Maureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I wished to speak tonight because, although I represent Dublin Central, which was not flooded this time, parts of it have been flooded previously, including the area of East Wall where I live. While we did not experience the nightmare experienced by communities in other parts of the country, we know about flooding, for example, the suddenness with which it happens and which means that people do not have the opportunity to move cars and furniture. We know about the power of water, in particular its destructive power, the dirt and the smell that lingers for a long time afterwards. We also know about the community and the way in which communities rally and support those in need. Those flooded in recent weeks have experienced all of this. The one word that summarises it all is "nightmare". Seeing the affected areas on television was horrific.

Dublin Central was not flooded this time. A fair number of preventative measures have been put in place, but I find appalling the suggestion that this was done because the Taoiseach at the time of the last flooding represented the constituency. It is appalling because such measures must be based on people's needs, not who represents their constituencies.

I wish to discuss the major issue of insurance. It appears that this week's meetings were positive. The words "frank" and "constructive" were used. The problem relates to demountable flood defences as opposed to permanent defences. Removable defences can cost more than permanent ones and are treated differently by insurers, yet they do pretty much the same work. Where is the rationale for treating them differently?

In May 2014, I tabled a number of questions to the Minister for Finance regarding the way in which insurers were treating customers. A household that made one claim for flooding would never be covered again. Even though extensive preventative works were conducted in Dublin Central, insurance companies have not been taking these into account. Homes on streets that were never flooded are being refused cover because they are in the same area as streets that were flooded. The home owner must accept this. Whatever about having difficulties if one has been flooded, people who have never been flooded are surely entitled to cover. If I had a motoring accident or made a claim on my motor insurance, my premium would increase, but I would still be covered. According to the Minister's reply in 2014, "the OPW and Insurance Ireland have agreed on a sustainable system of information sharing in relation to completed flood alleviation schemes". The plan was for this to be reflected in assessing the provision of flood insurance to householders in areas where works in areas had been completed, but that has not happened.

I tabled a further question in October 2014 because householders who were unable to get flood insurance had contacted me. I was told that Insurance Ireland had been asked when it would be in a position to provide the hard information that would show an increase in the availability of and a reduction in the cost of insurance in the 12 areas mentioned. The end result was that the OPW and Insurance Ireland had agreed to resume regular meetings of the flood working group. It is now more than a year later and we are back to holding talks with the insurance industry. No progress seems to have been made on the matters discussed in the replies that I received more than a year ago. There is a crisis now but the danger is that this issue will be put on the long finger again.

The humanitarian assistance was welcome. The Ministers mentioned how the schemes would be flexible in addressing people's needs. Bad planning decisions and extensive building and deforestation have led to problems. The Woodland League has made sensible suggestions, for example, to work with local communities and, in particular, use local knowledge of the areas in question. The league reminded us of a UK project conducted through Bangor University that found that water was absorbed 67 times faster by native woodland than by grass. Reforestation could reduce flooding significantly. While we cannot control nature, many strategies could be effective. In particular, there should be no further insane and bad planning decisions.

I acknowledge the work that has been done by communities, the Army, Civil Defence and other organisations.

See this speech in context