asked the Minister for Local Government if he has seen the report of a statement by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Lands that the Grand Canal will not be closed because under existing legislation, as long as the canal is being used, Córas Iompair Éireann are obliged to maintain it, and that Dublin Corporation tried to pull a fast one but that they will not get away with it; whether the statement represents a Government decision about the closing of the canal; and, if so, if he will state the date of the decision, and the steps which will now be taken as an alternative to closing the canal to provide urgently needed drainage for South-West Dublin.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Grand Canal.
24.
Mr. Ryan
I have not seen the report referred to but I would refer the Deputy to the reply given by the Minister for Transport and Power yesterday to questions on the same subject.
With regard to the drainage of south-west Dublin area, the Grand Canal drainage project was referred back to the Corporation last January for reconsideration, and investigation of possible alternative solutions. In the meantime, temporary provision for the most urgent requirements of the area is included in the Dodder Valley drainage scheme which has been submitted by Dublin County Council, and is at present being examined in my Department.
Mr. Ryan
Having regard to the statement made by the Minister for Industry and Commerce yesterday, that it would be a long time before any decision was taken as to the ultimate use of the Grand Canal, would the Minister ensure that immediate steps will be taken to relieve the need for drainage in south-west Dublin by making a decision now not to close the canal but to use the bottom of the canal as a route for drainage?
As I have indicated in my reply, I dealt with the proposal from the Corporation last January and it was referred back for further consideration and possible alternative arrangements, and as yet I have not heard further from them.
Mr. Ryan
Would the Minister not make it clear now, in order to prevent further prevarication, that he will not agree to closing the canal?
Since the proposal was referred back and is still under consideration, I am not aware that I may have any such decision to make.
Mr. Ryan
I can understand that the Minister is reluctant to agree to any suggestion from me, but having regard to the views expressed by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Lands, surely the Minister will not go against him? He should either curb the language of the Parliamentary Secretary or acquiesce in his suggestion that the canal be kept open.
Surely the person referred to by the Deputy has as much right to advocate that as the Deputy has?
Mr. Ryan
I know, but I am asking the Minister to approach his colleague.