I am grateful to Deputies on all sides for their contributions on Second Stage, many of which highlighted the need to deal urgently and fairly with the plight of the victims of the flooding and to assist them back to some form of normality. The essence of the Bill is to empower the Commissioners of Public Works to implement the Government's humanitarian assistance: home relocation scheme, in respect of the flooding which occured in 1995, primarily in the south Galway area. I am most anxious that with the passing of this Bill, all those who satisfy the scheme's criteria will be dealt with as speedily as practicable.
Some Deputies have been critical of the fact that the powers of the Commissioners of Public Works to implement the home relocation scheme were not recognised at a much earlier stage. The original drafting of the scheme and the discussions with the relevant interest groups proceeded in good faith in the belief that the commissioners did have the requisite powers to implement it. It was only when the details of the scheme had been finalised and sent to the Chief State Solicitor to be given a correct legal formulation that the difficulties in relation to the commissioners' powers came to light. The consultation could not have been initiated sooner than it was and the House will agree that as soon as the problem came to light the Government acted with exceptional speed to deal with it.
The papers were referred to the Chief State Solicitor on 1 November 1995. His advice based on considerable research and consultation with an eminent senior counsel was received on 30 November 1995. The Bill now before the House was immediately drafted by the parliamentary draftsman and the Attorney General's Office and approved by the Government immediately. It was passed by the Seanad on 20 December 1995. It has been introduced in this House at the earliest possible opportunity after the budget and I welcome the fact that the Opposition parties have promised their support for it and are co-operating fully with us to ensure its early passage.
Deputy Treacy gave us a very succinct resume of the history of drainage legislation. He stated that he does not accept this Bill is necessary to allow the home relocation scheme to proceed and referred to the compensation provisions of the Arterial Drainage Act. Those provisions relate specifically to compensation arising from the implementation of schemes under the Act. This is precisely the difficulty I referred to in my opening remarks where powers conferred by a particular Act are specific to the subject matter of that Act and are not available in other situations.
Deputy Treacy referred to the Bill introduced in the Seanad by Senator Brendan Daly early last year and to his subsequent attempt to have the Government's own Arterial Drainage (Amendment) Bill amended to include provisions similar to those in his own Bill whereby the Commissioners of Public Works would be empowered to make compensation payments to victims of flooding in certain circumstances. While Senator Daly's intention showed considerable foresight, it is not true to say that if his suggestion had been adopted there would have been no need to introduce this legislation. The powers now being provided relate specifically to humanitarian aid; there is a fundamental difference between compensation and humanitarian aid. The former implies the existence of legal entitlement while the latter has no such connotations.
This Bill will when enacted, meet the test mentioned by Deputies Treacy and Killeen, that it should not be necessary to come to the Oireachtas again to rectify deficiencies in the powers of the Office of Public Works. The approach that has been adopted is a very simple but effective one of outlining what the functions of the commissioners are and providing that they will have the powers necessary to carry them out.
A number of Deputies asked that I reconsider the amount of money that will be offered to people who seek relocation assistance. I will outline briefly the philosophy underlying the scheme. As some Deputies have recognised, there is no precedent for a scheme of this kind where the Government is offering to assist people who have experienced severe flooding of their houses to re-house themselves. The underlying principle is that people who will be assisted are, effectively, homeless. This is the only basis on which the scheme could be justified. The money that it is proposed to provide to assist people to relocate themselves is based on the cost of providing an appropriate local authority house.
This is a fair and reasonable approach. In effect, the people who have been made homeless because of the flooding are being treated on the same basis as any other citizen who is homeless for whatever reason. In arriving at the monetary values, I sought information from the Department of the Environment and Galway County Council on the cost of various categories of local authority housing. In determining the level of assistance to be offered I have opted for the highest figure that I can justify. I fully realise that the money on offer will not enable some people to re-house themselves on a like for like basis. I would like to be in a position to offer sufficient assistance to people to replace their existing houses, but the reality is that I could not justify spending taxpayers' money to do so. It is simply not possible to justify treating people who are homeless because of flooding differently from people who are homeless for any other reason.
Reference has also been made to the amount of insurance compensation to be taken into account in determining the net assistance to be paid to each householder. My proposals in this regard are also determined by the basic principle that each householder should be provided with sufficient funds to provide themselves with a house of local authority standard whether those funds comprise Government assistance or insurance compensation.
I have already made a number of concessions in relation to the insurance deduction in response to requests from the South Galway IFA and the South Galway Flood Victims Action Group. I have agreed that the vouched cost of loss adjusters' fees and any insurance money which has reasonably been spent on repairs to the existing house will not be deducted. While I have listened to the proposal of some Deputies suggesting that the insurance deduction be on a pro-rata basis, I regret I cannot agree to make this further concession as it ignores the basic principle underlying the scheme that everyone should be put in a position to rehouse themselves to local authority standard.
I cannot accept the criticism by Deputy Ó Cuív that the assistance being offered represents a penny pinching attitude by the State. I have already explained that in deciding on an appropriate cost for a local authority house I have selected a figure at the top of the range. I have added to this what are by any standards generous allowances for the purchase of a site, fees that people may incur and the demolition of existing houses. I have also agreed that the house owners may retain both the site of the house and any salvage they can recover from the house. Most reasonable people will agree that the scheme is a fair attempt to give people who have been traumatised by the flooding the option of relocating and not having to live any longer in fear of a recurrence.
Deputy Kitt mentioned that demolishing their houses might present difficulties for some people. That provision in the scheme was included on the advice of the Chief State Solicitor to avoid cumbersome transfers of property that would be necessary before the Office of Public Works could demolish the houses. These transfers would delay the completion of the legal agreements necessary to allow payments to be made. I am anxious to avoid delays. However, if any specific individual has a difficulty, we will discuss the matter with them and make whatever adjustments are necessary. I am determined to see that payments will be issued within the shortest possible time after the enactment of this Bill.
I have received a number of suggestions in relation to the scheme from the South Galway Flood Victims Action Group and the IFA with a request that I meet with them to discuss them. Their suggestions are being examined in detail and I will be prepared to meet both groups to respond to them. I wish to make it clear, however, that the scheme which I circulated on 16 January was not a negotiating document but represented our considered proposals following extensive consultation and discussion. I will give careful consideration to these latest suggestions, but my priority now is to be able to implement the scheme and finalise our dealings with individual applicants at the earliest possible opportunity.
Deputy Treacy questioned the commitment of the Government to the Office of Public Works. I agree fully with Deputy Treacy and others who referred to the experience and professionalism of the Office of Public Works. The Government is fully committed to developing the Office of Public Works as a more streamlined and more sharply focused organisation, well equipped to concentrate on managing the Government's property portfolio and operating Government procurement policy. The introduction of this Bill to underpin the functions and powers of the office is an eloquent testimony to that commitment.
Deputies Connaughton and Kitt asked for assurances that the necessary surveys in relation to the proposed flood relief scheme at Williamstown, County Galway would be allowed to proceed, despite the execution of work by some individuals during the Christmas period. I am happy to confirm that the design of the scheme and the necessary surveys are continuing and will be completed as quickly as possible. I expect, subject to it being possible to design an environmentally and economically viable scheme, which may be difficult, that work at Williamstown could commence later this year.
Several Deputies referred to the study of the unique problems of south Galway and possible solutions. I was surprised at Deputy Molloy's statement that the consultants' preliminary report was received with dismay in the area. The report which I received from the public meeting in Gort where the report was presented suggested that the consultants had demonstrated an excellent knowledge of both the area and the problems and had advanced some interesting and practical ideas about possible solutions.
It is clear that the basic causes of flooding in south Galway are sustained heavy rainfall and the inadequacy of the watercourses to carry it away quickly enough. It may be that at the end of the day drainage is the only solution. However, I am pleased that the consultants are also looking at other possibilities and look forward to reading their report. Deputy Molloy asked that I publish the report. It would be unwise for me to give a definite commitment before seeing the report, but my strong inclination is to publish the report unless there are some compelling reasons for not doing so in whole or in part. It was also suggested that the findings in the case of south Galway could be applied to other areas. The geology of the south Galway area is unique and the other areas where the report would be directly applicable are likely to be limited. However, it is likely that some of the findings will be of wider relevance and significance.
Insurance companies were criticised during the debate. Deputies will appreciate that supervision of the insurance industry is outside my remit, but I will bring their remarks to the attention of the Minister for Enterprise and Employment. Members referred to other matters, also outside my area of responsibility, which I will bring to the attention of the relevant Ministers.
A number of Deputies referred to the recent flooding in the south and south east, particularly in Wexford and south Tipperary. This flooding was caused by a number of factors. Exceptionally heavy and prolonged rainfall over the period from approximately 29 December 1995 to 14 January 1996, led to very high water levels in rivers which, combined with high winds and raised tide levels due to a severe low pressure system centred in the area, were the main causes of the extensive and unprecedented flooding.
I am aware from personal experience, following my visits to Clonmel and Carrick-on-Suir, two areas which were particularly badly affected, of the extent of the hardship caused to families by the flooding of homes there. The Government is likewise conscious of the traumatising effect such flooding can have on individuals, particularly the elderly, and cannot but sympathise with the plight of the flooded victims. The Government recognises that individuals may require assistance from time to time to get them over particularly adverse circumstances and of their need to be treated on a humanitarian basis. I agree with Deputy Ahern that the trauma and other effects of flooding on people directly affected remains long after the semblance of normality has returned to the community in general.
Several Members commented favourably on the outcome of my visit to Brussels to seek humanitarian assistance for the victims of this year's flooding and I thank them for their kind remarks. I appreciate the assistance of our MEPs from all parties in the matter. I have no doubt the fact that the European Parliament had, on its initiative, passed a motion calling for compensation for victims of flooding here and in Portugal was of considerable assistance in influencing the Commission in favour of our request.
I also pay tribute to Commissioner Flynn, his staff, our ambassador and permanent staff in Brussels, all of whom provided me with valuable assistance. We have not yet heard the result of this. The Commission recommended that a substantial payment should be paid to Ireland and Portugal, but as there is not a budget line to provide such funding it will be necessary for the Parliament and Commission to agree on moving moneys from another budget head into this area so that funds can be provided. I expect to have information in that regard in approximately a month's time.
When I receive that information consideration will be given to further humanitarian assistance from the Exchequer in the light of the provision which is expected from the European Union.
The Irish Red Cross Society supports the Government's application to the EU Commission for humanitarian assistance and stands ready to administer any funds which might be made available from EU or Exchequer sources. The society advises that as it may be some time before funds might come on stream, householders and others who suffered damage as a result of flooding and who intend to submit applications for humanitarian assistance, should ensure that they have sufficient evidence, photographic or otherwise, and adequate records of damages, cost estimates, etc., for examination by the society.
Deputies Nealon and Brennan referred to the problems of the Arrow and Owenmore river catchments. The major difficulty in that case was that the Office of Public Works was unable, despite the co-operation of the local drainage committee, to devise an economically viable scheme. As I indicated in reply to a parliamentary question yesterday, areas within the catchment can and will be considered for localised flood relief schemes. While I cannot guarantee they will be at the top of the priority list which is to be drawn up shortly, I sympathise with both Deputies as flooding in that area has caused problems for many years.
Deputy Killeen also referred to the provision in the Bill whereby the Commissioners of Public Works will be empowered to demolish buildings or structures. He appeared to suggest that this power is excessive. There is no specific statutory provision whereby the commissioners are empowered to demolish buildings. Such powers would obviously be required, particularly in the context of the proposed home relocation scheme under which the commissioners may have to undertake or complete the demolition of flood damaged houses. Such powers would also be required from time to time in the exercise by the commissioners of their other powers and duties, such as site clearance for development of Government offices, Garda stations, etc. The commissioners would be, however, still bound by the full rigours of the planning laws and as such would be in a position no better or worse than any other developer or individual proposing to demolish a building.
Deputy Gallagher referred to the need for a co-ordinated response to the effects of flooding and similar catastrophic events. I agree wholeheartedly with him on that point. The House will recall that last year the Government established an interdepartmental committee, which I chair, for that purpose. Office of Public Works officials also maintain contact, as necessary, with local authorities and generally have a good working relationship with them.
When I went to Brussels to make the case for humanitarian assistance, I had available to me reports from all local authorities in the south and south east on the position in their respective areas. I thank them for their quick response and for the excellent information they supplied.
Deputy Killeen expressed reservations about whether the proposed flood relief scheme in Sixmilebridge would be fully effective because of the tidal influence on the flooding problem there. While I do not intend to give hostages to fortune by saying flooding will never again occur in Sixmilebridge, whatever the weather, the tidal element has been taken into account in the design. I do not propose to make a specific provision in the home relocation scheme to provide that the residents of Sixmilebridge will be eligible at some point in the future if the works are not successful, and I am sure my successors, would, however, be sympathetic to their case in the unlikely event of that happening.
Deputy Browne inquired about the proposed flood relief scheme for Carlow. A preliminary design and report for a scheme for Carlow has been received from consultants and is being examined by the Commissioners of Public Works. It will be necessary to develop this design further before determining the extent of the works required to alleviate the flooding. Cost benefit analysis and environmental impact statements have also been commissioned and these reports will take some months to complete. All going well, it is envisaged that a scheme could be put on exhibition and, hopefully, work will commence later in the year. The Deputy also suggested that any scheme should start at the sea. That is not envisaged under the present scheme but the downstream effects of the work will be taken into account in its design.
Deputies Leonard and Boylan referred to the River Erne. In 1970 the commissioners prepared a scheme for the part of the Erne catchment lying within the State. That was not proceeded with at the time because of the high cost involved and there is no reason to believe that the economics of the scheme improved in the meantime, particularly in the light of trends elsewhere. The implications of a scheme on the downstream reaches in Northern Ireland would also require careful consideration. That was not considered in the context of the EU funded cross-Border drainage programmes in the early and mid-1980s.
The Finn-Lackey tributaries were, however, considered at that time but after detailed consideration by the Commissioners of Public Works and their drainage counterparts in Northern Ireland, they were also rejected on economic grounds. However, individual areas within the Erne catchment area may be considered under the programme of works for localised flood relief and in drawing up our national priority list we shall bear that in mind.
I wish to pay a special tribute to the former director of engineering services in the Office of Public Works, Mr. Pierce Pigott who retired recently. Since I assumed office he has been of enormous help to me, showing boundless energy for a man of his years. In fact, I was astonished to hear he was retiring about one month ago. Mr. Piggott has been a most invaluable servant of this country and of the Office of Public Works and I wish him well in his retirement. I know he has many other interests and that his knowledge will not be lost as he has a Chair in the University of Ulster. He has left a gap in the Office of Public Works which will be difficult to fill. I also wish to thank the other officials, two of whom are with me in the Chamber, who have been of great assistance to me in dealing with drainage schemes in which I literally became immersed at short notice in the middle of last year.
I thank the Deputies who contributed to the debate. I have tried to respond to most of the points raised but if there are any significant points I missed, I will be happy to respond directly to Deputies if they wish to contact me. I thank the Opposition parties in particular for their support for the Bill and I welcome their assurances of co-operation to ensure its speedy passage through the House.
