asked the Minister for Agriculture whether he is aware that his Parliamentary Secretary, speaking recently at Graughill pier, is reported to have stated that he had been completely misled by the information submitted to him in connection with the landing facilities at the pier and the necessity for repairing them, that he was satisfied after his tour that this was entirely the fault of the county council officials, and that he would give these gentlemen a salutary lesson; and, if so, if he will make a statement indicating who supplied the misleading information, and in what form the salutary lesson will be given.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Mayo Pier Facilities.
I have seen the Press report referred to.
I have made inquiries into this matter and am informed that on 18th October, 1948, an offer of a grant of 75 per cent. of the cost of providing a 20 foot wide slipway usable at high water of spring tide and reconstructing the steps to the boatyard at Graughill was made to the Mayo County Council, subject to the council agreeing to contribute the balance of the cost and to accept responsibility for the future maintenance of the works when completed. The county council were informed at the same time that it was not proposed to repair or extend the breakwater and that they were not being asked to take any responsibility in connection with it. On 13th July, 1951, the council signified their agreement to provide the requisite contribution and to accept responsibility for the future maintenance. On 7th January, 1953, the Office of Public Works forwarded to the county council a plan, specification and estimate together with the usual form of agreement governing the execution of the works and on 6th February, 1953, the county council were requested to lodge their contribution so that the works might begin in the following month. On 29th April, 1953, the Office of Public Works was informed by the county secretary that the county engineer was satisfied that the work proposed would prove to be inadequate, defective, of bad design and entirely unsuitable and that in the circumstances the necessary documents could not be completed. In reply to an inquiry as to whether the county council endorsed the views of the county engineer, the council in August, 1953, suggested a meeting on the site at which an engineer from the Office of Public Works should attend. On 8th September, 1953, the council were informed that arrangements would be made for the attendance of an engineer from the Office of Public Works, but that before the meeting took place they should furnish detailed information indicating the respects in which the county engineer considered the proposed scheme of works to be defective. No reply has since been received, and it is therefore clear that the failure of the council to reply to the reasonable request for information regarding their engineer's grounds of objection to the scheme is solely responsible for the delay in having the facilities provided.
The Minister has not answered the second part of my question, namely, in what form will the salutary lesson be given. The Parliamentary Secretary said he would give these gentlemen a salutary lesson. In what form will it be given?
I will leave that to the Deputy's imagination.