asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce whether the Secretary of his Department wrote in March, 1923, to the Commission on Reconstruction and Development recommending proposals for the hydroelectric development of the Liffey, and expressing the view that private capital could probably be found for the purpose, and urging that the Executive Council's financial responsibility for such enterprises should be strictly limited to temporary guarantees of interest upon the debenture portion of the capital required; and whether, in view of the Executive Council's resolution regarding the Shannon Scheme, he will cause copies of that letter to be circulated to Deputies before the matter be discussed.
CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS. ORAL ANSWERS. - LIFFEY HYDRO-ELECTRICAL DEVELOPMENT.
The reference is apparently to a letter which is marked confidential, and was sent by my Department two years ago to the Commission on Reconstruction and Development. With the letter was a memorandum containing suggestions made at the request of the Commission as to a number of development schemes which might be considered by the Commission. Included in these suggestions was a Liffey scheme.
In the covering letter the following reference to these suggestions was made:—
"Your Commissioners will appreciate that any suggestions now made are merely the suggestions of departmental officials, and do not in any sense represent considered suggestions made with Ministerial or Government authority. The Government does not, in fact, wish to commit itself on such questions or to lay proposals before the Oireachtas until it has been able to consider the recommendations of your Commission."
No recommendations as to a Liffey Scheme were received from the Commission.
I see no reason whatever for circulating copies of this correspondence.
Will the Minister say to whom that correspondence was addressed?
I have not the information at the moment, but I think it was to the Secretary of the Reconstruction Commission.
Will the Minister say who was the Chairman of the Commission at the time the letter was sent?
I am afraid that these are matters of which I have not the information available for the Deputy at the moment. If he would like to have the supplementary question which he has asked considered as a question for to-morow, I will see if I can get an answer for it.
It is hardly of sufficient importance to put it down for to-morrow, but will the Minister say if it was, in fact, before the resignation of Sir John Griffith?
I will inquire into that.