I wish to share time with Deputy Ring.
Commissioners of Public Works (Functions and Powers) Bill, 1995 [Seanad]: Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
Chairman
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak on this Bill, the primary purpose of which is is put on a statutory basis powers and functions traditionally exercised by the Commissioners of Public Works.
When the Bill was debated in the Seanad before Christmas I had an interest in it because of my concern for the victims of the severe flooding in Galway. Little did I know at that stage that when the legislation came before this House I would have a much greater personal interest in it. Since Christmas south Tipperary, particularly the areas around Clonmel and Carrick-on-Suir, suffered unprecedented flooding from which few of those affected have recovered. My remarks, therefore, will concentrate on section 2 (c), the purpose of which is to make schemes or other arrangements for the provision of assistance, whether in the form of money, living accommodation, land or other property of any kind to persons who suffer undue hardship or personal injury or loss of or damage to land or other property by reason of flooding. Unfortunately, that section of the Bill relates to many of the constituents in south Tipperary.
In dealing with flooding, we must concentrate on three aspects, the causes, compensation for victims and a solution. It was distressing to see Clonmel and Carrick-on-Suir become islands last January. Not only were the towns cut off, people's homes and businesses were flooded. It is difficult to provide words of comfort to people in such circumstances. While the waters have subsided, the trauma and hardship continues. Three weeks later, Clonmel and Carrick-on-Suir are back to their original state but the houses and businesses are not. It is sad to speak to the people of the area and to hear that they do not have proper facilities. Their kitchens have been totally destroyed and they are living in makeshift accommodation which is totally unsatisfactory. The public will forget about that but we must not forget that the flood damage caused to homes and businesses cannot be corrected in a week or two. People must wait for the walls to dry out and then find the money to redecorate their homes to a satisfactory standard.
We have all wondered about the causes of the exceptional flooding this year and ten months ago in Clonmel. We accept there was exceptionally high rainfall — according to the Office of Public Works it was the highest recorded since 1953 — but such statistics are no comfort for the people living in what we call target areas. We must know the reason the flooding was more severe this year and ten months ago than ever before. The local people have rarely seen such exceptional flooding and damage as has been experienced in the past month.
I compliment the Minister of State, Deputy Coveney, who visited our constituency with an air of compassion and took a personal interest in the desperate circumstances of the flood victims. He was not in a position on that occasion to tell us what he could do about the problem but his visit was very much appreciated by the people. The Office of Public Works and the Department of the Environment should be careful about the statements they make at a time when people are experiencing the trauma of flood damage. They cannot enter their houses without wearing waders and on occasion they have to be carried by members of the fire brigade or the Civil Defence. Statements lacking in sympathy should not be made. I realise it is difficult to know what to say at such times but comfort and support should be offered to people experiencing these problems. The Minister of State, Deputy Coveney, was exceptional in his sympathy and understanding for the people living in the flooded areas, which was greatly appreciated. Those people are depending on the Minister of State and they know he will continue to support them.
I realise we have had exceptional levels of rainfall in Clonmel but we must find out whether works carried out by Clonmel Corporation or South Tipperary County Council contributed to the flooding. I understand public bodies will be on the defensive in relation to any works they carry out but they should adopt a more open approach in matters of this kind. When people ask questions they should be prepared to carry out an investigation to determine whether any of their works contributed to the flooding.
A new roadway was constructed along the quay in Clonmel which reduced the width of the river bed. That water had to flow elsewhere, a factor that should be taken into consideration. There is much concern that the sewage plant being constructed on the river bank in Clonmel, which was previously a flooding plain, may have contributed to the flooding there. We must have an open, honest and independent investigation because unless we are prepared to investigate all possible causes of flooding, we cannot ensure that the problem will not occur again. We are not professionals in this field but water which previously flowed through a flooding plain which, on this occasion, was powder dry because of its elevated position will flow into areas with much greater velocity than it did previously. I call on the Minister for the Environment to carry out an independent investigation in relation to those two projects and to report to both authorities on its findings. It is essential that such an investigation is carried out speedily so that corrective measures can be taken if the factors to which I referred contributed to the recent flooding.
When we talk about compensation for flood victims we generally refer to home owners but we must also have concern for business people. Several businesses in Clonmel were closed for a number of days due to flooding. Not only did they suffer financial loss due to redecoration of their premises, they also suffered loss of income. I hope that will be taken into account when the issue of compensation is being addressed.
I hope that the recent arterial drainage legislation will result in some corrective measures being taken in Clonmel. The Minister of State, Deputy Coveney, said that Clonmel will be high on the priority list when the next programme of works is being drawn up. Something must be done about this problem. We cannot simply continue to hope that it will not rain. We must be able to create the structures whereby rain will not result in people's homes being flooded.
Two issues need to be examined when we speak of flooding and one of those is the question of insurance. It is traumatic to hear, on visiting homes which have been flooded, that insurance companies will no longer take on those home owners because they previously claimed for flood damage. Legislation should be introduced to compel insurance companies to provide insurance to their customers. Profit is the overriding principle of insurance companies but they must accept that people will make claims. It is not acceptable for a person who has previously claimed for flood damage to be refused insurance cover. That has happened in the past and it is totally unjust. We are talking about responsible people who want to insure their properties but are being denied that right. We have a responsibility to protect people who want to have their premises insured and insurance companies should be obliged to provide such cover.
The other issue to which I refer is planning permission. One would have to question the reason many of the houses flooded in Clonmel were given planning permission. Our planning authorities should be vigilant in refusing planning permission to applicants if the location of the proposed premises is at risk from flooding. That might be considered a harsh decision at the time but it would be for the long-term benefit of the people concerned.
I was impressed by the response of the Minister of State, Deputy Coveney, to this problem but that response did not end with his visit to Clonmel. Within days of his visit, the Minister of State was on a plane to Brussels armed with a detailed and comprehensive report containing all the facts, photographs, paper clippings, etc. needed to argue the case that south Tipperary be considered eligible for humanitarian aid from Brussels. I compliment the Minister on his success in Brussels. I acknowledge the co-operation he received from the local authorities but it was mainly his will and determination which ensured that the case presented was successful and that there was a positive speedy result. I await with anticipation the final outcome of the application to Brussels.
I wish to assure flood victims they have not been forgotten. Public representatives are vigilant in trying to ensure a proper level of compensation and to formulate solutions to the problem while the Minister and his Department are working forcefully to ensure that compensation is made available speedily and funding is also made available for corrective measures.
I wish the Minister and his staff every success in their endeavours in the coming weeks. I look forward to his visit to Clonmel when he will be in a position to alleviate the fears and concerns of people whose lives and homes have been destroyed, to give them the necessary compensation and, more importantly, to put forward solutions to the problem. If action is not taken to deal with the problem in south Tipperary more compensation will be required in future years and this is not the answer to the problem. Given the seriousness of the situation and the trauma, suffering and hardship experienced by the victims, I have every confidence that the Minister of State, Deputy Coveney, and his Department will do everything possible to alleviate the hardship and concerns of the people affected.
I wish to share my time with Deputy Nealon.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I was in good form until Deputy Ahearn referred to insurance companies. They make my blood boil. Like a bank manager who gives a client an umbrella on a fine day and takes it back on a wet day, they will insure people on good days but will put every obstacle in their way to avoid paying out the money. I hope legislation will be introduced which will prevent insurance companies inserting small print at the back of leaflets which can only be read with the aid of a microscope.
A young man who visited my clinic a month ago lost a finger as a result of an accident at work. He forgot about his mortgage protection policy but because he was good at meeting his repayments the county council gave him some leeway in paying his mortgage. After six or seven months he was told something would have to be done about his arrears. However, because he had not notified the insurance company of his position within six months it would only pay him a portion of the claim. This matter is being dealt with by the ombudsman who I hope will be successful. As legislators we should take on insurance companies and make them answerable to the public. At present, they are worse than racketeers in a sense that all they do is take money from people and do not provide a proper service or pay claims when people are in trouble. However, that is a debate for another day.
I congratulate the Minister on introducing the Bill and compliment his predecessor, the Minister of State, Deputy Jim Higgins, for the work he put into it. I pay tribute to Deputy Padraic McCormack who did much work in trying to solve the problem of flooding in Galway. I do not know how he did not suffer a heart attack or a stroke given the pressure he was put under. However, having done all this work he lost that part of his constituency in the revision of boundaries. I know what it feels like to work hard for an area and then to lose it.
The Deputy gained because he got the whole county.
That is true but the trouble is I did not get the piece I wanted. If we were honest and open we would not have allowed that legislation on boundaries to be passed.
Action must be taken now to deal with the flooding in Galway, Tipperary and Mayo where there are problems in Kilmaine, Ballycroy and Cross. It is important for the Office of Public Works and county council to work together in trying to solve this problem — I hate getting separate letters from them telling me they have no responsibility. Action must be taken to deal with this problem.
I am fed up with the trend in this debate where too much emphasis is put on what is called emergency flooding. The type of flooding has caused great difficulties in Galway and Clonmel but it occurs only occasionally. I am more worried about the limited funding available to the Minister which may be spent on emergency flooding to the total neglect of permanent flooding in other areas.
In my constituency of County Sligo the permanent flooding along the banks of the Owenmore and Arrow rivers over the past 70 years has caused many problems and could hardly be described as a flash flood. It is important not to neglect these areas. Under the Arterial Drainage Act, 1945, a list of priorities was drawn up and, in fairness to them, successive Governments and the Office of Public Works adhered to that list. The Owenmore and Arrow rivers finally came to the top of the list but unfortunately there will be no more arterial drainage in the catchment area. I accept that the Government does not have the necessary finance for this work but given that these rivers had reached the top of the list I would like an assurance from the Minister that limited drainage will continue in the area and that the main blockages will be eliminated. I would also like an assurance that the Owenmore and Arrow rivers will be at the top of the new priority list. The people of the area deserve this given the damage caused by flooding for many years.
Fáiltím roimh an cuid den Bille seo a thugann cumlachtaí breise do Oifig na hOibreacha Poiblí, go mór mhór i leith na ndaoine go raibh a dtithe faoi thuilte agus go bhfuil gá le tithe nua a thógáil dóibh no airgid a thabhairt dóibh chun na tithe sin a chur ar fáil.
Fáiltím freisin roimh an cuid a thugann cead dóibh co-oibriú le comhairlí chontae agus le coistí eile. Ach táim buartha faoi chuid eile den Bhille, faoin chuid sin go ginearálta a thugann cumhactaí do na coimisineirí agus táim buartha faoin rud a tharla san Árd Chúirt trí bhliain ó shin.
I welcome the parts of the Bill which will extend the powers and functions of the Office of Public Works, particularly as they relate to the victims of flooding, the payment of compensation, the building of houses and the other elements which come into play arising from flooding. However, I have concerns about some of the powers being given to the Office of Public Works. Arising from the 1993 judgment it is clear there is a need to deal with the lack of clarity in regard to the huge number of Acts going back over 200 years. An element of those powers was dealt with in the State Authorities (Development and Management) Act, 1993, while another element is being dealt with in the Bill. I am concerned that we are continuing to add little pieces to the powers and functions of the Office of Public Works without considering where the commissioners stand in terms of the system and the need to deal with these powers and functions in a comprehensive manner.
In the context of the ultra vires argument which arose in the High Court case in February, 1993, it became clear that in making his decision the judge had to take into account new powers and functions assigned to the Office of Public Works under various Bills enacted as necessary to give it these powers. The 1831 Act, which was the principal Act relating to these matters, empowered the commissioners to make advances for the drainage of lands under section 32, for the building of roads, bridges and harbours under section 62, to enter into contracts for the construction of roads and bridges under section 65 and, under section 72, it was declared that it would be lawful for persons acting under its authority to dig up and carry away materials for making, protecting and preserving roads and bridges. These functions were gradually and individually specified. In making a judgment, therefore, a judge would have to look at a history of legislation in which was specified each necessity more or less as it arose.
All kinds of powers were given to the commissioners. Soon afterwards, and in fairly quick succession, other Bills were enacted, each of which gave them further powers. It seems peculiar to deal with legislation which adds to or amends legislation which is 160 years old. That itself creates difficulty. There were quite a number of other additions to the 1839 Act. These included settlements relating to the execution and making of roads, bridges, canals, harbours, piers, railways, drainage or embankments and the transfer of powers and duties to the commissioners, and that transfer of powers and duties also took place. Other changes were made in the 1846 Act under which the commissioners were allowed to appoint inspectors to inspect ancient monuments and to act as guardians of ancient monuments etc.
There is a raft of legislation and at different stages more bits have been added. One of my concerns is that this Bill continues that trend and may not extend the statutory powers as it is intended to do. This House must be aware of the risk that when an action is taken in the High Court an Act will be open to question and will be carefully examined. In adjudicating on an appeal of a section of the February 1993 judgment which went to the Supreme Court, five Supreme Court judges finished up with a three-two judgment. It was almost like a penalty shoot-out, with two people going along with the Government's argument and three finding against. There is a good historical reason to be careful about added legislation such as this to the Statute Book.
Section 3 deals with the powers of the commissioners. They shall have and shall be deemed always to have had powers to mortgage land and property, and to demolish buildings or structures or other property of any kind. I assume the reference to compensation refers to the payment of compensation where houses deemed to be no longer suitable for habitation are demolished. However, if one were suspicious and came from my part of the country one might think that confirming powers of the Office of Public Works to demolish meant something different. People would ask if these powers could be extended to the demolition of buildings which are controversial in their nature, which are unfinished and might come to be dealt with at a future date.
Under section 3 (1) (d) the Office of Public Works shall have power to carry out development, whether on payment or free of charge, as agents for another State authority, a local authority, within the meaning of the Local Government Act, 1941 or a health board or any other person. The Bill does not seem to provide that the commissioners will have power to carry out these functions on their own and not in partnership with any or all of these other groups. The Minister will probably say that has been dealt with in the State Authorities (Development and Management) Act, 1993, and that may well be the case. However, I suspect it may not be the case in respect of some of the new powers here. Section 3 would be stronger if the powers for the commissioners to carry out such works on their own were included. The rest of the section deals with the circumstances under which the Office of Public Works may engage in development jointly with another person etc. The two difficulties posed by this section are that it does not seem to include power for the commissioners to operate on their own in the way that it does for them to operate jointly, and it adds to the corpus of material going back over a very long time, falling into the same trap of adding extra functions.
Deputy Noel Treacy referred to an attitude of Government to the commissioners. I agree with what he said. To a certain extent the commissioners have become the whipping boy, but when there is good news to be announced, they are left very much in the background. There was a strong example of that in the case of the Burren National Park which gave rise to the February 1993 judgment on these matters when the commissioners were accused of failing to consult local interests even though they held three series of consultations. Subsequently a new series of consultations was set in train which excluded local people, local elected representatives and farming bodies. There is a need to be more honest and up front in our approach to the commissioners. If they can be under attack one day, let those who attack them be consistent subsequently and not have the commissioners victimised by political groups. In much of the legislation, powers and functions which were exercised in an excellent manner by the commissioners have been removed from them, and that is something that greatly concerns me. Compensation is central to the issue. There is public support for the payment of compensation to those whose homes were flooded. There is nothing as harrowing as to visit a family whose house is under two or three feet of water.
Public bodies are open to spurious claims for compensation. Chancers who find the only piece of broken pavement on a streetscape manage to fall over it and go to court although thousands of pedestrians may walk on the same pavement without falling over it. When one member of a family falls over a broken piece of pavement often another member does likewise or something will fall on top of his or her head, etc. The public resent the payment of compensation for organised, spurious claims and we must address that.
The Minister said he will shortly announce a scheme for the Sixmilebridge area as houses in the area were flooded on four successive occasions. I welcome the scheme and hope it will be successful in ensuring the problem does not recur. Sixmilebridge is located close to the tidal area of the river. There was much upstream drainage but there is a worry that the scheme will not address the problem of six householders on the Limerick Road and Sixmilebridge area. If the scheme is not fully successful those people must have access to the compensation fund. The houses are located on low-lying sites beside the river and flooding could easily recur.
In many cases those who were not insured could not get insurance. Some householders were insured for a considerable time but when they made a claim it appears the insurance companies were unwilling to quote them or quoted an excessive premium. That issue could be addressed by legislation but in the first instance the Minister should compile a number of case histories and present them to the insurance companies. They have a moral, if not a legal, obligation to look after their customers. Everything was fine when their customers were profitable but they did not want to know them when they made a claim.
Flood victims who were forced to flee their homes lost many of their possessions. They feel isolated and believe that no one cares about them. They have been waiting for action for 13 months. They feel they are a minority and that politicians do not care about them. Those in Sixmilebridge say when there was a photo opportunity they were inundated with more than floodwaters but when there was hard work to be done no one was to be seen.
In the event of the proposed scheme, which I welcome, being partly successful such people should have access to the compensation fund.
(Laoighis-Offaly): I wish to share time with Deputy Ferris. I welcome the Bill and acknowledge the work of the Minister in addressing the problems that arose. It is right to give power to the commissioners to provide humanitarian relief. We must address the legal difficulties involved. If a householder is affected by flooding an important element in determining the level of response to the problem is how well it is co-ordinated. We experienced flooding in my area and were told the county council had responsibility for one matter and the Office of Public Works had responsibility for another. There must be some mechanism at county level to ensure that when there is an emergency there will be a co-ordinated response.
I accept that help was given by the Red Cross and the EU last year but we need a response modelled on the local emergency response teams set up by health boards, county councils and other agencies to deal with disasters. The Minister and the Office of Public Works should engage in serious discussions with the local authorities and statutory bodies as it is essential to respond immediately when there is an emergency.
Debate adjourned.
Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.