asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce whether it is correct that the capital cost of developing the Valleymount area in Counties Kildare and Wicklow for rural electrification is greater pro rata for each house in the area now that portion of the area is covered by the Poulaphouca Lake than it would have been if the land now submerged had not been flooded and if it was possible to carry distribution lines over such land and to connect the houses formerly on such land.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Valleymount Electrification Scheme.
As I informed the Deputy in reply to his question on this subject on 21st November, 1951, the existence of the artificial lake does not materially affect the economics of providing electricity supply for the Valleymount area. The Electricity Supply Board has further informed me that the area will be selected for development when the required standard, costed on the assumption that the lake did not exist, has been reached.
Would the Minister mind answering the question that is on the Order Paper? That is not the question I have asked. If the Minister would prefer to defer it until he has got an answer to the question on the paper, I would be quite agreeable.
The answer to the Deputy's question, then, is no. The capital cost of developing this area is very slightly less, on the basis on which the board is proceeding in ignoring the existence of the lake, than it would be if the lake did not exist.
Would the Minister explain how that can be, when the board stated that one of the reasons for the delay in developing this area is the extraordinarily high cost in comparison with high tension lines elsewhere?
The board have not stated that to me.
Will the Minister explain, then, to the House how it can be that it is possible to have the same ratio of cost for an area where you can develop one side of a high tension line to that of an area where you can develop both sides? It is perfectly clear that if you have a high tension line running into the middle of an area, that is going to cost less than if you must have two.
May I put it that the cost of the lines in the area of the lake will not be charged against the area? The board is proceeding on the assumption that the lake does not exist, and that is the most favourable assumption, from the point of view of the residents of the area.
The board stated differently to me.