Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT, HERITAGE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 27 Apr 2010

Management of Severe Weather Events: Format of Draft Report (Resumed)

We move to the issue of the reporting and management of severe weather conditions in Ireland. We have held many public hearings on the matter, and we now need to consider drafting a report. We might talk about how we are going to do that.

It is a bigger job than we might appreciate. We need to consider whether to appoint someone to do the work for us. The term "rapporteur" is used in the House; someone might be willing to take on the post. I do not know. I throw that out to committee members as a suggestion.

It would be unfair to ask a committee member to act as a rapporteur without having the backup of an additional staff member from the secretariat of the Oireachtas. A huge amount of work is involved, covering many parts of the country. It is important that we get the report right, because it will operate as a good structure for how we should behave in the context of a future flooding problem. It can help us to identify where the problems arose during the recent winter experience. It would be difficult for us to issue a report without reaching conclusions or making recommendations.

That is where we need the support of a rapporteur. I do not mind if Deputy Ciarán Lynch, or anyone else, wants to be a rapporteur. They might have other things to do with their time.

I will make my own contribution.

There is an opportunity to make a solid contribution to the EPA, the Office of Public Works, the statutory bodies such as the Electricity Supply Board and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, and the emergency response co-ordination committee. We can help them to ensure that there is a better response the next time and that we learn from the mistakes. A draft of the report should include No. 8. I would propose an amendment to the draft structure that we include No. 8, conclusions and recommendations.

I concur with Deputy Hogan. We should give ourselves a pat on the back for it. Part of the committee's work involves committee members going out to parts of the country and meeting different groups. The committee's work is not confined only to the meetings that take place in this room. As is the case with most reports, the committee's brief and role on the issue was extended perhaps beyond what we initially foresaw.

That was a lesson in itself. The report is an opportunity to promote the activity of the committee and the positive work it does. However, I concur wholeheartedly with Deputy Hogan. Unless we put a conclusion in the report that contains specific statements, I believe that the work we have done to date would be a total and utter waste.

There is a difficulty with the appointment of members of committees as rapporteurs or drafters of the work.

Even though we have yet to arrive at the stage at which we will make conclusions, I know that I have strong views, as I am sure other committee members do, on some of the presentations and discussions we heard in the course of our investigation.

We need to separate that material from the committee members in drafting the report. Any inclusion, input or recommendation can, I hope, be arrived at by consensus. It will not be driven by the lead author, who should be independent of committee members.

I ask members to excuse my ignorance, but my understanding is that the rapporteur could be a member of the committee, who would get a financial reward for doing that work. Would that person be allowed to take on someone with the necessary qualifications to assist them in that? If that were allowed, the Chairman of the committee should take on the position.

I thank the Deputy.

There is no better man for the job.

Or the committee can take on a consultant to draft the report.

What is the position with regard to the Chairman, and the finances for taking on additional staff?

There is a consultancy fund. We can hire a consultant to do that.

We should do that if we have the resources.

We shall immediately seek approval from whatever committee is involved up the line. I know that the Public Accounts Committee often brings in a consultant to draft a report, so that the committee has a good working document to discuss.

The first thing the consultant will do is to review all the correspondence and the meetings we have held. We would need someone with a bit of parliamentary experience who knows how to put a report together.

I had envisaged early on that a few of us could put a few things together, but the task is much too big and too important to do it that way. However, we do not want a tome that will be so big that people will not read it. We want good clear conclusions. Shall we investigate the idea of getting clearance for a budget to hire a consultant? Do members have anyone in mind?

Given what we have heard during the flooding investigation, and the input that we as members have had, the report deserves to be treated professionally. If funding is available for a consultant to be appointed, I think it is important enough for us to do that. As Deputy Hogan said earlier, we need to reach conclusions on the issue, or it will have been a wasted exercise.

We agree.

I assume there is a process for appointing a skilled draftsman or woman to write the report up. In any case, the clerk will sort that out. On the basis that this can be done speedily, perhaps members of the committee can recommend people with doctorates in the environmental, flood or hydrology areas. Somebody with that sort of skill set will be needed.

We also need to indicate at today's meeting what sort of timeframe we are considering and when we should expect a first draft, rather than just letting it roll over to the next meeting.

We would want it completely finished before the summer. I would hate to be dealing with this next September.

We are into the first week of May next week. If we went into July, we would be back into the storm season again and would not have the report completed.

Whoever does it will have a month's work after that. Much will depend on the time commitment available from the person we are talking about. We will research this, and I know there is a facility in the House for consultants to help committees. If members do not want to do it through the rapporteur system, which I throw out as the first option, we will get a consultant. That consultant will do most of the work and will probably sit in at one of our meetings, where we can discuss some of the conclusions we propose. The consultant can then go away and put the report together for us at that stage.

On the draft structure circulated, we want to include conclusions and recommendations.

That is guaranteed.

Have we any information about the submission we made to the EU regarding flood relief? Can we get that information for the next meeting?

We will get it. That went in very quickly some time ago.

Nothing much has happened on it.

No, I have heard nothing. We will get that from the Department. At this stage, we know the best approach in that regard.

As next week there is a bank holiday and the Dáil will not sit on Tuesday next, the next meeting will be on 11 May.

Before we adjourn, in regard to the turf cutting issue, I received correspondence from the Minister, Deputy Gormley, stating that a full set of maps for the 32 bogs where turf cutting has ceased has been provided to the secretariat. Is that correct?

I will check with the secretariat and get them e-mailed again.

Can I get a copy of the Sligo-Leitrim maps?

The joint committee adjourned at 4.35 p.m. until 3.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 11 May 2010.
Barr
Roinn