HC Deb 13 March 1884 vol 285 cc1351-2
MR. DEASY

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, If it is a fact that £7,500 was granted by the Treasury, £8,500 advanced on loan on the security of the rates of the Kinsale Town and Harbour Commissioners, and £3,000 given as contribution by the Kinsale Harbour Commissioners, making in all a sum of £19,000, for the building of the Kinsale Fishery Pier; if it is a fact that the contract for the works is under £14,000; and, if he will cause a Return to be made of the expenditure made, or contemplated to be made, between the amount of the contract and this sum of £19,000, and specify in detail the amount paid for surveying, for compensation, and to whom the several amounts have been paid, or are to be paid, and the amount paid or to be paid for superintendence? Also, if it is a fact that the Board of Works have designed plans for the Kinsale Fishery Pier, at a cost (according to their own declaration) of £19,000, which, when completed, will render little or no facilities for the promotion of the fisheries at Kinsale in consequence of nearly the entire quay and pier being dry at low water; if he is aware that the foundations of the quay are laid in mud, without any piling, at a depth of not more than three feet below the surface, there being, in some instances, over twenty-five feet of mud; and that, in consequence, the whole structure is likely to tumble down; if it is a fact that, in order to render the quay and pier, now in course of construction, beneficially available for fishery purposes, it would cost over £30,000 for deepening and dredging; if he is aware that a pier built at Scilly, and connected with Kinsale by a causeway, would be as useful for fishery purposes; whether a pier built at Scilly, and giving all the necessary accommodation and facilities for the promotion of the fisheries at Kinsale, would cost scarcely more than one-half of the sum of £19,000 required for the present site; and, whether it is a fact that no deepening or dredging would be required were the pier built at Scilly; and, if this is so, will he order the suspension of the works until the Report of the Pier and Harbour Commissioners will be made?

MR. COURTNEY

The figures given by the hon. Member are correct, except that the local contribution is only £2,000. The details of the expenditure can be given when the works are complete. The scheme now in construction was adopted upon full consideration and at the instance of those locally interested. It provides a depth of 10 feet at low water, and there is no apprehension as to the stability of the work. The alternative site at Scilly was fully examined before the present one was adopted, and it was found that the works there would be more expensive, though less dredging would be required. The recent local inquiry of the Pier and Harbour Commissioners was, I understand, directed to a proposed extension of the works now in hand, and there appears no reason for suspending operations.

MR. DEASY

I beg to give Notice that on going into Committee of Supply I shall call attention to this matter, and show that the local contribution was £3,000, instead of £2,000, as stated by the hon. Gentleman.