Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I thank the three witnesses for their very comprehensive opening statements. I also thank Deputy Michael McGrath for bringing the Bill forward, which the Labour Party will be supporting. I hail from the town of Mallow. It would not be fair to say that I was born in the flood but I was certainly baptised in the flood. I live less than 100 paces from the River Blackwater. If I threw a stone from my house, it would pretty much land in the Blackwater. I have first-hand experience of flooding incidences on the Munster Blackwater and I know that the schemes that have been put in place in Mallow and Fermoy demonstrably work. There is clear evidence that they work.

There is no ambiguity about that whatsoever. The system of demountables that has been put in place has been extremely successful. I know of only one breach, which was in a very particular location and was due to an electrical fault on a pump, in the past ten years, and it has since been fixed. I, therefore, see no reason whatsoever for any entity or party to hold back flood insurance from any premises or business within the floodplains of Fermoy and Mallow. I concur with Deputy McGrath that we should not have to seek a legislative solution to this issue.

What is the perception of the three witnesses of the memorandum of understanding and how it is operating as it relates to the OPW and Insurance Ireland? It appears to me that it merely seeks to share information and does not go beyond that. There does not appear to be any statement of principles. For instance, when the OPW kicks the tyres on a successful flood alleviation project, the OPW's word does not seem sufficient within that memorandum of understanding, MOU, to give assurances to any constituent member of Insurance Ireland that it can proceed to provide insurance in any areas covered by flood alleviation works. There seems to be a complete flaw in that regard. That is my first point and my first question.

My second point - I would like the witnesses' perception of this - concerns something I find incongruous and contradictory about the involvement of a global player such as Arup. Arup's consulting engineers were engaged to assess the flood relief scheme in Mallow. The Lagan Group provided the consulting engineers on the second phase. Arup is a globally recognised company. It did not come to Mallow and carry out the works it did without itself having insurance. There are more than 100 names, including some very big ones, on the list of Insurance Ireland's members. Starting with the As, there is Accenture, American International Group, AIG, and Alliance; going down the list, there is Lloyds and Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, BBVA. It is fair to assume that any one of these members of Insurance Ireland probably provided Arup with some degree of cover for the works it carried out. Therefore, it seems to me a contradiction that Insurance Ireland is happy to provide cover for consulting engineers who might provide works and kick the tyres on the works carried out, which then pass muster, and does not then provide cover after the fact, after the works have been successful - it is incontrovertible that they have been successful - for the people who benefit from the very schemes provided by companies such as Lagan and Arup. There is an inherent contradiction here. Furthermore, we are at a disadvantage here because Insurance Ireland always comes before the Oireachtas with one person as the representative of all of these insurance houses. I contend that we need to hear from individual voices who have provided insurance cover in the past but who do not have the guts, quite frankly, to come before us and give an account of their actions. I would like to hear from the witnesses how they perceive the contradictions I have just outlined.

I want to ask another, more specific question. It is a very simple question. Forgive me if it is a stupid one. I have always thought that the principles of insurance cover were such that an insurance house or company was legally obliged to provide a quote and therefore had to provide cover. Mr. Kavanagh spoke about the issue of excess but, regarding instances of people I know and people he knows not being able to get insurance, I always thought there was a provision governing the principles of providing insurance that one had to at least provide a quote for cover. Perhaps the witnesses could provide me with some information on that.

I will leave it at that for now. With the Chairman's indulgence, I might come back in for one more bite of the cherry.