Vol. 232 No. 2
asked the Minister for Local Government if he is aware of the urgency and the importance of making a bridge order for the replacement of Parnell bridge, Cork; and if he will give details of the approximate date on which he intends to make such an order.
36.
asked the Minister for Local Government if he is now prepared to make a bridge order in respect of Parnell bridge, Cork, without waiting for the result of a traffic survey, in view of the urgent nature of the problem which has arisen following the closure of the bridge.
37.
asked the Minister for Local Government if he is in a position to make a statement as to the likely period involved in the construction of another bridge to compensate for the loss of Parnell bridge in Cork city.
I propose, with your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, to reply to Questions Nos. 35, 36 and 37 together.
As the Deputy is aware, the public local inquiry into the application of the Cork Corporation for a bridge order in respect of the replacement of Parnell Bridge was resumed on Monday last. I understand that the corporation were in a position to produce sufficient data on the traffic aspect of the application to enable the inspector to conclude the inquiry on that date. A letter has issued to the corporation from my Department indicating that I have given instructions for the preparation of an order authorising the construction of a bridge to replace the existing bridge; with the letter is enclosed a draft of the bridge order for examination by the corporation.
As to the likely period involved in the construction of the new bridge, this is primarily a matter for the corporation, who can be sure that my Department will give them full co-operation.
Is it not a fact that there was no legal impediment in the way of making this bridge order immediately after the bridge inquiry had completed nearly three years ago— March, 1965? Could not the Minister have made the bridge order then on the evidence before his inspector?
No; Deputy Barrett is misinformed. The bridge inquiry did not conclude in 1965. It was adjourned because of the fact that Cork Corporation had in hands at the time a traffic survey and this traffic survey had not been completed and so Cork Corporation were not in a position to produce the evidence with regard to traffic requirements which was necessary for that inquiry. The bridge inquiry did not conclude; it was adjourned.
Is it not a fact that at the bridge inquiry the Minister's official was told that a four-lane bridge would be sufficient for Cork city and that was all that was needed and the Minister could have made his order then?
No; the information regarding traffic requirements was not available. Cork Corporation had a traffic survey in progress. Maybe Deputy Barrett is thinking back to 1956 when a bridge order was refused.
I am not thinking of any such thing. I am thinking of 1965 when the Minister had sufficient evidence from Cork Corporation to enable him to make the order.
And the money.
If he had the money, we had very little evidence of it in Cork.
In 1956 the bridge order was refused. That was when the delay was.
