Alice-Mary Higgins
National University of Ireland · Independent · Ireland
“We are signing up to be customers of liquefied natural gas - potentially fracked gas, potentially coming from a country that is busily fighting against climate action and trying to fast-track our route to destruction. We will be doing that every year in the budget and every day in the terminal.”
“We are not getting solid measures on those safeguards. The other safeguards we have, which are our planning laws and climate laws, are being either fast-tracked or suspended. We are suspending the existing safeguards and are not putting hard safeguards into this Bill, and we are being asked to go on faith.”
“Nonetheless, I have some practical questions. We need a little more on what the emergency is because it is not sufficient to say we will deal with it then. The emergency is the ground on which the Minister of State is asking for the normal planning process and the climate Act to be suspended. We need to know what the emergency is.”
“It should happen only after all relevant market-based measures have been implemented. Those market measures should include the demand-reduction strategies that are eligible under N-1, including demand reduction by large energy users, and should have been implemented, exhausted and proven insufficient.”
“Sure there is detail in it but the key issue is that what he is asking of the Oireachtas, which is to agree to it being built, is on the argument of there being an emergency. It should be very clear what the emergency is. I mentioned previously that the committee said our N-1 obligations could be met through demand management.”
“It comes from real places with real communities that are immediately and terribly impacted by fracking, as well as having an impact on the atmosphere that surrounds our beautiful planet, which we are destroying. As the Minister of State said, it impacts not just on business but on the liveability of large portions of this planet.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,900 lines we hold for Alice-Mary Higgins, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 18 of 38.
“We are discussing new powers for corporations in terms of seeking satisfaction from the State at the same time as we are diluting citizens' involvement in the decisions that shape their lives in the places where they live, at planning and at judicial level.”
“There is reference to EU law in the section but there is no obligation around it. Then there is the blank cheque on top of it. This is bad legislation, on top of the dilution we saw previously in the Planning and Development Act and it goes alongside the new announcement on the scale of fees. Those who are being denied proper access to participation in the planning process are also going to be excluded from proper judicial remedy, as they are entitled to under the Aarhus Convention, in terms of the courts. This is all happening at a time when we are also debating the introduction of new powers for corporate courts.”
“This is the second blank cheque because a public body means a Minister, a local authority, a body under enactment under the Companies Act, a designated institution or any other person or body prescribed by regulation under section 8. Again, there is a danger here that we have subcontractors, or sub-companies or others under public contract, for example, who are being given this exclusion or this space. It is not clear who, in fact, will be employing this or what they are going to be employing it for. I would like the Minister to tell us how we are going to know that our EU law obligations are going to be met. There is the issue of disapplying our own climate Act but what about our EU law obligations? Our international obligations are important too. Why is the Paris Agreement, to which we are signatories, not referenced in section 2?”
“We are creating a wild west whereby certain public bodies in some of the things they are doing will not be contributing to what is supposedly our national plan. It is literally the opposite of joined-up thinking. When we ask why the climate Act is being disapplied, we have to say that it points to the danger of huge infrastructural projects, which are responsible for some of the biggest levels of emissions, and which may be or may relate to fossil fuel infrastructure. This is a really dangerous point of reversal of what had been the previous position. The Minister's power in terms of the designation of projects has been the focus of others but another concern arises in relation to ministerial power in terms of what is a public body. There are the projects, however they may be designated and then there is the question of the public bodies.”
“The definition of infrastructure is narrow. There is nothing about housing, healthcare, and other critically needed infrastructure but energy generation is in the mix there, and transport is in the mix. There are no safeguards around how the Minister is going to designate infrastructure and how that is going to happen in the future. This is a huge centralising of power in one individual within the Government. In terms of public duties, what we are losing by removing section 15 of the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act is the obligation on public bodies to perform their functions in a manner consistent with the climate action plan, the climate action strategy, the national adaptation framework and approved sectoral adaptation plans.”
“By seeking to disapply that section, the Government is effectively giving equal if not more advantageous status to the kinds of developments and infrastructure that choose not to meet the climate targets that we have, thereby digging ourselves and Ireland into an even worse position in relation to our compliance not only with Irish standards but also with our EU obligations and our international obligations under the Paris Agreement. There is huge discretion given to the Minister for public expenditure to designate a project as critical infrastructure. Again, it says that the Department must prioritise that project and presumably that could be done around the Cabinet table. The Department must prioritise that project but there is nothing around how that prioritisation actually takes effect. It is very vague.”
“That has always been more of the picture when we talk about critical infrastructure. If it was about the environment or about delivering climate action, we would not be disapplying section 15 of the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act. That would not be a centre point in this Bill. The Government is talking about critical infrastructure and pushing a narrative about delivering on our goals but it is actually giving advantage to critical infrastructure which does not comply with section 15 of the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act.”
“It is not about the resourcing of our judicial processes, which we know are under-resourced, or any of the other processes that might speed things up. There are lots of separate bits in this Bill but the actual focus, the significant legislative provision that is happening here is disapplying of section 15 of the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act. This is particularly galling because we heard a lot of narrative about how having a planning process is a pity because we want to get the green transition quicker. That was part of the selling of this but the Bill exposes the fact that critical infrastructure has never been about the windmills and has always been about the industrial infrastructure, the data centres, the large energy users and the corporate clients.”
“It is one of the acts, alongside voting, that many people engage in, in terms of applying for or having an opinion in relation to planning permission. This is being truncated and I will return later to how it fits with the truncation of another part of people's participation in the decisions that affect their lives and shape the world and environment in which they live, which is the right to judicial remedy and having proper access to our court systems because there is an intersection here. The language around critical infrastructure and the throwing around of that phrase is all over the narrative about this Bill but the actual thing that is happening in this Bill, to be really clear, is not massive investment in critical infrastructure or the prioritisation of huge public funds towards the delivery of things.”
“The first point that needs to be marked is that there is a big concern around the lack of pre-legislative scrutiny, which has begun to be a bit of a red flag, and then the guillotining of the Dáil debate on this Bill. Where this becomes particularly egregious is when we have legislation which is constraining the action and effect of our laws. This is part of a set of measures which we know will constrain the right of citizens to be part of politics. What I say when I want to encourage people to believe in politics is that politics, in the end, is the decisions we make about how we want to live together. For many people in this democracy a fundamental part of the decisions about how we want to live together, and the mechanism through which the idea that they are involved first becomes tangible, is the planning process.”
“By the way, whenever it was scrutinised in the EU committee or elsewhere, it has been found against, and even a committee with a Government majority found against it.”
“The point is that things can change. They have changed in the past largely due to pressure from those members who opposed the old system, which did not include the Irish Government, I note. They have changed again, although not as far as we would like, but they can change back. This is a blank cheque. We do not know what kind of clauses or provisions may be in future trade agreements. We do not know what kind of investor-state dispute mechanisms there will be. We are being asked not just to move on CETA and on Chile, but, in some of the subsections of this Bill, to give a blank cheque for the Minister to make future determination on any kind of future investor-state dispute mechanism without scrutiny, even the minimal scrutiny that CETA has had.”
“The answer is clearly that it could be the case. We do not know what will happen in the next chapter. What is clear from what the Minister of State has said is that it is not excluded, but that he does not anticipate it happening. Perhaps it would not be his personal preference.”
“I would like that question answered - yes or no. Is it not the case that there is no specification that it would be the ICS system, and we can come back on the merits or not of that? It simply mentions investor-state dispute mechanisms. The future agreements that may be attached to this may, indeed, contain different investor-state dispute mechanisms.”
“I have asked the question. The question was, factually, that the investor court system is not specified in this legislation. Is it not the case that other investor-state dispute mechanisms may apply through this legislation? Yes or no. With respect, Chair, I asked a yes-or-no question. It was a very simple question. It is reasonable to ask that it be answered. In terms of expediency, as we move forward, I did not go on at length. It was simply yes or no. I am restating it because perhaps it slipped the mind of the Minister of State.”
“Not that it has been said publicly, but has it ever been part of an Attorney General's advice, perhaps? Is that something the Minister of State can come to us with? Again, when I mention the blank cheque that attaches to laws, the fact that a change in the law leads to a reduction in costs is a direct input on sovereignty whereby the cost will change according to the obedience of the member state or the state that has been taken to court.”
“As my colleague has just said, can the Minister of State confirm that there is nothing in this legislation that confines the arbitration findings to the investor court system? It simply refers to an investment dispute resolution provision attached, so it could be anything. This lengthy discussion about the ICS is a little by the by because it is not necessarily going to be the ICS. It could be one of the old bad tribunals again. Lastly, on the cost, can the Minister of State tell us what analysis has been done in terms of the chilling effect? Can he confirm that the Energy Charter Treaty has never been a consideration in relation to any law made in Ireland in any shape or form and has never influenced or helped make any decisions in that regard?”
“Can the Minister confirm - I can confirm, but can he deny - that as regards all this investor court system or supposed reform he has mentioned, that same language, "unfair and inequitable", is there and the interpretative agreement is something signed by Canada and the parties? It is not signed up to by corporations. Yes or no, is it not the case that those corporations can also choose and seek to have their trial heard under the old ICSID rules? They are not obliged to go with the investor court system. They can go under the old rules that gave us those multiple rulings the Minister of State is trying to tell us are not relevant, even though the grounds are the same. Can the Minister of State also confirm that, as I said, there has not been a risk analysis in relation to that question of the clause on inducements?”
“Can the Minister of State confirm - I can confirm, but can he deny - that "unfair and inequitable treatment", the language that is here still in the investor court system, is the basis on which multiple very large million-dollar and billion-dollar awards have been made against states in the past? It is unfair and inequitable treatment. The Minister of State did not respond to the fact that in the text of CETA it mentions inducements, of encouraging investment, as one of the grounds which make more likely a judgment of unfair and inequitable treatment. These are the facts.”
“I will be brief because I am keen to get to my amendments. In the spirit of the yes-no answers, I would like just a few, and the Minister of State might front-load my questions - I know he will be limited in his time for a response - to ensure they are answered. The Minister of State has focused again and again on the right to regulate and t's and i's. The right to regulate is there. Of course it is. It would be quite something if they could take away the right to regulate. The sovereignty and the courts issue has been examined in detail but the impact on the sovereignty in a legislative way is through the cost of regulation. We are signing a blank cheque in respect of the future cost of regulating, passing laws and giving effect to the mandate the public give us. In that regard, that blank cheque is very clear.”
“Will there be a change to the CETA text to reflect what is proposed in the arbitration amendment? Has there been contact with the European Commission to seek assurances from our fellow EU member states that they will not be enforcing rulings if the High Court were to decide against it?”
“It was relevant to mention the occupied territories Bill because we all know that should have been passed ages ago. It is not getting passed because of pressure and concern around corporations and the corporate mood. Can we imagine if they also had a little instrument here to say, “And we will sue you”? That is what I do not know. I come back to this question; is it just that they want a photo opportunity or that the Government has not thought about the risk? Is it just recklessness or is it a willingness to compromise our sovereignty? Is it a desire to have a useful tool that stops the Government and future governments from doing things that might upset lobbyists? That is where we are at. I will come back to the specific amendments at a later point. I would like a specific answer on the CETA text.”
“When it comes to budget time, it does not just compromise our policymaking in the day-to-day, but it also compromises our budget predictions. Do we now have to add a fund for how we are going to pay for potential cases? Will each Minister have to make the case as to why they should be given money, and that it is not going to come with an additional cost because they have already factored in keeping the corporations happy? That is the compromise of a policymaking decision that leads to future generations being betrayed when they elect people. I say this for all parties. This is not a left-right thing. This is when they elect people of any party based, for example, on a manifesto, or based on things they want delivered, and then that party says, actually, it will not come with any cost.”
“When Vermilion, a Canadian company that has a strong base in Ireland, sued the French Government over a potential climate law, that law was diluted. When David O'Sullivan came here to advocate for the ratification of these investor courts, I read out a piece from his law firm explicitly stating that threatening to take a case can get the law overturned. That is what the function is in many cases - it is the threat. Very importantly, the text of CETA states that when deciding how much of an award there will be, it takes into account if there was any repeal or amendment of the measure. If you change the law, we will charge you less. That is there as a chilling effect. It is there in the text of CETA with regard to how awards are calculated. That is the picture we paint of the future and how this impacts on sovereignty.”
“If the Canadian company were encouraged to invest, as it would be because it is normal practice for countries to encourage companies to invest, the company would be able to say we encouraged it to invest and that it wants special treatment and special compensation. What happens then is the chilling effect, which is real and directly cuts across sovereignty. That is the issue. The Minister of State talked about policy freedom. We have talked about all of the obstacles. We have said it is terrible to have judicial reviews and all these obstacles to getting things done. A new obstacle to getting things done will have to be a legal analysis of who is going to sue us if we do this. That chilling effect has had a direct effect.”
“Of course, it is not simply “Our profits are affected, give us money.” It is that our profits are expected, are seen as reasonable expectations, and the expropriation of those profits means the fair and equitable treatment obligation has been breached. That language might sound soft, but that is the language that has been used for decades by arbitration tribunals in order to award hundreds of millions and billions against states. It is worth noting that under Article 8.10 of CETA: When applying the above fair and equitable treatment obligation, the Tribunal may take into account whether a Party made a specific representation to an investor to induce a covered investment, that created a legitimate expectation ... It is not a matter of saying that we will pick on Canadian companies when we make that law about renters’ rights.”
“They are now in the firing line, factually. Any asset overseas can be seized if the national or local court in that jurisdiction declares it, and it has been done in multiple instances in relation to Spain, for example. This is the recklessness. That is one bit of the sovereignty. The other bit of the sovereignty is in relation to our lawmaking. The quote the Minister of State has used, and I am sure will use again, is that “the mere fact” that the bottom line or profits are affected is not in itself an issue and that we have the right to legislate. Yes, we retain the right to legislate and "the mere fact" that profits are affected, and I know it is emphasised, is only under the CETA agreement. We do not know if any of this language will be in any future agreements that come through. The point is “the mere fact”.”
“As has been outlined directly, however, any European court is going to say that we already said we wanted to give up the sovereignty and that we made that decision, and why are we now saying we want to hold a little bit of it back around the application? We will be in that weak position. In terms of the extraterritorial aspect and the seizure of assets, they do not even have to rely on Europe. The UK courts have ordered seizures of property belonging to Spain. The Instituto Cervantes headquarters in the UK was seized. I have multiple examples; I cannot even list how many. The state-owned air traffic control company of Spain was also seized. This is part of the recklessness. We are very proud of our diplomatic structures and our wonderful embassies across the world, from the Villa Spada right over to the US.”
“We are saying that instead of that happening here, we are going to allow it to happen there, in an investor court system, although not necessarily, of course, the new investor court system. It could be under the old ICSID rules. It could under the New York rules. We do not know what form of arbitration tribunal will be attached to any of the future deals we will be signed up to, and we know there is great flexibility for corporations in choosing exactly how they would like to see a case tried, even under CETA. That is what we are being asked to do; surrender that sovereignty from the courts and then have an ameliorating thing where we will try to make it not hurt by saying it will not apply in these constitutional issues.”
“We are being asked to voluntarily surrender something we currently own, which is control of the courts and how issues are decided and the confidence. By the way, the Canadian ambassador himself said there has been no instance where a Canadian company has said it is not getting proper treatment in our courts and all the rest. However, that does not mean they are going to choose our courts when they have an arbitration body, which is not required to perform any of the balancing functions in terms of public interest or anything else that our courts are required to do. We are surrendering a situation whereby when there is a dispute, it is decided by our national court, which has a balancing function that balances public interest and European law and, one would hope, international law and all the rest when making a decision.”
“They are trying to ask whether a state wants to surrender the sovereignty whereby instead of an issue being decided by its court system, precedence will now be given to a decision made by an outside arbitration tribunal, which is not in Canada or the EU and it does not consider itself, by the way, bound by any of these laws, be it the International Court of Justice, ICJ, or European courts or anything else. They are separate. They are asking whether states want to surrender sovereignty in relation to judicial decision-making to this other body. What the fix is supposed to say is that, yes, we will choose to surrender our sovereignty but we will ignore what they say if it does not suit the Constitution. It is literally that analogy.”
“What it said was that the European Commission has been given authority in relation to trade negotiations with the various provisions and public policy exceptions and that it goes to nation states to hold the responsibility in terms of whether or not they want to sign up to investor courts. They decide whether or not to sign up to investor courts. That is a separate decision that they make, which, by the way, they do not have to make because of provisional application. The trade bit goes ahead but they do not have to make a decision and there is no timeline or deadline. I should point out that there have been certain trade agreements in which countries were 20 years or longer in provisional application and then exited without ever fully ratifying. However, they choose to ratify. At that point, they surrender their sovereignty.”
“No, it pointed to a possible measure that could or may ameliorate this issue. It is pretend. It is literally a measure, as was described, which is kind of simply saying, in a bizarre way, that we will say it is constitutional. I have been here through ten years of legislation; all legislation is meant to be constitutional. We will say that we will only do the thing that is constitutional in a Bill, which is bizarre, frankly, in draftsmanship. Also, that does not have meaningful effect. Let us go back to the sovereignty question when it comes to the courts. What happened in the Singapore case was that the European court was asked who gets to decide in relation to trade and investment courts.”
“I want to place this recklessness in the context of the point, and I do not really think it was appropriate, where I saw the Minister rolling his eyes when sovereignty was mentioned. This fundamentally does relate to sovereignty and on two levels, that is, the sovereignty of our courts and sovereignty in respect of the ability to serve the Irish public and deliver legislation that reflects their wishes and their mandate. In respect of the courts, the Supreme Court found there was an issue with sovereignty. That was its finding. This is not us saying it. That is what it told us. As for what has been proposed, again, it is not even proposed because what was said was that something may be able to address it because, bear in mind, it would not be appropriate for the Minister to come in here and say that the Supreme Court told us to do this.”
“However, what the Minister has also admitted is that there is no timeline or deadline and there is no requirement for a ratification vote. The consequences he has described are, therefore, entirely voluntarily sought-out risk that the Government is seeking to take. Yes, there are risks in terms of the fact that I do not believe this will stand up constitutionally. Where does that leave us in a bind then? Will we say that, actually, our constitutional courts found that this does not stand up and that the Arbitration Act does not stand up but we have already have ratified a document that relates to courts that do not effectively recognise the supremacy of our Supreme Court? We will be in a situation then, as Senator McDowell has described, where we do not have an ability to leave.”
“If we look to the area of mining, there are huge industries related to Canada and others and, indeed, Chile where there is a litany of cases and a litany of companies that have proven themselves to be extremely litigious, including companies operating in Ireland, for example, such as Canadian companies that have a record of taking cases. The recklessness is also in the context that this does not need to be done. When the Minister described what would happen if we do not ratify, and he has gone into this in some detail on Second Stage, let us be clear; what he is describing is what would happen if we pushed a ratification vote and decided to force a ratification vote on the Dáil and that did not pass. That is the scenario.”
“When Brexit was coming, we were teasing out what it will it mean for the mushroom industry and what it will mean in this area and that area, yet we have this hugely consequential decision where the risk is not being assessed and the Minister is saying, against any evidence of any expert anywhere, that he does not believe there is any possibility that we will be seeing cases. There is key exposure in the areas of housing and care and home care, as well as in public health where there is exposure and a litany of cases. Even when we look to the areas of climate, environment and energy, there is a litany of cases.”
“These structures have been in place for a long time and they get used because they deliver very strong effects for companies - I am going to come back to that - not just financially but also in an ability to influence and shape and change policy. There have been findings of hundreds of millions and of billions against states right across the world. There is a litany of them. It is, in fact, preposterous to suggest that these would not be used. I find that to be worrying. The fact that was being said speaks to a core problem. Through one of my colleagues in the Dáil, I tabled some parliamentary questions about where the risk analysis had been. There has not been a risk analysis in relation to this across multiple Departments, which will be immensely affected.”
“Some of my colleagues jumped ahead to discuss specific amendments. I will be coming back later to these specific amendments, including amendments Nos. 29 and 30, which relate to the Paris Agreement. I want to pick up on some of the core points. I will be very happy to tease out some of the specific issues with the Minister of State as we come to them. I need to highlight two core points. First, this is financially and politically reckless. It is reckless in every sense. The consequences are unknown but what we do know is that there will be and can be very serious consequences. The Minister used this line on Committee Stage in the Dáil. It is the idea that there is not the remotest possibility that we would be seeing these cases. Cases happen all the time.”
“I ask the Government to place the community model centre-stage and, in areas like climate and others, let the best public interest drive the agenda and let the insurance model chase that, rather than letting insurance companies set the terms again. We need to protect each other and support those who genuinely wish to do that.”
“They were talking about how many people will have to die before they pay out in relation to these large urban conurbations. We must be aware that nationally and internationally, the agendas of some insurance companies, although not all - I respect every business's right to make its model and build its work - are not always driven by the public interest. They have other bottom-line figures that they need to return. That is why the State, when it tackles and delivers a picture for insurance for the future for the public, must ensure it is one that allows our society to function and makes people feel safe and protected.”
“Probably one of the most chilling sessions I have ever been in was at one of the climate talks at the Conference of the Parties in Madrid. I accidentally wandered into the room while I was looking for a session on something else. I accidentally wandered into a session where big international insurance companies were presenting to mayors of towns who were very worried because their national governments were not taking the action needed in terms of tackling climate change. The mayors knew there was going to be disaster ahead. We think we are hit by it, but entire cities across the world are planning to relocate. The insurance companies were talking about what they were going to sell to local governments in terms of insurance, and they referred to 100,000 or 200,000 deductibles. Those are deductibles in lives lost.”
“Yes, people want to be able to access insurance. We know that some of these standards, like the one-in-100-year standard, are coming from insurance companies. Councils are scrambling to meet it. Sometimes it leads to short-term decisions. In order to get a building insured to a one-in-100-year standard, we have to invest in a particular protection. Maybe it is not the kind of thing that is going to serve the whole catchment area and contribute to our whole community being most climate resilient. Sometimes the measures that are asked for by insurance companies - cutting down trees and all of the rest - actually contribute to climate change, biodiversity loss and, indeed, flood risk. There is a worry where they set the agenda.”
“I urge the Minister of State to engage with that, or even follow up on it in terms of innovativeness, that is, not just looking at the tech product or the international actor but at the potential for the growth of the mutuals. Even within communities here in Dublin, there is exploration of mutual models. The seeds are there for people who literally cannot otherwise be insured but who want to keep their communities and businesses vibrant, alive and moving. A scheme that would allow those mutuals to start growing again would be really useful. Again, support is needed not just for external actors but for domestic and community-aligned vehicles too. Regarding community adaptation supports in the climate area, I worry a little about the insurance industry solely setting the agenda in the areas of climate and flood prevention.”
“They are not looking to profit, necessarily, with a great shareholding so their stock market shares go up this year, if, in the five- and ten-year period, they are able to deliver. I urge the Minister of State, especially when I see the Government putting so much support into de-risking what are effectively for-profit industries in these insurance companies, to think about what it would look like if the Government were instead to give support to mutual insurance companies and to their regrowth in a few key areas. It is something that could deliver. We have seen it in areas such as microfinance and others. In many cases the risks, when pooled, are actually quite small ones. It is something that needs to be looked at.”
“They literally serve communities and are owned by communities. That is different when we see what happened with a lot of those mutuals who served Ireland very well in the seventies and eighties, when they entered the stock market and became an investment product. A goal of a lot of the insurance companies is to return money to shareholders and often to do so in the short term, the short-term dividend model, whereas within mutual insurance models, which are not a radical idea and were standard practice in Ireland and many other parts of the world, the goal ultimately is that we have each other's backs and how we keep each other and support each other. Also, the goal is long term.”
“Of course, the problem is that some of those companies, especially in areas like climate and others, have exercised similar practices on an international scale. What are not in the mix, and should be under point 11, and is maybe hinted at under point 14 on the idea of innovative concepts, are mutuals. Mutual insurance companies were the predominant model for a long period of time in Ireland and they were very successful. There were mutuals in the farming industry; it was insurance by farmers for farmers. There were mutuals that were widened to have an impact on credit to society. There is still one mutual insurance company operating within Ireland. The thing about mutuals is that they have a different focus because the policyholders are who they serve and the policy owners own the mutual.”
“We see very literate customers who are facing obstacles that are within the industry. We also see the question of insulating insurance companies from the impact of claims and trying to do everything possible to stop people exercising their rights in courts and all of that. There are a whole set of things there and what the insurance companies have put out is their recipe. What there really has not been enough of is an actual challenging of the model. Why that is really interesting and important is, we have a very successful history of a different model in Ireland. Even action point 11 on enhancing market competitiveness is all very focused about trying to get other international companies or very large international insurers to enter the Irish market and then that will enhance competitiveness.”
“As well, there are those living in areas that have been impacted in the past by floods or storms, who fear that again and who also can find themselves completely cut out. I sat on the finance committee and I acknowledge that Deputy Doherty drove a lot of debate on that and others who were very active on the finance committee, probably more active than me, on that particular issue. I worry that in approaching the insurance debate, too many of the insurance companies that are currently in place and dominate the Irish market have been able to set the agenda for what should happen next. They have continued to drive the agenda and what we have seen is almost their recipe for what should happen. That is why that, even still, so much in the action plan is focusing on the fact that the customer needs to be more literate.”
“I hear and share the frustration of many of those who have seen either the opportunism of insurance companies or the obstacles placed by insurance companies who do not want to insure us in a situation and sometimes the obfuscation by insurance companies as to reasons premiums are high. They constantly suggest this is solely to do with litigation, which I think does not stand up any more, clearly. There is frustration and it is felt by how hard it becomes just to do the things that make up our lives together: to have social events, to have community events, or to take part in sports or in voluntary or community activities. These the things that are a lot of the lifeblood of society.”