Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I have a lot to get through and I want to deal with it all. I thank Senators for their constructive contributions on this important topic. I have listened carefully to the contributions and it is clear that flooding is a problem that is at the forefront of the concerns affecting many communities throughout this country. Many issues and some specific local problems were mentioned during the course of the debate. I am aware of some of those already. I have taken note of those of which I was not aware and I will revert on them.

Flooding is a natural phenomenon. It has been always with us and we will continue to live with the risk of flooding into the future. The critical question for this House and for Government is the way we manage that risk. It is beyond question that we need to move to a more sustainable, planned and multidimensional approach to dealing with flood risk. That is a message and a call I heard from many Senators. This is what the catchment flood risk assessment and management, CFRAM, programme is about. We are adopting a strategic approach to managing flood risk, which will allow for the fullest possible assessment of the risks and consideration of the best possible options, both structural and non-structural, for dealing with those risks on a long-term basis. CFRAM does two things: it tries to identify the risks and then come up with the solutions to tackle and mitigate against those risks.

Many mistakes have been made in the past which have contributed to the flooding problems we are experiencing today. There has been insufficient co-ordination of the activities of the different arms of the State and this has led to bad decisions being made on where houses and business have been built. The development of a new strategy for flood risk management requires the fullest possible co-ordination between all the relevant stakeholders to ensure we can avoid poor decisions being made in the future. This greater co-ordination and consultation is happening under the CFRAM programme. As I said in my opening remarks and reiterate, the State cannot and will not continue to intervene to provide relief where development takes place in identified flood prone areas. Local authorities have a part to play. They need to step up to the plate. I have stood in a house that should never have been built. It is in a state of devastation. The family's lives have been destroyed. They have been moved out. That house should not have been built and, as Senator Byrne said, often local authorities are aware of the information. A lot of this is not rocket science and if local authorities wish to continue to go down this route, the taxpayer will not count such developments as part of a cost benefit analysis.

I made reference in my opening statement also to the need for greater understanding and awareness of the timescale for advancing with major flood relief capital works. It is worth mentioning again that it is not always possible to implement a quick solution to a flood problem. The engineering and environmental issues involved can be complex, and there is a process that needs to be followed. However, wherever possible, quick solutions will be progressed but in many cases the work needed to develop a full and proper solution takes a number of years.

I want to return to the issue of flood insurance because it was raised during the debate. That continues to be a difficult issue for a number of people and businesses experiencing difficulty in accessing insurance at affordable prices or at all. While I accept that insurance companies make their own assessment of risk in any particular case, and that is their own business matter, I cannot accept that in areas where flood defence and alleviation works have been carried out, properties protected by this significant public capital investment would not be able to receive a quote for insurance at a reasonable cost.

A huge effort has been made by the Office of Public Works, OPW, to engage with the insurance industry, and I have met with them, and agreed a format for exchange of information on completed flood defence schemes and the standards of protection offered by such schemes. This work was formalised in the production of a memorandum of understanding in March 2014, which set out the principles and arrangements to apply in the exchange of information on flood relief schemes. The OPW, however, can only go so far with the industry. The OPW does not have an oversight or regulatory role in regard to the insurance industry. I am calling on the industry to respond now. If the taxpayer is investing significant resources in flood defence schemes, and working with the insurance industry and making information available, we need to see progress on the side of the insurance industry. I call on them to do that today.

There is no doubt that the insurance industry has suffered substantial losses from major flood events in recent years, and I acknowledge that. Based on the industry's own figures the cumulative cost of the eight major flood events since the year 2000 has been €697 million. Against that, however, must be balanced the very significant investment made by the State in major urban flood defence schemes since 1995 and the huge benefit I outlined earlier, and which Senator Barrett reiterated, deriving from that investment in terms of properties protected and losses avoided.

Communities and the public in general have a significant role to play in the management of risk, and I am eager that we have their involvement in the CFRAM process. I again encourage people to make their views known through the online consultation process on the CFRAM website, which is open until tomorrow.

On some of the specific issues raised, regarding Dunboyne, I will revert to Senator Byrne on that. The basic answer is that it would depend on whether it was a scheme done under the Arterial Drainage Acts. If it was it is the responsibility of the OPW. If not, it will be the responsibility of the local authority or private landowner, but I will come back to the Senator on that.

The Senator asked the key question, which is the relationship between the OPW and the local authority. This is an issue that arises all the time. Local authorities are responsible for the maintenance of water courses and drainage channels under the drainage districts. The OPW is responsible for the maintenance of drainage channels and schemes done under the Arterial Drainage Acts. The local authorities can carry out flood works under their own statutory powers. I have seen that in Waterford, Bray and other areas but with OPW funding. The OPW has a close collaborative relationship with the local authority in terms of the development of schemes but it is important to remember that local authorities are responsible for urban drainage and for flooding which results from inadequate storm or surface water infrastructure. The minor flood works scheme is available to assist local authorities in devising flood solutions.

Senator White took me around the country; I think we were in Kerry at one stage, then Galway and then back in Dublin in a very informative contribution.