Panic Stations!

Give us a break. Are we all supposed to swallow this? Are we been treated as fools by Irish Ferries? In a judgement on the debacle involving the Irish Ferries vessel which was delayed entering service in 2018, the NTA directed the ferry company to compensate its passengers who were out of pocket due to changing their travel arrangements.

Now Irish Ferries have hit back and said that the NTA’s interpretation of EU regulation had been a “critical factor” in its “regretful” conclusion that it will be unlikely to operate the Oscar Wilde to France out of Rosslare this year. Irish Ferries also accused the NTA of contributing to making the route “commercially unviable” in the future.

Are they serious?  There’s more than a share of shifting the blame and finger pointing about this excuse.

Are we all expected to believe that the year round shipping of  trucks and freight carried direct to France by the company doesn’t generate a funding stream all year round? Does the company expect the travelling public to think that the straw that broke the camels back was compensating its passengers due to the failure of its ship builder to complete a job on time and within budget?

According to Irish Ferries at the time the ship WB Yeats didn’t enter service due to a problem at the shipyard.  Booking s had been made off the back of a signed contract to deliver a vessel. If the shipyard was responsible for delays then Irish Ferries needed to pursue them.

What is the point in singing a contract to build if when the things go pear shaped that you can’t pursue the ship builder .

Irish Ferries shut the route from Rosslare to France simply because they see Dublin port has a critical mass and reach that is greater than Rosslare. A few hours extra on their ship will mean more on board spending. That’s why Irish ferries took the decision they did.

Let’s hope the EU give Irish Ferries short shrift on this one and send them home with their tails between their legs.

Driving home for Christmas? Beware of Minister Whiplash!

Why is it that of all the sectors in our economy that have representation in government is it that there is a dedicated junior minister for financial services and insurance? The man in the hot seat is one of 2 local junior ministers; Michael D’arcy, the other being Paul Kehoe who is effectively Minister for Defence.

The insurance industry here is a pale shadow of what it once was.  A few years ago I rang around a number of car insurers looking for a quote only to be told that I’d already been given a quote that day by an affiliate and they weren’t going to give me a different price to what I’ d already received. Few insurers will take policies on motor bikes, just a handful cover health insurance in an industry tat is seen by many customers as money for old rope. Insurance is already subject to regulation with both an insurance and financial services ombudsman. So just what does Michael D’arcy bring to the party?

Few areas of economic activity get the full access to a dedicated minister. What makes insurance more important than fisheries?  Fisheries now forms part of the title of Agriculture minister under the marine portfolio and has gone way down the pecking order. At a time when there seems to be a permanent trolley crisis not to mention a shortage of housing, why is there no trouble shooting junior minister sent to expedite the chaos there?

Nothing personal against the minister but it seems that instead of insurance cost being driven down on behalf of the customer, it is the companies who seem to have him singing their song. Minister D’arcy wants a referendum to limit payment of compensation in courts to those found to have suffered whiplash. I’d love to see that wording! The constitution guarantees the independence of the courts. That independence means that a victim must be fully compensated by an insurer or person responsible for injury.

There is a myth pedalled by the insurance industry that every claimant is a chancer, that judges haven’t a clue when it comes to compensation and that this drives costs to insurers sky high. Minister D’arcy wants to cap awards made in court to those who suffer whiplash as a result of car accident. The inference is that whiplash isn’t a real injury.  It’s as if there should be a price list for injuries suffered and to be compensated for.

Let’s be clear about it. Most claims made arising from car accidents are resolved without going to court. The medical evidence is often clear and the cost to the victim is quantifiable. The insurance industry down through the years has got successive governments to remove juries from compensation cases, reduce the number of Senior Counsel in a case among other changes. All were at the time claimed to be the silver bullet to reduce insurance costs. Penalty points, garda road traffic corps also introduced to reduce the number of crashes. This, we were told would lower claims with a knock-on reduction in premiums.

What in fact happened was that we got rationalisation in the insurance industry and less competition meaning that premiums never went own at all!

But guess what?  The penalty points and speed cameras worked. Today we find out that despite the number of cars doubling on the road in the last 20 years, a 40% higher population, cars making more journies than ever, we have the lowest number of road traffic fatalities and less accidents and injuries than when records first started. Yet car insurance is still as high as ever.

I once served on a jury in the High Court. We listened to a case taken by a middle aged motorist who was so badly injured that he had to give up work. It was our job to decide how much he should get as compensation. We sat for a week watching and listening carefully. During the many applications that were made that required us to exit to the jury room, we discussed the matter. Yes the motorist had to be compensated but he had not been wearing a seat belt so had to take responsibility for his injuries. Most of us reckoned he was 50% responsible for his injuries.

Imagine how I was gobsmacked to hear that after a week the case was settled out of court for £100,000 plus costs late one evening? This sum was way beyond anything that the jury had considered and it was done at the behest of the insurance company.

We don’t need a referendum on interfering with court decisions in the interest of insurers. What we need is for Minister D’arcy to direct the insurance industry to reduce premium and to pass on to their policy holders the benefits of safe driving on the roads. Otherwise Minister D’arcy’will be more worried about backlash than whiplash!