Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent) | Oireachtas source

We are all focused on one issue. I have made a point regarding a certification process. We heard a letter read out detailing a reputable certification process as it related to a case on the Dodder. There does not seem to be any process between the OPW and the industry. It is well and good for the industry representatives to ask to be told about the projects around the country, including cases of remedial works where there has been flooding. What is totally absent is any kind of certification process, with a person being able to hand a certificate to an insurance company to prove that a problem has been sorted out. The certification process should be agreed between the industry, the OPW, local authorities, etc., but it is totally absent. We are getting more information on the issue, and several of us have provided examples. We do not intend those individual cases for comment by the witnesses but rather to show how we have practical experience of dealing with people who are saying the opposite of what we are being told today.

I have a concern about the catchment flood risk and assessment management study, CFRAMS, which is mapping all the flood areas around the country. When something is captured in the study, remedial works can take place on the piece of land, which can then be returned to the system. It appears that the risk is the insurance company will be given another raft of locations from the study that will be excluded. This information will be public and will only make the matter worse unless we can come to grips with the issue.

There was an argument that these processes can take ten years, with the implication that the OPW is inefficient, etc. There have been many flood events in north Kildare, with several areas having had remedial work. A cost-benefit analysis would be done which is pivotal to what gets funding, as there is limited funding for the OPW. The worst cases are remediated first and where there is insufficient funding, not everything will get through the system. It is not just about time but rather quantifying the problem.

The witnesses have indicated that people contact the insurance industry but only a small number complain about not being able to get flood insurance. How does the industry capture the number of people who cannot get flood insurance?

How does one capture the numbers who do not bother getting insurance because they cannot afford it given that it is twice or three times the price it would have been? How does one capture the number of people who are simply priced out of the market? Does one measure this by the complaints received? Do people know to whom they should complain? Do they know this is something the federation is measuring?

In the town in which I live, Leixlip, there was flood early in the last decade. A major job was carried out that cost millions of euro. The Office of Public Works, OPW, was involved in it. Most of those areas have not been flooded since then. In Leixlip there are two hills with all the housing estates and the valley. The valley was flooded and the people who cannot get flood insurance are in the housing estates. How stupid is that? There is no river near them. It is because there is a blanket inclusion in this zone so they cannot get insurance. This is the point that all of us are trying to press home. We need a certification process that is acceptable to all. When public money is spent alleviating the problem, it must be reflected by bringing people back in so they are fairly treated in terms of the insurance cover they would rightly expect to be able to get for an affordable price.