Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 24 Mar 1955

Vol. 149 No. 5

Committee on Finance. - Vote 38—Local Government.

Minister for Local Government (Mr. O'Donnell)

I move:—

That a supplementary sum not exceeding £10 be granted to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1955, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Local Government, including Grants to Local Authorities, Grants and other Expenses in connection with Housing, and Miscellaneous Grants, including a Grant-in-Aid.

This is the second Supplementary Estimate introduced for the alleviation of distress caused by flooding in Dublin City on the 8th and 9th December last. The first Estimate was for a token Grant-in-Aid of £10 pending the compilation of an estimate of the provision required. The amount required is now estimated at £110,000. Deducting savings on other sub-heads of the Vote for Local Government in the current year, the net sum now required is a provision of £10. As in the case of the first Supplementary Estimate, issues out of the Grant-in-Aid are made towards expenditure incurred by any body or organisation duly authorised by the Government in alleviating the distress caused by the flooding in Dublin City. The Estimate makes provision for grants towards expenditure incurred by three bodies, namely, the Dublin Flood Relief Committee, Dublin Corporation and the Irish Red Cross Society.

The Dublin Flood Relief Committee was appointed by me to assist in alleviating the distress caused by the flooding, the expenditure of grants by the committee being subject to conditions laid down by me with the consent of the Minister for Finance. Subject to these conditions, the administration of the grants is entirely in the hands of the committee and the awards made by them are not subject to review. The members of the committee are the Honourable Mr. Justice Cecil Lavery as Chairman, Mrs. Denis Kelly, Edward J. Duffy, Dr. Patrick J. Hernon and Michael L. Burke. These persons were selected because of their knowledge and special experience of analogous work. Estimated disbursements by the committee amount to £81,000. The exact figure is not yet known as payments of grants are still outstanding in some cases and some claims recently received are still under examination. I understand that grants have been made or will be made by the committee in about 2,000 cases.

I would like to take this opportunity of publicly thanking the committee for giving so much time and energy to the task assigned to them.

A provision is made of approximately £11,000 in respect of expenditure incurred by the Dublin Corporation, the principal items being the purchase and distribution of coal, pumping out of basements, clearing of house drains and execution of essential first-aid repairs to houses in order to render them habitable.

The Irish Red Cross Society incurred expenditure of approximately £18,000 in the Dublin City area, principally on the issue of bedding, clothing, fuel and food and it is proposed to reimburse the society by way of the Grant-in-Aid.

Mr. D. Larkin

In speaking on this Supplementary Estimate introduced by the Minister for Local Government, may I express our disappointment at the fact that up to the present the Minister indicates that the total amount which will be made available to those who suffered by the flooding in the Tolka area on December 8th and 9th last is approximately £81,000? Might I remind the House of the fact that, when this matter was previously before it, Deputies, representing the area involved, pressed the Minister and the Government for some clear indication as to the heading under which the emergency would be dealt with? When I use the word "emergency" in relation to this particular problem I think every Deputy will accept that the situation in the Tolka area, the North Strand, Fairview and Richmond Road on December 8th and 9th was a situation of emergency.

It is no intention of mine to enter into comparisons such as those drawn by Deputy McQuillan earlier to-day, but it is essential to point out, since I represent Dublin North-East and that was the area involved, that Deputy McQuillan's references were, to say the least of it, unfortunate. As I pointed out on a previous occasion we were dealing in the North Strand with a situation arising from the flooding of December 8th and 9th. We were not dealing with a situation arising from the effects of possible periodic flooding. We were not dealing with a situation arising from foreseeable flooding or the effects of foreseeable flooding. We were dealing with a situation confronting, as the Minister has told us, 200 persons.

Mr. O'Donnell

2,000.

Mr. D. Larkin

The Minister corrects me. Perhaps I may be permitted in turn to correct the Minister because 2,000 persons in this case means 2,000 families.

Mr. O'Donnell

I said 2,000 cases.

Mr. D. Larkin

What was the situation? Deputy McQuillan was good enough to say that in his opinion Deputies representing Dublin seemed to have more influence with the Minister for Local Government as compared with Deputies representing the areas affected by the flooding of the Shannon, but when I see the figure which is presented to us now I doubt as to whether there is any foundation for Deputy McQuillan's suggestion. In the North Strand area there are 2,000 families covering an area of approximately one mile by a quarter of a mile; that was the area affected by the onrush of the flood waters, waters which inundated their homes within a period of almost one hour, wrecked those homes and in many cases ruined every solitary possession they had.

Rural Deputies may not be familiar with the area involved in the Tolka flooding. There is one feature which renders that area specific because a substantial number of the dwellings affected are actually situated below the level of the road. I am referring to the basement type single-storey house which might almost be described as leaning against the road. In the front rooms of these houses flood waters reached a depth of four to five feet. The Minister for Lands speaking earlier here to-day made some reference to the situation in the Shannon area. I do not think that the Minister for Lands would run any personal risk entering a flooded house in the Shannon area but anyone entering the houses in the North Strand area under flood conditions ran a serious risk because the weight of the water affected the flooring and the foundations were liable to give way at any moment. In hundreds of cases, particularly in the North Strand, heavy articles of furniture, such as pianos and sideboards, actually broke through the floors on which they rested.

During the course of the debate in December last when the Minister introduced a token Vote Deputies asked under what headings it was proposed to deal with this emergency. It was suggested that the first heading for consideration should be damage to personal property, furniture and personal effects. Then there was actual damage to the structure of the dwelling houses themselves. There was a third heading and that was the loss suffered by business people as a result of the flooding. To-day the Minister told us he was making provision for £81,000 and that some further cases might still remain to be dealt with.

Mr. O'Donnell

Perhaps I should correct the Deputy. I am making provision for £110,000, not £81,000.

Mr. D. Larkin

I am dealing with the position of people directly affected and when I refer to £81,000 I am deliberately leaving out the £11,000 which is being provided for the Dublin Corporation in respect of the steps taken by that body to provide coal, clean up the dwelling-houses and carry out emergency repairs, and I have deliberately refrained from referring to the amount to be provided to recoup the Red Cross for expenditure incurred. The Minister will accept, therefore, that I am referring now only to the amount to be provided directly to the people involved at the present moment.

I will go back to making the point that in my estimation the sum of £81,000 will not represent any kind of a reasonable amount to be provided for those who suffered as a result of the flooding of 8th December and 9th December. On the question of the amount to be provided by Dublin Corporation by way of grants, the expenditure of the corporation on coal was undertaken in an effort to provide immediate emergency relief for families who were left entirely without any means of heating or drying their houses. May I say on this particular point that it is now the 24th March, over three clear months from the date of the flooding, and I think I can say without any fear of contradiction whatsoever that a very substantial number of the houses in the area affected by the flooding are still damp.

Mr. Briscoe

What was the figure spent by the corporation?

Mr. D. Larkin

I think the figure spent by the corporation—we were informed more than a month or so ago —was some £25,000. Of course that figure included the cost of purchasing the coal and the cost of paying the workers engaged in cleaning out operations and emergency repairs. I think it is correct to say that in many hundreds of houses it will be months before they are completely dried out. Not only that but it was estimated shortly after the flooding took place and when building surveyors employed by the corporation had an opportunity to examine some of the houses that it would take at least six months before the effects of the flooding would show up. In other words, it would take at least six months before any competent building surveyor would be able to say clearly and definitely whether a house was safe or whether its foundations were not dangerous.

This is the situation which exists in the roads adjoining the North Strand because, as I said earlier, many of the houses consist of a storey level with the road and another storey down eight or ten steps below the level of the road. Many of these houses did not have very secure foundations and when flood water rushed into them it resulted in about four or five feet of water being in the front rooms and up to eight feet or more in the lower rooms.

Many of the houses occupied and affected by the floods are occupied by people who had lived there in many cases for many years, and their families before them in many hundreds of cases. Furniture and personal effects accumulated over years by gradual saving were just wiped out and disappeared overnight. Valuable pieces of antique furniture saved up from generation to generation were caught by the flood waters and wrecked beyond repair.

The Minister indicates that a sum of £81,000 appears to be nearly the total amount that will be granted to the 2,000 cases. I would like to get from the Minister a clear indication as to the actual categories of cases that are being dealt with by this amount of money referred to in the Estimate. There is the damage to furniture and personal effects and there is the damage to the structure of the houses some of which are owned by the people themselves, some of them being purchased through insurance societies, etc., some of them being rented by the occupants, and in very few cases are the people living in these houses in a position to restore them to their pre-flood condition.

Surely the Minister and the Government will have some consideration for those who suffered serious loss or damage to their stocks in the small shops round that area. Very many families living in the North Strand and Fairview and Richmond Road areas were relying on their vocation of shopkeepers serving the needs of the immediate neighbourhood to obtain a reasonable living, and a very high proportion of these shops suffered not only damage to the structure but the goods were ruined irretrievably. Has any reasonable consideration been given to the position of these people?

The Tolka area to my mind, and speaking again as a Deputy for the constituency affected, is in a completely different position from the other areas in our country affected by flooding. Some few weeks ago I endeavoured to obtain an answer from the Minister for Local Government as to the cause or the alleged cause of the flooding in the Tolka area. He was unable, I understand, to provide the information. We were, however, informed in another place that flooding in this area was occasioned by a number of factors—unusually heavy rainfall, unusually high spring tides and the collapse of a railway bridge.

It is the opinion of many of those affected that that railway bridge should not have collapsed under the conditions then existing and that if steps had been taken in earlier years to ensure proper drainage and flow from the River Tolka hundreds of people would not have been driven out from their homes in the middle of the night of December 8th, 1954. It is nearly time that some authoritative statement was issued as to the cause of the flooding and as to whether the collapse of the bridge over the G.N.R. at the East Wall was responsible in any way for the flooding of the North Strand. May I be permitted to put it to the Minister that, if there is any basis for the suggestion that the collapse of that bridge was in any way responsible for the flooding out of the men, women and children in that area on December 8th, the situation must be dealt with on a basis slightly different from that of a normal flood?

We endeavoured in December to make the case in this House that the flooding in the Tolka area was unprecedented. Deputies, like Deputy McQuillan, representing other constituencies, particularly rural constituencies, paid us the compliment of saying that if flooding had not taken place in the Tolka area and if the Dublin Deputies had not opened their mouths in this House there would have been very little consideration given to the people affected by the flooding in the Shannon valley. I do not think there is any Deputy representing a Dublin constituency who is so vain as to think for one moment that the sentiments he expresses will carry greater weight than those expressed by a Deputy from a rural constituency. I would hazard a guess that the reverse would have more truth in it. I do say, from my short experience in the House, that Deputies from the Dublin constituencies do not always get a great opportunity to take part in debates because of the fact that they are outnumbered, out-spoken, out-talked, by rural Deputies.

Mr. O'Donnell

Not out-spoken.

Mr. D. Larkin

I hope the Minister will permit me to say that we are here to represent our constituents.

Mr. O'Donnell

I quite agree.

Mr. D. Larkin

And when our constituents are faced with emergencies and suffer as the constituents of the Deputies in Dublin North East suffered, we will open our mouths as wide as possible and talk as long as we can.

I understand that a number of the people affected by the flooding have received grants and allowances from the Flood Relief Committee and that there is the most widespread dissatisfaction among the people concerned. I am not in any way impugning the committee set up by the Minister for Local Government. They had a task that anyone in the House would quail from facing. I have never been satisfied as to their terms of reference. I have not found it possible to get a clear indication in this House as to exactly what are their terms of reference.

In December, after the flooding, a token Vote of £10 was passed and there was a specific general heading for that token Vote—a Grant-in-Aid to relieve distress. If dwelling-houses, shops and places of business in this area were flooded and if the cause of the flooding can be traced in any way to the failure of public bodies or undertakings like the G.N.R. to keep the river bed clean and open or to maintain their bridges in secure condition, the situation must be considered in terms other than terms of a Grant-in-Aid.

May I put it to the Minister that if one house in the North Strand was flooded and that that was as a result of the collapse of the railway bridge in the East Wall Road, the householder concerned who may have lost all his possessions is entitled to be treated on a basis other than a basis of a Grant-in-Aid?

I expressed the view in December— and I make no apology to any Deputy in this House or to anybody outside this House—that there is no comparison in the situation that developed on the 8th and the 9th December in the Tolka area and that which developed in the Shannon valley area. I think it only right to say, as a Dublin Deputy, that everything that could should be done to alleviate the position of those who suffered from flooding in the Shannon or in any other part of the country. I leave the question of what the means should be or how families affected by flooding in those areas could be relieved to the representatives from the areas affected because I am satisfied that they would be much more competent than I to make a case for the people concerned.

I have heard of people living in Leinster Avenue, North Strand, and in other avenues off that—avenues which I think the Minister, and which I am quite sure the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government, saw in company with Deputy Belton and myself —who sustained extraordinary damage. I have heard in some of these cases that families received amounts as low as £20 compensation. They received cheques for £20, £25 and £30 to alleviate and to deal with the results of a situation unprecedented in that particular area. I have heard many, many, far too many, expressions of dissatisfaction. It appears to be the expressed opinion of many people in the North Strand, in Fairview, in the Drumcondra area that the higher the claim you submitted the more compensation you got. It is very difficult to check on the situation because to my mind this is unlike all other occasions and it had to be dealt with by a flooding relief committee which had varied terms of reference. These terms of reference appear to be very vague.

I understand that recently assessors called round to shopkeepers in the areas affected. They called round to chemists' shops, to grocers' shops, to sweet shops, to tobacconists and to shops which provide liquor to the people. Some of these calls were made as late as a few days ago to assess what damage was caused. I know of cases where shopkeepers and chemists had kept goods in their stores from December 8th or 9th up to the present day almost because they could not get any definite decision as to whether the damage suffered by them would be the subject of examination or would be the subject of consideration or whether it was safe for them to keep the damaged goods as evidence that they suffered damage or whether it would be best to throw out goods and forget about them. In the early days of the emergency, particularly in the period when the corporation workmen were going around trying to clear out the filth and slime from the dwelling-houses, personal effects and the goods and stocks of shopkeepers were littered on the pavements of every street in the area.

May I express my appreciation of the fact that the Minister came to the Dublin Corporation and told us there that, speaking as the Minister responsible on that occasion, he was most anxious that red tape would not interfere with the efforts of those charged with dealing with the emergency? May I also say when expressing that appreciation that the Minister's point of view may have been most unfortunate because from then on the situation got worse and an opinion grew stronger as the days passed by that the people who suffered were entitled to have their cases dealt with on the basis of full compensation. I, like other Deputies in this House, attended at meetings of people affected by the flooding in the North Strand and I should like to assure the Minister that it was heart-rending to hear the sufferings endured by many of those people.

May I, even at this stage, appeal to the Minister, and through him to the Government, to look at this situation again and to look at it in the light of the fact that in living memory the Dublin area, and particularly the Tolka catchment area, suffered an emergency never known before? I should like that the Government would in addition examine the question as to whether there is a basis for the suggestion that the causes of the flooding could be removed. Proper attention should be displayed by the responsible authorities to at least two of those suggested causes—the structure of the bridge at East Wall and the cleaning and the clearing of the Tolka river itself.

I do not want to delay the House unduly on this matter but I think this is an occasion when we, representing this constituency, have the responsibility of speaking on behalf of our constituents. It would be unjust to them, unjust to ourselves and unfair to the Minister concerned if we did not express clearly that the citizens in this area have formed the opinion very strongly that they have not been treated with justice. I do not suggest that every applicant who submitted a case or a claim for consideration should automatically have that claim allowed in full, but I do suggest that the approach to the claim submitted by the applicants should be on the basis of treating their application as an application arising from an unprecedented situation, an emergency, and not an application arising from a situation that may be a periodic condition in the area. I would ask the Minister when replying to this debate to give an assurance that further consideration and more sympathetic consideration shall be given to the damage to structure, to the damage to dwelling-houses affected by the flooding.

I have been in some of these houses and I want to assure Deputies that some of them I have been in, even with the emergency repairs that have been carried out, I would be most reluctant to trust myself in again. I am not very light in weight and it is no pleasant experience when one walks through the doorway to find the timbers in the hallway shaking under your weight, when you enter the room to feel the floor give way under you and to observe in house after house floor boards broken away.

It is true that emergency repairs were carried out but the extent of the emergency repairs was, I think, very, very small. As far as I can gather, in many cases what occurred was that if there was a hole in the floor a patch was put in it. But many of these floors are carried on joists which are four or five feet above the level of the ground below and, as Deputies in this House can bear out, in many of the floors the level sank from one side or the other because floors carried on light joists are not built to stand the weight of four and five feet of water in on top of them.

I would say the majority of the people in the North Strand area would not leave that area. Many of them left temporarily for a day or two. Hundreds of them had to be provided with emergency accommodation in the Central Model Schools, looked after by the Red Cross, and in St. John Ambulance Brigade Headquarters in Gt. Strand Street. Many more were looked after by relatives. Numbers were taken to hospital and a few to St. Kevin's Hospital. Yet the majority of the families in the worst affected area returned to their homes, and returned to homes that even to-day they do not know whether they are safe or not. They do not know whether in one, two or three months' time they may discover their house falling down on top of them.

It would be proper here, I think, once again to pay, on behalf of the people of the North Strand, Fairview, Richmond Road and Drumcondra areas a most sincere tribute to the members of all the services who came to the rescue on the night of December 8th. We had the Dublin Fire Brigade and I do not think one can use words of praise high enough for the services rendered by that body to the people in the emergency. We had the members of the Red Cross Society who directly helped out, whose services were available day and night, who provided, as the Minister mentioned in introducing the Estimate, bedding and clothing, food and fuel for the people affected and who cared for the people in the Central Model Schools where families had to be taken. There were the members of the St. John Ambulance Brigade who likewise threw their weight in 100 per cent. There were the members of the Garda Síochána. Sometimes in Dublin, as in other areas, members of the Garda Síochána are not always looked on with the most beneficent eyes; we sometimes feel that they are a little bit too officious, but those members of our police force did yeomen's service on that occasion.

I think it is only right to say that we take great pride in the fact that employees of the municipality worked night and day endeavouring to restore water supplies to the East Wall, and did yeoman work helping to clear out the filth and dirt from the houses affected by the floods. We do not forget them for one moment. We also cannot forget the Army, and many more too numerous to mention, who did great service. It would not be right to close my participation in this debate without paying a tribute to them for their help in every direction.

However, after having paid that tribute there is still, as far as the people are concerned, a question of what is going to happen, and whether or not the considerations advanced by me in this matter are going to receive the attention of the Minister. Will the Minister, when replying to this debate, indicate what steps it is proposed to take to ensure, as far as is humanly possible, that that situation shall not recur? Will the Minister ensure that the whole Tolka River catchment area will be examined, and will he tell us if he is prepared to take definite steps to ensure that the river continues to empty itself into the sea, and not into the North Strand?

On the night of December 8th last year, Richmond Road, Fairview, was not a road. It was not even a road where water had seeped in; it was a river round about three to four feet deep. The banks of the Tolka burst, and the people living in the area suffered by it. I think we should urge on the Minister to make some definite statement as to what his intentions are towards endeavouring to obviate such a situation recurring. In addition, I would press on the Minister to tell us, clearly and definitely, whether this figure of £81,000 is in or around the total which will be expended in direct payment to those affected by the flooding, and to tell us whether or not consideration will be given to the question of structural damage.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I think the Deputy has mentioned some of these points before.

Mr. D. Larkin

I bow to the Chair's ruling. It is very difficult to deal with this question without referring more than once to certain aspects. May I request the Minister to give the House, if not now, when he is dealing with the Estimate, but in the near future, details of how some of the £81,000 has been expended? There are 2,000 cases. It is known to everyone who is familiar with the area that the damage caused as a result of the flooding varied considerably. In some cases people's homes were affected by the ingress of possibly three, four, five or six inches of flood water, and as the houses approached nearer the centre and the more seriously affected area, the damage caused to the furniture, fittings and possessions of the occupants naturally became greater. Consequently, the occupants' loss became more severe, and their claim for consideration became, in my view, greater than the claims of those less severely affected.

There is one category of people affected to which I have not yet referred, and that is, those who were unable to follow their normal means of earning their livelihood. The numbers coming under this category may not be great, but the individual losses they sustained were indeed severe. I refer to the class of citizen employed in the delivery of vegetables, coal, and so on, in the areas affected by the flooding. I have in mind also those citizens who were living in the flooded area and who, in addition to being unable to earn their livelihood by delivering their goods in the particular area, were unable, because of the damage to their vehicles, to deliver goods such as coal, vegetables, and so forth, outside the area.

Not many persons suffered loss of wages as a result of the flooding and as a result of their being unable to go to their place of employment. Only a relatively small number suffered hardship in that way. Quite a number of persons were unable to go to their place of employment and attend to their work. Fortunately, in the majority of cases, they were employed by employers with a humane, progressive outlook.

The flooding of the North Strand area by the River Tolka occurred on the 8th to the 9th December. The effects of that flooding are not over yet. It would be very difficult to say definitely when the situation will be completely cleared up. I suggest that particular consideration be given to the question of future dangers to houses arising from the flooding that took place on December the 8th and 9th last.

Mr. Colley

I am very sorry I was not here for the Minister's statement but, judging by what Deputy Larkin has just said, he did not explain a matter which I, too, am very anxious to have explained and that is the basis on which this sum of £119,000 is calculated and what type of damage or loss is covered by it. I live in the area in question and I have some idea of the loss or damage that has been incurred there.

Mr. O'Donnell

I would refer the Deputy to Part III of the Estimate, as circulated.

Mr. Colley

That does not meet the point I am trying to make, unfortunately. Seemingly the people got an idea that at least a big part of the damage to their premises and to their furniture and of their losses in respect of clothing, and so forth, would be met. Now they find that what they have got or are likely to get does not at all cover what they lost. In saying these things, I am speaking of genuine losses. I know that attempts have been made to make preposterous claims: I suppose that always happens in such cases. However, I am speaking now of what people genuinely lost. So far, they have got small compensation apparently to cover clothes, and so forth. I know cases where what the people got was not at all sufficient— not even in the case of workmen's houses.

Here is what happened in the bulk of the cases. As we all remember, it had been a desperately wet day. Quite a number of those people I have in mind had been out in the bad weather. In the evening, as is usual in such houses, the clothing these people wore, and which was their main possession in that respect, was hung up in the kitchen to dry during the night. Then the floods came and destroyed the kitchen and destroyed the clothing. I know personally of a case of a father and a mother and seven young children who were living in a basement. It was not the kind of basement described by Deputy Larkin, ten feet down: it was a sort of semi-basement. This family who were living in the lower part of the house had to go upstairs when the floods rose and, after a short while, could not even get down the stairs at all. The floods rose to the ceiling of their part of the house and everything they possessed was covered with water. Consider the case of that ordinary workman who is the father of seven young children.

In view of that man's losses, he would certainly need to be dealt with generously. It is not easy for him to provide for himself, his wife and his seven young children, but to have to provide for them all completely and at the one time is certainly a very big thing to ask him to do. As a matter of fact, this man was out ill the week previous to the floods, and when he was able to get back to his work after the floods he was not even able to wear his overcoat. I am aware that kind friends tried to help him when they realised his plight. It seems to me that we ought to try to be as generous as possible in cases such as that.

Consider now the position of people who had their premises insured. There are some cases, from what I hear, where people who had insurance on their premises did not get compensation. Let me try and explain the position. It seems that, as soon as the investigators discovered there was an insurance, they did not recognise a claim as far as the contents of the house were concerned. I am informed that in some cases the insurance company have paid only for the loss of the clothing to the man and his wife and state that they are not liable for losses in respect, for instance, of a daughter's goods. The position, then, is that the investigators have cut out the family completely on the ground that they are covered by insurance and yet difficulties arise even where there has been insurance. In my view, a point like that ought to be investigated and it is possible that, in many cases, more than one child is left unprovided for.

Shopkeepers in the flooded Tolka area are complaining very bitterly about their losses. Deputy Larkin went into detail in that connection and I will not go over it all again. The fact, however, is that some of them lost very heavily in regard to stock, and apparently they are very much dissatisfied with the treatment they have received. I know that in some particular lines the losses were made up by manufacturers, but in other cases they suffered very heavily. The Government should try to do something to help some of them, because the time has not been bright even for the ordinary shopkeeper who did not suffer these things and it is very hard on these people to try and carry on.

I know of other cases where people who were tenants of houses were able to get out because of the condition of the house. They got out and fortunately were able to find alternative accommodation. But the landlord, in this case a woman—not by any means rich, in fact the rent of the house was a big part of her income—is left with the house on her hands. She cannot let it because of its condition, but of course she is forced to pay rates and so on. I think there is a case there for investigation, that type of case. All in all, as I see it, I must say I am disappointed with the amount of the Estimate, because with the number of cases involved I cannot see how it is going to provide any sort of reasonable compensation to those people for the losses that they have suffered.

Some of the houses, as we have seen them at the moment, are in a bad condition. They have not dried out at all yet. More of them are showing greater response, seemingly, but some of them are looking nearly as bad as the day it happened. It is serious, as we are told that in some cases, may be in all, the defects may not really show until after a long period. A number of people are definitely afraid of their floors because they feel that the joists under them, having been so long in the flood, will develop dry rot and give way. I think that all these points are definitely worthy of consideration, because the big majority of the people affected are not in a position financially to put their houses into any sort of good condition. No matter how willing they might be to do it on their own, they are not in a financial position to do it. Certainly I know they are very disgruntled and that they are grumbling about the whole situation.

As to the causes of the flooding, I suppose that will be debated for a long time to come. I was interested to hear Deputy Larkin speak about the collapse of the railway bridge. I know it is held fairly generally around the Fairview district that the collapse of the railway bridge was responsible for a big extension of the flooding, that some of the flooding would not have occurred only for it. They say it would never have extended so far and one man who happened to be up and watching things, who had his own house flooded, holds definitely, whether he was right or not, that the flooding would not have reached his house only for the collapse of the railway bridge, that it was immediately after that that it started to rise and rose up around his area. It would be worth while having some sort of a real engineering inquiry into that, to see that steps are taken that such could not happen again.

Again, there is the position that is found on Annesley Bridge. When you look down towards the railway arch, it is quite evident to anyone that the Tolka at the point underneath the railway arch, where it is entering the sea, is much narrower than the river at Annesley Bridge some hundred yards away and that it naturally would compress itself and rise there, and with the falling of the bridge into that very spot it leads an ordinary layman at any rate to believe that it would help to raise the height of the floods very considerably in the adjacent area. I hope that something will be done to try and deal with this for the future. We never know when there may be a coincident of high tide and very heavy rain, as we are told was the cause of this. We may have it again; we have often had it before. I hope that, in any steps that are being taken to try to deal with this, the question of the mouth of the Tolka where it enters the sea, the width of it, the depth of it and all that, will be gone into thoroughly and that some steps will be taken to deal with it.

Knowing what happened around the Richmond Road, where the Tolka burst its banks—and from what I heard about further up, but did not actually see, up around Botanic Avenue—I think that steps should be taken to wall the Tolka the whole way through the housing areas. It may be a big job, it may be a costly job, but it would be very good work for the Development Fund. It would save a tremendous lot, not alone in the financial way; and it would avoid such a thing as this. From the point of view of the health and comfort of the people and the avoidance of losses that no Government or corporation will be able to meet, it is something that should be investigated. From my point of view, the layman's point of view, while you can and should dredge the Tolka to some extent, it will not stop flooding unless a proper wall is built on each side of it, along the housing area. I would suggest, too, that further out on the Tolka, outside the housing area, provision could be made for catchment areas or lakes, to take some of the flood waters on occasions like this. What I have in mind is something I was reading about the Tennessee valley and what was done there in that connection. Something should be done. There are areas adjacent to the Tolka that could easily be worked in —they would need only a dam and proper levelling to put them right.

I make these suggestions because it is a terrible thing to think that, unless we do start moving, and moving quickly, this situation might arise again next winter and maybe even before then. That whole area around Ballybough and the North Strand and down towards the sea is a low-lying area. I have seen it without any bursting of the Tolka, and I have seen the water bubbling up through the manholes because the sewers were unable to take it away because of the levels there. I have seen that on several occasions. I have lived there and I know what I am talking about. It is, maybe, an even bigger problem from an engineering point of view than appears on the surface because of the levels, but it is the last area that I know in Dublin that could afford to have the bursting of the Tolka added to it in heavy rain.

That is why I am putting forward this suggestion, and, even if it may be costly, I think it would be worthwhile if some proper steps were taken to prevent the Tolka from bursting its banks. Every year for years the Tolka had burst its banks up at Drumcondra and has flooded the cottages around there and in view of the tremendous number of houses which have been built in that area, a large number of which have suffered in this flooding, it is surely time that something was done to protect these people and to give them what the ordinary man in other areas gets in the way of protection from such flooding as we had on 8th December.

Let me also, as a Deputy for the area, try to convey the thanks that were conveyed to me by a number of these people to all those who gave such good service during the height of the floods—the Army, the Garda, the Red Cross, the St. John Ambulance Brigade and the private volunteer. The people I met were all loud in their praise of them and very thankful to them. With Deputy Larkin, I should like to ask the Minister to consider again this whole question. If he does, I think he will be able to put up a case for funds to meet the claims of these people much more generously than he can possibly do on the basis of the amount in the Estimate.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Government (Mr. O'Donovan)

I visited both areas—the Shannon area and the Tolka area—at the time of the floods and it seemed to me that there was a difference between them. The Tolka flooding was a sudden unexpected catastrophe and a very severe shock to the people in the area; the Shannon floods came on slowly, the water rising from day to day, with the result that the people whose homes were flooded were able to save their furniture, either by removing it or by taking it upstairs in their homes. Moreover, a proof of the difference is that no live stock at all were lost in the Shannon area.

It did seem to me that the case which was made by a couple of Deputies would be made, that £110,000 was being provided in relief of the distress caused by flooding in the Tolka area and only £20,000 for the Shannon area. In actual fact, if we get down to arithmetic, we find that the amount expended per case was larger in the Shannon area than in Dublin. The Minister for Agriculture mentioned that just under 100 homes were flooded in the Shannon area, and, as the Minister for Local Government mentioned, about 2,000 cases of flooding occurred in the Tolka area. The amount in the Estimate is £110,000 and the Lord Mayor's fund amounted to £40,000, giving a total expenditure for each case of somewhere around £75, averaging it all out, for what such an average is worth.

In the case of the Shannon area, the total number of farms subject to any severe flooding was about 200. The amount in the Estimate is £20,000 and the Athlone fund was about £20,000, giving an average of £200 for each case of flooding. It seems to me then that the case made earlier here to-day that the country areas are not looked after by the Government, who do everything possible for the City of Dublin is not borne out either by the facts, or, I am glad to say, by the case made by Deputy Larkin and Deputy Colley.

There is one other point I might mention as showing the amount of money available. In Dublin, the Lord Mayor, having assessed the amount of his fund, made a cash payment of £10 in every case where there was flooding and, in addition, the people got a quarter ton of coal. In the Shannon area, the cash payment was £20 and one ton of coal was distributed. I know that it is suggested that there were losses of crops and so on in the Shannon area, which did not occur in Dublin, but that was covered in part by the fact that the Dublin people lost their entire belongings.

Mr. T. Lynch

What date was that?

Mr. O'Donovan

8th December.

Mr. O'Donnell

If you were here for the past hour and a half, you would know the date.

Mr. T. Lynch

I only wanted to hear the Parliamentary Secretary say it when everybody else in the House has said it.

Mr. D. Larkin

The Minister will not forget the date.

Mr. O'Donnell

He will not, after tonight.

Mr. O'Donovan

There is still, I understand, despite what has been suggested here, a considerable balance of moneys available in both the Athlone and Tuam funds. I am very glad there is, but I cannot see much point in making the case that these funds will be exhausted in a week or two. We are now in the last week of March, and, if the funds have lasted for the relief of distress from December to March, I think most reasonable people will agree that they were adequate. On the whole, I think the Government were well aware in advance that the situation would arise of the comparison between £20,000 and the £110,000, but in reply to that case it can be pointed out that the people who administered the relief fund in Dublin and the moneys made available by the Government seemed to have been more careful. At any rate, the amounts would indicate that they were a bit tighter if anything than the people in the country. I am not saying they were; I am saying the amounts would suggest it.

I would say for the main Opposition Party that certainly this evening they made no attempt to make any personal capital out of this matter. The debate was conducted in a very fair way. That was the sole point I wished to make. I am not going to attempt to reply to the case made by the two Dublin Deputies. I feel that is the function of the Minister.

Mr. James Tully

I will be brief as Deputy Lynch is very anxious to speak and I do not propose to detain him. I think the most significant point made here this evening was the fact that after giving a certain amount of relief to the people affected in both areas— a very substantial amount in both cases —there was a surplus. We were assured time and again that cases of extreme necessity outside those areas would be catered for by the Red Cross. I would like to know if the people who made those statements to the House had the authority of the Red Cross to make them. I dealt with some of the people affected. Some of them live on the Tolka and apparently because they lived outside Dublin City it did not matter whether they lost all their property, some of their property or suffered other losses. I would like to know if authority was given by the Red Cross to say they would be prepared to administer certain funds in order to alleviate distress outside that area because, except in very rare circumstances, the Red Cross did not do so.

I am not trying to blame the Red Cross. I think in some cases they very rightly refused. I just want to make it plain that the statements made in this House should be backed up afterwards by actual deeds. There was no reason at all why it should be passed on to the Red Cross to deal with cases outside the two areas concerned, when the Red Cross either were not in a position to deal with it or prepared to deal with it. I had experience in regard to one particular town—the town of Navan, where very bad flooding occurred. The people there were told that the Red Cross would look after them.

Mr. O'Donnell

We are going up the river now.

Mr. James Tully

The Minister for Local Government met a deputation and assured us that the Red Cross would definitely look after them.

An Ceann Comhairle

This Supplementary Estimate is confined to Dublin and the Shannon.

Mr. James Tully

I know. It was made very clear that it was for the Shannon valley and not the Tolka area but Dublin city. Of course, the Tolka runs through part of the County Meath. Since there is a surplus and considering that both the Athlone funds and the Lord Mayor's fund amounted to a very big sum in addition to the Government grants, even at this late stage I wonder whether some consideration could be given to the people to whom so much was promised and for whom so little was done.

Mr. T. Lynch

I sat here for so long through two flood debates that I damned these floods many times. What the Minister for Local Government is prepared to do for the Dublin flood victims and what the Minister for Agriculture is prepared to do for the Shannon flood victims is evidently measured by the Deputies in how active they were. I smelled a lot of vote-catching here this evening.

Mr. D. Larkin

There was no question of vote-catching in the North Strand, Deputy.

Mr. T. Lynch

Let me paraphrase a famous saying. I have never heard so little said in so many words. People's homes were flooded in my constituency where we have recurring floods. They dried out their houses but nobody came along to give them £20. They went about their business and said nothing about it. I say I am a very bad Deputy when I did not come up and shout about it. It is a good thing to protect our people from disaster. If my memory serves me right, the Ministers did not say they were going to give compensation but that they were going to give relief, which is a different thing altogether. Our thanks are due to the people who helped in the floods but that is what we would expect Irish people to do.

In my constituency I could give an example of a farmer who lost a very valuable dairy herd through fire. I never heard of a farmer who had his live stock insured. His neighbours sent him in stock and everything he wanted next day and there was £2,700 made up for him. Neither I nor my colleagues came up here to start shouting. I think the Ministers should get a lot more thanks for the prompt way in which they dealt with the floods. The Minister for Local Government was on the job right away. I read a statement in the newspapers in regard to the floods in which the Minister said that everything possible would be done and that there would be no red tape. I also read about the various things that were done for the people and how they were helped. A great number of people rendered assistance. That is as it should be.

During the course of another debate on floods to-day it was said that this was the first time in living memory that anything such as the Tolka flooding struck Dublin. Unless my memory serves me badly I remember that 25 years ago there was a big flood in the Tolka. The people had to be taken out of their houses by the then Lord Mayor who happens to be the present Lord Mayor. They were brought to the Mansion House and various places in Dublin. If the Minister for Local Government is to deal promptly with this, I hope he will not take example from the way the matter was debated here this evening.

We should remember that there are people around the country who lose things and who do not rush up to make claims. I deplore the attitude of the Deputies who said here this evening that it was just because the Tolka was flooded that there was any recognition made of the Shannon floods at all. The Shannon floods being more disastrous this year than they were for many years, I think the matter would have been looked after. The Vote for this is £100,000.

Mr. O'Donnell

£110,000.

Mr. T. Lynch

That is a substantial amount of money and the Lord Mayor got £45,000. Deputy Colley said people were taken out of a house; that the house was left to the landlord but because the house was damp the landlord could not let it. I can imagine the queue of people who would like to get into that house and have a chance of drying it out. Houses are not that plentiful in Dublin.

Mr. Colley

I know that for a fact.

Mr. T. Lynch

Tell the lady to put up a notice saying: "House to let" in the window and then get a couple of Guards to keep her from being knocked down in the rush. The approach to this Estimate should be from the point of view that this money is being provided to relieve a certain section of our community. I know the House will gladly do that. I do not, however, like to see this £110,000 being treated as if it were only buttons. Some Deputies have said that people will put in exaggerated claims. Others have said that claims should be dealt with immediately. We all know reasonable care must be taken. It would, of course, be better to err on the right side. I know that the Minister and his officials will do that in administering these flood relief moneys.

The suggestion of building a wall along each bank of the Tolka rather intrigued me. How would bridges be constructed? I suppose that would be a matter for the engineers. Perhaps, instead of having bridges over it, they would have tunnels underneath it.

I want to warn the Minister for Local Government now and the Minister for Agriculture that in future the people in Waterford will not remain silent when floods arise. We will try to cash in. We should have as good a right to do that as anybody else. Possibly the citizens of Waterford are just good citizens, foolish perhaps, who meet their misfortunes like men, clean up their houses when the waters subside and start afresh.

Mr. O'Donnell

We had a spate of water in the month of December last. We have certainly had a spate of oratory this evening. I would like the House to recall the reason why this Estimate is before us. On the night of 8th December last we had an unprecedented flood, and unprecedented action was taken by the Government to deal with that flood. Immediately the Government became aware of the magnitude of the flood and the flood problem the Taoiseach himself instructed me that all red tape should be cut and nothing was to stand in the way of relieving distress. I immediately so instructed the city manager, and I am very glad to say that he acted on those instructions and cut all red tape.

I would like here and now to pay a tribute not only to the various officials to whom reference has already been made by several Deputies, but also to the Lord Mayor of Dublin for his action on that occasion. I personally had the privilege of accompanying him around the flooded area. I know the amount of work he did, not only then but later on, through his energy, his popularity and his charity in procuring a large sum of money for distribution among the victims of this disaster.

What was the action of the Government? The very first thing the Government did was to come before the House here and ask for a token Vote, not to compensate the victims of the flooding but to relieve distress. It was made abundantly clear then that the intention of the Government was to relieve distress, and that was accepted by the House without a division. The next step the Government took was to set up a committee to deal with the victims of the flooding. Who were the members of that committee? The chairman was a judge of the Supreme Court. Another member was the President of the Council of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul. The third, lady, was vice-president of the Infant Aid Society; another was an expert of the Dublin Corporation in charge of housing; and the last was the city manager, a man who had been in touch with the flooded area from the very beginning. Indeed, two of the members of that committee had been in close touch from the outset.

This committee was set up and certain instructions were given to them. They were told to investigate the position, the situation and the circumstances of the various victims and to assess the amount of distress suffered by every applicant who came before them. They were told that when that assessment had been made the Government would pay in cash, and that the Government did.

Mention has been made here on a number of occasions to the terms of reference of that committee. I think it is right that I should read them at this stage. They are as follows:—

"1. The committee will be concerned with the alleviation of distress caused by abnormal flooding in the City of Dublin area on the 8th and 9th December, 1954. It is not intended that the committee shall consider awards on the basis of compensation for damage sustained."

That was made quite clear here in the debate on the token Estimate.

"2. The committee will have regard to the assistance already given and to the other funds available for the relief of distress as well as to the existence of insurance cover in determining the net distress requiring alleviation. The facilities provided by the Board of Assistance should also be taken into account."

I think no person can take exception to those two.

"3. Repairs to private houses are not to be provided for. Redecoration will, however, be within the province of the committee to consider, where distress is involved."

I think it is right I should comment on that particular one. Repairs to private houses are not to be provided for: the reason for that is because, under Section 12 of the Housing Act, 1954, applicants may apply for grants for repairs to their houses. The victims of this flooding are not unaware of that.

Eighty applications have already been received by the corporation and further applications are being received at the rate of five per day. I now publicly tell any victims of the flooding who require grants for the repair of their houses that all they have to do is apply to the corporation and the corporation will very liberally construe the regulations governing such grants. I think that answers the point made by Deputy D. Larkin. The moneys already paid are obviously not the only relief the victims will receive.

"4. Assistance may be given in the form of cash grants. In determining the amount of assistance regard shall be had to the number of persons in the household and to their general circumstances, financial and otherwise. No payment shall be made until each case has been considered and investigated by the committee. Assistance to cover current maintenance expenses in respect of items such as food and fuel is a function of the Board of Assistance."

I think that is quite in order and that nobody could take exception to it.

"5. All payments approved and directed by the committee shall be paid out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas. A record shall be kept of all payments made, the persons to whom they are made and the purpose for which issued.

6. Receipts should be obtained for all payments made.

7. The committee may receive claims for loss on stock-in-trade and should it think fit, report to the Minister on them but no payment should be made on foot thereof unless such damage falls within the above principle of alleviating distrees."

In other words, within the principle approved by this House when the token Vote was taken.

"8. The Minister for Local Government has full confidence in the committee and appreciates that the funds will be administered with the greatest sense of responsibility."

I think the House will agree that those were very fair terms of reference, in view of what was said here when the token grant was before the House. The Government met all payments recommended by the committee and the applicants have been paid. In addition, if there are outstanding claims for repairs to houses the applicants may make application to the corporation under the 1954 Act and their claims will be generously construed by the corporation. In addition to that the Lord Mayor was successful in procuring a fund totalling £40,000——

Mr. A. Byrne

£38,000.

Mr. O'Donnell

£38,000, and I understand there has been distributed already a sum of £30,000——

Mr. A. Byrne

£32,000.

Mr. O'Donnell

£32,000. That is a very liberal contribution from the Lord Mayor——

Mr. Briscoe

From the people who sent in the money.

Mr. O'Donnell

Well, the Lord Mayor initiated the fund and deserves credit for it.

Mr. Briscoe

Surely the people who contributed deserve credit too.

Mr. O'Donnell

I take it the Lord Mayor thanked them.

Mr. Briscoe

I think the Minister ought to thank them also.

Mr. O'Donnell

I did, at the beginning. Some comment was made on the fact—by Deputy Larkin, I think—that owners of business premises were not informed as to whether their claims would receive any consideration. That is not true. A deputation representative of the Tolka area was told by the Flood Relief Committee at the end of January that traders could dispose of damaged stock if they so wished as assessors are skilled in assessing damaged stock which could not be produced. After a fire those assessors can go in and estimate the value of stock destroyed despite the fact that there is very little evidence left. This committee had the assistance of very eminent assessors in disposing of all these claims and had the information before them. They were not taking a chance, as I think Deputy Larkin said, on the principle that the higher your claim the more money you got. That is not true. The committee had before them the amounts assessed by these eminent assessors before they reached a decision.

I should mention the fact that Dublin Corporation did a considerable amount in the provision of coal and the cleaning of houses, and attending to waterworks and roads and the corporation has submitted a bill for £10,483 10s. to the Government which will be paid by the Government.

I have been asked by many Deputies what I am doing to inquire into the cause of the flooding. That is not a matter for which I am directly responsible. If Dublin Corporation wishes to submit detailed plans or schemes for the prevention of future flooding to me for approval then I can go into the matter. Otherwise I cannot do so. I think it is not fair to ask the ratepayers at this stage to take responsibility for investigating this problem and possibly doing something about it.

Mr. Briscoe

Would you give us an 80 per cent. grant for the work?

Mr. O'Donnell

Dublin Corporation for years has had under observation the condition of this river and has amassed a huge amount of technical information in connection with the matter but do not appear to have taken any action. But it is a matter for them. The onus of responsibility is on them and if they do submit a scheme to my Department it will be considered.

Mr. Briscoe

The Minister does not hold the corporation responsible for the bridge?

Mr. O'Donnell

I did not say that I did. I said there was an unfortunate coincidence. We had this very heavy rainfall and high tide at the same time but against that it is a blessing that a train did not fall into the gully that night thereby blocking it completely. It would have been a serious disaster for the city if that had occurred. Things could have been worse than they were.

Let me conclude by telling the House this: Off the coast of Donegal in my constituency is an island called Iniskeera. While up to three years ago we had 14 families living on the island, owing to unprecedented tides in recent years there is not one family left to-day on the island. These families were composed of fishermen and migrants and out of their meagre savings they have had to transfer to the mainland and endeavour to purchase farms there on the instalment system. They have not asked Donegal County Council or the Government to provide a penny for them. I think the victims of the Dublin flooding are grateful to the Government for what they have done for them and I feel proud to be a member of the Government which did so much for these victims on such an occasion and I hope such an occasion will not arise again.

Vote put and agreed to.

Supplementary Estimates reported and agreed to.