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

I will have a look at it.

On the Central Bank of Ireland leeway that the Senator also highlighted, the Central Bank, as the regulator, is the appropriate body to do this. It has information on the insurance companies that cannot and will not be available to other bodies, including the CSO and PIAB. This is basically a technical structure to analyse information and present a report. We are starting with motor insurance and we will move to other parts of the insurance industry afterwards.

On section 14 of the Civil Liability and Courts Act, the change in data retention and the GDPR regulations has resulted in an anomaly in law. Somebody who has imagery or video footage is obliged by law to delete that imagery within one month. The unfairness of this requirement is clear to me and obliges us to do something about it. We are reconciling the period within which an insured person must inform someone else that he or she may take a case with the time within which imagery and video footage must be deleted. This is to ensure the person against whom a claim is being made can protect that imagery or video footage and have a proper defence. That is fair. By law, one is obliged to delete such footage after one month. It is absolutely appropriate that the two time schedules are merged into the same period.

It is also appropriate that if one does not have a reasonable ground for failing to inform the person against whom a claim may have been taken, the judge can draw inferences from that. On too many occasions, people first find out about a claim against them when they seek to renew their insurance premium and find there has been a loading. That is not fair or right either.

Section 14 also makes a change on the affidavit. We must give people an opportunity to mount a proper defence.I also want to end the practice of taking fraudulent insurance claims. This is not a victimless crime. Everyone who pays a premium pays extra for fraud. I want to end the situation where that practice is a one-way bet. Claimants can chance their arm on a claim for €20,000, €30,000, €40,000 or €50,000, which can be thrown out of the civil courts by a judge who suspects an element of fraud. The difficulty arises because the interaction between the criminal courts and the civil courts has not been property constructed. We want to improve that so that the opportunity to place a one-way bet, which is part of the structure of Irish insurance, does not continue. I accept what the Senator says. We did not take these changes lightly. However, we believe there are sufficient protections within the structure to avoid an unfair impact on those with legitimate claims.

I will make two final points. Everything we are doing primarily concerns the lower range of awards, that is, claims below €30,000. All our analysis, including the Personal Injuries Commission, PIC, report, the Department of Finance report and the Personal Injuries Assessment Board report, shows that those claims are well out of kilter with our UK neighbours. That is the best jurisdiction with which to compare ourselves. About five times more is awarded in this jurisdiction than in the UK. If consumers want British premia, claimants must receive British awards. Our awards are not in sync with that. Less work has been done to examine much larger awards, but these seem to be in line with those in other jurisdictions, whereas that is certainly not the case with lower awards. That is one point.

If we want to do this, these changes must be made. As I said, the lower awards are well out of sync with similar awards in the UK, while higher awards are practically in sync. I have forgotten my second point.