Senator Paul Bradford:   I second the amendment. An Cathaoirleach: I call the Minister of State on amendment No. 1. Minister of State at the Department of Finance (Deputy Martin Mansergh): I understood all the amendments were being taken together. An Cathaoirleach: Yes. Senator Joe O’Toole: Is the grouping amendments Nos. 1 to 7, inclusive, or Nos. 1 and 7? An Cathaoirleach: Amendments Nos. 1 to 7, inclusive. Senator Joe O’Toole: I misunderstood. May I continue? I understood we were discussing amendments Nos. 1 and 7. An Cathaoirleach: I will make an exception. Senator Joe O’Toole: In that case I will comment on all the amendments. I welcome very much the fact that the Government has listened to the various arguments I put forward yesterday. The most important element is that there should be direct access to the commission for the audit committee and that the audit committee should advise the commission on issues of corporate governance, which covers all relevant matters of concern. One reason for my concern was that the Bill, as drafted, is a reflection of what took place but should not have in FÁS, whereby the audit committee reported only to the chief executive. In fact, my comment is somewhat unfair. In the case of FÁS, the audit committee advised and reported only to the chief executive and the board never got to see it. There is a provision in the Bill that the audit committee should report to the board but only on an annual basis and this was a matter of concern for me. I was also concerned that we were veering away from the documentation relevant to every State body, that is, the Code of Practice for the Governance of State Bodies, because of the absence of clearer lines of communication. Although I called for a provision such that the audit committee would advise the chairman, the reason for the provision in amendment No. 2 is that the duties of a chairman of a State body are very onerous. Such a chairman requires a significant element of support and the thinking behind the amendment was to ensure such support would be forthcoming. I note the Minister of State has not taken that point on board exactly. However, I am satisfied that in advising the commission, of which the chairman is a part, the legislation meets my requirements. I had sought for the chairman and the commission to be considered as two separate entities, but this was done with a belt and braces approach in mind. I am satisfied to acknowledge that Government amendment No. 4 fulfils what I set out to do in amendments Nos. 2 and 6. It meets the needs and keeps a direct line of communication from the audit committee to the commission and its members. There were recurring problems involving members of boards who appeared before the Committee of Public Accounts in 2000 and 2002 in respect of offshore matters. It was significant that they stated they did not know about certain matters. Members of boards of companies of banks and so on also stated they did not know about certain matters. I recall the then Tánaiste, Deputy Mary Harney, stating she never wanted that to be allowed as an excuse in future. This Bill will mean members of the commission must know what is taking place and that the audit committee can bring to the attention of the commission anything it considers to be important. It meets my requirements. I held considerable concerns about this matter. It was valuable to have held such a lengthy debate yesterday and it was also valuable that we deferred Report Stage until today to allow people to reflect on the matter. I welcome the Minister of State’s amendments. On that basis it is my intention not to press any of my amendments, namely amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 6. I will not put them to a vote because I recognise that the Government amendments meet everything I argued for yesterday. I am very grateful to the officials for taking these points on board as well. I accept it is difficult to write amendments at short notice, to collate all the parts and change the numbering. It is a good day’s work for the Seanad. Senator Feargal Quinn: We, in this House, have often criticised Ministers and the system. One of the most frequent criticisms is about when we rush legislation through without a gap between Committee Stage and Report Stage. I congratulate the Minister of State for accepting the basis of Senator O’Toole’s concerns. His amendments have been adjusted, but in a manner that recognises exactly what he wished to achieve. The Senator has withdrawn the other amendments on that basis. Deferring Report Stage until today was the correct thing to do. We should never have Committee Stage and Report Stage one after the other. I thank the Minister of State for that. I thank Senator O’Toole in particular for his work. He spoke to me previously about his concerns on the matter. It is clear that if the legislation had gone through unchanged it would not have solved the problems that arose in the past. I congratulate the Minister of State for accepting the gist of what Senator O’Toole wished to achieve and I thank him for so doing. Senator Paul Bradford: I thank the Minister of State, Deputy Mansergh, for his presence and for being willing to accept the principle presented yesterday by Senator O’Toole. It will help to ensure the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission does its work in the most professional and appropriate fashion. I hope it will also help in terms of the standards expected and conduct demanded of appointees to other State boards and agencies. A reasonable amount of time was provided for Second Stage and Committee Stage. It was useful that Senator O’Toole highlighted the possible omissions that existed and provided a remedy to rectify the situation. I am thankful that the Minister of State appears willing to accept the principle enunciated yesterday by Senator O’Toole, as it will result in better legislation. Deputy Martin Mansergh: I thank Senators for the broad support for the Government response to the arguments and the amendments. As Senator O’Toole pointed out, he and I had an interesting experience when we soldiered together between 2002 and 2007 on the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission. We were both on the audit committee together. I left it and perhaps he did too when some things were up in the air, but subsequent events also underlined the importance of the relationship between the audit committee, the Clerk of the Dáil or the Secretary General, and the commission. While I am only taking Report Stage of the Bill I appreciate the importance of the argument. I am pleased that we have been able to address concerns expressed in well reasoned debate. I appreciate that some of the amendments are not being pressed but I will outline briefly some of the points and arguments in regard to them. All the amendments were grouped together for discussion purposes. It would not be appropriate to grant the Secretary General and the head of finance an automatic right to attend audit committee meetings. That has to do with the independence of function of the committee. By excluding an automatic right of attendance by officials the committee can engage in its own internal discussions in a manner that is free, or more importantly, seen to be free, of any official interference. As pointed out by the Minister of State, Deputy Peter Power, on Committee Stage yesterday, subsection (13) provides that the audit committee may invite a person who has responsibility for internal audit or financial matters within the staff of the service. In practice, that means that the committee invites attendance by the head of finance frequently but the Government would prefer to leave that as it stands so that the committee remains in control of the persons who may attend its meetings. For that reason I do not propose to accept the amendment. Senator O’Toole has accepted that point in the case of amendment No. 2. His amendment did draw a distinction between advising the commission and advising the commission chair. The Government does not consider it necessary to draw that distinction within the legislation. On amendments Nos. 3, 4, 5, and 7, that is effectively the response to Senator O’Toole’s well-made points regarding the giving of advice by the audit committee to the commission. It is not just the case that I consider that these amendments take his concerns into account, but he agrees with that. The Minister for Finance noted with interest last night the views and proposals of Senators on the role and functions of the audit committee, as reported to him. Following a review of the general principles underlying section 10 and its relationship with the rest of the legislation, he considered it appropriate to propose an amendment, the effect of which is to provide scope for the audit committee to advise the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission in regard to corporate governance matters relevant to its functions. That phraseology can cover a multitude of sins. In the case of the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission it must be acknowledged that its situation is somewhat different from that of a Department. On the one hand it exercises a number of functions normally associated with Ministers, such as the making of regulations for particular purposes, but it also exercises a number of oversight and policy-setting functions in providing for the running of the Houses and acting as governing body of the service. The Bill provides for greater accountability to the Houses in respect of the carrying out of its functions. I understand that there was some lively speculation yesterday as to how that might work in practice. Some of the responsibilities of the commission are matters which may be of legitimate interest in the workings of the audit committee, or may become so in the future. It is appropriate that the audit committee would be able to advise the commission in respect of its exercise of those responsibilities. The purpose of the amendment, therefore, is to enable the audit committee to advise the commission on matters relevant to its corporate governance functions, while respecting the fact that the commission itself is not primarily responsible for the financial accounting or financial control functions which are vested in the Secretary General, in other words the Clerk of the Dáil. The Minister is satisfied that the amendment reflects the appropriate balance of statutory responsibilities in respect of governance, accounting and accountability in the legislation governing the commission’s operations. Under the amendment the audit committee’s advice in the area of the more detailed financial and control matters would still be primarily targeted at the person who is accountable and responsible for those matters. At the same time it can provide the best available support and advice to the commission in its areas of responsibility. The audit committee is also required anyhow to report to the commission at least once a year on its activities. The point has been accepted that that might not be enough. While the commission is somewhat of an exception to the departmental model in that it exercises board and policy-level oversight in a manner that does not apply in Departments, the essential role and responsibility of the chief civil servant and Accounting Officer remains vested in the Secretary General. It is appropriate that the audit committee continues to advise the Secretary General or Clerk of the Dáil in regard to those functions in the first instance. If the audit committee were to advise the commission on the carrying out of particular accounting functions the commission, and particularly its chairman, would have to assume significantly greater responsibilities and accountability at the level of individual financial transactions than it does at present, and in respect of which it would not have statutory cover. That might be a bridge too far in the context of the other roles of and offices held by some members of the commission. Senator Joe O’Toole: I am very pleased with the way the Minister of State has dealt with this matter and he has answered all of my points. I accept the argument on the first amendment that the people in question can be invited. I recognise that one could compromise one’s independence by giving people such a right. The Minister of State made an interesting point, perhaps one not to be debated now. I listened very closely with regard to the interchange of the words “accountable” and “responsible”, an issue on which we need a longer debate. We know what accountability means. Very often it comes into play in political life when people talk about resignations and the difference between somebody being held accountable and responsible. The board has a responsibility to ensure the Accounting Officer is held accountable, or it has a responsibility to have in place all the necessary arrangements to ensure the Accounting Officer is held accountable. I do not want to engage in tautology but I like to distinguish between these two words. For instance, in a Department the Accounting Officer is the Secretary General but the responsible person is generally the Minister who has political responsibility. They are different roles and it is important that the distinction is maintained. I am satisfied the distinctions the Minister of State made are correct, or they mirror my view that one must ensure one does not confuse the responsibility of the board with that of the Secretary General or, in this case, the chief executive officer or whatever he or she is to be called.  12 o’clockYesterday we had a debate on the section of the Bill which states a person transferring from the Civil Service to the commission will become a civil servant of the State. I said that was the kind of problem which was creating a need for the transformation of the public sector. It is a dearly held view of mine that whether one is a teacher, a nurse, a civil servant, a person working in the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission, etc., one should simply be described as a “public servant”, that there should be an integrated public service and that staff should be capable of being redeployed from one area to another as required by the State. That happens in France at a departmental level. I have strayed from the agenda but the Minister of State and I have discussed aspects of this issue at various times. The distinction between accountability and responsibility is crucial. Those who work in the Houses are civil servants of the State but I want to ensure that, as we move towards a transformation of the public sector, the distinctions vanish. Deputy Martin Mansergh: Senator O’Toole made two interesting points. Undoubtedly, accountability should be a narrower concept than responsibility which is broad ranging. Accountability, particularly in a financial context, is precise. I deprecate the growing practice, particularly in journalism, whereby accountability equates with “he or she ought to resign.” It is effectively used as a euphemism, which is regrettable. One should not equate accountability with that simpliciter. I regard myself as a public servant of 35 years standing and hope I will be able to get as far as 40 years service, not for pension-related reasons I hasten to add. That is the average or full length of a public servant’s career, although sometimes people go on for slightly longer than this. I agree with Senator O’Toole that there should not be much of a distinction. Obviously, the roles of a civil servant and an elected politician are different but “public servant” covers the matter more broadly. The fact that salaries are now linked to Civil Service grades, in a sense, underlines the point. As somebody who has occupied many roles from civil servant, to an adviser, to a Senator, to a Deputy and to a Minister of State, I see far more in common with these roles than a distinction that one is serving the State in different roles. What one learns in each of these roles may well be of assistance as one moves to another role. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Amendment No. 2 not moved. Government amendment No. 3: In page 7, line 13, to delete “and”.
Amendment agreed to. Government amendment No. 4: In page 7, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following:
“(b) advise the Commission on matters of corporate governance relating to its functions, and”.
Amendment agreed to. Government amendment No. 5: In page 7, line 14, to delete “(b) report in writing” and substitute the following:
“(c) report in writing”.
Amendment agreed to. Amendment No. 6 not moved. Government amendment No. 7: In page 7, line 39, to delete “subsection (10)(b)” and substitute “subsection (10) (c)”.
Amendment agreed to. Bill, as amended, received for final consideration and passed.  Interim Report on Flooding on River Shannon, November 2000: Statements.
Minister of State at the Department of Finance (Deputy Martin Mansergh): I welcome this opportunity to address the House and report on the recent major flood events that have affected the River Shannon area in a devastating way. I begin by extending my sincerest sympathy to all the individuals and families who have been affected by the floods and who are continuing to suffer from them and their aftermath. I have taken the opportunity in the past two weeks to visit the flood areas, including Limerick, villages in County Clare along the River Shannon, Athlone, Carrick-on-Shannon and Leitrim and adjacent areas in north and south Roscommon. On one of these occasions Senator McFadden joined me, with other public representatives. I witnessed the level of devastation and spoke to people whose homes, businesses and farms had been badly damaged by the floods. I appreciate that sympathy is of limited value to a family who have been made homeless, the owner of a business now lying under several feet of water or the farmers now operating in very difficult conditions. However, we have a plan for the future with which I will deal later. I acknowledge the tremendous work done on the ground by the emergency services and other State agencies. Also, I make a special mention and acknowledge the fantastic co-operation and help delivered within communities by volunteers and neighbours. In recognition of the devastation caused for people in many areas of the country by the recent flooding, the Government has allocated an initial sum of €10 million to fund a humanitarian assistance scheme which is being administered by the community welfare service of the Health Service Executive on behalf of the Department of Social and Family Affairs. The aim of the scheme is to provide financial support to people who have suffered flood damage to their homes through hardship alleviation as opposed to full compensation. As on previous occasions, commercial or business losses will not be covered by the scheme nor will losses which are covered by household insurance. The county enterprise boards are, however, collating information on damages suffered by businesses for the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment. The community welfare service has already provided emergency financial and other assistance to households affected by the flooding to cover items such as clothing, food, bedding, heating, hire of dehumidifiers and emergency accommodation needs. As the flood waters abate and people assess the full extent of the damage to their homes, qualified households can claim for essential household items such as carpets, flooring, furniture and white goods. The Government has also agreed to a targeted fodder aid scheme and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has announced that €2 million is being allocated for this purpose. This is in addition to the wider humanitarian aid scheme. In recent weeks, the River Shannon reached its highest level since the OPW began continuous recording of water levels in the late 1940s. The current flow in the Shannon is in excess of the 100 year flood event, which is the standard level of protection afforded by modern flood defence. The flood has caused hundreds of families, homes, businesses and farms to suffer hardships, threats to health and significant material and financial losses. It is also important to note the devastating impacts that the recent floods have on potable water supplies, the environment, terrestrial and aquatic flora and fauna, wildlife habitats and our archaeological heritage. The River Shannon is 340 km in length and its catchment area of 15,000 sq. km. accounts for almost 20% of the area of the country. It is one of the main natural resources of Ireland as well as a cause of innumerable and repeated problems. The flooding of the river and its catchment area has been the subject of intensive investigations over the past 60 years and other investigations which date back to 1863. I was once given a book which provided economic, social and statistical accounts of Ireland in 1870. It was clear from reading it that flooding along the Shannon was an even greater problem at that time. The Rydell report of 1956 was a significant and comprehensive study of the Shannon and its catchment area undertaken following the flooding of 1954. The report gave an overview of the flooding problems and possible mitigation options. It also considered related issues such as navigation, power generation and land use. It is of interest that the options put forward by Rydell are as valid today as they were in 1954. In 1957, the OPW and the ESB were jointly appointed to carry out further preliminary investigations on the Rydell report’s options for river diversion, channel improvements and lake storage. These investigations, the results of which were published in 1961, concluded that some of the Rydell recommendations were viable and cost-effective, whereas others were neither. None of the Rydell major recommendations was implemented. The Houses of the Oireachtas report of 2000 concluded that the causes of frequent flooding of the Shannon were mainly due to natural causes such as the flat gradient of the river channel, inadequacy of depth and width in critical areas and increases in rainfall and siltation. This report also recorded that, with the exception of minor activity such as the installation of river and rainfall recording devices, the main recommendations of the Rydell report had not been implemented. The House of the Oireachtas report of 2002 had as its objective the formulation of proposals on the optimum structure or structures to manage the Shannon and its tributaries. To that end, the report was mainly concerned with the organisational arrangements for the effective management of the Shannon catchment rather than a blueprint for the Shannon river basin, which was considered under the Oireachtas report of 2000. The 2002 report noted that a number of groups at regional level and at least 12 Departments and Government organisations at national level had some function or responsibility for the Shannon basin. It is worth noting that a consensus existed among these groups that improvements in the management of the Shannon basin were needed but there was no agreement on whether a new organisation should be set up to achieve this end. The 2002 report attempted to establish how effectively the present organisational arrangements enabled the Shannon catchment to be managed and what might best be done to improve the process. It also identified the shortcomings and weaknesses of the present arrangements in dealing with management of flooding and its consequences. The main merits attributed to the present arrangements for the management of the Shannon catchment were: functional responsibility is clearly fixed in law and each organisation has a precise remit, knows exactly what it is required to do and has clearly established priorities; and communication and collaboration between the various agencies take place using well established mechanisms, such as committees, working groups and partnerships. However, within these arrangements there is a lack of co-ordination, or of common purpose, among the organisations involved. There was, for example, no organisation or agency with a statutory duty to take initiatives to prevent and reduce the incidence of flooding or to alleviate its consequences. Co-ordination of planning among organisations with diverse responsibilities and remits has proved extremely difficult to achieve and where difficulties arise no mechanisms exist to resolve them. The need for a proactive approach to the management of flood risk was recognised by the report of the flood policy review group. The strategy of the OPW for the management of flood risks is founded on that report, which was approved by the Government in September 2004. This strategy gives us a more productive role and is being implemented through a range of additional work programmes, all of which are now under way. These programmes will complement the existing work of the OPW in regard to capital flood relief schemes and arterial drainage maintenance. Our main work programme is the catchment flood risk management and assessment, CFRAM, programme. This programme has commenced in pilot form on the River Lee and the objective is to complete the programme nationally to meet the requirements of the EU floods directive. The OPW is responsible for the transposition of the EU floods directive into national law, which will be completed before the end of the year and in advance of the majority of EU member states. When the floods directive is transposed into national law, the OPW will be nominated as the competent authority with overall responsibility for all matters in relation to the assessment and management of flood risk in the State. This will place the OPW in the unique position of co-ordinating all the groups involved with flood or related work in a focused, efficient and effective manner. Flood risk management by its very nature involves the resolution of complex engineering and technical issues which at times may impact on the remits of other organisations. Significant environmental issues and concerns also arise, and several Government and non-governmental organisations are involved. It is necessary therefore to engage in a wide consultation with relevant organisations and the general public when undertaking the CFRAM. The OPW is committed to engaging in comprehensive consultative processes in all situations where its work programmes are likely to affect the remits of other organisations. Currently, a comprehensive management programme for the River Shannon is being addressed under several headings. To facilitate planning for the management of future flood risk, the OPW has developed a catchment flood risk assessment and management programme. This programme underpins the essentials of the assessment of flood risk and the long-term planning of the flood risk management measures for catchment areas throughout the country and includes capital structural and non-structural measures. The CFRAM programme is being delivered through the CFRAM studies, which are comprehensive catchment based investigations of areas of potential significant flood risk. These studies, which are required by the national flood policy and the EU floods directive, are designed to focus on and identify areas at risk from flood events for a range of severity and to produce a prioritised plan of measures and actions for dealing with areas where the risk is significant. As part of the process, areas of potentially significant flood risk will be captured on flood maps and this data will inform flood risk management measures. The OPW, in partnership with Cork city and county councils, initiated a major pilot catchment flood risk assessment and management study of the Lee catchment in 2006, which is now nearing completion The OPW is also undertaking pilot studies in respect of the rivers Dodder and Suir and the Fingal-East Meath area. More localised plans have already been completed for Portarlington and Tullamore, and significant information is available for the river Tolka in Dublin. As the lead agency for flood risk management, the OPW has already begun the process of procuring a flood risk assessment and management study for the remaining catchments, including the Shannon. As this type of study involves a range of complexities it is important that a pilot study is completed and lessons about the process are learned before rolling out the national programme. I anticipate that the Shannon flood risk assessment and management study will commence in mid-2010. In the case of the Shannon, all major stakeholders, including the relevant local authorities, the ESB, Waterways Ireland, environmental groups and the public, will be consulted during this assessment process and will be encouraged to make an input to its recommendations. The study will consider all options for dealing with areas of significant flood risk. Pending completion of the study for the Shannon catchment, the OPW, through the minor works scheme, will work with the relevant local authorities to identify areas that may benefit from interim localised mitigation measures. As a word of caution, it should be noted that effective maintenance of river course channels can only contribute to the moderation of the impact of flood events. Further, engineering opinion concludes that the maintenance, such as dredging, of river channels alone and without other remedial interventions is not sufficient to protect against flood events of the extent and magnitude of those witnessed in recent weeks. The planning and development process is critical to avoid creation of further flood risk. The OPW, with the Departments of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, developed the Guidelines on the management of Flood Risk in Planning and Development which I and the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley launched jointly earlier this week. Development in flood plains should be avoided, where possible. Some previous developments in flood plains and the reduction of open ground for water absorption, has added to the problems we face. Future development should mitigate rather than increase existing flood risk. I recently saw an interesting development in Carrick-on-Shannon in which a former Member of this and the other House was involved. Several large retail stores, such as Woodies and Tesco, were built on stilts over the flood plain. During the flooding which had affected that area quite badly the flood plain was able to take the rising waters which remained well below the buildings. That seemed quite an ingenious solution to using a strategic location. It costs much more than building directly on the flood plain but most towns and villages were built near or around rivers. The distinction between that and other developments was that this development explicitly took account of the flood risk and adopted a measure that did not interfere with the operation of flood plains. The OPW has obtained aerial photographic records of the flood extents for this flood event and intends when this is processed to put the information on the flood maps website to support better planning decisions in the future. We have built a considerable archive from flood events over the past two or three decades which will give us data enabling us to identify what is at risk. The only caution is that the landscape photographed in the 1980s may have altered since then which may affect the risk. The delivery of a comprehensive flood risk assessment and management strategy for the State requires, as a prerequisite for its success, the close interaction and involvement of several State agencies and other public bodies and organisations with very different remits. The Water Framework Directive and local authorities fall within the remit of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. Met Éireann has a significant role in weather-related issues. Waterways Ireland, which is a cross-Border body, is responsible for the canal systems and the navigation aspects of the Shannon. The ESB is responsible for the hydro-power system. Last Saturday I had a very interesting morning being briefed by the ESB in Ardnacrusha which I had never before visited. The EPA is the nominated competent authority for the delivery of the objectives of the Water Framework Directive. In addition to the list of Departments and organisations mentioned, there is a range of other bodies and organisations with varying degrees of involvement and responsibility in the whole area of flood-related work. |