That does not meet the point I am trying to make, unfortunately. Seemingly the people got an idea that at least a big part of the damage to their premises and to their furniture and of their losses in respect of clothing, and so forth, would be met. Now they find that what they have got or are likely to get does not at all cover what they lost. In saying these things, I am speaking of genuine losses. I know that attempts have been made to make preposterous claims: I suppose that always happens in such cases. However, I am speaking now of what people genuinely lost. So far, they have got small compensation apparently to cover clothes, and so forth. I know cases where what the people got was not at all sufficient— not even in the case of workmen's houses.
Here is what happened in the bulk of the cases. As we all remember, it had been a desperately wet day. Quite a number of those people I have in mind had been out in the bad weather. In the evening, as is usual in such houses, the clothing these people wore, and which was their main possession in that respect, was hung up in the kitchen to dry during the night. Then the floods came and destroyed the kitchen and destroyed the clothing. I know personally of a case of a father and a mother and seven young children who were living in a basement. It was not the kind of basement described by Deputy Larkin, ten feet down: it was a sort of semi-basement. This family who were living in the lower part of the house had to go upstairs when the floods rose and, after a short while, could not even get down the stairs at all. The floods rose to the ceiling of their part of the house and everything they possessed was covered with water. Consider the case of that ordinary workman who is the father of seven young children.
In view of that man's losses, he would certainly need to be dealt with generously. It is not easy for him to provide for himself, his wife and his seven young children, but to have to provide for them all completely and at the one time is certainly a very big thing to ask him to do. As a matter of fact, this man was out ill the week previous to the floods, and when he was able to get back to his work after the floods he was not even able to wear his overcoat. I am aware that kind friends tried to help him when they realised his plight. It seems to me that we ought to try to be as generous as possible in cases such as that.
Consider now the position of people who had their premises insured. There are some cases, from what I hear, where people who had insurance on their premises did not get compensation. Let me try and explain the position. It seems that, as soon as the investigators discovered there was an insurance, they did not recognise a claim as far as the contents of the house were concerned. I am informed that in some cases the insurance company have paid only for the loss of the clothing to the man and his wife and state that they are not liable for losses in respect, for instance, of a daughter's goods. The position, then, is that the investigators have cut out the family completely on the ground that they are covered by insurance and yet difficulties arise even where there has been insurance. In my view, a point like that ought to be investigated and it is possible that, in many cases, more than one child is left unprovided for.
Shopkeepers in the flooded Tolka area are complaining very bitterly about their losses. Deputy Larkin went into detail in that connection and I will not go over it all again. The fact, however, is that some of them lost very heavily in regard to stock, and apparently they are very much dissatisfied with the treatment they have received. I know that in some particular lines the losses were made up by manufacturers, but in other cases they suffered very heavily. The Government should try to do something to help some of them, because the time has not been bright even for the ordinary shopkeeper who did not suffer these things and it is very hard on these people to try and carry on.
I know of other cases where people who were tenants of houses were able to get out because of the condition of the house. They got out and fortunately were able to find alternative accommodation. But the landlord, in this case a woman—not by any means rich, in fact the rent of the house was a big part of her income—is left with the house on her hands. She cannot let it because of its condition, but of course she is forced to pay rates and so on. I think there is a case there for investigation, that type of case. All in all, as I see it, I must say I am disappointed with the amount of the Estimate, because with the number of cases involved I cannot see how it is going to provide any sort of reasonable compensation to those people for the losses that they have suffered.
Some of the houses, as we have seen them at the moment, are in a bad condition. They have not dried out at all yet. More of them are showing greater response, seemingly, but some of them are looking nearly as bad as the day it happened. It is serious, as we are told that in some cases, may be in all, the defects may not really show until after a long period. A number of people are definitely afraid of their floors because they feel that the joists under them, having been so long in the flood, will develop dry rot and give way. I think that all these points are definitely worthy of consideration, because the big majority of the people affected are not in a position financially to put their houses into any sort of good condition. No matter how willing they might be to do it on their own, they are not in a financial position to do it. Certainly I know they are very disgruntled and that they are grumbling about the whole situation.
As to the causes of the flooding, I suppose that will be debated for a long time to come. I was interested to hear Deputy Larkin speak about the collapse of the railway bridge. I know it is held fairly generally around the Fairview district that the collapse of the railway bridge was responsible for a big extension of the flooding, that some of the flooding would not have occurred only for it. They say it would never have extended so far and one man who happened to be up and watching things, who had his own house flooded, holds definitely, whether he was right or not, that the flooding would not have reached his house only for the collapse of the railway bridge, that it was immediately after that that it started to rise and rose up around his area. It would be worth while having some sort of a real engineering inquiry into that, to see that steps are taken that such could not happen again.
Again, there is the position that is found on Annesley Bridge. When you look down towards the railway arch, it is quite evident to anyone that the Tolka at the point underneath the railway arch, where it is entering the sea, is much narrower than the river at Annesley Bridge some hundred yards away and that it naturally would compress itself and rise there, and with the falling of the bridge into that very spot it leads an ordinary layman at any rate to believe that it would help to raise the height of the floods very considerably in the adjacent area. I hope that something will be done to try and deal with this for the future. We never know when there may be a coincident of high tide and very heavy rain, as we are told was the cause of this. We may have it again; we have often had it before. I hope that, in any steps that are being taken to try to deal with this, the question of the mouth of the Tolka where it enters the sea, the width of it, the depth of it and all that, will be gone into thoroughly and that some steps will be taken to deal with it.
Knowing what happened around the Richmond Road, where the Tolka burst its banks—and from what I heard about further up, but did not actually see, up around Botanic Avenue—I think that steps should be taken to wall the Tolka the whole way through the housing areas. It may be a big job, it may be a costly job, but it would be very good work for the Development Fund. It would save a tremendous lot, not alone in the financial way; and it would avoid such a thing as this. From the point of view of the health and comfort of the people and the avoidance of losses that no Government or corporation will be able to meet, it is something that should be investigated. From my point of view, the layman's point of view, while you can and should dredge the Tolka to some extent, it will not stop flooding unless a proper wall is built on each side of it, along the housing area. I would suggest, too, that further out on the Tolka, outside the housing area, provision could be made for catchment areas or lakes, to take some of the flood waters on occasions like this. What I have in mind is something I was reading about the Tennessee valley and what was done there in that connection. Something should be done. There are areas adjacent to the Tolka that could easily be worked in —they would need only a dam and proper levelling to put them right.
I make these suggestions because it is a terrible thing to think that, unless we do start moving, and moving quickly, this situation might arise again next winter and maybe even before then. That whole area around Ballybough and the North Strand and down towards the sea is a low-lying area. I have seen it without any bursting of the Tolka, and I have seen the water bubbling up through the manholes because the sewers were unable to take it away because of the levels there. I have seen that on several occasions. I have lived there and I know what I am talking about. It is, maybe, an even bigger problem from an engineering point of view than appears on the surface because of the levels, but it is the last area that I know in Dublin that could afford to have the bursting of the Tolka added to it in heavy rain.
That is why I am putting forward this suggestion, and, even if it may be costly, I think it would be worthwhile if some proper steps were taken to prevent the Tolka from bursting its banks. Every year for years the Tolka had burst its banks up at Drumcondra and has flooded the cottages around there and in view of the tremendous number of houses which have been built in that area, a large number of which have suffered in this flooding, it is surely time that something was done to protect these people and to give them what the ordinary man in other areas gets in the way of protection from such flooding as we had on 8th December.
Let me also, as a Deputy for the area, try to convey the thanks that were conveyed to me by a number of these people to all those who gave such good service during the height of the floods—the Army, the Garda, the Red Cross, the St. John Ambulance Brigade and the private volunteer. The people I met were all loud in their praise of them and very thankful to them. With Deputy Larkin, I should like to ask the Minister to consider again this whole question. If he does, I think he will be able to put up a case for funds to meet the claims of these people much more generously than he can possibly do on the basis of the amount in the Estimate.