Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 19 Dec 1995

Vol. 145 No. 16

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

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

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.

I assure the Minister of our co-operation in dealing with this issue as speedily and efficiently as possible. This is the first time I have heard a Minister admit that the Bill needs to be amended before it is debated on Second Stage.

The failure of the Government to respond adequately to the floods crisis which devastated many homes and families and flooded thousands of acres at the end of 1994 and earlier this year is inexplicable. The Government's ineptitude has resulted in continuing hardship and misery for many families who have been subjected to unsettling experiences over the past year. The Government has shown complete disregard for the plight of many families who have been devastated, financially and otherwise, by the floods.

On 1 March last year I introduced a Bill which tried to deal with this situation. I clearly pointed out the necessity to include a provision whereby compensation could be paid. It was my party's view and that of many people in the House that in order for the commissioners to pay adequate compensation through humanitarian efforts, it would be necessary to include that in the legislation. That is why section 5 of the Bill provided a mechanism by which compensation could be paid. The Minister's predecessor, Deputy Jim Higgins, described that provision as inadequate. He stated it was unnecessary to include it in the legislation as the commissioners already had adequate powers and sufficient authority to deal with situations which might arise. When he subsequently introduced his Bill around 16 May, we again pointed out on Second and Committee Stages that it was necessary to include a provision whereby the commissioners would be in a position to pay compensation. We sought to amend the legislation but the former Minister did not accept the proposal.

He did not accept the original Bill or the amendments put down to his Bill but, a year later, the Minister of State is in the House — he is welcome and I wish him well — introducing further legislation. It is most frustrating for Members but particularly frustrating for those who suffered the hardship and misery of flooded homes and land for a long period, to find that despite all the discussion which took place——

What were the previous office holders doing for the past five years?

Senator Daly without interruption.

If Senator Taylor-Quinn wishes to be here on Christmas Day she is adopting the right attitude. We could go through the Bill line by line.

That is absolutely no problem.

We could discuss matters which are not covered in the legislation.

We in County Glare would be delighted if the Senator was here.

Senator Taylor-Quinn amazes me. On the last occasion on which the House discussed this matter, she came in at a late stage and proceeded to interrupt Members. She obviously did not know then, any more than she does now, what she was talking about because she criticised the case we made to include provisions relating to compensation in the Bill.

We will stay with the Bill and not with what Senator Taylor-Quinn knows about it.

Get on with the action, Senator.

The deficiencies in the legislation mean that people continue to suffer hardship. The Minister of State confused me with the figures he mentioned regarding humanitarian aid from the Irish Red Cross Society and aid from the EU and the Departments of the Environment and Agriculture, Food and Forestry. In his reply, perhaps the Minister of State could indicate actual expenditure under the various subheads.

I presume the Department of the Environment provided grants to local authorities to deal with the problems caused to roads. The total figure is £4 million; perhaps the Minister of State could provide a breakdown in terms of the amounts counties received and whether all the money has been spent. There is still criticism in local areas that some of the damage to the road structure caused by the flooding has not yet been remedied. This is particularly the case in areas of north County Glare, such as the Carran area, where some of the roads damaged by the floods were left in a derelict state. Up to recently, some of the roads which suffered major damage had not been repaired.

Some have been substantially repaired.

Some were repaired and I compliment the county council for the speedy way in which it dealt with some of the problems. However, some major problems have not been addressed and a large amount of money is required to deal with them. I ask the Minister of State to indicate how the money was expended and in which counties. I am not certain how the funding from the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry was spent and perhaps the Minister of State could indicate the position in that regard.

I compliment the Irish Red Cross Society, its chairperson, Ms Una McGurk, and Mr. Des Kavanagh who were responsible for dealing with issues in the Galway area. They dealt with a serious problem in a most humanitarian way. While they would have done a better job if more finance had been at their disposal, there was general satisfaction that the amount of money available was dispensed fairly. I am not aware of any problems in that regard.

The major deficiency of this Bill is that while the Minister of State has taken some powers to pay compensation to deal with the issues which arose when we discussed these matters previously, there is no mechanism to appeal decisions in that regard. Where there was disagreement between the individual and the Commissioners of Public Works there should have been a mechanism whereby an appeal might be lodged so that the matter could be dealt with by a process of arbitration, as may occur with the acquisition of land by the commissioners, local authorities or harbour authorities.

The Minister of State has already indicated that the Bill is in need of technical adjustments. In making those technical adjustments he might avail of the opportunity to consider putting in place a system to deal with grievances that could not be resolved between the commissioners and the persons involved. This would be particularly relevant where dwellings are beyond repair and disagreement may arise about relocation and what was to become of the building being vacated.

Has the Senator anything particular in mind?

I have no doubt Senator Taylor-Quinn will have an opportunity to speak later. Senator Daly without interruption.

If Senator Taylor-Quinn is so out of touch with the problems that have arisen in the north Glare area it is not my intention to educate her in the House. I have no doubt she visits the north Glare area regularly but she obviously must not see everything or meet the people who have grievances.

There is a genuine grievance with regard to relocation and what happens to the property being vacated.

The Senator cannot have it both ways.

We will not sort out the problems in County Glare here.

We might have our work cut out, a Chathaorligh.

Complications may arise where the Commissioners of Public Works would compulsorily acquire the properties from which persons were to be relocated. It might not be advantageous to have the buildings demolished and in such cases, it might be difficult to get agreement between the persons to be relocated and the commissioners.

We should put in place a mechanism whereby such disagreements can be dealt with, such as a tribunal or other independent body. If the Minister of State has any ideas we would be prepared to examine them. However, the issue must be dealt with. If there is a disagreement there should be an independent body to consider the situation with a view to resolving it.

Is the provision in this legislation to apply to dwelling houses only? Families may have to be relocated from their homes and farms. Are there sufficient powers to deal with properties and buildings other than domestic dwellings? It appears the commissioners would have certain powers in relation to local authorities and the provision of housing but, to my mind, the provision does not cover farm outhouses or slatted houses in the vicinity of the dwelling-house. Neither am I certain that this would include the Commissioners of Public Works becoming involved with private house owners in joint ventures to provide housing for people who would be relocated or finding houses for themselves. It seems that the provision of accommodation will involve the commissioners working through the local authorities. It may be necessary to have additional amendments to enable a private individual to negotiate with the commissioners for the provision of their private accommodation, excluding the local authorities.

Local authorities already have sufficient difficulty meeting their financial responsibilities in the matter of housing and this will be a further burden on them. Perhaps the Minister of State would provide clarification about the financial mechanisms which will underpin the proposals in this legislation. Will additional finances be provided to local authorities to deal with housing matters or is it envisaged that they will deal with these matters from their current housing allocations? As the Minister will be aware, every local authority is under pressure to provide housing to meet their set down housing lists and this would be an additional burden which should be specifically covered in this Bill.

We will not oppose the legislation, we will try to amend it to the best of our ability and co-operate with the Minister of State in finally coming to grips with this problem. However, the whole episode has been badly handled up to now by the Government whose ineptitude has been appalling. The result is that those who have suffered the misery and hardship of flooding for over a year still do not know where they stand. This legislation has yet to go to the other House, which is in recess until well into the New Year.

The most appalling aspect concerns the Minister of State's list of several projects which are at design stage, where environmental impact assessments are taking place or where further studies are to be undertaken. We did not receive one firm date for the commencement of any project other than that in Sixmilebridge which we hope will begin in early spring. I ask the Minister to give more specific dates for when projects will start and when it is hoped they will be completed so that we can at least say when the legislation is passed that there is some prospect in the near future of having these projects dealt with to the satisfaction of the people who have been upset about what has happened in the last year.

At the start of this episode. Ministers and Ministers of State made many visits to the constituencies to discuss these issues at local level. I can assure the Minister of State that further ministerial visits in the north Glare and south Galway areas will not be welcome. More definite action must be taken soon to pay people what has been promised to them for nearly a year.

Listening to Senator Daly one wonders where he was for the past five years. From 1990 to 1994 serious flooding occurred in many places and Governments during that time did very little. The Senator referred to ministerial visits to Glare and south Galway but, unfortunately, for the previous four years there were no ministerial visits, no Government response or Government reaction to a disastrous situation. There has been flooding since 1990 but previous Governments failed abysmally to take any responsibility for it. Senator Daly should jog his memory and reflect on the inaction of previous Administrations.

I welcome this Bill which will enable the Office of Public Works to do works and take specific action on relocation and the provision of humanitarian assistance to the victims of flooding. He and his Department have acted promptly and comprehensively. I compliment his predecessors, Deputy Hogan and Deputy Jim Higgins, on their response when they held office. The current Minister came from another Department but immediately grasped the nettle and quickly took on the problem. The officials within the Office of Public Works have shown the ability to take positive and well thought out action in a crisis and good judgment in the priorities they have listed. One wonders how any Senator could be critical of the work done, given the record of the previous Administration which did not respond to the crises of previous years.

Why has north Clare been excluded from the investigations?

As the Senator knows, people in north Glare have received humanitarian aid, administered by the Red Cross, and have been compensated in recent months.

I am not talking about that, I am talking about the drainage investigations.

Senator Taylor-Quinn without interruption, please.

Works have been done on a number of roads in north Glare and many people are quite satisfied, contrary to what Senator Daly said. Many are also considering the option of relocation — some have made applications and others are contemplating that course of action. They know this Government is responding to their problem and that they now have options which they did not have prior to 12 months ago when this Government came into office.

Many people have faced serious and disastrous problems: they lost their homes and their livelihood was seriously impaired but the Government acted responsibly. The Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry immediately set up a scheme to provide fodder and assistance to help farmers feed their livestock which were in places to which they could not gain access. In addition over £750,000 in humanitarian aid was provided, administered by the Red Cross. I have yet to hear anyone who was compensated complaining about the level of compensation received.

The Minister then introduced the arterial drainage scheme which gave the Office of Public Works the power to respond quickly to problems which arose. I am pleased the Minister has chosen the Ogarney river in Sixmilebridge as one of the areas to receive immediate priority action. I compliment him on setting down a schedule for that river and thank him and his officers in the Office of Public Works for the manner in which they have stayed with the schedule. I hope that at about the beginning of March there will be machines in the Ogarney river and that the major problem in the river will be alleviated.

There is a unique problem in the north Clare-Gort-south Galway area, with which the Minister is familiar, because of the topographical nature of its territory. With the limestone topography it is especially difficult to establish the real cause of the flooding and the problems relating to it. It is a unique situation and the response to it must be different. That is why this Bill, which empowers the Minister to relocate people, will have specific significance to that area. In that instance, I do not think it is within the scientific knowledge of the Office of Public Works to establish the real detail of locating the source of the flooding and it will take a considered and detailed study to find it. I am delighted a study is being conducted, supported by the EU, to establish the source of that flooding.

North Glare has been excluded from that scheme.

The Senator did not study his geography when he went to school because if he had done so he would know that north Glare and south Galway share the same natural features. One only has to study one spot to know what the whole area is like. The area has the same limestone topography, the problems of which are common to all. If one establish the problem in one area, one can do it for the whole region.

The area has been excluded.

Senator Daly should speak to the people there because they have a fair idea where the problem is located.

The Senator is misleading the House.

All that is wrong with Senator Daly is that he realises the people on the ground recognise that this Government has responded to this crisis while the previous Government closed its eyes and turned a deaf ear to their plight between 1990 and 1994. It is now in Senator Daly's political interest to stir up discontent, if possible. However, he is finding this difficult because the people realise this Government has acted in good faith and in an effective fashion, possibly too effective for Senator Daly and members of his party. I am delighted the House is dealing with this Bill before Christmas. When all Stages are passed in this House, it will go to the Dáil and early in the new year, the Minister and his Department will be able to effect the type of works they require. Officials have already undertaken some of the preliminary work in advance of the powers provided for them in this Bill. They have already investigated many of the applications for relocation submitted to them. In effect, they will be able to take immediate action when this Bill is passed, and that is extremely commendable.

The Minister said that assistance will apply "to 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". I hope that when the Department examines those applications, everything will be taken into consideration. The overall situation and the compensation already paid should be taken into account and applications made only because money was available should be treated in the manner they deserve.

We must ensure those who are seriously affected and who have suffered the most serious long-term damage will get priority. I know of people in some areas who applied for, and got, compensation and I am delighted for them. However, I also know of people whose property may not have been as seriously damaged by the flooding but were nevertheless affected, who deliberately chose not to submit applications for compensation because they thought it might hinder or reduce the level of compensation their more seriously affected neighbours might secure. All those matters should be considered when the applications are being examined.

The Government has been extremely generous, sympathetic and understanding in its approach to date. I hope detailed examination will be conducted of each case for relocation and priority given to the most serious. Some houses in parts of north Glare and south Galway are unhabitable and these areas must be given priority. It would be unwise to examine an application without having an overview of the type of compensation that has already been given to certain individuals by the Red Cross and I hope the Minister and his Department will take that into account when processing relocation applications.

I am delighted the Arterial Drainage Bill has been passed and at the way officials on the ground have responded. They have done a lot of the preliminary work and they will be ready to start early in the new year. This response involved much work, commitment and operating beyond the normal call of duty for the staff in the Office of Public Works. If that had not been done, we would not now be able to proceed with works on a number of schemes nor would we have been able to help the Red Cross to compensate people.

I join with Senator Daly in complimenting the Red Cross, its chairman and Des Kavanagh, who operated its Gort office, for their work and the efficient and effective way in which they administered the funds available to them. When there was surplus funding, they re-examined some of the more needy cases and provided additional compensation. Everything done was above board and a sympathetic and understanding approach was adopted.

I compliment the Minister for the manner in which he met his commitments. He stuck to his guns and stood by his word. To date, he and his Department have delivered effectively on every commitment they made, which is unusual in political and departmental life. That can only happen when there is a will between a Minister and his officials to be effective and to respond positively. We have evidenced that commitment over the past year and the people affected appreciate it.

I wish the Minister and his staff every success with their good work. I am delighted this Bill which will ensure that no legal difficulties will arise on future work. At a time when the Office of Public Works is under close scrutiny and some of its actions have been contested in the courts, it is wise to bring this Bill forward which will ensure that anything the Office of Public Works does in regard to this relocation package and humanitarian assistance cannot be contested legally.

I wish the Minister every success. I thank him and his officials for the level of co-operation we in County Glare have received from his Department at all levels. We appreciate the response and I want to convey that to the Minister and his Department.

And to include north Glare in the plan.

Obviously Senator Daly is not fully aware of what is going on.

Like Senator Norris, I am sorry that Bills such as this come before the House so late, just before Christmas and that we have so little time to discuss them. No Bill which involves the functions and powers of the Commissioners of Public Works could be considered trivial because these are the people who look after our architectural heritage. I tried to find what changes there have been in the functions and powers of the Commissioners since the 1993 Bill; they do not seem to be great but perhaps I am not a suspicious person.

This is a good day for a Bill dealing with the Office of Public Works to come before the Seanad. Last night's RTÉ television programme, "The Brightest Jewel", featured the magnificent work the Office of Public Works has done on Richard Turner's famous 19th century glasshouse curvilinear range in the Botanic Gardens. The Office of Public Works certainly pushed the boat out there and must be commended.

In recent years an enormous effort has been put into taking care of our heritage and those responsible in the Office of Public Works must be praised for doing so. I sometimes wonder how they manage to set their priorities in deciding what shall be acquired and which projects shall receive most funds. There is so much work to be done that it must be exceedingly difficult. Most of the work the Office of Public Works has undertaken over the last few years has been of an exceptionally high standard. They have shown great courage in taking over some very important properties. So often it is only the Office of Public Works's faults that we point out, not their great successes.

While I approve of repainting the gate of Leinster House, I was more than anxious about the stonework. I do not know if it is because of the rain or if the stone has mellowed, but I cannot now find the bits that irritated me during the summer. Obviously the Office of Public Works officials were right when they said the whole facade would blend in eventually.

The Office of Public Works has done splendid work in places like Doneraile Court, Limerick Courthouse and Emo Court which was taken over recently. I hope the refurbishment of courthouses around the country will be carefully supervised by the Office of Public Works. The Minister for Justice has spent a considerable amount of money to improve facilities for those who work in the courts and those who have to appear before them.

The Office of Public Works, however, has an extraordinarily difficult task trying to maintain the historical importance of buildings as well as incorporating modern facilities in them. I dread to think how they will manage with Long-ford courthouse, which is a dilapidated Queen Anne period building. It will have to be restored because it is very important; such buildings present a great challenge to the Office of Public Works.

Sometimes it is hard to know what the Office of Public Works is going to do until the work is half way through. While I realise that the Office of Public Works's architects have great expertise and many have a great knowledge of history, the Office of Public Works has not yet employed an architectural historian. I know advice can be bought in but with such a lot of work to do it might be as well to recruit an architectural historian. It is a pity this did not happen last week before the clamp down on recruiting new members to the Civil Service, but what harm? Perhaps the Minister could apply for just one to give advice.

Does the Office of Public Works ever discuss its plans with the architectural committee of the new Heritage Council? If that were done the Office of Public Works could avoid later criticism. They could at least say they tried to make public what they were doing so that people could comment on projects before they got under way.

I visit Kilmainham and Dublin Castle quite a lot at the moment between the various forums. Kilmainham was looked at from an historical perspective initially and a tremendous job was done there. The Office of Public Works had a really difficult job in Dublin Castle where great efforts were made to install a modern conference centre. I have read Dr. Edward McParland's report on the work done in Dublin Castle which appeared in the Irish Architect of May/June 1989. I find it difficult to follow why the additional gate was put in because I have never seen it open. There is a bridge into the upper courtyard which I was told was put there for access by fire engines. However, I sincerely hope that if a fire breaks out, people in Dublin Castle will not depend on a fire engine entering at that point because it would be difficult to turn in the narrow street at that entrance. If work on the Ship Street entrance had started earlier it might not have been necessary to place another entrance there, although it may have been done for a very good reason.

Within the last few weeks splendid work has been done on laying cobblestones in the upper courtyard. I am sure it was not done just because of President Clinton's visit since it had been planned long in advance of that. All these efforts have left us with an area of well restored buildings in that part of Dublin.

In general, Dr. McParland's criticisms concern constraints caused by trying to fit modern conference equipment into an old building while at the same time retaining its character. Some of his criticisms of building work around arches and chipped stonework should be examined. It is essential that this work should be of the highest standard.

Work is also continuing on Collins Barracks, although we know very little about what is happening to this important building. The National Museum will be housed there and will be visited by an enormous number of Irish people and tourists. Whatever is done there must be top class. I realise there are financial constraints but other things should be looked at. I may be wrong but coming along the quays the other day I had a horrible suspicion that I could see lift shafts coming out of the top of Collins Barracks. This could end up being as great an irritation to me and to others as the lift shaft at the top of Dublin Corporation's offices behind Christchurch Cathedral.

If one goes down from the Adelaide Hospital, where I work, towards Christ-church, one sees the bunker like building with a pillbox sticking out of it. The bunker like building annoyed many people but I am sure that the architect, Sam Stephenson, felt it was the most appropriate type of building to put there at the time. Having this water tower or pillbox on top of it is extremely irritating however. I would not like to go along the quays and see lift shafts at the top of Collins Barracks.

People should be careful with the appearance of these buildings, not just close up but also from a distance. The more people can see building plans in advance of work commencing, the less trouble Office of Public Works architects will have later. They will be able to say that people had time to look at the plans when they were sent to the Heritage Council's architectural committee and if they did not object at that time, that is not the Office of Public Works's problem.

I also wish to speak about the Office of Public Works's work on ancient monuments. This is an enormous area because we are well endowed with ancient monuments. Sometimes I wonder how the Department decides how to allocate resources. I have seen some areas where a great deal of money was spent. A considerable amount of excavation work was done on a cemetery in Kells, County Kilkenny, approximately ten years ago but now the place is overgrown with weeds. I am sure there are good reasons this happened because not every site can be maintained. Perhaps it was felt that all that could be gained from an archaeological point of view had been achieved and it was decided to leave it.

I sometimes wonder if European funds direct us; we spend money on large projects, which are important, but we should be careful that smaller projects are not forgotten and that we look at where our resources are going. The Office of Public Works has built many visitors' centres, some of which were criticised. Not a great deal of money is spent on archaeological or historical research. Education is important, but is the Office of Public Works depending on the Department of Education or on local literary and historical bodies in this regard?

It must be an enormous task to decide which monuments should be taken into State care. I do not know who makes these policy decisions. However, once buildings are taken into State care, there is an onus on us to see they are maintained because they are there not only for us to enjoy, but for posterity. I have a criticism as regards decisions on whether to conserve or to restore ancient monuments. Who makes these decisions? The level of maintenance of a restored building is considerably higher than that of a conserved building. A roof was put on Portumna Castle; everyone knows that the cost of maintaining a building once there is a roof on it — even if it is only a semi-detached house — is considerable. Perhaps the castle ruin should have been left. I do not believe we need to restore every ruined castle. The restoration of Barryscourt is going ahead but it was not as much a ruin as some of the tower house type buildings which have been restored.

We must accept that over the years considerable alterations have been made to these buildings and it is not essential to restore them to their original state. Money is finite and we must be careful that vast amounts are not spent on high profile projects when others, less visible, could be kept going with just routine conservation work.

If we decide to carry out restoration work great care is needed. I am not an expert in this field but criticisms have been made about work on Ardfert Cathedral. It has a 12th century facade with delicate Romanesque carvings, yet the sandstone has been repaired with white mortar. I gather this is undesirable and that the white mortar will not weather in the same way as the stone on the facade of Leinster House. Normally, the mortar is adjusted to blend in with the stone. I visited cathedrals abroad and I noticed that if mortar is missing, it is filled in with lead rather than white mortar. Our cathedrals are as good as those on the continent and we should treat them equally. There is no architectural historian in the Office of Public Works and it is important that we get expert advice when undertaking such important work, although that is not to say that the office has been careless.

It is nice to commend work done by the Office of Public Works because every mistake it makes is commented on. The only visitors' centres we heard about were those which people did not like rather than the majority which blended into the background. Castle-town House was handed over to the State but I gather that the proceedings for its acquisition have not taken place. We must be careful about this because the maintenance of such a building might fall between the previous and present owners. If we decide to acquire a building, we must ensure that the bureaucracy is kept to the minimum so that maintenance may continue.

It is good that the Office of Public Works is taking an interest in gardens. The work being done on the garden in the Royal Hospital, Kilmainham, is very fine and the fountain is working. There was hardly a fountain in this country up to 20 years ago. They are important to streetscapes, particularly if we continue to have wonderful summers, and to gracious gardens which are being restored. The work which has been done on the little garden at the back of Dublin Castle looks very well. The painting on the back of Dublin Castle has been criticised. However, if people do not like the colour of the paint because it does not fade after a certain length of time, it can easily be rectified.

However, I am troubled by more permanent things, such as unsympathetic restoration or the demolition of a building without sufficient thought and care, perhaps because not enough money was available. Such buildings should be made safe so that when more money is available at some future date work could be done on them. Once we knock something down or dig something up, no more work can be done.

It would be unkind if I did not refer to flooding which is a serious part of this Bill. There was very serious flooding in certain areas. I do not envy the Office of Public Works having to find out what caused it. Although there was a considerable amount of rain, I am sure those turloughs filled and emptied before after similar amounts of rain. Senator Daly and Senator Taylor-Quinn spoke about a study on the hydrology of the area. A serious question has arisen as to whether underground drains have been blocked by plastic used for silage and hay in the past couple of years. If this is the case, this matter should be urgently addressed because it involves farm management.

As a member of the Irish Red Cross, I was glad to hear that the distribution of aid to those seriously affected by the flooding was successful. Like Senator Daly and Senator Taylor-Quinn, I would like to praise those involved in this hands on effort. While money is given to the Red Cross, people must go out and assess the situation. It is nice that a voluntary organised should be highly praised.

I am from one of the areas worst affected by the flooding in late 1994 and early 1995. I thank the Minister, Deputy Jim Higgins and former Minister of State, Deputy Hogan, for the speedy way they responded to the serious flooding in Carlow in late 1994 and early 1995 when the River Barrow overflowed. They came to Carlow, saw the problem at first hand and promised assistance. People often promise assistance but do not deliver. While they might not have delivered, the present Minister has and I thank him for that.

I congratulate the Irish Red Cross for the speedy and efficient way they dealt with the applications for humanitarian aid. In Carlow, 37 applicants received a total of £139,000. While it went some way towards compensating them for the damage, I can tell the Minister that the people of Carlow are not looking for compensation. They are looking to the long term and want works carried out to put an end to the flooding. I support Senator Taylor-Quinn's remarks about the Red Cross. I have not had a single complaint from the public about the way they were treated when they applied for humanitarian aid.

We often criticise the Office of Public Works and other public bodies but most of them have done a wonderful job. During the year the Office of Public Works carried out much needed repairs and other works on the canal, which is part of the Barrow system, at Webster's Lock, Lanigan's Lock and Milford Lock; they repaired the sluice gates at Milford. The standard and quality of the stonework at Milford Lock adds to the general appearance of the area and I was delighted that was done during the past year.

While we in Carlow are anxious that work should start as soon as possible, the last thing we want is a transference of a problem further down river to Leighlinbridge, Bagnelstown or Borris. In that respect we were glad consultants were appointed to examine the situation and report back and that was done without delay. I am delighted to hear the report is now ready.

He also said that there will have to be an environmental impact study and that will take some time to complete. I understand the anxiety felt by the commissioners. After recent happenings in other places, they do not want to get into trouble but I do not want to see any unnecessary delays. In light of the urgency of the situation, I ask the Minister to ensure that the cost analysis study takes place at the same time as the environmental impact study.

While much progress has been made, the people of Carlow are getting anxious. There is talk and there are reports in local newspapers about a postponement of work which might not now be done for generations. It is all talk. I was delighted to hear the Minister's speech today and I will have it circulated in Carlow as soon as possible. He said that a start has been made on the preparation of proposals for schemes in a number of areas. He went on to say:

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.

If the Minister was prepared to substitute "will" for "are expected to" I would be very happy.

I am delighted to support the Bill and I hope the Minister of State will pursue this matter with the same urgency as his predecessors, Deputies Hogan and Higgins.

Over the last three or four weeks, I have again been raising the matter of flooding and asking the Leader of the House for the Government's response to the serious flooding problems experienced throughout 1995. I must have misunderstood him because I thought we would have some announcement for our local authorities and a response to the flooding problem this week. Instead we are dealing with an amendment to legislation which in its passage through the House last summer this side of the House said was defective.

This is the third occasion on which we have attempted to get this right. If we are to go by the Minister's statement, we will have a fourth attempt. He said the parliamentary draftsman's office still has some matters to clarify and he will introduce many amendments on Committee Stage. Last March, following the worst flooding ever, Senator Daly introduced a Bill to address the flooding problems and amend the Arterial Drainage Act, 1945. On 1 March 1995 the Minister said:

The proposed provisions are unnecessary since there are already adequate provisions and mechanisms in existence for paying compensation where that is appropriate.

In May 1995, when the Minister introduced his own Bill, my party proposed an amendment to deal with compensation. At that time the Minister and the Independents voted down the amendment. We are back today with an amendment to that Act. This is the amendment which should have been accepted by the Minister in May. We are attempting to redress a problem which was pointed out at that time. However, we will co-operate and do the best we can to get this legislation through the House in order to deal with the matters involved.

The flooding crisis started about this time last year and continued right into the spring. There were many debates and the issue was raised here on many occasions during that period. I am disappointed that there has been no response to deal with the main issue that came up during those debates, that is, the houses, villages and farms which were cut off during the flooding. Not one pound of Government money has been allocated to Roscommon County Council to put one shovel of gravel or stone on any road to raise it.

Roscommon County Council is at a serious financial loss having conducted major surveys and sent the reports to the Department of the Environment and the Government seeking funds. We would have been far better off if we had spent the money trying to raise a few of the roads. The Government has not responded and no money has come to Roscommon County Council to raise any road in 1995. It was specifically provided that an allocation of money which came late in the year was to be used on stretches of road that had not been flooded. The people in the valley of the Suck and the Shannon have had no response from this Government. Those areas have always flooded to some extent through the years; they were cut off from anything from three to six weeks in many cases in spring of this year. Farms were reduced from 30 acres to three or four acres. In one area a 100 acre farm was reduced to between 70 and 80 acres. I put this on the record last spring. There has been no response to those situations. The Minister visited an area called Bushfield earlier in the year but that area has received no money and has not been included in the list of schemes the Minister is talking about.

Perhaps there is something wrong with Roscommon. Perhaps our problem is that no Minister comes from the constituency. County Roscommon is the poor relation when the Government is addressing the flooding problems. The people of Roscommon are up in arms. When they read the Official Report they will be taken aback that we are now dealing with a technical matter which was pointed out to the then Minister in March and again in May of 1995. Here we are, a few days before Christmas, trying to address an issue that should have been dealt with at that time.

The area from Shannonbridge through the Clonown area, into the Taughmaconnell, Curraghboy, Dysart, Castleplunket and Castlerea areas was flooded right through the spring. Whole villages and groups of villages were cut off. Now, some 12 months later a further Bill is being proposed. We do not, however, have any money. No area of County Roscommon is included in any scheme for drainage purposes nor have we any money to address any flooded road in the county in 1995. Those are the hard facts the people in my area want addressed. We want to see this Bill passed; obviously we want to see it brought to a conclusion, but the people in my county and adjoining counties are up in arms because no money has been provided to deal with the roads which were badly flooded in the spring of this year and the people suffered severe hardship.

When cases were being made here by Senator Daly, Senator Fahey and myself, the difficult circumstances under which people in rural areas were living were not appreciated. I could speak for a long time on this matter, but my time is nearly up. I ask the Minister if areas of County Roscommon will be included under the amended Act. Will areas be included for investigation and drainage? I mention in particular the areas of Bushfield-Brackloon and Castlerea-Castleplunket. I mention also the areas of Curraghboy, Dysart, and Taughmaconnell where very severe flooding has occurred and villages have been cut off. Where lack of maintenance causes flooding will maintenance be carried out in those areas of the Shannon and the Suck under the jurisdiction of the Office of Public Works?

The other issue on which I would like some response from the Minister is whether we are going to get money to enable us to deal with roads that have been flooded. Will money be provided by the Government to raise those roads? The Minister stated that £4 million was provided for county roads. None of it came to my county. I would like to know where it went and whether County Roscommon will get any funding in 1995.

There has been flooding for many years. This is a technical Bill. In 1973, when I was a relatively young fellow, I remember going to an after Mass meeting in Annaghduff in County Leitrim. My father was speaking there; he was a candidate in that election as was the late Brian Lenihan. They had a good debate outside the church. Annaghduff church is on a hill overlooking the Shannon. Brian Lenihan said that day that if Fianna Fáil were returned to Government, the Shannon would be drained within the next couple of years.

I have listened to Senator Finneran and I know the hardships and difficulties in parts of South Roscommon because of the Shannon basin and the difficulties there caused by flooding each year. Unfortunately, no money has been provided since 1973 for works which need to be carried out. This may be the start, and rather than being critical of the Government we should accept that funds are limited and that a genuine effort has been made to provide help for people in very great need.

We all remember last year when people had to move out of their homes because of flooding; the fact that the Government has made a financial commitment to try to alleviate those problems is to be welcomed. Those problems will not be solved overnight but this is a start. There are a number of difficulties to be tackled and when you take into consideration that people's livelihood and homes are in jeopardy because of flooding, the whole thing must be prioritised. The amount of financial assistance it would take to solve the flooding problem in the country is immense. No Government, regardless of what political party is in power, would be able to provide the finances to do this work even over a number of years. When Senator Daly was Minister of State with responsibility for the Office of Public Works he visited County Leitrim where we had flooding problems and he was up to his oxters in water. The water is still there, unfortunately.

This Government has made a start and a start is all we can thank them for. Funding for flooding should be ongoing. We prioritise areas where people's livelihood and houses are at risk due to flooding. I can understand why certain areas have been prioritised in the Bill. If we in County Leitrim knew what to do with water we might be one of the wealthiest counties rather than one of the poorest.

You should bottle it.

We bottled some of it but Ballygowan got there before us. The Ballinamore-Ballyconnell Canal was a tremendous development. Some £35 million was spent to make the Shannon and Erne navigable through the Ballinamore-Ballyconnell Canal, but due to the extension of the canal, a number of farmers are unable to farm for nine or ten months of the year. When the Shannon navigation legislation was introduced, the Ballinamore-Ballyconnell drainage committee was abolished and since then nobody has taken responsibility for drainage works. I do not know if this work comes under the auspices of the Office of Public Works or the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry; I assume it is the responsibility of the Office of Public Works and a statutory body must be established to tackle these difficulties.

Last week, I received a deputation of seven farmers who met the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry, Deputy Yates, when he visited County Leitrim. They are concerned that they cannot gain access to their lands for nine to ten months of the year. They are losing perhaps 70 to 80 per cent of their farming land due to flooding. What criteria are laid down for their inclusion under this scheme? I am not asking that this happen immediately, but as soon as possible. The situation is similar along the banks of the Shannon and other large rivers. There is a need for a policy on flooding. The Minister might state his Department's view on this matter.

My main reason for contributing to the debate is to highlight the situation in my own county. If a plan of action is initiated over a number of years, the difficulties experienced by many of the worst affected areas may be alleviated.

I welcome the Minister to the House. It is the first opportunity I have had to do so. I congratulate him on the introduction of the legislation.

This is the third Bill on arterial drainage to come before the House in the past year. If this Bill does not alleviate the situation, we will all drown. The first Bill was introduced by Senator Daly and section 5 contained provisions similar to those in the Bill before the House today. I welcome the introduction of such measures. During the debate on Senator Daly's Bill, Senator Quinn asked:

What should the House do in the light of the Government's unwillingness to adopt this Bill? Should we shelve the Bill and wait for the Government's Bill or should we pass the Bill in defiance of the Government knowing that the victory would be pretty empty in terms of getting something done about the problem?

The Senator went on to state:

It comes down to speed. I went to the Minister today and put it to him how important I felt this matter was. He has told me the heads of the Bill went to the Cabinet yesterday, and were approved, and to the Parliamentary Draftsman today.

Senator Quinn also stated that the Minister gave a commitment that the Bill would be introduced before 31 May. The Bill was actually introduced in June and later passed. The Arterial Drainage (Amendment) Act, 1995, contains deficiencies which necessitate the introduction of the Commissioners of Public of Works (Functions and Powers) Bill. Senator Daly's Bill made provisions which are included in the present legislation.

Any debate in this House tends to become parochial. The Minister stated that:

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.

He referred to Carlow and stated that the current status of Cappamore and Newport, County Tipperary, is similar to that of Carlow. Cappamore and Newport are situated in the Mulcair catchment area. I received a communication from the Mulcair Drainage Society Limited in October which states:

Our Committee is extremely annoyed at the patchwork that is being done on the Mulcair and what we hear is being planned as flood relief for the area — building banks and raising roads. We hear that this was done in Galway and worsened the flooding for others so much so that the real job had to be done in the end.

There is only one way to do the Mulcair and that is to start at the mouth of the river and work up lowering the water table as one goes. The money would be well spent and the job would last forever.

We have located the ideal machine to do this work and it could be done quickly and economically.

We have calculated the saving on Dairying using Co-ops, Moorepark estimates and statistics to help in the calculation and found it to be an annual saving of £4,118,398.

I have now fully calculated the stores, beef and other cattle losses based on figures of increased costs due to flooding by Teagasc grange. The total saving in this sector amounts to £1,598,376.

This makes a total of £5,716,774 per year SAVING if the Mulcair Flood Relief Scheme were to go ahead and give us farmers a water outlet.

This is only the monetary saving but we must add the following:

1. The human misery suffered by the people of the area due to near drownings, flooded houses, roads and business premises and maybe worse the terror and threat of a bank burst.

2. Acceleration of the flight from the land.

3. Prevention of small industry development so essential to rural development.

4. The reduction of house valuation.

5. CIE can't carry out their safety plans for the area due to the threat of Mulcair floods. This is surely a human right.

6. The increase in human health problems due to damp conditions.

A saving of over £5.7 million per year makes the Mulcair Flood Relief Scheme extremely viable from a monetary, rural development and human health and suffering point of view. We ask you to help us to get the job done economically and efficiently and stop the patchwork which will only make matters worse in the long term and be a total waste of money.

What is against doing the Flood Relief Scheme? If it was done straight after the Maigue as promised it would have cost less, rejuvenated the rural area and eliminated the intolerable suffering that is being experienced.

What are the Minister's plans for the Mulcair and other areas under the flood relief programme? The purpose of the Bill is to introduce the flood relief programme and provide compensation. The situation in the catchment area of the Mulcair — east Limerick and west Tipperary — is intolerable. The area is neglected and I appeal to the Minister to ensure that it will be one of his priorities under the flood relief programme.

I will not obstruct or delay the passage of the Bill. Most of the issues under discussion today formed part of the debate on the Arterial Drainage (Amendment) Act, 1995, earlier in the year.

The Bill before the House does not confer any extra powers to the commissioners, it merely lists their functions. The Arterial Drainage (Amendment) Act, 1995, was initiated in this House by the Minister of State's predecessor, Deputy Jim Higgins. Many Members complimented Senator Daly on the work he did in relation to that Act and his own earlier arterial drainage Bill. During the debate on Senator Daly's Bill, Deputy Higgins gave a commitment that he would initiate the Arterial Drainage (Amendment) Bill, 1995, in this House. The Bill was duly initiated in this House in June of this year. The work in relation to arterial drainage has been completed. We are concerned now with listing the functions of the commissioners. The Minister of State referred to obstructions that have arisen in relation to the humanitarian aid scheme for rehousing families. We are discussing the functions of the commissioners in this regard.

Senator Finneran was right when he said that the issue which is central to the debate was that these areas have flooded down the years. All the areas we are speaking about have flooded year after year. If the weather had not been so good this year I have no doubt we would be back here again making the same speeches.

I must compliment this Government, the Minister of State's predecessor, Minister of State, Deputy Jim Higgins, and Minister of State, Deputy Coveney, because this is the first Government to tackle this problem and to give a commitment to put structures and finances in place to alleviate the problems of flooding.

We are here to legislate for the functions which are being given to the Commissioners of Public Works. I am delighted we are making these provisions because the quicker we put this Bill into law, the sooner the work will be carried out and the people in need of aid will receive it.

We have all spoken previously on this matter. I too could highlight areas in County Mayo which have been adversely affected by flooding but this is a start, and we must start somewhere. This Government is committed to this issue and I am delighted with that.

I support the legislation before us. However, it is unsatisfactory to have to deal with Bills which come before us late in a session. If Bills do not get adequate consideration — and I believe we will not give this Bill a great deal of consideration, even though I accept the need for it and it is brief — it can lead to errors and, frequently, we find ourselves returning later to rectify those errors. The Minister's reference to the amendments he will introduce on Committee Stage would support that view.

I often wonder why it can take so long for a Bill to come before the House. Bills are subject to careful scrutiny but in spite of that, when they come before us we find they need to be amended. It is unsatisfactory that we do not have the amendments before us as we debate Second Stage because it erodes our ability to scrutinise the Bill in the way that is expected of us as legislators. There are many of precedents to support the view that legislation has been amended here for the better. Having said that, I accept the need for the Bill. It should go through quickly and it would not be my intention to obstruct it.

Senator Townsend referred to the River Barrow. I note he intended to circulated his speech in Carlow and I assume it will be of major benefit to the people of Carlow.

What about Kilkenny?

Perhaps he will flood his speech down the River Barrow that it may be collected at points along the river.

We must recognise and accept that some of these natural disasters occur and preventing them is outside the Government's scope. For example, the Barrow by its nature is a river which has a small fall from its source to the sea which, irrespective of how well it is maintained, will lead to flooding. Having said that when an incident occurs there is a responsibility on the local authority and the State to do everything they can to alleviate hardship. Any Government of whatever complexion would take those duties seriously.

The need for an environmental impact study was raised. I believe it is important that such a study be undertaken because we are dealing with a sensitive and unique habitat along a river. There have been far too many instances in the past where we have had the canalisation — if I may use the word — of midland rivers, in particular, where spoil was heaped on the banks and the habitat was destroyed. I do not see anything inconsistent in the need to protect the habitat with the need to prevent flooding; the two things can be done hand in hand. Fortunately, we are coming to a point where the Office of Public Works takes those responsibilities seriously and is sensitive to the habitat, flora and the potential for damage where things are done without a proper study and due consideration. I support the need for an environmental impact study; it does not have to delay works unnecessarily. Earlier legislation empowered the Minister to take the necessary action if it is required urgently.

Something which strikes me as fundamentally contradictory is that, on the one hand, we have put a lot of emphasis on the tourism potential of our waterways — the River Barrow would be a classic example; it is where not only an angling resource but it is also a boating resource — and, on the other, in some circumstances we have a disregard for that quality which confers the tourism benefit. That is something about which we must be careful.

There are stretches of the River Barrow where there is still spoil heaped high. That is wrong. It is wrong that the State enters lands, undertakes certain works and does not restore the land. That is something which, hopefully, has been consigned to the past and we will now take a more sensitive approach.

The difficulty is that Bills of this nature do not solve the hardship, and there has been significant hardship in certain cases. I am familiar with the circumstances in Gort. I know the people who were protesting — if I may use that word. The group who came together were dissatisfied with what took place at that time and subsequently. As I recall from the correspondence I saw, the Irish Red Cross Society was the only agency to which that group was complimentary; they were pretty critical of all and sundry. It reminds me of the picture of the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry, Deputy Yates, afloat on the flood-waters of Gort like Captain Bligh on the bridge of the Bounty. That looks well on television but it does not do anything for the people affected by flooding.

Provision was made in the budget for assistance to farmers and this was represented as a global solution to the problem but when you read the words carefully you see it was assistance for loss of livestock and loss of fodder. That is a much more restricted form of assistance than had been represented when it was suggested that people who had suffered other types of loss would be looked after. Then there is the issue of people who were displaced from their homes. As far as I can recall from listening to the debate, there were some disparaging remarks made about people who had been displaced from their homes as if, in some sense, they were agents of their own folly. That is not the case. I do not think the Minister, to be fair to him, would suggest that. He realises that people who have been thrown out of their homes because of the flooding need assistance and support, and that is what is being done.

I was rather amused by Senator Henry's reference to the thing she saw sticking out of the roof of Collins Barracks. I wondered if Ireland had decided to introduce its own nuclear deterrent or if it was a launching pad for an Irish satellite. Perhaps it was put up for Christmas. In the National Heritage Council legislation and other legislation we have legislated for what must be done to protect our buildings and our environment.

A Bill which deals with wildlife is also due to be introduced and I look forward to that. However, I do not intend to stray into those areas now.

I commend the Minister. The Bill before us is beneficial but it might have benefited from closer and longer scrutiny if Committee and other Stages were being dealt with less hastily.

I welcome the Minister to the House. I also welcome the fact that progress is being made in a number of areas throughout the country which have had serious problems with flooding. Senator Reynolds referred to the practice of politicians during elections promising to drain the Shannon. I recall being outside a church in east Galway during a by-election in 1982 and hearing many promises being made about the drainage that would be carried out. To date, as far as I am aware, none of that drainage has been done and none of the promises kept. It was a promise that was always used during elections when there were serious problems with flooding.

I welcome the fact that the Minister's predecessor, Deputy Higgins, included Duleek among the areas in which preliminary design work was to take place. This work has been completed. When will the actual work commence? On seven occasions in a period of a few years a number of houses in one housing scheme in Duleek were flooded. Sometimes help was available but at other times there was no help. I welcome the fact that humanitarian assistance is now available; progress has been made in this regard. It is not much consolation at the end of the day but no Government can legislate for such acts of God. However, it is only right and proper that the Government should react to problems that arise and this Government has shown over the past 12 months that it is prepared to deal with certain areas of the country where there are ongoing problems. It has brought forward proposed plans and designs and is willing to do something about them.

I know a little about the problem in Duleek. It is only right to say that the houses should never have been built in that location. Having said that, it will not cost a small fortune to alleviate the problem. I hope progress can be made forthwith on the next stages of the work to be carried out and that people will not have to ring me and the other local representatives, as they have done in recent days when it appeared that following a great deal of rain their houses would be flooded again. At least progress is being made; we are a great deal further on now than we were 12 months ago. After all the talk about problems in certain areas and the promises that were made by certain politicians, something is being done. In passing this legislation it is nice to think that in the areas where people had problems with flooding work can and will commence to alleviate those problems.

Having seen the work on the eight schemes outlined by the Minister, people will be thankful that this legislation was passed and that movement will be possible on the part of the Office of Public Works. We could talk about the Office of Public Works forever and a day. I recall when work started on the draining of the Boyne and the Blackwater. Many comments have been made about how the Office of Public Works left lands in a spoilt state; it must be admitted that the way that body carried out its work years ago left a lot to be desired. There were unsightly scenes along rivers and other areas where the Office of Public Works carried out work. However, much good work was also done and those who were involved in that good work endeavoured to leave the landscape as they found it. That is to be welcomed.

I welcome the Bill and look forward to seeing further progress in this area.

I join other speakers in welcoming the Bill. It is a short Bill but it grants the Commissioners of Public Works the necessary powers to discharge functions which many people thought they already had. This Bill will put those powers on a statutory basis.

The arterial drainage legislation which was passed by the Oireachtas this year was very important. It had all party support. Senator Daly played an important role in putting that legislation on the Statute Book through the introduction of his Private Members' Bill. His party and all other parties supported that Bill. That was welcome. Until then the powers of the Commissioners of Public Works were confined to works in large catchment areas. This Bill will give that body the power to carry out works in smaller areas.

Counties Offaly, Tipperary, Carlow, Clare, Limerick, Cork, Kerry, Laois, Roscommon, Wicklow and Wexford suffered considerable flooding earlier this year. County Offaly suffers continuous flooding. The Minister of State visited the county and became aware of just how serious the flooding was in that area. I saw at first hand the losses people suffered. Farmers lost a considerable amount of fodder and many lost stock. Sheep and other animals drowned. I pay tribute to the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry, Deputy Yates, because he ensured that farmers in County Offaly who suffered stock losses were compensated within a relatively short time. I wish to put on record my thanks to the Minister for being so attentive to the compensation issue. Similarly, those who lost fodder were compensated.

In a scheme administered through the St. Vincent de Paul, people who had lost furniture and on whose behalf I made representations or who had made approaches themselves were also compensated. It was good that people who suffered losses were compensated and that the schemes were successful. When people's houses are flooded and their furniture and household goods are seriously damaged, it essential that they receive some sort of State payment. Insurance policies do not compensate people in full because of average clauses and other factors. People suffer severe financial losses and are not able to restore their homes to the condition they were in prior to flooding. It is important to compensate people so that their lives are not destroyed by flooding.

The Minister spoke about the £2 million which was made available under the agricultural compensation scheme and I was pleased that this was paid. The Minister spoke about farmyard relocation. This was advertised in The Farmer's Journal and in a national daily newspaper. When I saw the ad I contacted the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry and I gave details of the scheme to my local papers. People could obtain application forms for compensation for farmyard relocation from the Department. The closing date for receipt of applications was 8 December. People were given too little notice and they did not have much time to prepare their cases and submit application forms. I ask the Minister of State to use his good offices with the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry to see if the closing date can be extended.

Because of the Shannon, canals, bogs and rivers, a number of farms in County Offaly suffer considerable flooding on a regular basis. I ask the Minister to ensure that moneys available under the farmyard relocation scheme are spread evenly throughout the country. A number of people in the county have applied for these grants and I ask the Minister to ensure that some money is paid to them.

We have experienced the worst flooding in years. Following floods in Britain last winter there has been a considerable drought. Around September and October last, because of the fine summer, we also had a water shortage. The Minister's Department and the Department of the Environment are charged with powers and functions with regard to rivers and drainage schemes. Drainage schemes can upset water levels.

I forecast that over the next few years Britain will experience serious drought and water shortages. While there can be flooding in Ireland, there can also be water shortages. I ask the Department to investigate, perhaps with another Department, whether there is a probability of water shortages in future. I do not know if the Commissioners of Public Works have power to deal with this matter under this Bill or existing statutes. When flooding occurs the main concern is to clear water as quickly as possible but no thought is given to the fact that water levels are dropping. Water shortages will be a serious problem in a number of years because people are using far more water than heretofore. This point is important and will be raised again. I thank the Minister for pushing through this Bill and the Arterial Drainage (Amendment) Bill, 1995.

I welcome the Minister and the Bill, which responds to an urgent need by granting the necessary powers to the Commissioners of Public Works to give effect to a scheme to offer humanitarian assistance to a small number of people whose houses have been damaged beyond reasonable repair. The powers of the Commissioners have been clarified. The Arterial Drainage (Amendment) Bill, 1995, will give greater powers to the Office of Public Works and an input to local authorities. We are all aware of the flash floods which can occur in places like Mallow and Fermoy.

I thank Senators for their contributions. During Christmas most places think of closing down but this was not evident in the Seanad this afternoon.

We are martyrs to work.

This is the coldest room in the building.

That is the Minister's responsibility.

Has Senator Magner some responsibility in this area?

No, only the Minister.

I cannot accept all of Senator Daly's criticism. The Government responded in a comprehensive way to an unprecedented flooding problem. While I would rather do everything faster, there are constraints on us. Senator Daly asked about the £4 million allocated for improvements in county roads. I do not have with me a breakdown of this expenditure and I will obtain it from the Department of the Environment. The £2 million allocation for agricultural relief has been largely spent although a portion of it which was not spent is being used for the farmyard relocation scheme which is costing £700,000.

Senator Daly referred to the parts of the Bill dealing with the home relocation scheme. We expect in almost all cases we, rather than the local authority, will provide people with financial assistance to relocate. I will give the Senator some details of that assistance. Before doing so, however, I want to clarify that where a local authority provides a house under this scheme, it will do so as the agents of the Office of Public Works and not as a housing authority under the Housing Acts. This means that any costs incurred by a local authority will be reimbursed in full by the Commissioners of Public Works. However, I do not expect many applicants to avail of this option.

Senators Daly and Finneran mentioned that the Bill introduced by Senator Daly last March to amend the Arterial Drainage Act, the amendments he proposed and the subsequent Government Bill contained provisions for the assessment and payment of compensation to victims of flooding. They suggested that if we had accepted the proposals at the time, we would not have been required to introduce this emergency legislation. I acknowledge the Senator's foresight in proposing the Bill, but the powers provided for the Commissioners of Public Works in this Bill relate not to compensation but to the provision of humanitarian aid. There is a fundamental difference between the two. Compensation implies the existence of a legal entitlement, while humanitarian assistance has no such connotations.

Some of the legal problems we encountered with the proposed humanitarian relief scheme related to the detail of the scheme. We were not in a position to get legal advice about it until we had completed our deliberations. Even if we had accepted Senator Daly's proposals at that time, there is no guarantee they would have eliminated the necessity to come before the House again.

Senator Daly also suggested we should introduce an amendment to provide for an appeals procedure for people who are dissatisfied with the commissioners' proposals for humanitarian aid. While an appeals procedure would be normal when dealing with compensation, it is not appropriate in the operation of the humanitarian assistance scheme. I emphasise that the Office of Public Works will not acquire any property compulsorily. We have devised a fair and reasonable assistance scheme. We have consulted exhaustively with public representatives and with the two groups active in the south Galway and north Clare areas. We have taken on board their points, although we do not agree with everything they said. We have amended the scheme on a number of occasions following consultations. We will shortly offer this assistance to qualifying applicants who will decide whether to avail of it; there will be no compulsion on anyone to do so. I do not agree there is a need for an appeals mechanism as it would greatly delay the process.

As regards the details of the scheme, a home owner who qualifies for a four bedroom house and must buy a site will receive a total of just under £65,000. We did some research on appropriate house values and were driven by the view that people made homeless should be treated equally before the law regardless of the reason they are homeless. We looked carefully at the cost of local authority houses in the south Galway and north Clare areas. We erred on the side of generosity when we examined the average house in rural and urban parts of County Galway and nationally; we considered houses at the higher scale. The house was £42,250 and the site was £15,000, a total of £57,250. We added a full 10 per cent to cover all fees and this brought the total to £62,975. We then added £2,000 for demolition and site clearance which brought the total to £64,975.

As regards demolition, if we were to compensate people by providing them with a sum of money to erect another home and leave the existing house, and, there was subsequent flooding, we would look extremely foolish if there was another claim for compensation. The only solution which made any sense was to offer people a package, including the cost of demolishing the house. The original scheme allowed us to take possession, but we ran into difficulties about who would own the site after the demolition. This would have meant transferring property back and forth which would have wasted time and money. The Commissioners of Public Works will not be involved in the ownership of the site or in the demolition. They will contribute £2,000 towards the demolition. Salvaging materials was also mentioned. People will not have a problem in this regard because they will be able to use those materials in their new houses.

The scheme outlined is for four bedroom houses. There are variations of this scheme for three bedroom houses and also for people who already have a site. The site allowance is less for those who do not have to purchase a site.

As regards the distribution of funds for humanitarian aid — the EU contribution of £390,000 and the State's contribution of £750,000 — County Clare received £160,500, which was the second largest amount. County Galway received the largest amount of £537,000 and County Carlow received the third largest amount of £139,250.

What is the total amount?

The total is £1,126,938 million.

Senator Taylor-Quinn raised a number of issues, including the fact that we should not waste time. On the assumption that this legislation will be passed in the Seanad tomorrow, we then must wait to put it through the Dáil. The Government Chief Whip, Deputy Jim Higgins, has guaranteed his full co-operation in dealing with it as quickly as possible once the Dáil resumes. In the meantime, we will write to each applicant, set out the details of the scheme and get their responses so that we can get the process in train. I hope the legislation is passed early in February so that we can start to pay out the cheques.

Will that happen by the end of February?

That is my intention.

I thank Senator Henry for her interesting and colourful comments about the work of the Office of Public Works. While there is not an architectural historian in the Office of Public Works, there is one in the Department of Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht. As areas of heritage, including wildlife and public monuments, are being transferred to that Department, they will benefit from the availability of the architectural historian. The position is not affected by an embargo.

The Office of Public Works will liaise with the new Heritage Council in relation to any buildings which have heritage value. I take the Senator's point about courthouses. They will remain within the remit of the Office of Public Works, which will act as agents for the Department of Justice. Some of the buildings are quite important and if a procedure is not in place already it would be appropriate if the Heritage Council and/or the architectural historian were consulted regarding some of the conversions. This would be worthwhile.

Dublin Castle will also remain within the ambit of the Office of Public Works as it is an occupied building and being used by the State. I note the Senator's comments about the work at the castle. Regarding her question, the cobblestones came from the streets of Liverpool and Manchester and were brought to Ireland in empty Guinness trucks. They were not just for President Clinton's visit. I do not know who thought of it, but it was a good idea. Another point about the Office of Public Works may interest the Senator. The Office of Public Works is increasingly required to apply for planning permission for work it carries out, which consequently involves public consultation and an appeals system. This is another safeguard.

I take the Senator's point about restoration and conservation. It is not possible to restore everything and we must conserve everything which cannot be restored. In many cases, conservation is more appropriate and I agree with the Senator's comments. I was not totally aware of the situation in Castletown. However, I presume it will be transferred to the Department of Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht rather than to the Office of Public Works as it is a heritage building.

The Senator asked about the lift shaft in Collins Barracks. I will query the position for her, even though it will be the responsibility of the Department of Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht as it will be a museum. The Office of Public Works has a substantial involvement——

Can the Minister assure the House it does not have strategic importance?

I will come back on that point also.

When is the museum due to open?

I understand the middle of next year, probably next summer.

It is a great site.

Senator Townsend mentioned Carlow and the requirements of environmental impact statements. Senator Dardis also mentioned this aspect. We must realise that in the future we will be increasingly constrained — and correctly so — and perhaps react more slowly to situations given the necessity to carry out an assessment of the impact a project will have on the environment. However, this will be of benefit to the country overall. It will be irritating in some instances, such as this case where people are frustrated by the lack of action in areas regularly affected by flooding, but we must try to maintain a balance between the two aspects. It is not appropriate and we would not be allowed to rush in headlong to deal with a problem and cause devastation to the environment.

I ask the people who will be affected by the eight or nine priority schemes to bear with us. We are mandatorily required to go through the process of environmental impact assessment in addition to cost analysis. I am unable to give precise dates for the commencement of construction projects in these schemes because the result is not predetermined by the carrying out of an EIS. I do not know what the EIS will show in every case and a result may emerge which would cause a delay. At the end of the process we are required, in all cases, to publicly advertise what we are doing and this involves a statutory period of one month. However, more time may be required if the public makes a comment or recommendation which should be taken on board. It is difficult to give precise dates.

Construction will be ready to commence soon on the Sixmilebridge scheme. This is expected to start in the spring and it is expected that construction of most of the other eight or nine schemes, including Carlow and Kilkenny, will start next autumn. I cannot say the schemes will start, only that it is expected they will commence, because of the constraints imposed by EIS.

Senator Finneran mentioned County Roscommon and suggested no money was provided for the county. However, humanitarian aid from the Irish Red Cross Society in County Roscommon amounted to £23,100. I cannot be specific about County Roscommon or any other county at present but the Government is committed to an initiative and a programme over ten years to solve the problem of our deplorable county roads. A sum of £20 million was devoted to this area in September and a much larger amount will be provided in 1996. I am sure successive Governments, in so far as resources permit, will wish to continue that programme. As Members are aware, once one goes 30 or 40 miles outside Dublin, particularly to rural areas, one hears serious criticism about the state of the county roads. While I cannot anticipate that County Roscommon will get priority, it will receive fair play in the allocation of those funds.

Senator Finneran mentioned the local drainage schemes in County Roscommon. Having got the priority schemes for 1996 off the ground, we are also commencing the work of preparing a national priority list. County Roscommon will have as good an opportunity as any other county to put forward its case in that regard and it will be assessed on its merits. The Senator also raised issues about the maintenance of the River Suck. However, this is a matter for the Suck drainage board, not the Office of Public Works.

It has been going on for 40 years.

That is true.

Hopefully it will be done soon.

I agree with the Senators who stated that people really want flood relief schemes. The humanitarian assistance provisions are a necessary response to immediate problems but more long term action is also required. I outlined the priorities in that regard earlier and the intention to begin to prepare a national priority list to follow on in some type of orderly way in the years ahead. However, it will take time.

Senator Reynolds mentioned the Ballinamore/Ballyconnell area. This has been transferred to Leitrim and Cavan County Councils and the Department of the Environment is due to set up a drainage board involving both councils. I am not certain of the current status of that matter but that is the proposal.

Senator Kiely referred to the Mulcair. As he is aware, it was not possible to develop a satisfactory cost benefit for a major drainage scheme for the entire Mulcair catchment area. It is now intended to concentrate on a flood relief scheme in Cappamore and Newport. This will form part of the first priority list. As I stated earlier, I expect progress on those matters and commencement at the end of next year.

Senator Burke was broadly supportive and I thank him. Senator Dardis suggested the legislation may have been rushed. It is difficult to defend that suggestion when, already I have had to put forward technical amendments. While there is an urgency about the legislation in relation to the humanitarian aid, the preparation of the Bill for the wider powers has been going on for some time, since the Attorney General advised us early in October that he believed our powers were deficient and suggested how we might deal with it.

The new chairman of the commissioners, Mr. Barry Murphy, has been involved in most of this work, apart from the humanitarian aid aspect which only came up in the last two weeks and has an element of urgency about it. The Senator should not take it that the entire Bill was rushed.

The Senator made a responsible contribution on the River Barrow. He is right in saying that the State cannot cope with every imaginable disaster. The River Barrow has problems but, hopefully, we will alleviate them to some extent with the proposed works.

Senator Farrelly raised the proposed scheme for Duleek, County Meath, and we expect it to commence in the latter part of 1996. Senator Enright referred to County Offaly. While I visited the county during the summer, nonetheless, I got an appreciation from Senator Enright of what had happened during the flooding. The Red Cross aid in County Offaly amounted to £24,612. The farmyard relocation grants are a matter for the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry but if there is a genuine feeling the date is too restrictive I presume the Deputy will make representations to him.

Senator Enright also referred to shortages of water and drought. I do not know if it is because the world is heating up or cooling down.

I accept it may not be within the Minister of State's portfolio.

It would not be true in the west but it is a problem on the east coast. In Dublin there is concern that if we have dry winter or spring there will be serious problems.

I thank Senator Sherlock for his support.

Will the humanitarian aid extend to the future?

The legislation will allow us to do that in the future but the current scheme deals solely with the winter of 1994-5.

Question put and agreed to.
Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 20 December 1995.
Top
Share