HC Deb 18 May 1888 vol 326 cc678-9
DR. TANNER (Cork Co., Mid)

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether his attention has been directed to a series of Resolutions, passed by a large and representative meeting of the inhabitants of Rosscarbery, under the presidency of the Very Rev. P. Hill, P.P., V.F., condemning the new pier, and stating that it is, in its present condition, useless for any purpose, and that the repairs lately executed by the Board of Works were more injurious than serviceable to navigation; whether a Resolution, condemning the work as useless, was passed at a meeting held on the 30th April last, and a copy forwarded to the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant; whether, moreover, a statement, pointing out the defects of the works, was forwarded on the 6th of February, 1887, to the Fisheries Commission, to Sir Thomas Brady, who, in turn, forwarded it to the Lord Lieutenant on the 11th of November, 1887; and, whether steps will be taken to get the dock levelled to what was originally specified, and that an independent Inspector will be appointed to examine the works as executed, and the value and feasibility of the local remedial suggestions?

THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON) (Leeds, N.)

I regret that I have been unable to obtain the materials for a complete answer to this Question; but I can say now that the district engineer of the Board of Works has asked the county surveyor to meet him on the spot and state any objections to the work as they have been carried out, This course secures the independent inspection which the hon. Gentleman desires.

DR. TANNER

asked the hon. Gentleman if he would send down an independent engineer, and not one who had been connected with the erection of the pier in question?

Mr. JACKSON

said, he thought the hon. Member would see that the county surveyor who had been asked to meet the officer of the Board of Works was an independent officer, and had no connection with the Board of Works. The county surveyor was responsible to the county for certifying as to the fitness of the works before they were accepted by the county as a charge; and therefore the hon. Gentleman would see that, until they had received a report of that interview, it was unnecessary for him to say more.

Dr. TANNER

remarked that the hon. Gentleman had misunderstood him. In the case of the Ballycotton pier the Board of Works sent down an officer to inspect the works who had been connected with the erection of the pier. He wished to avoid such a state of things in this case.

Mr. JACKSON

wished to make it clear to the hon. Member that what was required in the first instance was to ascertain whether there was any foundation whatever for the charges that had been made in the Question put by the hon. Member. With a view to eliciting the facts, they had asked the county surveyor to decide whether there was any reason for the complaint or not.