Madam, - May I make a few suggestions that might point the way towards a solution to some of our most contentious development issues?
I am prompted in at least one respect by an experience I had many years ago when working for a Government Department. This Department carried certain insurable risks itself. This was fine until a certain incident occurred. In a report on this incident I pointed out that the Department did not take account of certain factors which could and did influence the risk such as quality and type of building involved, the security arrangements in place and the management savvy. I recommended that in future the risk be transferred to an insurance company. Insurance companies are adept at risk assessment and risk control. This was done for a competitive and tolerable charge.
The same approach could be applied to proposed developments in say, flood plains. In this case virtually the whole risk is transferred to buyers/customers, while the developer takes the profit. The solution? Let such developers pay for a single premium up-front insurance policy covering flood damage to any or all of the development - such a policy to stay in force for a period roughly equivalent to that of the normal mortgage, say 25 years. It is simply a question of the developer putting his money where his mouth is.
A similar approach could be taken to the Mayo gas pipeline. Shell should be compelled to take out such a policy for the expected duration or lifespan of the gas well(s) - probably 20 years or so. Should an incident occur the policy will cover any property damage, personal injury as well as any aggravation/dislocation costs incurred. This removes the risk from the residents and landowners involved and places it elsewhere. Any insurance company issuing a policy like this will have itself, or will have access to, specialist and unbiased risk assessors, conditions governing the nature of the construction and materials used may be laid down, and importantly, certain management expertise and requirements may be laid down.
In relation to motorways and such development, the above approach, slightly re-jigged, could be adopted. Many people are unaware that the definitive Act which governs all worker safety in this country as well as the UK carries the qualification "so far as is reasonably practicable". This is not unreasonable as it avoids absolutism, and few things in this world are absolute.
I think we could built this concept into our approach to ancient monuments/archaeology, flora and fauna. I will nail my colours to the mast: I am not in favour of writing blank cheques for hitherto unseen structures or for bats, snails, swans or flowers, while at the same time we can write no cheques at all so that children in our leading Children's hospital, old people lying on trolleys, or people suffering heart attacks could have the treatment they deserve when and where it is required. The sort of absolutism that leads to this situation is nothing short of fanaticism. - Yours, etc,
VINCENT McGAURAN, Ramleh Close, Dublin 6.