Committee Reports::Report No. 09 - Final Report on Reforms to the Irish Insurance Market::01 March, 2007::Report


Tithe an Oireachtais


An Comhchoiste um Fhiontraíocht agus Mionghnóthaí


An Naóú Tuarascáil


An Tuarascáil Deiridh maidir le hAthchóirithe ar Mhargadh Árachais na hÉireann


Márta 2007


Houses of the Oireachtas


Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business


Ninth Report Final Report on Reforms to the Irish Insurance Market


March 2007


CONTENTS

i

Chairman’s Foreword

ii

Members of the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business

iii

Committee on Enterprise and Small Business Orders of Reference

iv

Overview of Insurance Reform / Work of Joint Committee

v

Executive Summary

1

Introduction and Developments

2

Road Safety

3

Health and Safety in the Workplace

4

Insurance Companies and Brokers

5

Personal Injuries Assessment Board

6

Legal and Courts Reform

7

Insurance Regulation

8

Further Reductions in Insurance Premiums

9

Responsibility for Insurance and Enforcement

10

Implementing the Recommendations

Appendix A


Witnesses at Meetings on Insurance Reform with the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business


Appendix B


Categorisation of Recommendations in the Third Interim and the Road Safety Reports


i Chairman’s Foreword

The publication of the Final Report on Insurance Reform by the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business shows the success of the insurance reform programme. The Joint Committee sustained its commitment to the cause of insurance reform over the past four years. Since the publication of our First Interim Report, there have been significant reductions in the level of insurance premiums and improvements in the environment in which insurance companies operate.


The Joint Committee expresses its appreciation of the support given by Government Ministers, including Mr Michéal Martin, T.D, the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Mr Michael McDowell, T.D., the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, and Mr Martin Cullen, T.D., the Minister for Transport. We also wish to express our thanks to those in the insurance industry and all of the other persons who made presentations to the Joint Committee during 2006.


The Joint Committee also wishes to thank O’Reilly Consultants who assisted the Joint Committee in its evaluation and analysis of the evidence given and the Committee Secretariat for its support throughout this project.


In adopting this Final Report, the Joint Committee of the Twenty-ninth Oireachtas has completed its work on insurance reform. The Joint Committee requests that the Joint Committee of the 30th Oireachtas prepares a report in about two years on a number of recommendations that have not yet been implemented.


I wish to thank especially all of the Members of the Joint Committee for their support and hard work to ensure that insurance costs in Ireland would be reasonable for consumers and internationally competitive.


Donie Cassidy, T.D.


Chairman


Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business


14 March 2007


ii Members of the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business

Deputies:

Martin Brady

(FF)1 (Vice-Chairperson)

Pat Breen

(FG)2

Joe Callanan

(FF) (Government Convenor)

Donie Cassidy

(FF) (Chairman)

Tony Dempsey

(FF)

Phil Hogan

(FG)

Paddy McHugh

(Ind)

Breeda Moynihan-Cronin

(Lab)3 (Opposition Convenor)

M. J. Nolan

(FF)

Ned O’Keeffe

(FF)4

Ruairí Quinn

(Lab)5

Senator:

Paul Coghlan

(FG)

John Hanafin

(FF)

Terry Leyden

(FF)

Joe O’Toole

(Ind)6

iii Committee on Enterprise and Small Business Orders of
Reference

Dáil Éireann on 16 October 2002 ordered:


    1. That a Select Committee, which shall be called the Select Committee on Enterprise and Small Business, consisting of 11 members of Dáil Éireann (of whom four shall constitute a quorum), be appointed to consider –
      1. such Bills the statute law in respect of which is dealt with by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment;
      2. such Estimates for Public Services within the aegis of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment; and
      3. such proposals contained in any motion, including any motion within the meaning of Standing Order 157 concerning the approval by the Dáil of international agreements involving a charge on public funds, as shall be referred to it by Dáil Éireann from time to time.
    2. For the purpose of its consideration of Bills and proposals under paragraphs (1)(a)(i) and (iii), the Select Committee shall have the powers defined in Standing Order 81(1), (2) and (3).
    3. For the avoidance of doubt, by virtue of his or her ex officio membership of the Select Committee in accordance with Standing Order 90(1), the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment (or a Minister or Minister of State nominated in his or her stead) shall be entitled to vote.
    1. The Select Committee shall be joined with a Select Committee to be appointed by Seanad Éireann to form the Joint Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment to consider –
      1. such public affairs administered by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment as it may select, including, in respect of Government policy, bodies under the aegis of that Department;
      2. such matters of policy for which the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment is officially responsible as it may select;
      3. such related policy issues as it may select concerning bodies which are partly or wholly funded by the State or which are established or appointed by Members of the Government or by the Oireachtas;
      4. such Statutory Instruments made by the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment and laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas as it may select;
      5. such proposals for EU legislation and related policy issues as may be referred to it from time to time, in accordance with Standing Order 81(4);
      6. the strategy statement laid before each House of the Oireachtas by the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment pursuant to section 5(2) of the Public Service Management Act, 1997, and the Joint Committee shall be so authorised for the purposes of section 10 of that Act;
      7. (vii) such annual Reports or annual Reports and accounts, required by law and laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas, of bodies specified in paragraphs 2(a)(i) and (iii), and the overall operational results, statements of strategy and corporate plans of these bodies, as it may select;
      8. Provided that the Joint Committee shall not, at any time, consider any matter relating to such a body which is, which has been, or which is, at that time, proposed to be considered by the Committee of Public Accounts pursuant to the Orders of Reference of that Committee and/or the Comptroller and Auditor General (Amendment) Act, 1993;


        Provided further that the Joint Committee shall refrain from inquiring into in public session, or publishing confidential information regarding, any such matter if so requested either by the body concerned or by the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment; and


      9. such other matters as may be jointly referred to it from time to time by both Houses of the Oireachtas, and shall report thereon to both Houses of the Oireachtas.
    2. The quorum of the Joint Committee shall be five, of whom at least one shall be a member of Dáil Éireann and one a member of Seanad Éireann.
    3. The Joint Committee shall have the powers defined in Standing Order 81(1) to (9) inclusive.
  1. The Chairman of the Joint Committee, who shall be a member of Dáil Éireann, shall also be Chairman of the Select Committee.’

Seanad Éireann on 17 October 2002 ordered:


    1. That a Select Committee consisting of four members of Seanad Éireann shall be appointed to be joined with a Select Committee of Dáil Éireann to form the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business to consider –
      1. such public affairs administered by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment as it may select, including, in respect of Government policy, bodies under the aegis of that Department;
      2. such matters of policy for which the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment is officially responsible as it may select;
      3. such related policy issues as it may select concerning bodies which are partly or wholly funded by the State or which are established or appointed by Members of the Government or by the Oireachtas;
      4. such Statutory Instruments made by the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment and laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas as it may select;
      5. such proposals for EU legislation and related policy issues as may be referred to it from time to time, in accordance with Standing Order 65(4);
      6. the strategy statement laid before each House of the Oireachtas by the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment pursuant to section 5(2) of the Public Service Management Act, 1997, and the Joint Committee shall be so authorised for the purposes of section 10 of that Act;
      7. such annual Reports or annual Reports and accounts, required by law and laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas, of bodies specified in paragraphs 1(a)(i) and (iii), and the overall operational results, statements of strategy and corporate plans of these bodies, as it may select;
      8. Provided that the Joint Committee shall not, at any time, consider any matter relating to such a body which is, which has been, or which is, at that time, proposed to be considered by the Committee of Public Accounts pursuant to the Orders of Reference of that Committee and/or the Comptroller and Auditor General (Amendment) Act, 1993;


        Provided further that the Joint Committee shall refrain from inquiring into in public session, or publishing confidential information regarding, any such matter if so requested either by the body concerned or by the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment; and


      9. such other matters as may be jointly referred to it from time to time by both Houses of the Oireachtas, and shall report thereon to both Houses of the Oireachtas.
    2. The quorum of the Joint Committee shall be five, of whom at least one shall be a member of Dáil Éireann and one a member of Seanad Éireann.
    3. The Joint Committee shall have the powers defined in Standing Order 65(1) to (9) inclusive.
  1. The Chairman of the Joint Committee shall be a member of Dáil Éireann.’

iv Overview of Insurance Reform / Work of Joint Committee

Insurance premiums started to rise substantially in early 2001. The trend in the insurance costs included in the Consumer Price Index is given in the table below.


Changes in insurance costs compared with average of previous year


Year

Dwellings

Motor Cycles

Private Motor Cars

1997

3%

2%

3%

1998

2%

35%

4%

1999

3%

22%

6%

2000

4%

0%

9%

2001

10%

18%

17%

2002

16%

38%

13%

2003

4%

17%

-1%

2004

-1%

15%

-12%

2005

-5%

1%

-10%

2006

-7%

0%

-7%

End 2006 compared to average 2006

-4%

0%

-4%

Increases average 2006 compared to average 1996

29%

272%

20%

Source: Central Statistics Office (CSO) Special Report: January 2007


Months of Significant Changes


Year

Dwellings

Motor Cycles

Private Motor Cars

1997

1998

+May/July/Sept +Oct/Nov/Dec

1999

-Aug

2000

+Oct/Dec

+Dec

2001

+Feb/Mar +Nov/Dec

+Sept/Oct/Nov

+Jan/Mar/Apr +Oct/Nov

2002

+July

+May/Oct

2003

+April

+Jun -Nov

-Sept/Oct/Nov

2004

+Feb

-Sept

2005

-Jan/Mar/Aug

-Nov

2006

-Jan/Jun/Sept/ Nov

-Sept

Comment


Over the ten years from 1996 to 2006, increases in the costs of insurance have been:


Dwellings: +29%


Motor Cycles: +272%


Motor Cars: +20%


Motor cycle insurance is a small part of the total market. However, the increases have been extraordinary and there have been almost no reductions in costs.


For Dwellings and Private Motor Cars, it is clear that the major increases took place in 2001 and 2002. Costs fell in 2005 and 2006 and were continuing to fall at the end of 2006.


This information is produced by the CSO as part of the Consumer Price Index. There is no similar information available for commercial motor or liability insurance (employer’s liability and public liability) as they are not consumer expenditure.


The increases in the cost of insurance caused a major public outcry. The Joint Committee in its first report reported on the evidence received of the effects of the rapid increases in insurance costs. Appendix B3 from the first report, ‘The Burden on Business – the Case for Change’ is reproduced below.


The Burden on Business – The Case for Change

Businesses have experienced enormous increases in the cost of insurance over the past few years. According to an SFA (Small Firms Association) survey, 92 per cent of businesses regarded insurance costs as a significant business problem. Evidence presented to the Committee in written submissions and during oral hearings has shown the extremely large percentage increases.


The IHF (Irish Hotels Federation) stated that the results of one of its surveys showed that the mean increase in members’ premiums between 2000 and 2003 was 351 per cent. According to the IHF, between 2000 and 2003, excesses on insurance policies have increased by over 2000 per cent. According to the IHF and others, no matter what steps businesses take to manage and reduce risk, there is little or no impact on the premiums charged. This may lead to a situation where businesses no longer see the benefit of striving to eliminate risk.


ISME (Irish Small and Medium Enterprises Association) stated that their members experienced an average increase over the past 2 ½ years of 290 per cent and that businesses spent an average of 2.5 per cent of their turnover on premiums. Approximately 10 per cent, or 350, ISME members are self-insured and a recent article in The Sunday Times indicated that 10,000 Irish businesses were uninsured. As a result of being uninsured, the directors of these companies are personally liable for accidents that occur on their premises. ISME stated that high insurance costs were acting as a barrier to startups and thus stifling wealth creation.


According to SFA, many businesses now have to borrow to pay their insurance premiums.


According to AIR, (Alliance for Insurance Reform) the dramatic rise in insurance costs and the difficulty experienced by many businesses in finding insurance quotes have already forced the closure of a number of businesses and led to a loss of employment. In a recent ISME survey of 1,000 companies, 400 companies stated that they anticipated job losses.


IBEC (Irish Business and Employers Confederation) stated that high insurance premiums had a significant effect on business because:


  • premiums are a bottom- line cost, i.e. they come out of profit
  • they are a cost that recurs annually
  • there is no correlation between business performance and premium costs
  • unlike most other costs, premiums have to be paid in advance
  • insurance increases are not easily passed on to customers.

Reasons for Increase in Insurance Costs

The Joint Committee discussed the position with the insurance companies in detail and received many submissions outlining the reasons why insurance costs increased so dramatically. In addition, the Competition Authority carried out a wide-ranging study to try to determine the reasons for the rapid increase in insurance premiums.


Arising from the studies undertaken by the Competition Authority and its external consultants, it seemed that there were two main factors that gave rise to the very sharp increase in premiums for employers and public liability insurance.


  1. The demise of the Independent Insurance Company and the reaction by the shareholders of Irish-based insurance companies that returns from the market had to be improved.
  2. A shortfall in capacity due to:
    1. the cumulative increases in GNP (Gross National Product) leading to a higher number of motor vehicles on the road and much greater numbers in employment,
    2. withdrawal of some insurers from the market, as well as,
    3. the charging of higher premiums. As prices rose, insurance companies were unable to take on additional business due to capacity restraints. This led to further increases in prices.

The explanations given to the Joint Committee by the insurance companies included:


  1. The sudden loss in the value of their investments that incurred with the declining international stock markets. This meant that it was no longer possible to accept underwriting losses and to have these offset by income from investments and profits on the sale of investments.
  2. Events following 11 September 2001 and a number of other catastrophes, due to flooding, earthquakes, etc., made it increasingly difficult to offset insurance risks by reinsurance. The cost of reinsurance had risen very substantially and there was a lack of capacity in the market to reinsure.
  3. The ever-increasing level of awards in the Irish courts meant that provisions that had been made earlier for claims against policyholders were no longer sufficient and had to be increased.
  4. General inflation in the Irish market, and, in particular, medical, wage and salary inflation, meant that provisions for claims were insufficient and had to be increased, thus resulting in losses in the year in which these additional provisions had to be made.
  5. The decline in interest rates throughout the world meant that investment income from deposits was substantially down. This further reinforced the need to make a profit at the underwriting level.
  6. Some witnesses stated that international mergers sanctioned by the EU Commission had a more substantial effect in the Irish market than in other markets and this had led to a reduction in competition and a loss of capacity.

Undoubtedly, the insurance companies were influenced to increase prices by their results over the previous five years.


Underwriting Results of Insurance Companies


Class of Insurance

Loss Years

2001

2002

Private Motor

1998–2002

-€107m

-€9 m

Commercial Motor

1998–2001

-€67m

+€28 m

Household Property

1998; 2000–2002

-€44m

-€53 m

Commercial Property

1998–2000

+€11m

+€86 m

Employer’s Liability

1998–2002

*-€55m

*-€60 m

Public Liability

1998–2002

*-€100m

*-€50 m

* -approximate


It can be seen from the above that the underwriting results (before taking into account income from investments) of the insurance companies were poor, with losses on most classes of insurance each year.


Source: Insurance Industry Federation Fact File on website


Government Concern

The increases in insurance costs gave rise to very considerable Government concern.


The Motor Insurance Advisory Board (MIAB), which had been established in September 1998 under the chair of Ms Dorothea Dowling, published its report on the high costs of motor insurance in April 2002. The Government accepted the report’s findings and took steps to implement the recommendations. The Government Insurance Market reform programme included the following:


  • appointment of a cross-departmental Industry Implementation Group and publication of the MIAB action plan
  • establishment of the Ministerial Committee (representing the Departments of Enterprise, Trade and Employment; Transport; and Justice, Equality and Law Reform) to oversee implementation of the MIAB recommendations
  • establishment of an interim Personal Injuries Assessment Board (PIAB) chaired by Ms Dorothea Dowling
  • launch of a joint study by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and the Competition Authority into the insurance sector, to identify anti-competitive practices and other restraints on competition
  • establishment of an Irish Financial Services Regulatory Authority (Financial Regulator) to improve financial regulation and look after the interests of the consumer
  • a review of health and safety at work and the level of fatalities and accidents on the roads.

The Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business

The Joint Committee, in response to public concern about the issue of insurance, agreed on 29 January 2003 that it would consider arrangements put in place by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment under the Government programme to reform the insurance market, especially with regard to the high cost of insurance to drivers and small businesses. The Joint Committee commenced a series of oral hearings from invited organisations and individuals on 19 June 2003. The Joint Committee had received 47 submissions in response to an advertisement placed in the Sunday newspapers. The Joint Committee’s first report was published in July 2003. In its report, the Joint Committee made 40 recommendations in relation to reforming the Irish insurance market.


In addition to meeting with those who complained about the high increases in insurance costs, the Joint Committee has met, each year, with each of the five major insurance companies. All of these meetings have been in public session and many have led to publicity about insurance costs and the actions being taken by the insurance companies and by Government to reduce these costs.


Reforms to Market Environment

Since 2003, the following developments have taken place:


  1. The enactment of the legislation in respect of the Personal Injuries Assessment Board (PIAB) and its successful operation are having a significant effect on reducing the costs of dealing with insurance claims and of speeding up the processing of claims to the benefit of insurance companies and of claimants.
  2. Enactment of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004. This Act has reformed the law on personal injuries actions and introduced tough new anti-fraud measures for claimants.
  3. The establishment of the Irish Financial Services Regulatory Authority (Financial Regulator) which took over the regulatory function for the insurance market in 2003.
  4. The enactment of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act in July 2005. This Act reformed the safety and health legislation and has enabled the Health and Safety Authority to be more effective in the carrying out of its functions.
  5. The commencement of the penalty points system in 2003. Penalty points, on introduction, had a significant impact on the level of fatalities on the roads. Unfortunately, the effect diminished over time.
  6. The establishment of the Road Safety Authority, by means of the enactment of the Road Safety Act of 2006. This is a significant milestone in the promotion of road safety in Ireland.
  7. Road Traffic Acts of 2004 and 2006. These Acts have reformed the road traffic legislation and have enabled a number of important measures to be taken to assist the Gardaí in the enforcement of road safety.
  8. The establishment by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform of an inquiry into legal costs. The report of the inquiry was published and a further report by an Implementation Group is awaited.
  9. The establishment by the Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform of a Committee on Court Practice and Procedure, under the Chair of Ms Susan Denham, Supreme Court Justice.
  10. The publication by the Financial Regulator of the Consumer Protection Code in July 2006.
  11. The establishment of the Traffic Corps – a dedicated unit of the Gardaí to concentrate only on enforcement of traffic legislation. The Traffic Corps commenced in November 2005; its numbers are increasing continually and are planned to total 1,200 in 2008.
  12. The adoption by the Government of the proposal to install speed cameras operated by a private operator, but subject to the control of the Gardaí. This decision has yet to be given effect by the actual commencement of the speed cameras. However, this is expected in 2007.
  13. The application of penalty points to all offences. This was brought about in April 2006 by Ministerial Order, following the completion of the computerisation of the penalty points system.
  14. Random breath testing. This commenced on 21 July 2006, with random breath test checkpoints throughout the country and has led to a dramatic fall in the numbers of fatalities in the period August to December 2006.

Work of the Joint Committee

The Joint Committee made 87 recommendations prior to this report. Of these, 29 were made in the July 2006 Report on Road Safety. Most of these recommendations have not yet been accepted or rejected. Of the remaining 58 recommendations, only two have been rejected. However, 16 recommendations have yet to be implemented and the Joint Committee requests its successor Committee, in the 30th Oireachtas, to inquire into the implementation of these 16 recommendations during late 2008 or early 2009.


Final Report of March 2007

In this report the Joint Committee records many of the statements made by those giving evidence during 2006. The report makes six recommendations:


  1. All imported vehicles should have the following fitted by 31 December 2008:
    1. An electronic data recorder,
    2. Controls to ensure that the vehicle does not start until all persons in the vehicle have safety belts fastened,
    3. Improved types of safety belts that are proven to increase the chances of survival in the event of a collision,
    4. Cruise control that will make it easier to comply with speed limits,
    5. ESP systems that improve driver control in slippery conditions.
  2. Insurance companies should:
    1. Reward good workplace health and safety practices by means of a verifiable and robust system to be worked out with industry,
    2. Give incentives to small companies that have health and safety statements in place and named persons responsible for health and safety,
    3. Provide greater support in the promotion of workplace health and safety.
  3. The Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment should introduce legislation to permit PIAB to deal directly with claimants.
  4. The Financial Regulator should make arrangements to obtain and publish the information required by PIAB.
  5. The Government should allocate responsibility for continuous reform of the insurance sector to one Government department.
  6. A motor vehicle agency should be established by the Department of Transport to:
    1. Establish and maintain a database of information on motor vehicles and drivers for use by the Gardaí,
    2. Pursue by administrative means the owners of motor vehicles that have not renewed their insurance, have not taxed their vehicles and whose vehicles have not passed the NCT tests,
    3. Reduce substantially the level of uninsured driving on Irish roads.

Conclusion

The Joint Committee has devoted a significant amount of its time to insurance reform due to the importance of the issue for consumers and businesses.


The Joint Committee is particularly grateful to all of those who gave evidence to it and provided many of the ideas on which the recommendations were based. In particular, the Joint Committee expresses its gratitude to the insurance companies for their cooperation. The Joint Committee is very pleased indeed that insurance costs have fallen so substantially between 2003 and now. The Joint Committee played its part in bringing about an extraordinary level of reforms in insurance and road safety in the Irish market. It was the agreement by members of the Joint Committee on the need for reforms that led to the speedy enactment of the legislation presented by Government to the Oireachtas.


The continuing fall in insurance premiums is an indication that the insurance market is now a competitive market. However, this has been achieved without a substantial new entrant. Nevertheless, the two Irish-owned companies, Quinn Direct and FBD, have provided significant competition to the other major companies operating in the Irish market.


The success of the insurance reform programme is a good example of what can be done when Government, an Oireachtas Joint Committee and industry work together to achieve results for the benefit of consumers and of business.


We examine in the report 15 general recommendations that have yet to be implemented. There is a lot more to be done. It is important that the reductions in insurance premiums should not delay or postpone reform of the market.


Furthermore, the success of two important reforms, the establishment of the PIAB and the enactment of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004 is by no means assured. It will take Government vigilance and a willingness to bring in amending legislation, if required, to ensure that insurance companies and policyholders continue to benefit from these changes.


v Executive Summary

  1. The Report commences with an overview of the Insurance Reform Programme from the years 2003 to 2006. The overview shows the price changes that have taken place in some insurance sectors and gives the reasons for the increases in insurance costs that took place. The overview also shows the actions that were taken by Government to deal with the extraordinary level of increases in insurance costs that took place in 2001 and 2002. The work of the Joint Committee, which commenced at the beginning of 2003 and published its first report in July 2003, is shown. The Joint Committee has met with each of the major insurance companies on four occasions.
  2. The introduction and developments chapter records the developments that have taken place since the publication of the Third Report in January 2006. Among these developments were the publication, by the Minister for Justice, of the report on Ways of Reducing the Costs of Civil Litigation, the publication by the Competition Authority of its report on the legal professions and the publication of the Consumer Code by the Financial Regulator.


  3. Chapter 2, on road safety, contains a table showing the remarkable drop in the numbers of fatalities in the five months from August to December 2006. As compared with the previous year, there was a reduction of 45 fatalities during that period. While the Road Safety Authority engaged in very extensive advertising and public exhortation, and this undoubtedly influenced the situation, it is likely that the most important reason for the reduction of road deaths was the commencement by the Garda Traffic Corps, on 21 July 2006, of mandatory alcohol testing or random breath-testing.
  4. Important developments on road safety included the establishment of a Ministerial Committee to oversee road safety policy and the establishment of the Road Safety Authority.


    The Joint Committee published a Report on Road Safety at the end of July 2006. This report contained 29 recommendations. While the recommendations have generally been welcomed, the Joint Committee is awaiting the publication of the Road Safety Strategy for the years 2007 to 2012 to ascertain whether or not they have been accepted.


    In addition, the Joint Committee recommends that the Road Safety Authority require certain safety features to be fitted as standard to all vehicles imported after 31 December 2008. (Recommendation 59)


  5. The Health and Safety Authority met with the Joint Committee in June 2006. The Joint Committee is pleased to see that the number of fatalities for 2006 has reduced to the level of 2004, a substantial fall as compared with 2005. As with the Road Safety Authority, the work of the Health and Safety Authority is of very great importance. In addition to reducing the grief of relatives caused by fatal injuries, it is important to reduce the number of fatalities and injuries at work to the level experienced in other European countries, so as to ensure that Ireland’s competitiveness is maintained. The Joint Committee makes an additional recommendation (60) to assist the work of the HSA.
  6. Extensive reports are given of the presentations by the five insurance companies during 2006. In general, most insurance companies foresaw the possibility of further reductions in insurance costs, provided the environment in which the insurance companies operated continued to improve. However, AXA thought that the era of reductions in premiums had now come to an end. This statement was made before the reductions in motor vehicle fatalities became evident in the second half of 2006.
  7. In general, insurance companies are making a significant contribution to road safety and to health and safety at work. However, it is always possible to do more and the Joint Committee has made a number of recommendations to the insurance companies that it believes will lead to further reductions in fatalities on the roads and at work.


  8. The Personal Injuries Assessment Board (PIAB) reported on the progress that it had made in speeding up the processing of claims where there is no dispute as to liability and in reducing the level of legal and other costs. The PIAB is concerned that the actions of some firms of solicitors have resulted in the PIAB not informing claimants that there is no need to engage the services of a solicitor. The PIAB is awaiting the outcome of its appeal of the High Court decision to the Supreme Court. The Joint Committee is particularly anxious that the PIAB is successful and that the objectives planned for it are achieved and continue to be achieved in the future. The Joint Committee has made recommendations that, if implemented, will assist PIAB to carry out its functions. (Recommendations 61 and 62)
  9. A major reform in civil legal proceedings took place with the enactment of the Civil Liability and Courts Act in 2004. The full effects of this Act are now being experienced but it will be some time before it can be said to have been entirely successful. The success of this legislation is potentially of considerable importance.
  10. One of the most successful reforms has been the Financial Regulator’s assumption of responsibility for insurance regulation. The Joint Committee and the Competition Authority made many recommendations to the Financial Regulator in relation to reform of the insurance market. The Joint Committee met with the Financial Regulator at the end of May 2006 and engaged in correspondence with him. In general, apart from the review that is to take place in relation to the role and other aspects of the work of intermediaries in the insurance market, the recommendations made by the Joint Committee have largely been accepted and implemented. The Joint Committee is satisfied that the Financial Regulator is operating to the highest standards. The role of regulation in the insurance market is of particular importance.
  11. The Joint Committee looks at the possibility of achieving further reductions in insurance premiums. The latest information available in relation to profits is for the year 2005. The five major companies increased their profits by 14 per cent in 2005, following increases of 46 per cent in 2004 and 230 per cent in 2003. However, it is also clear that premium prices per policy declined in 2005 as compared with 2004.
  12. The Joint Committee is concerned that the expert group, that it requested should be established to consider the level of awards in the Irish Courts compared with those in other countries, was not established during the last four years. The review of Irish awards, compared with those of other countries, is of critical importance if Irish insurance costs are to be competitive with those that exist elsewhere.


    The Joint Committee obtained information from the Motor Insurance Bureau of Ireland. This showed that Ireland has the highest level of uninsured drivers in the EU.


    The Joint Committee considers that it is possible to bring about further reductions in insurance premiums if the trend in the reduction of fatalities on the roads and in the workplace continues, and if the level of awards is reduced to comparable levels. In addition, actions to reduce the level of uninsured drivers and to implement the reports on the reduction of legal costs will be of considerable assistance in the further reduction of insurance premiums.


  13. The Joint Committee is concerned that no Government department is clearly responsible for insurance policy and for continually working on improving the market and the processes. The Financial Regulator is responsible for all of the regulatory work and for the consideration of consumer issues in relation to insurance. However, the actions taken initially by the Ministerial Committee to bring about reform of the market are no longer the responsibility of any minister. The Joint Committee recommends that the Government allocate responsibility for continuous reform of the insurance market to one Government department. (Recommendation 63)
  14. In addition, the Joint Committee is concerned that there is no agency clearly responsible for motor vehicle and driver records. It is essential that the Gardaí should have access to a database of motor vehicle and driver records if the level of uninsured drivers is to be reduced, and if road safety standards generally are to be improved. (Recommendation 64)


  15. As this is the final report on insurance reform by the Joint Committee of the Twenty-ninth Oireachtas, the Joint Committee looks to the implementation of its recommendations. Of the 58 recommendations, it is considered that 36 (including ten road safety recommendations) have been implemented or accepted.
  16. There are, however, 15 recommendations that should be implemented in the future and that need to be monitored by the Joint Committee of the 30th Oireachtas. Such monitoring can take place at any time, but it may be that a review in about two years’ time would be appropriate. The report lists the recommendations that are to be implemented in the future and comments on each of them.


    In addition to the 15 recommendations, there are over 25 recommendations on road safety that were made in the July 2006 report that await implementation. These should also be reviewed in about two years.


1 Introduction and Developments

The Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business published its First Interim Report on reforms to the insurance market in early August 2003, its Second Interim Report in July 2004, its Third Interim Report in January 2006 and a Road Safety Report in July 2006. This report is the Final Report of the Joint Committee in relation to insurance reform.


A list of the recommendations in all of the reports is given by category in Appendix B.


The Joint Committee appointed O’Reilly Consultants (218, Lower Kilmacud Road, Dublin 14) in April 2006 to provide further support during this series of oral hearings and to draft its Final Report on Insurance Reform.


The Joint Committee held a series of oral hearings with invited organisations, commencing in May 2006 and finishing in November 2006.


A list of the organisations and individuals who attended hearings of the Joint Committee is included in Appendix A.


Following each hearing a report was circulated to the Members of the Joint Committee. The transcripts of the hearings are published by the Editor of Debates. Video and tape recordings of the hearings are also available.


The Joint Committee commenced meeting witnesses for its Final Report on Insurance Reform in May 2006 and held three meetings with witnesses representing nine organisations during May and June. As part of its work, a delegation from the Joint Committee undertook a visit to the United States in June 2006 in relation to road safety. During its visit, the Joint Committee had ten meetings on different aspects of road safety in Chicago, Iowa, Maryland, Washington, Tennessee and New York.


In early July 2006, 11 people were killed in road crashes in one weekend; the number of fatalities on Irish roads (200) for the first six months of 2006 was higher by 18 than the number of fatalities in the first six months of 2005 and 2004. The media reported widespread public concern about road safety. For this reason, the Joint Committee decided that, instead of waiting until September to publish its Final Report on Insurance Reform, of which road safety would be a part, it should publish a report on its conclusions on road safety as soon as possible so that remedial actions could be taken by the appropriate authorities.


Motor insurance premiums partly reflect the level of motor vehicle collisions. One important aspect of reducing insurance premiums is to reduce the level of collisions and, in particular, the level of fatalities on Irish roads. In publishing its report, the Members of the Joint Committee were, however, primarily motivated by a desire to see a significant reduction in the number of fatalities and serious injuries on Irish roads.


Developments since the Publication of the Third Report in January 2006

The following developments have taken place since the Joint Committee published its January 2006 report.


  1. The Competition Authority published its final report on its study of Competition in Legal Services in December 2006. (See Chapter 6).
  2. The group established by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to consider ways of reducing the costs of civil litigation, including the present level of legal fees and costs arising in civil litigation, submitted its report. (See Chapter 6).
  3. The Financial Regulator published the Consumer Protection Code in July 2006.

Road Safety Developments since January 2006

The most important developments were in relation to:


  • the establishment of a Government Road Safety Group
  • the enactment of the Road Safety Authority Act, 2006
  • the enactment of the Road Traffic Act, 2006
  • the application of penalty points to all road traffic offences affecting road safety
  • the increase in the numbers in the Traffic Corps
  • the commencement of random breath testing by the Garda Traffic Corps.

Further information on each of these is set out below:


Government Road Safety Group

The Minister for Transport announced that a new high-level Government Road Safety Group was established, comprising:


  • Minister for Transport (Chairman)
  • Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform
  • Minister for Finance
  • Minister for Health and Children
  • Minister for Education and Science.

Road Safety Authority Act, 2006

The establishment of a body with specific responsibility for road safety is a significant development in relation to road safety in Ireland. The Road Safety Authority was established by Ministerial Order on 1 September 2006.


Among the functions of the Authority are:


  • driving instructors – certificates of competency, test certificates and registration of driving instructors
  • motor vehicle standards
  • promotion of public awareness of road safety
  • provision of advice, if requested by the Minister for Transport, relating to vehicles, driver licensing, speed limits, and control of traffic
  • preparation of road safety programmes after consultation with the Garda Síochána, local authorities, the National Roads Authority or such other person as the Minister considers appropriate
  • driver testing and licensing.

Road Traffic Act, 2006

The Road Traffic Act, 2006, makes provision for a number of road traffic issues including:


  • prohibition of the use of a hand-held mobile phone while driving
  • establishment of checkpoints by members of An Garda Síochána to test for alcohol
  • a fixed charge of €300 and six months disqualification for exceeding the alcohol limit
  • recognition of foreign driving licences
  • regulations for driving licences
  • learner permits
  • driving without a licence
  • a requirement to carry a driver licence while driving
  • fixed-charge offences
  • compulsory use of safety belts and child restraint systems in motor vehicles
  • vehicle testing
  • agreements in relation to the operation of speed cameras and other devices
  • increases in penalties
  • detention of vehicles.

On 21 July 2006 the following came into force following a Ministerial Order:


  • Gardaí received the power to carry out mandatory breath testing.
  • All drivers were banned from holding a mobile phone while driving.
  • The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform was empowered to enter into agreements for the provision of speed cameras and other technology for the detection of speeding offences.
  • Gardaí were given powers to impound vehicles registered outside the State which have no insurance.

Penalty Points

The Minister for Transport introduced 31 new penalty point offences in April 2006. All offences having an effect on road safety are now subject to penalty points. A fixed-charge penalty point system (FCPS) commenced on 3 April 2006 and the Gardaí commenced issuing notices for a wide variety of offences.


Garda Traffic Corps

The strength of the Garda Traffic Corps increased from 520 in January 2006 to 745 in November 2006. A further 455 members are to be allocated to the Corps, leading to a membership of 1,200 by 2008.


Random Breath Testing

Following the Ministerial Order, the Garda Traffic Corps immediately commenced random breath testing. This had a dramatic effect on the number of fatalities during the remainder of 2006.


Boy Racers

RTE’s Prime Time presented a programme in January 2007 on “boy racers”. The programme showed the extent of the problem and made a strong case for action by the Gardaí and Government if this problem is not to result in a further loss of life.


Expected Developments

The Speed cameras will begin to operate during 2007.


Publication of, and action to implement, the Road Safety Strategy for 2007–2012.


2 Road Safety

Level of Fatalities


Year

First Six Months

Second Six Months

Annual

2001

185

226

411

2002

188

188

376

2003

172

163

335

2004

182

192

374

2005

182

215

397

2006

199

169

368

The numbers of fatalities in 2006 were the second lowest since 1965.


In addition, the fatalities in the second six months were very close to the level in the second six months of 2003, the lowest level since 1963.


As random breath testing did not commence until the relevant sections of the Road Traffic Act 2006 came into force on 21 July 2006, it would be reasonable to exclude July from the comparison.


Year

August to December

Change

2001

185

2002

146

-39

2003

131

-15

2004

154

+23

2005

174

+20

2006

130

-44

The period August 2006 to December 2006 showed the lowest level of fatalities of any five months in the past six years and, possibly, since the early 1960s. If the average of August to September were to apply for a year, the number of fatalities would be 310, very close to the Road Safety Strategy target of 300. The improvement has continued in 2007 with 56 fatalities up to 9 March 2007 - an annual rate of 300.


A great deal has, therefore, been achieved. Undoubtedly, the introduction of random breath testing, which was made possible by the provision of a dedicated Traffic Corps, has been the principal reason for the reduction in fatalities but there were other reasons also:


  • the extensive advertising by the Road Safety Authority (RSA), funded mainly by some insurance companies

the increased publicity given to road fatalities by the media.


Undoubtedly, the level of fatalities was lower in 2003, following the introduction of penalty points, than in 2006. The reduced level of fatalities lasted for the year from October 2002 to September 2003 when the number of fatalities was 315. An important question is whether the present reduced level will continue into the future.


It is almost certain that the most important measure to be continued for the foreseeable future is the random breath testing conducted by the Traffic Corps. If this continues for some years, it may be possible to bring about a historic and significant reduction in the level of fatalities on Irish roads. However, random breath testing alone will not be sufficient to continue the trend of the last six months. It is essential that there is:


  • reform of the provisional licensing system
  • the widespread use of speed cameras.

Joint Committee’s Report on Road Safety

This report was published on 27 July 2006. The report made 29 recommendations. These are given in Appendix B of this report.


Since the publication of the report the Joint Committee has met with the Minister for Transport, the Chief Executive of the Road Safety Authority, the Assistant Commissioner of An Garda Síochána, responsible for the Traffic Corps, and the Allianz Insurance Company. Reports of these meetings, in relation to road safety, are included in this chapter.


Comment on the Report by the Chief Executive of the Road Safety Authority


The Joint Committee’s Report on Road Safety was discussed by the Board of the Road Safety Authority at its September meeting. The Board was very welcoming of the report and spent 90 minutes discussing it. The report will provide an input to the Road Safety Strategy for the next three years, due to be published early in 2007.


Comment on the Report by the Assistant Commissioner


Assistant Commissioner Rock stated that he agreed with all of the recommendations in relation to young people, provisional licences, culture, etc., in the Joint Committee’s Report on Road Safety.


Comment by the Minister for Transport


‘I have noted the recommendations of the Joint Committee published in the Fourth Interim Report on Reforms to the Irish Insurance Market and Road Safety. I welcome all constructive suggestions which can lead to improved road safety and create a more robust motor insurance environment.’


Overview of Implementation of the Recommendations


A review of the 29 recommendations shows that some were implemented seven months later. It is understandable that not all of the recommendations were implemented in such a short time. The Joint Committee clearly wants to see these recommendations implemented so as to reduce the level of fatalities.


The Joint Committee notes the following developments:


  • the provision of motor vehicle simulator training by a private company, Academy of Transport Simulation (ATS), based in Galway (Recommendation 5)
  • statements by the Minister for Transport and the Chief Executive of the RSA on reform of the provisional licensing system (Recommendations 1 and 2)
  • the participation by the Department of Transport in an eCall initiative that may lead to a type of ‘black box’ being adopted in the future (Recommendation 15)
  • the intensification of enforcement by the Traffic Corps (Recommendation 24)
  • the issue on 24 November 2006 of a request for information in relation to the provision of safety cameras; it is planned to have 600 speed cameras operated by a private contractor under the control of An Garda Síochána (Recommendation 25)
  • road safety advertising by the Society of the Irish Motor Industry (SIMI) (Recommendation 28).

Clearly, however, there are many more recommendations to be implemented.


In particular, the Joint Committee quotes from the Overview / Executive Summary of its Road Safety Report:


Road safety policy should assume that driver errors are inevitable. Roads should be engineered to ensure that driver errors do not result in fatalities; motor vehicles should be engineered to reduce the possibility of driver error and to reduce the likelihood of death where an error does occur.


The engineering of roads and of vehicles, in general, have not been sufficiently highlighted as reasons for road fatalities. We hope that the Road Safety Strategy for the years 2007 to 2009 will address these issues.


Findings

Among the findings of the Road Safety Report were:


  1. The arrangements in relation to the issuance of provisional driving licences need urgent reform.
  2. Simulators should be used to dramatically improve the driving skills of all new drivers.
  3. Consumers need to be informed about the safety performance of the new and used vehicles they are purchasing.
  4. An urgent programme to remove, or surround with a guard rail, all items such as trees, lamp posts, etc., on all motorways and national primary routes is needed.
  5. All national primary routes that are not being converted to motorways or dual carriageways should become ‘two-plus-one’ roads as soon as possible.
  6. Insurance companies can play an important role in relation to road safety by structuring their insurance offers in a way that recognises the safety features of the motor vehicle and the training of the drivers.
  7. An Electronic Data Recorder or ‘black box’ installed in vehicles, as part of a system to communicate collision information instantaneously, can save lives.

Evidence given to the Joint Committee on Road Safety since the Publication of the Road Safety Report in July 2006

Meeting with the Road Safety Authority and the Garda Traffic Corps on 8 November 2006


Mr Brett on behalf of the Road Safety Authority stated:


A KEY FACTS


  1. Ireland’s Road Safety Strategy has had some positive outcomes. Since 1990, there have been almost 10,000 fewer deaths and serious injuries on Irish roads, representing an economic saving of over €2 billion.
  2. Since 1990 there has been a 100 per cent increase in the number of licensed vehicles on Irish roads.
  3. The core objective of the Road Safety Strategy 2004–2006 was to reduce road deaths to no more than 25 per month. It was hoped to achieve this through:
    • Education Measures
    • Enforcement Measures
    • Engineering Measures
  4. Road user behaviour accounts for 92.2 per cent of fatalities on Irish roads.
  5. SPEED is the single biggest factor contributing to road deaths in Ireland. Over 40 per cent of fatal collisions are caused by excessive or inappropriate speed.
    • Five out of ten pedestrians will be killed if hit by a car travelling at 50km/h.
  6. ALCOHOL is a contributory factor in approximately four out of ten road fatalities in Ireland (drunk drivers / riders and drunk pedestrians).
  7. SEAT BELTS are proven lifesavers. Without a seat belt three out of four people will be killed or seriously injured in a 50 km/h head-on crash.
    • 40 per cent of primary school and 45 per cent of secondary school children do not use safety belts in the back seats of cars in Ireland (Source: National Roads Authority 2005).
  8. DRIVER FATIGUE could be a contributory factor in up to 20 per cent of fatal crashes in Ireland. Driving when very tired is as dangerous as driving while over the drink-drive limit.
  9. Car crashes are the number one killers of YOUNG MEN in Ireland, and driving at excess speed is the primary cause of these crashes.
    • 17- to 24-year-old males account for over one in five driver deaths (22 per cent), yet this age group represents just 6 per cent of the population.
    • For every kilometre driven, a 17-year-old male is eight times more likely to be involved in a crash than a middle-aged man.
  10. Almost 60 per cent of fatal crashes take place on Friday, Saturday, Sunday and in the early hours of Monday morning.
  11. National roads make up a mere 6 per cent of our road network, yet account for 48 per cent of all traffic volume and 40 per cent of fatal crashes.
  12. Regional and local Roads represent 94 per cent of the network, account for 52 per cent of traffic volumes and 60 per cent of fatal collisions.

B KEY MESSAGES


  1. What’s happening on our roads is no accident – most road deaths and injuries are avoidable.
  2. Public policy aims to make roads safer by building better roads, educating road users and enforcing road safety laws.
  3. If responsibility for the Government’s Road Safety Strategy rests with Government, politicians and public agencies only, it will fail. Winning the war on our roads depends critically on support from each and every individual. All of us must accept our responsibility if we are to achieve the common goal of reducing death and injury on Irish roads.
  4. We all need to slow down, stop drink driving and driving while tired, use seat belts and child restraints and be aware of vulnerable road users like pedestrians and cyclists.
  5. Many road users understand these commonsense limits. Others choose not to. That is why enforcement will increase to encourage compliance with life-saving traffic law.
  6. Everyone has a CHOICE. Drive safely and save a life or break the law and risk the penalty.
  7. The recent extension of the Penalty Points system by the Minister for Transport and the recent signing of new powers into law will make a difference.
    1. The new Road Traffic Act 2006 gives the Gardaí powers to conduct mandatory roadside breath testing of drivers for alcohol. When this was introduced in Switzerland last year it brought about a 25 per cent drop in alcohol-related crashes.
    2. It also provides for the roll-out of a system of safety cameras targeting the high crash-prone locations on our roads. When introduced in France recently an 85 per cent drop in crashes was reported at camera sites.
    3. The new Act also banned the use of hand-held mobile phones while driving and introduced increased fines and periods of disqualification for drink driving and other serious driving offences. It will also give broader powers to the Gardaí to impound vehicles from outside the State that are uninsured or have no certificate of roadworthiness.
    4. Another welcome development was the 240 extra Gardaí who joined the ranks of the Traffic Corps in 2006. This brought their total strength to 805. The total strength of the Traffic Corps will be 1,200 by 2008.
  8. These new measures present a real opportunity to reverse the recent upward trend in fatalities.

C BENEFITS


In his cost-benefit analysis of investing in road safety, Mr Peter Bacon, Economist, clearly demonstrated that for every €1 invested in road safety there would be an €8 return.


The benefits of reducing collisions, deaths and injuries are the:


  1. freeing up of scarce resources in Accident and Emergency (A&E) Units and for emergency services
  2. freeing up of resources and beds in the acute hospital network
  3. reduction of welfare payments due to the avoidance of deaths and injuries
  4. maintenance of tax revenues
  5. reduction of insurance premiums
  6. avoidance of needless pain and suffering in the community
  7. improved use of road infrastructure.
  • Within six months of the introduction of penalty points the number of road traffic accident (RTA) victims treated at the National Spinal Injuries Unit at the Mater Hospital in Dublin fell by 50 per cent; the number of RTA victims seen at Beaumont Hospital fell by 44 per cent; there was a 20 per cent drop in RTA patients presenting to A&E at Cork University Hospital; and there was a 26 per cent reduction in the number of A&E attendances following RTAs at Tralee General Hospital.

1 Government Road Safety Strategy 2004–2006

The core objective of the Government’s Road Safety Strategy 2004–2006 was to reduce road deaths to no more than 300 by 2006. This is equivalent to 25 road deaths per month. In 2005, 396 people were killed on our roads, an average of 33 deaths a month.


For every death, which costs the State €2.2 million, there are eight serious injuries, each costing €300,0001 (2004 figures). In 2004 road deaths cost the state €1.2 billion.


The NRA tells us that the actions of road users are to blame for the carnage on our roads.



RESPONSIBLE FOR FATALITIES ‘Factors contributing to a large extent’


Road User Road ‘Behaviour’ accounts for 92.2% of fatalities


Source: NRA data, factors contributing to a large extent where specified, 1514 Ks (Specified)


Road deaths in Ireland are over seven times greater than the number of persons murdered. Ireland’s Road Safety Strategy is working. Since 1990 there have been 9,515 fewer deaths and serious injuries. This represents an economic saving of €2,829,356,230.


Road Carnage In Perspective 2005



ROAD VICTIMS KILLED/SERIOUSLY INJURED 1990-2004


GROWTH IN LICENSED VEHICLES 1990-2004



This has been achieved in spite of a 100 per cent increase in the number of registered vehicles in the state since 1990.



2 Causes of Road Deaths and Injury

What is happening on our roads is no accident. The main causes are:


  • excessive and inappropriate speed
  • driving while intoxicated, whether because of drugs or alcohol
  • driver fatigue
  • failure to wear seat belts and failure of parents to restrain their children properly
  • failure to recognise vulnerable road users
  • failure by pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists to recognise their vulnerability and ensure that they can be seen by others when using the roads.

As can be seen from Table 1, National Roads, while accounting for a mere 6 per cent of our road network, account for 48 per cent of all traffic volume and 40 per cent of fatal crashes. Regional and Local Roads represent 94 per cent of the network and account for 52 per cent of traffic volumes and 60 per cent of fatal collisions.


Table 1: Percentage of Collisions by Road Type (NRA)


Road Type

Kms

% of Network

% Fatal Collisions

% Traffic Volumes

National Roads

5,500

6%

40%

48%

Regional and Local

89,500

94%

60%

52%

Total

95,000

100%

100%

100%

The Government is committed to reducing road deaths and injury through:


  • Education Measures
  • Enforcement Measures
  • Engineering Measures

The successful reduction of road casualties throughout the EU has been achieved by focusing on the following enforcement activities:


  • Speeding – To control speed, automated speed-enforcement systems must be used, and offences must be followed up by procedures that can manage a large number of violations.
  • Drink Driving – For drink driving, random breath testing with alcohol screening devices must be applied and evidential breath testing devices used.
  • Seat Belt Compliance – In the area of seat belt use, intensive enforcement actions must take place.

3 Success in Other EU Countries

The success of these actions in the EU can be clearly shown.


Penalty Points


  • In France the introduction of penalty points led to a 32 per cent reduction in road deaths between 2001 and 2004. The introduction of penalty points in Austria in July 2005 led to a reduction of 75 road deaths per year

Speed Cameras

  • Fixed speed cameras in France helped reduce crashes at camera sites by 85 per cent. There has been a 50 per cent reduction in the number of people killed and seriously injured at speed camera sites in the UK.

Random Breath Testing

  • Evidence clearly shows that the level of drinking and driving offences declines when police are empowered to randomly check drivers. The example of Switzerland shows that when random breath testing was introduced in 2005, drink-driving deaths dropped by 25 per cent.

During the period July to October 2006 there were 30 fewer deaths than during this period in 2005. This is a 21 per cent drop in road fatalities.


This is similar to the reduction of fatalities that took place in Switzerland as a result of random breath testing. However, it will be necessary to wait for three or four years to see the data arising from road accidents to determine definitively whether the drop has been caused by random breath testing.


4 The Penalty Points System in Ireland

The aim of the penalty points system is to save lives and reduce injuries on our roads. It is a voluntary system. To get penalty points a driver has to break the law.


  • There were 77 less road deaths in the 12 months after the introduction of penalty points compared to the same 12-month period in the previous year. This represents a 19 per cent drop in road deaths. It is estimated that as many as 616 serious injuries may have been prevented over the same period. The number of road traffic accident (RTA) victims treated at the National Spinal Injuries Unit at the Mater Hospital in Dublin fell by 50 per cent in the first six months after penalty points were introduced. The number of RTA victims seen at Beaumont Hospital in the six months after the introduction of penalty points fell by 44 per cent. In the 12-month period after the introduction of penalty points, the number of facial and dental injuries requiring operations under general anaesthetic following RTAs in St James’s and Beaumont Hospitals fell by 61 per cent. In the 12-month period following penalty points, there was a 20 per cent drop in RTA patients initially presenting to A&E and a 13 per cent drop in admissions to Cork University Hospital. In the six months after the introduction a 26 per cent reduction in the number of A&E attendances following RTAs was reported at Tralee General Hospital.

On 3 April 2006 the administration of the penalty points system changed significantly. Most notably, the Garda fixed-charge payment system is now fully computerised and the Garda ‘Pulse’ system linked to the courts. There are now 35 offences attracting penalty points. This will undoubtedly enhance the efficiency of the system and hopefully its effectiveness in acting as a serious deterrent for drivers. Up to now, the system was administered on a manual basis.


In addition, an extra 240 Gardaí have joined the ranks of the Traffic Corps and an extra 28 Garda Traffic vehicles took to the roads in 2006. This increased the number of Gardaí in the Traffic Corps to 805 in 2006.


5 The Road Safety Authority

The Government has taken a decision to establish a public sector body, the Road Safety Authority (RSA), to take responsibility for a broad spectrum of road safety issues. The RSA will bring together key elements of road safety, including driver education, road safety promotion, driver testing, driver licensing, vehicle standards, research, etc. The RSA has a clear mandate to focus on this essential function.


The RSA was formally vested on 1 September 2006 and is now accountable for the delivery of the following statutory functions:


  • driver testing and licensing
  • road safety promotion
  • vehicle testing and standards
  • road safety research
  • certain road haulage functions
  • driving instructor regulation
  • driver vocational training.

In addition, the RSA is responsible for producing and coordinating the Road Safety Strategy.


The RSA currently has a number of initiatives underway, including:


  1. review of the Road Safety Strategy 2004–2006 and production of the next Road Safety Strategy 2007–2012; the public consultation process is currently underway
  2. review of the roadworthiness testing regime for commercial vehicles
  3. introduction of a regulatory system for the Irish driving instruction industry; the public consultation process closed on 8 September 2006
  4. introduction of compulsory basic training for motorcyclists
  5. reduction of the driver testing backlog
  6. enhancement of school-based education programme in partnership with the Department of Education and Science
  7. Regulatory Impact Assessment for introduction of Driver Vocational Training directive
  8. enhanced range of road safety promotional campaigns.

The Board of the Road Safety Authority will review the draft Road Safety Strategy for the three years from 2007–2012 with a view to publishing it in early 2007.


6 An Garda Síochána

Assistant Commissioner Rock, speaking for An Garda Síochána, on 8 November 2006 stated the following:


  1. Traffic Corps Personnel
  2. ‘Additional personnel have been allocated to the Traffic Corps throughout the year. The current strength stands at 745. By the end of the current year there will be an additional 60 personnel allocated to the Traffic Corps, bringing the total strength to 805.’


  3. Penalty Points
  4. ‘Garda enforcement activity is continuing to be enhanced through the allocation of additional personnel and resources. The fixed-charge system was extended significantly on 3 April 2006 and if errant motorists opt to pay fixed charges this should reduce the amount of time spent in court, thus enhancing our enforcement capability. Over 20,000 fixed-charge notices have been issued in respect of these new penalty point offences.


    I hope that the long-term effect of the fixed-charge / penalty point system will be an improvement in the compliance culture and, as a consequence, a reduction in road collisions, fatalities and injuries.


    In view of the contribution of speed to collisions on our roads, speed enforcement plays a significant part in our enforcement strategy. In 2005 the number of fixed-charge notices issued for speeding totalled 143,651. Provisional statistics indicate that number has already been exceeded in 2006, with almost 152,669 fixed-charge notices issued for speeding offences committed between the 1 January and 30 September 2006.


    Seat belt detections have also increased this year. Provisional statistics for the first ten months of the year show that 20,070 fixed-charge notices have been issued compared to 18,084 for all of 2005.


    The use of hand-held mobile phones while driving became a penalty point offence on 1 September 2006. Provisional statistics show a total of 2,525 fixed-charge notices issued for alleged offences committed up to the end of October.


    The question of having a tiered penalty points system has been raised. The safety camera project will roll out next year and I believe this issue should be reviewed with the benefit of experience gained with the outsourcing of safety cameras.’


  5. Random Breath Testing
  6. ‘The legislation underpinning Mandatory Alcohol Testing (MAT) was introduced on 21 July 2006 and has been extremely helpful to the Garda organisation in tackling drink driving.


    The general public has willingly accepted this legislation and this acceptance is witnessed on a daily basis by Garda personnel at MAT checkpoints. Provisional statistics indicate that over 100,000 breath tests have been conducted at MAT checkpoints.


    There were 14,211 Detected Drink Driving Incidents recorded on PULSE from the 1 January 2006 to 31 October 2006 compared to 10,613 for the corresponding period in 2005, an increase of 34 per cent.


    The following tables show how drink driving detections have increased significantly since the introduction of MAT checkpoints, when compared to the same period in 2005.


August 2005

August 2006

Detected Drink Driving

976

1480

Incidents Recorded on

PULSE

(+51%)

September 2005

September 2006

Detected Drink Driving

935

1602

Incidents Recorded on

PULSE

(+71%)

October 2005

October 2006

Detected Drink Driving

1267

1816

Incidents Recorded on

PULSE

(+43%)

In spite of our enforcement and the media / educational campaigns conducted with our partners in road safety, unfortunately the statistics overall indicate that a culture of drink driving still exists.’


Impact of Drink Driving Detections on Enforcement

‘When an arrest takes place for a drink driving offence there is a significant knock-on effect in terms of Garda hours lost to visible enforcement. A recent study of a sample of drink-driving detections showed the total Garda time spent processing a drink-driving case from arrest through to court hearing ranged from 40 to 100 hours. This included over 20 hours spent by the arresting Garda on file preparation, statements, notification of witnesses and court appearances.’


Road Fatalities

‘Between 1 January and 21 July 2006, the date the Mandatory Alcohol Testing (MAT) provisions came into effect, there were 20 more people killed on our roads when compared to the corresponding period in 2005. Between 1 January and today there have been 315 people killed on our roads, 14 less when compared to the corresponding period in 2005. The number of fatal collisions to date in 2006 is 25, less than for the corresponding period in 2005.


While the rate of fatal road traffic collisions has fallen significantly, it is too early to assert that there is a sustained trend.


Additional resources have been deployed to enforcement of drink-driving legislation, particularly at weekends during the hours of 12 a.m. to 8 a.m. These days and hours of the week have been selected because of the disproportionate level of road fatalities to traffic volumes at these times. I am also conscious that the incidence of drink driving detected tends to follow the incidence of fatal collisions during these hours.’


4 Speed Cameras


‘Work has commenced on the necessary procurement process to engage a service provider. Given the complexity of the process and in order to ensure adherence to EU and national procurement regulations, including the prescribed time periods, procurement support services required to facilitate the outsourcing process have been engaged.


The preparation of a call to the market for expressions of interest in tendering for the project is almost complete and will issue within a matter of days. Following the call for expressions of interest, a number of candidates will be awarded pre-qualification status and shortlisted to proceed to the next stage. A request for tender will be made to the shortlisted candidates, and the successful candidate will be selected on the basis of the tenders received. In parallel with this process, work is ongoing between An Garda Síochána and the National Roads Authority on identifying locations that have a speed-related collision history. If the plan runs to schedule the service provider will be operating safety cameras by the end of the second quarter of 2007.’


Assistant Commissioner Rock stated that uninsured vehicles confiscated in 2005 were 12,643. Since 1 July 2006, 444 foreign-owned vehicles had been seized.


Questions and Comments from Members

The Chairman, Mr Donie Cassidy, T.D., asked for Mr Brett’s views on the Joint


Committee’s Report on Road Safety of July 2006. He also asked about:


  • the budget and staffing of the Road Safety Authority,
  • the measures that were being taken to test for all substance abuse, including prescription drugs and illegal drugs,
  • reform of the provisional licensing system.

The Chairman stated that he was very pleased that the numbers planned for the Garda Traffic Corps had been exceeded and that the Gardaí were implementing the random breath testing so successfully.


Mr Brett stated that the Authority had a staff of 309, of whom 275 had transferred from the Department of Transport and the balance from the NRA. In addition, the National Safety Council budget of €6.5 million had been taken over. Mr Brett was currently involved in discussions with the Department in relation to the estimates. Early indications were that a satisfactory budget for 2007 would be agreed.


On the Joint Committee’s Report on Road Safety, this had been discussed by the Board of the Road Safety Authority at its September meeting. The Board was very welcoming of the report and spent 90 minutes discussing it. The 29 recommendations were examined. The recommendations would be considered in the formulation of the new Road Safety Strategy.


On the question of testing for drugs, Mr Brett had met with the Irish Medical Organisation and the Health Service Executive (HSE). This was being watched very carefully. There was best practice in the UK in relation to this issue. It would be helpful for the HSE to issue similar advice. In Australia there was a saliva test for drugs, administered at road checks.


Assistant Commissioner Rock stated that he agreed with all of the recommendations in relation to young people, provisional licences, culture, etc., in the Joint Committee’s Report on Road Safety.


On “boy racers”, the Gardaí were increasing enforcement at weekends. There is a covert operation in place. A video has been prepared for concerts, etc., and for a school education programme.


At the time of giving his evidence, 105 persons between the ages of 16 and 25 had been killed on the roads. In Tipperary, a programme had been developed whereby Gardaí talked to boy racers. The suggestion was that this would be done nationally.


Deputy Callanan referred to the three Es (Education, Enforcement, Engineering). He believed that not enough had been done on education. The Gardaí should be going into colleges and schools and talking to 16–25-year-olds in an effort to move them away from a speeding and drink culture. The driver test should be part of the school curriculum. It was vital to get the driver testing backlog down to six weeks. All drivers should have training before starting to drive. Deputy Callanan also mentioned the road safety week then being launched in NUIG; he believed that we have gone a bit soft on engineering, that local authorities need to look at the state of the roads and that, in particular, hedges need to be cut – it was important to be able to see around bends. There were serious difficulties with some bridges and some bad stretches of road and nothing was being done in relation to them.


Senator O’Toole referred to the position in Sweden and France. He believed that we should change our driving to the correct side of the road. This would make it easier for cars coming from other countries. In France there were a significant number of speed cameras and motorists were advised of their presence about a half-a-mile before coming to them. There were two speed limits, a wet limit and a dry limit. There seems to be no difficulty with this. In France also there are no left-hand turns. The right-hand turns are the cause of a high number of accidents in Ireland. There was a difficulty with the merged lane when turning off at junctions. There was a lack of rest areas. There was an issue of fatigue between 2 p.m. and 4 p.m. He believed that the driver test was appalling. There was no overtaking manoeuvre and no motorway driving competence included in the test. Some element of licensing was needed for driver testers.


Mr Brett stated that he agreed with the issue of education. There would be a focus on the use of seat belts and professional driving in campaigns being organised by the RSA. He was concerned that they were not really getting at the third-level sector. He was working with the Department of Education and Science. It would be useful to have ten modules in Transition Year. He noted that 5 of the 29 recommendations in the Joint Committee Report referred to education and training. He also stated that the RSA was working with the Trade Unions and employer groups to improve the training of professional drivers. He believed it was necessary to provide for rest places.


He would like to see a review of speed limits throughout the country. He would enquire into the issue of merging lanes on motorways.


On driver testing, the RSA was very concerned and they would like to see that being dealt with as soon as possible.


Assistant Commissioner Rock stated that the Gardaí would design a sensible system in relation to the speed cameras to be deployed. The public would be educated and informed prior to the cameras coming into effect. There would be visible enforcement signs on marked sites. It was important to get the message across that this was not a revenue exercise. The Gardaí would have to have a rational basis for the selection of sites. Research indicates that speed is probably the number one cause of fatal crashes. In France the introduction of speed cameras had a dramatic effect on the reduction of fatalities.


Senator Coughlin asked how many speed cameras were in operation.


In response, Assistant Commissioner Rock stated that there were 20 sites with three cameras actually working at any one time. These sites were overt sites. In addition, the Gardaí had 490 handheld units. There were 6 vans in operation; these were being increased to 14. There may be 5,000 sites in the future. Gardaí are trying to find the areas that are best suited for this purpose.


Deputy Moynihan-Cronin referred to the education of children. She stated that the best way to do this was by persons of their own age. These should be brought in to speak to young people. She was concerned about foreign drivers, ‘Are they actually subject to the law in Ireland?’ In her own county of Kerry, there are many tourists and the issue is whether they are subject to the law. She wanted the RSA to work with local authorities in relation to cutting hedges. Many road signs are filthy; tourists have to stop in order to see what is on the sign. It was important that the RSA liaise with local authorities on these issues. In relation to seat belts on school buses, her information was that children were not using the seat belts because of bullying by their peers. There was a need to call on the operators to randomly check that the seat belts were being used and for inspectors to come on the buses. There was a need to teach people how to drive on roundabouts. Much of the driving on roundabouts was frightening.


Deputy Dempsey asked who decides on the location of speed limits. He stated that the theory test should become part of the curriculum in Transition Year and should also be part of the civics programme. He believed that the theory part of the test would be more interesting to pupils than much of what was being taught at present. He also referred to the difficulty associated with people taking prescription drugs, such as cough mixtures, which would be liable to show up as alcohol. He suggested that such persons should be allowed to have a letter from their doctor authorising them to take the products. He referred to boy racers taking over fields in his constituency and he asked whether County Councils should put in facilities for go-carting, etc.


Assistant Commissioner Rock stated that the Gardaí could not target foreign drivers. They must enforce the law in general. It was possible to bring foreign drivers to court. The issue arises in relation to driving licences issued in another jurisdiction that may have a different standard of driving. There was also a difficulty in relation to penalty points being attached to a driving licence where it was a foreign one. However, the Gardaí were generally not entitled to demand the nationality of a person and many foreign people have acquired Irish nationality. The question of penalty points is being addressed in relation to Northern Ireland cars. Many foreign drivers encountered by the Gardaí do not speak English. On policing in rural areas, he stated that an increase in the numbers of Gardaí may give an opportunity to increase such policing in the future. He stated that any person being required to take drugs, such as cough mixtures with an alcoholic base, can carry a letter from their doctor.


Mr Brett referred to the revamped education programmes and he agreed with the involvement of young people in explaining road safety to other young people. The RSA was targeting foreign drivers. Leaflets were now being produced in eleven languages, particularly Polish. The RSA had been in touch with the Polish Embassy. Suspensions could take place even where penalty points could not be applied. The RSA would shortly distribute a video in relation to conduct on roundabouts. Speed limits were a reserve function of the local authorities. On the question of education in secondary schools, the Board of the Authority is interested and this will be part of the next Road Safety Strategy. The RSA is trying to target young men. They had sponsored road rallying and had discussions with Motor Sport Ireland. Their purpose was to get the message across to spectators at these events. Their slogan was to ‘keep race in place’.


The Chairman stated that he was proud, as Chairman of the Joint Committee, that the Joint Committee had recommended the introduction of random breath testing which had brought about a reduction in fatalities. He stated that he very much appreciated the cooperation of the Gardaí and the RSA. He said, ‘Together we can make the roads safer.’


Meeting of Wednesday 22 November 2006 at 9.30 a.m. with Mr Martin Cullen, T.D., Minister for Transport

Minister Cullen stated as follows:


‘Thank you Chairman for the opportunity to discuss motor insurance and road safety matters. I have noted the recommendations of the Joint Committee published in the Fourth Interim Report on Reforms to the Irish Insurance Market and Road Safety. I welcome all constructive suggestions which can lead to improved road safety and create a more robust motor insurance environment.’


Motor Insurance

‘There are now in excess of 2.1 million vehicles registered in this State. The cost of motor insurance is therefore a cost on virtually every household and every business in the country.


The committee will be aware that the insurance industry in Ireland operates within a free and open market and one in which, under EU law, I can have no direct responsibility for setting motor insurance premiums. The provision of insurance cover is based on actuarial or statistical data, together with other underwriting or commercial factors, such as driver details, nature of cover required and type and use of vehicles.


I am pleased that the Government’s Insurance Reform Programme, initiated in 2002, has resulted in cheaper and increased availability of motor insurance. Between April 2003 and October 2006 overall motor insurance premiums have fallen by 31.5 per cent according to figures supplied by CSO.


There are various factors contributing to this reduction. The introduction of the Personal Injuries Assessment Board was a major step, as was the Civil Liability and Courts Act, which includes penalties for giving false or misleading evidence in personal injury cases. In addition, random breath testing, increased resources to the Garda Traffic Corps and the roll-out of the penalty points system are expected to deliver better driver behaviour and reduced frequency of traffic accidents. These initiatives are having a positive effect on motor insurance premiums and I am confident that they will continue to do so.


I have noted the recommendation of the committee in relation to my Department procuring an ‘Event Data Recorder’ or ‘Black Box’ system. There is already a proposal by the European Commission in relation to a similar type system called eCall, i.e. a system that would provide an electronic notification to the emergency services in the event of a crash. I understand that the case for these types of systems is unproven at European level. There are no common technical specifications developed and no standard operating procedures in place. I understand that many of the larger Member States have not yet committed to the eCall proposal and are in the process of studying the proposal in more detail in order to inform their policy on this issue.


My Department, like our European counterparts, is also studying the eCall proposal. As part of this study we are also reviewing the American-style data recorder approach similar to that proposed by the committee. The analysis will assist in understanding the potential implications and benefits of eCall and data recorders for Ireland with regard to road safety, the means by which the system will operate and the costs and benefits arising.


The main purpose of the study is to inform the Department’s future approach in this area. It is clear though that any approach that is proposed would need to be consistent with and interoperable with developments at the wider EU level.


In the committee’s report, the point was raised as to whether insurance companies could make a greater contribution to road safety. Several of the committee’s recommendations are specifically directed towards insurance companies to take steps in relation to improved road safety. I am aware of the contribution which the Insurance Federation of Ireland and individual insurance companies have made to road safety over many years, particularly in relation to funding for road safety programmes.


I am sure that the insurance industry will examine the recommendations made by the committee in a positive manner and in a manner that contributes to road safety. It is in the interests of all of us, legislators, insurance industry and citizens alike to seize every opportunity to improve road safety.’


Road Safety Situation

‘The Road Safety Strategy 2004–2006 set an ambitious primary target of a 25 per cent reduction in road collision fatalities by the end of 2006 over the average annual number of fatalities in the 1998–2003 period. Achievement of the target would result in no more than 300 deaths yearly by the end of 2006. The planning horizon for the strategy was limited to three years and the realisation of many of the key central policy initiatives was planned for delivery at the end of the three-year period.


While the target of 300 has not been achieved, there is a considerable improvement in the number of road deaths over the 1997 figure of 472. The reduction to 396 deaths in 2005 has taken place against the background of a very significant increase in the number of cars and drivers on our roads during that eight-year period.


In an environment where pedestrians, cyclists, cars, motorcycles and very large buses and goods vehicles are mixed together in competing for space on our road network, risk is inevitable. Acknowledging that risk, and acting to minimise the potential for tragic incidents, is the immediate responsibility of all road users, but particularly drivers.


However, reducing the general level of risk is the particular challenge of Government and those agencies tasked with the promotion of road safety and the enforcement and application of traffic laws.


One of the lessons that we have learnt in recent years regarding road safety is that the best approach is to adopt a coordinated one involving all of those who can contribute to safer road travel. Such an approach should be based on a targeted programme of initiatives directed at the main contributing factors to collisions. In fact, such approaches are the bedrock of road safety policies in the best-performing countries throughout the world.


In that context, the Government has sought to bring a collective focus to road safety initiatives that are directed to the achievement of specified targets. That strategic approach to road safety works. It is likely that if we had not adopted a strategic approach from 1998 we would have seen the maintenance of the level of fatalities that had been prevalent throughout the 1990s, when the average annual number of road deaths was 442.


Achieving measurable progress is better realised where challenges are set. With that in mind, the new Road Safety Authority has commenced work on developing a new Road Safety Strategy for the period post-2006 and is currently carrying out a public consultation process on this matter.


Substantial progress has been made on a number of key policy initiatives, particularly in the area of changing driver behaviour and drink driving. There has been investment in new, improved and safer roads. A new system of metric speed limits has been introduced and the penalty points system has been extended.


Legislation has been enacted and commenced on a number of key policy measures, including the provision enabling roadside Mandatory Alcohol Testing (MAT), a ban on the use of hand-held mobile phones while driving, and the legislative provision supporting the operation of privately operated speed cameras. Since the commencement of MAT by the Gardaí, the number of road deaths and collisions has fallen dramatically. The Gardaí have been successfully operating MAT checkpoints since July 2006, with over 30,000 drivers being tested at MAT checkpoints each month. The increased deterrent effect is reflected in the fall in the number of deaths and in the collision rates since August 2006.


The establishment of the dedicated Traffic Corps last year by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, having a distinct management structure under the command of an Assistant Commissioner, addresses a particular commitment given by the Government. The Corps, when it is fully staffed, will provide the basis for the achievement of the significant gains in road safety that emanate from consistent high levels of traffic law enforcement. By the end of 2008, 1,200 Gardaí will be deployed to the Traffic Corps which will be over twice the number currently engaged in traffic duties.’


Road Safety Authority

‘The new Road Safety Authority was formally established on 1 September 2006. The Authority is a single agency with responsibility for a wide range of functions, which have a bearing on road safety, including driver licensing and testing, road safety advertising and education, road safety research and data collection and the regulation of driver instruction.’


High Level Government Group

‘A High Level Group on Road Safety, with representatives from various Government Departments and Agencies, has been working for some time to promote full cooperation on cross-cutting issues and an integrated approach in the development of the Road Safety Strategy and the monitoring and implementation of that strategy. In a signal, however, that road safety is now at the very top of the political agenda, the Government has replaced the official’s High Level Group with a Ministerial Committee on Road Safety chaired by the Minister for Transport and including the Ministers for Justice Equality and Law Reform, Finance, Health and Children, Education and Science and the Attorney General.’


The Chairman stated as follows:


  1. He was grateful for the introduction of random breath testing. He believed that the target of 300 deaths on the road might well be achieved from 1 August 2006 to 31 July 2007 – the first full year of random breath testing.
  2. On the black box technology, he believed that this was very urgent and that the Department should look at it. He noted that there had been several bus crashes and it was not possible at present to determine the cause of these accidents. A black box would enable the cause of the crash to be determined. The Joint Committee had studied this issue in the United States and he wanted to see the black box being made mandatory in all Government transport vehicles.
  3. He was very anxious to see the introduction of the additional speed cameras. It was necessary to put ‘fear’ back into the law. The speed cameras would be the biggest deterrent so far and would bring about a massive reduction in fatalities.
  4. He asked the Minister what was being done about the provisional licensing system. The present test, the backlog and the difficulties surrounding the provisional licensing system were unacceptable. He knew that the Minister was striving to have this addressed but the Joint Committee needed to know what was happening.

The Minister responded as follows:


  1. On the issue of the black box, Ireland was involved in a study on this issue in conjunction with other Member States in relation to an eCall system. There are a wide range of issues and the Minister expects a report of this study to be completed by next April. The Chairman stated that the Joint Committee had information that could be made available to the Department of Transport. He believed that this type of technology was part of the future.
  2. The Minister stated, in relation to speed cameras, that his Department had brought in the enabling legislation. He understood that the Department of Justice was engaged in the procurement process. This would be completed shortly. The locations of the cameras would be decided upon by the Gardaí. This would not be a revenue-gathering exercise and the remuneration of the contractors would not be related to the numbers of speeding detections. The cameras would be placed in dangerous black spots.
  3. The Minister had recently met with the Board of the Road Safety Authority. This body has statutory responsibility for road safety generally. The Authority had fully prepared a new licensing system and the Minister looked forward to its publication. The new licensing system would involve some element of a graduated driver licence. It would also require more training. At present it is easy to get a licence and it is hard to lose it. In the Minister’s view, this should be the other way around.

On the backlog in driver testing, the Minister had recruited new testers and introduced overtime for driver testers, contracting in, and outsourcing. The delay in obtaining a licence had been reduced from 62 to 28 weeks. In the Budget, a significant sum was allocated to further reduce the backlog. The reduction of the backlog would facilitate the introduction of the new licensing system.


Mr Ned O’Keeffe, T.D., asked about the significant level of investment in roads. This could reduce road accidents because of the much lower accident rate on motorways and dual carriageways. He drew the Minister’s attention to the issue of ‘tail-gaiting’. There was not sufficient publicity in relation to this issue. Regarding roundabouts, these tended to be too narrow and caused difficulties for motorists and particularly for lorries. They seemed to be much more spacious in the UK. Deputy O’Keeffe referred to the Mitchelstown bypass and some difficulties there. On signage, he could not understand why the link to the Cork road from the Portlaoise bypass had not yet been completed. It was necessary to introduce many unmarked cars in order to detect inappropriate driving. This was the real answer. Greater surveillance was needed. The unmarked cars should have local registration numbers. On random breath testing, the over-exercise of this was frightening and annoying a lot of people. The major cause of drink driving was nightclubs and late-night drinking. The drink culture had to be dealt with. He believed that nightclubs are a major cause of car accidents in the ages 16–27. He also referred to the question of boy racers and said that the Gardaí and the Minister were doing an excellent job. He wondered if our car accident statistics were good enough to show the real causes of accidents.


Deputy Moynihan-Cronin stated that the Monday morning stories of deaths on the roads were frightening. She referred to the large numbers of uninsured drivers. A large number of drivers do not display insurance discs.


She found that there was a car being operated in Ennis in her name. She had made a statement to the Gardaí in relation to this and she asked why it was possible to insure and tax a car in her name without reference to her. She wondered if this was happening to other people.


The cost of insurance for young people, at €230 per month, seemed to be very high indeed. She asked the Minister why there had been no new entrants to the motor insurance business and if there had been, if this would have resulted in lower costs. She further asked if the driving test, as we know it, will continue. In Killarney the driving testers had no permanent office. On random breath testing she complained that the present ‘roadside test’ showed positive and negative results only. Persons were being taken to the station after a ‘positive’ result and then found not to be over the limit. There was a question as to whether that person’s driving record showed that they had been arrested for drink driving. This was unacceptable.


Deputy Callanan stated that great work had been done in relation to dual carriageways and the road network. The benefits were now being experienced in the West of Ireland. It was good that the Minister had obtained money to cut the waiting list for driver testing. The waiting period had been far too long. He further stated that it was necessary to go down the educational route and to teach driver training in every school. The new criteria for the provisional licence should involve some training. He said that a car could be a lethal weapon. He asked about non-nationals being uninsured, ‘Are they good enough to drive on our roads?’ In relation to online motor taxation, he believed that the motor tax registration process should include a check with insurance companies as to whether or not the presented insurance policy details were valid. On road engineering, he believed that a survey should be undertaken to establish the black spots, bridges, etc, on country roads. These had not been tackled and could be fatal. There was also a problem with hedge trimming, which was done up to a few years ago. The Minister should write to local authorities in relation to this issue.


Response from Minister Cullen

Minister Cullen stated that the improved roads / motorways / dual carriageways would result in a lower accident rate. On driver behaviour, the issue was partly that of education and the training of drivers. He criticised persons who ‘sat’ in the outer lane, which is an overtaking lane. The observance of this in other countries was much better. Education on this issue and others would form part of the new driver licensing regime. The Minister had introduced an additional 35 penalty point offences. These included issues such as yellow boxes, roundabouts, etc. On roundabouts, he proposed to raise the question with the National Roads Authority and to get serious answers to the issue of the width of roundabouts. On the standards in relation to roundabouts, he expected that a lot of the design was undertaken by local authorities in conjunction with the NRA. A new signage programme was being put in place on all roads. He was not familiar with the issue of the Cork exit on the Portlaoise bypass. On unmarked cars, it seemed that a proportion of Gardaí cars should be unmarked. On random breath testing, this should have a significant impact. While the Gardaí wished to maintain public confidence in this system, it was clear that drivers should respect the law relating to drink driving. Drivers in other countries pooled their driving and arranged transport so that the driver did not drink. On boy racers, he had seen horrific video footage. However, he pointed out that there are many very good young drivers. A cohort, however, did not think that the law applied to them. On uninsured drivers, it was estimated that these were about 5 per cent. Unfortunately, foreign-registered cars were not required to display insurance discs. This issue would be raised with the EU. Many EU countries do not require the insurance disc to be displayed. On the issue of motor tax registration, a study was being undertaken to coordinate the data files of the insurance companies with the national vehicle registration file. The IT structure was being put in place. The driver testing system would change and international best practice in this area would be examined. On drink driving and arrests, he noted the points that were made. He was aware that the old system had given a reading, and that the new roadside test was simply indicative, the real test being the blood test. He would look at the question of ensuring that a person who was arrested, but then found not to be over the limit, would not have a record of the arrest on their file. Discussions were taking place with the Road Safety Authority and the Department of Education in relation to a programme in schools. Transition Year instruction would be an ideal start. Essentially, this was a matter for the Department of Education. It was, however, more fundamental than just for Transition Year.


The Ministerial Committee on Road Safety had already discussed this issue. In relation to non-nationals, there was a mutual recognition of driving licences in Europe.


Senator Leyden referred to the figure of 5 per cent uninsured drivers and noted that this was 100,000 persons. This was resulting in the loss of an enormous amount of cash. There were no reasons why cars should not be seized. If uninsured, they should not be on the road. There should be a month-long campaign in relation to imported cars and others. He was very disappointed by the continual campaign against the PIAB. He noted recent remarks made in the Dáil.


He stated that he had had similar difficulties to those experienced by Deputy Moynihan-Cronin. A person had used his address for car tax and insurance. There had been a number of parking fines issued to Senator Leyden’s address. On making enquiries, he was told that there was no legal measure to prevent someone from using another person’s address. The Licensing Authority had no right to object to the address being given.


He referred to the difficulties on the Mullingar to Dublin road where there were no toilets or services of any kind. It was a big area. Surely the NRA should have provided facilities on this and other roads. He was glad that the cameras would not be a cash cow. In relation to speeding and other similar offences, there should be an appeal system. If somebody was being taken to hospital, there might be a need for a car to speed. He complained strongly about the practice of selling cars, boats and caravans on the side of the road. There was a car sale on every corner throughout the country. Should this be banned? He wanted to have the rules of the road made available in many languages. He believed that this was not yet available. The driving instructors should be able to give instructions in the Polish language. He stated that the road signage was totally inadequate and that very little progress had been made in reducing speed. There was a need for better coordination between the Department of Transport and local authorities in relation to the setting of speed limits.


Deputy McHugh referred to the standard of the roads. The physical standard was one thing. There were persons driving at 30 miles per hour on national roads, which frustrated other drivers who were then speeding to make up for lost time. On projects for Galway, while there was progress, it was necessary to do more. There were difficulties in Tuam and Claregalway. A new N17 was the answer but there would be a revolution in Galway if people had to wait for this to solve the traffic difficulties. He was disappointed that the work on the western rail corridor would not commence for about five years. He referred to the much faster development of rail projects in the Dublin area and believed that the West was still being left behind.


Deputy Breen referred to the question of drugs among young people. What messages were being communicated to tackle drivers’ use of drugs? There was a need for a course for young people in schools. He also requested that there should be refresher courses for more mature people. For example, elderly persons were often frightened to drive on roundabouts. He was concerned about the new bypass at Ennis where there were crash barriers in the centre of the road. On-coming cars were very close to one another.


Deputy M. J. Nolan noted there were over 2 million vehicles on the road. It was necessary to ensure an adequate level of resources for the RSA, the NRA and similar bodies. He would like to see an increase in the Garda Traffic Corps and believed that there would be public support for such an increase.


On the driving test, a constituent had travelled to Dublin for the test to be told by the tester that the test could not go ahead because of frost on the road. This was an extraordinary situation. The whole purpose of the testing was to equip persons to drive in difficult conditions. This constituent had to wait for three months before he could take the test again.


Response from Minister Cullen

The Minister stated that all vehicles, including foreign-owned vehicles, could be impounded. This had been made possible by recent legislation. Prior to that, only vehicles registered in the State could be impounded. He agreed that cars should be taken from persons who were not insured. He would look at the issue of the address at which cars were registered.


He believed that one of the most bizarre decisions by the NRA was not to have rest areas. The NRA had reversed this policy and a new policy was nearing completion and would be announced shortly.


On cars being sold on the side of the road, he would come down on this as hard as possible. It was not only cars, but bikes, boats and caravans. He questioned the quality of these cars. He noted that the motor industry had invested substantially in showroom facilities. He was working with his Department to deal with this issue. The Road Safety Authority had published the basic rules of the road in ten languages. A new draft of the rules of the road had been on display and would be adopted shortly. These would be translated into all relevant languages. However, the question of not understanding the language did not justify breaking the law in relation to the four main causes of fatalities:


  • driving while drunk
  • exceeding the speed limits
  • driving without seat belts
  • using mobile phone while driving

Regardless of where a person came from, these were offences. There should be no excuse that the rules of the road had not been translated into the language of the person driving the car.


All cars, including foreign cars, were subject to the NCT test. The speed limit issue was one of the most frustrating that he had to deal with. He had vested power in relation to speed limits on non-national roads to local authorities. However, the local authorities were not doing what was required. Some councils had done so but the vast majority had not. He would re-emphasise this point again. He noted that other political parties controlled most of the local authorities and he asked them to intervene on this issue.


In relation to Galway and the western rail corridor, this was high on his priority list. The road between Galway and Shannon and the Ennis bypass were important issues. The Ennis bypass would be opened the following Monday. The level of investment by the Government in infrastructure was unprecedented anywhere else in Europe. Five motorways were being constructed and there were numerous rail projects being undertaken. On the western rail corridor, he had adopted the proposals to provide for this corridor. This would be delivered as soon as possible, but Irish Rail had to strike a balance between this and other priorities.


Unfortunately, it was not possible at this time to have a roadside test for drug testing. In Australia there was a saliva test, but this only applied to amphetamines and cannabis. A lot of the difficulty related to prescribed drugs. The Medical Bureau of Road Safety was attempting to find a way to do a roadside test. However, if a Garda suspected that a person was incapable of driving because of having taken drugs, he/she could take him/her to the Garda station and have a blood test taken.


Crash barriers, as a safety feature, were a modern approach. He was conscious of the difficulties for older drivers.


Persons with provisional licences for 20 and 30 years were making representations that they should not have to do the test. Some persons were very worried. They had never had an accident. Nevertheless, the purpose of the new regulations was to improve the standard of driving.


On the Traffic Corps, the increase in numbers was a high priority. At the end of 2006 there would be 800. He was trying to push the programme forward. It was clear that enforcement helped enormously. He pointed out that the Traffic Corps was not the only resource available for detecting road offences; all Gardaí could be involved.


Generally, on driver testing, he found the present testing procedure bizarre. In some countries it was necessary to pass the test during each of the four seasons, where there was snow, during daylight and at night, etc. The system currently in existence was in danger of being discredited.


The Chairman stated that:


  1. four years ago the insurance industry was on its knees, but that in 2006 it would make a profit of €1.3 billion; he asked the Minister if he had any plans to attract new companies into the market since all the legislation brought in by the Government had made Ireland a safer place in which to work and do business.
  2. the random breath testing had saved thirty lives to date but it would be necessary to put the ‘fear’ back into the law. The penalty points had been successful initially but the effect had worn off. He was pleased that the Gardaí were very vigilant. He noted that the local authorities were not implementing the new proposals. He wished to see a total review of speed limits by 31 December 2007.

Minister Cullen responded as follows:


  1. He would welcome more competition in motor insurance. He hoped that competition would drive down the cost for all drivers.
  2. The Road Safety Authority would use advertising to get the message across.
  3. He hoped that all local authorities would have confirmed that new speed limits were being examined early in 2007. Local authorities were not under the control of the Department of Transport; however, the Department of the Environment was being helpful on this issue. He would be naming and shaming local authorities that were not assisting on road safety.

Views of Allianz on Road Safety, 18 October 2006

Road Safety Programme – Context


The Society of Actuaries in Ireland estimated that:


  • 255 more people would be alive today if the 2003 Penalty Points ‘honeymoon period’ had been maintained – 78 people per annum
  • because of the introduction of Penalty Points, 2003 delivered the lowest level of deaths per car in Ireland for 40 years; however, even in 2003, deaths per car in Ireland were 70 per cent higher than in the UK
  • since 2003, both the absolute number of fatalities and deaths per car had risen
  • Ireland was estimated to be 10 years behind the UK.

The views of motorists, established in the recent Irish Insurance Federation (IIF) ‘Road Safety Survey’, are alarming:


  • 7 out of 10 believe that the Penalty Point system is not effective
  • 95 per cent of drivers admit to breaking speed limits
  • 52 per cent and 51 per cent, respectively, believe they will not be caught for speeding or drink driving.

Road Safety Programme – Allianz Experience

Road accident fatalities reduced substantially in August 2006. This coincided with the introduction of random breath testing supported by a vigorous enforcement campaign. This is clear evidence that effective enforcement is central to compliance with good driving behaviours. Until consistent, effective enforcement is achieved and sustained, the full benefits of any road safety programme will not be realised. Allianz commends and fully supports all road safety initiatives.


Since 2000 Allianz has contributed €7.5m to the IIF’s Road Safety campaigns.


However, Allianz is gravely concerned at major shortcomings:


  • lack of effective enforcement
  • inconsistency in setting speed limits
  • lack of driver training in secondary schools
  • an inadequate driving test
  • unacceptably high number of learner drivers
  • high level of uninsured drivers.

Responses by Allianz to the Joint Committee’s Recommendations on Road Safety


Q16:Insurance companies should cooperate with the establishment of an electronic data recorder (EDR) system so as to improve their knowledge of the reasons for road accidents and to enable them to compete more effectively for motor insurance business in the future.


A16:Provided there are no civil liberty reasons or other ethical reasons for not doing so, Allianz is willing to cooperate with this proposal where there is an acceptance of proven benefits.


Q17:Insurance companies should give a discount on premiums to policyholders who voluntarily install an EDR.


A17:Already the no-claims discount system rewards claims-free driving, and any steps a driver takes to remain claims free, contributes to earning a bonus. Allianz will consider discounts in the context of evidence of improved risk.


Q18:Insurance companies should not grant insurance cover to a person who has not received driving instruction from a qualified driving instructor.


A18:Any insurer, under current legislation, could not refuse to quote a proposer who holds a valid driving licence, whether or not he/she has had instruction from a qualified instructor.


Q19:Insurance companies should structure their offers of insurance for persons up to the age of 25 to strongly encourage young persons to drive safely and avoid accidents.


A19:Allianz fully supports better prices for those with safe driving records. Also, Equality Legislation forbids us from favouring one age cohort over another.


Q20:Insurance companies should provide, or arrange to provide, driving instruction and advanced driving instruction for persons from 17 to 25 in order for the young persons to obtain a reduction in the cost of insurance.


A20:This is a substantial issue and would increase the cost of insurance. A course of ten one-hour driving lessons will cost at least €300. With motor premiums at €500/€600, there is no scope to fund driving instruction.


Q21:Insurance companies should offer persons who have been found to be driving in excess of the blood alcohol limit a choice of fitting an alcohol detector or a loading of their premium.


A21:A premium penalty cannot be evaded, whereas an alcohol detector will be fixed to a vehicle and the driver can bypass the system, by swapping cars, for example.


Q22:Insurance companies should give allowances that would encourage safety features in motor vehicles.


A22:Safety features on vehicles are already built into insurance prices.


Joint Committee’s Conclusions

Clearly, road safety is now high on the Government’s agenda. The success of the random breath testing and the other measures that have been introduced over the past year is very satisfying indeed.


The Joint Committee made 29 recommendations in its July 2006 report. Of these, only a small number have been fully implemented. However, the period since the publication of the July report has been short.


The Joint Committee looks forward to the publication by the Road Safety Authority of the Road Safety Strategy for the years 2007–2009. The Joint Committee hopes that the strategy will seek to bring about a significant further reduction in the number of fatalities on Irish roads and that it will address all of the many issues that were included in the Joint Committee’s Report of July 2006.


New Road Safety Recommendation

The Joint Committee in reviewing its Recommendation 8 (The Road Safety Authority should publish a programme to improve the safety standard and safety features of all imported vehicles over a period of three years) has decided to make specific recommendations for action.


The Joint Committee recommends that:


59. All imported vehicles should have the following fitted by 31 December 2008:


  1. An electronic data recorder,
  2. Controls to ensure that the vehicle does not start until all persons in the vehicle have safety belts fastened,
  3. Improved types of safety belts that are proven to increase the chances of survival in the event of a collision,
  4. Cruise control that will make it easier to comply with speed limits,
  5. ESP systems that improve driver control in slippery conditions.

3 Health and Safety in the Workplace

Introduction

The Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act, 2005, was enacted in July 2005 and came into force on 1 September 2005. The Act imposed a maximum fine on indictment for breaches of the health and safety laws of €3 million plus a term of imprisonment of up to two years. Company directors and managers may be held liable where they are found to have contributed to any offence.


In general, the Joint Committee’s recommendations in this area have been adopted.


Presentation by Mr Tom Beegan, Chief Executive, Health and Safety Authority (HSA), to the Joint Committee, 14 June 2006

During the course of his presentation, Mr Beegan stated the following:


  • All sectors of the economy – employers and employees – must support a culture of workplace safety throughout the country. Realistically, the Authority cannot have an inspector at every corner.
  • The incurring of any injury or accident at work, which could otherwise have been avoided, must become as socially unacceptable as smoking in the workplace, dangerous driving or drink driving.
  • Collectively, the HSA estimates that workplace injuries and accidents cost our economy approximately €3 billon per year or about 2.5 per cent of GNP.
  • Current statistics show that employees in agriculture, construction, mines and quarries are at particularly high risk. Equally, those working with vehicles and those involved in manual handling are in the high-risk category. The most common cause of accidents or injuries in Irish workplaces is that of slips, trips, falls and poor lifting habits.
  • In addition to its other work, the HSA protects workers in the areas of occupational health and welfare, ranging from stress to other illnesses that can be attributable to the pressures of working life.
  • The HSA understands the complexity of doing business in Ireland and the pressures that employers and employees face. It does not want to get people bogged down in bureaucracy when it comes to health and safety. The HSA is working to simplify the major issues into an easily understandable context.
  • The HSA works closely with the social partners, representative bodies, other State agencies and major corporations to instil an awareness of the importance of safety, health and welfare throughout the economy.
  • The HSA also cooperates with insurance companies to provide advice, assistance and support to that sector.
  • However, when a preventive approach fails, the HSA will use its full powers, including legal action, to protect workers and to enforce safety and welfare in the workplace.
  • In brief, the principal approaches that have been taken by the Authority are:

      – the raising of the level of general awareness


      – the targeting of future workers and managers with information programmes through the national education training systems


      – making relevant information easily available to people with responsibility for managing workplace safety


      – identifying and assessing high-risk areas


      – enforcing the occupational safety and health code with targeted and regular inspections of businesses.


  • CSO figures indicate that there were 117,300 cases of work-related injury or illness in 2004. Of these, over 45,000 required the injured party to be absent from work for more than three days. While most workers will recover from these injuries, many do not. They must either leave the workforce or take less skilled work. Regrettably, the number of work-related fatalities in 2005 was shocking, with 73 deaths. The last time so many people died in Irish workplaces was in 1995 when there were 78 fatalities. The 2005 figure of 73 deaths was also in total contrast to 2004 when 50 people died. This was the lowest number of deaths since 1997. In general, the fatality rate has dropped more than 25 per cent over the last decade.
  • The fall in deaths has been achieved against the backdrop of rapidly increasing employment (up 50 per cent since 1995). In particular, there has been an increase in the number of high-risk construction workers (up 250 per cent). The employment of non-Irish workers has also increased to very high levels.
  • The fatality rate in the UK is one-quarter of that in Ireland. In the UK the rate of deaths per 100,000 workers was 0.7 in 2004–2005. This compares to the Irish rate of 2.5 in 2004 and 3.2 in 2005.
  • Up to June 2006 a total of 22 fatalities had been reported to the Authority. This contrasted with 23 fatalities in the same period in 2004 and 29 for the same period in 2005.
  • The workplace rate of injury of persons from the new entrant EU States is approximately double that of the original EU 15. In 2005, nine non-Irish workers died. Of these, six were from other EU States and three were from outside the EU. Five of the non-Irish fatalities occurred in the construction sector. The fatality rate for Irish workers in the construction sector is 7 per 100,000, compared with 22 per 100,000 for non-Irish workers.
  • The number of inspections carried out by the Authority in 2005 was 13,549; the target is to increase this to 16,000 inspections in 2006. There were 6,203 inspections in the construction sector in 2005.
  • Over 50,000 planning permissions were granted; of these, 33,000 were for new construction. Approximately one in five of the sites granted planning permission were inspected. In agriculture, there were 114,000 employed during 2005, with 1,187 inspections carried out.
  • During 2005 40 prosecutions were taken through the courts, resulting in those convicted being fined a total of €460,000. In recent years a fine of €1 million was made against a single company. The hearing of health and safety cases is increasingly being referred up to the higher courts. This demonstrates the seriousness with which the judicial system is taking these offences and it also raises the possibility of increased penalties being imposed on conviction.
  • The goal of the HSA is to reduce accidents to a level on a par with EU States with the lowest accident and fatality rates. These states include the UK, Sweden and Denmark. If Ireland was to achieve a fatality rate equivalent to the UK, the total number of fatalities would have been 20 in 2005.
  • Since the new Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act came into force in September 2005, the Authority has drafted new regulations covering over a dozen areas.
  • The new Act provided some significant new powers for the Authority, including that of on-the-spot fines. There is also a possibility of testing for the presence of alcohol and drugs. Codes of Practice have been introduced to assist the self-employed and those employing less than three people to comply with the legislation.
  • The Authority is working with the County Managers of all local authorities to have an integrated Health and Safety Management System in place throughout their operations. This commitment also extends to ensuring that health and safety requirements are enforced for new contracts issued by them.
  • The Health and Safety Authority piloted a new recognition programme called VPP (the Voluntary Protection Programme). A number of multi-national firms in Ireland have achieved VPP status under this pilot scheme, which will be adapted and rolled out on a wider basis following an evaluation.
  • The HSA believes that this type of system should be considered by the insurance industry, with a view to reducing the insurance premiums of participating organisations that have passed an independent audit.
  • The Board of the Authority will shortly be considering specific proposals to publish lists of workplaces which were found to be in breach of the legislation.
  • Among the priorities of the next three years is the introduction and implementation of the REACH Directive. This is a new EU-wide chemical safety programme which will fundamentally change the way in which companies manufacture, import or use chemicals.
  • There are 113,000 businesses in Ireland with fewer than ten employees. Most individuals working in agriculture or forestry are self-employed. This is a particular target for the Authority.
  • A special investigation unit has been established to investigate serious workplace incidents. The Authority has employed a full-time legal counsel who assists all divisions with regard to legislation.
  • The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment has provided adequate funding. The budget for 2006 will be €20.9 million.
  • Given the restrictions on staffing faced by all public bodies, the Authority has reorganised its operations to achieve a greater level of efficiency so as to enable it to carry out active programmes in high-risk areas, while maintaining a presence in all other sectors.
  • The HSA made the following specific recommendations to the Joint Committee:

      – Insurance companies should reward good workplace health and safety practices by means of a verifiable and robust system to be worked out with industry. The Authority will be pleased to play a role in this process.


      – Voluntary recognition schemes also have a role to play in this regard, whereby companies pursue excellence in health and safety and are independently audited.


      – Small companies must have health and safety statements in place and all companies must have named people responsible for health and safety. This could also be incentivised by the insurance industry.


      – The insurance industry should provide greater support for the promotion of workplace health and safety.


  • Ireland requires a national culture of workplace safety, health and welfare.

Questions and Comments by Members of the Joint Committee following Mr Beegan’s Presentation

Deputy Hogan asked the HSA about the level of fatalities. He stated that the statistics showed that not much progress was being made. He was critical of the Safe Pass programme. Non-qualified persons were being allowed on to building sites. This put everyone at risk. The HSA should take total responsibility for safety. He asked who was in charge.


Mr Beegan referred to the tragic increase in the number of fatal accidents in 2005. However, the overall trend was a drop of 25 per cent. The strategy being adopted would give better results. Construction was one of the worst areas. Where sites are well managed there was no difficulty. However, sub-contracting was over-represented in the fatality statistics. One of the issues in relation to public safety was the HSA’s parameters of responsibility. It was clear that another agency would not be established by Government. The HSA recently met with the Road Safety Authority to determine which agency was responsible in relation to accidents such as that on the Dublin Quays.


Mr Beegan referred to the difficulties with the Safe Pass. An independent review was being carried out. The HSA was aware of the difficulties relating to forged cards. Some of the recommendations being made would lead to a major strengthening of the regulations in relation to Safe Pass. FÁS had carried out an investigation. The HAS was not satisfied with the level of fatalities but the level of injuries had been steadily decreasing in relation to European comparisons and generally good progress was being made.


Deputy Quinn asked whether the HSA took insurance costs into account and how these could be reduced through the application of safety measures. When would insurance appear on the radar screen? Deputy Quinn stated that trade unions were attempting to highlight the level of accidents. He also asked if there was a case for a crime of corporate manslaughter. Were Polish workers being put at risk to a greater extent than Irish workers? How could this be addressed?


Mr Beegan stated that the insurance industry was a significant enabler, particularly in respect of micro-businesses. The HSA wanted to work with the insurance companies. He referred to Risk Assist, which was a programme of the Hibernian Insurance Company. The Health and Safety Authority wanted to encourage good business practices. The HSA wanted to see good businesses run safely and in this respect they would work together with the insurance companies.


Under the new arrangement with local authorities, all contractors would have to be able to demonstrate compliance with safety law. Similar provisions applied in relation to State companies, and there were discussions with the healthcare sector, which was a major employer.


In relation to foreign nationals, radio and TV advertisements were being used to get the message across. Pictograms were being used where there were language difficulties. A new European strategy was being developed. Undoubtedly, where workers did not speak English there was a difficulty. Responsibility had to rest with the employer.


On the question of corporate manslaughter, Mr Beegan stated that Section 80 was quite strong from a health and safety perspective. He believed that the current legislation was satisfactory. However, to reduce accidents a national change of attitude was needed. If we could sort out the smoking and plastic bags issues we could improve safety. Mr Beegan, in response to a question from Deputy Quinn, stated that the Attorney General had legal issues relating to the crime of corporate manslaughter.


The Chairman referred to small family businesses and asked if it was possible to require a Health and Safety Officer to be employed if there were more than 20 employees and also if it would be possible to require that a contract not be signed until a Safety Officer was in place.


Deputy Quinn asked if it was possible to make health and safety issues a requirement of planning permission in order to get the message across. There was a need to have a person in charge and for there to be accountability. Insurance companies had a role to play.


Deputy Callanan stated that he was concerned that the level of fatalities in the UK was one-quarter the rate in Ireland. He wondered what we are doing wrong. In relation to non-Irish workers, he asked if they were being put in more dangerous areas.


Mr Roe of the HSA stated that the HSA was undertaking research into non-Irish workers and whether they were being engaged in high-risk sectors. The rate of accidents in the new EU countries was twice the rate in the EU 15. There were many new workers without experience in industry. They were being run over by workplace vehicles. Language was a problem. In response to the question of the difference in the fatality rate compared with the UK, some reasons were advanced:


  • The higher growth rate in Ireland could be an issue.
  • The language problem for non-Irish workers might be an issue.
  • However, more than anything else, it was clear that the UK had far more inspections of sites; one-third more inspections were being undertaken.

Mr Beegan stated that there was a pilot programme in 16 schools in the West of Ireland. The Chairman of the HSA had a particular interest in using the education system to communicate the message of safe working. Discussions were taking place with the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA) regarding where in the educational system this message could be communicated.


Deputy Dempsey referred to the Leaving Certificate Applied Course and suggested that this would be a useful place to communicate a holistic concept of safety to young people. In relation to the pilot scheme, there should be an independent evaluation of this.


Ms Dorgan of the HSA stated that the most strategic initiative that the HSA could adopt would be to introduce health and safety on to the school curriculum. The HSA hoped to do this in partnership with the NCCA. The HSA would strongly welcome such a development. It was not possible for the HSA to educate young people in a piecemeal way.


Table: Fatalities at work


Economic sector

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

A – Agriculture, hunting and forestry

16

25

14

20

13

18

18

B – Fishing

7

2

3

0

3

2

2

C – Mining and quarrying

3

5

3

1

0

6

2

D – Manufacturing

11

3

7

7

3

7

4

E – Electricity / gas / water

1

0

1

2

0

0

0

F – Construction

17

22

21

20

16

23

12

G – Wholesale / retail trade; repair of goods

2

1

1

4

4

8

3

H – Hotels and restaurants

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

I – Transport, storage and communication

4

5

7

9

6

4

4

J – Financial intermediation

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

K – Real estate, renting, business

3

1

0

0

0

1

2

L – Public admin. / defence

5

2

3

1

0

2

1

M – Education

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

N – Health / social work

0

1

0

0

1

0

1

O – Other community, social and personal services

1

0

1

4

2

2

1

Total

70

67

61

68

50

74

50

Note: The figures in this table represent the total number of fatalities (i.e. worker and non-worker).


Report on the Economic Impact of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Legislation

The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment commissioned a Report on the Economic Impact of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Legislation. The report was prepared by Indecon Consultants. The report estimated that occupational injury and illness cost the Irish economy up to €3.6 billion or 2.5 per cent of national income.


The consultants conducted two surveys.


The findings of the Construction Industry Survey were as follows:


  • A majority of respondents (53.8 per cent) believed that the legislation had led to a reduction in the cost of accidents.
  • A sizeable minority (39.6 per cent) believed that health and safety legislation had led to a reduction in insurance costs, while just 5 per cent felt that they had led to an increase.
  • A majority of firms put the cost of complying with health and safety legislation at 3 per cent of annual labour costs.
  • The majority of construction firms believed that there had been a net benefit for businesses arising from health and safety legislation.
  • The Survey of Industry findings were as follows:
  • A majority of its respondents believed that the health and safety legislation had reduced accident-related costs.
  • The largest proportion of responding firms believed that the cost of compliance with health and safety legislation fell in the range of 1 to 5 per cent. The consultants estimated that the medium of this sample was below 1 per cent.
  • The vast majority of respondents believed that the benefits of health and safety legislation outweighed its costs.

The consultants found that, on the whole, employers believed that the benefits of health and safety regulations equalled or outweighed the cost of compliance. The consultants found that, overall, the majority of firms believed that there had been a net benefit for their businesses arising from health and safety legislation. The legislation imposed a cost but it also brought substantial benefits in terms of a reduction in accident and insurance costs.


Comment

In general, the Joint Committee is satisfied that the Health and Safety Authority is working hard to bring about a reduction in the level of fatalities in the workplace. The Joint Committee congratulates the Health and Safety Authority on the work it is doing.


The Joint Committee notes that an official of the HSA stated that the most strategic initiative that could be taken in relation to health and safety is to have it taught as part of the school curriculum.


There is little doubt that a culture of safe working is needed. Ideally, this should be communicated through the school curriculum. It might be done as part of Transition Year studies, but because of the numbers leaving school before Transition Year, it should also be done at an earlier age, possibly at the start of second-level education. This programme should be combined with the road safety instruction programme.


As with road safety, safety at work cannot simply be taught in one year and then never again, but must become part of the curriculum, even if it is only for several hours’ teaching each term.


The Joint Committee also notes the proposals made by the HSA in relation to the involvement of insurance companies in health and safety.


It is clear that insurance companies should reward good workplace health and safety practices. In addition, insurance companies can play an important role in insisting upon good safety practices for small companies. The insurance company can also provide support in relation to the promotion of workplace health and safety. In addition, voluntary recognition schemes by a body such as the National Irish Safety Organisation will play an important role in encouraging companies to adopt and maintain safe work practices.


The Joint Committee also notes that the statistics for 2006 show that the major problem area for work safety relates to the agricultural sector. It is obviously very important that the safe working practice message is communicated to all persons involved in working on farms or in the agriculture sector generally.


In general, the HSA is to be congratulated on the reduction in the level of fatalities at work in 2006. However, it is essential that the level be further reduced to a level that is among the lowest per person working in any European countries. The HSA should consider what actions are required to bring about a further reduction in fatalities. On the basis of the information provided to the Joint Committee, the principal difference in the operation of our health and safety laws compared with the UK is that there is a significantly higher level of inspections in the UK.


The Joint Committee recommends that:


60. Insurance companies should:


  1. Reward good workplace health and safety practices by means of a verifiable and robust system to be worked out with industry,
  2. Give incentives to small companies that have health and safety statements in place and named persons responsible for health and safety,
  3. Provide greater support in the promotion of workplace health and safety.

Conclusion

The Joint Committee considers that the work of the Health and Safety Authority is of very considerable importance. It is essential that the numbers of fatalities and the numbers injured in workplaces in Ireland should be reduced to the lowest levels of all countries in Europe. If this is done, the burden of insurance costs for industry will be reduced and many injuries and fatalities will be avoided.


Workplace safety is a competitiveness issue for Irish industry.


4 Insurance Companies and Brokers

Evidence from Insurance Companies

The Joint Committee met with Hibernian, AXA and Quinn Direct on Wednesday, 17 May 2006.


NOTE: Statements and questions relating to road safety prior to July 2006 were dealt with in the Joint Committee Report on Road Safety of July 2006. These have been excluded from the reports of the meetings given below. Road Safety issues raised since July 2006 have been included in Chapter 2.


Hibernian Insurance

Mr Dick O’Driscoll, speaking for Hibernian Insurance, stated the following:


  • The premium income of Hibernian in 2005 was €755 million, this was down on 2004. The operating profit was €250.6 million. The profits were higher than in 2004. Hibernian’s premiums have continued to fall since 2002.
  • In the past year, the following reductions in insurance costs took place:

Motor / Private:

-12.6%

Commercial Motor (including fleet):

-10.3%

Liability:

-9.3%

Property:

-4.2%

  • Hibernian continued to support the work of the PIAB. In addition to other benefits from the PIAB, Hibernian had benefited from a better claim process. While the awards may be too high, at least there was a control over the awards. There was a concern over developing case law over time. The danger was that some of the appeals being made to the courts in respect of the PIAB awards would lead to the award of legal costs.
  • Regarding the Civil Liability and Courts Act, Mr O’Driscoll stated that it was early days and that he was unaware of any prosecution so far. On insurance regulation, Hibernian was generally supportive of a good regulatory framework.
  • Hibernian believes that the premiums being charged were reasonable for the current level of risk.
  • Regarding the PIAB, the following points were made:

      – One of the advantages of the PIAB was that there was a reduction in spurious claims. The screening system for the PIAB was very effective and it had reduced spurious claims. This had not been thought of as a benefit at the time of the PIAB’s establishment.


      – The second benefit was the control over costs. The fixed award system was bringing about an early settlement of awards.


      – It was important to keep the PIAB legislation up to date and not to permit the reentry of strong legal practitioner involvement in the process.


      – So far there have been no court cases arising from the non-acceptance of the PIAB awards.


  • On regulation, Mr O’Driscoll stated that it was important not to add complexity to the process. A lot of Financial Regulator papers were coming down the tracks.
  • While premiums in Ireland had been falling over the last few years, premiums in the UK had been rising. There had not been the same level of reform in other markets.
  • The Hibernian ‘IGNITION’ system had resulted in 50,000 persons undergoing training. Hibernian had found this to be very effective. Hibernian had also supported health and safety training through its ‘Risk Assist’ scheme.

AXA Ireland

Mr John O’Neill spoke on behalf of AXA and stated the following:


  • Profits after tax in the year 2005 were €119 million. However, of this amount, €81 million referred to prior year reserve movement and €35 million to capital gains on investment. Profit was down on the levels of 2004. Premium income was €486 million, a reduction from €567 million.
  • Eighty-five per cent of AXA business is motor insurance.
  • The trading results were just over break-even. Competitive forces had driven premiums down.
  • Between December 2002 and December 2005 private motor premiums fell by 32 per cent and commercial motor premiums by 21 per cent. Since April 2005 private motor insurance costs had declined by 8 per cent with young drivers (under 30s) obtaining reductions of 20 per cent and commercial motor companies reductions of 10 per cent.
  • Regarding the PIAB, Mr O’Neill stated the following:

      – It was still too early to make a final judgement on the success of the PIAB. The PIAB had played a part in helping insurers to reduce premium levels, mainly by permitting them to become more proactive at the early stages of the claim. The PIAB allowed a tightening up of the system.


      – However, the volume of cases handled by the PIAB and the speed of awards both needed to be improved and there had also been a greater involvement of solicitors in the process than expected. The rejection rate on the PIAB awards had been increasing.


      – The ultimate success of the system would depend on the level of review by the courts of rejected PIAB awards. If the courts made higher awards, then the lawyers would have won.


      – In general, it would appear that many persons having accidents wanted legal advice. It was interesting that many awards were being rejected. In some cases all of the claimants associated with a particular firm of solicitors rejected their awards.


  • On insurance regulation, the pace and scale of insurance regulation continue to increase. The following new developments were expected:

      – distance marketing directive


      – consumer protection code


      – minimum competency requirements.


  • If all of the AXA staff of 500 have to comply with a minimum competency requirement, it will be necessary to employ another 100 persons. This will have an adverse effect on the cost base. It is important to ensure that extra costs are justified by the benefits that would accrue to consumers and that new regulations do not become a barrier to doing business. The IFSRA had stated that its approach was one of ‘Principle-Based Regulation’. However, a lot of rules were coming into force.
  • Mr O’Neill stated that claims frequencies had increased sharply since June 2004. They had risen from less than 0.6 per cent to in excess of 0.9 per cent by December 2005. This was a bad development in respect of future premium levels.
  • Mr O’Neill stated that the actions needed to keep insurance premiums low were set out clearly in the MIAB Report. Of the 56 recommendations made to Government Departments and agencies, only 29 had been implemented in full.
  • AXA believes that insurance premium levels have been reduced to 1999 levels. This objective had been achieved.

Quinn Direct

Mr Colin Morgan spoke on behalf of Quinn Direct. Among the points he made were the following:


  • Quinn Direct had a growth of 16 per cent in the Republic of Ireland in 2005. Growth continued to be strong in 2006. Since April 2005 there had been premium reductions in private motor rates of 7.5 per cent, 8.9 per cent in commercial motor rates, 15 per cent in commercial liability and 13 per cent in commercial property. Quinn Direct plans to continue to grow its market share in Ireland.
  • In 2005 Quinn Direct had made an underwriting profit of €101 million and investment income was €131, a total profit of €231 million before tax. Their improvements in operational efficiency and claims management had offset the reductions in premiums. Quinn Direct’s market share had increased from 9.4 per cent in 2002 to 16.7 per cent in 2005 in motor insurance, and from 5.9 per cent in 2002 to 15.8 per cent in 2005 in market liability insurance.
  • In relation to the PIAB, Quinn Direct positively encouraged all initiatives to reduce legal costs. They were concerned over the length of time it was taking to process and make awards. The plaintiff rejection rate was higher than expected and the majority of claimants still had legal representation. Overall, the PIAB was very worthwhile. The Quinn Direct business model is to try and eliminate legal cost.
  • On the Civil Liability and Courts Act, this had been a very positive development for the industry. The Verifying Affidavits and Section 17 Offers are positive developments.
  • On Irish Personal Injury awards, there was still major inconsistency in awards made in court. Compensation and award levels were out of line with European levels.
  • There was a need for transparency on intermediary charges and relationships with insurers to ensure consumers’ best interest. Intermediaries should advise on all available products irrespective of their relationship with the insurer.
  • Quinn Direct broadly welcomes the reports of the Competition Authority and the Joint Committee and their recommendations.
  • Quinn Direct is driven by a continuous low-cost drive and its focus on efficiency. It has a high customer-retention rate. Quinn Direct provides leadership in the industry, particularly in relation to reducing unnecessary costs and delivering cost savings to customers and third parties. It has created competition and driven prices down.
  • In response to a question from the Chairman, Mr Morgan stated that three large international brokers were not offering Quinn Direct as a choice to their customers.

Comments and Questions from Members

Deputy Lynch referred to the level of uninsured drivers. She did not know this level and wondered how many were giving false insurance information.


Deputy Nolan stated that he was concerned about the effectiveness of the PIAB because of the number of claimants refusing awards and availing of court procedures. If the claimant was able to obtain increased awards in the courts, this would make the operation of the PIAB unsustainable.


Deputy Quinn expressed his strong concern about the effectiveness of PIAB. He wondered what the Joint Committee could do collectively to monitor the situation. It was important to ensure that the legal professions could not wreck the PIAB.


Deputy Dempsey asked whether profits had risen as premiums fell. As a former teacher, he was aware that in the Business Organisation course, insurance was covered as an issue. However, many students did not study Business Organisation. He asked if insurance companies could do more in respect of training at second-level.


Deputy Breen stated that profits seemed high compared with the UK. He noted that competition had been good for consumers in the banking sector. He wondered if additional insurance companies in the market would bring about lower premiums. He also asked if the hotline on fraud had been successful.


Deputy Callanan asked whether the problem was the lack of enforcement of existing laws. He also asked if Tracksure was viable.


Mr Dick O’Driscoll stated that Hibernian Insurance had a loading of 25 per cent for left-hand drive cars. In many cases, foreign drivers quoted host-country insurance. However, when there had been an accident it had been found that it was not possible to recoup the award from the insurance company in another Member State. In addition, because of a loophole in the law, Gardaí were unable to seize the vehicle of a foreign national. Eastern European drivers had learned that they had certain rights. However, in general, the statistical evidence of high numbers of left-hand vehicles involved in accidents was very weak. Overtaking in a left-hand drive car is very dangerous. Perhaps the Joint Committee would facilitate a reasonable approach on this issue. The Motor Insurance Bureau of Ireland may have information in relation to recouping the costs of accidents from insurers in other Member States.


On the PIAB, his concern was that, while the courts may accept the PIAB level of award, they would award legal costs against the insurance company. This would encourage other similar actions. There was a need to be alert in relation to this issue.


Mr O’Neill of AXA urged caution in relation to black box technology. Some recent accidents had occurred at relatively low speeds. Nevertheless, such technology had benefits. Reduced premiums would increase the number of boy racers. Essentially, reducing the premiums of young drivers brought about an increase in the number of young drivers and this, in turn, led to further road fatalities. AXA offered a no-claims discount of up to 70 per cent. It was a free market and AXA did not discriminate between left-hand drivers in deciding upon premiums.


The Chairman asked if it was possible to further reduce premiums by 15 per cent.


Mr O’Neill stated that there would not be profits from the insurance sector of €1 billion in 2007. He stated that the sector was reaching the end of the insurance cycle. AXA was breaking even on current business. As competition increased, AXA would lose money on underwriting. He stated that AXA was probably the first company to state that it was making a profit. It believed that it was the first company to recognise that ‘the game was over’. Prices would have to start rising again.


Mr O’Driscoll stated that it was necessary to start talking about profitability over the insurance cycle of five to ten years. While the market was attractive to new entrants on the basis of recent results, if these were reviewed on a five-year basis then a different picture would emerge. In 2005 Ireland’s returns were higher than in some other markets. But over five years they were lower. The market was highly competitive.


Deputy Quinn asked if the insurance sector was at the peak of this cycle. If insurance companies did not make profits there would be under-investment and premiums would rise again.


Mr O’Neill said that the market was never more competitive than at present. He stated that the problem of boy racers did not show up in the statistics. Most of these would be insured.


Mr Morgan stated that the UK market was a very attractive market. Quinn Direct was looking for a loading of 25–30 per cent for left-hand drive cars.


Senator O’Toole raised the issue of online tax registration. He understood that the insurance details given by those paying their motor tax online were not checked. He believed that a database should be established and the details given should be checked in real time. He asked whether the companies would cooperate.


In relation to the PIAB he stated that there was concern about the higher than expected rate of legal representation. The PIAB had spent the last two years in court. The ruling of the High Court in relation to solicitors was being appealed. In the past year there had been 20,000 cases. Of these, 3,000 had resulted in awards by the PIAB, 7,000 were referred to the courts and 9,000 were in process. On the speed of award, the question was whether it was taking longer than the time permitted by legislation.


The PIAB had to deal with vested interests. Some solicitors’ firms were rejecting all awards. There had been a recent challenge to the making available of medical information to the PIAB. In general, the PIAB had been far more successful than envisaged in the first Business Plan. He expected four to five more legal challenges over the next two to three years before the PIAB was fully established.


Deputy Quinn stated that Ireland, as a small open economy, was rapidly losing competitiveness in a number of areas. It was obvious that dark forces were looming in relation to insurance claims. The Committee had to be rigorous in ensuring that we did not go back to high legal costs in relation to personal liability insurance. While the carnage on roads was obviously of great concern, we also had to be concerned about the competitiveness of the economy and, in particular, the viability of small business. He wondered what could be done to monitor court cases.


He understood that a number of insurance companies would not enter the Irish market because the award levels in Irish courts were a lottery. He wondered if this was still the same. The question of the Book of Quantum had been around since 1992. It was disappointing that cases were still being challenged. This whole issue had much wider implications in relation to competitiveness.


Mr Morgan did not believe that the rejection rate of the PIAB awards would increase. Nevertheless, there was cause for concern. It appeared that many people were more comfortable getting legal advice in relation to an accident claim. The question was the level of costs if the issue went to litigation.


Mr O’Driscoll stated that some law firms were rejecting every case and that the legal profession was reverting to type.


Deputy Breen asked whether Mr O’Driscoll agreed with AXA’s view that it was the end of the road for insurance premium reductions.


Mr O’Driscoll reiterated that the rates were reasonable for the risks being undertaken. If further reductions were to be achieved, there would have to be an improvement in road safety. The great danger was that we would get to the point where the return on capital investment in other markets was more attractive and capital would flow from the Irish market to elsewhere.


On the question of the exchange of information with the Motor Registration Office, Hibernian Insurance would be fully supportive of the validation of insurance cover online. One of the great problems in Ireland was that all of the databases being maintained by the Motor Registration Office, the Gardaí, the courts, the insurance companies, did not talk to one another.


Evidence Received on 31 May 2006

The Joint Committee met with FBD Insurance, the Financial Regulator, the Irish Business and Employers Confederation (IBEC) and the Society of the Irish Motor Industry (SIMI) (in relation to Road Safety) on Wednesday, 31 May 2006.


FBD Insurance

Among the points made by Mr Fitzsimons, Chief Executive of FBD Insurance, were the following:


  1. The level of premiums in 2005 was €389 million. The underwriting result was €88 million, return on investments €41 million and the operating profit was €129 million. This was the best year in FBD’s history.
  2. The changes in motor premiums showed that the average premium in 2006 was €585, compared with the 2000 level of €685. For commercial motor vehicles the average in 2006 was €661, compared with the 2000 level of €709. For commercial property and liability the average premium had fallen from a 2001 level of €2,417 to €2,364 in 2006.
  3. FBD was fully supportive of the PIAB. It was early days for passing judgement on its efficiency and what it could deliver. Of the total number of cases submitted by the PIAB to date, FBD had consented to the PIAB making an assessment in 70 per cent of the cases. But in 30 per cent of the cases, FBD had issues concerning liability and wished to defend them through the civil process. FBD’s consent rate was higher than the industry average, which FBD estimates to be 50 per cent.
  4. In relation to cases where the PIAB has made its assessment, FBD has accepted all of them. On the other hand, the plaintiff had rejected 24 per cent of awards, which mirrors the PIAB’s overall statistics.
  5. FBD is concerned at a number of ongoing efforts to undermine the PIAB process, which, if not addressed, are likely to significantly impact on both the acceptance rate and on the level of damages awarded. FBD is aware of claimants who received a fair award from the PIAB and who were subsequently advised by their solicitors to reject the award, thereby enabling them to initiate court proceedings. The defendant in these cases made a tender equal to the PIAB award, which was then accepted by the claimant’s solicitors. Despite arguments on behalf of the defendants that they should not be liable for any legal costs in these circumstances, they had been held responsible for all of the claimant’s legal costs up to the date that the tender was submitted.
  6. Notwithstanding the fact that the PIAB did not pay legal fees, some lawyers were exploiting this loophole in the law in a bid to receive fees through the backdoor for work done in preparation of the PIAB case. FBD urges the Committee to initiate whatever measures were needed to close off this loophole so as to ensure that legal costs were not awarded in such circumstances.
  7. Another area of concern related to the provision in the PIAB Act that ‘an assessment made in respect of a relevant claim shall not be admissible in evidence in any proceedings between the claimant and the respondent in relation to the claim’. As a result it is open to a claimant to bring a substantially different / more serious claim to the court than the one presented to the PIAB, in the knowledge that matters that influenced the assessment of the PIAB award cannot subsequently be referred to in a court of law. In FBD’s view, this is a serious flaw that will only serve to encourage litigation and the exaggeration of claims, which in time will inevitably lead to courts awarding higher level of damages than the PIAB. FBD urged the Committee to closely monitor court awards on rejected PIAB cases and, if a trend emerged, as FBD expected, to then make a recommendation to amend the legislation to ensure that there was a level playing field between the PIAB process and the court system.
  8. On the question of the Civil Liability and Courts Act, FBD expressed concern that the provisions aimed at discouraging and preventing exaggerated claims were being undermined. This was happening because judges were adopting a lenient approach to exaggerated claims. Instead of these being dismissed in their entirety, judges were inclined to take the view that because the plaintiff genuinely sustained some injury, it would be an injustice to dismiss his/her claim outright simply because he/she exaggerated the extent of the injury. Although the exaggerated element of the claim had been disallowed, plaintiffs were still being compensated for what the judge believed was the genuine injury received. In FBD’s view, this was sending out all the wrong signals to dishonest claimants. There was no deterrent to a claimant ‘having a go’. Under the legislation discretion regarding sanctions was left in the hands of the judge and, invariably, the claimant was not being penalised in any way for dishonesty. In FBD’s view, if a dishonest claimant swore a verifying affidavit as to the extent of the claim, which was subsequently shown to be falsely exaggerated, the court should be obliged to dismiss the claim in its entirety, regardless of whether or not the claimant actually gave false or misleading evidence in court.
  9. Arising from the MIAB report, a regulation was introduced which decreed that insurance renewal notices must be issued to policyholders 15 days in advance of the renewal date of their insurance premiums. In FBD’s experience, this regulation was not being adhered to by all players in the market, particularly insurance intermediaries. This was placing compliant companies at a competitive disadvantage. FBD called on the Financial Regulator to investigate.
  10. FBD was looking forward to the independent report on the system of taxation of legal costs.
  11. FBD complained about the online renewal of vehicle road tax which does not require that a car be insured before the tax can be renewed. FBD stated that this anomaly highlighted yet again the need for a comprehensive, centralised vehicle / driver database, to which the Gardaí and other authorities would have immediate, remote access.
  12. FBD believed that it was necessary to draw up a specific plan to reduce the level of uninsured driving and to fully implement the Road Safety Council’s strategy. The Committee should recommend whatever measures were necessary to ensure that the PIAB was not thwarted in achieving its objectives.

IBEC

Mr Tony Briscoe made the presentation on behalf of IBEC. Among the points made were the following:


  1. The experience of the business community was very positive following the recent introduction of reforms, particularly those concerning the establishment of the PIAB as well as the measures set out in the Civil Liability and Courts Act. Nevertheless, there were particular experiences which had been related to IBEC by its members which are of some concern. These related to the absence of some measures in the civil liability reforms and the incidence of claims and the level of damages set out in the Book of Quantum developed by the PIAB which determined general damages. There was, additionally, anecdotal information of cases where the expectations of those using the PIAB were of concern as well as indications in some cases of attempts to circumvent the PIAB and force parties into litigation.
  2. IBEC, in its most recent survey of business costs, found that its member companies had experienced a reduction of 8 per cent in the total cost of insurance in 2005. This contrasted with an increase in the previous year of 7.4 per cent. Compared with earlier years when insurance was the cost of most concern to businesses, insurances ranked third as one of the most important non-pay issues for business. Over the period of the survey, if inflation is taken into account, the actual reduction in the cost of the insurance was significant. However, as insurance tends to experience a cyclical effect in terms of cost inflation, it would be unwise to advance a strong positive prediction based on this short-term experience.
  3. IBEC’s members have three principal concerns with the operation of the PIAB. It is recognised that these may not be entirely due to any inefficiency on the part of the PIAB and more to do with its limited remit. There is a strong view that certain of the values assigned to particular injuries, particularly the less severe injuries, are far too high and indeed represent in many cases levels which greatly exceed what would have been reasonably expected prior to the establishment of the Book of Quantum. IBEC supports the Joint Committee’s recommendation to have the level of awards examined, particularly in relation to the award of general damages.
  4. A number of employers have experienced an increase in the number of claims because people who normally would not have considered seeking compensation see it as a matter of routine, and almost automatic, regardless of the circumstance or degree of injury or indeed where they have suffered no financial loss.
  5. There is also concern about the discharge of a case by the PIAB under Section 17 of the Act where the prognosis of injury is considered not achievable within the timeframe set down for the PIAB, i.e. nine months. This hinders the PIAB in making assessments and forces cases into litigation, sometimes unnecessarily, because medical opinion differs or is not received in sufficient time.
  6. It appears that there are many ways to hinder the success of the PIAB. In some cases there are delays caused by insufficient data being supplied in sufficient time, thus having the effect of forcing the respondent to decline the PIAB assessment. This needs to be addressed and there should be measures introduced to prevent frustration of the process which acts against the interest of all parties. Neither employers nor employees are best served by the frustration of a process which deals with the resolution of compensation equitably, efficiently, and without the need for expensive delivery costs.
  7. On civil law reforms, IBEC considers the recent Act to be a good and necessary piece of legal reform. However, many of the sanctions provided are discretionary to the courts and it is important that, where abuses arise, the courts should apply the penalties and sanctions provided for. If this does not occur we could revert to the socially unacceptable historic situation of fraudulent and exaggerated claims. It is necessary to have careful monitoring to ensure that the intent of these measures translates into actions so as to avoid the need for further legislative measures. Where there is a fraudulent or exaggerated claim, the court should automatically dismiss the claim and apply the penalties.
  8. Another area of concern to IBEC is the matter of double benefit. This inequity was addressed in a Law Reform Commission Report of December 2002. IBEC believes that this matter is important and the current scenario is grossly unfair to those employers who make provision for such benefits where they have to compensate on the double.
  9. IBEC welcomes the introduction of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act, as a positive development and wishes to see speedy delivery and supporting regulations and guidance. IBEC will soon be launching a new updated code and will be updating the IBEC/ IIF Communications Guidelines for insurance policyholders.
  10. In general, the accident at work experience has shown improvement. This view is based on the most reliable indicator available, which is of Occupational Injury Benefit claims. The rate of accepted claims for those in employment is 709 per 100,000, compared with 847 per 100,000 in 2002. Ireland has one of the lowest rates of accidents in Europe. This may seem inconsistent when one compares fatality rates. In this regard, two factors must be borne in mind. One is the relatively small actual number so that even a small increase will have a disproportionate effect in percentage terms, but also the extent of fatal accidents of self-employed persons. This can amount to 40 per cent of the fatalities in some years. There is a significant problem with accidents in relation to self-employed persons.

Comments and Questions from the Members

The Chairman asked FBD if premiums could be reduced by a further 15 per cent in view of the profits of €1 billion made by the insurance industry in Ireland in 2005.


Mr Fitzsimons stated that the loss ratios being experienced justified the current premiums. Ultimately, competition would dictate the premiums. There would come a point of time where margins would be at the European level. It was very important that the Joint Committee and the Government focus on the cost base of the insurance industry.


Deputy Quinn referred to the political will manifest in the level of reforms that have been undertaken. However, this would only last as long as the industry showed falling premiums. He accepted that it was necessary to cut the cost base. In regard to legal costs it was necessary to have the assistance of the industry. There was anecdotal evidence that members would be forced into litigation against their will; more evidence was needed.


Senator O’Toole, as Vice-Chairman of the PIAB, said that he appreciated the points made by FBD. However, he was concerned that FBD’s actions might be undermining the PIAB.


Mr Higgins of FBD stated that FBD was not settling above PIAB levels. The case presented to court was often vastly different than that presented to the PIAB. The flaw was that if the original PIAB offer was accepted there should be no costs awarded. The PIAB had not reduced awards; it had simply reduced the costs of litigation. Where an award from the PIAB was rejected and then taken to court, solicitors were thought to be entitled to the costs up to the date of the making of the tender.


FBD was prepared to go into court. They warned about an emerging trend but there have been relatively few cases. The legislation needed to be strong enough. There was a major loophole at present. One of the difficulties with the courts was that reference could not be made to proceedings before the PIAB.


Senator O’Toole stated that this was a huge issue. The omission of the particular section of the Act that was complained of would have meant that the PIAB Bill would not have gone through. There was a constitutional case being taken in relation to medical records. Every single line of the PIAB Act was being tested so as to promote the involvement of the legal profession. On 31 May 2004 thousands of claims had been made before the court. These cases were ahead of recent cases and were still being dealt with.


Senator O’Toole stated that the PIAB was receiving 9,000 cases per year and by 2007 it would be dealing with 10,000 per year.


Mr Briscoe stated that he had been personally involved in lobbying for the PIAB for over ten years. It was inevitable that some would try to subvert the process. In the past, a major survey had shown that one in ten accidents had resulted in a claim. It was now easier to seek compensation. It was important that only genuine accidents, where no exaggeration of injury was being made, should be compensated. It appeared that claimants who rejected the PIAB award had nothing to lose by going to court. Some judges were taking the view that, where there was an injury, some compensation was justified even if the extent of the injury had been exaggerated.


Deputy Callanan complimented FBD and IBEC on the improved standard of safety at work. It was now evident that safety regulations were in place.


Deputy Breen asked whether more competition would bring prices down. He referred to a person being quoted €1,200 for car insurance and then being able to get cover for €790. He asked if we had reached the end of cheaper insurance. He was concerned that there were no penalties for the boy racers.


Mr Fitzsimons stated that there was intense competition in the market as shown by the recent Financial Regulator survey. Each company applied its own criteria when making offers of insurance.


In relation to cheaper insurance, he stated that if the PIAB continued to work and that if the Civil Liability and Courts Act worked as intended, there was still potential for cost reduction. FBD believed that it was efficient compared with some of its competitors. Mr Fitzsimons asked that the Joint Committee should reconvene after the next election. He was particularly concerned about non-national drivers. In response to a question he stated that FBD did not physically see the car it was insuring.


However, in relation to boy racers, FBD had offices throughout the country and they obtained information about policyholders who might be engaged in such activity.


Deputy Quinn asked about the cost factors relating to insurance and in particular legal costs. Where a legitimate legal claim was made, instead of awarding a lump sum, was there merit in providing an income over time? Would the disappearance of a lump sum be helpful; had this been discussed previously?


Mr Briscoe stated that, in certain cases, there were double benefits. There had been recommendations in the past in relation to staged payments and there might be a case for staged payments.


Mr Fitzsimons stated that the MIAB had recommended stage payments. There was a suggestion of some movement towards this in relation to large claims. However, it should be looked at to see if it was possible and viable. The calculation of a lump sum might prove to be either too large or too small, depending on the life span of the claimant. In certain jurisdictions, there was provision for stage payments.


Mr Higgins (FBD) stated that in the UK stage payments applied to serious injuries; these might not be cheaper.


Mr Brosnan (FR) stated that there was a substantial level of competition in the market. A total of 561 companies were entitled to write insurance in Ireland.


Evidence Received on 10 October 2006

Allianz Insurance Company

The Joint Committee met with Allianz Insurance Company on Wednesday, 10 October 2006. The Allianz presentation was made by Mr Brendan Murphy and Mr Sean Meagher.


During the course of the presentation, the following points were made:


The Level of Profits and Income in 2005, Outlook for 2006:

  • 2005 Gross Written Premium (GWP) was €478m (down 8 per cent)
  • 2005 Pre-Tax Profits of €132m (down 4 per cent)
  • The cost of capital was over 8 per cent and the target return was 15 per cent.
  • Allianz had achieved its target return for 2003 to 2005.
  • 2006 GWP was expected to be down again on 2005 levels as a result of further rate reductions.
  • 2006 was expected to be profitable, mainly because of positive prior year developments.
  • However, the last quarter of any year could prove volatile; for example, weather-related events could have a material impact on results.

Rate Changes by Line of Business (LOB) 2004–2006:


Line

LOB

2004

2005

2006

Commercial Lines

Liability

-17%

-12%

-15%

Commercial Lines

Motor

-19%

-8%

-9%

Commercial Lines

Packages

-10%

-16%

-7%

Commercial Lines

Property

-16%

-20%

-18%

Commercial Lines

Total

-17%

-13%

-13%

Personal Lines

Motor

-20%

-16%

-1%

Personal Lines

Property

-5%

-13%

4%

Personal Lines

Total

-12%

-14%

1%

Personal and Commercial Lines

Total

-13%

-13%

-4%

Personal and Commercial Lines

Total-cumulative

-13%

-25%

-28%

Exposure is Increasing


  • Number of Vehicles (Source DoE)

2000

2005

1.682m

2.138m

  • Substantial Change in Values of Properties and Number of Properties at Risk:

– building costs have risen substantially


– 80,000 new accommodation units per year


– significant commercial developments


Examples of Changes in Large Risk 2002–2005


Increase in Activity

Change in Rate

Premium

Hotel

+ 85.90%

-62.3%

-29.9%

Contract Cleaning

+ 84.15%

-35.0%

+20.0%

Construction

+103.99%

-37.5%

+27.5%

Commercial

+ 37.26%

-40.4%

-18.0%

The Hotel Risk is a typical example of the dynamic at work. Turnover increased from €3.4m to €5.9m. This in turn involved extra accommodation, more functions, more employees and more patrons, i.e. a much increased risk.


Premium Comparisons

Household

A rebuilding cost sum insured at €200,000 in 2006 would have been €158,000 in 2003. This is an annual increase of 8 per cent or an underlying increase in exposure of 25 per cent in the period. When considering price reductions, this scale of uplift in insured value has to be taken into account.


Typical Example: €200,000 rebuild sum insured in Dublin:


  • premium today: €306
  • premium 2003: €354

Price reduction of €48, plus 25 per cent increase in cover (itself worth over €60).


Motor

Premium for a married male accountant aged 40 living in Dublin driving a 1.8L:


  • price today: €505
  • price at end of 2002: €824

Premium for a single female nurse aged 25 living in Dublin driving a 1.2L:


  • price today: €542
  • price at end of 2002: €884

Premium for a married female housewife aged 50 living in Cork driving a 1.0L:


  • price today: €247
  • price at end of 2002: €403

Premium for a single male electrician aged 27 living in Dublin driving a 1.4L:


  • price today: €648
  • price at end of 2002: €1,057

Premium for a single female teacher aged 30 living in Kilkenny driving a 1.4L:


  • price today: €386
  • price at end of 2002: €630

The PIAB – Allianz’s Experience

  • Initially slow
  • Following High Court challenge, volumes increased
  • Notifications now at expected levels
  • Fifty per cent of notifications remaining with the PIAB
  • Awards in only 25 per cent of cases being handled by the PIAB
  • Seventy-five per cent of awards received less than €20,000
  • Volume of cases now being referred at expected levels
  • Majority of awards in small / medium range
  • Marginal savings, as elimination of costs on smaller cases eroded by increase in damages
  • Needs greater number of awards, especially in more serious cases
  • Will always only account for a small percentage of the total personal injury claims costs
  • Main benefit is environmental / culture change

Civil Liability and Courts Act – Allianz’s Experience

  • Delays initially as a result of High Court PIAB challenge
  • Lower volumes than anticipated to date
  • No cases have reached trial stage yet
  • No contentious issues (fraud, unvouched-for earnings) on cases settled to date
  • As a result, very limited experience
  • Too early to judge but looking forward to seeing its provisions being strictly enforced

Claims Environment – Allianz’s Experience

  • External factors, i.e. the PIAB, the Courts Act, the Anti-Fraud Campaign, have had a positive impact
  • Environment that allows the achievement of early settlement is now more favourable But:
  • Concerns about the frequency of motor accidents
  • Full impact of Courts Act not yet experienced.

Positive public attitude to anti-fraud must be supported and sustained.


Health and Safety in the Workplace – Context

  • The rise in workplace fatalities from 49 in 2004 to 70 in 2005 is a major concern.
  • The HSA conducted 13,552 inspections in 2005. Their Annual Report records:

      – 72 per cent of employers had prepared a safety statement


      – only 5 per cent were fully compliant


      – just over 50 per cent of employers were broadly compliant, while 39 per cent showed some compliance and just 4 per cent limited compliance.


There is also a need for the HSA to maintain their proactive and progressive approach to the changing workplace. For example, it is notable that foreign national workers suffer a disproportionate number of fatal injuries.


Health and Safety in the Workplace – Allianz’s Experience

  • The latest CSO figures show a significant increase in the number of persons suffering work-related illnesses, a cause for concern.
  • Calculated on a rate per 100 workers, while the numbers injured have remained relatively stable at 2.9 in 1998 and 3.0 for the year ending February 2005, the illness rate had increased from 1.7 to 3.1.
  • In the year ending February 2005, 59,800 people were absent from work for one or more days owing to work-related illness, up from 46,300 the previous year and 26,100 people in 1998. This points to an urgent need to focus attention in this area, as ultimately there is potential to see a rise in claims and related economic costs.
  • Allianz welcomes The Safety Health and Welfare at Work Act, 2005.
  • Allianz believes that effective adoption and implementation is vitally important.
  • Allianz has invested heavily and employs the largest number of risk improvement surveyors in this market.
  • Allianz surveyors provide advice and guidance on a range of risk control and management issues and keep its clients up to date with developments in this area.
  • Allianz produces risk-management publications and contributes to the development of best risk-management practices.

Changes in Insurance Regulation – Allianz’s Experience

  • Allianz was proactively involved during the consultation stage and supports new insurance regulations.
  • The programme in operation – including the advent of Solvency II – will bring transparency, raise standards and result in a level playing pitch, all of which will be to the longer-term benefit of consumers.
  • Regulation also involves costs that must be factored into price.
  • It follows that needs and benefits must be a prime factor every step of the way.

Additional Reform Measures

  • Substantial reform measures have been introduced in the last four years.
  • Some, the PIAB and the Courts Act, are bedding in.
  • Others, Penalty Points, are not being effectively and consistently implemented.
  • Health and Safety in the workplace needs more focus.
  • Consolidation of Road Traffic Acts is required for more effective enforcement.
  • The first priority must be to secure maximum benefit from what has been put in place.

A Period of Significant Change

  • Out of 11 significant non-pay business costs surveyed by IBEC in 2005, insurance was the only one to be reduced (-8 per cent). The other non-pay business costs increased by 8.1 per cent.
  • When adjusted for inflation, household premiums are now at 1998 levels.
  • Motor premiums in July 2006 were lower in real terms than at any time since June 1992.
  • In the same period doctors’ fees have increased by 161 per cent, a pint of stout by 78 per cent, electricity by 60 per cent and natural gas by 50 per cent.
  • Insurance firms entitled to operate in Ireland increased from 400 in 1995 to 900 in 2005.

Relative to Developed Countries, Ireland’s spending on Non-Life Insurance is Low

  • Non-life insurance spent as a percentage of GDP in 2005:

Ireland

2.9%

G7

4.0%

EU (15 Countries)

3.3%

UK

3.6%

New Zealand

4.4%

Source: Swiss re


Further Actions Needed

  • More effective road traffic law enforcement will reduce the number of accidents which will result in further reductions.
  • Insurance stamp duty, circa €80m, could be diverted to support enforcement to help sustain lower prices.
  • Given premium reductions to date, further reductions will depend on better enforcement and behaviour – prices follow claims.
  • Elimination of uninsured motorists, circa 6 per cent or 100,000.

As a Commercial Insurer, Allianz:

  • promotes Defensive Driving Programmes (for the past 12 years), involving classroom and in-cab training by qualified driving instructors
  • provides training in Russian and Polish, as many East European migrants are employed in the construction and haulage sectors
  • contributes to Road Safety by highlighting issues in the media; notable in this regard are its campaign on foreign national drivers and driver fatigue
  • contributes to the IIF’s financial support for Road Safety Campaigns.

Conclusion

  • Through its commercial focus Allianz is a key enabler of the Irish commercial sector and via its Personal Division serves about 8 per cent of the Irish motoring public.
  • Prudent underwriting (managing the cycles), proactive risk management (education and customer support) and careful deployment of human skills are the basis upon which Allianz has built its successful 104-year reputation in Ireland.
  • Allianz adopts a proactive and inclusive position on all reform measures capable of delivering value to its customers.
  • Allianz fully supports and acknowledges the good work of the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Enterprise and Small Business but cautions that continued effective implementation of all remedial measures is needed if the achievements gained are to be sustained.
  • With many reform initiatives underway, it has the continued potential to achieve success, but effective enforcement is critical.
  • Dramatic cuts in rates may bring challenges as the cycle develops.
  • There are already signs that the focus on risk control is easing back:

      – increase in road traffic accident numbers


      – sharp rise in industrial fatalities in 2005


      – steady rise throughout 2006 in reported fire losses.


  • Behind the figures and statistics are the lives of real people, many with blighted ambitions and in a lot of cases appalling injuries but, for far too many, the additional loss of loved ones.

Questions by Members of Joint Committee

Deputy McHugh’s understanding was that enforcement of the law was the primary action to be taken. He believed that this could lead to further reductions in insurance premiums. He asked about the application of the statute of limitations being suspended until the PIAB had cleared the case.


Mr Meagher stated that he had no difficulty with the suspension of the statute of limitations, but it did mean that the time scale for bringing cases to a conclusion was extended. It was important that the PIAB would do what it could to compress the time in which adjudications were made.


Mr Murphy, in relation to penalty points, stated that it was necessary to create a fear of enforcement. It was clear that there was a need for a significant and obvious enforcement of the motor vehicle regulations. The survey by the IIF showed that the public did not believe that the law was being enforced.


Senator Leyden noted that healthy profits were being made. He asked whether loyal customers should not get further reductions in their premiums. He was very pleased that the work of the Joint Committee had been acknowledged and that the work of the PIAB had been recognised. He asked if benefits could be achieved by the ‘Eye in the Sky’, particularly in relation to young drivers.


Mr Murphy stated that discounts were given as a no-claims bonus and that this encouraged safe driving. Allianz had only 8 per cent of the private motor insurance market, but a much larger percentage of the commercial motor market. Allianz had introduced its own training for commercial drivers. If the market as a whole adopted the ‘Eye in the Sky’, Allianz would also do so. Ideally, the data recorder for the ‘Eye in the Sky’ should be incorporated as cars are manufactured.


Deputy Callanan complimented Allianz on the price reductions that had been achieved. He asked about the issue of non-Irish drivers and about the non-enforcement of the law. On the black box, he asked whether Allianz was going to base its insurance cost on the miles travelled, particularly for 18–21-year-olds. He endorsed the view of Allianz that driver training should take place in schools.


Mr Meagher stated that, in general, the HSA was on top of the training. The safety materials were being given in other languages. It appeared that non-Irish workers had not really been trained in the work they were taking up, even if they were otherwise well educated. It was necessary for employers to ensure that they were fit for the work they were undertaking and that they had good screening practices in place. There was certainly a difficulty insofar as the driving test did not test for night-time driving, motorway driving or driving in adverse conditions.


Mr Murphy stated that the Allianz group was considering instituting pay-per-mile in other markets. However, given the small percentage of the Irish private market that Allianz had at present, it might not be appropriate in Ireland. However, he agreed that a data recorder system could potentially provide good control.


Deputy McHugh asked if the inadequacy of the driving test was due to the quality of testing or testers.


Mr Murphy stated that it was the conditions under which the test was taken, particularly in relation to night-time driving and motorway driving, which made it inadequate. The difficulty with many younger drivers was their lack of experience, in particular in relation to driving at speed. He believed that driving instruction should start in the classroom. During Transition Year life-saving training and other safety issues should be dealt with.


Deputy Brady asked about accidents among non-nationals. He asked if they had proper insurance. On the driving test, there was a problem insofar as a person undertaking the test might have to borrow a car and this was not acceptable to driving testers.


Mr Murphy stated there were close to 100,000 uninsured drivers and that this problem had been with us for a long time. Essentially the problem was about enforcement. Non-national cars were coming into the country on ferries where it might be possible to check their owners’ insurance. However, the insurance might only be applicable for a short time after the owners arrived from their own country. Allianz was concerned about left-hand drive cars.


Mr Meagher stated that lack of insurance cover was not only a problem in relation to non-Irish drivers; many Irish drivers were also uninsured.


Senator Coghlan stated that the cars should be checked at the port of entry and it should not be assumed that non-nationals were the only uninsured persons.


Senator Leyden asked whether the arrangements in relation to the PIAB had been generally satisfactory.


Mr Murphy stated that claimants were getting good and fair compensation.


Mr Meagher stated that only 25 per cent of Allianz cases forwarded to the PIAB had yet been decided on. He considered that the PIAB was quite successful.


Deputy Callanan referred to the loophole in the law insofar as car tax discs were being issued without a check on insurance.


Mr Murphy stated that this was the general question of having a national database. He would like to link the database in insurance companies to car tax and other information to provide a whole picture of the insurance and tax position of the car.


Deputy Brady referred to higher insurance premiums being imposed on 25-year-olds who wish to drive 1.8 or 2.0 litre cars.


Mr Meagher stated that there was a loading for younger drivers in relation to higher capacity cars. However, it was not Allianz’s policy to refuse to provide insurance outright.


Deputy Brady stated that it was very difficult for younger drivers with cars over 1.8 litres’ capacity to get insurance.


Views of the Professional Insurance Brokers Association (PIBA)

The Joint Committee asked PIBA for a written submission. PIBA’s views on changes in premium prices by category (Private Motor, Commercial Motor, Commercial Liability, and Commercial Property) since April 2005 were received at the end of October 2006.


The premium rates for Private Motor are beginning to stabilise after reductions over the last few years. Motor premiums for young drivers have dropped in particular. This would appear to be as a result of competition from Quinn Direct initially, and followed by reductions in rates from Asgard Underwriting, which has distributed their product through a relatively small number of brokers. Overall rates for drivers under 25, particularly with higher cc. cars, have become very competitive.


One criticism that could be made is that these products should be openly available to the broker market. Insurers should not be allowed to enter the broker market unless they enter it properly. Limited distribution of products has no logical commercial purpose, distorts competition and is not in the interests of consumers. Consumers deserve and expect to be afforded proper choice of products when consulting a broker. Competition in the broker market should be encouraged.


It has been pointed out that insurance is still quoted in the media as being a reason for inflationary pressure, along with wages, energy, etc. These assertions are normally left unchallenged, although premiums have been in virtual freefall for the last two years. The same can be said of Commercial Motor, Commercial Liability and Commercial Property. These should not be accepted from businesses as reasons for increasing prices.


Commercial Motor rates are falling in real terms and currently a number of smaller niche players have set up schemes. Business Insurance is extremely competitive and brokers have played a large part in achieving this competitiveness. Unlike Personal Lines Insurance, Commercial Lines Insurance requires a level of expertise which brokers provide.


Commercial Liability is extremely competitive. Rates are falling in general over the last three to four years, and renewals for 2006 in some cases are falling further but are at least not increasing on 2005 levels. This is due to competition between the main insurers and the entry of Quinn Direct into the broker market. Again, increasing insurance costs are likely to be caused by business expansion as Liability Insurance is calculated on payroll and/or turnover. Generally, larger corporate risks also can get reductions, however, they are mainly achieved by presenting an alternative, competing premium. The role of brokers is significant here, and again the importance of brokers needs to be acknowledged in increasing competition.


Commercial Property: There is competition between the dominant insurers. Royal and Sun Alliance and Eagle Star are presently very aggressive and are slashing rates to achieve an increase in market share. Rate reductions of 40 per cent upwards are not unusual, even on rates already reduced in 2005, if a competing quote is received. Quinn Direct and the smaller players are hugely instrumental in bringing competition into this market. Mergers and acquisitions, such as Royal and Sun Alliance’s recent acquisition of Europa General Insurance are not good for the market. The market has not enough players, and many brokers are not being given agencies by some of the new entrants.


Views of the IBA (Irish Brokers Association) on Changes in Premium Prices since April 2005- letter of 31 August 2006

We believe that intense competition in the marketplace has continued to exert downward pressure on motor and commercial liability insurances.


Our members report that:


  • many insurers are ‘matching’ premium quotations, i.e. at renewal time many insurers are now prepared to match a lower alternative quotation obtained by an insurance broker for the client from another underwriter in order not to lose the business
  • most insurers appear to be taking a tougher line on claims settlements, which we feel is another indicator of a very competitive market in terms of downward pressure on premiums and profits
  • consumers are becoming more conscious and aware of the potential impact on their premium of making relatively small claims
  • it is generally accepted that motor insurance premiums have come down in some sectors by up to 45 per cent over the last three years
  • there is, however, an increasing view in the marketplace that premiums are now nearing the bottom of the ‘underwriting cycle’ and that without some further significant reduction in claims, premiums may start to increase again shortly. Mr John O’Neil, Chief Executive, AXA Ireland, has recently indicated that the incidence of motor insurance claims has started to increase again; he reports that for AXA the number of claims is up 10 per cent over the previous 12-month period. He attributed the increase purely to lack of enforcement of basic road safety measures. He indicated, ‘Current road safety is a complete and unmitigated disaster’, a view with which many of our members would concur.

The Financial Regulator’s Report on Motor Insurance

On 20 December 2006 the Financial Regulator published its Private Motor Insurance Statistics for 2004. The primary objective of the report was to examine the level of accident frequency and costs, and their impact on premiums paid by different categories of drivers. This is the third such report and is based on policy, premium and claims data for 2004, submitted by the Irish Insurance Federation (IIF) to the Financial Regulator.


The report shows that:


  • accident frequency in 2004 grew for the first time since 1997, increasing by 7 per cent for comprehensive cover.
  • accident frequency for third-party fire and theft cover grew for the first time since 1999, by 13 per cent.
  • the motor insurance market grew by 81 per cent to almost 1.5 million policies between 1997 and 2004.
  • 2004 saw a significant change in premium trends. Average premiums fell by 18 per cent for comprehensive cover and by 16 per cent for third-party fire and theft cover. This followed a period of rapidly rising premiums, which grew by 45 per cent for comprehensive cover and by 70 per cent for third-party fire and theft cover between 1997 and 2003.
  • 2004 also saw growth in average claim costs for the first time since 1997, with a 6 per cent increase in costs for comprehensive cover and 10 per cent for third-party fire and theft cover.
  • 70 per cent of policies in 2004 were for comprehensive cover compared with 55 per cent in 1997.
  • Third-party fire and theft policies accounted for 28 per cent of the market compared with 38 per cent in 1997. Third-party fire and theft policies, as a proportion of the market, declined from 1997 to 2002. Since 2002 there has been a small increase in this market share, due to the number of young drivers getting this type of insurance.

The report also details the development pattern of claim costs. For example, it shows that by the end of 2000, just 41 per cent of total claims costs for comprehensive policies had been settled for accidents that occurred that year. However, by the end of 2004, the industry had settled 87 per cent of total claim costs for 2000. This trend, whereby it takes a number of years for settlement of some claims, is reflected for all accident years in the report. It is expected that the 2005 statistics will show a change in this trend, with a larger percentage of costs being settled earlier due to the introduction of the Personal Injuries Assessment Board (PIAB) in 2004.


Copies of the Motor Insurance Statistics 2004 are available from the Financial Regulator’s website at www.financialregulator.ie.


Comment

The Joint Committee is pleased with the level of cooperation it has received from insurance companies. It is clear that insurance premiums have fallen substantially since the Joint Committee commenced its work. At the same time as this reduction in premiums has taken place, the insurance companies have been achieving record profits.


Based on the evidence received from users and from brokers as well as from insurance companies, it appears that insurance premiums are continuing to fall and that the market is relatively competitive at the present time. The Joint Committee is disappointed that there were no significant new entrants to the market. However, on the other hand, the growth of Quinn Direct and FBD has been significant and they have increased competition in the market.


The Joint Committee considers that insurance companies, while they are making a very significant contribution to road safety, can make a further contribution in different ways. These points are addressed in the chapter on road safety.


Ultimately, the market will determine the level of insurance premiums. However, the market will be greatly influenced by costs and the regulation of the market.


The reforms that have been brought about through the commencement of the Personal Injuries Assessment Board and the Civil Liability in Courts Act, as well as many other reforms that have taken place, have enabled insurance companies to make profits while premiums have been falling. The Joint Committee hopes that the Government will continue to pursue a programme of reform of the market, following the publication of this report, and that the market will continue to change and develop over the next five years.


5 Personal Injuries Assessment Board

Introduction

The PIAB Act was passed by the Oireachtas in December 2003. The Act provided for the setting up and operation of the Personal Injuries Assessment Board (PIAB) to consider personal injury cases.


The PIAB came into operation on 1 June 2004. The Book of Quantum, which contains general guidelines as to the amounts that may be awarded or assessed in respect of specified types of injury, was subsequently published on the Board’s website. PIAB’s main objective is to reduce the cost of delivering compensation to genuine claimants while reducing the cost of insurance for consumers and business alike.


The PIAB has the following features:


  • Liability is not determined by the PIAB.
  • A claimant shall make an application to the PIAB for assessment.
  • The system is paper-based; there are no oral hearings.
  • The assessors may request information relating to the claims from third parties.
  • Having made their assessment, the assessors will put their assessment in writing to both the claimant and respondent.
  • The assessment is non-binding.
  • If an assessment is not accepted, it will go to court.
  • The Board shall contain no more than 11 members.
  • Of the Board members, two will be from the Irish Congress of Trade Unions (ICTU),

one from the Irish Business and Employers Confederation (IBEC) and one from the Irish Insurance Federation. The Director of Consumer Affairs and the Consumer Director of the Irish Financial Service Regulatory Authority shall also be members.


  • The Chief Executive of the PIAB shall manage the administration of the Board and perform functions as determined by the Board.

The Joint Committee asked the insurance companies to give their views on the PIAB. These were included in the submissions made by insurance companies and are shown in Chapter 4.


Evidence to Joint Committee

The Joint Committee met with Ms Dorothea Dowling, Chairperson, PIAB, and Ms Patricia Byron, Chief Executive, PIAB, on 18 October 2006. Their submissions were as follows:


Ms Dowling

  • The PIAB had been a phenomenal success. It had been studied in the UK and elsewhere.
  • The cost of motor insurance had declined by 45 per cent. It was now less in real terms than in 1989.
  • The PIAB was a model for ‘joined-up thinking’ in other areas.
  • Ireland still had one of the highest levels of motor insurance costs. In Ms Dowling’s opinion there was scope for a further reduction of 50 per cent.
  • The PIAB had its opponents. Sixty-one per cent of claimants accepted its offers. Of the balance, 14 per cent was accounted for by the non-acceptances from four firms of solicitors.
  • It seemed that, in many cases, the eventual settlement was for the same figure as had been awarded by the PIAB. The Taxing Master had, however, awarded costs in one case. There had been a cynical attempt to exploit the system. However, the vast majority of solicitors were cooperating fully.
  • Before the Law Society took a case to the High Court, 50 per cent of claimants were coming directly to the PIAB. Now 90 per cent were coming to the PIAB through a solicitor. Claimants were paying €399 for a solicitor to fill up a form. The award made by the PIAB is not affected in any way by anything stated on behalf of a client by a solicitor. Ms Dowling wondered why claimants were paying solicitors and why they were not being told of their right not to use solicitors.
  • PIAB was now working within its 90-day target in terms of producing a notification to insurance companies of the claim.
  • There were still exaggerated claims in the court system. It seemed that the new fines and penalties, as provided for by the Civil Liability and Courts Act, were not being applied by the courts. If this continued, Ms Dowling believed that Ireland would once again be the ‘Sue capital of Europe’.
  • Last year’s figures showed that changes in society were taking place. Thirty thousand claimant issues were being resolved in nine months. The PIAB was self-financing.

In her presentation, Ms Byron, Chief Executive, PIAB, spoke of the Board’s mission, its objectives and the development of a new model and process. Ms Byron stated that the vast majority of claims were being settled quickly, that the PIAB facilitated the settlement of claims and that there was now only a small volume going to the court system.


At the establishment of PIAB, 90% of cases went to litigation. The objective of PIAB was to reduce this to 20%.


The top three deliverables were:


  1. the same awards as the courts
  2. faster resolution
  3. lower delivery costs.
  • The PIAB awards were in line with those of the courts: 15.5 per cent of awards were less than €10,000 and 0.5 per cent in excess of €100,000. On average the PIAB was delivering its awards in 7.1 months compared with the average for litigation of 36 months. The PIAB’s delivery costs were substantially lower.
  • A significant cultural change had been driven by the PIAB. PIAB awards were now being made in 40 per cent of cases. In addition, the settlement of a further 40 per cent of cases was being facilitated by the PIAB. Litigation was now only required in 20 per cent of cases. Ms Byron then dealt with how the cultural change had taken place and stated that the public had now embraced the PIAB.
  • The PIAB faced challenges:
    1. to increase public awareness
    2. to obtain data from insurance companies on claims resolved by the insurers following PIAB service centre processing and data on outcomes on PIAB rejected cases, including any costs being sought.
  • The PIAB aimed to resume direct communication with claimants and any appointed third party following the appeal in the O’Brien Case to the Supreme Court. In order to so, depending on the court outcome, it might be necessary to refer to the legislators for an amendment to the Act.
  • Ms Byron stated that the number of cases of personal injury claims initiated within the court system exceeded 30,000 each year between the years 2001 and 2004. In the year 2005, it declined to 4,000.
  • The PIAB conducted its own customer satisfaction surveys, and satisfaction levels had not dropped below 95 per cent since 2004. Its savings were estimated at €20 million for 2006 and €40 million for 2007. In addition, there were savings when the settlement of claims was facilitated by the PIAB and when the settlement of awards, which appeared to have been rejected but were not in practice, was done outside the court system.
  • The PIAB expected that in 2006 it would have made 6,000 awards, with 4,000 cases going to the courts. There would be a further 12,000 to 15,000 cases, including resolved cases and cases working through the old litigation system.
  • It is expected that a total of 25,000 personal injury claims will be processed annually through the new PIAB system beginning in 2007. 10,000 of these will be resolved as a result of the early intervention of the PIAB service centre, 10,000 will be the recipients of formal awards from the PIAB and a further 5,000 will be authorised for adjudication within the litigation system. These latter 5,000 relate to cases where liability is in dispute and to cases not appropriate to the PIAB model such as psychological injury claims or claims where the medical prognosis is not available within PIAB timelines.
  • Among the benefits were:
    1. the savings to the economy; there was a resumption of normal work much quicker than previously, bringing about reduced pressure on medical services
    2. motor insurance costs were at their lowest since 1999
    3. there were non-economic benefits:
      1. rehabilitation
      2. freeing up the courts
      3. freeing up medical practitioners
      4. freeing up A&E.
  • In 2007, it would be possible to make online claims.
  • Ms Byron provided a number of case studies.
  • Ms Dowling stated that the PIAB was facilitating early and honest disclosure, which facilitated non-adversarial resolution of cases.

Questions and Comments by Members of the Joint Committee

The Chairman stated that the Joint Committee would have to contact insurers directly to request that the statistics be made available to the PIAB on the cases that were resolved prior to a PIAB award.


Ms Dowling stated that the Financial Regulator could obtain the information as part of the statutory returns.


The Chairman stated that 90 per cent of the population did not know of the existence of the PIAB as they only made a claim perhaps once in their lifetime.


Ms Dowling said that they wished to directly inform people with claims. They have been holding off from doing so out of respect for the courts, pending the decision by the Supreme Court.


Deputy Hogan congratulated the PIAB. He was particularly interested in Ms Dowling’s comments about a 50 per cent further reduction in insurance costs. He noted that the profits of insurance companies had increased. It was a tremendous good-news story.


Ms Byron stated that it had been necessary to go slowly and to delay publicity until the processes were all working well.


Ms Dowling stated that the 2005 Blue Book Report showed that companies were settling 75 to 77 per cent of claims very speedily. The estimate of outstanding liabilities was not consistent with the cost of claims being settled. Most of the profits being reported were the release of reserves from previous years. She was concerned that the failure to apply penalties for exaggerated claims would result in an increase in such claims.


Deputy Ruairí Quinn congratulated the PIAB. He referred to discussions that were taking place in relation to a Book of Quantum in 1992, which the industry had then resisted. He noted that the battle had not yet been won. He asked about the prospect of a 50 per cent reduction in the cost of insurance. He was concerned about the six firms that were not cooperating with the PIAB. He asked if this had been brought to the attention of the Law Society. On the request for data from insurance companies, he noted that there might be issues of confidentiality and competitive advantage. It should be possible to achieve a method of reporting while maintaining confidentiality.


Ms Dowling stated that they had asked for a meeting with the Law Society. The PIAB was concerned about particular firms. The data from insurance companies could be obtained through the Financial Regulator and given anonymously to the PIAB.


Ms Byron stated that they had talked to the Law Society. Their difficulty was only with six firms. On the data from insurance companies, the PIAB had talked to the IIF.


The Chairman stated that the Joint Committee would write to the insurance companies and endeavour to get the information.


Deputy Joe Callanan congratulated the PIAB on its success. He also expressed interest in the further reduction of insurance costs. There was a huge cost in servicing by the legal profession. The message would have to be communicated that the PIAB could do the job effectively. He asked if a solicitor were to make an application in relation to the McMenamin judgement, would the PIAB be prevented from communicating directly. He also referred to fraudulent claims.


Ms Byron stated that under the Civil Liability and Courts Act, if a claim was exaggerated the entire claim was invalid.


Ms Byron stated that Minister Martin was going to the UK in early November to encourage insurance companies from the UK to enter the Irish market.


Senator Joe O’Toole (Vice-Chairman of the PIAB) stated it was very encouraging to get the support of the Joint Committee. Every single Board Meeting of the PIAB dealt with three or four difficult issues. The work of the PIAB was being watched all the time by the legal firms. There were many vested interests in the process. However, most of the legal profession had identified with the PIAB and had no problem with it.


Senator O’Toole also referred to the visit to London by Minister Micheál Martin, T.D., to explain how the PIAB works and the benefits of the PIAB to insurers. The PIAB could only perform its function fully when the Supreme Court had made its judgement on the Judge McMenamin decision. Senator O’Toole stated that the PIAB was concerned about what happened in the cases that were resolved without a PIAB award being made. Essentially, the PIAB was not obtaining any benefit from its work in relation to these cases and it did not have information on the level of settlements being made.


Ms Dowling stated that a lot of good things had happened. The IBEC Voluntary Code referred to treating the claimant as a patient. The improved level of road safety would also reduce the number of claims. The PIAB was working on the basis that it would process 10 to 15 per cent less claims in relation to road safety accidents in 2007. Ms Dowling referred to the importance of the data from insurance companies.


The Chairman stated that in 2008 there would be 1,200 Gardaí in the Traffic Corps and that this should bring about a reduction in fatalities as well as reduced crime generally. In addition, he welcomed the recent announcement about the installation of 600 cameras throughout the country.


Senator O’Toole stated that the success of the PIAB could not have been achieved without the work of many persons. In particular, the social partners, ICTU and IBEC have been helpful. If the parties had not agreed to come together, then the PIAB would not have happened. Everyone had to make a leap of faith.


The Chairman stated that in 2004 the Taoiseach had made insurance the Government’s number one priority. This had informed everyone that the Government was serious about dealing with excessive insurance costs.


Deputy Quinn asked if the PIAB had the power to charge for sending its initial notification. He believed that the PIAB’s success should be communicated through trade union journals. There should be more publicity about the benefits of the PIAB to claimants.


Letter Sent to Insurance Companies Following Joint Committee’s Meeting with the PIAB

Following the meeting with PIAB, the letter below was sent o the principal insurance companies.


The Joint Committee has been informed by the Personal Injuries Assessment Board (PIAB) that the Board has requested certain information from insurance companies that has not yet been provided to it.


As you are aware, the Joint Committee is very supportive of PIAB and is very pleased with the impact it has made on reducing the costs of personal injury claims in Ireland.


In order for PIAB to track the outcomes of all personal injury claims in the country, the Joint Committee would like your company to provide the requested information to PIAB.


The Joint Committee understands from PIAB that:


  • PIAB has full details of all cases where PIAB makes an assessment.
  • Indications are that many claims are settled before they are even lodged with PIAB. PIAB has no information on these cases and requires aggregated data to quantify the numbers / values / costs for these cases.
  • Where claims are resolved by insurers following notification of the claim to PIAB and no PIAB assessment is required (either at the outset or within the 90 day period), there is very little information on what has happened to these claims.
  • In addition, of the cases that are disputed and that are released by PIAB, some of these cases are then settled by insurance companies. PIAB has no information for such cases.
  • For cases where PIAB makes an award that is subsequently rejected, we understand that some of these are settled without recourse to the Courts and PIAB has no information for these cases.
  • Where the cases go before the Court for a hearing, PIAB will obtain the information from the Courts on the level of awards.

PIAB needs aggregated information in relation to all settlements made by insurance companies as outlined above.


PIAB does not need to know the identities of the persons or the levels of awards in individual cases, but it does need to have information in aggregate on the numbers of settlements, time period when settlement took place, and whether or not fees to legal advisors have been paid and similar information.


The point was made to the Joint Committee that while PIAB has been successful so far, it will be necessary to be vigilant for several years to ensure that its success is sustained. If PIAB can obtain the information from insurance companies that it is requesting this will assist PIAB in the future by allowing full tracking of all personal injury claims in Ireland which will support PIAB in continuing with its successful model.


We look forward to your response to this request of the Joint Committee.


Response of Irish Insurance Federation

In general, the response from insurance companies was positive. Most of them agreed that information would be provided on claims notified to the PIAB but settled directly by companies and also on the outcome of cases settled in the courts where the PIAB assessment was rejected. The response to the PIAB by the Irish Insurance Federation on behalf of insurance companies is given below:


I have now consulted with members on the templates we discussed in August. IIF’s position is that most members* are happy to supply the following data to the PIAB at this time as long as the PIAB can identify the claims in question:


  • Data on claims resolved after the PIAB has supplied copies of the PIAB claim form and initial medical report to both parties and before assessment.

Members are prepared to supply aggregate returns directly to the PIAB showing the ‘Number of Cases’, ‘Total Settlements’ and ‘Total Costs Paid’ as long as the PIAB can forward lists of such cases with the appropriate claims reference.


  • Data on the final outcome of claims following declinature of assessments.

On receipt of details of the claims from the PIAB, members will complete the forms (i.e. Table 2) and return them to the IIF secretariat. We will then pass on market aggregate figures for the columns ‘General Damages’, ‘Special Damages’ and ‘Costs’ in respect of awards and settlements to the PIAB.


The data will be supplied on a one-off basis as we do not wish to enter into an open-end commitment to supply data indefinitely. Please also note that we will supply the data on the understanding that the confidentiality of individual companies’ data will be respected, that the data will only be used by the PIAB to inform itself and that any other use of the data will be cleared with the IIF in advance. We look forward to the PIAB’s agreement to these terms. We also look forward to hearing from the PIAB in relation to the collation of data so that work can begin.


* The following members representing approximately 87 per cent of the relevant IIF market in 2005 GWP terms are happy to supply the above data: AIG, Allianz, AXA, Eagle Star, Ecclesiastical, FBD, Hibernian, Irish Public Bodies, Royal & Sun Alliance, St Paul Travellers.


Views of Quinn Direct

Quinn Direct responded on 14 November as follows:


Firstly, I would like to state that Quinn Direct fully supports all Government initiatives that reduce the cost of claims and insurance premiums. PIAB is a key part of the Government’s strategy in this area and we have fully supported PIAB since it has been established.


To date we have a number of concerns with the performance of PIAB in terms of the rate of rejections of awards, the level of awards being made and the lack of transparency in relation to some of their key operational statistics. We have made PIAB aware of these concerns but we have not received a satisfactory reply to date.


We note from your letter and from other correspondence between PIAB and the Irish Insurance Federation (IIF) that PIAB are requesting detailed information from insurers in relation to injury claims that are not settled by PIAB. We do not believe that PIAB are entitled to details of the injury claims we have settled outside of the PIAB process. Furthermore, we do not see how providing this information to PIAB would benefit Quinn Direct or our policyholders in terms of reducing claims costs and therefore we believe we should not provide this confidential and commercially sensitive information to PIAB. We believe that PIAB should have sufficient data on injury claims from the awards it makes and should use this data to improve its operations.


Comment

The Joint Committee continues to be very concerned with the McMenamin judgement referred to above. The PIAB is awaiting a decision from the Supreme Court in the case. If the Supreme Court decision does not find in favour of the PIAB, it will be necessary to introduce legislation to permit the PIAB to communicate directly with claimants even where the claimant has engaged a solicitor. As the delay in hearing the case by the Supreme Court is having an adverse effect on PIAB, the Government should now introduce amending legislation to make it possible for PIAB to deal directly with claimants and for PIAB to be able to advertise that solicitors are not needed for a claim to be made to PIAB.


Some of the information being requested by the PIAB is for statistical purposes and will enable the PIAB to understand developments in the risk insurance market. It may be that the Financial Regulator should obtain this aggregate information for the PIAB and for the industry.


One issue that may be of concern for the future viability of the PIAB is the number of claims that (a) are resolved by insurers following notification of the claim to the PIAB and where no PIAB assessment is required (either at the outset or within the 90-day period) and that (b) are disputed and then released by the PIAB; some of these cases are then settled by insurance companies. The PIAB has no information for such cases.


The PIAB should be rewarded on an appropriate basis for all of the costs it incurs.


The Joint Committee is very pleased with the success of the PIAB to date. This success has been hard-earned. Some of the benefits could be lost if the PIAB cannot deal directly with claimants and advertise that it is not necessary to engage a solicitor to make a claim. Of course, where the claimant clearly wishes to have a solicitor act on his/her behalf, the claimant must have the right to such representation.


The Joint Committee recommends that:


  1. The Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment should introduce legislation to permit PIAB to deal directly with claimants.
  2. The Financial Regulator should make arrangements to obtain and publish the information required by PIAB.

6 Legal and Courts Reform

Introduction

The enactment of the Civil Liability and Courts Act, 2004, was an important reform. The full impact of the Act has yet to be determined but all of those who gave evidence to the Joint Committee spoke favourably of the impact it has been having.


The Joint Committee has addressed many recommendations to the Department of Justice.


  • The following recommendations are now considered to have been implemented: Nos. 8, 10, 11, 12, 16, 29, 30, 41.
  • The Department has deferred implementation of recommendations 2 and 13. The reasons for the deferrals are set out in the Joint Committee’s Third Report.
  • There are two outstanding recommendations, 31 and 7.

Recommendation No. 31 In-house barristers should have a right to appear in court in defence of claims against the insurance companies that employ them.


Response from the Department:


The final report of the Competition Authority, on competition for legal services, has yet to be published.


Since the receipt of this response, the Competition Authority published its final report on the legal professions in December 2006 and made the following recommendation:


Barristers in employment should be allowed to represent their employer in court. The current restriction preventing this forces businesses and organisations to engage the services of an outside barrister, through a solicitor, and reduces the supply of available barristers. It is also at odds with the fact that solicitors can represent their employers in court. Removing the restriction will promote competition between barristers.


The Joint Committee urges the Minister to implement this recommendation which it believes will reduce costs for insurance companies.


Recommendation No. 7 The Government should establish an expert group that would consider the information now published by the PIAB on the levels of awards in the Irish courts, the levels of UK awards and the levels of awards in other jurisdictions. This group would recommend a level of awards that would be appropriate to Ireland. The recommendations of the group should be published in draft form to allow all interested parties, including representatives of victims, to make submissions on the proposals.


The Joint Committee received the following response from the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, on 31 August 2006, to whom the recommendation was referred by the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment:


I am directed by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to refer to your letter of 17 July on behalf of the Joint Committee regarding its proposal for a guide (a Book of Quantum) based on personal injury awards in Irish courts, the UK, and other jurisdictions. Your letter was by way of response to the views of the Minister as stated in his letter of 30 June 2006.


Government policy to reduce the level of personal injury awards has been multi-faceted, consisting of (a) the setting up of a Personal Injuries Assessment Board to address situations where liability is not an issue; (b) introducing new court proceedings for personal injury actions, and new penalties for fraudulent and exaggerated claims, in the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004; and (c) establishment of the Legal Costs Working Group which was set up by the Minister in September 2004. Significant curbs on advertising by solicitors that helped to promote the concept of a compensation culture are in operation under the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 2002.


The Civil and Liability and Courts Act of 2004 has reduced the time taken and the costs involved in personal injury actions. Under the Act, the claim of a plaintiff who gives false evidence will be dismissed by the court and persons convicted of the offence of giving false evidence are liable for heavy fines and imprisonment for up to 10 years. These provisions marked a significant watershed in the efforts to deter those unscrupulous individuals who embark on legal actions on a fraudulent or exaggerated basis to enrich themselves at the expense of the wider community. The measures contained in the Act of 2004 are now helping greatly to alleviate the insurance burden on customers and business and the cost to public authorities of personal injury actions.


The early performance to date of the Personal Injuries Assessment Board is impressive. The PIAB reports that the estimated savings in legal costs attributable to its work to June 2006 are in the region of €13,100,000. Assessments have been delivered approximately three times faster and at a delivery charge four times cheaper than through the litigation process. This is very significant considering that in 2004, when an estimated €965 million was paid out in compensation to personal injury victims, litigation costs of an estimated €444 million were incurred in the delivery of this compensation to the victims. As well as being a major benefit to victims of accidents this is a significant reduction in the cost of delivery of compensation.


While the full effect of Government strategy will become apparent over time, there has to date been a significant reduction in premiums to policyholders, particularly in the area of motor premiums which the Insurance Federation of Ireland reports have fallen by an average of 45 per cent between 2003 and 2006. This indicates that Government policy is working.


The Legal Costs Working Group finalised their report late last year and the Government endorsed the report’s recommendations. The Minister has taken the necessary steps to implement the recommendations. Currently the Legal Costs Implementation Advisory Group, under the chairmanship of Desmond Miller, is working on this task and is due to report in the autumn of this year.


The Minister is, of course, keeping the impact of recently enacted Government policies under review. The Minister, however, remains of the view that the Book of Quantum proposed by your Committee, based on international comparisons, would have no particular validity in Irish courts. A comparative analysis of such awards may well be of interest, having due regard to the differences in the various jurisdictions – legal, social and economic – but the application of similar awards to individual cases in our courts would likely fall short of the necessary principles required to defend and vindicate the rights of persons. In any event the concept of a Book of Quantum in Irish law is still in its early stages of operation and the Minister believes it should be given proper time to develop.


Comment

The Joint Committee is grateful for the full explanation given by the Minister’s Private Secretary. The Joint Committee, nevertheless, is of the view that an inquiry of the type it recommended is necessary. However, the Joint Committee accepts that the effects of the establishment of the PIAB and the existence of a Book of Quantum have yet to be worked through the courts and legal system and that it might be prudent to defer such an inquiry. However, the desirability of holding an inquiry should be reviewed annually. In the overall context of reducing insurance costs, Recommendation 7 is important.


Conclusion

The legal reforms introduced in response to the difficulties in the insurance market have been far-reaching and will continue to benefit the industry and society in the future. However, the full impact of the Civil Liability and Courts Act has yet to be realised. As with the PIAB, vigilance is necessary to ensure that the Act achieves the anticipated benefits.


7 Insurance Regulation

Introduction

The Financial Regulator has a wide range of responsibilities for areas such as banking, credit unions, building societies, as well as the insurance industry. In publishing its Third Report, the Joint Committee concluded its chapter on insurance regulation as follows:


The Joint Committee again welcomes the very considerable progress being made by the Financial Regulator. While the Joint Committee is pleased to note that some of its recommendations have been accepted by the Financial Regulator and others have been considered, the Joint Committee urges the Financial Regulator to address all of the issues in relation to the insurance market so that the regulation of the market is reformed as soon as possible in the interests of consumers and of business purchasers of insurance cover. The Joint Committee looks forward to reviewing the changes in insurance regulations made by the Financial Regulator in the course of its next review of the insurance market.


Correspondence between Joint Committee and Financial Regulator

The Joint Committee exchanged correspondence with the Financial Regulator on its recommendations in 2006. The correspondence referred to specific recommendations of the Joint Committee. The views expressed in each letter are given later in this chapter under each recommendation to facilitate understanding of the points at issue.


The Financial Regulator replied on 19 May 2006:

I refer to the publication of the Committee’s Third Interim Report on Reforms to the Irish Insurance Market. The Financial Regulator welcomes the work of the Committee in relation to issues in the insurance market and, where possible and appropriate, is positively disposed towards the recommendations made by the Committee.


The Committee will already be aware that the Financial Regulator has acted upon a number of the recommendations addressed to it and I note that it has categorised recommendations 19, 23, 35 and 50 as implemented.


This letter addresses the comments made by the Committee in its Report in relation to the other recommendations addressed to the Financial Regulator. I am happy to report continuing progress in relation to the implementation of most of the outstanding recommendations. As you will see, in a number of cases we believe that recommendations are either for other parties in the first instance or, for reasons given, we believe that implementation of the recommendation should not proceed.


The Financial Regulator, Mr Patrick Neary, made a presentation to the Joint Committee on 31 May 2006.

Summary of the presentation:


  1. The Financial Regulator (FR) mandate is to protect consumers. This is done by helping consumers to make informed financial decisions in a safe and fair market and by fostering sound, dynamic financial institutions which, in the case of insurance companies, provide the fundamental safeguards for policyholders and potential claimants.
  2. The FR has been able to act on all but three of the recommendations addressed to it by the Joint Committee and its position on those remaining recommendations is outlined in a recent letter to the Joint Committee.
  3. In addition to acting on the recommendations, the FR has been finalising its Consumer Protection Code, which will apply to all financial service providers. The new Code represents the single biggest development in consumer protection for consumers of financial services since the establishment of the FR. The Consumer Protection Code will be issued in July of this year. It contains a number of provisions for all firms to make full disclosure of relevant information to the customer and a prohibition on making the sale of one product contingent upon the sale of another. The Code will contain a specific chapter on insurance, addressing a range of issues, including requirements for quotations, proposals and policy documentation, and new rules for claim handling. The Code has been developed following detailed consultations over a two-year period which included two rounds of public consultation.
  4. The FR will publish private motor insurance statistics as recommended by MIAB and the Competition Authority. The data for 2002 has already been published and the 2003 and 2004 data will be published in 2006.
  5. The Competition Authority recommended that the FR publish claim statistics in relation to employer’s liability and public liability insurance. The FR has commenced a regulatory impact analysis in relation to this proposal. The FR is examining the submissions received, the majority of which failed to indicate strong support for this initiative.
  6. The FR has continued to augment its range of publications aimed at informing consumers. It has published two further motor insurance cost surveys, two home insurance cost surveys, a fact sheet on payment protection insurance, and a guide to employer’s liability and public liability for small firms.
  7. The FR believes that significant progress has been made in addressing the 57 recommendations made by the Joint Committee and the Competition Authority. The FR has asked for further guidance on one of the recommendations made by the Joint Committee, which it has not been able to implement. The other two recommendations cannot be implemented because they fall outside its remit.
  8. In relation to the Competition Authority’s recommendations, there is one major theme – the issue of transparency. The key concern of the FR is to ensure that appropriate and sufficient levels of information are provided to consumers and that a balance is achieved between the level of disclosure required and the information that should be provided to the customer. The Competition Authority will publish its assessment of the implementation by the FR of its recommendations in due course.
  9. The FR stated that disclosure is a quasi-legal concept referring to the provision of certain statutory legal information such as terms, conditions, key features and legal requirements. There is a differentiation between this form of statutory disclosure and the provision of information to ensure that consumers understand the costs, risks and benefits of financial products. Disclosure alone is not sufficient to enable consumers to make informed decisions and can create information overload.
  10. The FR believes that consumers should receive such information from financial firms as would provide them with relevant information about a product or service in plain language. There are limits to the amount of information that a typical consumer can assimilate. Where information goes beyond those limits, it will fail to inform consumers and threatens to cloud out the key messages in these circumstances. Additional disclosure can impose costs on regulated firms without yielding benefits for consumers. The FR is acutely aware that there is a balance to be struck on this issue and is seeking optimal outcomes for both consumers and the industry. The FR is also seeking to assist consumers in understanding financial products by providing independent information about the various products available in the market so they can make informed decisions.
  11. On the issue of solvency, the FR stated there is no evidence that Ireland’s solvency regime impacts negatively on competition. All of the major international insurance groups and many of the next line of insurers are active in the Irish market. Nevertheless the FR is aware of the call from the Competition Authority for greater transparency with regard to solvency requirements and will publish clarification on revised solvency guidelines on its website within the next two weeks.
  12. On market access, the FR requires new non-life insurance companies to have a solvency margin twice that of the EU minimum. After three years of operation, companies’ activities are reviewed and may then have a lower requirement of 1.5 times that of the EU requirement. Many of our EU colleagues require a higher solvency requirement than the EU minimum from their companies.
  13. Higher requirements for start-up companies reflect the higher operational risk posed by new firms. It is therefore appropriate from a prudential and consumer perspective to require that the risk be balanced by a more robust initial capital position which is reviewed after three years of operation.
  14. The FR has never been informed that the higher solvency requirement posed any difficulty to a company starting up in this jurisdiction. Of companies authorised by the FR more than three years ago and who continue to trade actively, 85 per cent continue to hold capital in excess of our requirements, indeed 42 per cent of such companies hold in excess of five times the EU requirement. Clearly, companies themselves recognise that the capital level needs to reflect the level of risk within their business.
  15. In terms of access to the market, companies from other jurisdictions are also entitled to write business in Ireland. Currently 561 EU companies have notified of their intention to write business in Ireland on this basis, which further evidences the fact that there are no barriers to entry into the Irish market.
  16. The FR is an active participant of the Better Regulation group that was established by the Department of the Taoiseach and is fully supportive of the criteria in relation to regulation of necessity, effectiveness, proportionality, transparency, accountability and consistency. The FR is now committed to carrying out a regulatory impact analysis in relation to all new major proposals as is appropriate. Public consultation is a key component to this analysis.

The Chairman, Mr Donie Cassidy, T.D., asked Mr Neary (a) whether the study of the insurance broker market could be commenced within the next six months, (b) in relation to the two recommendations that were not within the power of the FR to implement, if the FR could not see it as its responsibility to make these recommendations to the Ministers, and (c) whether production quotas for brokers encouraged bad advice.


Mr Neary stated that the study of the insurance broker market would commence at the end of six months. The FR would be happy to assist the Joint Committee in making representations to the Ministers in relation to the two recommendations that were not within the power of the FR to implement. In relation to production quotas, this was no excuse for giving bad advice and those who gave bad advice were responsible, whether or not there was a production quota.


The Joint Committee wrote to the Regulator again on 17 July 2006

I refer to your letter of 19 May 2006 and to the presentation you made on Wednesday 31 May 2006 to the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business.


The Joint Committee appreciates the information you provided in your letter to us and the very constructive approach adopted by you in your presentation on 31 May 2006.


The Joint Committee acknowledges that the Office of the Financial Regulator has made very considerable progress in implementing the recommendations of the Joint Committee in relation to insurance reform.


As you state in your presentation of 31 May 2006, you have been able to act on all of the Joint Committee recommendations with the exception of three.


We note that you offered to work with the Joint Committee to assist it to implement its remaining three recommendations to the Financial Regulator.


Response of Financial Regulator, 27 July 2006

Thank you for your letter of 17 July 2006.


The Financial Regulator notes and appreciates the Joint Committee’s acknowledgement of the progress that has been made towards implementing the recommendations addressed to it.


Consideration of Views on Specific Recommendations

  1. Where a policyholder objects to a settlement of a claim by an insurer, the insurer should not be able to settle the claim unless, having asked for an arbitrator to consider the issue, the arbitrator finds in favour of the insurer. The losing party should pay for the arbitration.

Financial Regulator Response, 17 May 2006

At present the decision on whether to settle or contest a claim rests solely with the insurer. This is generally provided for in the terms and conditions of the insurance contract.


We reiterate our opinion, formed on foot of legal advice, that a legislative amendment to the discretion of insurance companies to enter contracts is necessary to give effect to the Committee’s recommendation, and that the recommendation could not be given effect by a Code of Conduct.


The Financial Regulator cannot therefore implement this recommendation. The Committee may wish to address this recommendation to the Department of Finance instead.


Joint Committee Reply, 17 July 2006

We do not wish to radically change the basis of insurance as might be implied by the bringing in of new legislation. We can modify this recommendation to a request for a code of best practice for insurance companies that would mean that, where a policyholder objected to a settlement of a claim by an insurer, the insurer should not be able to settle the claim until an arbitrator is appointed. Kindly let us know if it would be possible to implement this modified recommendation.


Further Response of Regulator, 27 July 2006

The adoption of a voluntary code would have the benefit of potentially avoiding the legal issues, previously identified, associated with a statutory code. Should the Joint Committee be minded to propose a voluntary code, we would suggest that the issue be addressed to the Irish Insurance Federation in the first instance.


Conclusion on Recommendation 24

The views expressed here bring up a fundamental point that the Government needs to address. This is the issue of responsibility within Government for the insurance sector. This issue is dealt with in Chapter 9.


Essentially, a Minister needs to take responsibility for implementing this recommendation. Alternatively, IBEC and the Insurance Industry Federation might reach agreement to implement this recommendation on a voluntary basis without the need for Government intervention.


  1. Policyholders should see clear evidence of the benefit of being claim-free. Accident-free policyholders or those with low levels of accidents should be seen to be rewarded.

FR Response, 17 May 2006

The Financial Regulator’s role includes helping consumers to make informed decisions on their financial affairs in a safe and fair market. We are therefore well disposed to suggestions that aim to bring greater transparency to financial services for consumers.


It may, however, be more relevant to focus on the costs, in terms of increases in premiums that accidents attract rather than trying to illustrate the benefits of being accident-free. The financial benefit from being accident-free accrues from not attracting the loading factors that arise from claims. A claims-free policyholder without any loading will retain the same risk profile, will qualify for a similar premium from year-to-year and will not notice the benefits of being claim-free.


(One notable exception is in the area of motor insurance where an accident-free period may indicate improved competence, and where there is a proven correlation between driver age and risk. Insurance companies have responded to this by implementing no-claims bonus schemes.)


Following on from this it is perhaps more meaningful to try to ensure that consumers understand the cost implications of claims on insurance policies. The Financial Regulator’s periodic cost surveys seek to inform consumers of these costs. Our guide to Employer’s Liability and Public Liability insurance, published in December 2005, was prepared to help small businesses shop around for the best value in the marketplace when seeking Employers’ Liability and Public Liability insurances. We will continue to enhance the information we provide to consumers of insurance products on the costs, risks and benefits of those products.


Conclusion

The Joint Committee, while accepting the points made above by the Regulator, would prefer that its recommendation be accepted. However, this may be a question for individual insurance companies to address.


  1. All policyholders should, on renewal, receive information on the basis on which the premium is calculated.

FR Response, 17 May 2006

Given the complexity of the underwriting process and the number of factors that determine the level at which premiums are set, it is difficult to conceive how information on the basis of which the premium is calculated could be expressed in such a way that it was both meaningful to consumers on the one hand yet communicated the essence of the underwriting process on the other. It is also likely that any such information would have to be policy-specific, with all of the cost implications for consumers that this would entail.


In this regard it would be particularly useful if the Committee could provide some guidance on the precise information it believes consumers should receive.


Joint Committee Response

This recommendation would particularly apply to employer’s liability insurance and public liability insurance. It is unsatisfactory if insurance companies only state the cost of the insurance without giving the basis on which that cost is calculated. The type of information we suggest should be included is as follows:


  1. Employers’ Liability Insurance:
    • the number of employees on which the premium is based
    • the total wages / salaries to which different premium rates apply on which the premium is based
    • whether or not a loading has been applied due to a bad claims experience in respect of any particular group of employees
    • whether a loading has been applied because of an unsettled claim by an employee against the company
    • further information might also be provided by the insurer to enable the business to form an opinion as to whether the insurer is correctly calculating the premium.
  2. Public Liability Insurance: Again, the insurance company should provide the basis on which it calculates its premium. This may relate to:
    • the level of sales
    • the types of products included in the level of sales to which different premium rates apply
    • whether any loading applies because of past settlements against the company
    • whether any loading applies in respect of a claim made against the company.

These are some items that we believe an insurance company should address in the information it provides to businesses, particularly small businesses, in respect of its insurance premium proposals.


Further Response of FR, 27 July 2006

We are grateful to the Joint Committee for the guidance provided. We will progress the Committee’s suggestions with the insurance industry and explore whether and how they can be given practical effect.


Conclusion

We note the response of the Regulator above. We look forward to the implementation of this recommendation.


  1. There should be no production quotas established by any insurance company that might inhibit or prevent brokers from giving independent advice to their clients.

FR Response, 17 May 2006

We do not accept that production quotas should in any way impact on the obligations of intermediaries to give best advice.


All insurance intermediaries fall into one of three categories and are required to act at all times in the best interests of clients irrespective of the category to which the intermediaries belong.


Tied Insurance Agents:


These companies hold a single appointment from an insurer and may only sell and advise on the products of that insurer.


Multi-agency Intermediaries:


These firms hold a number of appointments (if they hold five or more they are legally entitled to refer to themselves as brokers). They may only sell and advise on the products of the insurers from whom they hold appointments. The degree to which their advice is truly independent is therefore limited by the number and the nature of the appointments they hold.


Authorised Advisors:


These firms may hold a number of appointments. However, they are required to give advice in relation to all product producers active in the market, including insurers from whom they do not hold appointments. These firms can most accurately be described as offering independent advice.


All intermediaries must, in their Terms of Business, inform clients of their regulatory status and of the number of appointments that they hold.


The Committee may wish to note that all insurance intermediaries are free to operate on a fee rather than on a commission basis.


As previously advised to the Committee, the Financial Regulator’s consultation paper on Remuneration Structures and Transparency (published in January 2005) sought views on whether or not “override” commissions (i.e. additional commissions or benefits payable to intermediaries for meeting agreed targets) should be banned or restricted. Later this year the Financial Regulator will publish a Public Response to that consultation.


It is the view of the Financial Regulator that production quotas should not inhibit independent advice. Accordingly we believe that this recommendation is not necessary. We will however consider this recommendation again in the context of the review referred to in response to Recommendation 53.


Joint Committee Response, 17 July 2006

We note that you do not accept that production quotas should in any way impact on the obligations of the intermediaries to give the best advice. We also note that you are undertaking a review of the insurance broker insurance market. We suggest that this issue of production quotas should be included in your review.


Of course, no insurance broker should be influenced by a production quota in respect of the advice that is given to a policyholder and we fully acknowledge that you are correct in insisting that this should be the case. Nevertheless, we believe that the existence of production quotas must, inevitably, distort the insurance intermediary market.


Further Response from Financial Regulator, 27 July 2006

As noted by the Joint Committee, we will consider the issue of production quotas in our review of the role and functioning of the intermediary market in Ireland.


Conclusion

The Regulator has promised a review of insurance intermediaries in early 2007. This review is of critical importance to ensuring that the insurance market works well for consumers and businesses.


  1. Insurance companies should not discriminate against competing brokers in making available renewal information.

FR Response, 17 May 2006

The Financial Regulator has asked all insurers writing Employers’ Liability and Public Liability insurance if they stand willing to quote renewal business to brokers other than the broker that originally placed the business. All insurers have advised the Financial Regulator that they do, subject only to the enquiring broker holding an appointment from the insurer.


Any specific information that suggests that this may not be the case should be brought to the attention of the Financial Regulator. We will investigate the matter promptly. Accordingly, the Financial Regulator accepts this recommendation.


Conclusion

While accepting that any insurer should be able to determine its own route to market and to decide whether it will deal with intermediaries or not, the Joint Committee recommendation sought to achieve a level playing field between intermediaries. It is not satisfied that insurance companies have a right to make ‘an appointment’ of intermediaries. All registered or licensed intermediaries should be able to compete for the business. This is another issue that might be addressed by the review of intermediaries.


  1. Organisations that meet certain financial criteria should be able to self-insure for all motor risks.

FR Response, 17 May 2006

We have previously outlined for the Committee the possibilities that exist in Ireland for the establishment of captive insurance companies. However, as previously advised, the question of self-insurance for motor risk is a matter for the Department of Transport.


Joint Committee Response, 17 July 2006

We have redirected this recommendation to the Minister for State at the Department of Transport.


Further Response of FR, 27 July 2006

We note that this recommendation has been redirected to the Minister for State at the Department of Transport.


Conclusion

The Joint Committee has had no response from the Department of Transport on this issue.


Individual businesses with large fleets of vehicles may wish to consider pursuing this issue with the Department.


  1. The Irish solvency requirement for new entrants should be exactly the same as for existing market participants.

FR Response, 17 May 2006

The Committee should be assured that the Financial Regulator is always conscious of the importance of new market entrants for the promotion of competition in the Irish market.


The Financial Regulator does not however accept that the solvency requirements that form part of its prudential supervision framework are excessive. We are satisfied that our prudential supervision framework works to protect policyholders and that it conforms with international best practice generally.


We are aware of no instance where the solvency requirements applicable in Ireland dissuaded a potential market participant from entering the market. We also note that the Competition Authority’s Report on Competition Issues in the Non-Life Insurance Market stated that, ‘The Authority has not received evidence that IFSRA’s capital requirements have deterred insurers from entering the Irish market.’ In addition, the Committee may wish to note that the higher solvency cover for new market entrants is temporary and is intended to ensure that the insurer is financially robust This requirement is reviewed as the insurer’s claims experience becomes apparent.


The Financial Regulator considers that current solvency arrangements should be retained and will not implement this recommendation at this time. We have already drawn the attention of the Committee to the Solvency II project, under which fundamental changes to capital and solvency provisions will be implemented.


Conclusion

The Joint Committee accepts the response above. The critical issue is to ensure that Ireland’s solvency requirements do not reduce the attractiveness of the Irish market to potential entrants. The Solvency II project has the potential to ensure a level playing field throughout Europe.


  1. The Irish solvency requirement should be no higher than the norm required by EU regulation.

FR Response, 17 May 2006

Following on from Recommendation 48 above, the Financial Regulator agrees with the Joint Committee that, consistent with the need to protect policyholders and claimants, regulations should not inhibit the participation of new companies in the Irish market.


Conclusion

See response above.


  1. Insurance companies should be required to remind policyholders of the renewal date two months prior to renewal and to submit a quotation to the policyholder one month prior to the renewal date.

Financial Regulator Response, 17 May 2006

The Financial Regulator fully supports the Committee’s objective of ensuring that consumers receive renewal notices in time to allow them to shop around for the best value.


We believe, however, that two months’ notice is too long because the interval between receipt of the renewal notice and the renewal date is of such duration that consumers may simply put the notice to one side and not act upon it. Instead we believe that a requirement to provide renewal notices to consumers, 15 working days for personal lines and 20 working days for commercial lines, in advance of the renewal date is about right. Accordingly, the Financial Regulator considers that the objective of this recommendation has been addressed.


FBD

Arising from the MIAB Report, FBD, at its meeting with the Joint Committee on 31 May 2006, stated that a regulation was introduced which decreed that insurance renewal notices must be issued to policyholders so as to be with them 15 days in advance of their insurance premiums falling due for renewal. In FBD’s experience, this regulation was not being adhered to by all players in the market, particularly insurance intermediaries. This was placing compliant companies at a competitive disadvantage. FBD called on the Financial Regulator to investigate.


Conclusion

Very great progress has been made in this area. The Joint Committee accepts that this recommendation has been implemented. It asks the Regulator to investigate the point made by FBD.


  1. IFSRA should make regulations to permit insurance brokers, subject to a competency test, to deal on behalf of their clients with any insurance company and the term ‘authorised adviser’ should be discontinued. Firms that presently call themselves ‘insurance brokers’ and who do not qualify under the competency test should be required to call themselves ‘Multi-Agency Intermediaries’.
  2. IFSRA should carry out a fundamental review of the insurance broker market with a view to substantially improving the operation of that market, particularly in relation to transparency for the consumer.

FR Response, 17 May 2006

The Financial Regulator will conduct a review of the role and functioning of the intermediary market in Ireland. We will look at issues, inter alia, of transparency, accountability and competition and whether there is a need for legislative amendments.


This review does not form part of the current strategic plan of the Financial Regulator but will be incorporated into the next iteration of that plan covering the period from 2007 to 2009, development of which is in progress.


As we previously informed the Committee, the Financial Regulator has committed to looking at the names of the categories of insurance intermediaries following the publication of our Consumer Protection Code in July. Such a review, and indeed the broader review of the broker market recommended by the Committee, will also take account of the provisions of the Insurance Mediation Directive.


Accordingly, the Financial Regulator accepts these recommendations.


Conclusion

Again, this is a matter for consideration as part of the review of intermediaries.


Views of Insurance Intermediaries

The Committee asked the two principal bodies representing insurance intermediaries to give written comments on its recommendations. Their responses are presented below:


PIBA (Professional Insurance Brokers Association)

Introduction

In General (Non-Life) Insurance there is an overall trend towards pursuing pricing and distribution strategies that are bringing about the destruction of the majority of small-scale broker firms. This strategy will have the effect of reducing competition between the General Insurers in the Irish market to the overall detriment of the consumer.


The most prominent example of these strategies is the price discrimination which exists between the different channels of distribution. Insurers will sell their products direct at a discounted price to the broker channel. Insurers will cite commission costs and product differentiation as the rationale for this strategy. The reality is that direct operators are also paid commission and the difference in products does not equate to the difference in price. The difference can be up to 30 per cent. It could be argued that this is of benefit to the consumer. PIBA would refute this claim. Brokers offer independent advice and choice to consumers. Brokers facilitate competition in the market which ultimately will bring prices to their market equilibrium level. This is currently not the case in the Irish General Insurance market due to other protectionist policies followed by insurance companies. Insurance companies know that once they have a client on their books they are unlikely to change insurer even though the price has increased. The broker industry is far more price sensitive. This is their reason for promoting direct business at the expense of broker business and there is only a short-term gain for consumers.


A broker should have access to all insurers in the market and their entire product range. In the Irish market, insurance companies are selective as to whom they give agencies and even when a broker has an agency they will often only be allowed access to a limited number of their products.


Some insurance companies follow pricing strategies with a view to forcing small-scale brokerages out of the market. These pricing strategies are introduced irrespective of the efficiency of the brokerage, the technology used or the brokerage’s distribution strategy. For example, brokers using the EDI system for motor insurance increased the efficiency of the process for the insurance company as administration costs were significantly reduced. In addition, all documentation is required to be kept by the broker, creating more work for him/her. However, no discount is offered on the client’s premium or additional commission given to the broker even though there are cost savings in the processing of the application.


There is a feeling within the broker community that competition in the market is being limited due to collusive practices on the part of larger insurance companies.


Suggested areas for Improvement to Promote Competition

Recent reforms in the legal regulatory environment are producing cost savings, and are helping to increase the profitability of insurance producers. However, in order to ensure that cost savings continue to be passed on to consumers, the Financial Regulator should become more involved in policing the market distribution channels with a view to stopping anti-competitive practices. Examples of where competition is weak (where there are a small number of producers and where customers normally deal direct) is retail banking services and mobile phone accounts, both of which, in this market, are among the most expensive in the world. However, in the same market, mortgage lending rates are competitive and this is due to the competitive influence of brokers. Where the broker market is allowed to access products in an open manner, without hindrance from product producers, whether organised or not, it is evident that extremely competitive activity takes place to the advantage of the consumer. This is demonstrated in the Mortgage and Life Insurance markets. Where this access is hindered, competition is hindered. There is no logical reason for brokers not to have access to all products and rates offered by insurers or lenders. Producers do not like competition. There are a small number of players in the Irish insurance market, and they dislike distributing through truly independent intermediaries. The principal insurers have been, over the last ten years, overcharging car insurance through brokers in favour of direct channels. The reason for this is that if the difference was a broker’s commission, i.e. 5 per cent, hardly any customers would move to direct channels. In spite of the obvious cost of servicing clients through a branch network, which is the preferred option of the two main motor insurers, brokers in the main, and their customers, are discriminated against.


Suggestions

  1. Get rid of the ‘AA’ (Authorised Advisor) and ‘MAI’ (Multi-Agency Intermediary) tags. They mean nothing and never will mean anything to the customer.
  2. Ensure that insurance brokers and mortgage brokers are in a position to advise on the broad range of products available on the market.
  3. Ensure that if insurers and lenders wish to seek to deal directly with clients, the price differential does not exceed the commission amount less cost of distribution savings. (AXA are currently offering additional commission for private motor insurance based on additional business targets – there is no consideration given to the method of distribution – electronic data interchange, or the old-fashioned way. This demonstrated insurers’ real attitude towards costs of distribution as an argument for cheaper direct prices.)
  4. Ensure that any additional savings made by insurers or lenders in dealing with brokers are reflected in price, separately from standard commission.
  5. Enforce compliance with the principle ‘in the clients’ best interest’.
  6. Foster a regime of ongoing training.
  7. Keep regulations relating to procedures, accounts and premium handling relevant.
  8. Immediately recruit personnel with industry experience to the Financial Regulator.

PIBA’s views on the Joint Committee recommendations were as follows:


  1. There should be no production quotas established by any insurance company that might inhibit or prevent brokers from giving independent advice to their clients.

PIBA would support this recommendation which would support our members’ views on cancellations of agencies for non-production and existing industry threshold. We also do not believe in bonus or additional commission based on volumes of business. Insurers should instead offer additional commission to encourage brokers to use more efficient systems. The Electronic Data Interchange is one example of a system whose use should be rewarded as brokers using such systems reduce the administration costs of the insurance company in processing insurance applications. Additional commissions should also be provided to assist brokers in upgrading their IT systems and to contribute to education and training.


  1. A scheme for licensed brokers should be established by the Irish Financial Services Regulatory Authority that would permit any broker to deal on behalf of clients, with any insurance company.

Although a scheme may not be the most appropriate way to achieve this, PIBA would support this recommendation. The Competency Requirements should be enough to allow brokers to deal with all insurers. The current Multi-Agency Intermediary model is unnecessarily restrictive and is not working, causing confusion among consumers and industry alike.


  1. Insurance companies should not discriminate against competing brokers in making available renewal information.

PIBA supports this recommendation. The reasoning behind this would be that if a broker is dealing with a client they need to give a comprehensive service irrespective of broker / insurance company relationship. The client should be free to choose their broker which would encourage competition. The insurer should be forced to offer the same renewal terms for the same risk presented irrespective of the intermediary.


  1. IFSRA should make regulations to permit insurance brokers, subject to a competency test, to deal on behalf of their clients with any insurance company and the term ‘authorised advisor’ should be discontinued. Firms that presently call themselves ‘insurance brokers’ and who do not qualify under the competency test should be required to call themselves ‘Multi-Agency Intermediaries’.

The question of competency testing has already been dealt with by the Financial Regulator. The Minimum Competency Requirements come into force in January 2007 and will apply to all brokers. These requirements set out the exams brokers will be required to take before advising clients on the various financial products. The requirements also provide for ongoing education and training through the Continued Professional Development (CPD) programme.


It is understood that the MAI and AA classifications will come under review by the Financial Regulator in early 2007. PIBA has consulted with the Financial Regulator and the Department of Finance on this issue. The classifications cause confusion among consumers and are not practical to brokers. We are advocating a return to the old insurance broker system which was recognised by consumers as giving choice. This system should be dovetailed with the IMD (Insurance Mediation Directive) to give ‘fair analysis’ – based on a sufficiently large number of contracts in the market as to give a recommendation of a contract adequate to meet the needs of the consumer. We are advocating a system of insurance brokering whereby such fair analysis could be based upon:


  • a minimum survey of insurers / lenders (say four or five)
  • a higher number than this minimum according to the Terms of Business of the broker or individual agreements with the customer
  • brokers being authorised to advise on all contracts where they hold competency, irrespective of holding an agency.

Multi-agency intermediaries would advise on less than the minimum required for ‘fair analysis’ (e.g. three or less) and tied agents just one. Both of these would only advise on contracts where they hold the relevant agency.


In light of the incoming Minimum Competency Requirements, all brokers should be given full access to all the products on which they are qualified to give advice. The Financial Regulator should abolish protectionist policies in the general insurance market, such as:


  • price discrimination between brokers and other channels of distribution
  • the limiting of brokers’ access to products.

These strategies are designed to increase the profitability of insurance companies by stifling competition. They do not benefit the consumer in any way. Giving brokers access to all products in the market will create true competition in the market. This will benefit the consumer through lower prices and will allow brokers to find the most suitable product for their clients.


  1. IFSRA should carry out a fundamental review of the insurance broker market with a view to substantially improving the operation of that market, particularly in relation to transparency for the consumer.

PIBA feels that the market is already reasonably transparent due to the fact that the Consumer Protection Codes provide for the disclosure of a vast range of documentation to the customer. There are very few comparable markets where there is such a level of transparency associated with a product. The question implies that there are currently problems around transparency. This is not the case.


Views of the IBA (Irish Brokers Association)

Changes in Insurance Regulations

Since 2005 we have seen the implementation of additional regulation of insurance intermediaries through:


  • the European Communities (Insurance Mediation) Regulations 2005 on 14 January 2005; these regulations implemented the EU Directive 2002/92 on Insurance Mediation into Irish law. One impact is that insurance intermediaries registered in another EU Member State can now act as an insurance intermediary in Ireland, without requiring authorisation from the Financial Regulator in Ireland.
  • the European Communities (Distance Marketing of Consumer Financial Services) Regulations 2004, effective 1 February 2005; these regulations implemented the EU Directive 2002/65 on the Distance Marketing of Consumer Financial Services into Irish law.
  • the publication of the Financial Regulator Consumer Protection Code on 25 July 2005, which prescribes a new unified set of Conduct of Business rules for all intermediaries and financial institutions dealing with consumers, including all acting as insurance intermediaries and advisers.

Other Reform Measures

The Financial Regulator has also published on 25 July 2006 Minimum Competence requirements for all those providing advice on and arranging ‘retail financial products’ for consumers, with effect from 1 January 2007. The term ‘retail financial products’ is defined as including all types of general insurance policies.


With effect from 1 January 2007 all individuals advising on and arranging general insurance policies for consumers (including those who settle insurance claims) will be required to either have a recognised professional qualification or be ‘grandfathered’ on the basis of having at least four years’ (during the last eight) relevant professional experience.


In addition, all insurance advisers will be required to comply with an ongoing Continuing Professional Development (CPD) requirement in order to keep their expertise up to date.


IBA saw education as being the key to improving the overall professionalism of the broking industry. IBA has led the way in producing a broker-specific education programme called Certified Insurance Practitioner (CIP); this programme has been approved by BIPAR (Bureau International des Producteurs d’Assurances et de Réassurances), which is the European representative body for insurance brokers, and meets the requirements set out in the Insurance Mediation Directive. The IBA education programme has been approved by the Financial Regulator and now forms part of the new industry-wide Minimum Competence requirements.


Reform of the Market

We would like to raise two issues with the Committee: (a) the impact of overregulation of insurance intermediaries and (b) actions to reduce insurance premiums further.


Overregulation of Insurance Intermediaries

Insurance intermediaries are subject to two overlapping and, in some respects, conflicting regulations:


  • Regulated as ‘investment business firms’ under the Investment Intermediaries Act, 1995, since 2001, and
  • Regulated as ‘insurance intermediaries’ under the European Communities (Insurance Mediation) Regulations 2005, since January 2005.

The Investment Intermediaries Act, 1995, provides for a system of regulation of ‘investment’ firms, under the EU Investment Services Directive 1993/22, a system of regulation completely unsuited to the regulation of insurance intermediaries. Basically, a system of regulation designed for investment fund managers, etc., was applied in Ireland by the then Central Bank to ‘insurance intermediaries’.


The EU Insurance Mediation Directive, 2002/92 represents the EU-wide agreed system of regulation of all those involved in insurance mediation. It is a far less complex regulatory system than that provided by the Investment Services Directive, reflecting the simpler range of functions and activities insurance intermediaries perform.


However, uniquely in the EU, Ireland has implemented the EU Insurance Mediation Directive system of regulation for insurance intermediaries on top of the existing Investment Services Directive Regulation (i.e. the Investment Intermediaries Act, 1995), leaving Irish insurance intermediaries subject to two different systems of regulation.


This is completely unnecessary and contrary to many of the Government ‘Better Regulation’ principles announced in January 2004, e.g.: necessity, proportionality and consistency.


For example, we now have two different definitions of what a tied insurance intermediary is, one in the Investment Intermediaries Act, 1995, and another different in the European Communities (Insurance Mediation) Regulations 2005.


We would also draw the Joint Committee’s attention to the bungled implementation of the European Communities (Insurance Mediation) Regulations 2005 in January 2005. The Regulations contain many drafting errors; for example, banks acting as insurance intermediaries were erroneously exempted from the provisions of the regulations, something not allowed for by the Directive. A new modified set of regulations was promised by the Department of Finance, but some 18 months later they have not appeared.


Overregulation adds costs to the industry, costs which ultimately are paid by the consumers through their insurance premiums.


Double regulation of insurance intermediaries is entirely unnecessary and places Irish-based insurance intermediaries at a disadvantage to insurance intermediaries from other EU Member States who can conduct business here solely on the basis of their regulation under the Insurance Mediation Directive.


We would therefore urge:


  • the application of the Insurance Mediation Directive, through amended regulations, to all entities acting as insurance intermediaries (i.e. including Banks, etc.)
  • the removal of insurance intermediaries from the unsuitable Investment Intermediaries Act, 1995, regulatory system.

Reducing Premiums Further

Insurance premiums have traditionally followed a ‘cycle’, going up and down over a period of years as underwriting profits fall and rise, respectively.


Our members feel that we may now be at the bottom of the underwriting cycle and with reports of increased claim frequencies, premiums may be about to start increasing again. This is part of the business cycle.


Driving premiums too low, i.e. below the level justified by the underwriting cycle at that stage, is not necessarily in the consumer’s best long-term interests as it can cause a withdrawal of some underwriters from the Irish marketplace, thereby reducing capacity and competition from the marketplace.


The only effective and sustainable way to drive premiums lower than they currently are is to make some substantial impact on reducing both the incidence and amount of claims from their current level.


In relation to motor insurance, this again points to the need for effective enforcement of road safety measures.


Implementing Joint Committee Recommendations

32 Production Quotas


We support this measure as the impact of production quotas on insurance intermediaries as a requisite to hold on to an agency appointment with an insurer is an odious practice as it amounts to a restriction on trade for insurance brokers.


Insurance intermediaries can legally only arrange insurance policies for clients with insurers from whom the intermediary holds an agency agreement. The withdrawal of an agency agreement therefore prevents that broker from using that insurer for any client and thus reduces competition in the marketplace.


33, 51 Insurance Brokers


We feel that these two recommendations are to some extent linked, as they relate to the potential ability of insurance brokers to recommend and/or deal with any insurance company.


We would make the following points:


  • The difference between Multi-Agency Intermediaries (MAI) and Authorised Advisers (AA) is not understood by the public. The terms are too opaque and in any event while in theory an AA can advise on all insurance products in the marketplace (while MAIs can only advise on products from those insurers from whom they hold an agency appointment), this distinction is in reality largely theoretical as AAs, like MAIs, can legally only arrange policies with insurers from whom they hold written agency appointments.
  • The terms Multi-Agency Intermediaries (MAI) and Authorised Advisers (AA) co-exist with alternative definitions in the Investment Intermediaries Act, 1995, of ‘insurance broker’ (five plus agencies), ‘insurance agent’ (one to four agencies), and ‘tied insurance agent’ (tied to one insurer). There is then another definition of ‘tied insurance intermediary’ in the European Communities (Insurance Mediation) Regulations 2005. This use of different terms and tags for insurance intermediaries is completely confusing to the public, in terms of the choice of insurer offered by a particular insurance intermediary. For example, it is possible for an AA to be an ‘insurance agent’, but an MAI could be an ‘insurance broker’. Also, some insurers have Multi-Agency Intermediary subsidiaries which market direct to the public, in essence only offering that insurer’s products.
  • The Financial Regulator has already introduced a Minimum Competency standard for all individuals arranging or providing advice to consumers on insurance policies, with effect from 1 January 2007. These standards apply to an individual regardless of the status of the insurance intermediary entity they are working for.

We feel there is merit in:


  • ceasing to use the MAI and AA badges in relation to insurance intermediary activities
  • providing that the sole method of regulating insurance intermediaries be the European Communities (Insurance Mediation) Regulations 2005
  • attributing the term ‘insurance broker’ ONLY to intermediaries who ALWAYS provide advice to consumers on insurance policies on the ‘fair analysis’ basis outlined in the European Communities (Insurance Mediation) Regulations 2005, i.e. ‘advice on the basis of an analysis of a sufficiently large number of insurance contracts available on the market, to enable the ‘intermediary to make a recommendation, in accordance with professional criteria, as to which insurance contract would be adequate to meet the customer’s needs’. This would exclude intermediaries who are restricted in any way, or who wish to restrict themselves, in relation to placing business and would also exclude insurance intermediaries who are owned, in part or whole, directly or indirectly by an insurance company.

We feel that such a system has the merit of simplicity for the consumer; the term ‘insurance broker’ would then mean intermediaries who only provide ‘fair analysis’ advice, which is a term used and defined in the European Directive on Insurance Mediation as being the highest and best level of advice the consumer can get. It is an EU-wide measure of independent advice on insurance.


34Discrimination against Competing Broker


Currently a client will complete a reporting mandate to enable a competing broker to obtain all information from the existing insurer. This is a straightforward process which requires a properly dated and signed reporting mandate from the policyholder in person or in the case of a company, the Managing Director, Financial Controller or Secretary of such Company.


We would feel that the current situation does not discriminate against the competing broker receiving all available renewal information.


53Improving Transparency


We support the principle of transparency in relation to:


  • status of the provider (e.g. proposed distinction between ‘insurance brokers’ and others, so that consumer knows immediately and clearly the range of insurance products a particular provider can offer)
  • sales remuneration, be it commission, fees or other forms of reward for the provider.

PROVIDED it is implemented on a uniform and consistent basis across the ENTIRE industry and not just applied to insurance intermediaries.


In relation to transparency of insurance sales remuneration / commissions, we would cite the example of the Life Assurance Disclosure Regulations which has implemented a satisfactory disclosure regime for life assurance policies since 2001.


The Life Disclosure Regulations, in relation to disclosure of remuneration associated with the sale of a life policy, requires equivalent disclosure as between:


  • intermediaries, who are required to disclose ‘intermediary remuneration’, i.e. commissions and benefits in kind
  • insurers selling direct to the public, who are required to disclose ‘sales remuneration’, which includes not just salary or commissions possibly paid to an employee or direct agent of the insurer involved in the sale, but the associated costs of premises, light, heat, etc., for those sales employees or direct agents of the insurer.

This therefore ensures equivalent and consistent disclosure of ALL remuneration associated with the sale of the life policy. The entire life disclosure system is backed up by very detailed Society of Actuaries Guidance Notes for insurers on how to calculate both intermediary and sales remuneration.


Calls for insurance intermediaries to be subject to ‘transparency’ of remuneration in relation to motor and liability insurance is ‘selective’ transparency if it is applied only to insurance intermediaries. If it is not also applied to insurers writing such business directly, it will distort the marketplace to the advantage of insurers writing business directly, which in the long run is not to the benefit of the consumer.


Unlike investment-related policies, the premium payable by the consumer for motor and liability insurance is the barometer of ‘value’ to the consumer, assuming cover and benefits are identical in products being compared. On this basis, we doubt the value of transparency of remuneration in relation to such policies.


If consumers dealing direct with an insurer see no disclosure of ‘remuneration’ but see such disclosure of dealing through an insurance intermediary, they may naturally come to the erroneous conclusion that they can ‘save’ the intermediary remuneration by dealing directly with the insurer.


However, if transparency of remuneration in relation to the sale of motor and liability insurance is to be introduced, it MUST apply equally to all distributors, i.e. intermediaries and direct writers alike, if harmful (to the consumer) distortion of the marketplace is not to ensue.


Regulators should learn the lessons of the successful Life Disclosure Regime, which has been in existence now for over five years.


Overall Conclusion on Insurance Regulation

It is clear that financial regulation, including regulation of the non-life insurance sector, in Ireland is being undertaken in a very professional way by an excellent regulatory body, the Irish Financial Services Regulatory Authority. The Joint Committee is pleased with the cooperation it has had from the Financial Regulator since it was established.


All of the points of concern to the Joint Committee have been responded to and the Joint Committee has accepted that many of its recommendations have been implemented or that there has been a satisfactory explanation as to why the specific recommendation does not now need to be implemented.


The following recommendations have been accepted: 48, 49, 51. Recommendations 24 and 25 are no longer issues for the Regulator to deal with. Regulation 26 is being progressed by the Regulator.


The most important area to be addressed by the Regulator in 2007 is the issue relating to insurance intermediaries. Some of the recommendations of the Joint Committee are critical to ensuring that the insurance market operates effectively. The review of intermediaries will deal with recommendations 32, 34, 52, 53.


Finally, recommendation 40 is addressed to the Department of Transport.


8 Further Reductions in Insurance Premiums

Chapter 4 shows that insurance companies are reporting significant reductions in the level of premiums being charged.


The tables below have been prepared from the Insurance Statistical Review 2005, 2004 and 2003, published by the Financial Regulator.


Insurance Company Profits (Result on Technical Account) – Five Largest Companies – Total Irish Risk Business

2005 Profits €million

2004 profits € million

2003 profits € million

2002 profits € million

Allianz

151

156

86

(22)

AXA

149

151

124

52

FBD

121

94

89

21

Hibernian

280

228

118

71

Quinn Direct

163

126

101

34

TOTAL

864

755

518

156

+14%

+ 46%

+ 232%

Note: In the year to 31 December 2005, there were profits for other major companies as follows:


AIG Europe, €39 million


Zurich Insurance Ireland, €99 million


Royal and Sun Alliance, €71 million


Reserves for Outstanding Claims – Five Largest Companies

Reserves for Outstanding Claims

Premium Income for Year 2005 € million

31 December 2005 € million

31 December 2004 € million

Change on Year %

Reserve for Claims at 31/12/05 % of Premium Income

Allianz

426

964

974

-1%

226

AXA

394

1109

1123

-1%

281

FBD

336

642

596

+8%

191

Hibernian

729

1616

1620

0

222

Quinn Direct

391

431

365

+18%

110

TOTAL

2,276

4,762

4,678

209

Source: 2004 and 2005 information from Insurance Statistical Review issued by the Financial Regulator


The Gross Written Premium by Class for Irish Risk was as follows:

2005

2004

Difference %

Motor

1,635

1,712

-4.5

Fire and Damage to Property

1,075

1,128

-4.7

Liability

848

909

-6.7

Other

539

558

-3.4

Total

4,097

4,307

-4.9

The reductions in premiums as presented above have taken place against the backdrop of an increased number of motor vehicles and employees in 2005 compared with 2004.


Comment

The Joint Committee wishes to see insurance premiums continuing to fall. In the Third Interim Report we expressed concern about some developments in 2005:


  1. the increase in 2005, as compared with 2004, of the number of deaths and serious injuries due to fatal road collisions
  2. the increase in the numbers of deaths arising from accidents in the workplace.

However, road fatalities in 2006 are lower than in 2005 and the fatalities at work have also fallen.


The Joint Committee also hoped that the recommendation below would be implemented:


Level of Awards

The Joint Committee recommends that:

  1. The Government should establish an expert group who would consider the information now published by the PIAB on the levels of awards in the Irish courts, the levels of UK awards and the levels of awards in other jurisdictions. This group would recommend a level of awards that would be appropriate to Ireland. The recommendations of the group should be published in draft form to allow all interested parties, including representatives of victims, to make submissions on the proposals.

In Chapter 7 we deal with the reasons why the implementation of this recommendation has been deferred for the present.


However, until the level of awards in Ireland is brought into line with the level of awards in similar jurisdictions, Ireland cannot have the level of insurance premiums that apply in other countries. Until that happens, consumers and businesses are at a disadvantage.


Competition / New Entrants:

The Joint Committee is disappointed that, even though very substantial regulatory reforms have been enacted, no new substantial companies have entered the Irish Risk Insurance Market. The Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment visited London in October 2006 to encourage additional insurance companies to enter the market.


Clearly, however, the market is competitive.


Uninsured Drivers

The following information was supplied by Mr John Casey, CEO of the MIBI (Motor Insurers’ Bureau of Ireland) on 26 July 2006 in response to a request for information by the Joint Committee.


1 Level of Claims for Uninsured Drivers during 2005 Compared to 2004

The main task of the MIBI is to compensate innocent victims of uninsured and untraced driving in Ireland. In 2005 MIBI received 1,628 claim notifications from victims of uninsured and untraced driving involving Irish registered vehicles, compared to 2,294 in 2004. The 2005 figure was the lowest in many years; however, this apparent positive development was influenced considerably by factors in the overall claim environment such as the Courts Act and the first full year of the operation of the PIAB. During the first half of 2006, MIBI received 1,060 claims, indicating a return to more customary levels.


2 Level of Claims Applicable to Foreign-Registered Vehicles

As part of its remit, MIBI acts as the ‘deemed insurer’ of all foreign-registered vehicles (FRV) travelling in the State. A victim of an accident caused by an FRV is entitled to submit a claim to MIBI. We then endeavour to identify an insurer of the vehicle in the home country of the FRV and we are successful in doing so in over 85 per cent of the cases. Thus, the ‘uninsured component’ of claims reported to us involving FRVs is less than 15 per cent. In 2005 the number of claims involving FRVs was 881 compared to the 2004 figure of 790. Thus, 15 per cent of 881 were deemed to be uninsured (i.e. 130). These figures are separate and distinct from those in point 1 above. These latter claims are handled by MIBI and settlements are made with the claimants. MIBI then requests reimbursement from its counterpart bureau in the home country of the uninsured FRV.


3 Claims Involving Left-hand Drive or Right-hand Drive FRVs

While MIBI does not track the incidence of left-hand drive FRVs compared to right-hand drive FRVs, it is generally true that almost all FRVs travelling in the State would be left- hand drive vehicles with the obvious exception of UK-registered vehicles. Therefore, of the 881 accidents involving FRVs in 2005, 303 were UK-registered (and would have been right-hand drive), while the balance (578) could be assumed to have been left-hand drive.


4 Claims Involving Vehicles with Forged or Invalid Insurance Discs

MIBI has encountered instances of claims involving vehicles which had forged or invalid insurance discs. However, we do not keep a numerical count of these as our brief is to process the claim and ensure that appropriate compensation is remitted to the victim.


5 The Incidence of Uninsured Driving In Ireland

The incidence of uninsured driving in Ireland is estimated at 6 per cent or roughly 100,000 drivers. This is the highest in Western Europe and total claims compensation to victims of uninsured and untraced driving has been in the region of €50m in each of the years from 2001 to 2004 inclusive. In 2005 it reached €67m, due to several large claims being settled during that year. This money comes entirely from the premiums of the 94 per cent of law-abiding motorists who insure their vehicles every year. The cost of uninsured driving to each motor premium is estimated at €45.


MIBI believes that the main cause of uninsured driving is the irresponsible behaviour of the 6 per cent of drivers who do not insure their vehicles. The most effective method of changing this behaviour is increased and robust enforcement of the law by An Garda Síochána, particularly in areas which have high instances of accidents caused by uninsured driving, supported by adequate and proportionate penalties for those guilty of the offence.


A comprehensive report on ‘Uninsured Driving in the UK’ for the British Government was completed in 2004 by Professor David Greenaway of Nottingham University. A full copy is attached for your information. Chapter 1 is a summary of recommendations and we believe that many of these, if implemented in Ireland, could make a material impact on the incidence of uninsured driving and so reduce motor premiums for business and the general public alike. Specifically could I draw your attention to:


  • recommendations 7, 8, 9 and 10, which deal with the importance of a fully accurate and current motor insurance database accessible to, and in everyday use by, the police; this is essential to effective roadside detection of uninsured drivers
  • recommendations 18 and 19, which deal with consistent and appropriate penalties for uninsured drivers?

Professor Greenaway’s recommendations referred to by MIBI:

Recommendation 7:

The insurance industry and Department for Transport should cooperate in building an easily navigable and searchable insurance portal on the DVLA and DSA websites, which reminds clients of their legal responsibility for third-party insurance, provides rapid access to information on insurance premiums and links to online purchase facilities.


Recommendation 8:

Appropriate changes in the Police Bill should be made, or the next available legislative opportunity taken to provide Police Forces with full and unrestricted access to the Motor Insurance Database (MID).


Recommendation 9:

The MID should be fully integrated with the Police National Computer in the same way as DVLA’s vehicle register.


Recommendation 10:

The roll-out of Automatic Number-Plate Recognition (ANPR) should be accelerated to ensure that more Police Forces have access to the technology to underpin enhanced detection and enforcement.


Recommendation 18:

Sentencing guidelines for Magistrates should be revised to require a minimum fine for uninsured driving which exceeds the fixed penalty.


Recommendation 19:

A review should be undertaken of the non-fiscal penalties which could be made available to Magistrates in dealing with uninsured drivers.


Conclusion on further reductions in insurance premiums

Summary of the measures that can bring about further reductions in insurance premiums

  1. Continue to take measures to reduce fatalities and serious accidents on the roads.
  2. Continue to take actions to reduce the number of fatalities in the workplace.
  3. Bring about a reduction in the level of awards in personal injury cases.
  4. Implement the report on the reduction of the costs of legal actions in the courts.
  5. Reduce the level of uninsured drivers.

If the above actions are taken, and the other recommendations in this report are implemented, it is reasonable to expect that insurance premiums will continue to fall in 2007.


Most insurance companies considered that premiums could fall further in certain circumstances. However, AXA stated that:


there would not be profits from the insurance sector of €1 billion in 2007; the sector had reached the end of the insurance cycle. AXA was breaking even on current business. As competition increased, AXA would lose money on underwriting. AXA was probably the first company to state that it was making a profit in the current cycle. It believed that it was the first company to recognise that ‘the game was over’. Prices would have to start rising again.


These comments were made in May 2006 before the level of fatalities due to road collisions started to fall and before it was clear that the level of fatalities at work was also falling.


9 Responsibility for Insurance and Enforcement

Until the establishment of the Office of the Financial Regulator, insurance issues were the responsibility of the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment. With the establishment of the Financial Regulator, the Regulator took over responsibility for all insurance regulation, including the provision of statistics. The only responsibility that was left to the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment was the Personal Injuries Assessment Board (PIAB).


The Financial Regulator comes under the aegis of the Department of Finance, which has overall responsibility for the Financial Regulator’s office. However, the Financial Regulator’s role is to implement existing legislation, to act in the interests of consumers and to exert prudential responsibility for the areas under the Regulator’s control. The Financial Regulator is not concerned with policy or with developments that have not been given effect in legislation.


Shortly after the transfer of responsibility for regulation to the Financial Regulator, the Government decided that the Minister for Transport should have responsibility for motor insurance. However, it appears that no Minister has responsibility for policy in relation to all other risk insurance. It is reasonable that the Minister for Finance should have responsibility for life-related insurance but it is less clear that the Minister for Finance should be concerned with non-life risk insurance.


The Joint Committee believes that the Government should address this issue and allocate responsibility for non-life risk insurance, excluding health insurance which is the responsibility of the Minister for Health and Children, and motor vehicle insurance which is the responsibility of the Minister for Transport, to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. The most important other elements of risk insurance are Employers’ Liability and Public Liability Insurance. It would seem reasonable that these should be dealt with by the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, rather than another Department.


In general, it would be preferable if one Minister had responsibility for all non-life risk insurance, and this is a further issue the Government might consider.


If responsibility is not allocated, there is a danger that the important further reforms, will not be the responsibility of any Minister or Government Department. Reform in this area is never likely to be complete. Each year will bring about legislative or other developments such as court decisions and new technical developments that may require legislation or Government intervention.


The Joint Committee recommends that:


  1. The Government should allocate responsibility for continuous reform of the insurance sector to one Government department.

Motor Vehicle Agency

It is not clear who is responsible for the control of motor vehicles and drivers. The responsibility for car registration tax was delegated a number of years ago to local authorities. The local authorities have come together to provide an online tax renewal service based in Shannon. However, the recording of car registration details in Shannon cannot be cross-checked to see that the motor vehicle is insured. At present, ensuring that a car is insured is the responsibility of the Gardaí, presumably the Traffic Corps, but also any Garda. The responsibility is carried out by inspecting car tax, car insurance and National Car Test (NCT) certificates that are required to be placed on the windows of motor vehicles. However, the Gardaí have no readily available method of checking whether the displayed certificates are real or forgeries. It would be helpful if it were at least possible to ensure that when car tax was being renewed, the car was both insured and had passed the NCT. For this to be achieved it would be necessary to integrate the car tax records with those of insurance companies and the NCT.


It is clear that, for each motor vehicle, there needs to be a number of records maintained on a central database. These include the following:


  1. whether or not the car is taxed
  2. whether or not the car is insured and the name of the insurance company and policy number
  3. whether the car has been submitted for NCT tests and whether it has passed the tests
  4. the make, serial number, etc., of the vehicle
  5. the registration number, year of manufacture, place of manufacture
  6. whether the vehicle has been in any crashes.

Records on Drivers

For individual drivers, as distinct from motor vehicles, there also needs to be very extensive records maintained on a central database.


I. the driving licence number


II. the PPS number


III. whether the driver has passed tests and how many times the tests have had to be undertaken


IV. the name, age, address of the individual driver


V. any penalty points incurred by the driver


VI. any previous convictions related to motor vehicle prosecutions.


A system is needed whereby a Garda on checkpoint duty can easily check that the car is insured and that the driver is permitted to drive the car (and has not therefore been disqualified from driving).


For all of these reasons, there would seem to be a need to establish a Motor Vehicle Agency that would establish a database of motor vehicles and of drivers, and would make this database available to An Garda Síochána.


The Agency could have primary responsibility for checking that motor tax had been renewed, that insurance policies were being renewed and that disqualified drivers were not driving. These checks could be done by civilian employees through administrative means. Only where administrative means have failed to achieve results should An Garda Síochána be involved in specific cases.


The Joint Committee has been very concerned at the numbers of uninsured drivers. In spite of considerable effort by the Gardaí this number is not declining. Progress is not being made. The number of uninsured drivers is a burden on all other drivers.


Comment

The Gardaí need to have a computer system that would allow a Garda, on approaching a vehicle, to scan the registration number into the system and to receive full and accurate information on the vehicle. On receiving the driver’s licence, it should be possible to scan a bar code that would provide all relevant information on the driver.


As each driver is paying €45 per year for uninsured vehicles, a proportion of this amount would fund the system and ensure that almost every vehicle is insured, taxed and has completed the NCT test. It would also reduce the incidence of stolen vehicles and assist in reducing crime. It has been said that while the vast majority of drivers are not criminals, all criminals are drivers. By ensuring that there is a tight control on vehicles and drivers, general compliance with the law will improve.


It is clearly unacceptable that Ireland has the highest level of uninsured driving in Europe. Our objective must be to be among the lowest two or three countries in the level of uninsured driving.


The Joint Committee recommends that:

64. A motor vehicle agency should be established by the Department of Transport to:


  1. Establish and maintain a database of information on motor vehicles and drivers for use by the Gardaí,
  2. Pursue by administrative means the owners of motor vehicles that have not renewed their insurance, have not taxed their vehicles and whose vehicles have not passed the NCT tests,
  3. Reduce substantially the level of uninsured driving on Irish roads.

10 Implementing the Recommendations

Before this report, the Joint Committee had made 87 Recommendations. Of these, 29 were made in the Road Safety Report of July 2006.


Of the remaining 58 recommendations:


  • 26 general insurance recommendations have been implemented or accepted
  • 10 road safety recommendations have been implemented or accepted
  • 4 recommendations relate to the review of intermediaries which is to take place in 2007
  • 15 recommendations for future implementation need to be monitored by the Joint Committee of the 30th Oireachtas
  • 2 recommendations were not accepted
  • 1 recommendation was withdrawn.

Each of the recommendations has been considered in detail in the five reports of the Joint Committee. We include some brief comments on the 15 recommendations whose future implementation should be monitored by the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business of the 30th Oireachtas and also a brief comment on the two recommendations that are, in our view, the only ones that have not been accepted.


Recommendations for Future Implementation that should be monitored by the Joint Committee of the next Oireachtas

Recommendation 2

The provisions of the Court Bill, 2001, in relation to the financial limits of courts, should be brought into force, and the Courts Service should bring forward proposals to reform the courts as a matter of urgency.


Comment

The Joint Committee felt strongly that this recommendation should be implemented. However, it was persuaded that in the light of all the other changes in the law that were being made – the establishment of the PIAB and the general legal reforms – that the implementation of the Court Bill, 2001, should wait until a clear picture emerges.


It would be reasonable to assume that this issue should be reviewed within two years.


Recommendation 3

The Government should negotiate a common European market protection for insurance policyholders against the insolvency of an insurer.


Comment

This recommendation has essentially been accepted. The Financial Regulator is arguing that this protection be provided as part of European insurance arrangements. Again, this recommendation should be implemented within two years and, if not, the Oireachtas should establish why this has not happened.


Recommendation 5

The Irish Financial Services Regulatory Authority should facilitate the placement of Irish motor insurance business outside the jurisdiction by amending existing regulations.


Comment

The Financial Regulator has stated that this would require legislative change and is the responsibility of the Department of Transport. This is of particular importance for commercial vehicles that may be travelling outside Ireland. It is a measure that should increase competition in the commercial insurance market.


Recommendation 6

An arrangement should be entered into between insurance companies and hospitals that would refund hospitals for the cost of treating injured persons at normal health insurance rates but that would avoid the pursuit of individuals to make claims on insurance companies.


Comment

It seems to be generally agreed that this is a good idea. However, it needs someone like the Minister for Transport or a Minister for State to bring the insurance companies and the Health Service Executive (HSE) together to work out an arrangement. So far this has not been done.


Recommendation 7

The Government should establish an expert group that would consider the information now published by the PIAB on the levels of awards in the Irish courts, the levels of UK awards and the levels of awards in other jurisdictions. This group would recommend a level of awards that would be appropriate to Ireland. The recommendations of the group should be published in draft form to allow all interested parties, including representatives of victims, to make submissions on the proposals.


Comment

This issue has been dealt with extensively in Chapter 7. Essentially, the Joint Committee feels strongly that the Irish awards are out of line with those in the UK and other jurisdictions. However, the Joint Committee also accepts that in the light of all of the other changes that have been made and are being made, that the proposed establishment of an expert group could be deferred. This inquiry should be established within two years.


Recommendation 13

Legislation should be introduced to permit the keeping of central records on claimants by insurance companies, subject to appropriate safeguards.


Comment

This recommendation, which is essential if there is to be proper coordination between the various agencies, should be introduced. However, it could reasonably be argued that it is not a high priority. Nevertheless, this should be introduced within two years with a view to permitting the keeping of central records on claimants by insurance companies with appropriate safeguards, particularly in relation to the Data Protection Act.


Recommendation 24

Where a policyholder objects to a settlement of a claim by an insurer, the insurer should not be able to settle the claim unless, having asked for an arbitrator to consider the issue, the arbitrator finds in favour of the insurer. The losing party should pay for the arbitration.


Comment

The Joint Committee pursued this issue strongly with the Financial Regulator. However, the Regulator argued, reasonably, that this would require a change in legislation. The Joint Committee then amended its view to a request for a voluntary arrangement between insurance companies and policyholders on this issue.


In the view of the Joint Committee, a Minister needs to intervene on this issue and to work out an arrangement with the insurance companies. Again, this should be reviewed in two years’ time.


Recommendation 28

All regulatory barriers or regulatory impositions on insurance companies that make entry to the Irish market (for Irish or other EU companies) more difficult than to any other EU country should be removed by the Irish Financial Services Regulatory Authority immediately.


Comment

The Financial Regulator argues strongly, and quotes the Competition Authority, that Irish solvency and other regulatory requirements have not been a barrier to the establishment and operation of insurance companies in the State. Nevertheless, it is important that the Joint Committee should again check that Irish regulatory requirements are in line with those of other EU countries and that our regulations and, in particular, our solvency requirements are not out of line with those in other countries so as to form any type of barrier to entry to the market. Again, a review in two years would be satisfactory.


Recommendation 30

The Taxing Master should not be, nor have been, a member of the legal profession. The decisions of the Taxing Master should be subject to appeal to a lay appeals body.


Comment

The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform established an inquiry into legal costs. The establishment of this inquiry was welcomed by the Joint Committee. The inquiry team reported in January 2006. The Minister then established a Working Group to implement the recommendations of the inquiry. The issue of the role of the Taxing Master was examined by the inquiry group. However, no decisions have yet been made on this or any of the other issues. Again, the Joint Committee should consider this matter further in two years’ time.


Recommendation 31

In-house barristers should have a right to appear in court in defence of claims against the insurance companies that employ them.


Comment

The Joint Committee made this recommendation. The response of the Department of Justice was that it was awaiting the final report of the Competition Authority. The Competition Authority reported in December 2006 and made a similar recommendation. The Department of Justice should now implement this recommendation. Again, this matter should be reviewed by the Joint Committee in two years’ time.


Recommendation 36

An annual awards scheme should be introduced to recognise the companies that have had no accidents for several years and those that have made a significant effort to improve safety.


Comment

There are a number of award schemes already in place, particularly those of NISO. However, none of the schemes seems to be precisely what the Joint Committee recommended. Again, this is another issue that should be subject to review in two years’ time.


Recommendation 37

The Health and Safety Authority and the insurance companies should specify appropriate health and safety standards with a view to offering premium reductions for companies that comply with such standards.


Comment

The Health and Safety Authority has accepted this recommendation but, insofar as the Joint Committee is aware, the recommendation has not yet been implemented or agreed with the insurance companies. Again, the Joint Committee should consider whether this recommendation has been implemented in two years.


Recommendation 40

Organisations, meeting certain financial criteria, should be able to self-insure for all motor risks.


Comment

The Joint Committee pursued this recommendation with the Financial Regulator. However, the Financial Regulator stated that new legislation would be needed and that this was the responsibility of the Minister for Transport. The Minister for Transport has not yet introduced new legislation to give effect to this recommendation. The purpose of this recommendation is to provide even greater competition in the motor insurance market. Even if legislation is introduced, there may be few companies willing to undertake these risks by self-insuring. Nevertheless, this option should be made available.


Again, a review in two years to ensure that this recommendation has been given effect would be satisfactory.


Recommendation 45

Insurance companies should provide significant incentives / penalties to young drivers between the ages of 17 and 25 to use governor or cruise-control limits in cars.


Comment

The insurance companies have a significant role to play in relation to road safety. The insurance companies have the power to make road safety features on motor vehicles a requirement of obtaining a policy or obtaining discounts on premiums. The structure of charges for motor insurance can be such that a clear benefit can be seen by those agreeing to accept or install safety features that will ensure safer driving.


It is disappointing that insurance companies, undoubtedly for good reasons, have not implemented this recommendation at this time. Again, a review in two years and a questioning of the insurance companies as to why the recommendation has not been implemented would be satisfactory.


Recommendation 58

In order to encourage drivers to stay within the speed limits, all insurance companies should be required to offer significant discounts to drivers who voluntarily accept monitoring of their speeds; these discounts to vary depending on the perceived risk and to be substantial for young drivers.


Comment

This recommendation has a similar objective to number 45 and again a review of the position in two years’ time would be satisfactory.


Recommendation 55

The National Council for Curriculum and Assessment should make early provision for the inclusion of the driver theory test for secondary school students as part of their Transition Year studies. In addition, secondary schools should be required to provide simulated driving instruction for all students on reaching 17 years.


Comment

The members of the Joint Committee have felt very strongly that far more could be done in our secondary schools to promote road safety and safer driving. While there could be an argument that the teaching of driving should not take place in the school environment or as part of the educational system, there is almost no argument against the inclusion of the driver theory test on the curriculum for secondary school students. Again, the Joint Committee should review the position in two years.


Recommendations Not Accepted

Recommendation 4

The 2 per cent levy, which is now merely a source of tax revenue, should be abolished.


Comment

The Joint Committee believes that the 2 per cent levy should be abolished. In view of the general health of the State’s finances, this would certainly have been possible over the last few years. It is disappointing that this has not been done. However, the Minister for Finance has refused to make this change. Alternatively, the Joint Committee would like to see the monies from the 2 per cent levy allocated for specific purposes, such as road safety, or health and safety at work. However, the Department of Finance argued that it did not wish to commit to a specific allocation of tax revenues.


Recommendation 57

The proposed Road Safety Authority should be independent in the carrying out of its functions and should be adequately and jointly funded by the Exchequer and the insurance companies, to finance its activities.


Comment

There is no specific provision in the Road Safety Authority Act in relation to the independence of the Authority.


Section 25 permits the Minister, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, to advance the Authority such sums as the Minister will determine for the purposes of expenditure of the Authority in the carrying out of its functions or in specified circumstances that are subject to Ministerial direction.


Essentially, the Exchequer finances the Road Safety Authority. The Road Safety Authority is an agency of the Department of Transport, rather than a body that is quite independent of the Department with its own funding.


Recommendations in the July 2006 Road Safety Report

While the 29 recommendations have been generally welcomed by the Road Safety Authority, An Garda Síochana and the Minister for Transport, the Joint Committee has had no specific feedback on its proposals. However, as is pointed out in Chapter 2, there have been a number of indications that at least some of its proposals are being accepted. The Road Safety Authority is due to publish its Road Safety Strategy for the next five years in the spring of 2007. It is hoped that this strategic document will incorporate a number, if not all, of the recommendations of the Joint Committee.


Appendix A

Witnesses at Meetings on Insurance Reform with the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business

Wednesday, 17 May 2006


AXA Insurance

Mr John O’Neill, Chief Executive Officer

Hibernian General Insurance

Mr Dick O’Driscoll, Managing Director


Mr Brian Huston, Director


Ms Laura Booth, Executive Manager

Quinn Direct Insurance

Mr Colin Morgan, General Manager


Ms Sylvia Goldrick

Wednesday, 31 May 2006

FBD Insurance

Mr Philip Fitzsimons, Chief Executive


Mr Andrew Langford, Finance Director


Mr Niall Higgins, Claims Director

Financial Regulator

Mr Patrick Neary, Chief Executive


Mr Frank Brosnan, Insurance Supervision Department


Mr John Pyne, Consumer Information Department

IBEC

Mr Tony Briscoe, Assistant Director

SIMI

Mr Cyril McHugh, Chief Executive


Mr Jim Cusack, President


Mr Ian MacNeill, Deputy President


Mr Alan Nolan, Deputy CEO

Wednesday, 14 June 2006

Health and Safety Authority

Mr Tom Beegan, Chief Executive


Ms Mary Dorgan, Assistant Chief Executive


Mr Robert Roe, Programme Manager

National Roads Authority

Mr Michael Egan, Head of Corporate Affairs


Mr Harry Cullen, Senior Project Manager

Wednesday, 11 October 2006

Allianz

Mr Brendan Murphy, Director and Chief Executive


Mr Sean Meagher, Director of Risk Management


Mr Damien O’Neill, Associate Director, Direct


Insurance

Wednesday, 18 October 2006

Personal Injuries Assessment Board

Ms Dorothea Dowling, Chairperson


Ms Patricia Byron, Chief Executive

Wednesday, 8 November 2006

An Garda Síochána

Assistant Commissioner Eddie Rock


Inspector Con O’Donohue

The Road Safety Authority

Mr Noel Brett, Chief Executive Officer

Wednesday, 22 November 2006


Mr Martin Cullen, T.D., Minister for Transport


Appendix B

Categorisation of Recommendations in the Third Interim and the Road Safety Reports

A Recommendations Implemented or Accepted: Insurance Generally


1Sanctions for breaches of compulsory motor insurance obligations should be introduced as quickly as possible and, in particular, uninsured vehicles should be confiscated.


6Policyholders should see clear evidence of the benefit of being claim-free. Accident-free policyholders or those with low levels of accidents should be seen to be rewarded.


8The proposed Civil Liability and Courts Bill should contain a provision that would require judges, on making decisions in relation to the level of awards, to have regard to the Book of Quantum applied by the PIAB.


9The PIAB, as soon as possible and certainly within six months of its establishment, should deal with public liability and motor accident claims, as well as employers’ liability claims.


10Where, not having accepted a PIAB award, the court award is equal to or less than a PIAB award, legal costs should not be allowed to the claimant.


11The measures in the proposed Civil Liability and Courts Bill to eliminate fraudulent and exaggerated claims should be adopted.


12Specific judges should be allocated to deal with personal injury cases and they should be required to undertake training in relation to insurance issues.


19The Irish Financial Services Regulatory Authority should review the Irish solvency regulations to ensure that they are in the best interests of policyholders, existing insurance companies operating in Ireland and potential entrants.


20The Government should permit insurance companies, as part of their solvency requirements, to invest in public / private partnerships and infrastructural projects on a basis to be determined annually by the Minister for Finance.


21An annual review of the insurance market should be carried out by the Joint Committee to consider whether its expectations of reform are being realised.


23The Irish Financial Services Regulatory Authority should give effect to the IBEC / Insurance Industry Federation Communications Guidelines by statutory order, so that the guidelines have the power of law.


25Policyholders should see clear evidence of the benefit of being claim-free. Accident-free policyholders or those with low levels of accidents should be seen to be rewarded.


26All policyholders should, on renewal, receive information on the basis of which the premium is calculated.


27The Competition Authority should publish at least an interim report on the insurance market before the end of 2003.


28The Government should establish an inquiry, composed mainly of non-lawyers, into the present levels of legal fees in personal injury actions. The inquiry would undertake a study of the costs and would consider whether the current level of fees being awarded by the Taxing Master are reasonable in relation to the work being undertaken by solicitors in preparing cases for trial. This inquiry would also consider the necessity for the extensive use of barristers in personal injury actions in Irish courts.


35IFSRA, the Irish Financial Services Regulatory Authority, should give consideration to the issue of whether brokers should operate only on a fee basis.


37The Health and Safety Authority should be properly resourced so that Irish safety performance levels become among the best in the EU and it should meet the target of 8,000 inspections per annum.


39The Bill to make new provisions for health and safety should be introduced immediately.


41The Departments of Finance and Justice, Equality and Law Reform should remove any impediment to the impounding of uninsured vehicles by the Gardaí.


46The new Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Bill should be passed by the Oireachtas as soon as possible.


47The Competition Authority should publish its final report on the insurance market as soon as possible and not later than then end of October 2004.


48The Irish solvency requirements for new entrants should be exactly the same as for existing market participants.


49Irish solvency requirements should be no higher than the norm required by EU regulation.


50IFSRA should monitor the level of insurance capacity in the Irish market and, where there is a lack of capacity, should draw attention publicly to the emerging difficulty.


51Insurance companies should be required to remind policyholders of the renewal date two months prior to renewal and to submit a quotation to the policyholder one month prior to the renewal date.


53IFSRA should carry out a fundamental review of the insurance broker market with a view to substantially improving the operation of that market, particularly in relation to transparency for the consumer.


B Recommendations Implemented or Accepted: Road Safety

14The Government should immediately bring in legislation for the regulation of driving schools.


15Penalty points should be extended to all motoring offences affecting road safety as quickly as possible and all the necessary infrastructure for IT systems should be put in place to achieve this.


16All speed cameras should be operated by An Garda Síochána.


17A dedicated traffic corps within An Garda Síochána should be established at the earliest opportunity with a view to increasing the enforcement of road traffic regulations and reducing deaths and injuries on the roads.


18The Minister for Transport should publish a detailed set of proposals to deal with young driver licensing and training, so as to reduce the wholly unacceptable level of deaths and injuries among young drivers.


42Random breath tests for drink driving should be introduced.


43The National Council for Curriculum and Assessment should introduce road safety instruction to the second-level school curriculum as a matter of urgency.


44The Government should give priority to the speedy enactment of the Road Traffic Bill and the Driver, Testing and Standards Authority Bill.


54The Government should consider holding a Constitutional Referendum to permit random testing for substance abuse that may be impairing a driver’s ability to drive safely.


56An Inter-Ministerial Group should be established, comprising the Taoiseach and the Ministers for Health and Children; Transport; Justice, Equality and Law Reform; Education and Science; and Finance, to oversee radical changes in relation to road safety.


C Recommendations Relating to the Review of Intermediaries in 2007

32There should be no production quotas established by any insurance company that might inhibit or prevent brokers from giving independent advice to their clients.


33A scheme for licensed brokers should be established by the Irish Financial Services Regulatory Authority that would permit any broker to deal, on behalf of clients, with any insurance company.


34Insurance companies should not discriminate against competing brokers in making available renewal information.


51IFSRA should make regulations to permit insurance brokers, subject to a competency test, to deal on behalf of their clients with any insurance company and the term ‘authorised adviser’ should be discontinued. Firms that presently call themselves ‘insurance brokers’ and who do not qualify under the competency test should be required to call themselves ‘Multi-Agency Intermediaries’.


D Recommendations which should be Monitored by the Joint Committee of the next Oireachtas

2 The provisions of the Court Bill, 2001, in relation to the financial limits of the courts, should be brought into force, and the Courts Service should bring forward proposals to reform the courts as a matter of urgency.


3 The Government should negotiate a common European market protection for insurance policyholders against the insolvency of an insurer.


5 The Irish Financial Services Regulatory Authority should facilitate the placement of Irish motor insurance business outside the jurisdiction by amending existing regulations.


6 An arrangement should be entered into between insurance companies and hospitals that would refund hospitals for the cost of treating injured persons at normal health insurance rates but that would avoid the pursuit of individuals to make claims on insurance companies.


7 The Government should establish an expert group that would consider the information now published by the PIAB on the levels of awards in the Irish courts, the levels of UK awards and the levels of awards in other jurisdictions. This group would recommend a level of awards that would be appropriate to Ireland. The recommendations of the group should be published in draft form to allow all interested parties, including representatives of victims, to make submissions on the proposals.


13Legislation should be introduced to permit the keeping of central records on claimants by insurance companies, subject to appropriate safeguards.


24Where a policyholder objects to a settlement of a claim by an insurer, the insurer should not be able to settle the claim unless, having asked for an arbitrator to consider the issue, the arbitrator finds in favour of the insurer. The losing party should pay for the arbitration.


28All regulatory barriers or regulatory impositions on insurance companies that make entry to the Irish market (for Irish or other EU companies) more difficult than to any other EU country should be removed by the Irish Financial Services Regulatory Authority immediately.


30The Taxing Master should not be, nor have been, a member of the legal profession. The decisions of the Taxing Master should be subject to appeal to a lay appeals body.


31In-house barristers should have a right to appear in court in defence of claims against the insurance companies that employ them.


36An annual awards scheme should be introduced to recognise the companies that have had no accidents for several years and those that have made a significant effort to improve safety.


37The Health and Safety Authority and the insurance companies should specify appropriate health and safety standards with a view to offering premium reductions for companies that comply with such standards.


40Organisations, meeting certain financial criteria, should be able to self-insure for all motor risks.


45Insurance companies should provide significant incentives / penalties to young drivers between the ages of 17 and 25 to use governor or cruise control limits in cars.


55The National Council for Curriculum and Assessment should make early provision for the inclusion of the driver theory test for secondary school students as part of their Transition Year studies. In addition, secondary schools should be required to provide simulated driving instruction for all students on reaching 17 years.


58In order to encourage drivers to stay within the speed limits, all insurance companies should be required to offer significant discounts to drivers who voluntarily accept monitoring of their speeds; these discounts to vary depending on the perceived risk and to be substantial for young drivers.


E Recommendations Not Accepted

4The 2 per cent levy, which is now merely a source of tax revenue, should be abolished.


57The proposed Road Safety Authority should be independent in the carrying out of its functions and should be adequately and jointly funded by the Exchequer and the insurance companies, to finance its activities.


F Recommendation Withdrawn

22The Irish Financial Services Regulatory Authority, in the interests of transparency, should publish the justification given by insurance companies for changes in their premiums.


Recommendations of the July 2006 Road Safety Report

Education, Training and Licensing (Section 6)

  1. First-time applicants should not be issued with provisional licences until they have undertaken a course of driving instruction of at least four hours from approved driving instructors.
  2. Provisional licence holders should be subject to a speed limit of 80 kph until they receive a full licence.
  3. An extensive programme of road safety instruction should be compulsory for school children at first and second levels.
  4. Instruction in the Driver Theory Test should be compulsory in second-level schools.
  5. A pilot programme on the use of simulators should be undertaken as soon as possible with a view to a future requirement that all applicants for a (full) licence should be required to have spent a minimum period on a driving simulator and to have achieved an acceptable standard of driving on the simulator.

Motor Vehicles (Section 7)

  1. The Road Safety Authority should publicise the existence of the euroncap.com website so that consumers become aware of the safety standard of the cars they are purchasing. All motor dealers should be required to inform purchasers of new and used cars of the safety rating of the vehicle.
  2. The Road Safety Authority should prohibit the entry on to the market of all vehicles, new and used, that do not meet a satisfactory safety standard.
  3. The Road Safety Authority should publish a programme to improve the safety standard and safety features of all imported vehicles over a period of three years.
  4. The Road Safety Authority should consider whether imported left-hand drive cars can be driven safely on Irish roads by those who are living in Ireland.

Road Engineering (Section 8)

  1. The next Road Safety Strategy should provide targets for reductions in the level of fatalities for the National Roads Authority and each local authority in the areas for which they are responsible.
  2. The National Roads Authority should be responsible for the speed limits on all national routes, motorways and dual carriageways.
  3. The National Roads Authority should urgently conduct a safety audit of all national roads, dual carriageways and motorways and institute a programme to remove, or surround with a guard rail, all items such as trees, lamp posts, bridges, drains, etc., which may bring about fatalities in the event of a crash by a motor vehicle.
  4. The National Roads Authority should immediately make provision for lay-bys and service areas on all motorways, dual carriageways and national primary routes so as to assist drivers to take breaks and obtain food and beverages that would help to maintain their concentration on their driving.
  5. The National Roads Authority should prepare a programme to convert all national primary roads into dual carriageways or ‘two plus one’ roads so that oncoming vehicles cannot crash into one another in those areas where there are not plans to upgrade the road to motorway standard.

Insurance Companies and Road Safety (Section 9)

  1. The Department of Transport should procure an Electronic Data Recorder (EDR) or ‘Black Box’ system for Ireland, by seeking proposals to install EDRs in all publicly owned and publicly contracted vehicles at the earliest possible date, to provide information to the emergency services, insurance companies, the Road Safety Authority and others through a communications centre.
  2. Insurance companies should cooperate with the establishment of an electronic data recorder system so as to improve their knowledge of the reasons for road accidents and to enable them to compete more effectively for motor insurance business in the future.
  3. Insurance companies should give a discount on premiums to policyholders who voluntarily install an EDR.
  4. Insurance companies should not grant insurance cover to a person who has not received driving instruction from a qualified driving instructor.
  5. Insurance companies should structure their offers of insurance for persons up to age 25 to strongly encourage young persons to drive safely and avoid accidents.
  6. Insurance companies should provide, or arrange to provide, driving instruction and advanced driving instruction for persons from 17 to 25 in order for the young persons to obtain a reduction in the cost of insurance.
  7. Insurance companies should offer persons who have been found to be driving in excess of the blood alcohol limit a choice of fitting an alcohol detector or a loading of their premium.
  8. Insurance companies should give allowances that would encourage safety features in motor vehicles.
  9. The Road Safety Authority should consider making it a requirement that all new cars supplied to the Irish market would have cruise-control capacity.

Enforcement (Section 10)

  1. Enforcement of the road traffic rules relating to potential fatalities should be intensified for the next year.
  2. Priority should be given to bringing additional speed cameras into operation throughout the country.
  3. The Gardaí should actively seek to obtain assistance from the public and professional drivers (for example, the drivers of road haulage vehicles) in the detection of drivers who may be contravening the traffic laws.
  4. The Minister for Transport should consider how the requirements of boy racers might be met by the provision of special facilities with a view to removing the boy racers from the public roads and housing estates where they are engaging in anti-social behaviour.

Contribution by the Motor Industry and Driver Organisations (Section 11)

  1. Motor manufacturers and the sellers of motor vehicles, including sellers of second-hand vehicles, should make a much greater contribution to ensuring the safe use of their products in Ireland.
  2. The Automobile Association and other Irish motoring organisations should consider what contribution they could make to reducing fatalities on Irish roads.

Recommendations in Final report


59. All imported vehicles should have the following fitted by 31 December 2008:


  1. An electronic data recorder,
  2. Controls to ensure that the vehicle does not start until all persons in the vehicle have safety belts fastened,
  3. Improved types of safety belts that are proven to increase the chances of survival in the event of a collision,
  4. Cruise control that will make it easier to comply with speed limits,
  5. ESP systems that improve driver control in slippery conditions.

60. Insurance companies should:


  1. Reward good workplace health and safety practices by means of a verifiable and robust system to be worked out with industry,
  2. Give incentives to small companies that have health and safety statements in place and named persons responsible for health and safety,
  3. Provide greater support in the promotion of workplace health and safety.
  1. The Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment should introduce legislation to permit PIAB to deal directly with claimants.
  2. The Financial Regulator should make arrangements to obtain and publish the information required by PIAB.
  3. The Government should allocate responsibility for continuous reform of the insurance sector to one Government department.
  4. A motor vehicle agency should be established by the Department of Transport to:
    1. Establish and maintain a database of information on motor vehicles and drivers for use by the Gardaí,
    2. Pursue by administrative means the owners of motor vehicles that have not renewed their insurance, have not taxed their vehicles and whose vehicles have not passed the NCT tests,
    3. Reduce substantially the level of uninsured driving on Irish roads.

1 Martin Brady T.D. replaced Conor Lenihan T.D. by Order of the Dáil on 16 November 2004.


2 Pat Breen T.D. replaced Gerard Murphy T.D. by Order of the Dáil on 20 October 2004.


3 Breeda Moynihan-Cronin T.D. replaced Kathleen Lynch T.D. by Order of the Dáil on 18 May 2006.


4 Ned O’Keeffe T.D. replaced Ollie Wilkinson T.D. by Order of the Dáil on 17 February 2005.


5 Ruairí Quinn T.D. replaced Brendan Howlin T.D. by Order of the Dáil on 18 May 2006.


6 Senator Joe O’Toole replaced Senator Shane Ross by Order of the Seanad on 6 July 2006.


1 Cost Benefit Parameters and Application Rules for Transport, Goodbody Economic Consultants, 2004