Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 18 May 1967

Vol. 228 No. 10

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Grand Canal.

13.

asked the Minister for Local Government if he is aware of the advice given to Dublin Corporation that it has no powers to erect railings, fences or other safety structures adjoining the Grand Canal in Dublin city because the canal is not a danger to children; if he will introduce legislation to enable the corporation to erect railings or other protective structures along the canal; and, if he is satisfied that the corporation might properly consider the canal as a danger, if he will so notify them and advise them that they will be indemnified against any claim by any person who might contend that the erection of railings was ultra vires.

As I informed the Deputy, in reply to his question of 11th May, I understand that the corporation has been advised that the Grand Canal per se does not constitute a dangerous place within the meaning of the Local Government (Sanitary Services) Act. 1964. As I intimated in my reply, it would be open to the corporation to consider whether any particular portions of the canal banks might for special reasons be regarded as dangerous places.

I am satisfied that the law as it stands gives the corporation ample power to take action in regard to any portion of the canal which in their opinion is a dangerous place. I am asking that they have a further examination of the canal banks carried out with a view to establishing whether there are sections which could for special reasons be regarded as dangerous and where it would be feasible to provide protection.

Is the Minister aware that since last Thursday there has been a further fatal tragedy in the Grand Canal? Would the Minister agree with me that in the past, where there has been a conflict between the public interest and the strictly legal view given by law agents to local authorities, the Minister for Local Government has undertaken to indemnify such local authorities if they took action to protect the public interest? If, as I believe, this is so, would the Minister now consider indemnifying the corporation if it should take whatever steps it deems necessary to provide proper protection along the banks of the Grand Canal in Dublin city?

I have asked the corporation to have a further examination of the canal bank carried out to establish whether there are certain sections which could be regarded as dangerous.

Will the Minister be good enough to support my plea for urgency.

I will. Yes.

Top
Share