Cathal Byrne (Fine Gael)

I support this motion and commend the work done by my colleague, Senator Nelson Murray, in this area. I know the Minister of State has taken a personal interest in this matter for several years.

These proposals are common sense and reflect many of the issues experienced daily by small and medium businesses, private clubs and societies, and sports groups. In my own county of Wexford, many of these issues have been directly highlighted to me, particularly by sports clubs and small businesses that are concerned the rising cost of insurance will put them out of business.

One of the key considerations must be the balancing of the need to protect individuals who endure, through no fault of their own, serious and life-changing injuries with the need for a viable insurance market that offers low premiums for individual consumers to purchase. Trying to find this balance will be difficult and I have no doubt the Minister of State and his officials are aware of that, but it is important that some of the commonsensical proposals in motion be considered. The Cabinet subcommittee on insurance was set up under a previous Minister of State from Wexford, the former Deputy Michael D'Arcy, who did much work on the action plan for insurance reform. The work done in recent years is reflective of that.

I am concerned that, while the compensation being paid out through the personal injuries resolution process and courts, as a whole, appears to be on the way down, the premiums being charged to consumers are certainly not. There must be a greater examination of the bumper profits being made by insurance companies that also reflects the need for a viable insurance market. There is a need for insurance; it exists for a purpose. However, the reductions in payouts must be passed back on to the consumers. There are some good proposals in the motion about how best to maximise that and Senator Nelson Murray did good work in making those points in her contribution.

The penalties for insurance fraud, the need for new competition in the market, the work being done on the claims database and the high penalty introduced for perjury are all commonsensical measures that are driving down payouts. However, we need to see action on a reduction in claims. I am interested to hear from the Minister of State specific measures his Department is considering and intends to take in the next five years to address this issue. Having made these proposals, it is important that we be in a position to tell people what, on the one hand, the Government is doing to drive down payouts and protect those who are in need of compensation after suffering life-changing injuries and, on the other, how it is also ensuring that we have a viable insurance market where the difference between people choosing between closing down this year and keeping their doors open next year or the year after is not the cost of insurance, which no one wants to see.

I wish to highlight the idea of there being a further rebalancing of the Occupiers' Liability Act and duty of care. Good work has been done in this regard, but there could be more. For example, if people come onto a farmer's land, the farmer must have the Occupiers' Liability Act signs up warning them they are now on private property. It should be presumed rather than needing to be warned that, once people climb over a fence, open a gate or go into somebody's yard, they are on someone else's property and, therefore, they are the people with the duty of care. It should not rest entirely on the farmer to put up the signs and have consulted a solicitor for advice on what the parameters of the Occupiers' Liability Act are.

Farmers just want to be able to farm, business people just want to be able to run a business, and people in a voluntary and community organisation just want to be able to get on with the running of that. They do not want to have to consult a solicitor for an overly technical issue and ensure the specific wording of signs meets the requirements of the Occupiers' Liability Act. This area could be tightened up and a further rebalancing of the duty of care could be considered. Work was done on this approximately two years ago. Perhaps the Department has considered the matter and whether the rebalancing has gone far enough. I am interested in the Minister of State's thoughts and reflections on this.

I commend my colleague, Senator Nelson Murray, on the great work she has done on this. I commend the motion to the House.