Vol. 230 No. 13
asked the Minister for Local Government whether he has agreed to the proposal of Dublin Corporation to close a section of the Grand Canal; and, if so, whether he will make a statement on the effect of this decision on the development of the country's inland water facilities, on tourism and on the enjoyment of Dublin citizens of the amenities afforded by the Canal.
4.
asked the Minister for Local Government how long the Grand Canal may be temporarily closed; the approximate dates of closing and reopening; if there are any circumstances under which the period of temporary closing could be included with any other period of closure for any other reason so as to total a period of over three years closure; and if there are any circumstances under which this closure for over three years could be taken as the statutory period of three years during which the canal has not been used and so permit it to be closed permanently.
5.
asked the Minister for Local Government whether he gave sanction to the Dublin Corporation to close the Grand Canal for the purpose of laying sewerage pipelines; if he gave such sanction subject to conditions; if so, what they were; if the sanction was sufficient to ensure that the laying of the sewerage pipelines would not be utilised subsequently to make a case for the permanent closing of the section of the canal involved for technical or other reasons; and whether he will take steps to ensure that the canal will not, under any pretext, be permanently closed.
6.
asked the Minister for Local Government if he will state in relation to the Grand Canal the cost of the temporary closing and the laying of sewers; the cost of restoring the canal; the cost, including acquisition, of laying the sewers on the north bank of the canal while in no way interfering with the waterway; and the total cost involved in this project.
With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 together.
The Corporation have been advised by their technical advisers that there is no practical alternative to the use of the Grand Canal for the laying of sewers necessary to provide adequate serviced lands for new housing and industrial development.
I understand that in the formulation of this advice regard was had to the sizes of the pipes involved and the depth at which they will have to be laid; the difficulties involved in the acquisition of property and wayleaves and the relocation of essential services and to the dislocation of traffic over a very prolonged period that would otherwise be caused. Precise estimates of cost of the project are not available.
It is not possible at this stage to give approximate dates for the closing and reopening of the canal. This and other information must await the submission of further reports by the Corporation.
Might I direct the Minister's attention to the fact that he has not, certainly specifically, answered the question I put to him which was, did he give his sanction to the scheme proposed by the Corporation? I assume from what he said that he did. I then asked him if he gave it, did he give it subject to any conditions.
He has not answered that question. I would be obliged if he would do so. The third thing I want a definite reply to is: are these conditions, if any, subject to which his sanction has been given such as to make it certain that the laying of these pipes will not be used subsequently as a device to ensure the permanent closing of the canal?
I would like to ask the Minister if he has any definition as to what the three year statutory period is? Can it be extended in any particular way as asked in my question?
My colleague, the Minister for Transport and Power, dealt with this matter very comprehensively yesterday and explained the situation. The important factor is that before anything is done, there will have to be legislation and all Deputies will have a full opportunity to make their views known and ask all relevant questions at that time. At this stage no more than a decision in principle has been given.
Having noted that the Minister has not satisfactorily replied to Deputy Costello, may I ask him is it possible, when such economies have been exercised by the Minister in his Department, that no estimate of the total cost of this project was asked for, sought or received?
The Minister for Local Government and the Government had before them a number of different alternative proposals and suggestions, all of which contained reliable estimates of what was involved in the different alternatives. As my colleague explained yesterday, the precise details of the scheme decided upon by the Corporation have yet to be submitted to the Department.
Arising out of his unsatisfactory reply can the Minister give any indication to the House and the public whether either in the course of the consent that he will have given to the Corporation or in the course of the legislation that will be prepared, adequate safeguards will be provided to ensure that the canal will not be closed and the trees lining the banks will not be destroyed?
I think we need have no worries about that. All the Government have decided at the moment is that the Corporation may take it that provided a satisfactory scheme is put forward, permission to close the canal temporarily will be given, but the Government's firm intention is that the closing will be nothing other than temporary.
The Minister is aware that yesterday at Question Time a Government Deputy announced that he would do all in his power to have the canal closed permanently. Can we now have a solemn guarantee from the Minister that there is no question of a permanent closure of the canal under consideration now or in the future in so far as the Government are concerned?
The Government decision is quite clear. They are prepared to accede to a request from the Corporation for a temporary closing of the canal only. Any Deputy of course is entitled, as is Deputy Lemass, to give expression to his own personal point of view. I am giving the view and the decision of the Government.
Can the Minister say whether the Government have received any technical advice as to whether it is technically possible to re-open the canal once it is closed?
Oh yes.
Is that certain?
Oh, yes; the Government have been assured of that.
And that it will continue to be possible to retain water in it? I understand that if the canal is once closed, there is a technical difficulty in retaining water in it except at very considerable expense.
The closing will be part of a scheme which Dublin Corporation will submit and unless the Government are fully satisfied that it will give effect to their decision——
I recognise the Minister's difficulty in that he is answering for the Minister of Local Government but I want to ask him have the Government considered in regard to this proposal alternative methods of sewage disposal or have we allowed our minds to become dominated by the illusion that the only effective method of disposing of city sewage is to pour it in the river in view of the fact that cities like Birmingham and Coventry or other cities in Britain have no such resources for disposal and yet have effective sewage disposal systems?
I can assure the Deputies, from my own personal knowledge, that both the Minister for Local Government and I have given a great deal of attention to this matter and every aspect of the sewerage situation in Dublin has been thoroughly explored because there is an overwhelming necessity to make more serviced land available in Dublin. This, as every Deputy knows, is necessary in order to ease the housing situation in Dublin. Dublin Corporation have under consideration a comprehensive scheme for providing additional sewerage and additional serviced land in Dublin, of which this is only part.
Arising out of the supplementary which Deputy Dillon has put, is the Minister aware that in 1946 I, as Minister for Local Government, established a committee to consider the question of an alternative means of disposing of sewage and one of the first things the Coalition did was to dissolve that committee?
Was it like the Health Committee?
For 20 years the Government were not able to replace it.
