Cé gur tugadh úinéirí na dtithe tábhairne FBD os comhair na cúirte agus cé go raibh bua acu sa chúirt, tá comhlachtaí amuigh ansin le polasaithe árachais a chosnaíonn iad in éadan Covid-19 agus níl na comhlachtaí árachais ag cloí leis na polasaithe sin. Caithfidh Banc Ceannais na hÉireann gníomhú air seo. In May last year, four pubs launched a High Court action against FBD Insurance. These businesses had nowhere left to turn so they decided to fight their corner in the courts. The case revolved around the issue of business interruption insurance and whether they were covered as a result of the Government's closure in response to the Covid-19 outbreak. Soon after the Government's order to close, I received hundreds of insurance policies from those who have been forced to close. It became clear to me that many of them had cover, while others had a very strong case. Despite this, insurance companies were refusing to accept indemnity.

I raised the specific case of FBD policy on the floor of the Dáil in March last year and again in April, and I have raised the issue many times since. As we know, the same is happening with insurance firms in Britain, but the regulator there, the Financial Conduct Authority, FCA, took action. It reached out to businesses and gathered a sample of 21 different types of insurance policies, which form part of the FCA's court action. This ensured a binding result for as many businesses as possible. The FCA did this in the public interest and to enhance its consumer protection mandate. Last month, it won its case. The decision is legally binding on eight insurers in Britain and thousands of businesses will receive payouts, a financial lifeline for so many of them that are struggling at this time.

I have previously called on the Central Bank of Ireland to intervene in a similar manner, including in March and April last year. I have called on the Government to support that call. The Central Bank and the Government took no action at that time and that is why the four pubs were forced to defend themselves in the courts. Last week, thankfully, the High Court ruled in their favour and against FBD and judged that these businesses were covered for business interruption as a result of Covid-19. Now they will receive compensation to which they were entitled all along. The judgment could affect up to 1,300 other businesses that hold similar policies with FBD. However, thousands of other businesses have similar but not identical policies with other insurers. We know the industry is still trying to wriggle out of paying these valid claims. As the CEO of the Restaurants Association of Ireland has made clear, insurance companies, including AIG, Aviva, Allianz, RSA and QBE, are still dragging their heels and refusing to pay even interim payments to businesses. This needs to stop.

There are two options. Either the Central Bank intervenes, as I have been calling for since as far back as last March, or there will be a wave of litigation at a cost that is too high for many small businesses. Since March last year, I have been calling for the Central Bank to intervene. Business interruption risks becoming the tracker mortgage scandal of the insurance industry. I wrote to the Governor of the Central Bank and to the Tánaiste again last week requesting that the Central Bank undertake an examination similar to the tracker mortgage examination. This would mean an audit of all business interruption insurance policies, intrusive supervision of claims handling, handling claims speedily and the enforcement of a strict sanction regime. This is what business needs. The Central Bank has always had this power and role but it refuses to use it.

Will the Tánaiste support my request for the Central Bank to stand up for small businesses and undertake an examination of business interruption insurance across the insurance industry?

The decision of the High Court last week is very significant. The High Court ruled in favour of four pubs that have business interruption policies with FBD. There is yet to be a decision on the quantum. That will be adjudicated in the courts later this month. In that sense, this case is still active and we need to bear that in mind. The ruling could have implications for other small businesses and companies that have similar policies with this insurer or others. It is important that we all examine the implications of this judgment.

On the role of the Central Bank, the Deputy knows that it is an independent regulator. It operates independent of Government and it does not take direction from Government. Over the course of the past few months and even in the past year, the Deputy has called on the Government to intervene to direct the Central Bank to do something. The Deputy does not say those things because he is stupid; he is not a stupid man. He says those things because he hopes other people are stupid and he believes that they may think that the Government has this power of intervention; it does not. The Central Bank is independent. It is an independent regulator and it has to decide for itself whether it is going to intervene or get involved in this particular matter. I know the Central Bank is aware of this issue and that it is examining it. It will make a determination independently, as an independent Central Bank should. The Central Bank is not subject to any direction from Government. Any calls the Deputy makes to Government to somehow intervene or direct the Central Bank to do something are totally disingenuous. They are an attempt by him to mislead people in small business, to pretend that he is on their side when he knows full well the Central Bank is independent and Government cannot direct it to do these things.

That is a shocking response from the Tánaiste who has ministerial responsibility for enterprise. The Tánaiste said that I am trying mislead businesses that I am on their side. I have met the Central Bank privately and discussed with it the need for an examination of this issue similar to the tracker mortgage examination. I have provided it with documentation in regard to how insurance companies are wriggling out of policies. The Central Bank asked for that documentation. There is nothing preventing us as Members of the Oireachtas, or the Tánaiste as Minister, sharing the same type of information and supporting my request. The Central Bank will makes its own decision. The Tánaiste should not try to wriggle out of the situation. The reality is he led the Government last year. I put this case to him and he washed his hands of it. He did nothing. I will give an example. A local hairdresser in Donegal has a policy with QBE.

Under the terms, she is covered for interruption or interference of the business in consequence of the following event: an occurrence of a notifiable disease within a radius of 25 miles of the premises. That is covered in the policy but a local business that employs a number of people in a local community does not have the resources to fight it through the courts.

That is why we in this House need to make a united call for the Central Bank to intervene now, as has happened across the water, to ensure that its consumer protection role, which has been gifted to it by the Houses of the Oireachtas, is enacted. I would appreciate if the Tánaiste, instead of criticising me and what I am trying to do on behalf of these businesses, would maybe make a stand on behalf of the businesses and support me in my call. I have written to him, as he requested me to do, saying what needs to be done.

I thank the Deputy. The situation is, and he knows this full well, that the Government cannot interfere in court cases, full stop. His attempts to call on Government to interfere in court cases is totally disingenuous. Nor can the Government direct the Central Bank-----

I raised the issue of the court case before.

The only reason the Deputy needs to shout me down when I answer is that he does not want people to hear the truth. That is the only reason that he has to try to shout me down every time I try to answer. He knows full well that the Government cannot interfere in court cases. He knows full well that the Government cannot direct an independent regulator like the Central Bank. The Central Bank is aware of the issue and has been apprised of the issue - it was apprised of it long before the Deputy did anything about it. It is examining the situation and it will be up to the Central Bank to decide on the appropriate course of action.

In the meantime, the case has happened. It was an important test case and I pay tribute to those who took that case. I think it is good that FBD Insurance said that it would cover the cost, whatever the outcome. I pay tribute to the people who took the case. We now have case law that says that cases like this are argued and adjudicated in favour of the clients. We will see in the next few weeks - this case is still active - what the quantum is and what the implications are for other businesses.

Tá mé ag bogadh ar aghaidh. The next speaker is Deputy Catherine Murphy for the Social Democrats.