asked the Minister for Finance whether he will make the necessary financial provision for the inquiry promised by him in June, 1969, into the plans for Dublin Port.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Dublin Port Inquiry.
18.
I would refer the Deputy to the reply given by the Minister for Transport and Power to a question by Deputy O'Leary on 7th July. In that reply it was stated that when the plans of the Dublin Port and Docks Board are published they would be put on public display so that the views of all authorities and interested parties concerned would be available for consideration by the Ministers concerned and subsequently by the Government. It would be unnecessary at this stage to make financial provision for an inquiry the scope and nature of which would depend on the issues raised in the course of consideration of the plans by all the parties concerned.
Does the Minister not agree that he himself promised a Government inquiry—and I quote from a press report on the subject—and that the procedure now outlined does not provide for any such inquiry? The procedure under which plans are submitted to the Government for decision cannot by any conceivable stretch of the English language be described as a Government inquiry. Will he now provide the funds necessary to ensure that the inquiry which he specifically promised will be undertaken, in view of the public pressure on this issue?
As I have already made clear in my reply, the scope and nature of the inquiry will depend on the issues raised in the course of consideration of the plans when they are produced. It is not, therefore, desirable and it is certainly not necessary, to make financial provision for an inquiry at this stage when we do not know the scope and nature of the inquiry. I have already explained that. I am glad that on this occasion Deputy FitzGerald has talked about a Government inquiry because he will recall that last week he said I had said that there would be a public inquiry. I did not, of course, say any such thing. In Deputy FitzGerald's terms, he was misleading the House. That is what I was referring to on the previous question. That is the kind of approach Deputy FitzGerald adopts.
Is the Minister suggesting that when, in the middle of an election campaign, he announces that there will be a Government inquiry, this is not intended to mean a public inquiry? It was so understood by the people to whom it was addressed. Is that the suggestion?
The actual words used were that "the Government will set up an inquiry to examine the board's plans in the light of local and national considerations. This inquiry will be deferred until the board's long-time plans become available which is expected to be about the end of the present year".
Would the Minister now indicate what form this inquiry will take? We have been told by the Minister for Transport and Power that a procedure will be adopted which does not include any process of inquiry. To set up an inquiry involves appointing certain people to investigate a matter. There is nothing in the reply by the Minister for Transport and Power which suggests that that will be done. Will the Minister confirm that it is now the intention to do that, as announced by him in June, 1969? Will the inquiry be public or private?
What is intended to be done is what I announced in June, 1969. The form and scope of the inquiry will, as I have said already on two occasions, depend on the issues raised in the course of consideration of the plans when they emerge.
Is the Minister confirming that it is intended to appoint people to inquire into it?
I am confirming that what I said in June, 1969, is what will be done.
Will the Minister explain to the House——
Question No. 19. We cannot have this cross-examination.
——since there is confusion, that the words "set up an inquiry" mean what they appear to mean?
Go back to the Star Chamber.
The words mean what they say.
Is the Minister not prepared to elucidate any further or are we to accept that he is being evasive? The Minister wishes to pass on and that speaks for itself.
Question No. 19.