That the Dáil concur with the Seanad in their Resolution communicated to the Dáil the 24th day of February, 1927, that it is expedient that a Joint Committee of both Houses be appointed to consider the Dublin Port and Docks (Bridge) Bill, 1927.

On the last occasion on which this Bill was before us it was suggested that a Committee of members of the Dáil should consider the matter. A Committee was appointed, consisting of Deputies Corish, Esmonde, J. Good, Dr. Hennessy, B. O'Connor, and Thrift. They were asked by me to assemble and consider whether the erection of a new bridge in place of the proposed widening of Butt Bridge would prejudice any proposals made in regard to the traffic problem. They held a number of meetings, examined a number of witnesses, and their recommendation is that the Butt Bridge proposal should stand, and that a transporter bridge connecting Guild Street with Cardiff Lane should be constructed to deal with traffic which would otherwise pass over Butt Bridge. The committee generally approved of that proposal. The Port and Docks Board agreed to take such steps as may be necessary to extend the scope and financial provisions of the present Bill so as to include the erection, maintenance and working of a transporter bridge. The Board go on to say: "If, for any constitutional or other reason, it should be found impossible to incorporate in the present Bill the necessary additional provisions to give effect to this undertaking, the Board agree to lodge a new Bill at the first available opportunity, which will have for its object a like purpose."

In view of the recommendation of the Committee and of the undertaking of the Port and Docks Board I would waive any objection to the Second Reading of this Bill. I would like to say, from the information at my disposal, that it is considered necessary that the transporter bridge should be capable of dealing with 1,000 vehicles per hour, and also that the bridge should run diagonally to link up Guild Street and Cardiff Lane, with the avoidance of two corners which might constitute a danger to traffic—one out of Guild Street and the other on to the bridge. It is further stated that considerable benefit would be derived if it were found possible to widen the corner of Guild Street, and it is also suggested that the Port and Docks Board should agree to give facilities for the construction of the continuation of Amiens Street down to the quays.

I am sorry that Deputy Thrift is not here to explain this matter, but I wish to draw the attention of the Dáil to the fact that the terms of reference were very narrow. The only matter we had to consider was the question of traffic, and any question as to the general appearance to the city of Dublin was not within our terms of reference, and we could not consider it. We had evidence from the Chairman of the Architects' Association objecting to this proposal, without a general town plan for the city of Dublin being agreed on. Owing to our terms of reference being confined solely to the question of traffic, we arrived at the conclusion which the President has just announced. Possibly it may work out all right in the end.

I would like to express my own indebtedness to this Committee and to the Chairman for the very able report which they furnished, the great pains they took to have all the details of the case examined and also for their expedition in bringing in a report on the matter.

Question put and agreed to.
Message to be sent to the Seanad accordingly.