Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 5 Aug 1971

Vol. 255 No. 19

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - County Donegal Pier.

26.

asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries the amount of money allocated towards the improvement and development of Portaleen Pier, Glengad, County Donegal; whether this sum represents a lesser amount than that allocated for the same purpose in 1969; and, if so, the reason for the reduction.

The works now approved are estimated to cost £25,000 for which an Exchequer grant of £18,750 or 75 per cent is being made available. The question of a reduction does not arise

Is the Department making a grant of £25,000 or £18,000?

The Department is making a grant of £18,750.

Is this a new estimate of the works which were planned in May, 1969, and if so, what are the reasons for having a much smaller scheme than was originally recommended in 1969?

A scheme was drawn up in 1969 and the estimated cost then was £75,000, later revised to £100,000. This was rejected by the then Minister for Finance, I take it on the question of cost and value for money. Recently, the present Minister for Finance received a deputation from Glengad arising out of which a scheme costing £25,000 has now been approved and of which Donegal County Council will be asked to meet 25 per cent. It has gone to the county council and I understand they have given their approval to this, subject to receiving official confirmation.

Unless I misread the Official Report of the debate, Deputy Blaney, who was then Minister, is on record as having said that the Government passed £75,000 for a scheme in Glengad. I want to know where that money went.

Approval to the £75,000 for the original scheme was rejected by the then Minister for Finance.

Then what Deputy Blaney said in 1969 was a false and empty promise.

I have not said that, but I will say this——

What is the Parliamentary Secretary saying? There was a vote of £75,000 for Glengad in 1969. The then Minister is on record as having said this in the House. I want to know where the £75,000 went to.

The position is, as I have already stated, that this did not get the sanction of the then Minister for Finance. Therefore the money could not have been spent anywhere else

Did it not get Government approval?

Might I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to go further back in relation to what he has just said about the former Minister for Finance rejecting it? That rejection of the proposal was before it was actually costed and came before the announcement of 1969. In fact, the 1969 proposal was before the Government and was approved by the Government. I was authorised by the Government to make the announcement. The Minister for Finance of the day was present at that time. In the subsequent compilation of the Estimates for the following year the then Minister for Finance, Deputy Haughey, agreed that this was to be done. Therefore any rejection of it since then has been done by the present Minister, not by the former Minister who was got to change his mind after a bit of an argument.

Furthermore, might I ask for the information of the Deputy and the people concerned in Glengad whether what is now proposed to be done is in no way a substitute for what was proposed to be done, in that the original, larger scheme was a shelter and an anchorage for boats, whereas what is now proposed to be done is nothing more than an extension of the existing pier which will aid landings but will not add to the protection which is the kernel of the problem up there all these years? Might I further ask whether it is true that even this small, rather useless scheme which is now being perpetrated on the people there, allegedly with the agreement of the people in Glengad, only came after the deputation had been fully, finally and irrevocably assured by the Minister for Finance that there was not a hope of getting the original scheme? Is that not the manner in which agreement was dragged out of them? In addition to that is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that there was no provision for a local authority contribution in the scheme announced by me on behalf of the Government in 1969 and that, therefore, if there is £25,000 of a job to be done, there should be no contribution from the Donegal County Council? Is it not also a fact that sanction for this miserable little job came between my putting down the question to inquire about it and the answer being given in this House last week?

The question that Deputy Harte asked there was answered by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance replying on behalf of his Minister here last week.

Which said what?

Which stated that financial approval was rejected by his predecessor.

That is not true.

This is the reply that has been given. In relation to the other supplementaries, what Deputy Blaney has said is absolutely correct——

It cannot be if——

What he said is correct in relation to the £100,000, that the proposal was rejected on the question of cost and value for money. I think the people of Glengad should be happy that at least a start has been made. I am not saying that this is entirely satisfactory but at least a start has been made and when the present work has been completed we can have another look at it.

Arising——

We are a long time on this pier.

Yes, we are on it for the last 40 years.

There is just one point here which the Parliamentary Secretary made and which I think is erroneous. Doing this job would be a hindrance to carrying out the scheme originally intended, because it was envisaged that the extension of the pier would be made across an area in which a basin with gates was to be erected. If a concrete construction is built it will be a hindrance rather than a help. I now say that if this job is done there never will be a shelter built in Glengad, and this is what is being foisted on those people up there. The former Minister for Finance, Deputy Haughey, did approve of the scheme.

Let the Parliamentary Secretary answer that.

I am not blaming the Parliamentary Secretary, but I am saying that the information given here is wrong.

(Interruptions.)

Might I point out that we have 187 questions to be disposed of.

I do not give a fiddle-de-dee whether we have 400 questions.

I can see that.

We now have a position in this House in which Deputy Blaney, the then Minister for Agriculture, in a general election campaign in 1969 made a very definite statement that £75,000——

The Deputy may not make a speech.

I am pointing out, and I want you, Sir, to listen——

I do not want to listen to speeches. Would the Deputy put a question?

I am asking you to listen to the point. I think it is your duty. Do you realise——

This is not in order.

You allowed Deputy Blaney to make a long speech.

Deputy Blaney put questions. I am glad Deputy Cluskey is watching the situation.

I am asking you if you realise that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture has made a statement which is in complete contradiction to a statement made by a former Minister.

With Government approval.

I want to know where did the balance of the £75,000 go? I also want to know if Deputy Cunningham, who is so mute in this House, was consulted? Did he agree to accept a lesser amount? Perhaps Deputy Cunningham would clarify the position, because this Mickey Mouse politics that goes on between Deputy Cunningham and a few Fianna Fáil councillors in the peninsula of Inishowen dishing out sops to the fishermen who are asking for better conditions——

I am calling Question No. 27.

I want to know who is telling the truth. Is the Parliamentary Secretary telling us the truth when he says that the money was not allocated or is Deputy Blaney, a former Cabinet Minister——

The Deputy must allow Questions to continue.

A fairly senior member of the Cabinet at Westminster had to resign his position because of telling a lie. Are you going to tolerate the telling of lies in this House?

Would the Deputy resume his seat?

I refuse to sit down until I get a reply. I want to know if the Parliamentary Secretary, Deputy Fahey, is giving an accurate account of the position, and is Deputy Blaney misleading the House, misleading his constituents and telling blatant lies?

The Deputy might make that speech in Donegal.

I resent that remark. I was elected to represent the people of Donegal in this Parliament and I refuse to sit down until I get a decision.

Question No. 27.

I want to know who is telling the truth. I want you to use your position as Ceann Comhairle to find out who is telling the truth. Is it Deputy Fahey or Deputy Blaney?

On a point of order. When a statement is made by a former Minister of the Government that a reply by a Parliamentary Secretary is inaccurate, is a lie, should it not be clarified in some way, and has not the Deputy a right to ask for a factual statement on it?

That is not a matter for the Chair to decide.

On a point of order, since Deputy Harte has raised this matter and since the veracity of my statement and the statements of others are in question—incidentally the statement made by Deputy Fahey is not his because he is merely quoting what he has been given to him by another— I, as the only person in the House who is involved in this question, assert that what I say is true. Therefore, I want to know if there is any redress in this House, not only for Deputy Harte although he is entitled to it too, but for me as a former member of the Government who made an announcement with Government approval but which would now appear to be denied by successors in that Government?

The Chair cannot interfere in any of these matters.

I want to know if it is the practice of the Government to vote a certain sum of money and then reduce the amount voted?

I am calling the next question.

On a point of order.

I am glad the Deputy mentioned a point of order. He has been disorderly for the past ten minutes. He may not abuse the privileges of Parliament in this way. He can raise the matter in another manner.

Under which section of Standing Orders?

It is my opinion that Deputy Cunningham is doing less than his duty by accepting a lesser amount than was voted by the Government and it is about time Deputy Cunningham made it clear to the people that he has accepted this lesser amount. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply I intend, with your permission, Sir, to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

The Chair will communicate with the Deputy.

Top
Share