Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 1 Mar 1995

Vol. 142 No. 3

Arterial Drainage (Amendment) Bill, 1995: Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The time limits are 30 minutes for spokespersons and 20 minutes for other speakers.

Is it acceptable if some speakers wish to share time?

Acting Chairman

Spokespersons are not allowed to share time. This provision is confined to spokespersons only and other speakers may share time. I call on Senator Daly.

The purpose of this amendment Bill is to extend legislative authority to the Commissioners of Public Works to undertake works to relieve, prevent and undertake maintenance in the areas that have been subjected to localised flooding and for which the Commissioners of Public Works do not have the specific authority to undertake under the Arterial Drainage Act, 1945.

The 1945 Act was designed in the main to undertake major schemes on the basis of a priority list drawn up in the Schedule to the Act. Some of the major catchments on the priority list were completed in a very satisfactory way and they made an important contribution to the reclamation and drainage of thousands of acres of land. These works had a major beneficial impact on farmer's incomes in the affected areas and relieved thousands of homes and thousands of acres of lands from floods.

Development in the agricultural sector, which has resulted in the overproduction of certain agricultural products, and EU policies, which discourage certain forms of agricultural production, have resulted in a situation where the benefit from land drainage does not match the costs involved. The prospect now is that undertaking catchment drainage schemes like the Mulcair and the Arrow/Owenmore on the lines of the arterial drainage projects of the past are remote. Despite the fact that there are areas within these catchments where flooding causes great hardship on a regular basis, it is not possible to devise a scheme with a positive cost benefit ratio which would enable schemes to proceed.

The arterial drainage programme has been steadily reducing over the past few years while at the same time localised flooding problems are becoming more and more acute and are occurring on a more regular basis. These incidents are causing widespread hardship and inconvenience and under the 1945 Act the commissioners are powerless to deal with the situation. Accordingly, an amendment of the Arterial Drainage Act, 1945, is now an urgent necessity. The amendment Bill I have proposed provides the required powers to the Commissioners of Public Works and also makes other improvements, especially with regard to compensation for damages arising from floods.

The main amendment, in section 3 (2), states:

The Commissioners shall, without the necessity of preparing a scheme, execute drainage works for the relief and prevention and maintenance of localised flooding of lands, water-courses, coastal and estuarine incursions, including urban lands, buildings and properties as shall appear to them to be necessary or expedient.

Under the 1945 Act the commissioners had the power to draw up a scheme for a major arterial catchment. The procedure which was followed was that the scheme was designed and published and opportunities were provided for examination and objection. However, the scheme was for a full catchment area and it would appear that specific areas cannot be dealt with under the legislation, which is why this amendment Bill is necessary.

Before preparing the Bill I studied carefully the Local Authorities Works Act, 1949 and the coastal protection legislation to ascertain whether there might be another way of dealing with the problems involved. However, the Local Authorities Works Act would not, even if amended, be adequate to meet the present requirements. When it was in operation, programmes under the Act got into many difficulties, indeed some schemes which were commenced under the 1949 Act were never completed. In addition, the coastal protection legislation is cumbersome and involved and has not been used to any great extent in dealing with coastal protection problems.

I therefore propose to extend the Arterial Drainage Act, 1945, to cover certain urgent coastal projects where continuing problems, unless remedied soon, will cost millions of pounds to resolve, over and above the present costs of undertaking minor works at present. I have proposed therefore to extend the power to the commissioners to deal with coastal areas, especially the estuarine incursions, water-courses and urban lands.

The estuaries have been very badly damaged in some respects in recent years due to changes in the pattern of tides and so on. This can be seen in the lower Shannon estuary, especially in areas around Kilrush, where huge damage has been caused by tidal movements in the past few years leading to the breakdown of old coastal protection walls. These were erected back in the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s and have got into a state of disrepair, allowing thousands of acres to be flooded. Some of these walls were erected under the old Land Commission schemes with participation by local farmers. However, the Land Commission has been dissolved and there is now no mechanism to undertake this kind of work.

Some of the criticisms of the arterial drainage works in the past has been to the effect that they did not take adequate account of the impact they would have on fisheries and the environment generally. When I was considering the 1945 Act it occurred to me that we should consider amending the Act to have the Commissioners of Public Works comply fully with the Fisheries Acts, as they are exempt from complying with these Acts under the 1945 Act even though the Act provides that consultation be held with the Minister for the Marine — although at that time it would have been with the Minister for Agriculture and Lands. Many of these matters of responsibility have been changed and it is now very difficult to ascertain who is responsible for these matters. In some respects ministerial responsibility has been given to the Minster for the Marine to deal with coastal protection matters, even though legislative provision is not granted.

This is a huge area which needs amendment and examination, but to do so now, given the urgency of the present situation, would be too time consuming and would not meet present urgent requirements. However, I have proposed that the Commissioners of Public Works would have consultations with the Minister for the Marine before completing any works on this new provision and that they would also consult with the Environmental Protection Agency to ensure, first, that there would minimal damage to fisheries, and, secondly, as little damage as possible to the environment while undertaking some of these works.

There has been widespread criticism of the failure of the local authorities to undertake vital drainage maintenance works. In fairness, the authorities did not have the necessary finance to undertake meaningful drainage maintenance schemes. This measure will enable the commissioners to execute maintenance programmes to help eliminate localised flood problems in specific areas. Where the 1945 Act provides that a council has responsibility for the maintenance of drainage works in a drainage district or that a joint committee has responsibility to furnish a report to the commissioners every year, I propose to extend this to ensure that notice is given locally that such a report is being prepared and that the public, or any person interested, can inspect the report in the council office or with the joint committee.

This provision will ensure transparency in the matter as to what maintenance works have been undertaken and it will enable the public who are interested to inspect the report and ascertain precisely what has been done during that year. It would offer the opportunity to many people who have been critical of maintenance programmes to look at the report when published and see what work has been undertaken in specific areas with regard to maintenance undertaken by local authorities. The purpose is to broaden the existing powers to allow for transparency at local level.

Section 5 sets out the procedure for making application for payment of compensation. This is the most important aspect of present legislation which has been subject to severe criticism.

The Minister of State will be fully aware that there has been very widespread public condemnation of the fact that householders have suffered from flooding over successive years, sometimes for weeks on end, which is the present situation in Gort. They are demanding that the Minister will take action to declare such areas disaster areas. The view is that widespread damage has been done and that, even with the announcement which the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry made in relation to agriculture, many householders are in a very bad financial state because of the recurring flooding problem and their inability to get insurance at a reasonable cost.

We set out in section 5 the procedure for application for compensation by householders and businesses seriously affected by localised flooding. The section is quite simple and I have also provided a remedy for people who are dissatisfied whereby they can lodge an appeal to the Minister.

Section 6 provides that the Minister shall pay compensation as determined by the committee. Every application for compensation under section 5 shall be referred to the committee by the Minister. The function of the committee shall be to investigate such applications, to ascertain whether the applicant is entitled to compensation, to calculate the amount of the compensation and to report in writing to the Minister.

I have also provided that the committee would have further powers, at the request of the Minister, to advise the Minister in relation to these matters, monitor and review the causes and effects generally of flooding and perform any other functions as the Minister may assign to it from time to time. For instance, the Minister could ask the committee to draw up a list of priority areas in need of attention.

I have refrained from attaching a schedule of priority areas to this Bill because the old priority list was not very satisfactory. There were continuous complaints that areas in need of attention which were not on the schedule were neglected. There were also complaints — I cannot say if any were sustained — and a widespread perception that the lists were being changed. If a schedule was attached to this legislation, unless an area suffering from unexpected local flooding problems was on the schedule it would not be possible to undertake relief work there.

I have refrained from attaching a specific schedule although I know that 90 or 100 areas are subject to localised flooding on a regular basis. However, it would be unwise to put a specific schedule in place because, as happened recently, areas which had not previously been subjected to flooding could be seriously affected for a long time.

Subsection (6) authorises the Minister to dissolve the committee. Subsection (9) deals with the referral of applications to the committee. In section 101 have provided a penalty for giving false information in relation to applications for compensation.

I have endeavoured to keep the provisions of the Bill as simple and straightforward as possible. I appreciate that at a time of strict financial management it would be unwise to put a legislative framework in place which would be open ended or would allow for misuse or abuse of public funds. For this reason, although there may be some objections, I have given substantial authority in the payment of compensation to the Minister for Finance.

Overall, I believe that this Bill is an adequate and reasonable response to the very severe personal crises which have arisen for many innocent people who have been completely overwhelmed and left powerless to deal with localised flooding problems, not of their making and over which they have little or no control. Those whose homes have been flooded and, in some cases, abandoned, and who have seen their lands under water and have lost stock and businesses are looking to the Government for assistance. I refer in particular to areas in my locality, such as Gort in Galway and the north Clare and Burren region, where some people have had to leave their homes and are residing in bed and breakfast accommodation. This has also happened in other parts of the country.

We in the Houses of the Oireachtas have a responsibility to act now to bring them some relief and some prospect of hope for the future. Recounting the shortcomings of the past is no consolation to those who are awaiting an indication of what we propose to do to resolve these problems. This Bill is the proposal of Fianna Fáil. If Members feel that we should add to or subtract from the Bill we are prepared to examine any suggestion or amendment which they wish to put forward. I believe that there is all party support for this measure and I commend this Bill to the House.

Little did I think when I was appointed Minister of State with responsibility for the Office of Public Works that I would find myself back in my old Alma Mater, so to speak, three weeks in succession. I am, of course, very happy to be here to listen to the views of Senators on the important topic of flooding and the hardship which it has caused — and in come cases is still causing — and to deliberate on the measures which need to be taken in order to deal with the situation.

I am also glad of the opportunity to outline once again my own views and those of the Government on this matter. I also want to avail of the opportunity to once again assure all those who have suffered hardship because of the flooding of the Government's continuing concern for their situation. The speedy response which we have shown so far will be continued and wherever it is reasonably possible we will make immediate assistance available. There are some aspects of the flooding problem which will require more long term remedial action and we are already pursuing these matters actively also.

The drainage and flood problems in Ireland are long standing, so much so that they have been the subject of consideration by a number of drainage commissions and other reports dating back to the last century. The conclusion of all of these was that Ireland had an extensive drainage problem. Coupled with the very high rainfall and consequent run off, the saucer shape of the countryside with its high maritime rim and flat interior leads to sluggish rivers flowing through inadequate channels which even at low tide provide poor outfalls. If left unattended, these slow flowing rivers tend to silt up, conditions degenerate and the need for remedial works is recurrent. Consequently, State involvement in arterial drainage has a long history, dating back to pre-Famine times.

For upwards of 100 years prior to 1945, drainage works in Ireland were carried out on a piecemeal basis and dealt with problems in localised areas of river catchments. Several hundred of these minor schemes were carried out under various statutes in what came to be known as drainage districts. The maintenance of these subsequently became the responsibility of the local authorities under various statutes. There are still more than 150 drainage districts in existence, the remainder having been absorbed into schemes carried out under the Arterial Drainage Act, 1945.

The inadequacies of this piecemeal approach to deal with drainage problems were highlighted by the various drainage commissions, particularly the Browne Commission, 1938-40. It commented adversely on the haphazard creation of individual districts without consideration of the interests, problems and requirements of river basins as a whole. This was judged to be inconsistent with the idea of a planned drainage policy. Lack of maintenance was also a feature to such a degree that many schemes deteriorated to the extent that works had to be redone, often on more than one occasion.

Among the main recommendations of the Browne Commission was that there should be a central drainage authority based in the Office of Public Works with responsibility for the construction and maintenance of arterial drainage schemes on a catchment basis. The Arterial Drainage Act, 1945, gave effect to the recommendations of the Browne Commission. It is now the sole basis of the commissioners' statutory authority for arterial drainage.

Following the passing of the Arterial Drainage Act, 1945, a national drainage programme was initiated. It was based on priority lists of 60 or so of the most important river catchments in the country, excluding the Shannon, which because of its size has had to be considered separately.

The priority lists were divided into major and minor catchments with works proceeding simultaneously on the two categories. When the priority lists were drawn up in 1946, catchments with large scale flooding problems, whose relief would benefit a substantial number of people and present no special technical or legal difficulties or involve extensive works of very high cost, for example, major rock cuts through built up areas, were given a high ranking. Essentially, the policy was to bring relief to the areas of greatest need as quickly as possible, allied to a fairly even distribution of schemes throughout the country. With a few exceptions, these lists have been upheld by successive Governments.

In the late 1950s, a further category of catchments was devised to enable field drainage contractors and others to tender for arterial drainage work which would be within their capacity and capability. This category comprised relatively small catchments with an outfall directly to the sea or to the Shannon. In addition, a number of embankment schemes have been constructed under Part IV of the Act, mainly on the Shannon, Fergus and Swilly estuaries.

In the 50 years since the passing of the Act, some £500 million in constant terms has been expended on the construction of more than 40 drainage and embankment schemes so far completed or in progress while an additional £140 million has been spent on maintenance. During the period 1979-89 substantial grants towards the capital cost of the work were paid to the Exchequer from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund in respect of the Corrib-Mask-Robe, Boyle and Bonet schemes under the western drainage programme and Blackwater schemes under the cross-Border drainage programme.

In addition, the European Regional Development Fund part financed schemes in respect of the Boyne and Maigue catchments. Total EU receipts amounted to well over £40 million in present day terms. In this period drainage schemes also attracted project related low interest loans totalling another £40 million from the European Investment Bank. In keeping with the criterion of fair geographical distribution in the drawing up of the priority lists, I wish to mention that the programme of works so far completed has extended to 23 of the 26 counties. In all, in excess of 650,000 acres have benefited from works on a total of some 7,300 miles of river channels and coastal and estuarine embankments.

I have dealt in some detail with the history of drainage and flood relief works, both prior to and following the passing of the Arterial Drainage Act, 1945. At this juncture, I wish to elaborate on what arterial drainage consists of. The purpose of arterial drainage is to relieve chronically waterlogged agricultural land and make it capable of production. This is done by the opening or enlarging of the main channels and tributary watercourses of a catchment by the deepening, widening or removal of obstructions, such as weirs, and by making new cuts and easing bends. A comprehensive scheme was intended to cater for a catchment as a whole, solving all its drainage problems in so far as such was expedient and economic.

An arterial drainage scheme would not be embarked upon without a thorough study of conditions throughout a river basin, including tributaries, large and small. Detailed engineering and valuation surveys of hydrological, topographical, environmental and land usage conditions are required, occupying invariably a number of years. There is also a lengthy statutory exhibition and consultation period to be followed before any scheme can commence.

With the ever increasing demand in recent years on the public purse, there has been a greater awareness of the need that major expenditure projects should meet certain criteria, both in the context of their economic merit and environmental impact. Cost benefit analysis was first applied in the Office of Public Works in 1970 to a drainage scheme then proposed for the Maigue catchment, situated mainly in County Limerick. While the primary objective of arterial drainage is to increase the incomes of those whose lands are affected by waterlogging and flooding, other benefits include the provision of employment in areas, often of high unemployment, as well as flood prevention and drainage of urban areas. Public roads and bogs are also taken into consideration. The main costs comprise the capital outlay on the construction of a scheme, including compensation to those claiming losses from work, followed by maintenance of completed schemes, and landowners' investment in field drainage, additional livestock, buildings, etc.

Since its introduction, cost benefit analysis has been applied to a total of eight schemes. For many years, too, it has been the practice in the preparation of drainage schemes to endeavour to assess the likely effects of works on various matters relating to the environment. Among the issues considered are wildlife, flora and fauna, fishing and fisheries, landscape, etc. In the design and execution of schemes regard is had to these matters and necessary changes in work practices have been adopted: comprehensive fishery rehabilitation programmes are undertaken: spoil is buried and the lands rehabilitated rather than heaped on the river bank as had been the practice and areas of scientific interest are, where possible, excluded from schemes at planning stage.

With the passing of Directive No. 85/337/EC for the assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environment, which was subsequently incorporated into national legislation, it has become obligatory on the Office of Public Works to carry out detailed environmental impact assessments for all schemes and to publish the reports as part of the scheme documents. Given the lengthy gestation period of a scheme, it is a testament to the efforts of the Office of Public Works that so much work has been done when one considers the huge area of land, extended as I have said over 23 counties, which has benefited.

I have dealt in some detail with the history and execution of works under the arterial drainage programme both prior to and following the passage of the 1945 Act. I now wish to mention the maintenance aspects of schemes undertaken. The importance of maintenance has been highlighted over the years and the following extract from the report of the Browne Commission serves to illustrate the point.

It would help if the Minister could provide a copy of his statement.

My apologies. Senator Daly. The circulation of copies will follow soon. They are en route. My apologies to the House. I quote from the Browne Commission report to underline the importance of and need for maintenance.

The maintenance of completed works is a problem which we regard as of utmost importance and to which we have given very serious consideration. It would be folly to expend millions of pounds on construction works unless some system is devised which will guarantee effective maintenance of the completed works. Constant vigilance and regular attention are essential if a drainage system is to be kept in good working condition. Disrepair of a road is purely local in its results but the failure to maintain a stretch of river may seriously affect the efficiency of the river for miles. Failure to maintain the outfall of a river in one county may react on the whole river system in several counties. Maintenance must be of a uniform standard. Such a standard is difficult to secure if maintenance is entrusted to several authorities. Neglect of maintenance is cumulative is its results. A small regular expenditure may preserve good conditions, but neglect over a number of years will lead to such a state of deterioration that the job ceases to be one of maintenance and becomes one of costly restoration.

There is no evidence to suggest that these recommendations are any less valid today than 50 years ago. Under sections 37 and 38 of the 1945 Act, the Office of Public Works carries out an annual programme of maintenance in accordance with its obligations to maintain schemes in proper repair and effective condition. Annual expenditure on maintenance works now stands at approximately £7 million.

The subject of the debate is the Arterial Drainage (Amendment) Bill, 1995, which was introduced by Senator Daly. The Bill has two primary objectives — the amendment of the Arterial Drainage Act, 1945, to allow works to be undertaken to deal with localised flooding, and the establishment of statutory provisions in relation to the payment of compensation for flooding. I am asking the House to oppose the Bill on the grounds that in the first case the Government will introduce as quickly as possible its own legislation to permit work to relieve localised flooding.

I am talking about weeks and months and certainly not years, like the promises of the past. It will be at the outside weeks and, hopefully, within three months. The promised provisions are unnecessary since there are already adequate provisions and mechanisms in existence for paying compensation where that is appropriate. I will develop both of these points in more detail later, but before doing so may I commend Senator Daly on his initiative in introducing the Bill and assure him that the objectives he is setting out to attain will be more effectively achieved by the measures which the Government has already taken on in proposing this new legislation.

I know that Senator Daly's decision to prepare his Bill was prompted by his experience of flooding in his own constituency of County Clare. Senator Daly was one of those who accompanied my predecessor, Deputy Hogan, when he visited Clare in the course of a tour of areas affected by flooding as early as last January. I am conscious that County Clare suffered widespread flooding, in particular the west of the county, with flooding in Ennis, Sixmilebridge, New-market and Corofin causing people to leave their homes, imposing hardship on the agricultural community and resulting in numerous road closures. It is indeed commendable that the Senator has tried to respond to the difficulties of his area, which of course are mirrored around the country, by promoting these measures in this Bill. I believe, however, that the Bill, though clearly well intentioned, is defective in a number of respects and that I will be able to establish that fact to the satisfaction of the House.

The House will be aware that the Government has established an interdepartmental committee to co-ordinate its response to the effects of bad weather. The committee, which I will chair, will have representatives of the Departments of the Taoiseach, Tánaiste, Finance, Justice, the Environment, Health, Defence, Agriculture, Food and Forestry, the Marine, Social Welfare, Transport, Energy and Communications and the Office of Public Works. This is a broadly based committee indicative of the range of Government Departments and State agencies whose resources have been deployed and will continue to be deployed for as long as is necessary in response to the flooding. The committee will be in a position to take an overview of the situation and to co-ordinate the responses of the various Departments and agencies. It will not be the job of the committee to usurp any of those functions but rather to ensure that the overall response is effective and coherent and, of course, if there are any shortcomings or gaps in the response, to initiate the necessary corrective measures. That committee will sit for the first time next Tuesday.

I must say at this stage that the response of the various Departments and agencies to date has been magnificent and I thank and compliment all concerned. I want to compliment especially here this evening the work of the Air Corps which has been absolutely critical in recent weeks, especially in relieving the situation in south Galway. The conditions in parts of that area are unbelievable and the supplies which are being brought in by the Air Corps have been absolutely vital to the maintenance of some semblance of normal living there.

I have already begun to receive, in my capacity as chairman of the interdepartmental committee, interim assessments of the effects of the flooding. These reports illustrate clearly the widespread nature of the problem. South Galway is, of course, the area worst affected at present. The scale of the problems are so great there that it has, I think, caught the public imagination more than any other and has given rise to a determination, first, to try to identify the causes of the problems there and, second, to go on from that and find solutions to them. In passing I would like to pay tribute to the work of the media in general and of RTE in particular in bringing the problem so clearly and graphically to public attention and helping us all to be aware of the distress of many people in the area and of their anxieties and concerns for the future. I also pay tribute to the Senators and Deputies who have assisted their constituents and highlighted some of the problems.

In south Galway thousands of hectares of land are still under water, roads are still flooded and farms and farm buildings are waterlogged and flooded. Of course, there has also been losses of fodder and livestock. In some cases I understand that farmers have been forced to sell livestock. Most importantly, some homes are still flooded and people are, therefore, dislodged and dislocated. This is a tragedy by any standards and my heart goes out to those affected, with whose situation I am at this stage very familiar personally from my visits there.

Unfortunately, while south Galway is by far the most seriously affected area, it is by no means the only area to have suffered. North Galway was also affected, particularly Glenamaddy and the adjoining areas. Last weekend I again visited the Dunmore/ Wiliiamstown/Glenamaddy area to see the devastation there because they did not have their hour in the sun either on radio or on television. To see 33 families isolated was something to behold; seeing is believing. However, I understand that the floods on this occasion were not as high as the floods which occurred in January of last year.

Senator McDonagh gave us a detailed account of the problems here last Tuesday in this House. County Roscommon and the Suck catchment have also experienced severe flooding. Senators Naughten and Finneran spoke eloquently in this House about the problems in that area, especially around Clonown and Ballyforan. I understand that fodder, particularly baled silage, has been lost in that area. I referred already to the problems in Senator Daly's area of County Clare. Agriculture, as well as roads and houses, have suffered in this area too.

Serious flooding occurred in Carlow and Graigenacullen and through the Barrow valley from Carlow to Bagnalstown. Here again the pattern of houses being flooded, roads being submerged and blocked, land flooded, with fodder lost and livestock threatened, has been repeated. The Mulcair river, which unfortunately floods all too regularly, again caused major problems on this occasion. Cappamore was most seriously affected, flooding on a number of occasions, while Newport was also flooded. Extensive areas of low lying farmland and grassland were also flooded. Some dwelling houses and farm buildings were also cut off for a time.

While these appear to have been the worst hit areas, they are by no means the only ones affected. Exceptionally heavy rainfall, in many cases more than twice the norm, was experienced throughout the country and hardly any area at all escaped. The reports currently available to me show that County Kilkenny and east Waterford were also affected, with urban flooding being experienced in Kilkenny city and Graiguenamanagh. In County Wicklow, flooding was reported in several areas, including Tinahely, Shillelagh and Carnew. In County Wexford, the River Slaney burst its banks and flooded houses in Bunclody. I have also received reports of flooding in the Owenmore catchment area in Sligo and, of course, in my own county of Mayo. While by no means the worst affected, it, as Senator Burke will testify, was also affected.

Extensive flooding has, of course, also occurred in the Shannon basin. Areas around Castledaly, Tubbrit, Moydrum, Glasson, Killinure and Mucknagh in County Westmeath and Banagher, Shannonharbour and Clara — Senator Enright brought this to my attention — are all reported to have experienced significant flooding. Some families have had to be moved temporarily from their homes and of course the pattern of flooding of land and farm buildings and the loss of fodder and livestock has been experienced here too. In one case alone it has been reported that a farmer lost 58 ewes near Clara. The incidence of flooding in the Shannon basin is another particularly intractable problem.

At this juncture I would like to make some reference to the position regarding the Shannon. The enormity of the problems associated with the Shannon have been highlighted over the years and on many occasions, both in specially commissioned studies and in various debates in the two Houses of the Oireachtas. In short, there is no simple or obvious solution. The channel, particularly in the 27 or so miles between Athlone and Meelick, is simply too narrow and shallow to cater for the huge volumes of water involved. While in the circumstances it has been possible to carry out major engineering works on some of the main tributaries, others, along with the main stem itself, have had to be deferred in the national programme. The Shannon has often been described as a series of large lakes, notably Loughs Alien, Ree and Derg and many other smaller lakes connected together by a series of sluggish channels. It is these characteristics of the river which cause so much flooding of its basin.

It is now generally accepted that the problems associated with the flooding of the Shannon cannot be solved economically by drainage works and some other means of dealing with them must be found. It has to be borne in mind that part of the area which has been subjected to regular flooding, the Shannon Callows, is now regarded as being of major significance in ecological terms. It is also worth noting that while the flooding in the Shannon basin does cause problems, especially for farmers, there are far fewer cases of peoples' homes being flooded or of people being marooned by flood waters than occur in other areas where the floods may be less extensive. This appears to be due to a policy pursued over the years by both the Land Commission and local authorities of relocating people from the flood plain to areas of higher ground in the same area. The apparent success of this policy may offer some guidance as to one method of alleviating the hardship caused by regular flooding in other areas.

It has also been stated that the operation of the power station at Ardnacrusha is a contributory factor to the flooding in the Shannon basin. I understand Ardnacrusha is an important element in the ESB power generating network and I am assured that it has full regard to the consequences, including the risk of flooding at times of high rainfall, in exercising its statutory authority to control water levels in the Shannon. There is no evidence that the operation of Ardnacrusha exacerbates the flooding problem in the Shannon basin. While the Office of Public Works has no powers to regulate the water levels on the Shannon — as I have already said, the statutory control rests with the Electricity Supply Board — I will nevertheless keep the situation under review in the context of the work of the interdepartmental committee. As I indicated at the outset, I ask the House to oppose this Bill on the grounds that it is unnecessary and defective.

I will deal first with the argument that the Bill is unnecessary. When I first addressed this House I indicated that I was confident that the proposals for the amendment of the Arterial Drainage Act which had been prepared by the Office of Public Works on the instructions of the previous Government would shortly be cleared by him for submission to the House. I am happy to be able to inform the House that the Minister for Finance, after careful study of the proposals, has now cleared them. They are being circulated to the relevant Government Departments for observations in accordance with the standard procedure. The proposals will be brought to Government in the shortest possible time. I will also be asking the Attorney General to accord them priority in the parliamentary draftsman's office with a view to having a Bill submitted to the Oireachtas as quickly as possible. I am advised that it has already been agreed between the Whips that the Government's Bill will be initiated in this House. It is the intention, in the interest of expediting-the Bill and ensuring it is enacted as soon as possible, that it will be initiated in the Seanad where Members will have ample opportunity to amend, discuss, add and delete from it and improve the Bill if so fit. The Bill will then proceed to the Dáil. By initiating the Bill in the Seanad we are acknowledging the contribution of Senator Daly and ensuring that it will be expedited by the other House as soon as possible to be signed by the President. Effective action will follow as a result.

We have been assured in this House and in the Dáil of the support of the Opposition for the Office of Public Works's proposals if the Government was prepared to introduce a Bill to give effect to them. I welcome those assurances and I am confident that with the support of all sides in the Oireachtas, the Government's proposals can be quickly enacted. The Government's proposals in relation to the amendment to the Arterial Drainage Act will, I am confident, meet fully Senator Daly's objective in relation to the relief of localised flooding. I believe all sides of this House would agree that a Government Bill, brought forward after full consultation with all of the relevant Departments and drafted by the parliamentary draughtsman, is likely to be superior to a Private Members' Bill, however carefully that Bill may have been prepared. Therefore, I would urge Senators to await the Government's proposals, which, as I have assured the House, will be brought forward here as a matter of priority.

I do not wish to be critical of the drafting of Senator Daly's Bill since, as I said, I share his objective of putting the Office of Public Works in a position to deal with the localised flooding. There is however one consequence of the Bill as drafted that causes me great concern and which I feel should be drawn to the attention of the House. Under the terms of the Arterial Drainage Act, 1945, section 8 (20) where a drainage scheme provides for the inclusion of all or part of existing drainage works, the drainage district containing such works ceases to exist. The effect of this could be and would be in many cases that if Senator Daly's Bill, which contains no provision to deal with that situation, was enacted and used as the authority to do work in localised areas, the entire drainage district in which the local area was situated would cease to exist. This would leave a substantial catchment area without any authority with responsibility for the maintenance of its watercourses. That would be a disastrous outcome.

Several Senators speaking in this House last week referred to the importance of basic maintenance of watercourses in the prevention or limiting of flooding. That is a view with which I wholeheartedly agree. I have asked the Commissioners of Public Works to investigate whether they could use the limited supervisory powers which they have in respect of drainage districts to try to bring about more effective maintenance of rivers. The Government's Bill, when it is introduced, will contain a provision to ensure that the maintenance structures will remain in place in districts where work to relieve localised flooding is undertaken. I believe this is of critical importance and is in itself sufficient reason to oppose this Bill.

I might also point out to the House that the Arterial Drainage Act, 1945. contains detailed provisions setting out the information that must be contained in a drainage scheme and which must therefore be published and subjected to consultation. Senator Daly's proposal would allow the commissioners to execute work for the relief of localised flooding without the necessity of preparing a scheme. While I have no doubt that the intention of the Senator is to relieve the commissioners of their present obligation to prepare a scheme for an entire catchment, the effect of the provision could in fact be quite different. This example illustrates the wisdom of waiting for the Government's Bill. which, as I indicated, will have the benefit of scrutiny by the Government Departments and drafting by the parliamentary draftsmen.

I do not intend that the time while the Government Bill is being processed will be wasted. There are a number of areas where the Commissioners of Public Works have sufficient data to enable them to commence immediately the design of schemes to relieve localised flooding. I intend to proceed without delay to engage consultants to undertake the design of these schemes. I am satisfied that there are sufficient powers available to the commissioners under the existing legislation to enable them to proceed with the design stages of these schemes.

There are a far greater number of locations where the information currently available is inadequate to allow the design of flood defences. I have asked the Commissioners of Public Works to proceed as quickly as possible to install the necessary data collection equipment and to commence the collection of information. This can also be done under the legislation as it stands. In fact the availability of the equipment may be the constraining factor in this area.

I have also asked the commissioners to commence work on compiling information on matters such as the extent and frequency of flooding in various areas, the extent of loss and hardship caused, the nature of problems to be overcome and the likely cost and time-frame for doing so as well as impediments that may exist to the execution of relief works, such as environmental considerations. I intend this information to be used as a basis for drawing up a priority list for schemes to be undertaken in the future. I realise that there was criticism of the priority lists for catchment drainage schemes — mostly, I have to say, from those who were in areas unlucky enough not to be high up the lists. However, there is a large programme of work to be done and it cannot be done all at once. It is, therefore, necessary to have an orderly programme of work laid out and to assign priorities to various schemes to demonstrate that the work is being tackled in a fair and objective way. It would, however, be my intention that the priority list should be reviewed from time to time to ensure that changing circumstances are taken into account and that it is always relevant and up to date.

I have already announced to the House that we are going to undertake a major study to try to determine the causes of flooding in south Galway and, if possible, to identify the economic solution that would also be environmentally acceptable. This study can be undertaken under the existing legislation. I envisage that any remedial works which it may be decided to adopt as a result of the study could be executed under the provisions of the amending legislation which the Government will be promoting.

Senator Daly's Bill also deals with the issue of compensation. I have already advised the House that it is my intention to travel to Brussels and put Ireland's case for a share of the special fund established to assist victims of flooding in the EU. My initial contacts with Brussels have indicated that the emergency fund is being channelled through the Red Cross Society in member states. I have, therefore, invited the Irish Red Cross Society, which, I understand, has also put forward a case for funding, to join me in seeking funds and to undertake the distribution of such funds.

The Minister cannot be serious.

It does not appear to be widely known and Senator Fahey was not aware of this. From all his years in Government——

If the Minister is going to the Red Cross to solve the problem he may forget about it.

One learns something new every day.

I do not want to learn any more about the Red Cross.

It does not appear to be widely known that the Irish Red Cross has an established record of distributing emergency aid to victims of flooding in this country.

If they have the aid.

They have it. Senators may recall that in June 1993 Ireland experienced exceptionally heavy rainfall. This followed on the wettest month of May on record and resulted in widespread flooding, particularly in the east of the country. As a result of the hardship caused the EU allocated approximately £160,000 to assist the victims of the flooding. This aid was distributed by the Irish Red Cross Society. On that occasion it assisted 122 victims in eight counties.

An analysis shows that damage to the homes of those affected by the flooding consisted mainly of the following: structural damage, water damage to floor covering, water damage to wall paper and paint work, water damage to furniture, water damage to electrical appliances, loss of personal items, books clothes and musical instruments, loss of fuel from outbuildings and damage to gardens.

The analysis also showed that the majority of applicants who applied for assistance from the EU flood damage fund found themselves in severe financial distress and, in many cases, had nowhere else to turn for assistance but the Red Cross — Fianna Fáil was in power at the time.

What did the farming community get?

Many applicants found that they had insufficient or no insurance cover on their property at the time of the flooding. Where people had to leave their homes local authorities assisted through the provision of temporary accommodation. The relevant health board in some cases was in a position to provide financial aid to the victims, contributing toward the replacement of household furnishings and domestic appliances, and made cash subventions where deemed necessary.

The Minister for the Environment, in answer to questions put to him in Dáil Éireann, advised that "individuals affected by the flooding who need assistance should contact their local community welfare officer". Community welfare officers in turn referred individuals to the Irish Red Cross Society where and when they were unable to give assistance themselves.

In administering the EU aid in 1993, the Irish Red Cross Society established a number of ground rules to guide them in considering individual applications. As individual circumstances were the most important factor in arriving at an award, the society decided that no inflexible rules would apply to the disbursement of aid, and each application was processed on its merits by a small committee established by the society. Most importantly, the cheques issued quickly when assistance had been approved.

The scale and extent of the most recent flooding is greater than what occurred in 1993 but I have no doubt that the Irish Red Cross Society has the skill and expertise to undertake the distribution of any funds we may be able to secure from the EU on this occasion. They will also bring to the task an essential ability to act quickly and flexibly with a minimum of red tape.

I informed the House when I spoke here last Thursday that the legislation governing the supplementary welfare allowance scheme, which is funded by the Department of Social Welfare and administered on its behalf by the health boards, contains provisions which enable the health boards to respond to exceptional and urgent needs. While supplementary welfare allowance is normally payable only to those on social welfare or health board payments, there are provisions in the legislation which allow boards to respond to the urgent needs of those normally excluded, for example, those in full-time employment. Guidance given to boards over the years gives flooding as an example where boards may assist persons normally excluded. I am saying, therefore, that the health boards may be in a position to assist people with exceptional or urgent needs arising from non-insurable risks due to the flooding.

I understand from interim reports I have received that a small number of claims have already been submitted and are being processed. The House will also be aware that provision was made in the budget for a £2 million compensation fund for the relief of hardship in the agricultural sector, in particular loss of fodder and livestock. Details of that scheme have been announced by the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry and he has promised that applications will be dealt with speedily. During the statements in this House last week my attention was drawn to some apparent difficulties with the scheme in relation to the forms, etc. and I have brought these to the attention of my colleague the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry, Deputy Yates.

I should, of course, emphasise that it would be expected in the normal course that risks would be covered by insurance and that a burden of compensation for insurable risks should not fall on the State. In saying that, I am conscious of the point made by a number of Senators last week and the previous week that there will be circumstances where, purely because of a history of previous flooding, people may have been simply unable to secure insurance. I agree that such cases would merit special consideration. The budget also contained an additional provision of £4 million for county roads. These funds will be available through the Department of the Environment to assist the local authorities to deal with the additional damage which the floods have caused to many roads.

I hope I have demonstrated to the satisfaction of the House that there are already in existence ample mechanisms for the payment of compensation or the provision of financial assistance to those who may be entitled to it. I see no need to introduce a further measure to deal with the situation and I hope that, on reflection, the House will agree.

If there was a need to provide a new statutory mechanism for the payment of compensation to victims of flooding, and I reiterate that there is not, the Office of Public Works would not be the appropriate body to administer such a provision. I realise that the Arterial Drainage Act does at present contain provision in relation to the payment of compensation to persons who suffer loss or damage as a consequence of the execution of an arterial drainage scheme. However, Senators will acknowledge that flooding due to bad weather is quite a different matter.

The Office of Public Works has within its ranks a wide range of expertise on a variety of disciplines. However, it has no expertise in assessing hardship due to the effects of bad weather. It has been blamed for many things over the years but I am surprised that Senator Daly, a former Minister with responsibility for the Office of Public Works, apparently wants to blame it for the weather.

I never said any such thing. The Minister is trying to misrepresent what we are saying.

The Senator did the last day. I hope that in opposing the provisions in Senator Daly's Bill the Government will not be regarded as opposing the objectives which he has set out to achieve.

Separately.

We fully share his objectives and we are already acting on them. Our position is, quite simply, that in relation to the amendment of the Arterial Drainage Act, 1945, we will be bringing forward our own Bill which will achieve that shared objective, but will do so in a more effective and efficient way. We will do that with all possible speed.

On the question of compensation the existing mechanisms are adequate and are already in operation. There is no need for further legislation in this area, and if the proposed legislation were to result in the imposition of a further layer of bureaucracy and to introduce less flexible procedures for processing claims, as it might well do, it would end up hindering the very people it is genuinely intended to assist.

In this debate I have tried to be responsible and not to be critical especially from a party point of view and I will do my best to continue in that vein. However, I am extremely disappointed in the speech by the Minister, Deputy Higgins. It is not like him. I am disappointed that he has chosen to read out what can only be described as a Civil Service script. The Minister said that he wants

... to assure all those who have suffered hardship of the Government's continuing concern at their situation. The speedy response which we have shown so far will be continued and, wherever it is reasonably possible, we will make immediate assistance available.

There has not been one ounce of response to this problem so far. I attended a meeting this morning in Tiernievan in Gort. Many people came to the local school to express their concern. Since St. Stephen's Day houses in the south Galway area have been under water, and today is 1 March and the only thing the Minister can tell us this evening is that the health board may be in a position to offer some assistance to those people. I have to be critical of this Government which has given no response to date to the worst crisis experienced in this country in regard to flood water. I have a great admiration for the Minister, Deputy Jim Higgins. He is a good politician but he has fallen under the spell of the civil servants and he is unable to act. It a Fianna Fáil Minister was sitting in the House, I would be saying the same thing. I want to reiterate that I am not toeing political about this.

The situation in south Galway is appalling. There is a young lady in the visitors' gallery who got out of her bed last week and stepped into six inches of water. That happened last week and we had the worst of the flooding four weeks ago. There are now 19 houses under water in south Galway. To tell us that the Red Cross will do something for them at some stage is a far from adequate response. For the Minister to tell us he has a continuing concern at this stage is of no benefit to the people I heard this morning talking and crying about their plight. The Minister spoke about the speedy response he has shown so far but I do not know of any such response.

The Government introduced a £2 million fund in the budget. Last Friday night 250 farmers attended a meeting organised by the IFA in Gort and the local IFA chairman asked them who would qualify for funds under this scheme to raise their hands. I counted eight people who had lost stock and seven who had lost fodder. Those people are in the most seriously affected area in this country. There were over 250 people at the meeting and 15 people qualified for help. This shows clearly that the scheme announced is totally inadequate to solve the problem. There are farmers in south Galway whose entire farms are under water. Why somebody whose land is under water cannot be compensated under this scheme if he does not lose fodder is beyond me because that land will not produce anything this year.

I do not wish the Minister present or anyone else to take my remarks personally, but I have to express in the strongest terms the level of frustration — I am sure Senator McDonagh will bear me out on this — that now exists in the south Galway area. It has been five weeks since the worst flooding started, five weeks while most of the houses and land are under water, yet we have had no response other than a scheme which will help very few people. So far there has been no response from the Government on whether assistance can be given to those with the most serious problems — those whose houses are under water. I had hoped the Minister would take the opportunity tonight to say categorically that funds will be provided by the Government, where they will come from, who will allocate them, etc., to help these people.

There are people in south Galway who have been five weeks out of their houses. They are either living with relations or in rented accommodation. The frustration and the inevitable difficulties that arise when people are forced to live with their in-laws or have to spend money on rented accommodation for five weeks are coming to the fore. I saw three women at a meeting this morning crying about the situation in which they find themselves, yet we come in here this evening and all we can get from the Minister is a statement that the relevant health board may in some cases be in a position to aid some of the flood victims. I have to say in the strongest terms that that is not good enough. We must have a much more positive response from the Minister and the Government.

I have written to the Minister for Finance and the Minister for the Environment. The Minister for the Environment has passed the letter on to the Minister present. Deputy Higgins, because he says he has no responsibility in this area. The Minister for Finance writes a full page, again telling me that he has no responsibility. I emphasise that a Fianna Fáil Minister in that position would write the same letter. I appeal to the Minister tonight, as a west of Ireland man like myself, to take the bull by the horns, forget about the civil servants and respond to the crisis in south Galway and in other parts of the country. The only response there can be is to designate the south Galway a disaster area and to put in place this week a fund of £1 million. I do not care how it is distributed. The Minister can get the Red Cross or whoever he likes to distribute it; he must give some hope to householders, farmers and business people.

The last thing I want to see is people protesting at the gates of Leinster House but I am afraid that when the contents of the Minister's speech this evening are made known people will take to the streets. Once again we, as politicians, will be labelled as people who talk but who do nothing about the problem. Much of the discussion this morning was about politicians. We have all been there; I am no different from anyone else and I take it on the chin. We have examined the problem again and again.

Last year, between April and the end of the year, I led three deputations to the Office of Public Works and the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry to try to get compensation and limited action for farmers in the Tarmon area of Gort whose lands were under water from January to July and August. I might as well have been leading those deputations to the House of Commons for all the attention we got. The civil servants gave us every possible reason that those problems cannot be solved.

I got a commitment from the then Minister for Finance, Deputy Ahern, that he would provide the money to the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry but the officials from that Department did not even bother to apply for it. Their excuse was that if it was given to the Tarmon area of Gort there would be a precedent for people all over the country to look for it. There is no such precedent because no other area has had land under water for over six months of the year. We asked for £100,000 for remedial work on some swallow holes to improve their efficiency but this was refused by officials all over the place. The reason given for this refusal was the same as that given by the Minister, whose speech included technicalities, regulations and so on.

I am terribly disappointed with this speech. I say to the Minister with all sincerity that if he is going to depend on the mechanisms he is now undertaking — preparing legislation, going to all the Government Departments and dotting all the "i's" and dotting all the "t's"— he will never solve the problem.

This should be contrasted with what is happening on the ground, which I fully support, where two Fine Gael activists went to the local bank, opened a bank account and, under Deputy McCormack's initiation, started a little drainage scheme. It is working and the water is flowing. They have spent thousands of pounds on a scheme which was estimated by the Office of Public Works six months ago to cost £2 million. There is not much doubt that they will be able to operate a scheme which will not be a drainage one but will take off the top level of the water. They will probably do this for between £50,000 and £100,000.

This is what the Fine Gael organisation is doing on the ground and I praise it for this, but I cannot understand why its Minister goes the opposite way. He is tying himself up in red tape. I blame the civil servants and I blame the Minister for being said and led by them. If we are going to operate drainage schemes as we have in the past, we will never see the problems that exist in south Galway being solved. I made an appeal to the Minister a fortnight ago but it obviously fell on deaf ears. There is only one way to solve this problem and that is to introduce legislation.

I had hoped that the Minister would take on board Senator Daly's Bill and introduce amendments to it if they were needed, which we accept is the case. He said the Bill was unnecessary and was not good, but there is very little in it which he stated to be so. He referred to section 8 (2) and said that the whole drainage district would cease to exist if this section was passed. However, section 15 (2) states that "the Commissioners shall have regard to the impact on the entire catchment of any works undertaken in the local area". There may be technicalities which may have to be changed.

I beg the Minister to accept this Bill and let us move to the next stage. The people in the Civil Service should move as quickly as necessary to make the changes and obtain the agreements which are necessary so that we can proceed to the next stage, which is that the expertise of the Office of Public Works, the engineers in Galway County Council and the Department of Agriculture would be put at the disposal of the local community, which should carry out the drainage works. We know from experience that a local co-operative effort will do a job about five times cheaper than the State because of the inevitable difficulties and responsibilities it has and which the local community does not have. The IFA in south Galway has offered to undertake simple drainage or cleaning works that will not have any negative effect on the ecological balance of the area, which is one of the most significant in the country.

I emphasise that we do not want to hinder areas of scientific interest, such as Coole lake, which is the main cause of the flooding in south Galway. We simply want to allow the water to go in the natural way it has always gone and to reduce the level of water which has come into Coole lake in the last few months.

We must accept that this year has been most abnormal. In the last week of December and in January we had 11 inches of rain in south Galway. This corresponds to the annual normal rainfall for the area. The water is four to five feet higher than it was in 1990, when the area had the worst rainfall on record. We have a unique situation this year and it calls for much faster and drastic action.

A number of businesses in the area have been affected. A saw mill has been closed since Christmas and five people are sitting at home and are on the dole. Last year that mill did not reopen until June, when there was not anything like the level of flooding we have this year. That business has had no response whatsoever to its difficulties. I appeal to the Minister to respond in some way and give hope to the proprietor of that business, which makes hurleys, roof timber and other things, because very soon he will not be able to continue because of the pressure on himself and his employees, who are at home.

A quarry in south Galway, which supplies all the road making material for Galway County Council, has been closed since Christmas. As a result the county council has to draw gravel from 20 miles away to undertake road raising works to open up some of the roads which have been closed. A number of shops have been flooded repeatedly and have had difficulty in obtaining compensation.

We have a real problem in south Galway. I am very disappointed to have to tell people what I heard tonight. It is absolutely essential that the Minister has a change of heart with regard to what he read from his 27 page speech. I appeal to the Minister to accept this Bill. We have tried to be responsible and to take an all party approach to the issue. We certainly do not blame the Minister or his party because we were not any different. For goodness sake could all of us together as a first step accept this Bill and make the changes which are needed to be made to it? As a second step, the Supplementary Estimate, which the Minister said had been agreed in principle but for which he has no money, should now be agreed by the Government. South Galway, being designated a disaster area, should be given a £1 million to give some compensation to those genuinely at a loss.

The lady at the back of the Public Gallery has a small equestrian centre. This centre and her house are under water. A sand workout area for horses, which is worth £15,000, has been blown away. It is no use telling that lady that in six months we may be able to do something for her through the Red Cross. She needs to be told now. I asked her to come here tonight because she is indicative of so many other people for whom Civil Service jargon is no use at this point.

I beg the Minister to respond now to the problems these people have by providing £1 million for south Galway and starting the hydrological survey and other investigations which need to be done on the ground to establish the water patterns as they recede over the next couple of weeks. Up to today the levels have been rising and unless they are monitored carefully over the next couple of weeks as they go down, the necessary investigation will not be done properly. We have had the surveys done. Donal Daly of the Geological Survey Office of Ireland conducted a comprehensive survey and another was done last year by an excellent engineer in the Office of Public Works. Last year's survey drew two conclusions. The first was that superficial cleaning of the swallow holes would improve their efficiency, which undoubtedly is true. The second was that a channel from Coole to Kinvarra would take down the worst levels of the flooding. I appeal to the Minister to take those actions. As a fellow west of Ireland man I appeal to him to ignore the red tape and start the action now.

I welcome the Minister of State back to the House. I compliment Deputy McCormack for the initiative he has taken in south Galway. Maybe we need more Fine Gael TDs in the south Galway area.

Flooding has always been an issue in Ireland, particularly along the west coast where it has constituted a serious problem. There are very few winters when flooding does not occur and it has been particularly acute this year. The extensive flooding results from the extremely high rainfall and has caused serious hardship over a wide area of the country. I have seen much of the damage in my own county. The consequences for the people who have suffered are horrendous.

Heavy rain is part of the Irish way of life and it has caused irreparable damage to the roads and land as well as flooding rivers. The biggest problem arising from this is that of household insurance claims. It is vitally important that corrective action is taken by the authorities and the Government since people will not be able to insure their household goods because of the high cost of insurance premiums. The Minister has assured us that the Government is very concerned at the range of problems experienced by people living in the affected areas and by the flooding of recent weeks. Everyone will have seen the pictures in the newspapers and, more graphically, on the television of areas covered in water and houses and business premises flooded, in some cases to considerable depths. Roads which are impassable are causing tremendous inconvenience and sizeable areas of agricultural land are inundated. The flooding in south Galway is unique because of the geological structure, the lack of an outlet to the sea for the water and, in particular, because it takes such a long time for the flood waters to recede. Farmers in the area say it will be April before the present waters recede.

I point out again that flooding is not new to this country. The last Fianna Fáil dominated coalition Government did nothing to alleviate the flooding that occurred in 1990, 1991 and 1994. It was hypocritical of the leader of the main Opposition party, Deputy Ahern, to visit south Galway recently because when he was Minister for Finance in the last Government he did nothing to alleviate any flooding problem in any part of the country. I note that a former Minister for Energy commissioned a report in January 1992 on the flooding of south Galway. Neither that Government nor the last Government did anything to alleviate the problem.

We note from a recent television report that the weather we have at present is the wettest this century. We further note that there is an increase of 200 per cent in the rainfall in the Shannon region and an increase of 117 per cent in the Waterford region. There has been an increase of up to 250 per cent in other regions. It is quite clear that flooding is not new to this country and that this year has been particularly hard.

There is no quick solution to flooding here. In my view we will not see flooding completely alleviated in our lifetime. I have to compliment the Minister of State, Deputy Higgins, and his predecessor, Deputy Hogan, on their quick response to the flooding problems in this country. Deputy Higgins has stated that the Government has decided, in light of all the information that has been made available, that it is necessary at this stage to have a coherent, co-ordinated response to the problem now facing individuals and communities in the aftermath of the flooding.

The Minister of State has set about establishing an interdepartmental committee, which he will chair. It will be the vehicle which will oversee the response and co-ordinate the input from the various Departments and agencies with responsibilities in this area. Our thanks must go to the staff of the various local authorities, the Garda, the fire services, the Army, the Air Corps, the Civil Defence and, of course, to the friends and neighbours who lent invaluable assistance to those in trouble.

The Minister stated that there are two aspects to flooding which must be considered. They are compensation where appropriate and the implementation of measures to mitigate where possible the effects of flooding due to adverse weather conditions in the future. The Minister has called on the European Commission to send officials to see at first hand the scale of flooding in this country. He will be seeking European Union compensation for landowners and householders affected by the flooding and also assistance in finding a long term solution to the problem. It is important that the European Union officials visit the areas that are most affected to see the devastation for themselves.

Slurry at farm level is of huge concern. Huge volumes of slurry are stored at farm level and the problem is aggravated by the heavy rainfall. It cannot be disposed of and, if it overflows, it will affect many rivers and cause serious problems. The serious problems caused by the volume of effluent and intensive agriculture must be recognised. Unlike other areas where intensive farming is practised, no farmer, big or small, has the storage capacity to cope with the weather in Ireland. Special concessions should be made available to Irish farmers for the storage and disposal of slurry.

There is no doubt that changing farming practices in this country have some effect on flooding in some areas. We can see how some of the changes have taken place. We have seen recently that the overgrazing of hills leads to water flowing down the hills faster, which clogs the streams and leads to the overflowing of rivers. The greater use of fertilisers and slurry does not help the free drainage of the land.

The use of heavier machinery, bigger tractors, bigger harvesters, bigger slurry tankers and bigger equipment generally adds to the compaction of the soil. This creates a pan in the ground and does not allow the water to go its natural course and soak away through the soil into the cracks and crevices. This causes its own problems because the water does not get away fast enough. We are left with floods which lead to turloughs which further lead to lakes and bigger lakes. The result is that the rivers are unable to take the floods. The heavy rainfall we have had for the last three months, coupled with changing farming practices, has led to a disastrous situation with devastating consequences for the country and the people, particularly in rural areas. There is no doubt that the farming sector is vulnerable and that small livestock farmers have been hardest hit.

I ask the Minister to look at our county roads. There is no doubt that the adverse weather over the past three or four months has caused serious damage to our national county roads network, which is breaking up. Our national primary and secondary roads are funded by the European Union, but the county roads are underfunded. I come, as the Minister does, from a county which has more miles of county roads than any other county. We are not getting our fair share of county road funding and I appeal to the Minister to rectify this situation. Lack of funds from Governments over the past number of years and adverse weather conditions have led to the deterioration of our roads. The Government should consider greater use of FÁS schemes by local authorities. These could be applied to works which are not being carried out at present by local authorities and which would not affect their fulltime staff.

As regards the serious flooding which has taken place over the past number of months, there should be greater co-operation between local authorities and the Office of Public Works. We must remember that local authorities know where the rivers, watercourses, water tables and swallow holes are and where flooding has taken place; in other words, they know the lie of the land. While the Office of Public Works does great work throughout the country in building, restoration or drainage — and it must be commended for that — it must co-operate more closely with local authorities for the betterment of the rural people and the farming community in alleviating the disastrous situation in parts of the country. Perhaps funds should be dispersed through the local authorities so that works might be carried out by them in conjunction with the Office of Public Works.

I have already spoken to the Minister about the problem areas in County Mayo, with which he is familiar. There is no need for me to mention the flooding in the Ballinrobe area or on McHale Road in Castlebar, Manulla and Clogher. The high level of rainfall has added to the serious problem on McHale Road and I hope the Minister will be able to do something about it. There are serious flooding problems in other areas of County Mayo which I am sure the Minister will consider.

Senator Fahey said today and last week that he had been on three deputations about the flooding but that nothing had happened. He also stated that land was submerged from January to July last year. Senator Fahey recognises this is not a new problem and that nothing was ever done about the flooding even when his party was in Government. Rather than draining major arterial catchment areas, I welcome the approach to respond immediately to the flooding in the south Galway area and to whatever may happen in other areas throughout the country.

The Office of Public Works is the main agency which deals with flooding problems under current legislation. I welcome the new flexibility promised by the Minister and his intention to amend the Arterial Drainage Act, 1945. The last arterial drainage scheme was sanctioned by the then Minister for Finance, Deputy J. Bruton, in 1981 when he sanctioned works on the Boyle-Bonner drainage scheme. It is 14 years since the last arterial drainage scheme was sanctioned. The Act has always been interpreted as conveying power to deal with drainage only on a complete catchment basis. The Arterial Drainage Act, 1945, was introduced in response to the findings of the Browne Commission, which met between 1938 and 1940. The Browne Commission discovered that drainage work previously undertaken on a piecemeal basis only shifted the problem from one area to another because of the failure to take account of the improvements throughout the river catchment areas. It recommended that future schemes should be designed to take into account the effect of works throughout the entire river catchment.

While I commend Senator Daly's initiative, it would be wise to wait for the Minister to introduce his legislation to amend the Arterial Drainage Act, 1945. He has given a commitment to initiate it in this House and I welcome that decision. More Bills should be introduced in this House. I congratulate the Minister for his commitment on this occasion. I ask Senator Daly to withdraw his Bill to allow the Minister introduce his Bill.

Once the Minister has received the relevant information from the various agencies throughout the country, he will be in the best position to decide what type of Bill will be introduced in this House. The interdepartmental committee, which he will chair, will collect information from local authorities, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Commissioners of Public Works and in consultation with the Department of the Environment, urban councils and anyone who seeks to help to alleviate the enormous problems which lie ahead. The Minister appreciates the complexities of the problems we face. The Minister and the Office of Public Works must also take into account the role which the central and regional fisheries boards and the local angling clubs play in our communities. They must work closely with the Minister, the local authorities and the Office of Public Works.

I congratulate the Minister on the way he has reacted to the flooding problem. He immediately inspected the various areas which were flooded and, although he has only been in office a short time, he has visited Counties Mayo, Galway, Clare, Roscommon, Westmeath and Offaly. It takes time to establish the full extent of the serious problems. As a measure of the Government's commitment to and concern for the serious problem, it has allocated £2 million through the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry to assist those who lost fodder and stock. I welcome this development. I also welcome the Governments inclusion of £4 million in the budget for our county roads network, which is breaking up. I would like more than £4 million. Another indication of the Government's commitment to the disaster is the supplementary welfare allowance, which is being dealt with by the health boards. The Minister has taken swift action in this regard by setting up the interdepartmental committee. As he said, the committee's first meeting will take place next week. Senator Fahey can see that action has already been taken by the Minister in a short time.

The Office of Public Works is cooperating with the Red Cross, which is the agency responsible for distributing EU funds in emergencies. The Office of Public Works supports that application for assistance. The Minister obtained agreement in the budget for Supplementary Estimates to be introduced. He has called on the EU to see the devastation at first hand. He will make a submission to the EU for funding and has given a commitment to introduce in this House a Bill to amend the Arterial Drainage Act, 1945, which must be welcomed.

This Government is committed to going some way towards alleviating the problems in south Galway and other areas. I ask Senator Daly to withdraw his Bill to allow the Minister to introduce his legislation. It can be seen from his contribution that he is dealing with the problem. The first meeting of the interdepartmental committee is next week, some funds are being provided for relief, he is looking to Europe for further funds; and he has agreement from the Minister for Finance to introduce a Supplementary Estimate.

It would be better to leave this with the Minister. He has given a firm commitment to introduce his legislation in this House and he is to be congratulated for that. The Minister sees the significance of what Senator Daly wants to do in putting this Bill before the House — and the Senator is to be complimented on that — but I ask him to leave this in the hands of the Minister. He knows the urgency of the problem and I congratulate him on the swift action he has taken in a short period.

I would like to share my time with Senator McGowan.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

I rise to support the Arterial Drainage Bill, 1995, brought to this House by Senator Daly. I compliment him on his initiative because the public awaits a response from the Houses of the Oireachtas to the serious flooding crisis in many areas of the country. The severity of the flooding is shown by the fact that Bord na Móna has recorded the highest flood levels ever at Shannonbridge, three-eighths of an inch higher than ever before. Flooding brings many problems with it and a response is needed. A response has been made by Fianna Fáil, in particular by Senator Daly, who proposed and put together this Bill. It has two main provisions addressing the position in a practical way. The Bill does not just deal with the present position; it clearly sets down how flooding could and would be addressed in the future.

The first provision gives the Office of Public Works the opportunity to carry out relief drainage maintenance and other such works as would eliminate flash flooding, etc. The second provision is the opportunity for compensation. Under those two headings most of the problems being experienced today as a result of the flooding could be addressed.

I am somewhat taken aback that the Minister is not prepared to accept this Bill. In fairness to him, he said he intends to bring in similar legislation. I suggest to him that he should adopt this Bill. If he, his Department or the other Departments he is consulting think that certain provisions of the legislation are not the best ways of dealing with flooding, he should bring forward amendments. His draftspersons or officials may find a number of areas are not covered or that areas are included which he would wish to exclude, although I cannot see why exclusions would be made. He should amend this Bill rather than have it voted down and prevent this opportunity to have the flooding problem dealt with practically.

Flooding is not confined to specific areas on this occasion, nor has it been at other times. However, a number of aspects of the current position should be outlined. People who have long experience of flooding have been taken aback by the level of flooding in upland areas this year. It appears to them such flooding is higher than ever before.

We have not measured flood levels in upland areas to any great extent; we have always concentrated on the Shannon, the Suck, the Mulcair and such areas. Members may not know vast tracts of uplands are underwater. In County Roscommon people with fine upland holdings have more than two-thirds and in some cases seven-eighths of their farms under water. One person with a 40 acre holding has 37 acres under water; another with 54 acres has 47 under water; another with 72 acres has 60 acres under water. Those cases are in Roscommon and can be checked.

I am perturbed by the Minister's contribution because it appears there will be no relief for those people. He said the Shannon cannot be drained and other means will have to be employed. I do not accept that; it runs counter to everything I and Senator Naughten, from south Roscommon, said here recently. The Office of Public Works allows a situation where 50,000 acres of bog are drained into a river on which we do not use so much as a shovel, never mind a machine, to carry out maintenance. It makes no sense to drain so much bog — and I am not even mentioning land drainage projects — into the Shannon and Suck while there is no maintenance of either river. As I said during the debate on flooding, it is vitally important that maintenance is carried out on the Shannon and Suck to remove silt that has built up over the years and is blocking the rivers' flow.

The Minister has pointed out that in the 27 miles of river between Athlone and Meelick the channel is narrow and is incapable of taking the flow during floods. Certainly, there are problems with the channel but those problems are being aggravated each year because of what is flowing into the Shannon from the main Bord na Móna works on the Leinster and Connacht sides. That is clearly visible to anybody whether the person is a technical staff member or a lay person.

The Minister must respond to this situation and the only way he can do so is through amending the Arterial Drainage Act. He cannot do so under that Act in its present form because he cannot put a machine on the River Shannon unless he decides to drain the whole catchment area. Under the legislation proposed by Senator Daly that provision would be excluded thus providing the Office of Public Works with the opportunity to install a machine at Meelick and clean the river from there to Athlone. It could also clean the River Suck from Shannon harbour to Ballinasloe thereby removing the silt and allowing the water to flow in both rivers. That would prevent the massive flooding we have seen along the bank of the Shannon from the Clonown area to Ballyforan, Athleague, Ballygar and surrounding areas on the Suck. Anybody who travels from this city to County Galway or who takes the Tuam road from Athlone will know exactly what I am talking about

The Bill introduced by Senator Daly also deals with an important aspect of the livelihood of the people in those areas. The Minister acknowledges that the flooding problem — apart from the drainage issue — must be tackled. He has provided money for loss of livestock and fodder. However, livestock farmers in that area have lost their grasslands and in some cases they might have lost next year's meadows. They have certainly lost their horticultural land. There is a major horticultural area in the basin of the Shannon and Suck. People have made a livelihood from horticulture and have brought their produce to the Dublin market for years. They require compensation for flood damage. The Minister appears to address that problem to some extent——

Senator, you have eight minutes left which you intend to share with Senator McGowan.

I will take three more minutes.

Those farmers require compensation and Senator Daly's Bill provides for that. I am not as familiar with other areas, such as south Galway, Clare or Carlow, but I can speak with some authority about the area of County Roscommon between the Shannon and the Suck. The Minister should accept this Bill. If he objects to some parts of it or wishes to amend it I am sure an accommodation can be reached.

The Minister said that he will introduce legislation. I am worried that he must go through an extensive consultation process with many Departments and that in itself might frustrate his efforts. I do not doubt that he wishes to address this matter but I fear that he will be frustrated. When one involves five or six Departments there will be problems. It will be a long drawn out process and by the time a final draft is reached we will have had more floods.

The Minister said he does not think it appropriate that the Office of Public Works should assess compensation after flooding; he does not think the Department would have the expertise — I am not sure of his exact words — and he does not expect it to be involved in that area. The Office of Public Works would have special expertise in this area. The Office of Public Works already deals with compensation when it carries out drainage work. Who would be better to deal with compensation? It is one of the few groups with such expertise and could deal with the matter objectively because it has precedents dating back to 1945 on which to base its evaluations of compensation for flooding. That should not be an objection.

I ask the Minister to reconsider his position. This is a good Bill. It addresses the present problem of flooding and gives the Office of Public Works the opportunity to relieve flooding and pay compensation. They are the main proposals in the Bill and if they are in force we will be able to respond to future flooding. Otherwise, we are simply talking about the problem.

Senator McGowan has only two minutes because this debate concludes at 8 p.m. I suggest that you wait until tomorrow morning when you will have ten minutes, if the House agrees.

May I use the couple of minutes now?

Is the sharing arrangement off? That cannot be done because the House has agreed to it.

I will take ten minutes in the morning.

A Chathaoirligh, the debate should move to this side of the House.

The House agreed that Senator McGowan and Senator Finneran——

——would share 20 minutes. They are now sharing 28 minutes.

My apologies. Senator McGowan will have four minutes tomorrow morning.

I am not happy with the restrictions. The flooding is not confined to Roscommon or Galway. Unfortunately, we have our share of flooding.

I welcome the Minister to the House. I congratulate Senator Daly — who has a great deal of experience with the Office of Public Works — on drafting a simple, straightforward Bill. I thank the Leader of the House, Senator Manning, for the spirit in which he accepted the Bill but I hope the co-operation does not end with these niceties and formalities. We are all experienced enough to know that this can be seen as just an exercise. The average member of the public, listening and recording, knows it has to be more than an exercise. There has to be a positive response to this Bill. There is no point in saying that another party was in power in a certain year and it did not act. We are talking about the present time and we are talking to a Government that has the responsibility for the serious problem that now exists. We must get the parameters straight now.

Debate adjourned.
Top
Share