Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 6 Feb 1996

Vol. 461 No. 1

Commissioners of Public Works (Functions and Powers) Bill, 1995 [Seanad]: Second Stage.

Minister of State at the Department of Finance (Mr. Coveney)

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I welcome the opportunity to introduce this Bill which has two main aims. First, it seeks to provide a sound statutory basis for certain powers and functions traditionally exercised by the Commissioners of Public Works. Some of these have been called into question since the High Court judgment in the Howard v. the Commissioners of Public Works case on which I will elaborate shortly. Second, it seeks to provide the necessary power for the commissioners to give effect to a scheme to offer humanitarian assistance at reasonable cost to a small number of people whose houses have been damaged beyond repair or who have suffered long duration flooding during the exceptionally high floods of late 1994 and early last year. It will also provide the power for the commissioners to implement humanitarian assistance schemes in other cases where the Government decides to do so.

On the first issue, the Attorney General has advised that the opportunity should now be taken to establish the general powers which the Commissioners of Public Works require in order to carry out their functions. The commissioners are a statutory corporation, a kind of body which has no functions, powers or duties other than those which the statute or statutes setting it up confers on it. This problem is compounded by the fact that the commissioners did not come into existence for any one purpose and their functions have never been comprehensively set out. They were simply given extra functions over the years as various Governments required them to carry out a variety of tasks. The assumption always was that the commissioners had sufficient legal powers to carry out these functions.

However, the Attorney General advises that this has serious legal and practical consequences. The practical consequence is that to discover whether the commissioners have power to carry out a specific task it is necessary to go through approximately 200 statues, the earliest of which is 150 years old.

The legal drawback is that powers conferred in one statute may be exercisable only for the purposes listed in that statute and the fact that several statutes give similar powers may not necessarily mean that the commissioners have any general power to act in a particular way. To state it simply, the problem is that the full range of functions which the Government requires the commissioners to perform have not been set out unambiguously in legislation and the powers which it needs to carry out these functions have not been made sufficiently explicit. This difficulty was highlighted in the recent case of Howard v. the Commissioners. The House will recall that the High Court found that the Commissioners of Public Works had no general powers to carry out construction works. The net effect of this judgment was that they did not have powers to carry out the general building, construction, maintenance, and supplies functions which had been such a large part of their work for decades. This immediate problem was resolved with the passing of the State Authorities (Development and Management) Act, 1993.

The strict interpretation of powers by the High Court in the Howard case and problems which have arisen with other specific cases since then have led the Attorney General to advise that the only way to avoid further legal problems is to set out in legislation the functions of the commissioners and the powers which are requiired to carry them out. This is the only way to achieve certainty and to avoid doubt over their legal powers to carry out their work. That is why we are now taking the opportunity to do so in the Bill before the House. It is important that the House should know that it is not the case that nothing was being done to clear up these legal doubts. The commissioners and the Attorney General's office had in fact been working for some time to see how these legal uncertainties could best be tackled. Both had finally concluded that new legislation would be necessary and work on this had already begun. Obviously it now makes sense to combine this with the emergency legislation which is necessary in any case to allow the humanitarian relief scheme to be implemented.

This Bill does not give any expanded authority to the commissioners with the exception of that for the administration of the humanitarian scheme. All it does is list the functions of the commissioners and remove any doubt over powers to carry these out. There are many areas where there is no doubt over the commissioners' powers — for example the Arterial Drainage Act, 1945, Shannon Navigation Act, 1990, the Canals Act, 1986, State Property Act, 1954, and many other enactments give specific powers in specific areas. The Bill now before the House does not interfere with or substitute for any of these specific provisions but merely removes doubt in areas which are not now specifically covered. The Bill also provides that the commissioners can act in the exercise of these powers only with the consent of the Minister for Finance.

On the second matter, i.e. that relating to the scheme for humanitarian assistance which arises as a direct result of the flooding of late 1994 and early 1995, I would like to say a few words on this general issue and the efforts of the Government to deal with the matter over the last year. There is no need for me to remind the House of the seriousness of the situation which arose during the period in question. It was the subject of extensive debate both here and in Seanad Éireann on a number of occasions during the year. In the worst hit areas the flood waters rose with very little warning and remained at a high level in some areas for long periods — several months in the most extreme cases. As a consequence there are a number of home owners who have been so severely traumatised by their experience that they simply cannot face the prospect of a recurrence.

We are all aware, of course, that the immediate cause of the flooding in the periods in question was the cumulative effect of the exceptionally heavy rainfall which occurred in the preceding months — in some areas rainfall was more than twice the normal level for the period.

The flooding and the problems associated with it have all been extensively reported on many occasions. The exceptional problems in the south Galway area were the main focus of publicity during the period in question but severe conditions were also experienced in many other parts of the country — Clare, Limerick, Tipperary, Carlow, Kilkenny, Cork, Kerry, Laois, Offaly, Roscommon, Wicklow and Wexford.

The Government's response to the problem was both sympathetic and comprehensive. It included the following measures: (1) An interdepartmental committee was established, of which I am currently chairman, to co-ordinate the Government's response to the effects of bad weather; (2) a sum of £2 million was made available through the agricultural compensation scheme to assist farmers for losses of fodder, stock, etc., farmyard relocation, arising from the flooding; (3) £4 million was made available for the repair of county roads and (4) £750,000 was made available by way of humanitarian aid to be distributed by the Irish Red Cross Society to alleviate the hardship of flood victims.

This was on top of some £398,000 which the EU had provided by way of humanitarian aid, which had also been distributed by the Irish Red Cross Society. The latter was made available in no small measure due to the intervention of my predecessor, Deputy Jim Higgins. Further approaches have been made to the EU in the context of the hardship caused by the more recent flooding, particularly in the south east region. I will refer in more detail to them shortly; (5) the Arterial Drainage (Amendment) Act, 1995, expanded the powers of the Commissioners of Public Works contained in the Arterial Drainage Act, 1945, thereby enabling them to carry out relief schemes for the alleviation of localised flooding in addition to their powers to carry out major arterial schemes which dealt with problems in river-catchment areas as a whole; (6) permission was given to undertake a major multi-disciplinary investigation into the causes of flooding in the Gort-Ardrahan area of south Galway, which is currently ongoing and which, it is hoped, will make recommendations as to means of dealing with these problems; (7) the Army, Air Corps, Fire Service and other local authority services and the health boards provided considerable emergency assistance to distressed persons in the flooded areas; (8) the Commissioners of Public Works established an emergency co-ordination centre or one-stop-shop in Gort which was staffed by representatives of the Western Health Board, the Department of Agriculture, Galway County Council, the Irish Red Cross Society and the Office of Public Works. More than 500 callers to this facility were assisted in relation to claims for compensation, rehousing and humanitarian aid.

I would now like to comment on progress made under some of the principal items to which I just alluded. Members will agree that the outcome of the Irish Red Cross Society's distribution of the humanitarian aid fully justifies the decision taken earlier to route the funds in question through that organisation. In determining the most appropriate apportionment of the funds available a number of criteria were used by the society. These included death, personal injury, damage to houses and loss of income. Applicants were assessed on an individual basis taking into account their circumstances both prior to and as a result of the flooding, as well as their overall ability taking into account their insurance status, to help themselves in overcoming the effects of the crisis. Where necessary, officers or experienced volunteers of the society checked details of the claims by visiting applicants.

I should point out that the society rightly regards the precise details of individual claims as confidential between them and the applicants.

While the EU aid made available through the society made a valuable contribution, I stress it did not reflect in full the hardship and distress suffered by many applicants. In the circumstances the interdepartmental committee was directed at an early stage to examine and report, as a matter of urgency, on the possibility of Exchequer funding being made available during the year and on the extent of the funding required to provide additional humanitarian relief, taking account of the need to ensure that relief through the Red Cross Society, from the European Union, and through the supplementary welfare allowance system were elements in a coherent and cost-effective programme involving acceptable Exchequer cost. It was against this background that, in conjunction with the Minister for Finance, I reported to Government in July 1995 that an additional £750,000 should be made available. This followed extensive consultation with the Irish Red Cross Society and officials of the Office of Public Works.

This amount was considered by the society to be adequate to enable it to put those who applied to it for assistance reasonably close to the situation they were in before the flooding, and the amounts to be paid would take into account assistance which was available from other sources such as insurance.

Funding at this level would enable the society (a) to make payments to a number of people who sought assistance under the earlier EU package but could not be assisted because of the limited funds available; (b) to pay additional amounts to applicants who received payments which fell far short of their real losses and, (c) to deal with a number of claims which were received after the deadline for application for EU aid and were previously ruled technically ineligible.

Applications for assistance were invited through the press and local radio stations and while there may be a certain amount of dissatisfaction among a small number of victims that the aid did not compensate them adequately under headings such as devaluation of property, I believe that it was seen as reasonable by most claimants and independent observers. Both the Irish Red Cross Society and my office have had a very favourable response to the scheme.

I have spoken at some length on the arrangements made with the Irish Red Cross Society to deal with the disbursement of the EU and Exchquer funds made available for humanitarian aid in 1995. Before going on to deal with other issues which arise in the context of the winter 1994-95 floods I would like to take the opportunity to dwell for a moment on more recent events. Such are the vagaries of the Irish weather that it is difficult to forecast where the next major flood will arise. However, we are all very much aware of the severe problems in the south and south-east of the country arising from the extreme conditions in that area between late December 1995 and mid-January 1996. The pictures which emanated from places such as Clonmel, Carrick-on-Suir and Wexford are very familiar.

My colleague, the Minister for Health, Deputy Noonan, replied on my behalf to an Adjournment debate on the matter on 24 January 1996. I would now like to bring the House up to date particularly in the context of the debate on this Bill, on the action so far taken in response to the most recent floods in these areas and the position as it stands.

At an early stage I became aware both in general and specific terms from reports received from around the affected areas of the extent of the hardship caused to families by the flooding of homes throughout the south and south-east, including County Wexford where, I understand, a substantial number of houses suffered flooding; and from personal experience resulting from visits to Clonmel and Carrick-on-Suir, County Tipperary, two areas which were particularly badly affected. I am also aware, from preliminary reports which were provided at my request by the local authorities to the Department of the Environment, of the nature and extent of the flooding and the resultant hardship in counties Cork, Kilkenny and Waterford. The Government too is very conscious of the traumatising effect such flooding can have on individuals, particularly the elderly, and sympathise with the plight of the flood victims. In doing so, it recognises that individuals may require assistance from time to time to get them over very adverse situations and acknowledges their need to be treated on a humanitarian basis, particularly where they are uninsured and in poor financial circumstances. Deputies will note that in the recent past this has been done by a combination of EU and Exchequer funding.

In this context, accompanied by officials of the Office of Public Works, I was pleased to make a personal visit to Brussels on Monday, 22 January 1996, where I met Mr. David Williamson, Secretary General of the EU Commission. This followed a detailed submission, including press cuttings from national and local newspapers as well as video footage from RTE, which gave a clear indication of the nature and extent of the difficulties and of the resulting hardship. I am also pleased that I received a positive response from Mr. Williamson who indicated he would propose to the Commission that aid be provided to Ireland and Portugal, where severe flooding had also occurred. I understand that his proposal has since been approved by the Commission and that a request is now being made to the EU Council and Parliament to provide the necessary funding as it had not already been provided for in the 1996 budget. It is now up to the EU Parliament to decide the transfer of the necessary funding from other allocations, a process which could take up to 60 days. I am very hopeful of a positive outcome to these representations.

Consideration will be given to Exchequer assistance in the light of the Parliament's decision. I envisage that any additional funding provided, EU or Exchequer, would again be routed through the Red Cross Society. This is customary practice with EU member states where experience is reflected in the success of previous measures, including the most recent ones here.

I revert now to the second element of the 1995 humanitarian aid scheme, that relating to home relocation. On 26 July Dáil Éireann passed a Vote, designated Vote 46, to provide for expenditure to defray the costs of various flood relief measures, including the allocation of £750,000 for home relocation assistance. This, we have just recently been advised, also requires the passage of legislation to give a statutory footing to the scheme since devised. To fully apprise the House of developments on this I would like to outline in general terms the main provisions of the scheme.

The scheme itself is straightforward. Anyone who can show to the satisfaction of the commissioners that the house in which they resided was damaged beyond repair at reasonable cost by flooding at the end of 1994 and early 1995 or suffered flooding for an extended period, i.e. in excess of three weeks, will be eligible for relocation, provided no flood relief scheme that would protect the property has been undertaken or is planned within a period of approximately 12 months. Householders who are eligible for assistance will have the option of (a) having a house constructed on a site to be provided by them, the cost of which to a reasonable level will be borne by the commissioners. Construction would be by the local authority acting as agent of the Commissioners of Public Works or; (b) receiving financial assistance to enable them to relocate themselves. Under both options it will normally be a condition that benefiting householders demolish their existing house, and any insurance compensation received (less reasonable loss adjusters' fees) in respect of structural damage to the property will be offset against any financial assistance payable. The scheme is being offered in a humanitarian context and the intention is that beneficiaries will be owner-occupiers who fulfil the qualifying criteria.

It is envisaged that householders will be required to covenant with the commissioners to demolish the existing house to the latters' satisfaction within a reasonable period, failing which, the commissioners would have a legal right to undertake or complete the demolition. Some of the amount payable would be retained to ensure fulfilment of this condition. The householder will be permitted to retain the site and any salvage recovered. Applicants for assistance under the scheme will be required to sign a form authorising insurance companies to furnish the commissioners with any information they possess in relation to the insurance position in respect of their properties.

An appropriate monetary value based on local authority housing which, with appropriate allowances for purchase of site and fees, will form the basis of any offers of assistance to applicants who seek that option. It is expected that most applicants will choose the financial option. It is expected that applicants will incur legal fees in connection with the purchase of a site, completion of contracts, etc, and other professional fees in respect of the design and construction of their new houses. They will also incur costs associated with demolition of their existing houses and site clearance. An allowance will be included in the scheme in respect of all such costs. It is not proposed to seek recovery of any costs incurred by the State arising from the implementation of the scheme.

I am happy to report that, following extensive investigation and consultation with public representatives and with representative bodies such as the IFA and south Galway flood victims action group, the Commissioners of Public Works are now ready, subject to the passage of this Bill, to deal individually with applications received for assistance. I recently wrote to each of the householders concerned advising them of the details of the scheme and that applications would be sought from those interested as soon as the necessary legislation comes into effect. Payments would be expected to follow very shortly thereafter.

Before turning to the main provisions of the Bill, I would like to elaborate on the works proposed under the Arterial Drainage (Amendment) Act, 1995. The House will appreciate that it is not sufficient to introduce various relief and humanitarian aid schemes. It is essential too that a programme of physical works is introduced to combat the recurrence in future of the extensive flooding which has occurred all too frequently. During the debate on the Arterial Drainage (Amendment) Act, 1995, early last year, resulting in its passage into law in July last, many references were made to the extensive programme of works already completed by the Commissioners of Public Works under earlier legislation and their immediate plans for a programme of localised flood relief works in a number of selected priority areas.

I referred earlier to the major investigation being undertaken into the possibility of ameliorating conditions in the Gort-Ardrahan area of south Galway. This investigation, costing £750,000, is well under way and the consultants have submitted a preliminary report which has been discussed at a public meeting in Gort and with the IFA and the south Galway flood victims' action group. These bodies have also received copies of the report. The report outlines some conceptual approaches to solving the problem and work will continue during 1996 to develop further these approaches. A final report is expected in early 1997.

A scheme of works has already been undertaken in the Belclare area of Tuam, County Galway. A start has also been made on the preparation of proposals for schemes in no fewer than eight other areas. These are Carlow; Cappamore, County Limerick; New-port, County Tipperary; Duleek, County Meath; Dunmanway, County Cork; Gort town in County Galway (which is being considered separately from the main study of the Gort-Ardrahan area of the south of the county); Kilkenny city; Sixmilebridge, County Clare; and Williamstown, County Galway.

Consultants have been engaged for some time in the preparation and consideration of various options for the relief of flooding in these areas in the context of both economic and environmental implications. Every effort is being made to ensure the early completion of the design process in each of the areas listed so that the necessary sanctions can be sought to initiate the next stages, i.e. public exhibition and the preparation of contract documentation should schemes evolve which meet the necessary economic and environmental considerations. I hope that all qualifying schemes will be in progress during 1996. In the case of Sixmilebridge, I expect to receive the necessary sanctions to proceed with the publication of the scheme within a matter of weeks.

I have in my preceding remarks dealt solely with the priority programme for 1996. I am, of course, aware from all that has been said in the past on this subject that there are many other areas which will require consideration and attention — we are constantly reminded of this as flooding recurs. It is the intention as soon as all the relevant data has been collected to review the situation in relation to some of these.

This should enable the setting up of a national priority programme with a view to carrying out future schemes in the light of conditions prevailing from time to time and in the context of the resources available for works of this nature. I regard the preparation of this programme as an urgent priority.

I now turn to the specific provisions of the Commissioners of Public Works (Functions and Powers) Bill, 1995 which are drafted to give a sound statutory basis to those matters referred to which do not already have an existing statutory authority.

Section 1 deals with the interpretation of some of the terms used in the Bill.

Section 2 describes some of the main functions which the Commissioners of Public Works are required to carry out, specifically the purchasing, building, leasing and maintaining of accommodation and properties of all kinds, real and personal, for all Departments of State and other public bodies. It also provides for the addition of a new function to which I have alluded in some depth in my earlier remarks, with particular reference to the administration of the humanitarian aid scheme which we are advised requires specific statutory provision. With regard to this latter issue a number of amendments to the Bill as originally published were agreed on Committee Stage in the Seanad in December last.

These provide a mechanism for appeal by an individual to the Minister for Finance in the event of dissatisfaction at the commissioners' response to an application under the scheme. The Government was happy to accept these amendments which are now incorporated in the Bill in subsections (2), (3) and (4).

Section 3 gives the commissioners the power to undertake their functions where such power is not already prescribed by statute. This is the kernel of the problem highlighted by the Attorney General that while the commissioners have individual powers under specific enactments, these do not confer general powers to deal in property outside the scope of those enactments.

Section 4 enables the commissioners to exercise their functions and powers for the provision of living accommodation under the humanitarian aid scheme by arrangement with a housing authority who would act as their agent.

Section 5 deals further with the interpretation of the Bill, specifically in relation to references to land which have particular meaning defined in local government legislation.

Section 6 is a general provision in relation to the funding of the functions carried out under the earlier sections.

Section 7 contains the short title.

During the passage of the Bill through the Seanad a number of largely technical amendments were also made to the Bill as originally published. One example was the addition of the words "and be deemed always to have had" in a number of places where the commissioners are cited as having certain powers. As I explained, the Bill is intended to give legal certainty to what exactly are the powers of the Commissioners of Public Works and underpin those which the commissioners have traditionally exercised. The purpose of these amendments is to validate actions taken in good faith by the commissioners over the years.

The text of the Bill as it now stands will of course be dealt with in detail on Committee Stage. I again express my thanks to the House for its response in facilitating the introduction of the Bill. I look forward to the co-operation of Deputies in securing its rapid passage into law.

Mr. N. Treacy

I warmly welcome this Bill, however belatedly it has come before the House. I regret that it has taken 13 months since the serious flooding, particularly in the west. I totally reject the reasons given for this delay. We were told the problem resulted from a High Court decision in the case of Howard v. the State. I reject that because it is obvious to anyone who examines our political and parliamentary history that the Commissioners of Public Works are the country's oldest State agency.

History confirms that flooding has been a problem for centuries. When Ireland was under imperialist rule a specific Drainage Act was brought forward in the House of Commons in 1842 dealing entirely with flooding in this country. The same Act was later used to create employment in the Famine period. From 1842 to 1854 not less than £2.5 million was spent on drainage in Ireland and specific powers were given to the Commissioners of Public Works at that time. The investment in drainage works during those 12 years would amount to approximately £2.5 billion in current monetary values.

Ireland gained its independence in 1922 and in 1945 this Parliament passed the Arterial Drainage Act. I presume when the Act was being drafted by civil servants that consultation took place with the then Chief State Solicitor and the Office of the Attorney General. Amendments were subsequently tabled both in this House and in the Seanad and the Act became law. The present powers of the Commissioners of Public Works are grounded in the 1842 Act. These were confirmed in the 1945 Act and were later copperfastened by several Government decisions, directives and Statutory Instruments. The powers of the Commissioners of Public Works to carry out specific functions at any time are given to them by the Government of the day.

The Arterial Drainage Act, 1945 contains no less than five sections dealing with compensation. Four deal with actual compensation while a fifth empowers the Land Commissioners to withhold any payments to people who owe money to the State. The balance would have to be paid to the Commissioners. Financial management was well ahead of its time when the 1945 Act was introduced.

I do not blame the Minister of State, Deputy Coveney, for the delay in introducing this Bill because he is the third Minister to have dealt with this flooding problem over the past 13 months. I publicly thank him for his humane and generous approach to this problem since he started to deal with it last July. I also pay a special tribute to the Commissioners of Public Works and their staff for the very fine and specific commitment they gave.

On 16 February 1995 Senator Daly published the Arterial Drainage (Amendment) Bill, 1995 which gave specific powers to the commissioners to pay compensation. He was harried by Government Members in the Seanad and the Bill was voted down. Senator Daly is an experienced parliamentarian. He was a Member of Dáil Éireann and served in Cabinet. He was Minister of State at the Department of Finance with responsibility for the Office of Public Works. The former Minister of State, Deputy Jim Higgins, brought forward a Bill and Senator Daly tabled amendments dealing with compensation. Once again Government members harried the Senator and the amendments were defeated.

I became aware that there were problems with the payment of compensation. Deputies Geoghegan-Quinn, Killeen and I tabled a motion on the issue on 4 February 1995. Many parliamentary questions and special notice questions were raised on the matter by Deputies from all sides. In reply to a question I tabled in December I was told that the matter would be considered in due course and the problem would be resolved. A Bill published in December and passed in the Seanad on 20 December gives specific powers to the Commissioners of Public Works to pay compensation. If there were problems with the payment of compensation as a result of the Howard case the Government should have appealed the decision to the Supreme Court. However, rather than carry out the necessary legal research and copperfasten the powers of the commissioners this Bill was introduced.

Successive Governments regarded the Office of Public Works as having great expertise. Matters which could not be dealt with in other Departments were referred to that office for execution and discharge. When we were in power with Labour in 1993 an effort was made to downgrade and diminish the powers of the commissioners. We resisted that until we were hounded out of office. The Office of Public Works has been politically raped by this Government. The Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht took over many of its powers. When there is positive, buoyant news he is responsible for waterways but when there are serious problems the Office of Public Works is responsible. As a result of the treatment meted out to the commissioners and their excellent staff the Government found itself in a dilemma. It transferred some of the powers of the Office of Public Works for political expediency and then found that it could not discharge its obligations to the victims of flooding.

Before Christmas I was assured by our party Whip that the Dáil would deal with this Bill on 23 January 1996. I was surprised to learn that it was to be budget day and that the Bill would not be before the House. We are dealing with the matter 13 months after the flooding occurred. However, it is better late than never. I wish to place on record the gratitude of the flood victims in my county to the professional and voluntary members of the Red Cross for their tremendous contribution and the humane way in which they dealt with the problems. The national treasurer lives in County Galway and did trojan work co-ordinating, meeting and discussing the problems with people and ensuring they would receive compensation.

Those far removed from the flooded area may not understand the seriousness of the matter. People's homes were flooded overnight and the effects of that were felt for five or six months. The property around their houses was also under water. Livestock were threatened, outhouses were flooded and the roads were impassable. I pay tribute to Galway County Council for its response, especially in creating alternative access routes to homes and schools and ensuring there was food for families and animals. The level of trauma, pressure and difficulties experienced by the flood victims has not been witnessed in this country for a long time. People had to leave their homes and live in rented accommodation. In some cases they had to leave that also. They had to go across land to bring children to school. These people still suffer the psychological and financial effects of the flooding. Until these matters are resolved and they have a normal family home they will not be able to rebuild their lives. The problem would have been seriously compounded if people had not taken the initiative to carry out local drainage works. I pay tribute to Deputy McCormack who spearheaded the political initiative to ensure support was available from local authorities and the Government to complement the local initiative taken. The Kiltiernan-Ballindereen flood relief group ensured that houses were protected and that schools and roads were accessible.

The works carried out were relief works and I am delighted that the Government made money available to the Office of Public Works to compenstate those who raised money in the banks. We must pay tribute to the financial institutions who made money available so that the works could commence. The Government picked up the tab when it was satisfied that de facto work was being carried out.

There is much confusion and frustration. Ireland is the victim of serious flooding. Many studies, programmes and reports have been published, yet year after year the problem arises. A detailed consultancy study is being carried out in south-west Galway, particularly in the Gort-Ardrahan area which was badly flooded. That area is unique and, therefore, I hope the report will be conclusive. The best professionals are employed on this matter and much State money is being expended. Many experts can make a contribution in this area, including staff of the Office of Public Works who have experience in arterial drainage, professional staff of the Geological Survey of Ireland, engineering staff of Galway County Council, engineering and other staff of the Department of the Environment and officials of other State agencies. There must be consultation with professional staff who produced reports on this issue in the past and, most importantly, with the local people.

People in south and north Galway believe that the only solution to the flooding problem is drainage. Action is necessary to ensure the problem does not recur. Account should be taken of the topography of the area as well as natural amenities such as Coole Lake, wildlife, the Slieve Aughty mountain range, forestry effects and so on. There is no point in continuing the study of this problem ad infinitum. I had hoped it would be completed this year but it now appears it will not be completed until next year. I appeal to the Government to ensure that when the study is concluded south Galway will be used as a pilot area for future flooding problems.

West Galway is bordered by the sea, an area of south Galway is bordered by the Slieve Aughty mountain range and in the centre there is a very complex geological system, with small farms dotted around the area, interspersed by hamlets, villages and residential areas. It is an ideal location for study of the flooding problems. I hope that action will be taken in this regard sooner rather than later to ensure the people in the area do not suffer further trauma.

The people of north Galway have also been the victims of flooding on many occasions in the past. Under the Drainage Act, 1945, an area of north Galway, including Curragh West, Dunmore, in the parish of Williamstown and Glenamaddy, was identified by the Office of Public Works for drainage work, but because of local political rivalry that work was never carried out. Since then perhaps once in every decade there have been serious flooding problems. I hope the necessary action will be taken to ensure flooding of this areas does not recur.

I sincerely thank the Minister for the work carried out in Belclare, which has been of great benefit to the area. Other parts of the county have been affected on a regular basis by flash flooding. Resources should be given to the Office of Public Works who, in co-operation with the local authority, should work to prevent a recurrence of the events of January 1995 when people in Ballinasloe had to leave their homes and animals had to be removed from outhouses on farms. Similar problems were experienced in New Inn, Kilconnell, Ballycrissane and Portumna. People had to vacate their houses in Loughrea and in Moylough houses were flooded and roads blocked.

Public representatives have a responsibility to address these problems — I commend Senator Brendan Daly in this regard. We acquire expertise in dealing with matters but unfortunately on many occasions, regardless of who is in Government, our views are not taken on board in legislation. The best possible legislation should be enacted by taking on board sensible proposals and suggestions for amendments to Bills.

This Government inherited a buoyant economy and had much money to spend in the past 12 months. I put down a question to the Minister for Social Welfare asking him to make available, under the community scheme, funds for the South Galway Flood Victims' Action Group which does much voluntary work in this area, but that request was rejected. However, the Minister provided money to various groups of dubious reputation, particularly in Dublin, in the past 12 months. Obviously, he is cultivating his own corner and has no interest in the problems that bedevil the people of the west.

I pay tribute to the Minister for Social Welfare for agreeing, at my request, that compensation payments to flood victims would not be taken into account for unemployment assistance purposes. However, I was extremely disappointed that in the case of people who applied to the local health board for supplementary welfare assistance, insurance payments were taken into account. While the health board in the area has done tremendous work in terms of the one stop shop in Gort, there is no justification for that decision. The State and its agencies have a duty to provide support for these people.

On 16 January last the Minister issued a circular on compensation to flood victims. I welcome the preliminary offer of compensation but I do not accept one can compare local authority houses with private houses. Some houses that were flooded will never be used again and will have to be demolished. I put forward suggestions to the Minister at various meetings — I thank him and his officials for their co-operation during the past 12 months; it was deeply appreciated — on the level of compensation that would be acceptable to flood victims. The people concerned are dissatisfied with the payments offered to them. Many of them built houses to a certain specification and standard on a site purchased by them or on a farm where they live. It is unfair to compare that with a local authority house. In addition, they would have paid stamp duty if they had bought a house, or VAT if they built one. The compensation being offered means they must acquire a site or build on their own site and as they had a house before they will not qualify for a new house grant.

The Minister proposes to claw back the insurance compensation paid to these people. I accept that nobody is entitled to be compensated twice for the same loss. However, there must be equity in this proposal. If a person is compensated for their losses at the rate of 25 per cent by the insurance company, the claw back should be 25 per cent of the Minister's offer, not the compensation they received. If the Minister's offer does not match their assets, they are not entitled to be penalised at the level of compensation they received but at a pro rata figure, that is, 25 per cent of £62,500 or £51,500. The Minister must act responsibly when discharging public funds, but this is exceptional.

Many victims of the flooding in County Galway invested their life savings in building new houses. Those who came home from overseas with a wife and children settled down in areas close to where they were born. Those houses may be affected by flooding again unless major drainage work is carried out. Adequate compensation must be paid to ensure that equity prevails and that those people do not have to leave this country again. We must take exceptional situations into account such as where people have no job or there is only one earner in a family. We must try to keep honest, hard working people here. We must have a commitment to the renewal of rural Ireland and to maintaining its population.

I hope this Bill has a speedy passage through the House. I will table amendments and I look forward to discussing them on Committee Stage. I hope this Bill will copperfasten the powers of the commissioners of Public Works to make decisions. They have been in existence for 150 years during which time they garnered a lot of power and discharged it with dignity, efficiency and professionalism. I hope the oldest State agency in the country does not have to confirm its powers through such legislative measures in the future.

Mr. Molloy

Fáiltíonn an Páirtí Daonlathach roimh an mBille seo. Glacaimid leis go bhfuil sé riachtanach go mbeadh cumhachtaí agus feidhmeannais Choimisinéirí na nOibreacha Poibli cinnte agus nach mbeadh aon amhras faoi na cumhachtaí sin. Ba chóir go mbeadh údarás Stáit ann go mbeadh sé de dhualgas air agus an chumhacht aige teacht i gcabhair ar dhaoine i sáinn de bharr tubaiste mar seo a tharla ar fud na tíre ach i gContae na Gaillimhe go háirithe mar thoradh ar an mbáisteach uafásach ní amháin anuraidh ach ar thrí ócáid le cúig bliana anuas. Bhí an bháisteach chomh trom sin nach raibh na haibhneacha in ann an t-uisce a thógáil go dtí an fharraige. Bhí na tithe báite agus bhí ar dhaoine imeacht astu mar go raibh an t-uisce ag teacht isteach iontu.

Cuireadh isteach ar dhaoine ar bhealaí éagsúla. Cuireadh isteach ar lucht gnó, ar fheirmeoirí agur ar dhaoine a bhí ina gcomhnaí i dtithe a bhí slán dar leo. Chaith siad an saol ag bailiú airgid chun teach a thógáil; bhí an teach tógtha agus an t-airgead infheistithe sa teach ach tar éis na tubaiste seo níorbh fhíu faic na tithe sin. Bhí faitíos orthu dul arais iontu mar go mb'fhéidir go dtarlódh a leithéid arís agus arís eile bliain i ndiaidh a chéile.

The Progressive Democrats welcome this Bill, although we wish these matters had been attended to at an earlier date. However, as a Deputy from a Galway constituency. I am conscious that the Government has acted reasonably satisfactorily in relation to this disaster.

The flooding was worse in south Galway than in most other places. The trauma of having one's house, farm, land or shop flooded leaves people in a state of despondency and despair. Their investments and life's work have been destroyed and their source of income has been washed away. The Minister listed the places with flooding problems.

I extend my sympathy and the sympathy of my party, to those who suffered loss. From visiting the houses in south Galway which were affected by the flooding I know that extending sympathy is no good unless one is in a position to offer help. Serious flooding occurred in south Galway on two previous occasions in the early 1990s, but little action was taken to help those affected. The third disaster which struck at the end of 1994 and continued until this time last year showed it was no longer an occasion for Ministers and public representatives to look at the problems and go away when the television cameras leave. People were left in dire circumstances with no offer of help from official quarters.

I extend my appreciation to the former Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Hogan, the first person appointed by the Government to head an interdepartmental group to examine this problem and to try to find solutions to help the people. He did not last long in that Department, was replaced by Deputy Jim Higgins who was then replaced by the present Minister of State, Deputy Coveney. As a public representative from one of the disaster areas, I am grateful to the Minister for his sympathetic approach, his willingness to help, his understanding of the problem and the action he has taken. We wish those actions had been taken more quickly and that measures would now be in place. However, I recognise that the Minister had to start from scratch.

The Minister of State cannot be blamed for difficulties that have arisen which made this Bill necessary to underpin the powers of the Office of Public Works to distribute humanitarian aid and to enter into arrangements with a housing authority to provide homes for the people concerned. I listened carefully to Deputy Treacy's contribution. It is appropriate that the Minister, having been advised that this Bill is necessary, should ensure there is absolutely no doubt about what the Government can do.

I am disturbed that the level of financial compensation being offered to householders may not be adequate to meet the losses suffered in individual cases. I take it from what the Minister of State said that there will be a cap of £65,000 on the level of compensation. That is an arbitrary way to deal with this matter and I suggest he consider matching compensation to losses suffered in individual cases rather than introducing a standard figure of compensation which would not offer an appropriate level of compensation in all cases.

The Howard case in the High Court raised the issue of whether the Office of Public Works had power to do certain things and many of us were surprised to discover it did not. The Minister had a duty to bring forward legislation to have it firmly placed in the statutes that the Office of Public Works has power to undertake various functions on behalf of the Government.

The big issue in South Galway is housing compensation and the long-term solution to the flooding problem. If the consultants appointed by the Minister put forward proposals which recommend a solution to this problem, the flooding may not recur. If it is proposed to construct a channel from the area of Coole Lake to the sea at Kinvarra as a relief for flooding above a certain level, it is likely that those areas will not be flooded again as the subterreanean rock structure and underground waterways in that region are unique in Europe. I do not know what solution the consultants will recommend, but it is clear that in times of exceptionally heavy rainfall the under ground system is not capable of taking the waters to the sea. Flooding in low lying areas in that region has become progressively worse. Since we have not had heavy rainfall this winter that region is likely to escape serious flooding this year. However, if there is heavy rainfall this year and that area experiences worse flooding than last year, the Government will have to make firm decisions. We can only speculate about a solution to the flooding problem, and that would be idle speculation. It is better to wait and see what the consultants come up with.

I hope that when the consultants submit their report it will be published and we will have access to it. I also hope we will be able to establish clearly if the Government intends to accept their proposals and implement them. There was widespread surprise and dismay at the recommendations in the consultants' preliminary report made available some months ago. It did not do much to raise people's hopes that the consultants' final report would provide a satisfactory solution. I am entering into the realm of speculation here, and that is not helpful.

My reason for contributing to the debate is to indicate my party's support for the proposal to extend powers to the Office of Public Works to ensure, in particular, that it can use the housing authorities as agents to provide homes for people in drastic circumstances similar to those which resulted from flooding in Galway last year. The State agencies reacted in a very humanitarian way during the time of this disaster. The Garda, the Civil Defence, local authorities, the Red Cross, although not an agent of the State, the health boards and the Air Corps gave exceptional aid to families and farmers on that occasion. This work was co-ordinated by a Government committee to which we must be thankful.

Were it not for the determination, vigilance and persistence of the South Galway flood victims support committee and the work of the IFA South Galway committee in keeping pressure on the Minister and on public representatives, we may not have achieved so much. I join Deputy Treacy in expressing surprise that financial assistance was not made available to the flood victims committee to compensate its members for administration, travel and other incidental expenses they incurred because of a tragedy over which they did not have control. They acted out of community spirit to help their neighbours and some of them were affected personally. They had to organise themselves into an action committee which was not prepared to accept inadequate assistance. Their determination is an example of outstanding community action. I hope the Minister will provide some financial assistance to cover the out of pocket expenses incurred by the people who established that committee and undertook the necessary difficult work involved in documenting and presenting their case to the Minister of State who was gracious, helpful and sympathetic on every occasion they met.

This is an enabling Bill and I accept its principle although I may table amendments on behalf of my party on Committee Stage. The real test of its effectiveness will be determined by the level of compensation provided. If the Minister sticks to the figures he mentioned in public, there will be dissatisfaction. I hope much of the good work he attempted will not be spoiled by niggardliness as not many houses will need to be replaced. The report of the multi-disciplinary consultants appointed by the Minister and the action taken on foot of it will be the most important factor for the people concerned.

The work done to date is fire brigade action to help people deal with their immediate problems. The biggest concern is the alleviation of the long-term problem and what steps can be taken to ensure that massive flooding of the region does not recur. I hope it is within the competence of the consultants appointed to make a feasible recommendation. I hope it will be within the capability of Government to support such recommendation and provide the funds necessary for its implementation. While all of that is for the future, I welcome the Bill and look forward to detailed discussion on some of its provisions on Committee Stage.

Mr. Connaughton

While welcoming this Bill, like many other Members I regret the necessity for its introduction. Having followed these proposals closely over the past 12 months, I have to say the events leading to its introduction were the fault of nobody. I can also verify that neither the Minister of State at the Department of Finance with responsibility for the Office of Public Works, Deputy Coveney, nor anybody else was aware until the very last moment that this enabling Bill would have to be passed by both Houses. While one may quibble about a few days' delay one way or another, all parliamentarians know the duration of parliamentary processes. I hope it will be passed quickly because its enactment will result in many applicants receiving long awaited compensation.

I pay tribute to the Minister of State, Deputy Coveney, with whom I have worked closely over the past 12 months and who, along with many others, devoted a great deal of time and energy to the preparation of this Bill. It would be fair to say that, from the time we public representatives in east Galway were deemed responsible for the general Gort area, we too put much time and energy into its preparation.

I had thought the Commissioners of Public Works already possessed statutory authority to handle this type of brief. However, as this matter arises every day in legal circles, we cannot express too much surprise at the necessity to introduce this Bill based on a formal court judgment.

Irrespective of whenever and wherever it occurs, flooding brings great damage and hardship in its wake. People whose homes and lands are flooded never obtain sufficient compensation for all the damage wreaked. When all of those compensatory claims are met, involving the relocation of dwellings and so on, one is talking of a total sum just short of £8 million. This will be of considerable benefit to applicants in a region such as Gort and south Galway which had been submerged under water levels unknown in the history of the State. In the height of the flooding, standing outside one person's dwelling. I noticed a mere three feet still visible at the top of an ESB pole; one can hardly imagine a greater depth of flooding. I am very conscious that it will take much engineering expertise and experience to ensure that such flooding does not recur.

There has been much comment about the manner in which compensation was paid. The way it was handled was about the only practicable one, in that the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry made £2 million available almost instantaneously having inspected the flooding. While some people found fault with the manner of its distribution, ultimately most people who had experienced problems received some type of compensation. It transpired that those £2 million were not entirely taken up. The balance is to be reallocated under this new scheme in the relocation of farmyards. I will revert later to this topic on which I have very strong views.

I share the sentiments expressed by my constituency colleague, Deputy Noel Treacy. I too take my cap off to the Irish Red Cross Society which undertook the huge task of distributing those funds. Without the benefit of previous criteria or precedents, they distributed that humanitarian aid honestly and reasonably, bearing in mind the huge difficulties and misery endured by the victims of flooding. While there may be a few, they are very few who would find fault with the Irish Red Cross Society and its handling of that humanitarian aid. It will stand to their eternal credit that they correctly ascertained the overall problem on the ground and covered themselves in glory in the distribution of that aid.

I have been closely involved with the Minister's proposals to compensate those whose dwelling houses have been flooded but I would not be telling tales out of school in informing the House that, when the compensatory amounts were first mooted, I found fault with them. I note that some of my ideas have been incorporated in the final Government decision.

Although I know almost all of those people who had the unfortunate experience of having had their dwellings flooded, the compensatory payments, being comprised of taxpayers' money, will have to be seen to be fairly and justly distributed to all concerned. Nonetheless I accept it is very difficult to devise a system with which everybody will be relatively happy.

As most Members representing the area will readily testify, some people will do quite well, others all right and a few may complain, based on the preflooding condition and value of their dwellings. The Government has gone about as far as it is possible to go. As the Minister and some of his officials are aware, I argued strongly that there were deficiencies in the original proposals. The relevant groups, the South Galway Action Committee and the IFA, know exactly what I am talking about but I am aware that a number of people remain unhappy.

Immediately this Bill is enacted, an appropriate offer should be made and, if accepted, the relevant compensation should be paid forthwith. Many applicants for compensation are living in rented accommodation, having moved once or twice already and, in the strict sense of the word, they are homeless. It is time they were allowed to resume their normal lifestyles, build new homes or purchase second-hand ones with such payments.

In the case of a four-bedroomed house in Gort, bearing in mind current house prices and building costs, the final offer is quite reasonable. Some applicants have complained it was unfair to deduct any insurance compensation, but any other proposal would have enormous difficulty being approved by any Committee of the House engaged in the scrutiny of compensatory payments, which Members will readily appreciate.

While in 1995 we in the west were blessed with as dry a year as I can remember, the fact that there were two or three very wet days at the end of October/early November when the town of Gort was flooded for a couple of hours one evening highlights the susceptibility of such areas to flood damage. One could immediately see how frightened the residents were, fearing the heavier flooding would recur. If such flooding can happen over two or three days in a very sunny, dry year, what can be expected in a year with normal rainfall?

I had the good fortune to be in Gort on the evening the consultants spoke publicly about what it was proposed to do to remedy the potential for future flooding. We were bamboozled by science, hydrology and other scientific arguments. While I was impressed by Mr. Peach's presentation, I hope he knew what he was talking about. Having said that, I sincerely hope there is action on the ground. I know enough about the problem in Gort to know the answer to it. Some sort of escape valve is needed whereby, when the water gets to a certain level, it can be released to the sea. One does not have to be a hydrologist to know that. The problems relate to how this can be done and the damage it could cause.

I was very impressed with the consultant. I have observed what is happening around the Gort area and the problem is being tackled in a way that no consultant used previously. Despite all the money that has gone into the area, people still say — with justification — at any public meeting in Gort that very little is being done for them because they remember the three days I mentioned and how easily the area could again be flooded. We know the process will take 21 months and six or seven have already passed. There is a huge area under review.

I asked Mr. Peach whether he had encountered an area like Gort in his travels around the world. He said there was only one area, in Burma of all places, where there might have been something like it. This gives some indication of the uniqueness of the drainage in south Galway. Leaving aside the issue of flora and fauna, he said that the basin in the Coole area will have to be drained in three different ways. When this is taken into consideration, it will be a fair engineering feat to remove much of that water.

Some months ago, I and some local people took the opportunity to walk back five or six miles from the mouth of the shoreline at Kinvara along a route designed by people who were very involved in the drainage business. This is a long shot and I might have egg on my face after 12 months but I believe that an escape valve is possible without interfering much with wildlife and the other factors which must be taken into account. The cost has yet to be worked out but we cannot allow people in an area as large as the Gort/south Galway area to live with the fear that, after three or four days of incessant rainfall, they will witness what they saw in early 1995. One would not expect any local community to live in that situation. Following the consultant's report, we must do anything we can to alleviate the situation, irrespective of which party is in Government.

This Government pumped more money into the problem than anybody else over the years, including Governments of all hues. Despite this, we were no nearer a permanent solution until the consultants went into the area. I take this opportunity, as Deputy Treacy very generously did, to compliment our colleague, Deputy McCormack, on the initiative he took with local people and a variety of others. It was a bold experiment but it proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that something which did not have official blessing was sensible and workable.

I share the views of Deputy Molloy and Deputy Treacy in regard to the Office of Public Works. It is a professional body and I have always found it will do the best it can to give a fine quality service. If it has one small fault, it is the need to recognise that there are other ways of doing the same job and sometimes of doing it better. There is a change in this mentality and it is important that the change is linked to modern technology. It will be possible to do things next year that could not have been done ten years ago.

I hope that the signal we send out from Dáil Éireann on passing this legislation is that we have done the best we could for the people affected. I hope we were humane and gave them every reason to be confident in the future. However, unless there is a permanent solution to drainage problems in Gort, south Galway drainage and many other places, the Exchequer and the European Union will have to pick up the tab in years to come for a problem that should have been solved in another, more permanent way.

I mentioned that the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry is looking at the possibility of relocating a number of farmyards. There is about £600,000 available for this project. I have some very definite views on it. The money should be shared out equitably and should help small farmers. There should be 90 to 100 per cent Exchequer help for the building of small slatted houses and-or cubicles. The scheme should operate more or less on the same basis as the control of farm pollution grants. Small farmers should be given this opportunity across the board where they are entitled to it. The powers that be are now vetting the applications. The amount of money per farm should be capped so that no single farm can take up too much of the available resources.

Finally, I wish to refer to the Williamstown-Curragh west area. I have asked the Minister to ensure that the survey in that area continues. There was a development in that area over Christmas whereby a number of drains were assessed privately. I do not know the outcome of this work and whether it will integrate with the overall system but I want the Office of Public Works to finish that survey. The area's drainage should be assessed on the basis of the ongoing official survey and there is no reason that survey should not finish to enable us evaluate the situation.

I commend the Bill to the House and hope it will have an easy passage. I also hope that the offers made to the people who cannot live in their houses will be processed quickly to ensure there will be cheques in the post for those who need them most urgently.

Mr. M. Kitt

Ba mhaith liom fáilte a chur roimh an mBille seo. De bharr na báistí troime i 1994 agus i dtús 1995 bhí an-tubaist agus damáiste déanta sa tír seo agus go háirithe i nGaillimh.

This time last year as public representatives, we visited the south Galway area looking at the serious damage which resulted from heavy rainfall and flooding in that area. The former Minister of State, Deputy Hogan, the Minister of State, Deputy Jim Higgins, and the Minister, Deputy Coveney, visited the region. I pay tribute to all three for their work and particularly to Deputy Coveney for being accessible to the many deputations who came to meet him. I pay tribute to the public representatives in Galway West, particularly Deputy Padraic McCormack, who did trojan work there, and Senator Frank Fahey who worked with my colleague, Senator Brendan Daly, in introducing legislation in the Seanad and who kick started the whole question of legislation.

It was disappointing — in the words of the Minister — that there was a deficit in the power to provide for the administration of the proposed relief scheme and that we had to wait 13 or 14 months to have this Bill before the Dáil. When the Minister of State, Deputy Jim Higgins, introduced legislation in May 1995 he had in mind the relief of localised flooding, not only in urban and residential areas but in any part of the country and especially in south Galway where there was heavy rainfall. He did not accept the legislation introduced in the Seanad by Senator Brendan Daly. Despite many questions on the Adjournment, we understood everything was in order to enable localised flooding to be tackled and the other relief schemes to be brought into operation. That did not happen but I am pleased we are now discussing the Bill.

My colleagues have said the ultimate solution is drainage. This is the view put forward by the south Galway IFA and the south Galway drainage action group. They realised that an environment impact assessment would have to be done and that engineers would have to survey the area. Having done that, they understood that we could proceed to a draft drainage scheme and carry out the actual drainage. They made the point that when one talks about helping householders, the farming community and the business community there are many different situations within those categories. They highlighted, for example, that householders may or may not have insured their homes and that there may be isolated householders who were cut off and could not go about their daily business.

The farming community mentioned the need for immediate assistance. I pay tribute to the then Minister for Defence and the Marine, Deputy Coveney, who ensured the Air Corps was made available to assist the farming community in south Galway. The two groups highlighted a number of problems in the business sector: the loss of earnings, the loss of and damage to business assets and structural damage to businesses, many of which were not insured against such damage. I appreciate it was difficult for any Minister to tackle all these issues simultaneously.

The Minister has visited the area and has met numerous delegations but I would ask this evening, through the Minister of State, Deputy Carey, that he meet again with these delegations when the question of payments is being finalised as that will be a major issue in the future. Deputy Noel Treacy and others raised the question of the maximum payment for people who have to relocate to a newly built house or purchase an older house. We must be careful not to stick rigidly to one figure because of the different circumstances for householders in south Galway. Part of the proposal is that the old house be demolished within six months of taking up occupation in one's new accommodation. This could be a problem for householders. A grant of £2,000 is available to householders for demolition. The south Galway IFA and the south Galway action group have made the point that this may not be enough as there is the question not only of demolishing the house but taking away materials which could be an expensive undertaking. I advise against adhering rigidly to figures for rehousing, demolition or the taking away of materials. These issues will have to be examined and I hope the Minister of State will meet again with the south Galway IFA and the south Galway action group when the proposals are being finalised. The Minister of State has come a long way and we welcome the fact that the Bill is before the House but there are a number of outstanding issues.

The announcement by the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry of grants for the relocation of farmyards is welcome. In his reply the Minister might say how many people are eligible. My information is that over 100 people have applied for this grant but I do not believe it was envisaged that that number would be eligible.

All the delegations to the Minister raised the question of swallow holes. In reply to questions in the House in November 1995, the Minister said the consultants stated that no action was to be taken to open swallow holes. I accept what the consultants have said but many people are convinced that local work should be done on this. I welcome the fact that consultants have been appointed and I hope they will work as quickly as possible on this issue.

This brings me to the matter of the north Galway flooding, particularly Curragh West near Williamstown. The people in that area, as mentioned by Deputy Connaughton, are disappointed at the delay in having the studies and surveys carried out. The Minister of State informed us at the last meeting I attended that the Office of Public Works would have to carry out an environmental study and that the wildlife study could not commence until March or April. In effect, this means the studies will not be completed until July or August. I would impress on the Minister that any other study should not have to wait until the wildlife study is carried out. For example, the cost benefit analysis could be done at the same time as the wildlife study.

Severe flooding occurred in Curragh West at the end of 1994 and early 1995. I received the following letter from a householder living in the area whose parents were isolated because of the flooding:

On a personal basis, my parents have been unable to attend the post office to collect their pensions. My mother had to cancel an outpatients appointment at University College Hospital, Galway because she was unable to make the hazardous journey across waterlogged fields and boundary fencing. Both of my parents have been unable to attend their doctor to collect medication which is vital to their health and well-being. I am sure I need not preach to you about the effect this hardship is having upon their lives as normal, independent old age citizens or, indeed, mine as their carer.

As Deputy Connaughton mentioned, some work was done privately in the area during the Christmas period. I hope it will fit in with whatever plan is eventually proposed following the completion of the studies being conducted of the environment and wildlife as well as the cost benefit analysis.

The Minister of State informed us last year that nine areas were being given high priority where the process of designing flood relief works could commence immediately: Belclare, near Tuam, County Galway, where I am glad some work has been done; Carlow, Cappamore, Duleek, Dunmanway, Gort town, Kilkenny, Sixmilebridge and Williamstown. It is significant that three of these areas are in County Galway.

These are not the only areas in the county in which there was serious flooding. It also happened in Ballinasloe when the water level rose on both the Suck and Deer Park rivers and the people living along side them were badly affected. Although it was understood that Iarnród Éireann would do something about the problem in Ballinasloe, sadly, it now believes this would not benefit it, although it will co-operate with the local authority. I hope the matter will be further investigated. If the local authority is expected to undertake some of the work, it will require funding, for flood relief measures or road repairs.

There was also flooding at the turlough in Glenamaddy, Portumna, Loughrea, Fohenagh, Moylough, Caltra and Castleblakeney. I pay tribute in particular to the local engineer and local authority for their efforts to relieve it. The Irish Red Cross Society, the Garda Síochána, the Army and the Air Corps should also be thanked for their sterling efforts. The Western Health Board also played its part through the provision of supplementary welfare allowances. The campaign was spearheaded by the IFA and the south Galway flood relief action group. I hope their efforts will bear fruit following the completion of the various studies being conducted and the presentation of the consultants' report.

The Minister of State mentioned that, because of the vagaries of the weather, it is difficult to forecast where flooding will next occur. This year there has been serious flooding in the south east, in Clonmel, Carrick-on-Suir and Wexford which caused grave hardship.

On the question of funding, the European Union has been quick to help us and I hope that will always be the case. I understand that a survey is being conducted of the effects of flooding along the River Rhine. I have been in contact with the MEP for my area, Mr. Mark Killilea, to see if the findings of that survey could be applied to Ireland. There is an acknowledgement that the effects of flooding can be catastrophic for farmers, householders and businesses and we should be thankful that funding has been made available. I thank the Minister of State, Deputy Coveney, for making the case in Europe. In the past the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, Deputy Jim Higgins, made the case for south Galway.

I had hoped we would not need this Bill, but the Minister of State has been advised that such legislation is necessary. I hope it will have a speedy passage to allow those badly in need of assistance — particularly householders and farmers who have had to be relocated and businesses which lost most of their assets — to benefit from its provisions.

Mr. McCormack

This legislation is necessary to provide for the payment of compensation to householders who were forced to abandon their homes and had to be relocated because of serious flooding throughout the country, particularly in south Galway and parts of County Clare. I hope it will have a speedy passage with whatever amendments are deemed appropriate. It is noteworthy that the Deputies who spoke represent County Galway, parts of which were devastated by flooding in early 1995. The picture shown most often on television was that of the four houses at Glenbrack, outside Gort, which had to be abandoned and to which the families concerned will never return because of the extent of the structural damage and the fear that flooding will recur unless there is a solution to the problem.

Several other rural farmhouses were also flooded and the families concerned are in a serious dilemma from the point of view of relocation. In Ardrahan, the home of Tommy Fahey was flooded for a period of three months and because of the location of his farmhouse he must continue to live there in constant fear of further flooding.

People who live outside the area may not be aware of the seriousness of the flooding in Galway. Even some of my colleagues here do not have a proper concept of the mental anguish suffered by the people concerned during the peak flooding time. One would need to have seen their faces to realise their suffering. Each time flooding occurred in that area in the past five or six years public representatives were seen on television on the back of trailers monitoring the position. They also attended public meetings in south Galway, but the problem was not resolved. Early last year I detected that people were getting fed up with this attitude from public representatives and at a public meeting in Gort I said I would stop attending meetings until we could do something to resolve the problem.

I am pleased to note the measures proposed by the Minister. A total of £2 million has been made available, through the agricultural compensation scheme, to assist farmers who lost fodder and stock and for farmyard relocation. A sum of £4 million has been made available for the repair of county roads, £750,000 in humanitarian aid will be distributed by the Irish Red Cross Society and a further £750,000 has been provided to carry out a study to determine how to resolve the problem in the south Galway area, making a total of approximately £7 million. This must be considered in conjunction with the aid distributed through the Irish Red Cross Society, whom I compliment for its great work in the south Galway area during the flooding. Air Corps helicopters were also used and there was great community effort to bring food to isolated houses and livestock. In total, up to £10 million will be spent on solving the problems arising from flooding throughout the country, particularly in the south Galway area.

While compensation is welcome it is not at the top of people's agenda. Their overriding concern is to have the problem resolved so that they will not have to live in fear of recurrent flooding.

As an Opposition Deputy I was not in a position to do a great deal about flooding in previous years. However, in 1995, when the worst flooding in living memory occurred in the Gort area, I was a backbencher in a Government party. On 9 January 1995 the then Minister of State with responsibility for the Office of Public Works, Deputy Hogan, visited the Gort area. His commitment to resolving the problem was quickly followed up by Deputy Jim Higgins in his term as Minister of State with responsibility for that office who, at short notice, frequently met people to allay their fears. He spent many late nights in Gort and surrounding areas outlining the proposed Government action, some of which the Minister covered today. He succeeded in opening a one-stop-shop in Gort to deal with the problem at first hand, a great consolation to people who did not know where to turn for assistance. At the peak of the flooding in late January and early February of 1995 the people affected were very distressed. The Minister of State, Deputy Coveney, spent much of his time dealing with the compensation package and introduced this legislation to allow for compensation to relocate householders. He has spent much time and effort dealing with the problem. All public bodies have done their part in this regard. I compliment the manager and engineering staff of Galway County Council who acted swiftly to make emergency provisions available for those affected.

Since the flooding constituency boundaries have been redrawn and as a result Deputies Treacy and Connaughton will be candidates for the affected area in the next general election. From the tone of the debate today Members will have observed that the area concerned has been mapped into east Galway for election purposes. However, the fact that I will not represent that area following the next election has not deterred my determination to find a long-term solution to the problem. Many of those people elected me to this House. I saw houses, schools, churches, businesses and a nursing home flooded and roads cut off. Consequently, I know what people suffered.

People outside the area might not be aware of the geographical layout of the region. Three rivers rise in the Slieve Aughty Mountains, west of Loughrea, which flow into a valley around the Peterswell-Blackrock-Grannagh area. In a normal year in terms of weather those rivers flow underground for approximately four or five miles and rise again at Lough Cutra or in the Gort river which flows underground until it emerges approximately one-and-a-half miles outside the town where it flows into Coole Lake. In a normal year Coole Lake drains by underground passages into the sea at Kinvara. Because of heavy rainfall and a combination of other factors, 1995 was not a normal year and, consequently, that area experienced the worst flooding in living memory. The flood waters gathered in the Blackrock-Grannagh area of Gort and continued to rise until many houses were flooded and roads were cut off with water 15 or 16 feet deep. This type of flooding does not subside after a few days' sunshine. It remains there for five or six weeks, and up to three months in some cases, because the underground channels fill up and the water backs up from the overflow from Coole Lake which is overflowing simultaneously. As a result, flooding occurs in five or six districts in the south Galway area including Tarmon, near the Clare-Galway border, Coole Lake, which is constantly spreading out. The houses in Glenbrack were flooded as a result of that. There was also flooding in Gort town from the river at Kiltiernan, at Castletaylor and at Blackrock valley at the base of the Slieve Aughty mountains from where the water originates. Those areas may be connected by underground channels or perhaps the pressure in one area is transferred to another. I do not know exactly what causes the flooding but when Coole Lake, for example, continues to expand and enters a valley through which its water has never run before, flooding will continue to occur in new areas.

I thank Deputies Treacy and Kitt for their generous remarks about my efforts in this regard. I took a passionate interest in this matter because I saw what the people endured at that time. I was called to a meeting in one of the flooded areas, Kiltiernan, on a Sunday night. Nine houses in the village of Carraghadoo, off the main road between Ardrahan and Kilcolgan were flooded. The national school was flooded also, the water was actually across the main road. The flood waters in the village which was cut off in 1990, when the flood waters were at two feet, did not recede until 10 May, a period of three to four months. On this occasion the flood waters were as high as the houses in the village. The villagers had poor field access which, on the evening of the meeting, was actually cut off.

The people who attended that meeting said that they were no longer prepared to tolerate these conditions. They also said they would not wait for somebody else to solve their problem and that they would solve it themselves. Subsequently a small drainage scheme was initiated to relieve the Carraghadoo village, the flooding at the national school and on the main road. Those people were driven by the frustration of seeing their houses and farms flooded. They set out on what has now become the Kiltiernan-Ballindereen drainage scheme.

Due to other factors, including the possibility of drained water affecting the village of Ballindereen three or four miles down stream water had to be drained a further mile and a half to the sea at Kiltiernan. That caused consternation among environmentalists and others who did their best to prevent this drainage scheme proceeding — it took them approximately five weeks to obtain a road opening licence from Galway County Council to cross the road at Ballindereen. The scheme has not been completed — the area from Keamsella to the national school at Kiltiernan has yet to be drained — but when it is it will be seen as a successful pilot scheme and proof that water can be drained a distance of five and a half miles, in this case from Kiltiernan to the sea at Killinarden, one and a half miles outside Ballindereen, without affecting the environment.

People will complain about the effects of such schemes on bees, birds and bats which might be disturbed, but the rights of humans come before any consideration for bees, birds or bats.

This scheme has been helpful rather than harmful to the environment because it has not affected the natural turloughs. This was a relief drainage scheme which involved making a channel to take water over the natural turloughs to the sea without affecting the level of those natural turloughs. Last spring nesting birds were driven out of those turloughs because they could not hatch in their natural environment. When this drainage scheme was completed not only did it relieve the Caheradoo village of flooding in 12 hours — it took three months to relieve it in 1995 — it also relieved the danger of flooding at the school, the nursing home and on several roads.

Part of the reason for the flooding in south Galway and other areas is the works carried out by county councils in the past ten to 15 years in raising roads. The county councils are doing their duty in raising roads to allow traffic use them but that results in natural dams being formed which stops the water in south Galway following its natural course to the sea. I will not be satisfied until there is a channel from Coole Lake to the sea at Kinvara. It does not have to be a continuous channel but one going from a high area to a lower area, to another turlough and, eventually, to the sea. That is what has been done by the Kiltiernan-Ballindereen pilot scheme and I challenge environmentalists and others to examine that scheme, carried out by a few local farmers with the help of a co-operative, local contractor and bank manager as well as the co-operation of the Office of Public Works and the engineer, Mr. John Kelly. A study of that scheme will show how the flooding problem can be alleviated in south Galway so that in future people will not have to be concerned about serious flooding. Due to the good weather so far this year there has not been a recurrence of flooding in south Galway but I will not rest until something is done about the problem.

Éamon Ó Cuív

I welcome the Bill. I do not have much time tonight to dwell on its intricacies but I wish to make some comments on it. A fundamental issue which has not been dealt with satisfactorily is the question of replacement housing. I agree that was a step in the right direction but, as is the case with many schemes, a penny pinching attitude always seems to be adopted to such schemes. There appears to be an unwillingness to go the final step and put a proper effective scheme in place.

How often do we as politicians come across schemes that are right in concept but wrong in execution because of small clause conditions? As there is a claw-back on insurance, this scheme should be based on the full reinstatement value of the house rather than on nominal values where people are told they can get £40,000 for a three bedroom house or £42,000 for a four bedroom house. If a person has a £60,000 house, they should get back that amount less the claw-back from the insurance company. Given the small number involved, it is not good enough to give half compensation to people who have put a lifetime of work into their houses.

Debate adjourned.