| The advantage of the Single Market,
from the point of view of the consumer, is that it should increase
competition resulting in downward pressure on prices. While a significant
number of EU companies have notified us of their intention to offer
insurance to Irish consumers on a services basis, there is little
evidence that they are placing business on the Irish market. As the
Single Market becomes a reality for both consumers and service providers,
we will see more companies offering insurance, including motor insurance,
here. I have frequently urged insurance intermediaries to seek quotes
on behalf of their clients from insurers based elsewhere in the European
Union. Representing Ireland internationally in insurance and other
financial industries, I appeal to international insurance companies
to deliver services here.
There are two principles in the regime
established by the treaties and the third directives to be noted.
One is that member states are explicitly prevented by the directives
from intervening in the pricing of insurance. The other is the principle
of free movement.
The ban on price intervention means
that we cannot intervene to freeze, reduce or increase the price
of motor insurance, either generally or for a particular group of
motorists. The free movement principle means that I cannot compel
any citizen to purchase insurance from a particular provider or
in particular circumstances. It is not possible to compel motorists
to join a "community rated" scheme such as we have for
health insurance. In the event that such a scheme were set up, whether
covering all motorists or only those within a certain age bracket,
the best risks, that is the best risks as consumers, could exercise
their rights as citizens of the European Union and opt out of the
pool, thus defeating the purpose of the scheme. Evidence from such
"young driver" schemes in the US suggests that best risks
opt out and the price for those left in the pool escalates.
Although the European context in
which we operate imposes these constraints, the Government is active
in seeking alternatives to address the costs of insurance. One of
the most important of these is the Government's intention to establish
a personal injuries assessment board to improve the efficiency of
the insurance claims process. The board will provide an independent
forum to decide on compensation for injured parties quickly and
in an unintimidating environment. It is not intended to reduce the
amount of awards to injured parties. In its initial operational
phase, the board will decide on the amount of personal injury compensation
arising from employers' liability and will later assume responsibility
for motor insurance claims. It will only decide on the issue of
quantum, not liability. The board will not infringe on the individual's
right of access to the courts. It will work as an independent and
expert entity within the Courts Service. It will operate in a non-adversarial
fashion and so should reduce the cost of delivering compensation
for personal injury claims by streamlining the process.
Cost reduction will be achieved by
reducing the number of cases which are settled by the parties following
the instigation of court proceedings. At present only 10% of legal
cases started for compensation reach the courts. The current practice
imposes costs from which the injured party does not benefit, such
as insurance administration, the expert witnesses and legal expertise.
Research undertaken by the Motor Insurance Advisory Board indicates
that a very high proportion of outlay on injury claims is absorbed
by such costs. For every £100 compensation paid for injury in motor
accidents, an extra 40% goes on lawyers' and experts' fees.
The Minister for the Environment
has also taken a number of initiatives to reduce accident frequency.
While accident rates remain too high, especially in view of their
human costs, we are achieving real progress, particularly when the
rates of accidents are compared with the rate of growth in car ownership.
In 1996 there were 828,000 cars and today there are 1.3 million.
Yesterday, my Government colleague,
Deputy Dempsey, Minister for the Environment and Local Government,
announced the publication of the Road Traffic Bill, 2001, which
extensively improves enforcement arrangements in relation to road
traffic offences. The purpose is to achieve a reduction in road
deaths and injuries. The Bill provides for the introduction of a
penalty points system. Carelessness and lack of consideration on
the road will attract penalty points. If a motorist accumulates
12 penalty points, he or she will be automatically disqualified
from driving. This will cause motorists to drive with greater caution
and consideration.
Speaking as Minister of State with
responsibility for commerce, I am confident that my record speaks
for itself. Last year, with the valuable input of this House and
the Dáil, I steered the Insurance Bill through both Houses. Insurance
intermediaries will soon be subject to a systematic supervisory
regime so that consumers can have confidence in them. Consumers
of life assurance are now entitled to receive important information
before they purchase life assurance. Soon, the personal injuries
assessment board will benefit injured consumers by giving them access
to fast, transparent compensation for injuries. That will benefit
insurance policyholders by cutting the costs of compensation delivery.
The Motor Insurance Advisory Board will continue with its work and
will report to the Government before the end of this year. We await
the recommendations with great interest.
Mr. Coghlan: I welcome the
Minister of State to the House and compliment him on establishing
the Motor Insurance Advisory Board to examine the factors influencing
motor insurance, particularly the relationship between the premiums
charged for different categories of drivers and the claims made
by those drivers. I am indebted to the Minister of State for his
unfailing courtesy and willingness, unlike some of his colleagues,
to make available essential information.
We are all motivated by the need
to protect the consumer, and I applaud the Minister for what he
said on that. I also welcome the Government's introduction of a
personal injuries assessment board to improve the efficiency of
the claims process and the proposals in the Road Traffic Bill, 2001,
which we will assess in more detail soon.
This is an important subject. There
is a conflict between what the insurance companies told the Joint
Committee on Enterprise and Small Business and the findings of the
Motor Insurance Advisory Board's interim report concerning insurance
costs for young drivers and companies' profits. I support Deputy
Higgins's demand that the insurance companies and the Irish Insurance
Federation be recalled before the committee.
It appears that drivers under 25
are among the most profitable customers for insurers, along with
women drivers who are also discriminated against and have to pay
well over the odds. My colleague, Deputy Charles Flanagan, was quite
right to call on the Government to prepare a plan to take on the
insurance industry, with a particular focus on the cost cartel.
Insurance companies have consistently justified astronomical premiums
for those under 25 because of the high risk, loss-making business
they claim is involved. The reality is totally different, which
might not have been revealed had the Minister not set up the Motor
Insurance Advisory Board, which I compliment him on doing. I am
glad that a number of Fianna Fáil Deputies during the week called
on the Government to take whatever action is necessary.
It appears from the MIAB report that
insurance companies make profits on all categories of business except
those under 18. The Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business
should recall the motor insurers and investigate how they provide
quotations for younger people and women. In order to conduct an
investigation properly the committee needs the power to compel industry
executives to appear before it and to provide the necessary documentation.
The Minister should ask the MIAB
to set the Irish Insurance Federation a deadline of the end of the
week to disclose information on premiums and claims. Before the
joint committee begins an investigation it should meet the MIAB
to clear up certain matters. The insurance federation, which is
represented on the MIAB, has said that the report was based on incomplete
data, as the Minister said. Although I have serious reservations
about MIAB's methodology and findings, the report contains no objections
from the IIF about these matters. The report states, "The IIF
has received copies of all reports for the purposes of checking
our calculations but their responses do not identify any mathematical
errors."
The MIAB also noted that the IIF
has threatened to stop providing the raw data on which the board
was working, in which case "the majority of the board believes
that it may become necessary to recommend an alternate and more
rigorous forum for investigation in this area of public concern".
I call on the Government to allow such an investigation, as it could
be carried out usefully and successfully by the Joint Committee
on Enterprise and Small Business, if properly equipped with the
necessary powers. This view is shared by my committee colleagues,
Deputies Flanagan, Joe Higgins, Batt O'Keeffe and Conor Lenihan,
and I ask the Minister to give it serious consideration. It seems
that a clear majority on the committee, across all parties, favours
such an investigation.
It is also interesting to note that
Mr. Michael Kemp, chief executive of the IIF, has said that the
federation and its member companies are co-operating fully with
the MIAB to establish the full facts. He also stated that insurance
companies do not make money insuring young drivers, but the MIAB
has found that "on average for the five years 1993 to 1997,
every age of policyholder contributed more in premium than claims
cost except for the small number of policyholders aged 17 and 18".
The MIAB also found that insurance companies were making profits
of £211 per policy on people aged between 22 and 24, compared to
£60 per policy on those between 46 and 55. Profits of £730 per policy
were being made on women drivers aged 19 and 20.
No matter what arguments are made,
there is an absolute need to investigate independently and objectively
so that a proper assessment can be made. This is a matter for the
joint committee, as the credibility of insurance companies' rating
decisions is in doubt. The Minister said this House does not need
reminding that motor insurance companies have failed in the past.
We all agree, which is why this matter should be tackled immediately
rather than waiting for the MIAB's final report which is not due
until the end of the year. The MIAB's investigations could continue
apace without taking from an investigation by the joint committee.
There is something amiss when a report shows that the profitability
of insuring drivers between 18 and 25 is two and a half times that
of insuring drivers in their forties, and that women and the elderly
are also profitable, despite all we have been told in the past.
I thank the Minister for his executive summary of the MIAB.
Paragraph five report of the MIAB
states:
Women also appear to be contributing
more than their fair share in certain instances. To date we have
only received gender data for 1997. This indicates that from age
51, favourable margins on female policyholders are consistently
higher. The variance is greatest over age 70 where profits on
females is £166 per policy compared to £29 for males, a variance
of £137 or 472%. Also, female policyholders aged 19 to 20 delivered
a profit of £730 each compared to £186 for males, a variance of
£544 or 293%, but the low level of exposure for this age at 1.6%
of policyholders may result in high variability from one year
to another.
Paragraph nine states:
The Board has asked five companies
to explain the manner of their compliance with the Declined Cases
Agreement. Copies of correspondence are attached. Two companies
have not to date replied so no conclusions can yet be reached
on this issue.
I am sure the Minister will agree
that this shows a lack of regard on the part of the companies and
a huge deficiency in their willingness to be helpful.
Paragraph 11 states:
The problems encountered by commercial
motor clients are distinct from those of the private motorist.
Businesses are more acutely aware of what they consider unfounded
settlements or negotiations undertaken without due consultation
with the insured client. The Board recommends that the Insurance
Ombudsman Scheme, which is currently limited to private policyholders,
should be extended to businesses with an annual turnover of up
to £5 million. Such businesses do not have extensive legal resources
to pursue complaints against insurers through the Courts. Additionally,
to curtail the potential for such complaints, it is recommended
that the IIF should agree procedural guidelines with IBEC on the
consultations to which all commercial clients would be entitled
in the management of their motor insurance liabilities and defences.
The Minister and Senators will recall
an interesting debate a few years ago with regard to the insurance
ombudsman scheme. I feel strongly that the previous insurance ombudsman
was spancelled and hampered by the major insurance companies, although
I realise the Minister may have been constrained by all sorts of
bureaucratic forces. It would be interesting for this House to look
at how her successor is faring. Anything the Minister of State could
do to make it easier for the insurance ombudsman would be greatly
appreciated by all Members.
Paragraph 13 states:
The Board notes that motor insurance
inflation, at 10% is running well ahead of the general trend in
the Consumer Price Index. This is the highest rate of increase
on record and may warrant consideration in the context of the
Government's current deliberations on price control measures.
Paragraph 14 states:
The Board held a very informative
meeting with the Data Protection Commissioner on the notion that
the rating of motorists for premium charges might be based on
their financial profile is addition to the more traditional factors.
The Minister specifically asked the Board to investigate this
"burdened borrowers" issue. With dissent by IIF, the
majority view of the Board is that such an approach would be contrary
to public policy but future practice will largely be dictated
by EU legislation.
Again, we can see that there are
very powerful vested interests involved, which is the reason other
right-thinking Members and I would opt for an independent, objective
assessment. I hope the joint committee will take up the matter.
Paragraph 15 states: "Having
received further documentation from insurers, the Board is of the
majority view that not all instalment plans comply with the provisions
of the Consumer Credit Act, 1995." We are all for the protection
of the consumer. The paragraph continues:
IIF have undertaken to circulate
insurers with a reminder of the statutory requirements. As reported
previously, the majority view is that the interest rates levied
are excessively expensive. Enforcement is now a matter for the
Director of Consumer Affairs.
Again, I hope the joint committee
will seek an early meeting with the Director of Consumer Affairs,
not just regarding this matter, but regarding other issues of concern
to the committee which are in the best interests of protecting the
consumer.
Paragraph 16 states:
The majority of the Board wishes
to re-emphasise the need for a strong Consumer Protection role
within the new Single Regulatory Authority. The public is likely
to be sceptical as to whether there is any true commitment to
their interests unless this priority is supported with appropriate
powers and penalties to ensure transparency and fair trading.
No doubt the pending Insurance Bill will present opportunities
to facilitate such measures. There is also a pressing need for
consumer education to assist the making of informed choices in
so far as options are available in compulsory motor insurance.
While I appreciate their work, as
does the Minister, they also state that: ". . . it may become
necessary to recommend an alternate and more rigorous forum for
investigation in this area of public concern." There is no
argument on either side of the House regarding this area of public
concern. I recommend that the Minister of State, whose intentions
in this matter are good, allow the joint committee, fairly and impartially,
with compellability powers and other necessary assistance, to get
its teeth into it. It could do a very good job in serving the consumer.
Ms Cox: Regarding Senator
Coghlan's comments about the joint committee, I find it strange
that any representatives of an insurance company or federation would
appear before the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business
and lead it to believe, by presenting facts and figures, that the
reason for the high cost of insurance is the high costs of young
people's accidents and settlement claims. It appears from the findings
of the report that it would be better for the representatives to
acknowledge the fact that there are findings which would prove such
statements incorrect. I suggest to them that there is no easy ride
and, following other committee members' suggestions, the Minister
of State should allow a two-pronged approach. We cannot have people
give misleading information to the committee or not address the
issue when the information is not what it might seem. If we allow
this to go unchallenged, we do so at our peril. The companies which
made presentations to the committee should be asked to come back
for rigorous questions and validate the claims they made.
If the industry had full knowledge
of the MIAB report, which I believe it did, we cannot have it appear
before the committee and put forward the thesis it did regarding
the high cost of insurance for the tens of thousands of young people
and others in the country. It does not matter if one is young, middle-aged
or elderly, the price of car insurance is absolutely scandalous
and cannot be allowed to continue.
I am proud of the work done by the
Minister of State and his Department. They have addressed the matter
in a focussed way, attacking each area as they have gone along and
establishing advisory boards. It is important to do this as we cannot
be accused of being blind to the commercial difficulties that face
companies, but perhaps the truth will come out in the next few months.
I look forward to this.
Regarding insurance costs for young
drivers, particularly young males, there is agreement that much
can be done to reduce the number of road accidents. Surely, if we
reduce the number of accidents, we can reduce the cost of insurance.
Driver education, the introduction of penalty points, road safety
improvements and Garda enforcement of the rules of the road are
important ways to reduce accidents. As the Minister of State said,
the Minister for the Environment and Local Government announced
yesterday the introduction of various new schemes to address enforcement,
penalty points, increased fines for speeding and so on. That is
another way the Government is addressing the insurance issue in
a focussed, clear and methodical manner. It is only by working in
this way that we will see changes and reductions in costs.
There are many implications regarding
the consequences of high insurance. Why are we complaining about
high insurance costs? What does it mean? Sometimes it means young
people in country areas cannot get to work. They cannot avail of
employment opportunities in towns 15 or 20 miles from their home
base. They may be living at home to look after elderly parents or
engage in some part-time farming, but they may also want to avail
of opportunities in larger towns some distance away. These opportunities
may involve shift work whereby one may have to work late at night
or early in the morning, times when public transport, particularly
in rural areas, is not available. For this reason they need cars,
but if one is aged between 17 and 20 years and living in the middle
of the country, while one might buy a car for perhaps £1,500, insuring
it may cost between £2,000 and £5,000. That does not make it feasible.
The people concerned, therefore, cannot avail of these employment
opportunities, progress their careers and become statistics on the
live register. This should be condemned.
What often happens is that young
drivers will insure the car the first time and not insure it subsequently.
Many young drivers are uninsured. That is very well until there
is an accident and people get hurt, cars are damaged and innocent
parties suffer because the first party is not able to afford the
costs. While that certainly does not justify anybody driving without
insurance, we can understand why some people take the chance. It
is a chance that is not acceptable and it causes grief, pain and
much hardship to the innocent victims of road accidents involving
uninsured drivers..
Young people may chose motorbikes
instead of cars. From a safety point of view, I would prefer to
see my children drive cars rather than motorbikes. Many more people
are killed and seriously injured in motorbike accidents than in
cars. For all of those reasons, which affect everyday lives, insurance
costs for young people should come down and become more affordable.
In their presentation to the Joint
Oireachtas Committee, the Motor Insurance Justice Action Group suggested
having a community rating scheme for young people. Rather than everybody
having to pay high insurance, only people who have had accidents
should have to pay high rates. However, this may not be possible
due to EU regulations and the Minister may have addressed this in
his speech.
Many people believe that the reason
for high insurance costs is the high claims propensity among Irish
people. This is true. We have all come across cases where someone
has put in a claim that was not totally false but did not justify
the work and effort to prove it. Often cases that are not justified
end up in the court, which may find in favour of the plaintiff.
People may get money for accidents that, perhaps, they do not rightly
deserve. This practice ought to be stopped. People should not go
down that route. While everybody has an entitlement to claim, this
should only happen where there is justification.
We have also talked about the high
delivery cost of personal injury claims and particularly the legal
costs. For every £100 paid in compensation for motor accidents a
further £40 goes on professional fees. That is a scandalous statistic.
I welcome the setting up of the personal injuries assessment board
by the Minister. While the interim report came before the Minister
last June, this shows that he has conducted his affairs in a very
focused and methodical manner and addressed each area step by step
in a progressive and proactive way.
The personal injuries assessment
board was set up to determine issues of quantum, not liability.
Initially, it will look at personal injury cases arising from the
workplace and then move on to motor accidents. It is not intended
to reduce the awards to victims but merely to reduce the delivery
costs. In Ireland, junior counsel are appointed in 57% of cases
and senior counsel in 18% of cases. In similar cases in the UK,
junior counsel are only appointed in 3% of cases and senior counsel
are rarely appointed.
As the Minister mentioned, the number
of cars on our roads has risen from approximately 800,000 in 1996
to 1.3 million now. We need to remember that there are more people
on the roads and more chances for accidents. Each time we get into
our cars, we are responsible for how we drive and for injuries or
hurt we may cause to others by not concentrating on what we are
doing, by using telephones, by listening to the radio, by being
too tired to drive, by not observing the speed limits etc. A car
is a potentially lethal weapon and young people, in particular,
underestimate the power of the vehicle they are driving.
The Minister mentioned the different
regimes in other countries and there was a presentation on these
by officials from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment
to the joint Oireachtas Committee. It is interesting to look at
the ways different countries deal with their claims. We are starting
to introduce systems here that will eliminate the high cost of paying
claims without reducing the amount of compensation paid.
The Irish Insurance Federation said
that drivers under 25 account for about 5% of the number of claims
but 11.5% of the total cost of claims for comprehensive policies
and about 21% of the number of claims but 34% of the cost for non-comprehensive
policies. They suggested improving road safety by introducing a
penalty points system, improving law enforcement, improving driver
training and testing, considering a restricted licence, improving
road engineering and providing road safety education. They did not
suggest looking at the profitability to see if we are charging people
too much and unfairly loading too many costs on them.
Quinn Direct and AXA both made presentations
to the joint Oireachtas Committee. The Quinn Direct presentation
stated that the largest cost associated with insurance relates to
personal injury claims and that there is an unacceptable level of
fraudulent and exaggerated claims, which are difficult to weed out
of the processes. This point was also made by AXA and the Irish
Insurance Federation. They also said that many accidents involving
young drivers involve multiple claimants. All of this is true. However,
from the interim report we discussed earlier, it appears that it
is not true to say that they are not making profits from the 17
to 25 year old group and certainly the people over 55.
In other countries there are different
systems. In Quebec there is a no fault system, but citizens cannot
pursue personal compensation. We could not implement that here because
of Irish citizens' constitutional rights. In the United States,
there is a two tier approach using a no fault system under a certain
threshold but this does not appear to have reduced overall cost.
In the European systems we have seen scales of compensation, which
we should examine. In the UK, claims tended to be much lower due
to the lower level of damages and the lower legal cost because of
less involvement of counsel. We are following that route by introduction
the personal injury assessment board. I hope this will result in
a change to our whole system.
The Garda made a presentation about
the number of accidents in different age groups and the reasons.
The main reasons were speed, alcohol related accidents and people
not wearing seatbelts, which causes a large number of fatalities
and serious injuries. As I suggested at the joint Oireachtas Committee,
we need to see a better breakdown of the statistics. For drunk driving,
they were unable to tell us if they were male or female or young
people or old people. If we can break down these statistics, then
we can target a road safety promotion campaign at the appropriate
groups. For instance, if there are more younger people drinking
and driving, then we focus the advertisements at them. If it is
the older age group, from 45 to 60, who drink and drive because
that was the culture they were brought up in, then perhaps we need
to focus our advertising on that area. Until we have statistics
to show us in what areas we have the biggest problems, we will not
be able to get the best out of our road safety promotional strategy.
12 o'clock
The same applies to speeding. On
speeding fines, it is important to know the break-down of who is
speeding. Is it young people, older people, women or men? If we
can also see the break-down for seatbelts, including for children
in cars, we can better promote and enforce safety. Perhaps we could
have more enforcement at various times, such as when there are more
women and children on the roads, when women are bringing children
to and from school, or when there are older people on the roads,
for example, when men are returning from work. We should gather
and analyse information on Garda stops and impose fines where necessary.
The penalty points system was outlined
yesterday by the Minister for the Environment and Local Government,
Deputy Dempsey. There will be increased fines and the improvement
of the road structure is being addressed which will increase safety.
On the interim report, a copy of
which the Minister has given us, with a copy of the executive summary,
there are a couple of points I would like to make. One of the very
interesting points relates to competition. The board recommended
that a website be established by motor insurers and that the insurance
regulator would provide on-line quotations across the market. This
is very important. I have seen my personal insurance, which is accident
free, increase in cost by £250 from last year, for no apparent reason.
When I negotiate with the company and tell them I can get cheaper
quotes, all of a sudden the price of the policy comes back down.
Insurance inflation cannot be running so high - the report mentions
the figure of 10%, although I believe it is higher. We cannot allow
such practices to continue and the Office of the Director of Consumer
Affairs has justifiable grounds for looking at this. The Competition
Authority should question whether this monopoly should be allowed
to persist where it seems that prices can be kept high if only three
or four companies quote for the business.
Some of the recommendations of the
report could be implemented immediately, especially that of the
website. With young drivers, we now have a population that is increasingly
computer literate, that uses computers on a daily basis, at work
or elsewhere, and they would use the website if it were available.
Another issue is that of insurance
companies not fighting claims and making 50-50 settlements without
talking to the client. It is the easy way out for the company and
it has to be stopped. Now that we have established the personal
injury assessment board we will see that it is much cheaper to settle.
If there were a more confrontational attitude we would see fewer
claims fraudulently settled and much lower payouts. That would help
to weed out those who are making unfair claims.
I commend the hard work the Minister
of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment,
Deputy Treacy, has done on the insurance industry. I also commend
the work that has been done by the Oireachtas Joint Committee on
Enterprise and Small Business. The key point to this is to continue
with a two-pronged approach. The Minister of State needs to continue
doing what he must. The joint committee must address the issue with
insurance companies and ask them to prove to us that they did not
mislead the committee. If they did so, it cannot go unpunished.
Dr. Henry: I welcome the Minister
of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment,
Deputy Treacy, to the House and acknowledge the enormous amount
of work he has put into this area, which I appreciate very much.
Like Senators Cox and Coghlan, I am a member of the Oireachtas Joint
Committee on Enterprise and Small Business and I was astonished
at the difference between the statement given by the members of
the motor insurance industry and what emerges in this report. The
Senators have ably gone through most of the points that were brought
before the committee, but there are two things that I want to point
out in view of the difficulties of insuring young drivers.
The first is the impact of changes
in work practices of drivers on the incidence of accidents. There
are far more doing shift work now and young people in particular
may have to take some of the less popular shifts late into the night.
It would be helpful to find out how many late night accidents involve
young people going out socially and how many involve them going
to or from work. We know from other surveys how much more likely
accidents are on shifts during the more unsociable hours, when people
have been doing night work for a considerable amount of time. It
would be worthwhile to increase our knowledge of the statistics
there.
I also query what the impact in the
change in the delivery system for goods has been. This has not been
investigated. It is policy nowadays to have factories running on
a just-in-time delivery system. This means that components for manufacturing
processes are not in stock for long before they need to be used,
as they would take up warehouse space and require payment at an
earlier date. The need of firms to receive these goods only when
they require them puts a great deal of stress on those who have
to deliver them. I heard a woman on the radio a few weeks ago who
drives a truck and wanted to upgrade her skills so that she could
drive a bigger type of truck, presumably an articulated one. When
she was taking lessons to get the necessary licence she was repeatedly
told by the instructor that she had to remember and make her deadline.
A very large number of drivers seem to have to make deadlines now,
be it going to ports or factories, and I wonder if we need to assess
the importance of this constant rushing. One can understand it in
relation to the delivery of perishable goods to supermarkets, but
it seems that a very large number of heavy lorries full of goods
for companies have exact deadlines to meet, earlier or later than
which will not do. It would be worthwhile to see if there is a problem
here. I suggest that some of my constituents in the department of
transport and logistics at the DIT might be a help. It was they
who filled me in on hazard analysis and critical control.
These issues are worth looking at
to see if work practice is a factor in accidents. I mentioned this
on a radio programme and was phoned by several people who said they
found the driving jobs they were given impossible, involving them
in unsafe driving. For example, people who have a certain number
of shops to visit in the course of a day felt that they were expected
to travel at a far higher speed than was safe, in particular on
narrow country roads, to fulfil their itinerary
Continued in NEXT SECTION
|
