I find myself in a somewhat difficult position, because as a member of the Port and Docks Board I am called upon to justify the proposal of that Board in face of opposition from the President, followed by opposition from Deputy Magennis, who sits for a Dublin constituency. The difficulty in connection with this matter is that the majority of Deputies are not in a position to form a proper judgment even on any argument I may put forward or that is put forward by the President on a matter which is really a domestic one concerning the City of Dublin, the Port of Dublin, and the area surrounding Dublin. The ordinary procedure in connection with Private Bills is that a Second Reading is taken as a matter of course, and all the arguments for and against are thrashed out in Committee. The President contends that the Bill should not be submitted for examination to a Joint Committee. It seems to me, apart from the merits or demerits of the Bill, that this is a somewhat drastic method of dealing with a Bill promoted by the Dublin Port and Docks Board after consultation with the other bodies, particularly the City Commissioners, and after an agreement had been come to on the matter before the Bill was promoted. But, of course, I could not expect to carry the Bill in face of the opposition that is manifested, nor do I think it would be desirable that the Port and Docks Board should persist with the measure when it has been received by the House in this spirit. I would like, however, to go as briefly as possible into the merits of the case, as a member of the Port and Docks Board who has, for the past twenty years, urged and impressed, on every occasion that presented itself, the necessity for rebuilding Butt Bridge. The bridge was originally constructed as a swing bridge for the purpose of preserving the river for shipping west of it. The bridge was built in 1877, but shortly after it was built the project called the Loop Line was initiated, connecting by rail Westland Row and Amiens Street stations. The building of that line definitely confined the limits of the Board to the east of Butt Bridge, because the Loop Line became an obstruction which could not be negotiated by ships, and therefore the upper reaches were permanently thrown out of use as far as port purposes were concerned, and could only be used for navigation by small craft, such as Messrs. Guinness's lighters.
Everybody who knows Butt Bridge will recognise that it should never have been erected as it is, that it is quite unsuited to the changed order of traffic and conditions, and is quite unable to deal with the traffic going over it. Objection is raised to the Bill on account of the idea, based on traffic considerations perhaps, but largely because the traffic is going to be altered, in view of the alterations in the neighbourhood of the Custom House docks by extending Amiens Street to the quays, and it is suggested that that traffic should be carried by a bridge which would have its base at Moss Street. The merits of that proposal have been considered by the Port Board. They do not believe that a bridge built there would materially alter things as far as traffic is concerned, while it would sacrifice a very valuable portion of the river for port purposes. They also maintain that even if that bridge were built, the reconstruction of Butt Bridge would still be necessary. As between the merits of the two arguments, I think the matter would lead to a great deal of contention on both sides, which would be very difficult for the House to settle. What I suggest is, if possible, that the House should hold up the Second Reading of the Bill and give an opportunity for some independent body, or some people who would be nominated, to consider the whole question in all its bearings. We might then be able to arrive at some conclusion, because if this Bill is refused a Second Reading the position is that you refuse the opportunity that the Port Board presents of dealing with a question which is not of to-day or of yesterday, but which has been a pressing question for the last twenty or thirty years. As the President has said, the Port and Docks Board is the bridge authority. Whether it is right or wrong that it should be so, I will not argue, but it is the authority, and you could not possibly expect the Port and Docks Board to promote a Bill to build the Moss Street bridge, which would have such a detrimental effect on the port, because you must remember that the portion of the river that would be cut off from use by the erection of that bridge is a portion that is particularly valuable. There are two lines of cross-channel steamers there, there is practically all the cement trade of the city there, and practically the whole of Guinness's traffic is handled there.
I am sorry that Deputy Johnson is not here, because he would probably have taken the opportunity to abuse the Port and Docks Board, but I maintain that the members of the Board are actuated by such motives that, even if the erection of such a bridge were found to be against their interests, they would not oppose it except they were fully convinced that the other bridge would be of so great an advantage to the city and neighbourhood that it would justify them in doing so. That is the position they maintain, and they say that with the rebuilding of Butt Bridge on the lines they propose, it would be able to deal adequately with any traffic problem that is likely to arise, in the near future, at all events. I think that the traffic problem is sometimes inclined to be exaggerated in the minds of people who have high ideas about town planning. The Port and Docks Board may be wrong in their view. That is a question for argument, but it is the very definite opinion of members of the Board, who are conversant with the traffic problem on and in the neighbourhood of the quays.
Deputy Magennis has suggested a transporter bridge. The Port Board are not in any way opposed to transporter bridges, but their view would be that a transporter bridge, so near Butt Bridge as Moss Street, would be an expensive and an entirely unsuitable erection. No matter what you do you cannot abolish Butt Bridge, and with Butt Bridge the monstrosity it is, I say that the question as to whether further facilities are required should be considered in the light of going down a great deal further eastward than Moss Street, that the maintenance of a bridge at Butt Bridge, if it is not to be abolished, and the maintenance of another bridge a hundred yards down the river, is, in my opinion, a ludicrous proposition, and one that will not stand examination. Instead of killing the Second Reading of the Bill, leaving the Port Board no further forward and put in a position where they would not be willing to promote a Bill on the lines of Moss Street, if the President could see any way out of the impasse it would be well. Various questions that arise, such as the Port Board being the bridge authority, are questions that really depend on the future. I say that this Butt Bridge question is a very urgent matter, and I am perfectly certain that the Port Board will fall in with any suggestions that will get this thorny question settled, before there is any wrangle on it, either in the House or before a committee, on the recommendations of anybody in an independent position to examine the whole position.