John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

There is absolute frustration from homeowners and businesses that unfortunately continue to be either discriminated against in terms of extortionate premiums being offered, or else are simply not given the opportunity to get a premium in the first instance. This legislation follows on from a previous attempt in 2016 by the Minister, Deputy Michael McGrath, who brought forward more or less identical legislation.

It was a problem in 2016. That legislation moved to Second Stage and ultimately went to Committee Stage. All the issues were teased out. Yet now we are being told it is in breach of EU law and that it is unconstitutional. I read through the transcript of those committees. Yes, there were some issues identified there, but I do not think at that point it was deemed to be completely in breach of EU law or that it was unconstitutional. There were issues there that could have been teased out. That was more than well articulated on Committee Stage. I am therefore disappointed that those arguments have now been brought forward on this Stage, when there has been similar or identical legislation, although there are different rationales as to why they should not progress.

I am happy to work with the Minister of State and the Government on this issue. The Minister of State gave some statistics and I hope heard her correctly. She spoke about the River Dodder and the Little Bray area, where 81% of households have flood insurance cover. I hope I am right on that. That is what I think I heard. However, that statistic points out that 19% of households do not have flood insurance cover, after the State has spent millions. I think the figure I gave earlier was €46 million. This was to put in place long-campaigned-for and long-awaited infrastructure to mitigate floods. Still, however, 19% of households are being refused flood cover. That is why I have tabled this legislation.

The actions of which the Minister of State spoke, such as the working group between the OPW and the insurance companies, are all welcome. However, they do not address it. It is still voluntary for the insurance companies to provide flood insurance coverage. I welcome the fact the Minister of State is speaking about fresh regulatory impact assessments. I welcome all of that. However, there comes a time when it is a critical point and intervention is needed. I hear the Minister of State when she says we need more insurance companies in Ireland. However, I do not accept that by bringing forward legislation to address a serious issue such as this for intervention to be taken, it will act as a deterrent to international insurance providers coming into Ireland. It would actually bring us on par with them. I do not think it would be acceptable in Holland or anywhere else for insurance companies to do this. I would love to see some of those statistics as to whether it is an issue there. I seriously doubt it.

This Bill is born out of complete necessity, as I said. I do not accept the rationale for which the time amendment is being brought forward. The issues were teased out when the legislation was introduced in 2016 and when it made its way through Committee Stage. The issues were teased out. There was broad support from right across the House, including from the Minister of State’s own party and her partners in Government. Fianna Fáil obviously brought forward the legislation of necessity. Therefore, let us go through that process. I will work with the Minister of State on all the issues she identified here and we will have those discussions. Ultimately, however, the amendment she tabled to delay the Bill by 12 months is not giving good service to the people who need this insurance cover. I mentioned already that the investment by the State through the OPW in putting the protection in place is welcome. We need more. No one can argue against that. Yet, serious investment has been made and the insurance industry is letting us down. It is letting businesses down and it is letting homeowners down. We have an obligation and a duty. It ultimately comes to a point where there needs to be intervention and I think we are now at that point.

I will leave it at that, but the amendment about the time period is disappointing. Unfortunately, I will not be able to accept that, and I hope the Minister of State understands why not. It is because I think the issues can be teased out on Committee Stage if the Minister of State is willing to allow the Bill to move to that point.

See this speech in context