To-day at Question Time I asked the Minister if he had received reports from the engineers on the reconstruction of Youghal Bridge and, if so, having regard to (i) the saving of £150,000 which would be made by carrying out the recommendations in these reports, (ii) the damage which will be caused to the town of Youghal by erecting the bridge at Ardsallagh, and (iii) the very conflicting natures of the different reports received, he will have this whole matter submitted for independent expert opinion. The Parliamentary Secretary in dealing with the question asked me what independent opinion I wanted over and above the independent opinion he had already given. In this matter I certainly would not accept the independent opinion of any consultant called in on a fee basis who, having delivered his verdict, comes along afterwards and having disposed of the possibility of reconstruction by his verdict, then applies for the position of consultant.
Private Members' Business. - Adjournment Debate—Youghal Bridge.
The personal action of any person giving advice in such a matter should not be discussed. Neither should the personality be discussed. The Deputy may discuss the position but he may not refer to personalities in the way he has been doing, assessing what should have been done.
I say he was not independent.
The Deputy may say that.
I certainly do say it.
But he may not discuss it any further.
Further I do not wish to go.
The Deputy referred to a member of the Ku Klux Klan; perhaps he would tell us what that reference is.
I do not suggest he should.
I will not have the slightest objection.
I do not suggest the Deputy should do that. The personality of a particular individual may not be discussed on this matter here.
In reply to Question No. 81 we were told this was not a fair interpretation. Now I have here a letter from the Inland Fisheries (Ireland) Lismore district, 19 South Main Street, Youghal, in which it is stated:—
"I have to point out that if the site at Ardsallagh is selected the bridge will be detrimental to the salmon fishing industry, on which over 400 fishermen and their families are dependent for a livelihood. My board take a very serious view of this matter as, if the bridge is built at Ardsallagh, the fishermen will be unable to use their drift nets in the immediate vicinity above the new bridge and, in addition, the five-eighths of a mile between the new and the old bridge will be rendered useless for drift net fishing."
That is the opinion of the fishing authority in that area. We have the position then that three consultants— we will call them that—have been approached. Furthermore, the Parliamentary Secretary was wrong in his information as to any opinion expressed by either of the county surveyors of Cork or Waterford. Both these county surveyors were wise enough to say that they knew nothing about bridge building and, unlike other engineers, they were not going to give an opinion on something they knew nothing about. That brings us back to the three engineers, or consultants. An engineer was asked by the Cork County Council to give an opinion; he was not asked to give an opinion as to whether or not the bridge could be reconstructed; he was asked to give an opinion as to where the new bridge should be put. That was Mr. Roughan. Secondly, there was the local government engineer, Mr. Bloomer. Mr. Bloomer's inquiry was solely confined—and anyone can discover this for himself by reading the report of the inquiry—to where the new bridge was to be erected. Again, there was no question of reconstruction and, therefore, the inquiry into Youghal Bridge was devoted to finding out what would be the best place to erect the new bridge and was not devoted to any question as to the feasibility of reconstruction of the present bridge. The question of reconstruction only arose when the Youghal Urban Council employed a consultant who gave an opinion and who, with all due respect to those conducting the inquiry—and I spent three full days sitting there listening to the proceedings—got such a badgering from the two legal professional men— we will call them that——
On a point of order. Is it in order for a Deputy to refer to the examination of a witness at an inquiry as badgering?
I was about to intervene to suggest to Deputy Corry that he is going too far in his qualifications of both people and inquiries. He may refer to the findings of an inquiry. As to how the inquiry was conducted, that is a matter he may raise in another way if he so desires. It is not relevant to the matter he is raising here to-night.
Sir, I have given two of the experts; we will call them that.
The Deputy must not qualify. He has mentioned qualifications. He must not continue in that fashion—"we will call them qualified,""we will call them professionals."
Very well, then. Qualified experts. The next consultant was Mr. O'Connell who was, if you like, called in as the umpire in this case. On the question of the experience of any one of these three experts in this matter as against the experience of——
On a point of order. Are we here to discuss the qualifications or experience of experts?
I have already warned the Deputy. The Deputy may discuss the findings. I have told him that already. He may not discuss the qualifications of the people who conducted the inquiry. I have told him that is a matter he may raise in another way, if he so desires, but he may not raise it here.
I never like to see dog eat dog or Corkman eat Corkman.
As far as I am concerned, there is no lone furrow to plough where the interests of constituents are concerned. I do not care what Government is in power or what Minister is sitting there, the interests of my constituents are paramount; they come first. There is in question the livelihood of 400 fishermen. Secondly, the interests of Youghal town are at stake.
It is a great pity you did not make those representations at the inquiry.
I did.
At the inquest.
It was not an inquest.
It was. A Youghal professional man was turned out and would not be allowed to give evidence at the inquiry.
Would the Deputy refer to the subject matter of the question he has put down? Nothing beyond that is relevant.
I shall take the merits of the case on two grounds. First of all I shall take the question of cost. One engineer said that the cost of reconstructing the bridge would be £350,000 and that it would take from six to ten years to get the work done during which there would be no crossing of the Blackwater. The second engineer gave a figure of £360,000 and said the bridge could be reconstructed in two to six years.
On a point of order. I have got to point out that as a result of an inquiry held the Minister has to give a judicial decision and is it fair when the matter is sub judice——
Do you tell us it is that?
Surely the schoolteacher should be able to tell us. That was an unfair interruption. There is no use in the Deputy trying to cut in on my profession. I am trying to convey to the Chair that the matter is sub judice and that it is very unfair to comment on the evidence that has been given while I am still to adjudicate.
The Chair had no knowledge of this state of affairs until now.
It is my duty to give a decision as a result of the inquiry. I should like to say that I am sorry if I offended Deputy Cunningham in any way, but the position is that I am still in a quasi-judicial capacity. I have still to make an Order as a result of the inquiry and I have explained to the House that the matter is sub judice. I hope that if I have said something hastily hurtful to Deputy Cunningham he will accept my apology.
The advice we have now got is that everything that comes before a Minister for his decision is not allowed to be discussed in this House. I think that is a Standing Order that we have not been made familiar with.
A Minister's decision may be discussed, but while a matter is sub judice it may not.
I question that.
I bow to your question.
I allowed the question that appeared on the Order Paper because I thought it was in order for me to do so, and I suggested it was quite in order for the Deputy to make his case.
Perhaps the Chair was not aware that a statutory inquiry was held and that in my capacity, which was handed over to me by my predecessor who had refrained from giving a decision on the matter, I have got to give a quasi-judicial decision. Therefore the matter must be construed as being sub judice. I had no opportunity of notifying the Chair of that position and I think it is very unfair that the matter should be allowed to be discussed at this stage.
On a point of order——
Is this a conspiracy between the two Donegal men to prevent me from asking my case?
We could never conspire against a Corkman.
Am I to be allowed to state my case?
Perhaps the Deputy would allow me to say something. If the Minister has to reach a judicial decision on the matter——
On a point of order, could I suggest that there are a great many matters that the Minister has to try and surely the House is entitled to express a view on them? It is not a judicial function.
Is it a statutory obligation on the Minister to make a decision?
It is an obligation to make a decision but not a judicial decision.
A quasi-judicial decision.
I submit it is no more than a ministerial Order and therefore subject to discussion in the House.
If the Minister tells me it is a quasi-judicial function I have got to accept that.
I must make a Bridges Order, which is a Statutory Order, and being statutory it judicial.
No. Fair is fair.
I must take the Minister's word that it is quasi-judicial and in the circumstances I cannot allow the discussion to proceed any further. The Minister says it is quasi-judicial and I must take the Minister's word.
In dozens of cases previously similar matters have been discussed here. Matters awaiting decision by the Minister for Local Government have been questioned and discussed in the House.
Deputies will see the difficulty of the Chair. We have a Minister who is responsible to the House, and that Minister advised the Chair that he is acting in a quasi-judicial capacity and that he has a statutory obligation to give a quasi-judicial decision. In these circumstances I cannot allow the Minister's decision to be prejudiced in any way.
There are many cases in which Ministers are bound by statute to make Orders. You can get instances of it in the Supplies and Services Act, but that does not prevent the House from discussing these matters in advance. It is not a judicial but a ministerial matter.
Is this a quasi-judicial decision?
I say it is. I say further, that all representations were permitted during and before the inquiry but when the inquiry is completed it is a matter entirely for me to give a decision. In this particular case my predecessor postponed giving a decision. I am now faced with the task of giving a quasi-judicial decision.
Then the Minister is entirely at fault in failing to notify the Ceann Comhairle of that position.
The Minister is advised by those competent to advise him that this is a quasi-judicial decision. I have nobody to advise me except possibly the opinions of the Deputies in the House.
Has the Minister been so advised?
He has told us so.
If the Minister has not come to a decision yet, despite the fact that the public Press, yesterday and to-day, announced a certain decision— I am sorry it was not contradicted— yesterday's announcement was not—I suggest to the Minister now that before he will make that decision, seeing that there is more than meets the eye in the damage that will be done to that area in this case——
The Deputy is discussing the matter now.
I am not discussing the matter. I am only making an appeal now to the Minister that he would call in some outside expert to judge between the two sets of experts and to give a decision. I will be quite satisfied if he does that.
I would like if you would give a ruling on this matter, whether or not there has been a decision made, as to whether or not we should discuss this business.
On a point of explanation. I gathered from a statement made by the Chair that if the Minister was advised by his officials that the matter was sub judice it could not be discussed here but that if it was the Minister's personal opinion, that was a different matter. I should like to have a statement as to whether the Minister's statement that it is sub judice is based on his own opinion or on the advice of his Department.
The Minister is acting here in a ministerial capacity as head of his Department and the statement he makes here is a ministerial statement, on the advice of his Department I take it.
May I say that I am making my decision as my own, irrespective of the advice I get, but the Deputy has put up a point to me: am I prepared to receive further evidence prior to making my decision? I have received all the evidence that I can possibly receive at that inquiry but I am prepared to hear further representations before making my decision.
The findings of the inquiry are not binding on the Minister and is it not then quite relevant to discuss the matter in the House?
May I suggest to the Minister that he has two very simple ways of having a decision taken? One is to get an outside expert.
Do you not believe in a Corkman?
I do not believe in that Corkman.
Well, I do.
I do not believe in a man who is tainted. Do not draw me on that. The Minister has another very simple way. Take the reconstruction proposals, advertise for tenders and see how many contractors will be prepared to reconstruct the bridge for £250,000 or less.
I warned the Deputy against qualifying the activities of the personnel in respect of this matter. He is referring to somebody as "tainted". That is an expression that should not be used.
I do not wish to do so.
Deputy Corry will have an opportunity of raising this again if he wishes.
I hope I will, but I hope there will be no need to raise it.
I am taking the advice of the Minister that he has to act in a quasi-judicial capacity and I am closing the debate.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.54 p.m., until 3 o'clock on Thursday, 17th February, 1955.