asked the Minister for Finance whether he will alter the plans for improvements at Glengad Pier, County Donegal, to include the much needed safe anchorage which was promised in 1968.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - County Donegal Pier.
30.
I have nothing to add to the information given to the Deputy in connection with his question on this matter on 22nd July, 1971.
I suggest that the money which it is proposed to spend will not give the return hoped for by the Minister and his Department. Would he, even now, disregard his answer of 1971, revert to the promise of 1968 and go back and ask the fishermen, who are the people concerned in this matter, whether they believe that the money now being spent in the manner proposed by the Department will largely be a waste and will not in any way improve the anchorage safety of the boats there? These fishermen have long been seeking some sort of safe anchorage. I would ask the Minister if he would consult the fishermen?
I am not, of course, being bound in this matter by the reply I gave previously. I am being guided by the technical advice available to me and, as the Deputy is aware, I in fact met the fishermen in, I think, March, 1971, and discussed the matter with them. I am satisfied on the basis of the information available to me that the work that is being done is the kind of work and the only kind of work that is justified in all the circumstances.
Might I suggest to the Minister—if it has not already occurred to him, as it probably has—to query how it is that the technical advice he would now rely on would have emanated from the same source as the technical advice on which I relied in 1968 and to ask why the change in technical advice, if change there has been? Finally, in regard to the deputation received—I am quite well aware the Minister received the deputation even though I did not know it was being received—I ask the Minister if an ultimatum was put to these people: "Do we spend on behalf of the Department and the Government so many thousands doing this job, useless or otherwise"—I think useless—"or do you want no job done at all?" In those circumstances what do we expect the fishermen to say? Do we expect them to say: "No you can take the money away"? In so far as the money is concerned, take it from me that it is absolutely, totally wasted.
May I say, first of all, that I am not aware of any difference in the technical advice that is being given now to that which was given some years ago. Indeed, I think Deputy Blaney is aware of the fact that on the basis of that advice my predecessor took the same view as I have taken of it and I do not think any Minister for Finance could take any other view of it in the light of the evidence, the information and the advice available to him. In regard to the question of the views of the fishermen on this matter the fact is that when I met that deputation I had the distinct impression that what they wanted above all was a decision, because they felt this matter had been going on for far too long. They got a decision and they got action, action, I believe, on the lines most suited to the requirements of this area having regard to all the circumstances concerned.
With due respect, that is a lot of rot. Is the Minister telling us that the advice given to Deputy Blaney when he was Minister and about which he made a statement, was false? Is Deputy Blaney now telling the House that the advisers who gave him this information have either changed their minds or that they have been replaced? Whatever the position is, there is a bit of cat and mouse politics between the present Minister and Cabinet and the former member of the Cabinet, and the people who are the victims are the fishermen whose livelihood is at stake. Is the Minister saying that the fishermen who gave Deputy Blaney and me the information that they are grossly dissatisfied with the present arrangements went into the Minister's office and said: "Yes, we want action"? Is that what the Minister is telling us?
The Deputy is, or was in the earlier part of his speech, trying to put words into my mouth which, in fact, were not words that I had uttered. I cannot comment on a number of the matters he has raised beyond saying, as I have said already, that I am not aware of any change in the technical advice available. When he talks about a cat and mouse game——
Not aware of the change?
Maybe the Deputy does not want to hear what I am about to say but I am going to say it anyway. I am saying that when the Deputy is talking about a cat and mouse game he may have missed the significance of what I am saying, that the decision I made was simply a confirmation of the decision that was made by my predecessor. Let him think about that.
The Minister is putting Deputy Blaney in the dock.
We cannot discuss this question all evening.
The Deputy may make any comment he likes but he is not going to put words into my mouth.
I may have this matter raised on the Adjournment because the innuendoes——
(Interruptions.)