Customers will be told they can opt out and the bank says that refusing to take part won't impact on the claim at all.

Fraud in household and motor insurance costs around �1bn every year, the Association of British Insurers estimates.

Do you think lie tests are a reasonable method for detecting fraud? Do you feel confident it wouldn't go against you if you refused to take part? Do you trust the technology to get it right?

This debate is now closed. Thank you for your comments:

It is important to understand the following: Risk in initial claims notifications is measured by the technology together with 'Advanced Narrative Analysis' techniques to find low risk claims. These are then immediately passed to fast track settlement, negating the need for further investigation; this greatly enhances service to genuine customers. All other claims, now indicating specific risks in certain areas, can now be investigated in a highly focused manner. Decisions to decline claims are solely based on tangible evidence of the more traditional kind and not on the results of the technology test. We can reveal that with this process, one insurer has increased the detection of fraudulent claims from 1.6% of all claims to 18%. At the same time, customer complaints are around 8 times lower than their previous levels.
Kerry Furber, Managing Director, Digilog UK Ltd., UK

Even the most intensive polygraph techniques which involve the physical presence of the interviewee are easily fooled and even worse, prone to giving false positives. Any automated system using poor quality telephone signals is going to be worse than useless. One can only assume that this is just another cheap gimmick designed to get HBOS lots of free publicity during the silly season - in which case it seems to have worked.
Stuart W, UK

How can the insurance companies possibly expect people to sound calm and normal when they speak to one of their claims operatives? I had to call a well-known claim line on behalf of my elderly, sick, mum, whose car had been vandalised. The culprits were caught red-handed, in the car, by the police. But the rude girl on the phone reduced me to tears. I hung up and she rang back a few minutes later, demanding that my husband put me back on. He refused and asked her to repeat her name as he couldn't understand her accent the first time. She got furious with him and hung up on him. Maybe the insurance companies would do better to invest in staff training!!
Catherine Davies, England

Ridiculous! There is no evidence that lie detectors are even remotely reliable, and they can easily be tricked into giving negative results. Who is going to go to the bother of finding out how to trick lie-detectors? The fraudulent claimers of course. End result, more false positives than false negatives and a lot of very annoyed, honest claimants who will look elsewhere for their insurance policies next time.
Kevin, UK

I am full of admiration for the companies who manage to sell this technology to the insurance companies Adam, UK

I am full of admiration for the companies who manage to sell this technology to the insurance companies. Getting insurance companies to part with huge amounts of money for something that is completely unreliable and pointless is one of the most inspired pieces of salesmanship I have seen in years. Fridges to Eskimos just wouldn't be a challenge for these guys.
Adam, UK

It's not just customers who take insurance companies for a ride, it's the companies' own 'recommended repairers' etc. To these people, being on an insurance company's recommended list is a licence to print money. They submit the most outrageous and uncompetitive bills for their services and the insurance company pays up without a murmur, knowing that they can pass on the costs in increased premiums.
Paul Burt, UK

I always get stressed speaking to my insurance company - doesn't matter which on it is, or what it's about. Conversations with them, even if just for a quote or amendment are never simple. How can they tell if the stress is due to their treatment of the customer or the customer is lying?
Christina, England

That would make sense if the insurer was willing to go through the same test when he was explaining the terms of the contract or when he was evaluating the money he had to pay as compensation for damages.
Dinos Iliopoulos, Greece

Insurance companies should be able to test us but likewise insurance companies should not be allowed to drop customers after having paid off a big claim. This is a real problem in the US. Sure catch the liars, but also, hold the insurance companies accountable to their customers.
Sherry Beth, USA

Absolutely not. Lie detection tests have invariable proven to be both unreliable and invalid in test after scientific test. In fact, for every one correct result there are nine false positives. Imagine the administrative mess and human horror of the number of people who will have to appeal decisions so they can receive life saving medical care! In the name of saving money (a dubious proposition considering the inevitable appeals mess), how many may die waiting? Better yet to invest the money and effort in supporting the education and hiring of more health care professionals to do in-person assessments rather than trusting lives to machinery based on quackery.
Betsy, USA

If the system worked perfectly, then it would bring down insurance premiums. It would be interesting to put Tony Blair on one of these machines during Prime Minister's Question Time.
David, England

A few weeks ago, I honestly believed my car had been stolen. I made all relevant declarations to the police and my insurance who never doubted what I said. Trouble is, I had parked my car somewhere else and forgot. This would not have been picked up by the computer, would it?
Pascal Jacquemain, UK (French)

They do have a moral right to test whether claimants are lying David Hazel, UK

Given that the insurance companies are paying out other people's money if someone makes a fraudulent claim, yes they do have a moral right to test whether claimants are lying. I object to the fact that the premiums I pay are determined in part by the number of fraudulent claims made by others. Why should my hard-earned cash go into someone's back pocket when they don't have a legitimate reason for making a claim?
David Hazel, UK

The lie detector is based on a persons stress level when talking through the phone. If someone has just been burgled or had an accident then they are going to be stressed. Also, people's stress levels vary; I might be calm after an incident where as another maybe in a panic. A person's stress levels will also increase and decrease naturally during a conversation. Measuring a person's stress to detect lying will be inaccurate at best. Do insurance companies not visit many claims to test their validity? A cynical person would say it's an attempt by insurance companies to lower payouts regardless of whether the claim is genuine or not.
Tony, Hull UK

Yes I do. Why should I pay extortionate fees because I claim truthfully whilst the other people are claiming for things that are exorbitant? Whilst I do believe that prices will never go lower, it would remove an excuse for insurers to hike prices.
Mark, UK

There's a reason lie detector tests are not allowed under US employment laws. It results in unfair discrimination. Having an opt out clause does not make this policy any better.
Ben, USA

Absolutely. If this helps the insurance companies determine when people are defrauding them then I 100% support the effort, as long as it's not the only thing used, simply an aid in the process. Let's hope this will remove some of the fraudulent claims and reduce the rates for those of us who are honest.
James, USA

What the insurers are doing is trying to intimidate people into not making claims Freddy, England

Can we as customers require insurers to tell us what the small print really means, while wired up a lie detector? But seriously, a few minutes research on the Net, and a few days practise, and virtually anyone can learn how to fool a lie detector. The whole idea of using them to combat fraud is itself fraudulent. What the insurers are doing is trying to intimidate people into not making claims.
Freddy, England

I would say yes, as I have worked for an Insurance Broker and handled some small claims. The reason why your premiums go up so much is because of so much fraudulent claims. So I think it is a good idea. If you are genuinely claiming, you have nothing to worry about.
Lynne, UK

Any system that would curb abuse will be welcomed as far as it would not cheat genuine customers. What is the guarantee that Insurance companies will not manipulate in order to avoid payments?
Tilak Abeysinghe, Sri Lanka

Any responsible and reputable researcher will confirm that lie detectors are not 100% accurate - sometimes achieving dismal success rates. They are simply not accurate enough to base what can be life shattering decisions about people.
Darren, UK

Why not? Premiums are escalating because of the massive increase in fraudulent claims. My policy will be cheaper if other people are deterred from making fraudulent claims; lie detectors can't be used to deny claims, only to prompt further investigation. There is no downside!
Guy Chapman, UK

It's interesting to read how many people actually believe that by using these tests, it may bring the cost of insurance premiums down! Get real, these companies exist because of peoples fear and their payouts are a small percentage of what they make. All they are interested in is greater profits, so if they know we pay whatever they say because we really have little choice, why should they decrease their profits? Do you think they are there to serve us?
Anon, UK

Surely only fraudsters will fear it! Kulu, UK

Of course insurers should try to establish if claims are genuine. It would be ridiculous to suggest they just pay out to anyone who makes a claim. If this technology can give some indication as to the possibility of fraud then why not use it? Surely only fraudsters will fear it!
Kulu, UK

NO WAY! I don't agree with the fraudsters, but neither do I think the insurance companies are blameless. Their call centre staff do not take down all the details and make assumptions; companies force people to make claims based on these assumptions when the customer doesn't want to and the classification system means that untrue statements are put on customers' records - even when the customer didn't make the statements. It may be slower, but let's get back to the old system of writing down the incident. Unlike the lie detector, a written statement is admissible in court and can be used to expose fraud.
Jen, UK

I think the use of lie detector tests on consumers is very wrong, UNLESS the consumer has an equal right to use lie detectors on insurance salesmen! This might help to find out whether the company would pay out for a genuine claim. Some companies do not pay up for genuine claims! This should be easy to set up through an insurance organisation which acts on behalf of consumers.
Mrs R H Crook, England

As much as I don't condone fraud against insurance companies, they have brought it on themselves in part by the 'get out' clauses they fail to disclose in their policies. As a result, many people take the view that they are fair game to try and de-fraud. Perhaps if both parties in the contract take lie detector tests and record the telephone conversations then both parties would end up with a fair deal.
Michael Godfrey, UK

Making a false claim is fraud, pure & simple Sheila, UK

Policyholders have brought this on themselves - I work in the insurance field and I can't believe how may "law abiding" people think its OK to at best exaggerate and at worst down right lie when they make a claim. making a false claim is fraud, pure & simple.
Sheila, UK

Only if they themselves take the same test when they are selling me the policy.
Gerry Noble, UK

I'm gobsmacked at the idea that anyone should think that a machine can tell whether one is lying over the phone or not, and trust it! What evidence is there that it works? And what of those who it is wrong about? That it is being even considered is ludicrous!
Nigel, UK

No. We keep on paying more premiums on sorts of insurances. The laws always seem to be in favour of the insurance companies.
Firozali A. Mulla, Tanzania

I'd like to employ the salesperson who palmed these machines off on the insurance companies. It's well known that they only pick up a person's reaction to whether they think they are lying. No use with the elderly lady with scruples who thinks she hasn't got the answers quite right (positive) or with the practised sharp guy, not to say psychopath, who goes through life convinced he is right about everything (negative. Back to the drawing board...)
Gill, Wales

As long as the detector isn't the only test being used to detect fraud, then why not?? I would expect this type of test to be used to flag who was a potential fraudster so that more work could be done to determine this. If this proved they were telling the truth the claim would be met, if not a fraud has been prevented; a potential criminal identified for the police to pursue; and my premiums kept down...what's the problem??
John R Smith, UK

Should millions of honest people bankroll such a program? Margaret Engel, USA

Should millions of honest people bankroll such a program? No matter how you look at it, the Insurer does not stand to lose much because any loss is passed down to the consumer in the form of "rates". This is a waste of time, and money for a process that is not even recognized in a court of law as evidence of someone's guilt.
Margaret Engel, USA

Given that it's nearly impossible to get decent insurance cover that pays out, perhaps it's not such a bad idea. It might actually increase the trust of insurance firms in their customers.
Russ, UK

If the insurers want to improve profits then they should sell these machines. I'd like to have one sitting on my TV for Party Political Broadcasts.
Mike Holmes, Scotland

The people who are the losers, are the hard working people who pay their premiums consistently. Criminals and cheats will find a way around the system - leaving the average John (or Joan) pondering over the short end of the stick!
S Scott, England

I am suspicious of insurance companies' motives Roberta, England

I have to say that I am suspicious of insurance companies' motives...having worked for one I am well aware that their aim is to pay out as little as possible or not at all.
Roberta, England

DEFINATELY NOT! I'll bet that there are lots of people, like me, whom when accused of something, actually feel guilty for it - for no reason! And it is that which would show up in a 'lie detector'!
Joseph, UK

Companies have a right to check that a claimant is making a genuine call. I'm sure insurance premiums would be less without unjustified claims being paid.
Peter, UK

CIA has stopped using lie detector equipment to test their staff because it was found to be unreliable. If the CIA can't tell who is lying with this sort of equipment, who else can.
Andrew Akerman, England

I have a lung disorder, and most of the time my voice goes to pot whilst I talk on the phone or I start to cough. How would this affect myself and those who have a similar condition?
Erika, UK

I reckon we should be allowed to test our insurers to see if *they* are lying. My car insurers told me they would give me two year's no-claims bonus for the price of one. However, the following year when I came to renew, I was told that I wasn't eligible for the offer because I was under 25 when I took out the insurance. Insurers will most likely use this new technology to cheat even more people.
Ian Henderson, UK

As I recall they are not admissible as evidence in a court of law Andrew, England

How accurate are these tests? As I recall they are not admissible as evidence in a court of law. I believe they work on emotional factors and if you are making a claim, chances are you are pretty well emotionally involved, especially if it is the result of a mugging or a burglary or a car accident. If your house is damaged that is pretty upsetting too.
Andrew, England

They should be allowed to do this, only if the insurance companies agree to be taped when they are selling to the general public their endowment policies, investment policies, and investments that end up being a load of fraud because they will not tell you the small print.
F. Williamson, England

Considering that the circumstances under which most claims occur are traumatic events, people are unlikely to react in the same way as normal - they may be nervous, distressed, and suffering from shock. How many of these traits are likely to show up as lying claimants? Lie detectors are not infallible and as such their evidence cannot be used in court to prove or disprove innocence - so why use them under these circumstances?
Richard M, UK

Some people get nervous on the telephone. To the machines, true statements may 'sound' like lies. Fair?
Hugh, England

Can shareholders and policyholders use the same device when told why CEOs get millions in bonuses or why their policy was declined?
K, UK

Companies have the right to protect the way they do business and their investments, but they can also do it without violating someone's rights!!
Isaac, California, US

I wish that there had been a lie detector when the young man who was speeding and smashed into me had made his claim! He and his three friends in the car at the time lied through their teeth and as a result I lost over 20 years no claims bonus. Sadly I was on my own and there were no other witnesses.
Fi, UK

If insurance companies didn't employ so-called "loss adjustors" (people who decide you've inflated your claim and reducing it) otherwise honest people wouldn't inflate their claims. If you've lost �10,000 worth of stuff in a burglary and the loss assessor "adjusts" your claim to �8,000 it's hardly surprising people claim for an extra couple of grand's worth of stuff they never had.
John B, UK

Anything which reduces my premium is OK by me John, France

When you accept the policy you know the rules. Also anything which reduces fraud and therefore my premium is OK by me. If you don't like it, do me a favour and find another insurance company to rip off.
John, France

And what if the technology concludes that a customer is lying, gets it wrong, and the customer decides to take the matter further? Can the technology distinguish between someone who is lying and someone who is simply nervous when speaking to strangers over the phone?
Chris, UK

I think they would be a good idea, if used in the correct manner. Habitual liars will make up a story on the spot, and will have trouble recalling any details correctly after more than a couple of days. Perhaps the test should be carried out secretly, and anyone who shows up negative should be contacted again a couple of days later and asked to confirm their story. That way, the true claimants will remember, and the liars will be left "umming", and "erming".
Andy, UK

If a refusal to participate does not affect your claim, why bother with it then?
Chrissie, Scotland

Not reasonable at all. The evidence shows that these devices are no better than the telephone operator guessing if the answer is true or false.
Dr David Gable, USA/UK

I don't think anyone is suggesting that it would be used to make the decision whether to accept or decline a claim. It will merely be used to identify claims that should be investigated more closely and those that could be "fast-tracked" and paid straight away. If it reduces fraud then it will save us all a lot on our insurance premiums.
Mark, UK