Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

I welcome this Bill. It is seeking a solution to something that really should not have occurred, that is the targeting of homes and businesses, even in situations in which there has been huge investment to overcome problems where flooding had occurred.

The environment committee I was a member of in the last Dáil carried out an extensive report into this issue. It was published in January of this year. It runs to 164 pages and involved hearings from a very wide body of opinion, including the OPW, the Insurance Federation, the INFF, Kildare County Council and the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, which was involved in distributing funds, albeit inadequate, to businesses and mostly homes that had been flooded. The report outlined a number of key recommendations to deal with this issue. However, the report itself was unfortunately never debated in the Dáil. That might be something that could be looked at.

There is significant value in the CFRAM study, which maps locations that are likely to flood. It was an attempt to address the kind of experience in the past in which lands that were prone to flooding were zoned. That caused all sorts of problems. The whole idea of the CFRAM study was to make sure that did not happen again. Development plans were based on very good evidence. The problem is that the insurance industry took a document that was put together for very good reason to pretty much code areas, even in situations in which there had been no previous evidence of flooding. The CFRAM study now amounts to insurance companies being given a set of locations from the study from which they may wish to exclude homes and businesses from cover, increase premiums or put a limit on compensation returned. Whole areas appear to have had their insurance increased, even where there has been no previous experience of flooding. The report also considered the issue of climate change. That obviously has to be front and centre on this issue because it would require ongoing investment.

A report in The Timesof London in 2013 stated that thousands of homes could lose value and become more expensive to insure after the publication of the first official maps showing areas of high, medium and low risk of water flooding. That demonstrates that wherever this information is provided, not just in Ireland but in other jurisdictions, insurance companies display the same kind of behaviour. Providing information in a public format to assist good planning cannot be allowed to be counterproductive. That is why the intervention has to happen.

Proximity to a water course seems to ignore prior history and even the topography of the area. For example, someone living on the top of a hill with a water course 500 m away from them at the bottom of the hill with no risk of flooding can find themselves with a prohibitively high insurance bill. I have examples of that. It puts insurance out of reach. When somebody is unable to take out insurance, the Government must remember that the responsibility is then on the State to provide compensation schemes. We must look at this in its totality.

Really good work has been undertaken by many local authorities under the direction of the OPW in recent years. It seems to count for nought then when premiums are being sought or issued. My local authority was invited before the committee because it had carried out excellent work following some very significant flooding events. It came in and identified good practice. Essentially, some of those very same areas, where there have been major floods, cannot get flood insurance after the remediation scheme was put in place. Not only were the defences well designed, they actually held up very well when they were tested by the very circumstances that they were designed to withstand. The insurance companies are being very picky here. There must be an intervention when what is happening is not in the public good.

I have been in homes that have been flooded. It is absolute devastation. In those situations, people do not talk about their insurance premium going up. The first thing they say is that what they really want is for it never to happen to them again. They want the remediation scheme. However, when the remediation scheme is put in place, they do not want to be paying a higher premium again, and why should they? I believe there is something very unfair happening.

In the report, there were a number of recommendations. One factor identified by the committee was the problem of householders located in geo-coded areas who were refused cover or had their premiums increase, even though their property had not been flooded. The committee heard from organisations representing those that had been excluded from flood cover or at risk of being excluded, with the result that their homes were no longer mortgageable. The value of their homes had plummeted. However, the committee was informed by the insurance industry witness that geo-coding pinpoints a property. There is confusion as to the reason for this problem. The problem is that the insurance industry might be confused about it. However, we certainly should not accept their confusion. We should act in the public interest, which means intervening.

I listened to some of the Minister of State's response to this issue.

It seems to me the primary point being made by the Government is that insurance companies might be scared off if we intervene but we need to start rattling their cage because what they are doing here is unfair. What they are doing will actually cost the State money, as well as the individuals who are flooded. We must take the insurance companies on and this Bill seeks to put a solution in place. It may not be perfect but the whole point of Second Stage is that if a Bill is not perfect, it is brought to Committee Stage and improved. It is open to the Government to do that. This Bill is actually addressing a serious problem that exists at the moment.

See this speech in context