Debate contribution: Insurance Costs: Reductions for Workers, Families and Businesses
Debate contribution by Mr John Stewart on .
- MLA
- Mr John Stewart
- Party at the time
- Ulster Unionist Party
- Date
- 14 May 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Insurance Costs: Reductions for Workers, Families and Businesses
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4490390
Read the official Assembly record
Text
On behalf of the Ulster Unionist Party, I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion and thank Sinn Féin for tabling it. We will support it. I urge caution to anyone who has tuned in: clearly, we will not be able to resolve the matter today, but it is important that we send a unanimous collective message from the Chamber that we support further regulation of the insurance industry to see these ridiculous premiums come down. Insurance premiums used to be expensive, but they are now just extortionate. We all see that in our daily life, in our car insurance, our home insurance, our life insurance and our pet insurance. Everything that we pay continues to go up and up every year, and the most vulnerable in our society pay the price. That is clearly the case across Europe, where the average increase in insurance premiums at the moment is between 10% and 12%, but, in the United Kingdom, it is 34%. The previous Member to speak mentioned the costs that young drivers pay, which surged from an average of £1,423 a year to £2,877 in the past year. We all have constituents in that situation. One contacted me last week: an 18-year-old who had just passed his driving test. He drives a £2,000 VW Golf and was quoted £7,000 a year for insurance. That is half his salary. It is pricing him totally out of the market. He finally got a policy for about £4,500, and he thought that he had done well. It is farcical. That is the point that I made to Mr Boylan in my intervention: the FCA says that it is ensuring that people receive fair value, but how is there such a gap in insurance quotes? None of them is fair. It just seems absolutely ridiculous. We obviously need to see action to extend the role of the Financial Conduct Authority and other regulators in dealing with that. We are trying to encourage more people to use electric vehicles, but the cost of insurance premiums that people pay for electric vehicles has doubled. It costs up to £5,000 a year to drive an EV.
Thank you for the extra minute. It more than likely is a factor, and I would like to see a lot more electric vehicle charging points across the country. Those are prime examples of issues that are outside the remit of the individual who is taking out the insurance but that the insurance companies add to it. People are being ripped off. We have heard that the increased costs for insurance companies are around 18% per year, but the average increase in premiums is 34% a year and growing. We are being penalised because the insurance companies want to grow their margins, and that seems to be deeply unfair. I do not want anyone to play a small violin for me, but I have a 15-year no-claims bonus, and my insurance premium has risen by another £300 a year. It seems ridiculous, and we are all in that boat, because everybody in the Chamber has insurance, as has their family, and everyone knows the impact that the cost has. It impacts our businesses as well, and if we speak to small business owners, we find that the cost of public liability insurance has gone through the roof, as have contents insurance and stock and building insurance. That is virtually impossible for them, and they are running to stand still. That point should also be incorporated into the motion. I will give an anecdotes. A local sports club contacted me to say that an overseas professional player was coming over, and they wanted to drive for the six-month duration of the season but were quoted between £9,000 and £27,000 for their insurance premium. That beggars belief, and they ended up having to take the £9,000 policy because there was no alternative and they needed the transport. We need to see action. We all know how nice it is to finally pass your test, given all the hurdles that you have to jump over and the amount of money that you have to spend. Many of our young people are now being priced out of the market and are unable to afford the insurance. Affordable insurance is vital for our economy, because many roles require people to commute or to drive, and those people cannot do either of those because they cannot get the insurance that they need. I do not want to labour the point for much longer. I agree with everything that has been said, but we should all urge the Financial Conduct Authority to carry out a full investigation of the market. I know that it has resisted such calls to date, particularly following the debate at Westminster, which was referred to. It has a duty and responsibility to investigate, as do all the regulators, and we need to see that investigation carried out as quickly as possible in order to ensure fairness and value for all our constituents.
841 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not qualifying”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.03 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.94).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- The overall probability was at or below the not-qualifying threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.94 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | At or below not-qualifying threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.78 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.13 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.04 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.02 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:27 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.