Cathal Crowe (Clare, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I see the Competition (Amendment) Bill 2022 very much as positive legislation. It gives more powers to the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission, and to the Commission for Communications Regulation, ComReg. Those two bodies will have more power - I suppose more firepower - so they can challenge anti-competitive practices by businesses and, in doing so, protect customers.

There were two aspects in particular over the past two years that were very eye-opening for me. One was during the early onset of the Covid pandemic when Ryanair in particular, and Aer Lingus to a lesser extent, flew out planes with virtually no passengers on board and refused to give refunds. If the plane was in the sky, then the service was considered to be operational, and therefore it was up to the consumer to go. I believe we saw some shoddy practice during that time. Most of this has been rectified now. There is also role there for the Commission for Aviation Regulation. I believe that, from a consumer point of view, we saw some sharp practice at the early onset of the Covid pandemic in how air passengers were treated around booking, trying to re-book, trying to get refunds, and the length of time it took for refunds to come through.

I wish to address another point with the Minister of State, Deputy Troy, that I have raised several times in the Chamber, which is the fascination in Dáil Éireann and the Houses of the Oireachtas with the issue of motor insurance and the huge costs of this to young people in particular, especially young males. It seems that across the board there is now a loading on everyone. Premiums seem to have gone up and up. When people get their renewal notices, for most people €100 or €200 has gone onto it already without any road traffic accident claims or any new penalty points on licences. There is certainly an issue there. Indeed, our colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Fleming, has been very good in taking action on that.

The one form of insurance that simply has not had enough debate is home insurance and flood cover for properties. I live in a part of County Clare not too far from the River Shannon. In 2009, part of the River Shannon burst its banks. In an area of between 5,000 or 6,000 homes, one or two homes took in water. Because of that low incidence of flooding, all homes in that catchment area are now being denied flood cover. It does not, however, work as simply as that. It also affects whether a person stays with his or her existing insurer. I happen to be with a particular insurance company, which I will not name, but I remain with this company because I cannot leave it. My neighbours cannot leave their insurance companies because the minute they leave their insurer and try to shop around, they are denied flood cover and they are exposed to far higher premiums.

Time and again I must write letters for people who are trying to sell their property and for people who are trying to buy properties, because when they go to lending institutions, they are told the sale cannot be approved because the properties do not come with flood cover insurance. The lenders will not lend on the properties or give mortgages on them. It is farcical because, bizarrely, a two paragraph letter from the local Deputy who lives in that local area and who had the same problem is accepted by the bank and accepted by the insurer. They insure, life goes on, and sales of properties continue. I write ten to a dozen of these letters per week. It is absolutely crazy.

This is about the principle of risk equalisation, a principle we became most familiar with in the context of health insurance. Theoretically, a younger person should be in better health and better physical shape than someone older or someone with an underlying illness. In health insurance, the principle of risk equalisation means everyone pays more or less the same to more or less the same extent. Insurance companies, however, have been applying risk equalisation for the past 11 years to homes in County Clare and homes further up along the River Shannon area, and to homes along other rivers such as the River Lee in Cork where homes have also flooded. They apply risk equalisation where one home floods and they pass the burden and the principle of risk equalisation onto thousands of homes in the catchment area. This does not take into account topography. It also does not take into account that one part of a housing estate could be 10 m higher than another part if they were developed at different levels, with different levels of landfill and different systems of drainage. It does not take into account the fact of underground topography, and the person suffering is the consumer and the homeowner. This debate has not happened enough in Dáil Éireann. The principle of risk equalisation is not just being applied, it is being abused. This needs to be the next consumer protection issue for Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann to look at.

See this speech in context