Amendment No. 4 is out of order as it involves a potential charge on the Revenue. Amendments Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8 are related to amendment No. 4.
SECTION 11.
Amendments Nos. 4 to 8, inclusive, not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 11 stand part of the Bill."
Many of the provisions in the amendments would not involve a charge on the Exchequer, such as putting in place an advisory committee. They would be advisory positions and personnel already employed by the State could be involved. A committee of professionals drawn from Government Departments to advise and assist the Minister in the operation of this legislation would not impose a major charge on the Exchequer.
I wished to insert a new section before section 11. Section 11 deals with the determination of the amounts of compensation under the Principal Act. A major difficulty with this amending Bill is that there is no provision to pay compensation to those who have experienced hardship because of flooding which occurred through no fault of their own and which, in some cases, was inexplicable.
The flooding in Carron in north Clare and south Galway was mentioned. Houses were flooded unexpectedly, people had to leave their homes for a protracted period and some of them will never go back. A mechanism should be put in place for people who had serious problems arising from arterial drainage or periodic flooding caused by poor drainage and where the flooding was not the result of their actions. Many of them are unable to avail of insurance cover. This issue has been debated in the Dáil and Seanad.
As a matter of principle, it would be more advantageous for all Members to set out a formula for dealing with such a situation, specifically covering it on a statutory basis, where people would be entitled to make their claims, have them adjudicated on and have compensation paid where it was deemed appropriate. It would be better than a haphazard arrangement involving various Government and non-Government agencies.
It is the Government's responsibility to put in place an arrangement which would enable the examination and discussion of claims at official level. In this regard I put forward a number of amendments which set down systems for the Minister. I was aware it would be impossible for the Minister to deal with all these matters. It would be better to have an advisory committee in relation to priorities and the causes and effects of flooding. It would be of great benefit to the Minister in dealing with his everyday work on the general issue of drainage.
The Minister could still insert a provision under section 11 which is designed to determine amounts of compensation in places where the Commissioners are acquiring property. The Opposition cannot do this because of the procedures of the House but the Minister could.
We afford the Minister this opportunity to indicate why it is his decision to allow a haphazard, complicated and complex arrangement to remain in place between agencies, Departments, officials and organisations, rather than setting out a precise formula to deal with them himself. He would have a committee at his disposal to advise him on a number of issues, to adjudicate on claims and to apportion compensation if a case was genuine and refused it if not.
It is not my intention to have an open-ended committee or function in place which would necessitate huge expenditure by the Exchequer. For that reason what I proposed was tightly contained under the direction of the Minister of State at the Department of Finance and could not be seen as over generous or loose. People have suffered severe hardship and while the prospect has been held out that something will be done for them they are still unhappy with the situation. To date compensation has not been paid.
The amendments which I proposed included a committee which was based on that set up to deal with compensation in the case of Irish Shipping. A committee could be set up which would advise on compensation. There is a pro forma precedent in situ. The Minister should consider that between now and Report Stage. Compensation has been promised to many of the people in the south Galway/north Clare area who have been affected but, as yet, it has not materialised. The reason may be that there is no statutory body in existence and the matter is being left to outside agencies. Will the Minister consider if he can set up something similar to the Irish Shipping advisory committee to help him in this?
It is not true that compensation is not being paid; up to £2 million has been paid out to farmers for animal loss and flood damage to land. Compensation for damage to houses has not yet been finalised but I understand it is being worked on and will be ready shortly. There were complications with insurance and other issues.
I agree with Deputy Ahern when he says some people will not go back into their houses and will relocate. They are already making moves to buy houses or sites to that end. Judging from what I heard earlier on, people are not willing to go back to houses which have been three or four months under water and are destroyed, in the knowledge or expectation that this could happen again in five or six months time; and I can understand why. The problem will not be cured in south Galway in the next six months unless cleaning the swallow holes does it. I hope that some emergency relief work will be done pending the big scheme that will get the water from that area to the sea.
There were complications with compensation. The intention when paying out compensation was that the most severely affected farmers who had lost fodder and livestock would be paid straight away. As a result there were only a small number of inspections. Unfortunately, some people in the area made false claims and this has held up payment of compensation to people second in line, as all claims then had to be examined to see if they stood up to the criteria for compensation. One reason genuine cases were not paid was a minority who had made false claims for compensation for flooding.
I missed the debate on the section dealing with false information. What happened to that section?
Amendment No. 4 was ruled out of order, as were amendments Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8, being consequent on Amendment No. 4 and related to it.
This section deals with compensation for damage caused by works carried out under the Bill. It is a different thing.
During the course of the debate on Second Stage, I outlined in some detail the measures taken by the Government in response to the immediate problems of individuals who suffered most during the recent flooding, particularly in south Galway. I had hoped to demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the House, that there were in existence ample mechanisms for the payment of compensation or the provision of financial assistance to those who might be entitled to it and the ability of the Government to respond directly in emergencies. I do not consider it necessary to take up the time of the committee to go through all that in detail again, but it would be no harm to mention some of the measures being adopted.
First of all, the interdepartmental committee was established to coordinate the responses to the effects of bad weather and it did that with some success. The question of compensation comes under the remit of different Departments and that will always be the case, depending on the nature of the flooding and those who are affected by it. Approximately £2 million was provided by the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry by way of compensation fund and not all of that has been paid out. The Department of the Environment also subscribed £4 million to the county roads fund to take account of the consequences of flooding.
The funds being made available by both the Government and the European Union for the relief of hardship and distress are being paid through the Irish Red Cross Society. I understand the European Union funding for flood relief of this kind has always been paid through the Red Cross in the countries for which it has been provided. The payment of the European Union funding will be made next month. The Government, when it has received the Red Cross opinion about the quantum of claims that are valid, will make up its mind on how much it will top up the European funds.
A commitment has already been made to provide for a Supplementary Estimate to enable specified works to go ahead following the passing of this Bill. Existing measures also include the supplementary welfare allowance scheme, which provides for emergencies which arise in times of flooding. In these circumstances, while it might be a neat idea to abandon all of those things and say we should do it all under this Bill, in practical terms one cannot exclude the other Departments in certain situations and should not do so. The expertise within the Office of Public Works is not geared to this type of global compensation that would arise under different Estimate heads. Therefore, the Office of Public Works and I are not anxious to get into that area.
I cannot let the opportunity pass without complimenting the Government on its quick and immediate response, in providing the £2 million for relief of flood damage to farms, crops, livestock and fodder. Nevertheless, I am concerned that the people who suffered the most intense hardship have not received anything so far, other than the Minister's assurance that they will get compensation soon. Their houses were flooded and they had to abandon them — some as long as six months ago. They will not go back into their houses until the water has drained into the sea at Kinvara. They can then repair their houses and go back knowing it will not happen again.
It is frustrating for the people whose houses were flooded that, six months after the event, they have still not got compensation. I know there have been complications with insurance companies stalling. People who left their houses in January are staying in either rented accommodation or with family or friends since then, and now have to face the trauma of relocation. At least four or five families I know of have made the decision not to go back to their houses because of the potential for them to be flooded again next January. They cannot go out and buy a new property until they are compensated or they at least know where they stand. The house of Mr. and Mrs. Flaherty from Teerneevin was featured in most of the new coverage of the flood. These people have only gone back to their house this week. They do not know whether to repair it but they have not heard anything about compensation nor have they been compensated for the flooding despite having had to move out for five months.
They have not heard anything?
They have heard nothing about getting money. Neither have the owners of the four bungalows at Glenbrack outside Gort that were featured on news coverage and they will not go back into their houses. They will relocate because of their fear that the same thing will happen next winter. Those houses will be repaired and used again when the drainage problem in the area is solved. However, that will not be this — or next — winter.
Is the Deputy saying that those property owners have had no contact with the Irish Red Cross or anyone else?
There has been contact, but no money. They talk to me constantly about this problem.
I know this issue is sad, but parts of my constituency were flooded several times and kitchens were destroyed, yet compensation was never mentioned. This is a rural phenomenon where people expect the State——
That is not right.
——to subsidise them; the deontas mentality prevails. People should accept personal responsibility. It galls my constituents that every time something goes wrong in rural areas they look for grants from the Government. Dublin people would never consider the possibility of getting a grant from the Government.
The Chairman has a lack of knowledge of the problem despite the fact that his wife comes from County Galway.
I have had detailed knowledge of the problem for 25 years. Why should the State accept liability for something it had nothing to do with?
The funds are in place for it.
Is it right that they should be in place?
Yes.
My constituents do not think so.
I do not want to get involved in this, but——
I will not get involved in this needless urban-rural argument with Deputy Mitchell because he is only trying to rise me.
——there is one essential difference between the type of flash flooding which the Chairman described and which happens in Cork as well as in Dublin and the flooding Deputy McCormack mentioned. The flooding in south Galway, because of its geological makeup, lasted for several months. I thought the Deputy was joking when he told me in February that the water would still be there in May, but it was. The length of time was a major factor.
I refer the Chairman to what happened when the River Dodder flooded. He should find out what compensation was granted.
I would love to know because a river flows through my constituency and it floods frequently. I will table a parliamentary question to establish the facts.
The report of this committee should be sent to the people of south Galway to show them what the Chairman said.
Someone must ask the difficult questions. This committee should challenge what we ask the State to do.
The State is not paying for this. The money was granted by the Irish Red Cross and the EU.
It is public money.
This section deals with compensation for land acquisitions. However, it does not deal with compensation for people in trouble, which Deputy McCormack mentioned. I oppose this section because it does not include a provision for such compensation.
Have the amendments been ruled out of order?
Yes.
Question put and agreed to.