asked the Minister for Transport and Power if he will request Córas Iompair Éireann to consult with the Inland Waterways Association of Ireland on the improvements for navigation that can be made on the Grand Canal during the period of its temporary closing.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Grand Canal.
11.
CIE as owners of the Grand Canal would have to examine the merits of any suggestions for effecting improvements for navigation on the canal during a period of temporary closure and it is open to the Inland Waterways Association of Ireland to approach CIE in this matter.
12.
asked the Minister for Transport and Power if he will guarantee to the public that the Grand Canal will not be permanently closed as a result of the decision of Dublin Corporation to close part of the canal.
I would refer the Deputy to the comprehensive reply given by me in this matter on 26th October, 1967.
May I ask, apart from the reply of 26th October, 1967, in view of the new development in connection with the closure of part of the Grand Canal, if the Minister will now give a definite undertaking to the House and the people that there will be no question of a permanent closure of the Grand Canal?
The Government never made any statement suggesting that there is to be a permanent closure of the Grand Canal. As the Deputy knows, the agreement for a temporary closure was in principle only. The design of the sewerage pipes and the restoration of the canal have to be presented to the Minister for Local Government by Dublin Corporation and the question of legislation will have to be considered. Therefore, the Deputy need not have any worry about the future of the Grand Canal.
So many questions have been posed that we should like to have a most definite guarantee from the Minister on behalf of the Government that there will be no question whatever of a permanent closure——
I will move an amendment to close it permanently when we get legislation, and I hope the House will agree with it.
May that be taken as Fianna Fáil opinion?
It is the individual expression of the opinion of a Deputy representing an area on the canal. It is a local issue.
In view of the intervention and in view of what Deputy Lemass has said, which is most disturbing to people interested in the Grand Canal, may I ask the Minister can he give a guarantee that there will be no question either now or in the future of the permanent closure of the canal? All we want is a guarantee. If the Minister is good enough to give that guarantee——
It will be for the House to decide.
It could not be clearer.
Is the Minister not aware there is widespread malaise in the country that the proposal temporarily to close the canal for the purpose set out in the corporation scheme is merely a device in order to give effect to the ambition expressed by Deputy Lemass to have it permanently closed; and would the Minister not think it desirable at this stage that some kind of consensus from the Dáil, as at present constituted, that we do not want that to happen and that the people who have plans in mind to that end should not proceed in the belief that the present Government or any successor to them are likely to approve any proposal permanently to close the canal——
Only a bogus agitation.
Deputy Lemass is entitled to his view. All I am asking is that we should get a consensus here that no Government likely to be drawn from any Party in this House will give effect to the view expressed by Deputy Lemass. I do not mean any disrespect to the Deputy. Everybody has a right to his view but would it not be a good thing that we should say this as a consensus of the Dáil?
I see a grave danger of a permanent closure.