will be most affected by this ruling because gender-based pricing are most commonly used in them. I would like to know if a cost analysis has been done of this. It was interesting to hear the two previous speaker talk about costs. How will this legislation affect the consumer? I draw attention to the fact a think-tank called Open Europe last year estimated that on average a 17 year old female driver will now have to pay roughly an extra ¤5,000 in insurance premiums by the time she reaches the age of 26 and that is as a consequence of this ruling. Unfortunately, in a general sense, there is too little consideration in legislative measures of the immediate effect of their provisions on citizens and businesses. Has the Government come up with its own figures on this?

I broadly welcome the principle of not allowing companies to discriminate according to gender. In a similar way, employers are not allowed to discriminate against women on the basis that they may have children and are more likely to take leave for maternity purposes but not all women become pregnant, and in a similar fashion, not all men are high risk.

On a broader level, I wonder if we can discriminate on the basis of age. We recently discussed legislation in the Seanad on not forcing employees to retire at a certain age, on which Senator White expressed a strong view. Does this mean that in principle the Europe Union finds gender discrimination wrong but age discrimination is okay? That is an interesting question to consider. Medical and insurance companies would have to massively change if a case regarding age discrimination came before the European Court of Justice.

My first concern as somebody who has been involved in business is that, on paper, insurance companies will say that premiums will generally fall for young men and will rise for females. The two previous speakers have also said that there is a danger that insurance companies will simply use the opportunity to raise the rates for females and keep the rates for young males the same. The Minister of State said, "The Central Bank, the National Consumer Agency and the Competition Authority each has specific statutory roles in promoting and protecting consumer interests", but I have grave doubts as to whether they will happen. I believe it will be a win-win situation for the insurance companies. How can we ensure that savings will be passed on to consumers? Can the Minister of State comment on this type of monitoring or will the insurance companies be big winners in this? I would like to know if the Financial Regulator, the Department of Transport, Tourism or Sport or even one of the multitude of quangos is planning to check whether the 25 year old will get a drop of ¤250 in his insurance premium or will he simply have to trust the insurance companies?

I am very concerned that there are other underhand methods of profiling drivers. Insurance companies use other statistics to find out the gender of a driver. For instance, they may determine how many drivers of a particular type of car are women. They may ask the percentage of nurses or primary school teachers who are female. Such data will likely be used in what the insurance companies call "profiling". Company car drivers are more likely to be male and could be charged more.

It has been suggested insurance companies may try to get around the rules by putting cars typically bought by young men in a higher insurance category which, in turn, would increase their premiums. What is the Government planning in this regard? Will the insurance companies effectively ignore the ruling, use their vast databases and come up with their own methods of identifying gender? As anybody who makes an inquiry of an insurance company knows, rates vary widely and can drop dramatically when one says one intends to change insurance company. The consumer is often not in a strong position if his or her insurance product which may be offered by only a handful of companies is one that he or she is legally compelled to buy. There is no strong competition in the sector.

I would like to see an investigation into practices in the insurance industry, including cost of repair pricing. It is common knowledge that there are two prices, one of which is charged for repairs commissioned by the insurance company. This is sometimes twice the price charged to an individual who goes into a garage on his or her own to have a vehicle repaired. When somebody dents the bumper of a two year old car, the insurance company will often state it is too uneconomical to repair and offer the consumer ¤100. This is not to mention the struggles consumers face with certain insurance companies for an award if they make a claim. The consumer would benefit greatly from a wide-ranging investigation into common practices in the insurance industry. The consumer feels powerless to do anything.

An interesting and slightly philosophical point concerns the increase in bicycle use. Should we consider a small premium for those who use their bicycles, especially those who commute? After all, bicycle users are road users also. Surely we should not discriminate against different road users. According to the RSA, in 2010 five pedal cyclists were killed and 399 were injured in collisions. Pedal cyclists constitute approximately 2% of all road fatalities.

Does the ruling mean that more young men will be able to start motoring at an earlier age? Does this increase the risk of accidents occurring?

Will the Minister comment on the position on pension annuities? The decision of the European Court of Justice will also affect the cost of buying an annuity, an annual pension income, as women live longer than men and thus receive a smaller annual pension for the same pot of money. Men will receive a smaller annuity income than they do now when their benefits are brought into line with those for women. I am worried that this will lead to a lowering of pension incomes. Will the Minister of State comment on this? There is a clear difference in average life expectancy for men and women. This change of circumstances could affect both sexes in different ways.

Will the Minister of State confirm that insurance companies will in no way be able apply provisions of this ruling retrospectively to long-term policies such as life assurance policies? This is to allay people's concerns completely on the matter.

I have asked many questions and hope we will have time to debate the matter fully. I am aware that there is an earlier signature motion and that the Minister of State referred to the deadline of 21 December, but there are a number of questions we really need to answer.