Before I call on the Minister of State, I welcome the pupils from Castlebridge National School, County Wexford. You are all very welcome guests of Deputy George Lawlor. As is customary, there is no homework for the rest of the week. Thank you very much. Enjoy your visit. The Minister of State and his officials are very welcome.

I welcome the opportunity to address the House on the action plan for insurance reform 2025-29 and provide an update on progress since its publication in July 2025. The objective of the current reform programme is clear, namely to support an insurance market that is more transparent, competitive and affordable. There are challenging conditions globally that impact on insurance costs locally, yet I am committed to continuing to make a difference to people's insurance premiums.

The current plan builds on the progress made under the 2020 action plan, which delivered significant change, including the introduction of the personal injury guidelines, changes to the duty of care and legislative enhancements to the Injuries Resolution Board. These measures have improved consistency and predictability in the claims environment, reduced compensation levels in important areas and created a more stable basis for further reform. Despite the progress that has been made, too many consumers and small businesses are still not feeling the full benefits of the reforms in their pockets. Premiums in some areas remain stubbornly high. While the trend in motor insurance premiums has overall been downwards, with prices 35.5% lower than their peak in 2016, there have been recent increases which are of understandable concern. However, we have seen successive reductions in insurance premiums over the past four months, as well as reductions in house insurance premiums over the past ten months. I will admit that these reductions are small, but they point towards progress and the success of the Government's reform programme.

It is important to acknowledge that these recent price pressures are not unique to Ireland. They reflect wider global inflationary factors, including higher repair costs due to advanced vehicle technology, ongoing supply chain issues and labour shortages. It is right to be honest with the House today. While we do not know the ultimate impact of the war in Iran, we know global supply chains have been disrupted significantly and sales of more advanced electric vehicles are increasing. These factors are likely to have an impact on premiums through scarcity of parts and higher repair costs. However, we need to remain focused on tackling domestic cost drivers and ensuring consumers receive the full benefit of the reforms we have implemented.

One of the most important areas of ongoing work is addressing the cost of claims. If affordability is to improve in a meaningful and sustainable way, this proportionate cost must be addressed. According to the latest national claims information database, NCID, data for litigated claims that settled for less than €100,000, legal costs represented 47% of the total claim cost or 95% of the compensation cost, on average. The latest NCID data shows that 85% of all personal injury claims in private motor insurance are now being resolved under the personal injury guidelines. For employer's liability and public liability insurance, the figure is 64%. This marks a substantial and continual shift away from the previous book of quantum framework and shows that the reforms introduced in recent years are becoming embedded in the system.

The NCID data also highlights the importance of the Injuries Resolution Board as the State's most efficient and cost-effective mechanism for resolving personal injury claims. Awards made through the board are broadly comparable to those achieved through litigation, while being delivered in significantly less time and at a fraction of the cost. These kinds of cost savings can make an important difference to people's lives. I ask all those engaging with members of the public who need to make a claim to direct them towards the Injuries Resolution Board. It is faster and cheaper and offers a comparable award. I would also like to point out the independence of the NCID data. It is an authoritative source when it comes to claims information and its impact on the entire market.

Some people in the legal profession are attempting to absolve themselves of the role they play in high premiums, but the NCID data is clear when it comes to legal costs. This is something that every insurance customer should know. If people need to make a claim and do so outside of the Injuries Resolution Board, those higher costs will work their way into premiums over time. We need to strengthen the Injuries Resolution Board and put it on a legislative footing which removes the option of litigation in certain cases. This sits under the remit of the Department of Enterprise, Tourism and Employment and I look forward to hearing an update on progress from the Minister, Deputy Burke, at the next meeting of the Cabinet subcommittee on insurance reform at the end of the month.

One area where progress has been made in terms of injuries awards is the work of the Minister, Deputy O'Callaghan, on the proposed Judicial Council (amendment) Bill 2026. The Bill will bring greater consistency and clarity to the review process for personal injuries guidelines, strengthen transparency and ensure that proposed changes are subject to assessment of the wider economic and policy implications.

An important development under the action plan was the publication of the motor insurance transparency code in March. Approximately 98% of the private motor market and 2.2 million policyholders will be covered by the code when it is fully implemented.

This is a significant step forward in improving transparency, trust and consumer understanding. It is the first of its kind in Europe and highlights the fact that we are not just sticking to the status quo but are looking at innovative methods of reform. The code will provide policyholders with a new premium summary statement at quotation and renewal showing the previous premium, the new premium, the difference between the two and the major factors influencing price. It will also provide an annual market overview statement explaining the broader market factors such as legal and repair costs. Implementation is now progressing on a phased basis with consumers expected to begin seeing this information in their quotation and renewal documents from the third quarter of this year. In addition, the code will be formally reviewed within 18 months, with the Central Bank of Ireland reporting on insurance industry adherence to the code and the impact on transparency for consumers. It is my hope that arming consumers with this level of information will improve competition in the market. I am hopeful that we will see greater uptake of switching behaviour, which leads to better deals for consumers.

On the subject of competition, the office to promote competition in the insurance market also continues to play a central role in engaging with insurers, brokers and sectoral representatives to address availability issues and encourage new market entrants. This work has contributed to a significant reduction in long-standing insurance pinch points and new entrants such as OUTsurance and Coverwise. The number of remaining pinch points has now reduced to three, namely, thatched buildings, motorcycle racing and certain aerial activities. Engagement with stakeholders in relation to these areas is ongoing and I will continue to work to increase the availability of insurance for these sectors. In the coming weeks I will be meeting members of the Alliance for Insurance Reform to hear what it is experiencing and to identify where policy can support it.

I also want to note the international dimension of the office to promote competition in the insurance market. To be clear, the objective is to foster a supportive, competitive and sustainable environment for international insurance activity in Ireland. Work will focus on international engagement, market intelligence and development; international positioning; engagement on the authorisation environment for new entrants; and development of speciality insurance. Taken together these work streams provide a focused, evidence-based framework to deepen international participation, enhance competition and support a more dynamic insurance market. This work will be complimented by the next Ireland for Finance strategy which will seek to further highlight Ireland as a global hub for insurance.

Before I call the next speaker, I welcome the second group of students and teachers from Castlebridge National School, County Wexford, who are also guests of Deputy George Lawlor. The last class got no homework for the rest of the week and so will your class. Enjoy your visit here. I would also like to welcome Cyril and Karen Brennan, who are here as guests of Senator Craughwell. They are here to mark cardiovascular day.

Finally, I want to give a big shout out to our guests the Distinguished Visitors Gallery, the former Member and Minister of State, Mr. Hugh Byrne and his wife, Vanessa, and their grandson, Max, from Germany. You are all very welcome here today and I hope you enjoy your visit.

The next speaker is Senator Casey.

I welcome the Minister of State to the House again this afternoon. I also welcome the opportunity to speak on insurance reform and particularly its very real impact on the SME sector, retailers and the wider business community. It is an impact that I am experiencing myself. This is not an abstract policy issue but something we hear about constantly from small business owners on the main street, from cafés, childcare providers and employers trying to keep their doors open in an already challenging environment. While it is important to begin by acknowledging progress, we must also be honest about the challenges that remain.

There has been progress. Reforms introduced in recent years, particularly around personal injury costs and the establishment of the Injuries Resolution Board have helped to stabilise parts of the system. We have also seen improvements in transparency and early signs of increased market competition. Those advances matter and do make a difference. They show that reform can work. However, for many SMEs, the experience on the ground tells a more complicated story because what businesses, including my own, have experienced is very clear. It is not just premiums that are the problem any more; it is the quality of cover. Businesses are increasingly facing higher excesses, tighter exclusions and reduced levels of protection. Every year we have to sit down and look at the cost of the replacement of our buildings, fixtures and fittings, payroll, turnover and our excess. We are all of the time, every year, reducing our cover and exposing ourselves to further costs. In other words, we are not just paying more but are also carrying more of the risks ourselves. If we measure success purely by headline premiums, we are missing what is actually happening in the real economy. The real test of reform is whether businesses can obtain affordable, reliable cover that genuinely protects them but in too many cases, they cannot.

This brings me to the first key issue, which is transparency. For a long time insurance has operated like a black box. Premiums go up and down and customers, whether individuals or businesses, are left guessing as to why. The new transparency measures are a step in the right direction and I welcome the Minister of State's leadership in that regard. Providing clear information at renewal on what was paid last year, what is being charged now and the reasons behind charges is a simple but important shift. It provides information that is critical. When businesses understand what is driving their costs, whether that is claims trends, repair costs, or inflation, they are in a stronger position to make decisions to shop around and to manage that risk.

Transparency on its own is not enough, however. We need real competition. If we want a sustainable reduction in our costs we need providers in the market and more meaningful choice for customers. Some sectors have no choice and have only one insurance provider while others still cannot get insurance at all at the moment. While we have seen some new entrants, progress must be actively driven. The office to promote competition in the insurance market has a critical role to play here and it must be properly resourced and supported through delivery because without that urgency, SMEs will continue to face limited options and persistent cost pressures.

Perhaps the most significant issue we must address is the cost of claims, particularly legal costs. The data here is very clear. For routine claims the level of compensation awarded through the Injuries Resolution Board and through litigation is broadly similar but the route taken makes a massive difference. A larger majority of cases still proceed through litigation, a process that is significantly slower and significantly more expensive. Cases that could be resolved in around two years are taking longer than six years. Anybody in business that has a claim against it knows that every year that comes around, it is paying a premium on a premium. If a business pays that premium on a premium for six years, it amounts to a significant sum of money. That needs to be addressed. Even at the end of the process if the claim is found to be fraudulent or no award is made there is no redress for the business and no way to get any of that premium on a premium back.

Hear, hear.

Legal costs, which are modest through the Injuries Resolution Board, can escalate dramatically in the courts. We have a system where similar outcomes are achieved but at far greater cost and delay. That is not satisfactory for SMEs, policyholders or claimants. The direction of reform here must be clear. We need to ensure that more suitable cases are resolved through the Injuries Resolution Board rather than simply passing through it on the way to litigation. We should also examine whether the board can play a stronger role as the first instance decision-making body in straightforward cases. At the same time, we must address the issue of legal costs proportionality. The principle already exists in parts of our court system and we now need to see it applied more consistently across personal injuries litigation. There must also be progress on the proposed Judicial Council (amendment) Bill to ensure the stability of the personal injuries guidelines and to avoid renewed upward pressure on awards. We should also be cautious about proposals that could unintentionally drive costs back up, including increases in court jurisdiction limits. Experience shows that changes like this can lead to higher awards and those higher awards inevitably translate into higher insurance premiums.

This issue is about more than economics. It is about fairness and trust. It is about ensuring businesses can operate with competence, communities can retain their local services and people feel the system is working for them, not against them. When we step back and take a look at the overall picture, the path forward is clear. We must build on the progress made, improve transparency and understanding, actively drive competition and tackle the structural costs within the legal claims system. Without addressing those underlying issues, the burden on SMEs will remain. Insurance reform is not a single event but an ongoing process. If we are serious about supporting SMEs and sustaining our local economies, that process must deliver not just headline figures but real, tangible change in the day-to-day reality of running a business in this country.

I thank the Minister of State for being here. As my colleague just noted, the issue we are addressing is very serious and very topical. Public confidence is being eroded in the essential service that is the insurance industry. This is especially so when we focus on the likes of motor insurance. It is an issue that affects all of us, including young people, essential service providers, etc. Time and again, I see motor insurance premiums increasing while claims are reducing and accident rates have fallen. Road safety has improved across the board. Vehicles are safer, technology is better and public awareness is higher than ever. Yet, despite all that progress, premiums and excesses continue to rise.

That seems to be a contradiction. Many of us are asking the simple question of why we are paying more when the risk is going down. I see this in my own business. Senator Casey pointed out that for SME owners, the temptation is often there to underwrite oneself, but then one thinks about the act of God clause whereby one could lose everything. I know people who have taken the risk of underwriting themselves and they are saving money at this moment in time.

The truth about the current system - again, with particular reference to motor insurance - is that it lacks transparency on both pricing and payouts. Customers do not know how their premiums are calculated but they do know that one driver might be paying €700 while another pays €2,000. They do not know why a reduction in claims does not translate into a reduction in the cost of premiums. One of my colleagues detailed in the House a couple of weeks ago how when she went to renew her insurance, the price given online was €400. She did not sign up for it that day and when she went back the following day, the cost given was €800. There is no transparency in how premiums are calculated. Insurers are not required to show us how it all works. That is not how a fair market should operate. What is in operation is a closed system. The public is carrying the burden while the whole rationale behind pricing remains hidden.

The group most affected by this, and mostly ignored, are young drivers. We see young people coming through the services at Tiglin whom we are helping into housing and education. When we try to help them to get on the road, they find they are facing premiums of anywhere between €3,000 and €5,000 even when driving older, low-powered vehicles. This affects students, apprentices and people entering the workplace. They are people who are trying to build their future. We are telling them to get jobs and to contribute, yet before they even start, they face an insurance bill that makes up a large proportion of their annual income.

I understand there is a Cabinet sub-group on insurance reform but I am not sure whether it is ticking all the boxes. This is not just an economic issue. It is costing society in a huge way. I have spoken to parents who feel ashamed that they cannot help their children to afford a car. Often, the car itself is the cheapest thing to buy; the insurance is where the problem starts. I have also spoken to a lot of rural families who feel abandoned because, without a car, they are cut off from employment, education and often healthcare as well. For many people in rural areas, a car is not optional. Not everybody lives beside a bus route or has access to a rail link. People in rural Ireland cannot just be told to take public transport.

We need mandatory transparency regarding how insurance is priced, and insurers must publish that data. It must include how premiums are set, how risk is assessed and how a reduction in claims translates into pricing. Without that transparency, we do not have accountability. We also need fair treatment, as I mentioned, for young drivers. That means ending blanket risk categorisation. We used to have that for women drivers, who were offered premiums at half the cost of those for male drivers. There was a whole issue there around gender equality. We must reward safe behaviour and ensure premiums reflect actual driving records.

We also need stronger regulatory oversight. The State must have the power to challenge unjustified increases, demand data and intervene when the market fails consumers. At the enterprise committee, I have often raised with the heads of the insurance industry how insurance costs are spiralling. My colleague Senator Nelson Murray has done the same. We were told there is a sub-group on insurance reform and any issues should be brought to it. We need the Government to do more on insurance reform. People deserve a system that protects them, not one that penalises certain cohorts.

I welcome to the Gallery pupils from St. Joseph's National School in west Cork, who are guests of our colleague Senator O'Donovan. They are very welcome and I hope they enjoy their visit. As is customary for visitors to the Seanad, they are advised that they will have no homework for the rest of the week.

I am sharing time with Senator Ní Chuilinn. I sometime feel I am like a broken record when it comes to talking about insurance. I have spoken a lot about it to the Minister of State. The message coming from businesses, community groups and voluntary organisations across Ireland is now impossible to ignore. Despite years of reform, too many people are still not seeing fairness in the insurance market. A recent report found that 62% of respondents have seen increases in their public and employer liability premiums. A total of 17% have only one insurer willing to quote them or no insurer at all. Of the respondents, 82% said they have not seen significant benefits from insurance reform. That is sad. A total of 59% have seen higher excesses, new exclusions added to their policies, or both.

The reality is that premiums are rising, competition is weak, cover is shrinking and the benefits of reform are simply not reaching the people paying bills. I offer the Minister of State one very stark example, which I am sure will really surprise him. An organisation has shared figures with me showing that over a five-year period, it spent €7 million on insurance premiums, while its claims cost amounted to just €900,000. That may represent an excellent return on investment for the insurer but not for the business paying those premiums. The difference over five years was €6 million. What about the jobs, services, community activities and investment that money could have supported instead?

Before we discuss what more needs to be done, it is important to acknowledge what has already been done. Over recent years, Ireland has introduced some of the most significant insurance reforms in decades. The personal injury guidelines have replaced the book of quantum, the Injuries Resolution Board has been strengthened, the national claims information database has delivered unprecedented transparency regarding claims, payments, settlements, legal costs and insurance profitability, the Garda insurance fraud co-ordination unit has been established and the law on occupiers' duty of care has been changed - a reform of which I personally am proud. Insurance reform has remained firmly on the political agenda through successive Government action plans and by way of continued engagement by Ministers, including the Minister of State, Deputy Troy, with Members of the Oireachtas.

Since July 2025, we have a new insurance reform action plan, which I check once a month to see where we are at. It is a clear statement of Government intent, with more than 60 organisations from across Ireland contributing to that consultation process, alongside four political parties that are genuinely interested in reform. The political parties who contributed are Fine Gael, the Green Party, the Labour Party and the Social Democrats.

That tells us something important: political parties, businesses, sports clubs, charities and community groups are all hearing the same message from people on the ground, that is, the insurance system in Ireland is not working as it should. The data show that many of the reforms are working. Claims and award levels are falling. Personal injury guidelines are being applied in a growing proportion of cases and claims through the Injuries Resolution Board are being resolved faster and with dramatically lower legal costs than cases that go through litigation.

It is also important to remember why the guidelines matter in the first place. Government-commissioned research found that even after reform, average Irish awards for minor neck and back soft tissue injuries remain nearly four times higher than in England and Wales through the Injuries Resolution Board, while insurance settlements were almost five times higher. The question is no longer whether reform was necessary; it clearly was.

The question now is why policyholders are still not feeling the benefit. Why are businesses still struggling with affordability? Why are community organisations still struggling to get cover? Why is competition still so weak? Why are insurers not passing on the savings generated by these reforms? This is my biggest thing. While reforms are visible in the claims data, they are not visible enough in renewal notices landing on kitchen tables and office desks around the country. This has real-world consequences. Sports clubs, community centres and local festivals are being squeezed out of activities that were once considered normal.

Two weeks ago, someone contacted me to ask how they would get insurance for a bouncy castle for the village fun day. I had to say they did not have a chance. The answer effectively was that they would just not be able to do it. Last year, when helping to organise activities for a local GAA family day, insurers said that no inflatables or bouncing activities for children could be included. The very things children enjoy most are now viewed as uninsurable. That is how disconnected the market has become from ordinary community life.

When we look specifically at litigation, the figures become even more alarming. Claims through the Injuries Resolution Board take approximately two years, while claims through litigation take six years. Legal costs through the Injuries Resolution Board cost €1,000. Legal costs through litigation cost €25,000. The average legal cost for claims under €150,000 now exceeds the compensation itself. This is extraordinarily difficult to justify to the public. Reducing the litigation premium must now be one of the central objectives of the next phase of insurance reform. The purpose of reform was never simply to reduce claims costs within the system, it was to improve affordability, availability and fairness to the people and the organisations who rely on insurance every single day. That means measuring success on whether business, sports clubs, charities, cultural organisations and community groups see lower premiums, better access to cover, more competition and stronger quality of cover.

We now need to move decisively on the key actions in the Government's action plan. Action 3 is to strengthen the powers and remit of the Injuries Resolution Board. Action 6 is to consider and make recommendations on the scale of legal fees. Spain operates structured legal compensation scales. Germany applies regulated legal fee structures linked to claim value. France uses standardised scales across personal injury cases. Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia utilise fixed-fee systems rather than openly based hourly billing. Ireland cannot continue with a system where legal costs regularly exceed compensation.

We need progress on expanding the offers for more competition in the insurance market, supporting a truly functioning Europe-wide insurance market and proactively attracting international insurers into the market. There has not been a single new entrant into Ireland on public liability insurance in 11 years. This alone tells us there is something fundamentally wrong with competition in the market. What reasons are the insurers giving the Minister of State?

We must continue to aggressively tackle fraud. Action 12 rightly focuses on stronger penalties and intelligence sharing between insurers and An Garda Síochána. In 2023 there were six convictions, and there were nine convictions in the first six months of 2024. I am sure there are plenty more to be investigated. The central issue remains unchanged. If reforms are reducing claims costs, reducing awards and improving efficiencies then those savings must finally start appearing in the premiums.

The Minister of State said at the outset that he is committed to making a difference to insurance premiums, so let us do that. I am a little bit concerned that his opening statement already made an excuse for increases in motor insurance claims because of Iran and the things that are happening in the world. He should not let that be music to insurers' ears. I thank him for saying he is working with the thatched houses organisation, the motorcycle groups and aerial adventure companies. I am delighted that he is meeting the Alliance for Insurance Reform because until businesses, clubs and community groups feel the difference in their renewal notices, many people will continue to believe the system is working for everyone except the customer.

I wish to raise the impact of insurance on sports, community participation and voluntary activity. This is something that my colleague, Senator Nelson Murray, has raised and I will expand on it. Public liability insurance is not an abstract cost for sports clubs and community organisations. It affects whether training can happen; whether events can go ahead; whether volunteers can be supported; and whether facilities can open to the public.

Recently, a small GAA club in east Galway had to find almost €7,000 to pay its insurance premium. It was a 20% increase on the previous year, despite having no claims in that period. Insurance now accounts for around 12% of that club's total annual revenue. For a volunteer-run organisation, that is money that cannot be spent on underage coaching, facilities or even jerseys. That example shows why this matters. The reforms delivered in recent years are welcome but the practical test is whether clubs and community organisations can obtain affordable and usable public liability cover.

As Senator Nelson Murray has pointed out, competition is a serious part of the problem. In many areas of public liability insurance, sports bodies, charities, community groups and voluntary organisations have very limited realistic options. If there are only one or two underwriters willing to quote or if cover comes with high excesses and exclusions, then the organisation may technically have insurance but not in a way that is genuinely usable. The consequence is not just a higher bill but fewer events and activities and more risk being carried by volunteers and less opportunity for people to participate.

I urge the Minister of State to ensure that sporting, community and voluntary organisations are specifically considered in the action plan implementation in order that reform is judged on whether they can obtain affordable and usable public liability cover. Could he take away the issues raised in the BDO report commissioned by the Department of rural and community development in 2023 on public liability insurance costs and the availability of insurance to the community and voluntary sector? It would be useful to establish whether the report has been finalised, if it has informed the insurance reform agenda across government and whether it can now be published.

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. I also welcome the opportunity to speak on insurance. I probably come a close second to my colleague, Senator Nelson Murray. We are always bringing up some kind of insurance issue in this House.

It is now six years since the Government first introduced an action plan on insurance reform. This was a move that probably would not have taken place if it was not for my colleague, Teachta Pearse Doherty, back in 2019, which kind of forced the hand of the Government to look at the issue of insurance in this country. We are a year into the second action plan, which leads me to the question of what has been the impact of the first action plan. The truth is the insurance companies have been permitted to operate a licence to print money, aided and abetted by light-touch regulation and a Government looking the other way. A long list of shady practices are utilised by insurance companies in the Irish market. In the finance committee, Aviva admitted to using dual pricing - a practice designed to identify customers that were likely to renew and then to punish them by giving them higher premiums.

Deputy Doherty then introduced the Consumer Insurance Contracts Bill to bring that to an end. What did the Government do even when this legislation passed through all Stages in the Oireachtas? It delayed it by two years at the behest of the insurance companies. For years, these companies have peddled lies. They said that fraudulent claims were the reason for skyrocketing insurance costs, yet they have only reported 1% of the claims to An Garda Síochána, despite stating repeatedly that 20% of claims were bogus.

During the pandemic, when businesses were on their knees with lockdowns and restricted openings, the first instinct of the insurers was to see how they could avoid paying out business interruption indemnity insurance. Their profits soared as they pocketed the supports intended for those small businesses. This was the backdrop of the Government's first action plan – one it launched while blocking critical aspects of the consumer insurance contracts Bill.

More legislation introduced by Sinn Féin – the Judicial Council (Amendment) Bill 2021 – has also been blocked by the Government. This would have forced the insurance companies to report to the Central Bank detailing how they have – or more importantly have not – passed on the savings as a result of the revised personal injury guidelines to consumers. It would have held the insurance companies and the industry to account and applied a downward pressure on prices but it was not supported by the Government. We are here to discuss a second action plan. What has changed for consumers in the meantime? Nothing to their benefit, as insurance companies continue to record grotesque profit margins. This is a fact they have tried to conceal by reporting their after-tax, rather than their pre-tax, profits.

Carzone's 2026 motoring report found that more than half of Irish drivers saw their insurance premiums increase last year and that the average cost of motor insurance across the State rose by 9% to €623 in 2024. Successive national claims information database reports highlight the same stark fact: the single largest cost in insurance premiums is the portion retained by the insurers themselves - the industry's price-cost mark-up. We have a 24-page action plan with a long list of things the Government will do, yet nowhere in the document does the Government commit to forcing the insurance companies to pass on to customers the savings they are already making rather than just boosting their own profits. In fact, the document does not mention the profits made by these companies at all.

This is a fig leaf designed to cover the Government's embarrassment. It will do nothing to assist small businesses being crippled by rising insurance costs nor those businesses that struggle to get cover at all. The Government states the action plan will control the controllable and tackle the cost of doing business, yet the key drivers to these costs - the cost of insurance, housing and energy - have all been ignored by the Government. That is why people were blocking the roads this April just gone. People have had enough of the transfer of wealth generated through their labour to the coffers of multinationals and big players. It is long past the time the Government worked on behalf of the people of this State and not at the behest of the wealthy and the powerful.

I brought up a case I myself had last week where I received a quote for an insurance premium the month before my insurance was due at €420, and because I forgot and stupidly did not take the insurance straight away, I had to try to get a quote the day before my insurance was due and it had risen to €950. It was because they knew I was desperate, they were able to play on that. There is not enough regulation around these insurance companies. They have to be held to account. I was lucky I was with a broker and could go back and take the original quote, but we have spoken in this House about thatched cottages and thatched houses, where the owners cannot even get a quote. They are limited to what they can take. If they cannot get insurance, they are then living in a home that is susceptible to damage and fire and they are taking it in their hands. If they had a fire, God forbid, they would lose everything and nothing to come back on.

This country used to be great. You used to be able to have so many different options for insurance, whether it was motor, house, thatched houses or for business. I see the business side of it as well. You do not see inflatables or bouncy castles for kids anymore. No person can get insurance for them. It has taken away the fun for children in that sense. You want to be able to run your business properly. There used to be a time where there were loads of indoor play centres and they would have had inflatables. Even for the indoor play centres now, the prices for them to get insurance are colossal. I looked at it 15 years ago and insurance cost €15,000 or €16,000 for the year. Unless it is a massive industry with a huge profit coming in, that is a lot to pay out for insurance. I would like to see the action plan looked at again or at least worked on and these insurance companies held to account. I am sorry, but they are making profits off what people just cannot afford anymore.

I hear and share the frustration of many of those who have seen either the opportunism of insurance companies or the obstacles placed by insurance companies who do not want to insure us in a situation and sometimes the obfuscation by insurance companies as to reasons premiums are high. They constantly suggest this is solely to do with litigation, which I think does not stand up any more, clearly. There is frustration and it is felt by how hard it becomes just to do the things that make up our lives together: to have social events, to have community events, or to take part in sports or in voluntary or community activities. These the things that are a lot of the lifeblood of society. As well, there are those living in areas that have been impacted in the past by floods or storms, who fear that again and who also can find themselves completely cut out.

I sat on the finance committee and I acknowledge that Deputy Doherty drove a lot of debate on that and others who were very active on the finance committee, probably more active than me, on that particular issue. I worry that in approaching the insurance debate, too many of the insurance companies that are currently in place and dominate the Irish market have been able to set the agenda for what should happen next. They have continued to drive the agenda and what we have seen is almost their recipe for what should happen. That is why that, even still, so much in the action plan is focusing on the fact that the customer needs to be more literate. We see very literate customers who are facing obstacles that are within the industry. We also see the question of insulating insurance companies from the impact of claims and trying to do everything possible to stop people exercising their rights in courts and all of that. There are a whole set of things there and what the insurance companies have put out is their recipe.

What there really has not been enough of is an actual challenging of the model. Why that is really interesting and important is, we have a very successful history of a different model in Ireland. Even action point 11 on enhancing market competitiveness is all very focused about trying to get other international companies or very large international insurers to enter the Irish market and then that will enhance competitiveness. Of course, the problem is that some of those companies, especially in areas like climate and others, have exercised similar practices on an international scale. What are not in the mix, and should be under point 11, and is maybe hinted at under point 14 on the idea of innovative concepts, are mutuals. Mutual insurance companies were the predominant model for a long period of time in Ireland and they were very successful. There were mutuals in the farming industry; it was insurance by farmers for farmers. There were mutuals that were widened to have an impact on credit to society. There is still one mutual insurance company operating within Ireland. The thing about mutuals is that they have a different focus because the policyholders are who they serve and the policy owners own the mutual. They literally serve communities and are owned by communities. That is different when we see what happened with a lot of those mutuals who served Ireland very well in the seventies and eighties, when they entered the stock market and became an investment product. A goal of a lot of the insurance companies is to return money to shareholders and often to do so in the short term, the short-term dividend model, whereas within mutual insurance models, which are not a radical idea and were standard practice in Ireland and many other parts of the world, the goal ultimately is that we have each other's backs and how we keep each other and support each other. Also, the goal is long term. They are not looking to profit, necessarily, with a great shareholding so their stock market shares go up this year, if, in the five- and ten-year period, they are able to deliver.

I urge the Minister of State, especially when I see the Government putting so much support into de-risking what are effectively for-profit industries in these insurance companies, to think about what it would look like if the Government were instead to give support to mutual insurance companies and to their regrowth in a few key areas. It is something that could deliver. We have seen it in areas such as microfinance and others. In many cases the risks, when pooled, are actually quite small ones. It is something that needs to be looked at.

I urge the Minister of State to engage with that, or even follow up on it in terms of innovativeness, that is, not just looking at the tech product or the international actor but at the potential for the growth of the mutuals. Even within communities here in Dublin, there is exploration of mutual models. The seeds are there for people who literally cannot otherwise be insured but who want to keep their communities and businesses vibrant, alive and moving. A scheme that would allow those mutuals to start growing again would be really useful. Again, support is needed not just for external actors but for domestic and community-aligned vehicles too.

Regarding community adaptation supports in the climate area, I worry a little about the insurance industry solely setting the agenda in the areas of climate and flood prevention. Yes, people want to be able to access insurance. We know that some of these standards, like the one-in-100-year standard, are coming from insurance companies. Councils are scrambling to meet it. Sometimes it leads to short-term decisions. In order to get a building insured to a one-in-100-year standard, we have to invest in a particular protection. Maybe it is not the kind of thing that is going to serve the whole catchment area and contribute to our whole community being most climate resilient. Sometimes the measures that are asked for by insurance companies - cutting down trees and all of the rest - actually contribute to climate change, biodiversity loss and, indeed, flood risk. There is a worry where they set the agenda.

Probably one of the most chilling sessions I have ever been in was at one of the climate talks at the Conference of the Parties in Madrid. I accidentally wandered into the room while I was looking for a session on something else. I accidentally wandered into a session where big international insurance companies were presenting to mayors of towns who were very worried because their national governments were not taking the action needed in terms of tackling climate change. The mayors knew there was going to be disaster ahead. We think we are hit by it, but entire cities across the world are planning to relocate. The insurance companies were talking about what they were going to sell to local governments in terms of insurance, and they referred to 100,000 or 200,000 deductibles. Those are deductibles in lives lost. They were talking about how many people will have to die before they pay out in relation to these large urban conurbations. We must be aware that nationally and internationally, the agendas of some insurance companies, although not all - I respect every business's right to make its model and build its work - are not always driven by the public interest. They have other bottom-line figures that they need to return. That is why the State, when it tackles and delivers a picture for insurance for the future for the public, must ensure it is one that allows our society to function and makes people feel safe and protected. I ask the Government to place the community model centre-stage and, in areas like climate and others, let the best public interest drive the agenda and let the insurance model chase that, rather than letting insurance companies set the terms again. We need to protect each other and support those who genuinely wish to do that.

I call an Seanadóir Scahill who is sharing time.

I am sharing time with Senator Ahearn, four minutes each.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

The Minister of State is welcome once again to the Chamber. I will follow up on what Senator Higgins has said about the community model. Many of the points I wanted to make have been touched on, for example with regard to the voluntary nature within our communities. Coming up to Christmas each year, businesses and volunteers in towns give up their time to hang up Christmas lights. They have to pay out an amount of money to insure the public liability for those lights. In order to cut costs, everyone volunteers at a time when they cannot afford to give up that time, yet they are still paying out money to insurance providers. I am involved with similar schemes. The National Trails Office covers public liability on our national walks throughout the country. If we want to promote these walks, however, we have to take out separate insurance to bring people on them so they will be encouraged to use them at a later stage. Senator Higgins might have struck on something when she spoke about going back to the mutuals that were looked at in the past. That is something to look at.

The Minister of State mentioned transparency, accessibility and affordability. Every speaker here today has brought an element of that into everything they have said. I will touch on flood cover. The OPW and local authorities have invested in flood relief schemes and risk reduction measures. Communities should be seeing reductions reflected in their premiums, first and foremost, but they should also be seeing improvements in the availability of the cover itself. I recently spoke to a man who is trying to sell a couple of houses in an estate. An area nearby has been deemed a flood risk. He is having trouble accessing insurance in order to sell those houses.

Action No. 18 in the action plan refers to "work with key stakeholders to facilitate Government investment in flood relief schemes being reflected in the affordability and availability of flood insurance". This is to be done by "strengthening governance" and through "reduced premiums for resilient properties and innovative insurance products for climate-vulnerable areas". I ask the Minister of State to comment on that in his response.

I raise the whole idea of wider regional access to insurance. The Alliance for Insurance Reform gave me an example of one business as a practical example of a lack of competition that makes it difficult for the business to be able to avail of insurance. The alliance referred to a midlands water sports activity centre in Roscommon which reported that its premiums were equivalent to 10% of its turnover, and 40% higher than UK and EU competitors, despite having no claims. Access to that insurance is important. In my own area - I live in a rural part of west Roscommon - the company keeps telling me that my insurance premium is going up annually because the area is susceptible. I would love to see the transparency side of that, because there is no history of theft or claims. I have often spoken in this House about the need for additional gardaí, which is a really topical issue. I wonder whether insurance companies are increasing our premiums in certain areas because of the known lack of gardaí. If so, there should be a lot more transparency on that too.

I will finish by speaking about the whole issue of fraud. I have been dealing recently with an awful lot of online fraud. The Garda Insurance Fraud Co-ordination Office, which was set up in 2021, has dealt with 98 cases. We all know that over the same five-year period, there were approximately 18,000 personal injury claims. The office is dealing with 0.5% of the claims put forward, even though we are told regularly by the insurance sector that up to 20% of claims are fraudulent. We need to support the Garda an awful lot more with that and try to resource them for that.

The Minister of State is very welcome to the Chamber. I thank him for being here for such an important debate. I acknowledge the work that my colleague, Senator Nelson Murray, has done on this over the past 18 months since becoming a Senator. She has been a champion on this issue and has represented her own views and the views of our party extremely strongly. She has worked with the Minister of State’s Department since becoming a Senator to try to deliver change in insurance policy that could benefit small businesses, in particular, right across the country. We have to acknowledge that there have been improvements in certain areas, such as the amendments to the personal injury guidelines, the reform of the occupier’s duty of care, the strengthening of the Injuries Resolution Board, the creation of the national claims information database and the Garda insurance fraud co-ordination office, and the continued focus on insurance reform through successive action plans like the most recent one. These things are important and they matter, but the next phase is to make sure the benefits are actually felt by policyholders.

When it comes to liability, the Central Bank data shows that important savings are being made in the claims environment but many policyholders are still seeing premiums rise. They are seeing reduced choice, higher excesses and new exclusions. The challenge now is to ensure that the savings are passed on, unnecessary legal costs are reduced, competition is improved and the new action plan is implemented with the urgency and ambition that is required to support policyholders.

If we are touching on one aspect of insurance, the obvious one that most people right across the country understand is motor insurance. People can clearly see whether insurance has gone up or down. Unfortunately, we have seen a 4% increase in insurance since 2024. It is almost a fifth higher than in 2022. That is a significant increase. We are talking about making changes and the reforms that are being delivered to bring insurance costs down but the public are still seeing their insurance costs going up. It is hard to be credible when they are getting a letter in the post once a year to say their motor insurance has gone up. The argument has been made that a lot of it has to do with claims for damage and the rise in repair costs due to inflation. That is understandable but that cannot be a reason in itself for why insurance costs are going up for everyone across the country. This is a very serious matter that impacts on everyone across the country, be it for motor insurance, home insurance and in particular for businesses. Sometimes for businesses it is a case of taking a decision to open or not and whether to keep the business going based on a letter that comes telling them how much insurance they have to pay for a year. That should not be the case.

It is good the Minister of State is here today to listen to contributions from across the House. We will certainly work with him going forward, led by Senator Nelson Murray on this. It really comes back to the very basic fact that if we are talking about making changes in insurance to help small businesses and policyholders across the country, that can only be credible if insurance costs are going down. That needs to be our ultimate goal as a Government.

I thank all the Senators for their contributions today. The issues raised reflect the continuing importance of insurance reform for households, businesses, farms, voluntary organisations and community groups. They also reflect the reality that, notwithstanding progress in recent years, insurance remains a matter of significant concern for many people, as well as for the Government.

Senator Casey hit the nail on the head when he said we can build on the progress and that reform is not a singular event but is an ongoing process. We have introduced reforms that have made progress and reduced premiums in certain instances and we want to continue to build on that.

I acknowledge Senator Nelson Murray who has worked on this issue long before she ever came into this House. I take issue with the Sinn Féin representative today who seems to believe that nothing would be done were it not for Deputy Doherty. I acknowledge that he has been vocal in this area but he did not make any submission to the action plan on insurance reform with which the Senator took issue today. The Personal Injuries Assessment Board was established long before Deputy Doherty was ever a Member of this House or the other House. Reforms have been introduced by this Government and previous Governments but we want to build on that.

As a Minister of State with responsibility in this area, I have no issue with taking a good suggestion from any side of the House. A previous speaker alluded to the rebalancing of the duty of care. Senator Ó Céidigh championed that as an Independent Senator some years ago. None of us have exclusivity on good ideas or solutions to problems faced by society. I am very open to meeting with everybody.

Senator Higgins made the case about the establishment of more mutual insurance organisations. She spoke about communities she knows are looking to establish them. If she is listening to my response, I am happy to meet those communities. We have a community forum event later in the year and they are very welcome to participate in that. We have a very good mutual insurance society in Ireland at the moment – Irish Public Bodies, which celebrates 100 years of its existence this year. It is providing insurance to public bodies, local authorities and schools – but, funnily, only to a certain number of schools. Schools with a certain ethos do not want to engage with it. They would rather engage with a private insurance company as they feel they get better value for money. Irish Public Bodies provide a great service to local authorities. It has expanded its remit in recent times to cover Tidy Towns. I am engaging with it to see if there is capacity for it to expand its remit even further and to look at other community groups. Again, that is something that we can look at in the context of our community forum later this year.

All available independent data points to the fact that reforms are working albeit maybe not as quick as we would like or maybe they are not delivering as big a reduction in premiums as we would like. The data continues to demonstrate the importance of the Injuries Resolution Board. The board remains the State's most efficient and cost-effective means of resolving personal injury claims. Awards through the board are broadly comparable to those achieved through litigation but are delivered in a much shorter timeframe and at substantially lower legal cost. On average, the cost through litigation is €20,000 in legal fees compared to €1,000 through the Injuries Resolution Board. That message cannot be reinforced and amplified sufficiently frequently and loudly in order that people realise that it is a simple, efficient way to get access to the compensation they deserve.

The proposed Judicial Council (amendment) Bill 2026 has particular importance in that regard. The process for reviewing the personal injuries guidelines must be one that commands confidence across the system. The Bill will help to provide a clearer statutory framework for the review process, bringing greater consistency and transparency to a matter of significant public and economic importance. That was a real, live challenge the Government faced late last year. It was addressed in a very comprehensive and reasonable way by the Minister, Deputy Jim O'Callaghan, and a collective decision by the whole of the Government.

A number of Senators – in particular Senator McCarthy – spoke about greater transparency. Perhaps he is unaware that we have published a transparency code, the first of its kind across the whole of Europe. That is an innovative measure that will boost understanding of how premiums are formed and will guide consumers towards measures they can take to influence their own premiums. I do not think there is anything wrong with arming consumers with the relevant data so they can get a better outcome for themselves. Senator Higgins seems to think there is. The Central Bank carried out a report which shows that only one in four customers shop around when their premium comes up for renewal. That means three out of four do not. Of the one in four who do look around, 77% achieve cost savings. The Sinn Féin Senator nearly led us to believe her premium had gone from €400 to €900 but because she was with a broker she got it back to €400. She was right to shop around but she was trying to lead us to believe that premiums are out of control altogether and that is not the case. Premiums are still lower today than they were in 2016. That is a matter of fact. They have sneaked up in the last two years but motor insurance premiums are still 24% lower today than in 2016. In the past two years they have started to increase but in the last four months they have shown a reduction again. That is why the transparency code has been introduced, namely, to bring clarity to the matter and to inform the consumers in order that they are able to get better value for their money.

Another point I would make is that we are working as a Government to try to attract more players to the market. If the market was so lucrative and there was so much money to be made, would people not be falling over themselves to get into the market? That is not giving carte blanche apologies for the insurance industry. I am not apologetic for the insurance industry and Senator Nelson Murray will know that. We are a small market in a global context, however. If someone was looking to enter into a new market, there are cities in the world that are bigger than the whole Irish market where we already have multiple players in place. We did achieve a number of new entrants in the last number of years and we will continue to try to promote new entrants into the market while working with the Industrial Development Authority, IDA, and working with existing players that are there now to expand their offering and their risk appetite. It is fair to say a number of players have expanded their risk appetite in the last number of years.

To the point in relation to the mutual offering, that is certainly something I am happy to look at in greater detail, as Senator Higgins suggested To be fair to IPB Insurance, we have met its representatives on a number of occasions and it is hopefully seeking to expand its appetite too. It is governed by a board that looks prudently in terms of all new cover that it will extend.

Flood insurance has been raised a number of times. Certainly, I have huge frustrations in terms of areas where the State has spent tens of millions of euro rolling out flood defence measures and those areas still being without adequate flood cover. I am working with the Ministers of State, Deputies Moran and Cummins, in relation to signing an agreement that will give confidence that where those measures are in place, there is responsibility to implement those measures and that insurance companies will then look at putting cover in place where permanent flood defences have already been put in place. I am hoping to make progress on that this year. Officials in my Department are currently examining a specific Irish market option in relation to areas where there are no defences in place.

The role of innovation will be important, including Ireland's hosting of a Lloyd’s Lab Accelerator cohort this year. Innovation has an important role to play in strengthening resilience and supporting market development. Lloyd's Lab is a ten-week product development accelerator by Lloyd's of London designed to rapidly develop tests and refine new products, concepts and solutions. This year's iteration of the lab will work on Irish-focused themes, such as flood resilience and coverage, cyber resilience, artificial intelligence and export finance. Collaborating with the Lloyd’s Lab Accelerator will contribute to innovation, allow for partnership with a significant stakeholder in the international insurance market and highlight Ireland as a leading destination for insurance innovation during Ireland’s Presidency of the European Council in 2026.

It is also important to recall the broader reform agenda, which includes questions of fairness and access to financial protection. In that regard, the statutory right to be forgotten provision for cancer survivors was a very important development this year. We are moving from a voluntary code to a statutory footing and the Government is providing greater certainty and consistency for consumers who have completed treatment and are in remission. This is a reminder that insurance reform is not solely about market efficiency; it is also about fairness, dignity and the removal of unnecessary burdens.

It is fair to say, therefore, that progress has been made under the previous action plan. Progress is being made under this current action plan, which is less than 12 months old. However, I do recognise that the work is incomplete; more needs to be done. The challenge is for me and the whole of the Government. That is why it is not just resting within the Department of Finance. It is a cross-governmental Cabinet sub-committee where we have enterprise, finance, public expenditure and justice all working together to maintain momentum, complete the remaining actions and ensure that reform is reflected not only in legislation and policy but where it really matters for practical outcomes for consumers, businesses and communities.