This is a technical amendment to correct an oversight in the original drafting. We wish to add the definition of "development" as stated in the amendment. The reference is to development land. Section 2 (6) of the State Authorities (Development and Management) Act, 1993 defines "development" as "...the carrying out of any works on, in or under land or the making of any material change in the use of any structures or other land."
Commissioners of Public Works (Functions and Powers) Bill, 1995: Committee and Final Stages.
SECTION 1.
Government amendment No. 1:
In page 3, between lines 17 and 18, to insert the following definition:
"`development' has the meaning assigned to it by the Act of 1993;".
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 1, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
The proposition that the commissioners undertake work was referred to in the Bill initiated in this House by my party and later voted down. It was again referred to in the Bill taken later by the Minister, but that Bill was not amended even though we made certain proposals in this regard. While the amendment and the section does not directly relate to this matter, they reflect, to some extent, our view that there were complications with regard to what was being decided by the Department at that time. It would appear that although the Department had six months to deal with this issue, it still had to introduce amendments at this late stage.
Are the proposed amendments now the final solution to the problems with this Bill? I hope the Minister will understand why we have put down amendments, and that we have put much time and effort into dealing with what may or may not be in the best interests of the country with regard to flooding in 1995 and in previous years. I also hope the Minister will respond positively to our approach today. If so, he can be assured of full co-operation from this side of the House.
The Senator can take it that, to the best of our belief and the advice we have received, the amendment would make section 1 as perfect as we can make it. With regard to his comments on his amendments, we recognise that the Senator, Senator Daly and others, have put thought and time into this issue. We propose to accept some of the amendments. Some we are not willing to accept, but we can discuss these in a constructive fashion as we proceed.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Amendments Nos. 2, 5 and 12 are related and may be discussed together.
Government amendment No. 2:
In page 3, subsection (1), line 20, to delete "and be deemed always to have been" and substitute ", and be deemed always to have been,".
These three amendments have the same intent. Amendment No. 5 states:
In page 4, subsection (1), line 11, after "have", to insert ", and be deemed always to have had,".
Amendment No. 12 states:
In page 5, subsection (4), lines 1 and 2, to delete "all such incidental, supplemental, ancillary and consequential" and substitute ", and be deemed always to have had, all such".
The addition of the words "and be deemed always to have had" in these sections simply validates actions carried out by the commissioners in good faith over the years. I understand it is a standard provision where legislation has to be introduced to, in effect, restore powers which a State authority was thought to have had. It is an important protection, not only for the State authority but also for anyone who may have made agreements with it as it gives a sure legal basis for such agreements.
In the case of amendment No. 12, the parliamentary draftsman has, on further reflection, suggested the rewording of this section to provide that the commissioners have all of the powers necessary to perform their functions as defined in the Bill rather than just incidental, supplemental, ancillary and consequential powers. He has also advised that subsection (1)(a) of section 3 should be deleted. The net effect of these combined changes is to give a tidier wording to the Bill. They do not alter the powers being given to the commissioners from those which were originally proposed.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 3:
In page 3, subsection (1) (a), to delete lines 22 and 23 and substitute the following:
"(a) to acquire, maintain and dispose of land and interests or rights in or over land, and other property of any kind and interests in such other property, for use by the State,",
This amendment simply tidies up the wording suggested by the parliamentary draftsman after he had more time to reflect on the original text. It adds rights over land and other property to the other interests which the commissioners may acquire, maintain and dispose of. It simply reflects what is believed to be the status quo.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 4:
In page 3, subsection (1) (c), line 32, to delete "kind" and substitute "kind,".
This simply involves the insertion of a comma.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 13, 14, 15 and 16 are alternatives to amendment No. 4a and all may be discussed together.
Government amendment No. 4a:
In page 4, between lines 3 and 4, to insert the following new subsections:
"(2) Where the Commissioners propose to refuse a request by a person for the provision of assistance under subsection 1 (c) of this section or compensation under section 3 (1) (g), of this Act, the Commissioners shall notify the person in writing of the proposal and the reasons therefor and the notification shall state that the person may make representations to the Commissioners in relation to the proposal not later than 7 days after the receipt of the notification by the person.
(3) Where a person receives a notification under subsection 2, the person may, within 7 days of such receipt, make representations to the Commissioners in relation to the proposal to which it relates.
(4) Where the Commissioners receive representations under subsection (3) of this section, they shall thereupon cause them to be referred to the Minister and the Minister shall, within 21 days of such receipt, consider the proposal and the representations and determine whether assistance should be given or, as the case may be, compensation should be paid, to the person concerned, and the Commissioners shall give effect to the determination and notify the person in writing thereof.".
Senator Daly proposed four amendments on Committee Stage which we accepted in principle. The parliamentary draftsman has reworded some of them but that does not change the Senator's intent.
I pointed out yesterday that the commissioners' decision in relation to compensation was final and there was no mechanism by which the matter could be re-examined by an independent arbitrator. I intended to put down an amendment with regard to some type of independent arbitration system but the Minister is the final arbiter in these matters. The Minister of Finance has a particular interest in the expenditure of public finances and great care should be taken to ensure spurious applications are not considered. I am satisfied with the amendment.
The Senator's amendments Nos. 13 and 14 are combined in this amendment and the other two follow. I thank the Senator for the amendments which improve the Bill.
I thank the Minister of State.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Government amendment No. 5:
In page 4, subsection (1), line 11, after "have", to insert ", and be deemed always to have had,".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 6:
In page 4, subsection (1), lines 12 to 16, to delete paragraph (a).
The parliamentary draftsman advised that this provision is unnecessary as section 2 defines the functions of the commissioners. Subsection 2 (a) as amended provides that it shall be, and be deemed always to have been, a function of the commissioners to acquire, maintain and dispose of land and interests or rights in or over land and other property of any type and an interest in such other property for use by the State, the commissioners and other State authorities or any other persons specified by the Minister. The parliamentary draftsman further advised that there is a legal presumption that where a function is confirmed, the powers necessary to carry it out are also confirmed and therefore this measure is superfluous.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 4, subsection (1) (c), line 21, after "kind," to insert "where this is necessary, but only necessary, as a result of flooding,".
The amendment relates to the powers of the commissioners to demolish buildings, structures or other works or property of any type. Perhaps clarification from the Minister will solve my difficulty. The Minister referred yesterday to his functions and those of the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht. I previously dealt with the unsatisfactory nature of that arrangement whereby different Ministers deal with different parts of the activities of the Office of Public Works.
Yesterday the Minister mentioned the allowances which will be made for the demolition of, for example, a dwelling house, which will form part of the compensation package. This is reasonable and it is good it is included in the Bill. The Minister also made the point that people could carry out the demolition of their own accord. However, it appears the provision is drafted with particular sets of circumstances in mind. It does not appear to relate to the other activities of the Office of Public Works. It appears to confer a power on the commissioners, not just in respect of damage caused by flooding or natural disaster but, for example, if they decided in the morning they wanted to demolish Leinster House they could do so. This is my concern about what I regard as a wide power which is being given to the commissioners. It is not the narrower power the Minister wishes them to have.
One of the main reasons behind the provision in section 3 (1) (c) is to permit the demolition of houses damaged by flooding. However, there are other circumstances, for example, site clearance for the development of Government buildings, such as Garda stations and social welfare offices, where this power would be required. The amendment is inadvisable as it would restrict the commissioners in the performance of their normal functions. In any event, demolition is subject to the normal controls under planning legislation to which the Office of Public Works is required to adhere.
This Bill has two main functions — to deal with the humanitarian aid for flooding and the various schemes associated with that and to clarify once and for all the powers of the commissioners in their widest sense. Those powers were found wanting in the case of Mullaghmore. The Bill is not just to deal with flooding but also the general powers of the commissioners. I could not accept such a restrictive amendment.
I realise there are circumstances in which the commissioners should be able to act. I am prepared to accept the wording I have drafted may be two restrictive but what is in the Bill is far too liberal in terms of what it will allow the commissioners to do. The Minister has confirmed my fears that they will have very wide discretion.
They are subject to the law as concerns the demolition of certain buildings but the Bill gives them inordinate powers to interfere at their will in matters which, at the least, should be under the scrutiny of the Oireachtas. If the Bill provided that such matters should be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas before work is done that would be acceptable. From what the Minister has said I am confirmed in my belief that the State can carry on to get rid of buildings it does not like.
I am sure there is no ill intent in this but the phraseology seems extraordinarily sweeping. I hope a way may be found to allay the fears expressed by Senator Dardis rather than have a provision pushed through without proper scrutiny.
Would the commissioners demolish a building under the provisions of this section if a local authority had decided the building was listed?
I am guided by the Chair, but I would have thought amendments Nos. 7 and 8 had something in common. I appreciate Senator Dardis' point. I do not believe the Office of Public Works will demolish all before it. However, we would like safeguards in the legislation. Senator Daly proposes a safety valve in amendment No. 8 whereby the local authorities and the Heritage Council might have a say.
I am surprised at the concern expressed. The Office of Public Works is involved in a multiplicity of building projects around the country. In some instances demolition is a normal and necessary part of its work. There is nothing in this Bill which gives the Office of Public Works any power in addition to that which it thought it had. In addition, it is now subject to the full rigours of the planning laws. One might as well limit their powers to erect certain buildings in certain places.
We should.
The Office of Public Works, as the agent of the State in providing public buildings, etc., needs the basic power to demolish a building that is in the way of a new building, subject to the normal restrictions laid down by the planning authorities. I do not think there is any danger. If this was a wide power which they could sweepingly adopt, irrespective of any considerations of planning, the Senator would be right but that is not the case. In the circumstances I cannot accept the amendment as it is much too restrictive — we would have to return to seek new powers under another Bill.
I accept the Office of Public Works as currently constituted has no malicious intent. It would be wrong to suggest otherwise, it does its job well and we have only to look around the Chamber to see its work. What concerns me is that the legislation as it stands confers powers on it. Senator Daly's amendment is related and possibly could have been discussed with this one. What he suggested covers adequately what I have in mind — there must be some measure of restriction in the law. I accept the current position but we are framing the law for future Governments and we cannot anticipate what attitude they might take.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 4, subsection (1) (c), line 21, after "kind," to insert "after consultation with the relevant planning authority, heritage or cultural authority.".
This is related to the last discussion and there is no point in prolonging the debate — I almost said agony. It is necessary to have at least a consultation process before demolition, especially if one is talking about demolition of important buildings which may well be listed as having special attractions. The Minister of State is aware that from time to time, because of flooding, bridges and other important constructions had to be demolished, which caused other problems. The commissioners' technical staff will advise the Minister that solving one problem can sometimes create another, possibly greater one.
While I sympathise with Senator Dardis I was not fully prepared to remove the demolition powers because that would negative the process. However, in connection with important buildings which possibly are listed, it may be necessary to consult the Heritage Council, another cultural authority or the planning authority, which may have listed a building or construction for a reason and may not wish to see it demolished. The Minister should have a mechanism whereby consultation or discussion would take place before that would proceed.
I do not expect this would be used widely or that it would frustrate the commissioners in their work. It would be used on occasions where it would be obvious to the people involved in the demolition that there was a special building, construction or monument which should not be removed without at least consulting the Heritage Council or the local planning authority which may have listed it.
I also voice my concern. I accept the intentions behind this are honourable and echo Senator Dardis's tribute to the Office of Public Works for its fine work here and elsewhere. I am concerned, however, at the way we are going through this as if it simply tidies up powers already exercised. While Senator Dardis's amendment may have been too restrictive the principle underlying Senator Daly's is one on which one hopes there is agreement. On a point of information, is it already required of the office to engage in consultation of this type? Does it already do that or is this something new that will be required of them? The explanatory document says the Bill does not provide for additional powers or functions other than those already exercised. Is the office required to consult before it engages in demolition work of this type? It may be, in changed circumstances and it would be wise to include that at this stage.
The Commissioners of Public Works are now fully subject to the provisions of the planning Acts. This means that where they propose to demolish a building unless it is an exempted development they will have to seek planning permission from the appropriate local authority in the same way as any other citizen or organisation. It would not be fair or reasonable to impose an additional statutory duty on the commissioners. In practice, considerable informal consultation takes place.
With regard to consultation with heritage and cultural authorities, any building worthy of protection or preservation will be listed in the local authority development plan. This ensures their demolition will require planning permission. This is the appropriate mechanism for a statutory consultation with such bodies. The commissioners also have a good record of informal consultation with statutory and non-statutory bodies interested in the heritage.
We have to get planning permission for practically everything we do. The only exceptions are with regard to security of State prisons and the Houses of the Oireachtas. If these buildings have any heritage value, which they invariably have, consultation will certainly take place.
I am not against the spirit of what has been suggested but it is superfluous to include in the Bill something we already do. The requirement to comply with the planning Acts has been superimposed on the Office of Public Works. Therefore, we are adequately safeguarded in that respect.
I appreciate the Minister's point. We do not want to put in a new planning structure just for the sake of it. The requirement on the Office of Public Works to go through the planning process is welcome. Unfortunately, it was not there ten years ago. If it was, we might not have wasted as much money as we have recently, but that is not the Minister's fault; he was not in this portfolio at the time. A great deal of money has been wasted recently and all public representatives, whether they be county councillors, Senators, or Deputies may be to blame. If we had put our house in order some years ago, the situation might have been different.
The amendment we want is not to planning but to the heritage content of the Bill. The only current safeguard for those buildings is if they are listed in each county's development plan. There are two pages of buildings listed in my county's development plan but if one asked the councillors to name them, they may only be able to list up to six. We have not taken an interest in the heritage of certain buildings. While these buildings may not have been demolished, their entrance structures, which are just as important and give a good message as to what lies within, have been interfered with, removed, replaced, bought and moved by those who can afford it. In some cases, they were sold by agents of the State. For example, the Land Commission has sold entrance structures to individuals.
While the Office of Public Works has to go through the planning process, would another process, such as consultation with heritage bodies, be necessary, other than just listing these buildings in county development plans? That is the intent here. I am not sure whether our amendment is the solution but there is a view on this side that maybe there is some need for written consultation. We do not seem to have that at the moment apart from the one area I have identified in our county development plan. Perhaps the Minister can enlighten us if there are other areas where a consultation process takes place.
The Minister has gone some way towards allaying our fears. However, I will give him an example. Section 3 (1) (c) states, "to demolish buildings or structures or other works or other property of any kind."
The Grand Canal outside Athy is a natural heritage area which, to my mind, means that you do not interfere with it. Yesterday we discussed the need for an environmental impact assessment for a river like the Barrow if some work was to be done on it. The Office of Public Works was able to clean up the river banks and it looks very well from a superficial point of view. The banks are now graded and the top has been levelled but there is no grass there.
If it is a natural heritage area how is it possible to conduct that sort of work without any reference to anybody? I do not know of any consultation that took place in respect of that work. Would this allow the Office of Public Works to demolish a bridge on that stretch of the canal if that was what they thought they should do?
I wish to divert the Senator's attention from that point, which I will come back to. One of the issues Senator Dardis raised, which is relevant and has caused a lot of confusion, concerns what is happening visà-vis the Department of Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht and the Office of Public Works. There has been a continuous evolution of that matter since before my time. I came in at the end of it when all the main decisions had been taken.
You are lucky.
Maybe. The Department of Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht will have all the heritage functions, national monuments, waterways and wildlife sections transferred to it. That process is taking place now.
It is the biggest disaster of all time.
An interdepartmental subcommittee was set up to do it. The Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht and his officials are extraordinarily vigilant in the areas the Senator referred to. Anything the Office of Public Works proposed to do in those areas since I came into office has — because of this ongoing switch — been subject to a double check. The Office of Public Works does its own work, it relates to the planning authorities and then has to obtain sanction from the Department of Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht which, in turn, is speaking to the new Heritage Council. Far from being a limited form of control, there is at least an extra layer of control and concern from the Department of Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht.
It is a transfer to Disneyland.
I do not necessarily agree with every aspect of what was done but the decisions were made and the transfer is taking place. Because of the nature of the Department of Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht there is, conceivably, a sharper focus on the things the Senator is talking about than might have been apparent in a wider body like the Office of Public Works. I am not saying that is the case, but the Department of Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht certainly ought to focus on protecting the heritage areas being transferred to it. I would like Senators to bear that in mind. There is an increasing focus on environmental considerations and the protection of our heritage which is going to be almost entirely under the control of the Department of Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht which may on occasion use the services of the Office of Public Works, but only under specific instruction and control. Heritage will be well protected in those circumstances, irrespective of how we reached this point.
The Minister has given us fairly firm assurances that the commissioners will have close consultation with planning authorities, certainly on an informal basis. Nevertheless, there is a view that since legislation was introduced as a result of the Mullaghmore issue, there is a need to further strengthen it. That is why we wish to include this provision. Long before the Commissioners of Public Works negotiated a site for Mullaghmore, they were in consultation with and got approval from the planning authority to locate the building in an area which caused much controversy. It is well known that consultation took place with the Clare planning authority, which was satisfied with that site, before the decision was taken.
A provision should be included in legislation so that consultation would take place, particularly in view of what the Minister said. It is more important now given the transfer of responsibilities to the Department of Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht. Rather than arguing against this amendment, the Minister argued in favour of it because the responsibility has been divided and the issue is in a haphazard state. I will not comment on what the Government is doing in this area because it is so convoluted. As far as I am aware, no regulations have been made to transfer responsibilities in a statutory way to the different Departments. If the Minister assures us that the amendment is not necessary, I will not press it.
I am sorry my arguments seem to have had the opposite effect on Senator Daly. I assure the Senator that despite what he thinks about the transfer of these powers——
I think very little of them.
——they have taken place. The transfer of staff is due to be completed by the end of the year. When I moved to this Department the decisions had been taken but they had not been implemented. I was in limbo because Deputies and Senators wrote to me about heritage issues but I had to refer them to a Minister who was about to accept responsibility for them. That confusion is coming to an end. Much care and control will be exercised by the Department of Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht in relation to heritage. That is the Department which should be responsible for heritage, although not everyone would agree.
Senator Dardis mentioned bank clearance on the Grand Canal. Bank clearance is necessary from time to time for safety and to deal with leaks. Work is done so that vegetation will recover quickly. That type of maintenance work is exempted development, but the removal of a bridge is not.
Amendment put and declared lost.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 4, between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following subsection:
"(f) to carry out a scheme of drainage maintenance on the main channel and tributaries of the River Shannon,".
This amendment is in response to a situation that has prevailed for a long time and with which we now have the opportunity to deal. I have proposed the carrying out of a scheme of drainage maintenance on the main channel and tributaries of the River Shannon.
There is a very good reason this amendment should be taken on board by the Government. It is established that the River Shannon is one of the finest waterways, if not the finest, in Europe. The Shannon is used by up to 100,000 people annually for different purposes and has a catchment area of 250,000 acres, yet that stretch of river is not maintained. It is an extraordinary situation and the Government and the Office of Public Works should take this matter on board.
Approximately 70,000 acres of peat-lands drain directly or indirectly into the Shannon, 50,000 drain directly and approximately 20,000 acres drain through the River Suck. This alone creates a massive build up of silt in the River Shannon. It is not possible to continue to drain 70,000 acres annually into this river over a period of 20 or 30 years as happened previously. Massive peat development has taken place in the midlands and the west where 70,000 acres have been developed and drained. The farming community in the 250,000 acre catchment area of the Shannon and its tributaries, have availed and are availing of grant aid to drain and improve their lands, yet that same channel that runs right through the middle of the country and eventually between the counties of Limerick and Clare has never been maintained.
I am attempting to make somebody take on a national responsibility, of maintaining the Shannon. I am not talking about drainage, I do not propose the removal of any major rock outfall. People use the Shannon every day for their own purposes. Bord na Móna drains 70,000 acres of land into it, farmers use it to drain 250,000 acres of land, boating people and fishing and leisure groups use it extensively. At least 100,000 people must be involved in the use of the Shannon. All the local authorities use it for their sanitary services systems, yet we do not have a single shovel, never mind a single machine, to carry out maintenance on one yard, not to mention one mile, of the River Shannon.
The Shannon cannot and is not dealing with the major developments that have taken place. Many of the present drainage and flooding problems are the result of lack of maintenance of the River Shannon. There has been a massive build up of peat silt at the weir in Meelick. It is generally acknowledged that there are hundreds of thousands of tonnes of peat stacked up in that section of the river.
We should not have to request that something be done about the river Shannon in the future. It is necessary to write into law that the Office of Public Works can, as it deems fit, carry out a drainage scheme on the River Shannon and its tributaries. This is the purpose of amendment No. 10. The solution to providing finance for such a scheme is also incorporated in that amendment. I do not believe that the interests to which I referred — and those to which I did not refer — are entitled to use and abuse one of the finest waterways in Europe without carrying out maintenance on it.
Amendment No. 10 provides for a drainage maintenance scheme to be carried out jointly with another person or body subject to such terms and conditions as the commissioners may determine. The opportunity is included in this amendment for the Office of Public Works to carry out a drainage scheme, in association with bodies such as Bord na Móna, the ESB, farming organisations or local authorities, to ensure that maintenance of the channel takes place. We can no longer allow the river Shannon to be used as an outfall without deciding, as elected representatives, to do something about its maintenance.
Under the terms of the Bill, this House has been presented with the opportunity to ensure that the river will be maintained. There are few rivers in the country which do not have some type of scheme, or joint scheme, to cater for their maintenance. However, our finest and greatest river has no such scheme. We have an opportunity and a responsibility to deal with this matter and we should do so now. The House should make a unanimous decision that the river Shannon will be maintained from 1996 onward.
There is no doubt that the Bill will become law because the provisions it contains are necessary. I ask that this further provision be included in the Bill to deal with what I consider to be one of the most outstanding problems relating to the River Shannon. This issue has been discussed many times in both Houses in the past, on the basis that no one would take responsibility for it. Many proposals, forums and joint authorities have inquired with regard to where that responsibility should lie. It is everyone's and no one's. We must ensure that navigation authorities, the ESB and the Office of Public Works become involved in this regard.
Farmers on both sides of the river must endure flooding and are caught in the middle of the problem. They have requested, over many years, that the river be maintained and a drainage scheme be put in place. They have also requested the establishment of a body to oversee water levels, etc., but perhaps that is a matter for another day. We have an opportunity to deal now with the maintenance of the river. I hope the Minister will respond positively to amendment No. 9.
I am glad the spirit of the late Mr. Éamon de Valera is alive and well and living in Senator Finneran and his proposals to drain the River Shannon.
It is obvious Senator Dardis was not listening to me. I stated clearly this was a maintenance rather than a drainage proposal.
In that case, I apologise to Senator Finneran. The spirit of Mr. de Valera is only half alive in Senator Finneran. I can recall fishing for salmon above Meelick Weir thirty years ago. At that time the water was clear. I brought a boat from Banagher to Meelick Weir and there was fishing to be had all the way down the river. This is a slightly different point but it underlines the State's responsibility — which the Minister has already conceded — to maintain the waterways in as pristine a condition as possible. What Bord na Móna did to the River Shannon is disgraceful. At the time, none of us paid a great deal of attention to it and, perhaps, there was a certain casualness and even an inevitability about it, but the way peat was allowed enter the water course, and the damage it did to it and the environment, was wrong. Perhaps, the State has some responsibility to assist in the type of work on which Senator Finneran commented and he mentioned the different bodies which might be associated with it. Given Bord na Móna's financial state, I wonder how it might manage to contribute but we should be concerned about the issue.
We gave Bord na Móna £100 million yesterday and it is supposed to have corporate boxes in Croke Park.
I hoped Senator Lee might tell us something of the history of the non-drainage of the River Shannon and he might do that yet.
I do not take issue with what Senator Finneran says about the River Shannon. The problems are twofold. If we accepted the amendments which nominate specific projects many Senators would ask me to do the same for the River Blackwater, the River Liffey and a whole host of projects. This legislation confirms powers which were in question. It gives specific powers to deal with a specific national flooding problem. It would be inappropriate for me to accept an amendment dealing with one river, albeit the most important river in the country. We have wide powers under the Arterial Drainage Acts with their 1995 amendments to undertake localised schemes and to maintain them.
On both scores, I ask Senator Finneran not to press this amendment. It has nothing to do with the merits of the River Shannon or what he says about it but it would be inappropriate for me to amend this Bill to deal with specific projects.
I appreciate that under the 1945 Act there had to be a drainage scheme to deal with a catchment area and that was always the problem on the River Shannon.
That has changed now.
The Senator can thank the heavy rain last year for that. Can I take it that the Minister has given me a categorical assurance that under the 1995 arterial drainage legislation sections of the River Shannon can be dealt with for maintenance or drainage purposes?
I cannot give the Senator a categorical assurance about that. The Office of Public Works has nine priority schemes for local drainage which are already in the design phase and about which I spoke yesterday. In addition, the Office of Public Works will be preparing a national priority list over the next year. It would be inconceivable that we would prepare such a list without including the Shannon or its tributaries. That is as far as I can go. The needs of the Shannon waterways are evident so it would be inconceivable that our largest river and its tributaries would not feature high up on that priority list.
I will not rise to the bait, Minister, because I presume people want to get away before Christmas. The history of the drainage or non-drainage of the Shannon is very complex and it became something of a national joke over the decades. However, it is not a facetious issue and I was glad to hear what the Minister said in response to Senator Finneran. He has pointed out a serious problem. It is a problem now but what will happen if it continues is something we ought not to have to contemplate because it can only get worse. I hope that what the Minister said will be acted on by the Office of Public Works and that it will make vigorous use of its powers under the Arterial Drainage (Amendment) Act.
I asked for categoric assurances but I will rephrase my remarks for clarification purposes. I want to establish the definite position in this regard. I am not in the business of telling people that there might be a crock of gold at the end of the rainbow. Is it the case that the 1995 Act and the Bill will not preclude the opportunity of stretches of the Shannon and its tributaries being included for maintenance and drainage purposes? Is that what the Minister is saying?
The answer is "yes" for localised drainage schemes with consequent maintenance.
Is the Minister talking about the main channel of the river?
I cannot be more precise. The Senator must bear the history of this matter in mind. If I were in a position to deliver in a specific way on the Shannon tonight, I would be nearly as famous as Mr. de Valera.
The Minister knows that I am not asking for that.
We have nine schemes. We will not have an inexhaustable supply of money every year and we will have to establish a national priority list of localised drainage schemes with the consequent responsibility to maintain them afterwards. It would be inconceivable that we would compile such a list without the Shannon and its tributaries featuring quite highly in it. That is as much as I can say without knowing what the priority listing will throw up.
I accept the Minister's bona fides and he understands my point. I realist he cannot jump from one side of the river to the other.
Not the Shannon anyway.
When the Minister says "I cannot", is this his interpretation of what the situation will be after the Bill is passed?
The Office of Public Works will be responsive if Senator Finneran and his colleagues make a submission on the Shannon and its tributaries when the national priority list is being compiled. I undertake that the Senator will be contacted at that time.
The Minister referred to the nine priority areas and it is important that work on these should proceed. While the Minister gave details yesterday of the state of these works, it was obvious that it would be some time before they would be completed. On Second Stage we discussed the Gortaclare/Mortycloch area of north Clare on which there have been strong representations and about which the Minister has written to Clare County Council and me. People in the area fear it will be excluded because of the work being done in Gort and that it will be many years before an investigation is undertaken there. Is it possible for this area to be included in the Gort investigations?
The Minister will be aware of representations made by Clare County Council, other bodies and representatives from all parties about the particularly sensitive area of the Burren adjacent to New Quay, which has experienced severe problems. People of the area feel it will be left behind because of the action being taken in Gort even though the two places are geologically similar.
I am not totally up to speed on this matter. The brief and fees of the consultants have been negotiated on the basis of the large catchment area which includes south Galway and parts of north Clare. I understand that the area about which the Senator is speaking is part of a separate catchment area with a similar geology. The lessons which will be learned from the study for which consultants have been appointed will have wide application to problems in Clare. While we cannot extend the study area, which is already large, it would be reasonable to suppose that what emerges from the study will inform us of likely solutions to the problems in the areas mentioned by Senator Daly. I will obtain more detailed information for him but it is not practicable to extend the study area.
I wish to make an important point about amendment No. 10 and the response to this will decide the attitude I and others will take to the amendment. There are opportunities for joint approaches in the amended drainage scheme, which I fully support and which should have existed many years ago. The Commissioners of Public Works do not have full responsibility for the maintenance of the Shannon. Amendment No. 10 is an opportunity for the Minister to deal with this issue in co-operation with other bodies which are as responsible as the commissioners, if not more so, for the maintenance of the Shannon. Does the Minister see an opportunity for the Office of Public Works to enter a scheme with another body to maintain sections of the Shannon under the Arterial Drainage (Amendment) (No. 2) Act, 1995, and the Commissioners of Public Works (Functions and Powers) Bill, 1995?
Under the Arterial Drainage (Amendment) (No. 2) Act, 1995, the Office of Public Works is empowered to enter joint venture arrangement with local authorities, other agencies or the private sector for the purpose of maintaining local drainage schemes.
Will this apply to section of the Shannon?
The power applies to the waterway system in the country. There would, therefore, be no basis for excluding one river.
In view of the Minister's response and the way he seems to understand this matter, I will not press the amendment. I compliment him on the job he is doing and I accept his bona fides.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 10 not moved.
Government amendment No. 11:
In page 4, subsection (1) (g), to delete lines 37 to 41 and substitute the following:
"the scheme applies or, with the consent of the occupier (which shall not be unreasonably withheld), on land adjoining such land, subject to the payment to the person affected of compensation of such amount (if any) as the Commissioners consider reasonable in respect of any injury, loss or damage caused by such entry or the carrying out by the members or agents of any operations on the land.".
I hope Senator Finneran will not announce that I will carry out these works on the Shannon.
It will cost the Minister approximately £5 million.
This amendment is designed to achieve three purposes. It provides that where the commissioners are entering land adjoining land which they are dealing with under a humanitarian assistance scheme, they must secure the consent of the owner, which will not be unreasonably withheld. It replaces the phrase "person concerned" in line 38 with the more precise phrase "person affected"; it replaces the phrase "——or the carrying out of any such operation." with the phrase "——or the carrying out by the members or agents of any operations on the land.". The amendment also gives a more precise wording to the subsection without changing the original intention. It was appreciated that, with regard to the humanitarian schemes where we would, for example, be entering to demolish a house, in some situations we may have to cross the land of somebody else and we would have to get permission to do so. This is what this is about.
I am worried about the second part of the amendment, which was also part of the original Bill. I realise that Senator Daly has some further amendments which relate to my concern. When we debated the National Heritage Council legislation, there was much discussion on the possible damage that might be caused to property by a JCB which may be used by the Director of the National Museum — not that the director would presume to put a JCB onto an archaeological sight, but one never knows. However, there was a potential damage to land and my concern was that people would not be compensated. I commend the provision for compensation here, but I am worried about the right to appeal. If people do not agree with the levels of compensation being awarded, what recourse have they?
The fact that the commissioners undertake to compensate people does not take away their legal rights to go to the courts and seek redress if they are not satisfied with what the commissioners propose. I would have thought this was an adequate safeguard.
That is rather different from what I had in mind. In my case, for example, land was acquired for a motorway. While I agreed with the county council, had I not agreed I could have gone to independent arbitration, and I would only have had to have recourse to the courts if the arbitration was not to my satisfaction. There needs to be an informal vehicle of this kind, an independent arbitrator, whereby people have the right to make an application to some body or person — even perhaps the Minister — within a specified period on the basis that they are not content with the award that has been made.
Under the earlier amendments following on Senator Daly's proposals, such people can appeal to the Minister.
Senator Daly's case was mostly concerned with humanitarian aspects. Is that correct?
It also deals with the matter raised by the Senator.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 12 has already been discussed with amendment No. 5.
Government amendment No. 12:
In page 5, subsection (4), lines 1 and 2, to delete "all such incidental, supplemental, ancillary and consequential" and substitute ",and be deemed always to have had, all such".
Amendment agreed to.
In view the amendments made by the Minister, I propose to withdraw amendments Nos. 13 to 16, inclusive. They are all related and are embodied in the Minister's two amendments, which I welcome. I wish to express our appreciation to the Minister for so doing.
Amendments Nos. 13 to 16, inclusive, not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 3, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
During the discussion on the amendment and on Second Stage, we dealt mainly with problems relating to the flooding of private dwellings and lands and buildings associated with farms and farm dwellings. There have been serious problems with the flooding of business premises in some towns. It is not clear, especially with the removal of subsection (a), whether there is a method for dealing with businesses in small towns, such as Ennis, which were severely flooded during the crisis, lost an amount of business and suffered substantial damage to property. I am not clear whether it is beyond doubt that buildings connected with the operation of small businesses in towns which experienced flooding are covered under this section.
They are covered under section 2 (1) on page 3. Paragraph (c) states:
to make schemes or other arrangements for the provision of assistance, whether in the form of money, living accommodation, land or other property of any kind...
While the relocation scheme does not propose to relocate other than private dwellings, we have the power to assist people. The Red Cross has also assisted some businesses that were affected by the flooding.
Yesterday I spoke about the functions and powers given to the commissioners under this Bill. The Bill relates mainly to flooding and many Senators made excellent contributions on that issue. However, these are general powers. I listened carefully to the Minister's reply, particularly as it related to paragraph (c), and I hope we do not live to see the provisions abused in any way.
During the debate, Senator Finneran mentioned the possibility of joint schemes between private persons, the Office of Public Works and/or local authorities. I have written letters recently about a small number of drains that could be worked on by the Office of Public Works. They are too big to be included in a local authority improvement scheme and too large to be looked after by private land owners. The replies one gets from the Office of Public Works are very negative. It seems they do not take account of the extra powers given to them in 1995. They should look more closely at some of the schemes which involve co-operation between the county council, the local authority, landowners and the Office of Public Works. Their replies indicate that they have not reassessed the schemes under the old Act.
I agree with the previous speaker's comments about joint ventures. I invite the Minister, at the earliest opportunity, to visit the monastic abbey in Fore, County Westmeath and the Seven Wonders area. His predecessors plans were at an advanced stage with the local authority.
The Senator is being very parochial.
The joint venture involving the local authority and the Office of Public Works will create a fantastic tourist attraction in the area. Perhaps it could be on the itinerary for the Minister's visit. We will be delighted to show him the abbey, with which Senator Dardis is also familiar.
Senator Cassidy should add that flooding could be solved using the Fore principle of the stream which runs up the hill.
I assure Senator Henry there is absolutely no question of the power of demolition being used in an excessive fashion. It is a normal, necessary power for the Office of Public Works, which is involved in a wide range of projects for which it has the power to demolish a building to create another. The Office of Public Works is subject in full to the planning Acts and the Senator can be assured the provision will not be abused.
In relation to the two contributions about local drainage schemes, partnerships, etc, the Office of Public Works must send a loud and clear message that it is not taking over every drainage problem from local authorities. It does not have the resources to do so. Within the constraints facing every Department, we have identified nine priority areas and those schemes are all in the preparation stage. Construction of the first scheme in Sixmilebridge should commence in the spring and the others should commence later next year.
This work has put pressure on staff resources in the Office of Public Works, but, while it is ongoing, we are commencing the process of identifying a national priority list for the years ahead. In the interim period, it is impossible to take on board local drainage problems which may arise. It takes time and we want to do this in an orderly way and prioritise matters. Those judgments are subjective and it will be difficult to satisfy everybody but I hope we will approach it in an orderly and sensible manner. The proposals will be considered on their merits and a number of schemes will be carried out each year. I will fight for the resources available for that purpose because the work is necessary.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 4.
I move amendment No. 17:
In page 5, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following new subsection:
"(3) The Commissioners may arrange for the provision of buildings and offices other than living accommodation as may be agreed upon by the Commissioners at any place.".
Perhaps I should have put down this amendment to section 2 as it attempts to deal with the matter mentioned by the Minister of State a moment ago regarding giving authority to the commissioners to deal with buildings apart from private dwellings. Many small businesses were seriously affected by the flooding, particularly in Ennis where for many days people were put out of business. In common with some of those affected in Gort and other areas, they did not have the capacity to recover from the loss of income and damage to their properties caused by the floods.
While I support the principle of relocating people in private accommodation, there is an equal responsibility in relation to small businesses which suffered serious damage in terms of their income and which were almost put out of business. Something should be done for these people and this aspect is not covered in the Bill.
Section 2 (1) gives the Commissioners of Public Works the power to formulate what has been referred to as humanitarian assistance schemes. The wording of the measure is quite broad and would cover the provision of buildings and offices if the Government decided they should be included in a scheme.
Section 4 is specific in that it provides that a housing authority, in effect, a local authority, can provide houses acting as agents for the commissioners. It is a tightly drawn section. It would not be appropriate to ask local authorities to become involved in providing offices or other buildings as they have no statutory role or expertise in that regard. I assure the Senator it is covered under section 2 (1). We accept what the Senator is saying but we do not consider it appropriate to include it in a section dealing with local authority housing.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill."
When the Office of Public Works asks the local authority to carry out a housing project on its behalf, is that done on a temporary or permanent basis? If it is on a temporary basis and the local authority buys a building or property and the Office of Public Works compensates those involved, will the local authority be left saddled with the property? Will the ratepayers have to pay for the property they would have acquired in the first instance?
In this instance the local authorities would act purely as agents of the Office of Public Works and would be remunerated in full for what they do. They would not be working under the housing Acts in the normal fashion. This provision would be very specific. These powers would be unlikely to arise but in no case would the local authorities' finances be impaired by them.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 5.
Government amendment No. 18:
In page 5, to delete line 16 and substitute the following:
"5. —The references to land in section 2(6) of the Act of 1993 shall".
This is the rearranged wording suggested by the parliamentary draftsman after he had the opportunity to reflect on the original draft. It is an improvement on the original wording in the sense that it removes any ambiguity that may have been present.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 5, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
I wish to be parochial for a moment. The Office of Public Works uses machines on floats to clean lakes by cutting the weeds. I understand there are a number of such machines in the Dublin region but there are none in County Mayo or in the west. I ask the Minister of State to use his good offices to ensure we get a machine in the northwest area. There are probably more lakes in County Mayo than any other county. I ask the Minister of State to get one of the machines to carry out works in the Castlebar lakes in particular.
I will look into the matter and come back to the Senator.
I understand there are a number of canals and stretches of rivers which have a problem with a particular type of weed. Experiments are taking place and machinery has been brought in from England in some cases to deal with it. This poses a major problem for tourism on the River Shannon in one particular region at the Lake Gara canal. None of the brochures now mentions the canal because the boating companies had run into problems with the weed fouling propellers. The matter should be dealt with even if technology has to be imported. Perhaps the Minister would look into the matter. Perhaps he and his officials could take note of it and come back at another point; it may not apply to section 5. We should not allow a position to develop where the tourist trade will decide, as seems to be the case at present, this may be what concerned Senator Burke also. The officials should look at this problem.
As the Senator said I was not prepared for this but my officials know something about it. Apparently this weed is resistant to any chemical which has been tried. I am told the Office of Public Works co-operates with the Central Fisheries Board in the area of weed control in rivers and the canal in question is regularly dredged, although that does not necessarily solve the weed problem. Does the Senator know whether this manifested itself after the hot summer or——
It has been a problem for five or six years. In fairness to the Office of Public Works, it introduced a machine which cut the weeds and sent them by conveyor belt onto the land. It has not resolved the problem so perhaps it could be taken up again. I understood research was being done in another country and a machine was being brought in.
I was looking for one of those machines.
That is something I did not know much about and I thank the Senator.
I am sorry I am not sitting in the Chamber because I could have helped the Minister significantly on this point.
Are you precluded?
Acting Chairman
Given my function in the Chair, I will not contribute.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 6 agreed to.
SECTION 7.
Question proposed: "That section 7 stand part of the Bill."
I intended on Second Stage to put this on record but I was interrupted by my colleague from Clare, which put me off course. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the former chairman of the commissioners, Mr. John Mahony, who retired recently. I wish him well in his retirement. I also congratulate the newly appointed chairman, Mr. Barry Murphy. The commissioners are lucky to have the benefit of such an able and competent public servant. I wish him, all the staff of the Commissioners of Public Works and the Minister of State every success for the coming year.
Question put and agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments and received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
I thank the Senators who were present today and yesterday. This legislation was sprung on everyone rather quickly and I thank them for their co-operation in Christmas week — our constituents would not believe we were still sitting here at 5.40 p.m.
I also record my appreciation for the Attorney General and the parliamentary draughtsman, Mr. Edward Bacon, who is not in the first flush of youth but has given much time, experience and wisdom up to minutes before we came here to ensure this Bill is as perfect as possible.
I also concur with Senator Daly's comments about both Mr. John Mahony, who has been a good servant of this nation and a great help to me when I was propelled into the Office of Public Works; and Mr. Barry Murphy, an excellent person who will do great work in the office. These have been difficult times for the Office of Public Works and the morale of some staff suffered because of the chopping and changing which took place. I pay tribute to the officials in the Chamber with me who have worked tirelessly on the flooding issue, which preoccupied so much of the efforts of Office of Public Works and myself in the past year.
I thank my colleagues on this side of the House for their help and support in dealing with some of these amendments. I also thank the Minister for accepting some of them and embodying them in the legislation. If his predecessor had listened to us, this might not have been necessary but that is another day's work. I join with the Minister in thanking all involved in the preparation of this legislation. People are frantically waiting for it to be passed. Many of them have suffered severe hardship and the sooner we can bring that to an end the better.
I ask the Minister to urge his colleagues in Government to give the Office of Public Works the backing it needs.
I join in the words of praise to John Mahony and Barry Murphy. No other Department had such an airing in this House since I became a Senator. This Bill and the Arterial Drainage Bill, 1995, are evidence to this. Were it not for the time of year, this debate might still be continuing.
I compliment the Minister for his courtesy in the House and the way he has treated us over the last number of days. He has acquired an in-depth knowledge of the Office of Public Works in his short time in that portfolio. I congratulate him and wish him well.
Acting Chairman
I join in the thanks given to the Minister and his officials and wish you all a happy Christmas.
Question put and agreed to.