I appreciate the opportunity to come before you today to introduce this short Bill to provide a sound statutory basis for certain powers and functions traditionally exercised by the Commissioners of Public Works. Senators will be aware that some of these have been called into question since the High Court judgment in the Howard v. The Commissioners of Public Works case and about which I will speak further shortly.
The other major issue covered by the Bill is the provision of the necessary power for the commissioners to give effect to a scheme to offer humanitarian assistance to a small number of people whose houses have been damaged beyond repair at reasonable cost or who have suffered long duration flooding during the exceptionally high floods of late 1994 and earlier this year.
On the first issue the Attorney General has advised that the opportunity should now be taken to establish the general powers which the Commissioners of Public Works require in order to carry out their functions. The commissioners are a statutory corporation, the kind of body which suffers from the drawback that it has no functions, powers or duties other than those which the statute or statutes setting it up confers upon it. This problem is compounded by the fact that the commissioners did not come into existence for any one purpose and their functions have never been comprehensively set out. They were simply given extra functions over the years as various Governments required them to carry out a variety of tasks. The assumption always was that the commissioners had sufficient legal powers to carry out these functions.
However, the Attorney General advises that this has serious legal and practical consequences. The practical consequence is that to discover whether the commissioners have power to carry out a specific task it is necessary to go through almost 200 statutes, the earliest of which is 150 years old. The legal drawback is that powers conferred in one statute may be exercisable only for the purposes listed in that statute and the fact that several statutes give similar powers may not necessarily mean that the commissioners have any general power to act in a particular way. To put it simply the problem is that the full range of functions which the Government requires the commissioners to perform have not been set out in legislation and the powers which it needs to carry out these functions have not been conferred.
This difficulty was highlighted in the recent case of Howard v. The Commissioners of Public Works which arose from the Mullaghmore visitor centre controversy. The House will recall that the High Court found that the Commissioners of Public Works had no general powers to carry out construction works. The net effect of this judgment was that they did not have powers to carry out the general building, construction, maintenance and supplies functions which had been such a large part of their work for decades. This immediate problem was resolved with the passing of the State Authorities (Development and Management) Act, 1993.
The strict interpretation of the powers by the High Court in the Howard case and problems which have arisen with other specific cases since then have led the Attorney General to advise that the only way to avoid further legal problems is to set out in legislation the functions of the commissioners and the powers which are required to carry them out. This is the only way to achieve certainty and to avoid doubt over their legal powers to carry out their work. That is why we are now taking the opportunity to do so in the Bill before the House.
It is important that the House should know that it is not the case that nothing was being done to clear up these legal doubts. The commissioners and the Attorney General's Office had, in fact, been working over the past several months to see how these legal uncertainties could best be tackled. Both had finally concluded that new legislation would be necessary and work on this had already begun. Obviously it now makes sense to combine this with the emergency legislation which is necessary in any case to allow the humanitarian relief scheme to be implemented. I would like to make absolutely clear to the House that this Bill does not give any expanded authority to the commissioners with the exception of that for the administration of the humanitarian scheme. It merely lists the functions of the commissioners and removes any doubt in relation to powers to carry these out. There are many areas where there is no doubt with regard to the commissioners' powers. For example, the Shannon Navigation Act, the Canals Act, the State Property Act and many other enactments provide specific powers in specific areas. The Bill before the House does not interfere with, or substitute for, any of these specific provisions but merely removes doubt in areas which are not specifically covered at present. The Bill also requires that the commissioners can act in the exercise of these powers only with the consent of the Minister for Finance. Thus, there is no question of their being given powers and allowed to do as they wish as free agents. They can only exercise their powers with the consent of the Minister for Finance and subject to the provision of funds in the Vote for the Office of Public Works.
Before discussing the main provisions in the Bill, I would like to take the opportunity to speak on the general issue of flooding and the efforts of the Government to deal with the matter during the past year. Members will be aware that I had already agreed to a request from the Leader of the House to make a statement on that matter and the time seems appropriate, as one of the main aims of the Bill is to legalise the administration of the humanitarian aid scheme which arises as a direct result of flooding. Members will also recall that, at the end of last year and in the early part of this year, many areas were subject to exceptionally severe flooding. This was the subject of extensive debate in both Houses on a number of occasions during the year. In the worst affected areas, the flood waters rose with very little warning and remained at a high level in some places for long periods — several months in the most extreme areas. Consequently, there are a number of home owners who have been so severely traumatised by their experience that they simply cannot face the prospect of a recurrence.
It is hardly necessary for me to restate the position that the immediate cause of the flooding in the periods in question was the cumulative effect of the exceptionally heavy rainfall which occurred in the preceding months. In some areas, rainfall was more than twice the normal level for the period. The flooding and the problems associated with it were extensively reported on, not least in this House. The exceptional problems in the south Galway area were the main focus of publicity but severe conditions were also experienced in many other parts of the country, specifically in Counties Clare, Limerick, Tipperary, Carlow, Kilkenny, Cork, Kerry, Laois, Offaly, Roscommon, Wicklow and Wexford.
As previously stated, the Government's response to the problem was both sympathetic and comprehensive. It included the following measures, some of which I will elaborate on with particular reference to the progress made as they have a direct bearing on the reason behind the introduction of this legislation.
An interdepartmental committee was established, to be chaired by the Minister of State at the Department of Finance with responsibilities in the Office of Public Works, to co-ordinate the Government's response to the effects of bad weather and consider the response in future, similar, situations.
A sum of £2 million was made available through the agricultural compensation scheme to assist farmers for losses of fodder, stock, etc. and farmyard relocation arising from the flooding. A further £4 million was made available for the repair of county roads. A sum of £750,000 was made available by way of humanitarian aid to be distributed by the Irish Red Cross Society to alleviate the hardship of flood victims. This was in addition to £398,000 which the EU had provided by way of humanitarian aid, which had also been distributed by the Irish Red Cross Society. The latter was made available, in no small measure, due to the intervention of my predecessor, Deputy Jim Higgins.
The Arterial Drainage (Amendment) Act, 1995 — initiated in this House — was passed, expanding the powers of the Commissioners of Public Works contained in the Arterial Drainage Act, 1945. This enabled the commissioners to carry out relief schemes for the alleviation of localised flooding in addition to their powers to carry out major arterial schemes which dealt with problems in river catchment areas as a whole.
Permission was also given to undertake a major multi-disciplinary investigation into the causes of flooding in the Gort-Ardrahan area of south Galway and parts of north Clare, which is currently ongoing and which, it is hoped, will make recommendations as to means of dealing with these problems in the future.
The Army, Air Corps, the fire service, other local authority services and health boards provided considerable emergency assistance to distressed persons in the flooded areas. The Commissioners of Public Works established an emergency co-ordination centre or one-stop shop in Gort which was staffed by representatives of the Western Health Board, the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry, Galway County Council, the Irish Red Cross Society and the Office of Public Works itself. More than 500 callers to this facility were assisted in relation to claims for compensation, rehousing and humanitarian aid.
As I said earlier, I would now like to comment on progress made under some of the principal items to which I have just alluded. First, the outcome of the Red Cross Society's distribution of the humanitarian aid justifies fully the decision taken earlier to route the funds in question through that organisation. The criteria used by the society to determine the most appropriate apportionment of the funds available were death, personal injury, damage to houses and loss of income. Each applicant was assessed on an individual basis taking into account their financial circumstances prior to the flooding, their situation as a result of it and their overall ability to help themselves in overcoming the effects of the crisis. Where necessary, officers of the society or experienced Red Cross volunteers checked details of the claims by visiting applicants in their homes. The society was also in a position to ascertain information in relation to the insurance status in respect of a considerable number of claims.
I should point out that the society rightly regards the precise details of individual claims as confidential between them and the applicants. I would also like to stress that while the original EU aid made available through the society made a valuable contribution, it did not reflect in full the hardship and distress suffered by many applicants. It was decided, in the circumstances, that the interdepartmental committee should examine and report, as a matter of urgency, on the possibility of Exchequer funding being made available this year to provide additional humanitarian relief, taking account of the need to ensure that relief through the Red Cross Society, from the EU, and through the supplementary welfare allowance system were elements in a coherent and cost effective programme involving acceptable Exchequer cost. The Government further decided that the extent and scale of that funding should be assessed.
It was against this background that, in conjunction with the Minister for Finance, I reported to Government in July 1995 that an additional £750,000 should be made available. This followed extensive consultation with the society and officials of the Office of Public Works and the invitation through the press and local radio stations for the submission of applications for assistance. This amount was considered by the society to be adequate to enable them to put those who applied to them for assistance reasonably close to the situation they were in before flooding occurred and the amounts to be paid would take into account assistance which was available from other sources such as insurance.
The funding proposed would enable the society to make payments to a number of people who sought assistance under the earlier EU package but could not be assisted because of the limited funds available; to pay additional amounts to applicants who received payment which fell far short of their real losses and to deal with a number of claims which were received after the deadline for application for EU aid and were ruled technically ineligible. Most of these late claims were forwarded to the society through third parties such as Departments and public representatives and, while there may be some dissatisfaction still among some victims that the aid will not compensate them adequately under headings such as devaluation of property, I believe it is seen as reasonable by most claimants and independent observers.
The second item on which I would like to elaborate is the works proposed under the Arterial Drainage (Amendment) Act, 1995. The House will appreciate that there must be coupled with the various relief and humanitarian aid schemes a programme of physical works designed to combat the recurrence in the future of the extensive flooding which has occurred all too frequently in Ireland. During the debate on the Arterial Drainage (Amendment) Bill, 1995, which took place earlier this year and resulted in its passage into law in July last, many references were made to the extensive programme of works already completed by the Commissioners of Public Works under earlier legislation and their immediate plans for a programme of localised flood relief words in a number of selected priority areas.
I referred earlier to the major investigation being undertaken into the possibility of ameliorating conditions in the Gort-Ardrahan area of south Galway and parts of north Clare. This investigation, costing £750,000, is well under way and the consultants have submitted a preliminary report. The report has been discussed at a public meeting in Gort and with the IFA and the South Galway Flooded Victims Action Group as well as being studied in detail by the technical officials in my Department. These bodies have also received copies of the report. The report outlines some conceptual approaches to solving the problem and work will continue during 1996 to develop these solutions further. A final report is expected in early 1997.
A scheme of works has already been undertaken in the Belclare area of Tuam, County Galway. A start has also been made on the preparation of proposals for schemes in no fewer than eight other areas. I will deal with them in alphabetical order. In the case of Carlow, the preliminary design and report of the consultants has just been received. Cost benefit analysis and environmental impact statements have also been commissioned and these reports should be available in mid 1996. Remedial works are expected to commence later in 1996. Environmental impact statements appear to take a lot of time but they cannot be completed until after the spring period because of matters such flora, fauna, birds and so forth. We must await the completion of the reports and it is mandatory that they be carried out. I am anxious to get on with the work but the reports are mandatory requirements. The current status of Cappamore and Newport, County Tipperary, is somewhat similar to that of Carlow.
In Duleek, County Meath, a preliminary design has been completed and cost benefit analysis and environmental impact statements should also be available in 1996. In Dunmanway, County Cork, a number of options or alternatives are under consideration and will continue to be in the context of the environmental impact statement which is expected in 1996. The report on the cost benefit analysis of the various options is expected also in 1996. The design of a scheme for the relief of flooding in Gort town, County Galway, has been completed. This is being considered separately from the overall study of the Gort-Ardrahan area of the south of the county. The results of the cost benefit analysis of the scheme are due shortly while the environmental impact statement should be available early in the new year. A scheme for Six-milebridge, County Clare, has also been prepared while the report on the cost benefit analysis and the environmental impact statement are expected to be available this week. This is the most advanced scheme, other than Belclare, and is expected to commence in the spring of 1996.
The preliminary report on the proposals for Kilkenny city is due in February 1996. The cost benefit report and environmental impact statement will take some time longer to complete. At Williamstown, County Galway, a number of options for flood relief are being considered in the context of the environmental implications of each. A cost benefit analysis is also being carried out and the results are due shortly.
Every effort is being made to ensure the early completion of the design process in each of the areas listed so that the necessary sanctions can be sought to initiate the next stages, that is, public exhibition and the preparation of contract documentation should schemes evolve which meet the necessary economic and environmental considerations. Until such time as this stage is reached, I cannot say precisely when works will commence. I hope that all qualifying schemes will be in progress during 1996.
In my preceding remarks I have dealt solely with the priority programme. I am aware from all that has been said on this subject in the past that there are many other areas which will require consideration and action. In this connection it is the intention as soon as all the relevant data have been collected to review the situation in relation to some of these. This should enable the setting up of a national priority programme with a view to carrying out future schemes in the light of conditions prevailing from time to time and in the context of the resources available for works of this nature.
Before dealing with the provisions of the Bill, I turn now to the second element of the humanitarian aid scheme, that relating to home relocation. On 26 July Dáil Éireann passed a Vote, designated Vote 46, to provide for expenditure to defray the costs of various flood relief measures, including the allocation of £750,000 for home relocation assistance. This, too, we have just recently been advised, requires the passage of legislation to give a statutory footing to the scheme since devised. At this stage I would like to outline in general terms the main provisions of the scheme under which, following extensive investigation and consultation with public representatives and with representative bodies such as the IFA and South Galway Flooded Victims Action Group, the Commissioners of Public Works are now ready, subject to the passage of this Bill, to deal individually with applications received for assistance.
The scheme itself is simple and straightforward. Anyone who can show to the satisfaction of the commissioners that the house in which they resided was damaged beyond repair at reasonable cost by flooding at the end of 1994 and early 1995 or suffered flooding for an extended period, that is, in excess of three weeks, will be eligible for assistance, provided no flood relief scheme that would protect the property has been undertaken or is planned within a reasonable period, approximately 12 months.
Householders who are eligible for assistance will have the option of having a house constructed on a site to be provided by them, the cost of both to a reasonable level will be borne by the State, construction would be by the local authority acting as agent of the Commissioners of Public Works or receiving financial assistance to enable them to relocate themselves.
Under both options it will normally be a condition that benefiting householders demolish their existing house, and any insurance compensation received, less reasonable loss adjusters' fees, in respect of structural damage to the property will be offset against any financial assistance payable. The scheme is being offered in a humanitarian context and the intention is that beneficiaries will be owner/occupiers who fulfil the qualifying criteria.
It is envisaged that householders will be required to covenant with the commissioners to demolish the existing house to the latter's satisfaction within a reasonable period, failing which the commissioners would have a legal right to undertake the demolition. Some of the amount payable would be retained to ensure fulfilment of this condition. The householder will be permitted to retain the site and any salvage recovered.
Applicants for assistance under the scheme will be required to sign a form authorising insurance companies to furnish the commissioners with any information they possess in relation to the insurance position in respect of their properties.
An appropriate monetary value based on local authority housing which, together with appropriate allowances for purchase of site and fees, will form the basis of any offers of assistance to those applicants who seek that option. It is anticipated that most applicants will choose the financial option. It is expected that applicants will incur legal fees in connection with the purchase of a site, completion of contracts, etc. and other professional fees in respect of the design and construction of their new houses. They will also incur costs associated with the demolition of their existing houses and site clearance. An allowance will be included in the scheme in respect of all such costs. It is not proposed to seek recovery of any costs incurred by the State arising from the implementation of the scheme.
I now turn to the specific provisions of the Commissioners of Public Works (Functions and Powers) Bill, 1995, which are drafted to give a sound statutory basis to those matters referred to which do not already have an existing statutory authority. Section 1 deals with the interpretation of some of the terms used in the Bill.
Section 2 describes one of the main functions which the Commissioners of Public Works are required to carry out, specifically the purchasing, building, leasing and maintaining of accommodation and properties of all kinds, real and personal, for all Departments of State and other public bodies. It also provides for the addition of a new function to which I have alluded in some depth in my earlier remarks, with particular reference to the administration of the humanitarian aid scheme, which we are advised requires specific statutory provision.
Section 3 gives the commissioners the power to undertake its functions where such power is not already prescribed by statute. This is the kernel of the problem highlighted by the Attorney General that while the commissioners have individual powers under specific enactments, these do not confer general powers to deal in property outside the scope of those enactments.
Section 4 enables the commissioners to exercise its functions and powers for the provision of living accommodation under the humanitarian aid scheme by arrangement with a housing authority which would act as their agent.
Section 5 deals further with the interpretation of the Bill, specifically in relation to references to land which have particular meaning defined in local government legislation. Section 6 is a general provision in relation to the funding of the functions carried out under the earlier sections. Section 7 contains the short title.
I will be introducing a number of largely technical amendments to the Bill on Committee Stage. The amendments will correct a number of omissions from the Bill as printed. The Bill has been drafted, printed and brought to this House in a short period and I regret that, in the process, some amendments and redrafting to the text of the Bill by the parliamentary draftsman were omitted from the text which was sent to the printers. I hope in the circumstances the House will understand the difficulties that arose and will accommodate the amendments on Committee Stage. As I will deal with these amendments in some detail on Committee Stage, I will now outline what they are.
I will be proposing that a definition of development be added to section 1. The definition will be the same as that in the State Authorities (Development and Management) Act, 1993. I will also be proposing to add the words "and be deemed always to have had" in a number of sections. As I explained earlier, this Bill is intended to give legal certainty to what exactly are the powers of the Commissioners of Public Works. It underpins the powers which the commissioners have traditionally exercised. The effect of this proposed amendment would be to validate actions taken by the commissioners in good faith over the years.
Section 3 recites what the powers of the commissioners shall be on passing of this legislation. The parliamentary draftsman has advised on reflection that the wording of the section should be recast. The change does not, however, materially alter the extent of the powers as already outlined.
I thank the House for its speedy response to the urgency in having this important legislation introduced. I look forward to the co-operation of all in facilitating its early passage into law.