Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 28 Apr 1927

Vol. 19 No. 17

ORDUITHE AN LAE—ORDERS OF THE DAY. - ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) BILL, 1927—FOURTH STAGE (RESUMED).

Amendment 47, as amended, put and agreed to.

I move:—

In page 31, Section 58 (4), line 52, to delete the words "first day of March" and substitute therefor the figures and words "31st day of March."

This follows a previous amendment Amendment put and agreed to.

I move:—

In page 31, line 59, Section 59, after the word "may" to insert the words "if the charges to be borne by consumers under such scale are less than the charges borne by such consumers in respect of the same services before such scale is fixed by the Board."

This is a very necessary amendment. It is really an opposite point of view from the point I have been speaking of with regard to municipal undertakings. It is to ensure where charges are raised that any objection that can be made otherwise shall not be made. I have in mind one particular undertaking which is operating since its foundation on the basis that the rates shall be called upon to pay portion of the charges. I do not propose that there should be any objection if such charges were raised so as to make the charges meet all the outgoings.

Amendment put and agreed to.

I move:—

In page 32, line 11, Section 60 (1), before the word "and" to insert the words "either wholly or to such lesser extent as is specified in such order."

This is an amendment that was suggested by Deputy Nagle. I think it is almost in the words which he used.

Amendment put and agreed to.

I move:—

In page 32, Section 60, before sub-section (2) to insert the following new sub-section:—

"(2) Whenever a person is required by an order under this section to cease in part only and not wholly to use a generating station as a generating station the subsequent provisions of this section and the provisions of the First Schedule to this Act shall apply with the modification that references to the cesser to use a generating station as a generating station shall be construed as including such partial cesser as is required by such order."

This also follows out a suggestion made by Deputy Nagle, and gives the. compensation rights of the First Schedule to people who are affected.

Amendment put and agreed to.

I move:—

In page 32, line 30, Section 60 (3), after the word "whenever" to insert the words "an authorised undertaker or" and in line 35, after the word "of" to insert the words "an authorised undertaker or" and in line 38, after the word "other" to insert the words "authorised undertaker or."

This is merely a drafting amendment. It is to put in "authorised undertaker" in the section, which at the moment deals only with statutory undertakers.

Amendment put, and agreed to.

I move:

In page 32, at the end of Section 60, to insert the following new sub-section:—

"(6) In this section and in the First Schedule to this Act the expression ‘authorised undertaker' included a permitted undertaker."

This makes the further addition that in this section and for the purpose of the First Schedule an "authorised undertaker" includes a "permitted undertaker." That meets about five amendments which were proposed by Deputy Myles, and one proposed either by Deputy Nagle or Deputy O'Connell, with regard to having the First Schedule apply to generating stations not merely under the control of authorised and statutory undertakers but of permitted undertakers.

Amendment put, and agreed to.

I move:

In page 32, line 49, Section 61, after the word "undertaker" to insert the words "without the consent of the Minister before the constitution of the Board and after the constitution of the Board without the consent of the Board" and in lines 51 and 52 to delete the words "without the consent of the Board."

This and a later amendment meet the point raised by Deputy Thrift that there was a period in which the Board might not be in operation and it appeared that the Minister was precluded from dealing with undertakings. The Minister's consent must be obtained before the constitution of the Board. After that the consent of the Board must be obtained.

Amendment put, and agreed to.

I move:

In page 32, Section 61, to add after the word "Board," line 52, the words "Provided that such consent shall not be withheld unless there shall be a bulk supply available at a price not greater than the cost of generation by the existing or extended station in the area served or to be served by the same. Any dispute arising out of this section shall be determined by an arbitrator appointed by the Chief Justice of Saorstát Eireann."

This amendment deals with the non-extension of a generating station. The section deals with the establishment and extension of generating stations, and says:

Notwithstanding anything contained in any special Act or any provisional or other order in force at the passing of this Act, it shall not be lawful for any authorised undertaker to establish anchor extend an existing generating station or transmission system or distribution system without the consent of the Board.

The amendment provides that the Board shall not withhold its consent to the extension of a station where the bulk supply is not available, and I think that is a reasonable provision. Obviously there are portions of the country where the bulk supply, according to the Minister, will not be available for a number of years, and in those particular cases I propose that an undertaking shall be permitted to extend in the ordinary course, provided that there is no bulk supply available. In other words, if it does not seem good to the Board to extend the bulk supply from the Shannon, that the undertaking shall not be prevented from developing in the ordinary course.

This amendment would prevent the Board prohibiting extensions which might not be in accordance with the requirements of the country to be met by the Shannon scheme. In so far as there is any undertaking which might require an addition to its generating plant, and there was no other supply available, it is quite clear that the Board would not refuse, but this amendment brings in this old item, that the determination has to be the cost of generation in the area served or proposed to be served, whether that is greater or smaller than what could be supplied, which I have resisted right through. I hold that the real question for the consumer in the country in the future is not the matter of his bulk cost or his cost for generation, but his final cost, and if that final cost can be cheapened in any way, if he is to get a better and a cheaper supply, I am indifferent as to whether the reduction is made in the generating costs or in the distribution costs. I have resisted throughout the particular point that the Deputy has brought in, and I think it ought to be resisted. There is the further point about the arbitrator that I have fought so consistently, and about which the House accepted the other method of appointment of an arbitrator, which is now being changed to a certain extent by a later amendment of mine. I put it to the Deputy that in so far as he is aiming at anything that can be described as reasonable the Board will have to be allowed to act as a reasonable body, and meet these cases in a reasonable way when they occur.

In so far as this has been argued before. I suppose on principle the Minister is justified in resisting the amendment, but I think it is not so unreasonable as one would infer from what he has said. All I ask, and all I have claimed right through, is the security of the undertakings. The reply of the Minister in this and other matters has been that the undertakers should not be allowed initiative at all, and he is taking away initiative from an undertaking even when it is not being taken over. I think the underlying principle that the Minister is contesting is one that we can hardly expect to see from the same viewpoint. I cannot see that there is anything in jeopardy in giving the undertakers reasonable control of their own business and in allowing them to develop in an area where the Shannon scheme will not operate—to leave them with a fairly definite knowledge of their own freedom to extend and to administer the area. The Minister may say that, irrespective of the bulk supply of the Shannon, they may provide current in other ways, or interfere with the question of distribution, though I do not think the question of distribution can come into this matter very much, because I cannot see how the Board can cheapen the distribution end of it, say, in a country district where distribution is really from the generating station to the consumer. The Board will have control of the prices that that undertaking shall charge. The undertaking has control of the network that supplies the consumer, and it has also control of the generating station, and I fail to see how the Board, seeing that they have control of the prices to be charged, can effect economies to the consumer beyond what they could do without leaving the undertaking liberty of managing its own business.

I almost gather from Deputy Hewat that any addition to the capital charges of any undertaking or group of undertakings must inevitably fall upon the consumer of the article produced by those undertakings. The proposition is that there should be freedom to extend what may be called duplicate productive undertakings when there exists already a supply station, the Shannon. Clearly, from what one has read and understood of this question, the greater the quantity that can be taken from the Shannon supply the better for the consuming public, whoever they may be. If you accept that, it is surely unwise to encourage the thought that there is freedom to add to the capital expenditure on generating stations. You may find here and there a proposition which could be justified if taken by itself, without regard to any other part of the country, or the general scheme of electrical supply with regard to extension and expenditure on the generating station. But obviously the greater number of generating stations that are erected the greater must be the capital that has to be paid for, and consequently the greater the charge to the ultimate consumer. That is the view I take, and it, I think, destroys the case the Deputy has made in favour of freedom to enlarge existing capital undertakings.

Deputy Johnson is right in saying that the amount of capital that is sunk in extending a station would ultimately have to be paid for by the Shannon scheme.

By the consumer.

By the consumer in the first instance, but in the event of the Shannon scheme going into that particular area, the Board would have to be responsible for the capital there. On the other hand, I think the Minister is not very clear as to how far the Shannon scheme will operate, how far it will pay to extend the scheme into various areas. To leave areas that are not going to be immediately served in the position that the development of a particular undertaking cannot be gone on with I think is wrong. Assume that there is an undertaking at present almost up to full capacity. That undertaking, when the Bill operates, may be called upon to supply a considerably larger area and a considerable number of consumers that are not on it at present. The amount of capital that would be required in a case of that sort is not very large, but I think that the undertaking itself would not incur this capital expenditure, unless it considers that it is going to be useful for the generating station, for the owners, and, incidentally, for the consumers. The cost of production is very largely affected not only by the amount of energy generated, but by the kind of load that is put on a station. If a station is confined to the supply of light, it will be worked at a very much heavier cost than a similar station that has its lighting load carried on by means of the distribution of power during the hours when the light is not required. If an electric station can carry on its distribution uniformly over a period of 12 or 15 hours it can be worked with an efficiency far in excess of a station whose output would be double, but which would be confined to peak loads late in the evening.

The amendment aims at securing that the Board will not be able to refuse, supposing a station puts up a good case. The Minister says in effect that that is not required, because the Board would be reasonable and allow an extension where such a state of affairs exists. This is very much the same question as was decided by other amendments today, that the station shall be able to demand to be taken over. The Minister has conceived it to be the right of a station to ask to be taken over. This amendment really means that the Board shall not have the power to refuse the reasonable request of the station for extension where it is desirable and necessary in the interests of the area and of the undertaking. The only thing against that is the point raised by Deputy Johnson, that ultimately, if the station comes to be taken over, the amount of compensation is increased by the amount of the capital expenditure. I think any liability put on in that direction can be reasonably controlled by the Board. At all events, it would be a big factor in giving the undertaking reasonable control of its own business, and that is one of the things I have been fighting for. I maintain that if it is in the interests of the Board in connection with the working of the Shannon scheme that certain arbitrary powers should be given, the arbitrary powers should be limited as far as possible, so as to allow undertakings to be managed and controlled, as far as may be under the Bill, by the people most concerned.

I want to take two examples to show Deputy Hewat what I mean. I will take the third year after the Shannon scheme has begun to deliver current. Say there is an area in the most northerly point of Donegal where it has not been found economic to throw out the Shannon line, and there is a station there which is loaded to the full, and an extension is necessary. Could the Deputy conceive the Board refusing to consent to such an extension? If I were to accept the amendment, what position would I be in? Let me take a recent occurrence in Dublin, where the station is overloaded, and there was sanction sought to borrow money for certain extensions. Forty-one thousand pounds of the particular sum was for a new turbine. I was able to get in touch with the electrical engineer operating on the electrical side of the Shannon works, and get him to arrange that whatever turbine was bought would fit in with the Shannon requirements hereafter. If that had not been secured, that £41,000 might as well have been thrown in the river. It would have been simply wiped out a couple of years hence, and the capital cost would have to be borne.

I say, on the one hand, that to put that amendment in would definitely mean that for three years, until 1929 at least, stations would have to be allowed to extend, and the Board would have no say as to whether the extensions would synchronise or fit in with the requirements of the Shannon scheme. There would be no bulk supply available for two or three years and the question as to cost of generation would not arise. To accept the amendment would mean that every existing station that thought it was fully loaded would simply be able to extend, and the moneys that would be spent in extension would be so much wasted that would hereafter have to be borne, as far as capital costs and amortisation charges are concerned, by the consumer in the area. I think it is only right that the Board should be given power. I do put it to the Deputy that in the case I cited of Donegal I cannot imagine the Board being so unreasonable as to refuse an extension. On that the Board might say: "We are looking forward to coming up here after a certain number of years; let us see, therefore, that whatever extensions are made will fit in with the Shannon requirements afterwards."

Amendment declared lost.

I move amendments 56 and 57:—

In page 32, line 53, Section 62 (1), after the word "may" to insert the words "after consultation with an authorised undertaker" and in line 54 to delete the word "any" and to substitute therefor the word "such" and in line 55 after the word "may" to insert the words "after consultation with an authorised undertaker" and in line 56 to delete the word "an" and substitute therefor the word "such."

In page 32, lines 58 and 59, Section 62 (2), after the word "may" to insert in each case the words "after consultation with an authorised undertaker," and in lines 59 and 61 to delete the word "an" and substitute therefor in each case the word "such."

These amendments are to meet an undertaking given by me in Committee that I would guarantee consultation with the authorised undertaker in carrying out the powers of the Board under the particular section.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment 58:—"In page 35, lines 6 to 13, to delete Section 69" (Mr. McGilligan)—put and agreed to.

I move amendments 59, 60, 61 and 62:—

In page 35, Section 71 (1), to delete paragraph (b) and substitute therefor the following new paragraph:—

"(b) in the case of a rural district council, board of public health and public assistance as special expenses under the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878, and shall be deemed to be special expenses within the meaning of Section 232 of the said Act."

In page 35, Section 71, to delete sub-section (2) and substitute therefor two new sub-sections as follows:—

"(2) Every sum advanced under this Act to a local authority by the Board out of the funds at its disposal shall be advanced on the credit of the fund or rate out of which such local authority is authorised to defray expenses incurred under this Act, and for the purpose of securing the repayment of any such sum and the interest payable thereon such local authority may mortgage to the Board the said fund or rate.

"(3) Every sum advanced under this Act to a local authority by the Board shall be repaid to the Board within the time and in the manner prescribed by regulations made under this Act by the Board after consultation with the Minister for Local Government and Public Health."

In page 35 before Section 72 to insert the following new section:—

"In addition to the power conferred on the Board by this Act to make advances to local authorities it shall be lawful for a local authority to borrow for the purposes of this Act subject to the provisions and restrictions contained in Sections 237, 238 and Sections 240 to 243 (both inclusive) of the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878."

In page 35, lines 58 to 61, to delete Section 73 and substitute therefor the following new section:—

"A local authority which is an authorised undertaker shall keep separate accounts in relation to its authorised undertaking and the separate accounts so kept shall be deemed to be accounts of such local authority and shall be audited in like manner as the accounts of such local authority and the enactments and orders relating to the audit of the accounts of such local authority and to the powers of the auditor thereof shall apply to such separate accounts in like manner as those enactments and orders apply to the audit and the auditor of the accounts of such local authority."

These amendments deal with matters raised more or less by Sections 71, 72 and 77. There were various points raised on these in Committee. There was an amendment by Deputy A. Byrne which I felt I could not accept, but on that Deputy Hewat raised a point which I said I would have looked into. After consultation with the Department of Local Government these amendments are proposed to meet the points raised. There are various changes made as to bringing in line with the more recent legislation relating to local authorities the particular powers heretofore given to them, and the obligations imposed on them under the Electricity Lighting Acts. Amendment 59 merely substitutes for paragraph 3 of sub-section (1) of Section 71 what is here. That is simply putting in a more precise way what was previously, without any specific reference to Acts, in paragraph (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 71. Amendment 60 carries forward the effects of 71, deleting sub-section (2), and substituting two new sub-sections. That is intended to meet specially the points raised by Deputy Hewat with regard to priority of charges. It now sets it down as the old public health legislation had ordained—it leaves it in the same state as before. Amendment 61 is a necessary corollary to Section 71. It has been represented that conceivably there might be cases in which a local authority will be able to borrow itself at a cheaper rate or on better terms and conditions than the money could be advanced by the Board.

This amendment deals with a point that, I think, was raised either by Deputy Thrift or Deputy Byrne. It provides that separate accounts be kept by a local authority which is an authorised undertaker, and that these accounts should be deemed to be the accounts of the local authority, and liable to audit in the same manner as the ordinary accounts of the local authority.

Amendments 59 to 62 agreed to.

I move amendment 63:—

In page 36, line 41, before Section 77, to insert the following new section:—

(1) Whenever a local authority which is an authorised undertaker borrows under this Act any sum from the Board for any purpose the purpose for which sum is so borrowed shall be deemed to be a purpose for which such local authority may borrow under the Public Health (Ireland) Acts, 1878 to 1919 and the said Acts shall apply to such borrowing in like manner as they apply to any borrowing thereunder by a local authority with the modification that the sanction required by the said Acts for any borrowing thereunder by a local authority shall for the purposes of the borrowing under this Act of any sum from the Board by a local authority which is an authorised undertaker be the sanction of the Board.

"(2) Any sum borrowed under this Act by a local authority which is an authorised undertaker shall not be reckoned as part of the total debt of such local authority for the purpose of any limitation on borrowing imposed by the Public Health (Ireland) Acts, 1878 to 1919."

This amendment is necessary following on amendment 61. The effect of it is that money borrowed by a local authority which is an authorised undertaker should not be reckoned as part of the total debt of that local authority for the purposes of the limitation of borrowing. That continues the effect of legislation as it stands at the moment with regard to borrowing for electricity purposes which is not considered as a purpose that would limit borrowing.

All the borrowing will now be from the Board?

No, but the amendment makes it lawful for a local authority which is an authorised undertaker to borrow for the purposes of this Act subject to various restrictions. Such borrowing will not limit the powers of that local authority in the matter of borrowing.

This provision would be unnecessary if the Board were going to take over the undertaking. I suppose we are looking at the Bill now in the light that there will be a reasonable prospect of the undertakings carrying on. This, I suppose, is based on the assumption that the local authorities will be the parties concerned in the raising of the money and the carrying on of the works under the supervision of the Board. Does the Minister still rule out the question of anybody but the Board being an authorised undertaker?

I do not know what the Board may do, but supposing that the Board stepped into a place it could constitute itself an authorised undertaker, but it could not constitute itself a local authority. Consequently the provisions relating to the local authority would not apply to the Board, and therefore this provision is considered desirable.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment 64:—

In page 39, lines 5 to 14, to delete Section 84.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment 65:—

In page 39, lines 15 to 30, to delete Section 85.

On the Committee Stage, in response to a point raised by Deputy Cooper, I said I did not care very much whether Section 85 remained in the Bill or not. Later it was suggested that the section did not appear to be very tightly drawn, and as the points which it was intended to cover were small, I feel the best thing to do is to drop the section, and I move accordingly.

I wonder will it be possible to get figures differentiating between Government importations and other importations. If it is not possible to do that, then we may sometimes get some very deceptive figures. I think that on the whole the Minister is well advised to drop the section. I would like to have some indication as to how the figures of revenue received from tariffs will be swollen by Government importations? I am not asking the Minister to do this on this section, but if the Minister for Finance were here I would put the matter up to him. Perhaps the Second Reading of the Finance Bill will afford an opportunity for doing so.

If there is no exemption what does it matter?

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment 65a:—

"In page 39, Section 88 (1), line 49, after the word ‘may' to insert the words ‘after consultation with the Attorney-General.'"

After we had a series of amendments on the Committee Stage with regard to the appointment of arbitrators, I said I would deal with the matter on Section 88. Deputy Hewat raised a point in reply to which I said I would consider one limitation on this appointment of arbitration, and that was where the point to be decided was a legal one— that the arbitrator in that case should be a person of legal knowledge and skill. I said I would see if there were any means of appointing him after consultation with the Chief Justice. When I came to discuss the amendment I felt it might seem to the Dáil that I was not going any length to meet the point put up because if it were to be left to the Minister to decide when a legal matter was involved, and if a decision was taken that it was a legal matter it would mean that the arbitrator would be appointed by the Minister after consultation with some one outside, so that in the long run it would be leaving the matter in the hands of the Minister again. What I decided to do was to move that in legal matters the appointment should be made by the Chief Justice. On the Committee Stage, the point was raised by Deputy Magennis that the appointment of an arbitrator by the Chief Justice would remove such an appointment from criticism by the Dáil, whereas if the appointment were made by the Minister, or someone not a judicial person, that then there could be criticism as that would be an administrative act. I have tried to meet both points of view by providing that the appointment is to be made in every case after consultation with the Attorney-General. That is what I am proposing now.

I think that solution is quite satisfactory. I presume that if the Attorney-General advises that in certain cases it would be necessary to have a legal arbitrator, the nomination would lie with the Chief Justice.

No. If the appointment were made by the Chief Justice such appointment could not be criticised here, but if an appointment were made by the Minister, after consultation with the Attorney-General, I presume it would lie for criticism here. What the position would be if the appointment were made by the Minister after consultation with the Chief Justice I do not know. I do not know whether the cloak of the. Chief Justice would protect the Minister from criticism here. What Deputy Magennis said, that if the appointment were made by the Chief Justice it would not be open to criticism here, seemed to carry conviction with members of the House. What I am moving now is that the appointment be made by the Minister after consultation with the Attorney-General.

Will this apply only to legal arbitrators?

It will apply to every arbitrator. By the insertion of these words we are bringing the Attorney-General into every case in which the Minister may appoint an arbitrator.

I am doubtful as to the wisdom of this compulsory reference to consult the Attorney-General. After all, the Attorney-General is an adviser of the Minister, and of the Ministry on questions of law. I think it is a mistake to insert into the Statute a provision that the Minister must consult, and in effect, make the appointment on the nomination of the Attorney-General. If the Attorney-General is going to act, then the Minister for Justice is the responsible Minister, because that officer comes within his Department. I think that the Minister in doing this is making a bad precedent. I doubt if he will find a precedent anywhere else for this. If the Attorney-General were in the position of a Minister and responsible for a Department and had to answer for himself here, the position would be somewhat different, but in our system the Attorney-General is not necessarily a member of the House. In respect to any act of the Attorney-General, so far as it is an administrative act, the Minister for Justice answers for him. I think that this provision is not in accord with the system we have adopted, and should be re-considered.

On an earlier stage of the Bill I had amendments down objecting to the appointment of the arbitrator by the Minister. The objection was based on this, that the Minister appointed the Board, and the Board took action, and where there was a dispute between the Board and an individual or an undertaking, the Minister appointed the arbitrator. In the amendment that I put down I substituted "Chief Justice" for the "Minister" in the matter of appointing arbitrators, especially when dealing with matters relating to the value of concerns and ether things. Deputy Magennis pointed out at the time that if the Chief Justice acted in appointing an arbitrator, it might be considered that it took the matter out of the purview of the House, and suggested that if the appointment were made by the Minister it would be subject to criticism in the House. The amendment put in by the Minister is, I think, on the lines that while the Chief Justice might be outside the criticism of the House the Attorney-General will not, and in that way he is endeavouring to meet the objections raised by me in the matter of the appointment of arbitrators being made by the Minister.

From my point of view, I do not think that helps me very much. The amendment says that the Minister "may" appoint a fit and proper person, after consultation with the Attorney-General. It is not even mandatory. There is, of course, provision for consulting the Attorney-General, but whether that will make the appointment more independent of the Minister than it was originally, I have a certain amount of doubt. At all events, the effort is on the part of the Minister to meet an objection raised in Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment 66:

In page 41, line 7, Section 91 (2), to delete the word "Board" and substitute therefor the words "Minister before the constitution of the Board and after the constitution of the Board without the consent of the Board."

This corresponds to an earlier amendment—amendment 54. It is meeting the same point which Deputy Thrift made on an earlier section and which arises on this section too—that there might be an interregnum before the constitution of the Board in which the Minister would be precluded from giving consent and there might be nobody to act.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment 66 (a):

In page 44, Section 103, to add at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—

"If in consequence of any order under this section any company or person being a common carrier he prevented from, or impeded in, performing any contract made in connection with its or his business or in fulfilling any statutory or other obligation, such common carrier shall be relieved from any liability arising from breach of said contract or obligation."

The intention of this amendment is to relieve a company of any liability that might arise from breach of contract, arising from stoppage as a result of the Shannon works. The Grand Canal Company have been trading on the river Shannon since 1850 and have stations covering about seven counties. Many of these places are not served by railway stations. Any stoppage or interruption of navigation would be very injurious to them, and it might mean that the trade they now hold would be diverted to other routes. Such diversion would probably become permanent. Some of the stations are in isolated districts.

I handed in this amendment very late, and I am quite satisfied that the Minister has not had an opportunity of giving it the consideration that I think it deserves. If he so desires, I am prepared to withdraw it, and have it considered later.

If these amendments had been simple matters, I could have had them considered in the short time permitted, with a view to accepting them as they stood, or having alternatives provided. But let me take the first of these amendments to show the difficulty:—"If in consequence of any order under this section, any company or person being a common carrier be prevented from or impeded in performing any contract made in connection with its or his business..." From the very small amount of consideration which it has been possible to give this amendment in the time allowed, it does not seem that any common carrier would have liability, say, for not being allowed to use a highway which had been blocked against him by circumstances completely outside his control. There is the further point, that the right to use a waterway is a public right. It is not a right peculiar, say, to the Canal Company. I think the position there is very much the same as if a local authority decided to block, for repair purposes, a certain road, and divert traffic to another route. The diversion means that people have to go round, and they may lose money by going round. But no common carrier, carrying by road, would seek to get compensation from the local authority because the local authority decided to block a certain road for the purpose of repair, and send round traffic another way. From the little consideration it has been found possible to give to these amendments, it is not proved that there would be any liability on such a common carrier on account of the blocking of the waterway, if such be found to be necessary.

On the other hand, there is the question of loss. There, again, I am informed—I do not know how far it is accurate—that the Grand Canal Company themselves close the canal at various times for repairs, and for the cleaning out of weeds. I am not aware that they pay compensation to by-traders during the period the canal is closed. These are amendments with which I cannot deal at this moment. They will probably come forward elsewhere, and if an injustice or hardship is shown to be likely to accrue to the people using the navigation, with regard to the opening of the canal in 1929, that will have to be met in some way. I promise that it will be met in a fair way, but I can go no further than that.

With regard to the company closing the canal for repairs, they generally make provision for that.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment 67:—

In page 44, line 55, Section 105 (2), after the word "over" to insert the word "of," and in line 56, after the word "this" to insert the word "Act."

This is to meet a small drafting point in Section 105, regarding the handing over of the Shannon works.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment 68:—

In page 46, First Schedule, before paragraph I, to insert the following new paragraph:—

"Every person who was employed by an authorised undertaker or a statutory undertaker for a period of not less than two years before the 31st day of March, 1927, and was so employed at the date of an order made under this Act requiring such undertaker to cease to use a generating station as a generating station, and who by reason of such generating station ceasing in pursuance of such order to be used as a generating station has suffered loss of employment shall be entitled to a gratuity calculated on the basis of one-sixth of his annual remuneration and emoluments on the 31st day of March, 1927, for every completed year of his employment."

I think it was Deputy Nagle put up the amendment which I am substituting by amendment 68. It deals with the case of employees in generating stations who have not had five years' service. It gives certain gratuities to those who have had not less than two years' service but who have not had five years' service. Even to the amount which Deputy Nagle had down, I think it meets the point raised by him.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment 68 (a):—

In the First Schedule, page 46, lines 34, 45, 50 and 58, and in page 47, lines 7-8, 10-11, 24-25 and 27-28, to delete the figure and words "1st day of March" and substitute therefor in each case the figures and words "31st day of March."

This is consequential on a previous amendment, inserting the 31st day of March instead of the 1st day of March.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment 69:

In page 47, line 18, First Schedule, to add at the end of paragraph 3 after the word "discharge" the words:—"In the case of an officer of a local authority the compensation provided in this Schedule shall be increased by one-half, subject to the limitation that the total annual amount of his compensation shall not in any case exceed two-thirds of his annual remuneration and emoluments on the date of such cesser."

The purpose of this amendment is to preserve the existing rights and conditions of officers of local authorities. Under the Local Government Act, 1925, a Local Government officer whose position is abolished, or whose position has been materially altered to his detriment, owing to changes in the conditions of his employment, is entitled to annual superannuation up to an amount equal to two-thirds of his yearly salary and emoluments. The Minister for Local Government and Public Health, in a circular of the 4th April, 1925, to each local authority, stated as his general policy in regard to the fixing of superannuation and compensation under the Act, that the amount of the normal pension would be increased by one-half in cases where officers' employment may be terminated through no fault of theirs and that where positions require highly technical qualifications the pension rate would be increased by one-third. The object of the amendment is merely to ensure that this right to added years in calculating the amount of compensation will hot be denied to officers of local authorities.

So far as I have thought this amendment reasonable, I have tried to meet it by two amendments in my own name—amendments 70 and 73. Amendment 70 also meets, and is designed primarily to meet, the point raised by Deputy Myles. It gives certain years in respect of special qualifications or exceptional conditions, but this amendment has also implications in respect of the amendment Deputy Doyle has moved. Amendment 73 goes in the most general way I could think of to meet completely the point of Deputy Doyle. Under amendment 73, if the municipal employee has a special contract of service—special terms accorded to him better than those which the Schedule gives—he can elect in favour of the better terms. I would hesitate definitely before putting in a provision, such as Deputy Doyle's amendment contains, to increase by half the compensation to be paid to a municipal employee, subject to the limitations set out in the Deputy's amendment. In the circumstances, amendment 73 is my best offer to the Deputy.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
AN CEANN COMHAIRLE resumed the Chair.

I move amendment 70:—

In page 47, First Schedule, before paragraph 6, to insert the following new paragraph:—

"In computing the period of employment of a person who is entitled to receive compensation under this Schedule there may be added to the actual period of employment of such person with any, authorised undertaker or any statutory undertaker such number of years not exceeding ten years for and in respect of the special qualifications or exceptional conditions of employment of such person as the Board may in any particular case require so to be added to the actual period of employment as aforesaid of such person as aforesaid."

This amendment is designed to meet the point raised by Deputy Myles. Incidentally, it does not meet the point raised by Deputy O'Connell with regard to added years on account of loss of employment which was represented as being something in the nature of permanent employment. I said I should have to consider whether that would involve any great financial burden, and, if I found it would, I would have to hear some other arguments with regard to the necessity for these added years. Any discussion we have had would seem to show—though this is rather a leap in the dark—that there would be a fairly heavy liability under this provision—that is to say relative to the compensation under the whole Bill. I do not know whether or not Deputy Johnson may like to resurrect Deputy O'Connell's amendment. At the moment, I am only meeting the point Deputy Myles referred to.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment 71:—

In page 48, First Schedule, paragraph 9, before sub-paragraph (a) to insert the following new sub-paragraph:—

(a) between any person and any authorised undertaker or any statutory undertaker or any permitted undertaker as to whether such person is a person entitled to compensation under this Schedule, or."

Deputy O'Connell had pointed out that there was no method of resolving any dispute as to whether a person is a person entitled to compensation— that provision had only been made for settling disputes relative to the amount of compensation. This amendment is designed to meet that point. That drew attention to a gap in another section which we have blocked by an earlier amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment 71a:—

In page 48, line 20, First Schedule. paragraph 9, to delete the words "and the Board" and substitute therefor the words "or, where the Board is a party to such dispute or question, the Minister, and the Board or the Minister (as the case may be)" and in line 21, after the word "Board" to insert the words "or the Minister (as the case may be)."

This amendment is intended to meet the point raised in Deputy Doyle's amendment—No. 72. I gathered from a certain Deputy that there was a fear that where the Board was a party, or one of the contesting parties, to any dispute, then there should be an appeal, not to the Board, but to somebody else; it was suggested to me it should be the Minister.

I am amending it by cutting out the phrase "and the Board" in line 20, and substituting "or where the Board is a party to such dispute or question, the Minister, and the Board or the Minister (as the case may be)." It effects this, if the Board is a party the appeal is to the Minister, if the Board is not a party, then the appeal is to the Board.

Amendment put and agreed to.
Amendment 72 not moved.

I move amendment 72a:—

In page 48, line 22, First Schedule, paragraph 9, after the word "appeal" to insert the word "to."

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment 73:—

In page 48, at the end of the First Schedule to insert the following new paragraph:—

"Where any person who is entitled to receive compensation under this Schedule is also, whether under statute or by the terms of his contract of employment with the authorised undertaker or the statutory undertaker by whom such compensation is payable under this Schedule, entitled to receive compensation in respect of the same circumstances as those in respect of which he is entitled to receive compensation under this Schedule then and in every such case such person shall be entitled to receive compensation as he so elects, under such statute or such contract as aforesaid or under this Schedule but not under both such statute or such contract and this Schedule."

I have already spoken on this. It gives a person who is entitled to receive compensation the right of electing for any other compensation which may be open to him, in preference to compensation under the Schedule.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment 25a on the Order Paper was passed with a reservation. I suggested that after the word "conditions" in line 8 of amendment 25a there should have been inserted some such words as "applicable to authorised undertakers." What I would now propose, with the leave of the House, to do is in that amendment to insert, in line 8, after the word "conditions""applicable under this Act; to authorised undertakers," and then in the last line to delete "such other conditions as are," and insert "the conditions so."

The effect of this is to make the permitted undertaker practically in the same position as the authorised undertaker, for certain purposes.

I hope not. It means this, that the permit may apply to undertakers who are going to be given a permit under the provisions of this Act or such other conditions applicable under this Act to authorised undertakers as the Board may specify in the permit. It means that the Board may, in fact, in giving a permit, put in all the conditions that are applicable under this Act to authorised undertakers, but it is far from having the effect of making the permitted undertakers authorised.

Made subject to the same obligations?

Amendment to amendment 25a put and agreed to.
The Dáil went out of Committee.
Bill reported with amendments.

The question is: "That the Bill, as amended, be received for final consideration."

There is a point that my attention has been drawn to in the Title that should be taken notice of. The Bill is entitled: "An Act to make provision for the reorganisation and regulation of the generation, transmission, distribution and supply of electricity throughout Saorstát Eireann." I think there has been an amendment accepted making it possible for distribution beyond Saorstát Eireann.

It depends upon the definition of Saorstát Eireann.

I think we should not be in any doubt on the matter.

I suggest the deletion of these three words.

Is it necessary to do it now?

I only draw attention to it. On the general question, I have already indicated, so far as some of the matters in controversy recently have been ventilated, I am with the angels.

Which angels?

I leave the respective schools of angelic thought to be judged for themselves. I am against the contention that has been made that there is any great harm done to local authorities by this Bill under the system of supply and distribution that is proposed in it. I have supported the Bill in some respects, but I think the power that is sought to be given to the Board, as a whole, is so extensive and, as I said, non-responsible, that it vitiates the scheme from the beginning to the end, and I am not going to be a party to agreeing to hand over these very great powers to any Board nominated by the Minister without any check, except the check that is provided for by one of the clauses which states the Minister may dismiss the Board, or any member thereof. The Minister is taking very great care to point out that he is not going to answer in this House for the actions of the Board. Reports may be ordered under the Bill in respect of the procedure of the Board to be laid on the Table. Financial reports must be submitted to the Oireachtas or to the Minister, and they may be discussed, but there is nobody under this scheme to answer for the actions of the Board, and it is useless to talk about discussing measures of this kind or reports of a Board of this kind, financial returns of a Board of this kind, unless somebody is capable of answering for that Board. I think it will be admitted that the essence of this Parliamentary system that we have adopted is that somebody is answerable for the acts of the Government. Somebody is answerable for the work that is done under the authority of the Parliament, and there must be, I contend, to make this Bill at all acceptable, provisions within the Bill that will ensure that somebody is to answer for the acts of the Board. That is a fundamental defect, as I see it.

I ask the House to turn to Section 32 and consider some of the things that are authorised to be done by this Board.

"The Board may by order make such general regulations as may be required for carrying this Act into effect and in particular may, subject to the provisions of this Act, make such regulations as it thinks proper relating to all or any of the following matters or things, that is to say—

(a) the making of special orders by the Board and applications to the Board for such orders."

Amongst the things that it may decree, with the force of law, are

"the protection and safety of the Shannon works and of all or any transmission or distribution systems (including the imposition of penalties for the breach of such regulations and the recovery of such penalties by summary proceedings),

the protection of the public safety (including the imposition of penalties for the breach of such regulations and the recovery of such penalties by summary proceedings)."

The Board may make regulations providing for the protection and safety of the Shannon works and, presumably, may spend its income in that operation. There is no check whatever, no responsibility except this. The orders made by the Board are to be laid on the Table and may be revokable by either House. The House, let us say, adjourns on 1st July of any year and resumes, say, on 1st October. On the 2nd July the Board may make an order which lays on the Table and any act done by this Board under that order is valid and justifiable, notwithstanding what maybe done after the resumption of the sittings of the House in October. I say that Board is not responsible. The Minister is not responsible. The Minister denies responsibility for the actions of the Board. Yet it may make these decrees. In fact, it may make laws governing the protection and safety of the Shannon works—provision of an army on a small scale, if you like. It can do anything it wishes within that section by order without anybody being responsible. We may raise questions in the House on the resumption of sittings but the Minister is not going to answer for them. The only remedy the Minister has in this matter is to dismiss the members of the Board.

Now, I am not prepared to give any few men powers of that kind. This failure to fit in with the scheme of responsibility to Parliament runs right through the Bill. It is present in the provisions regarding the audit of accounts; it is present in the provisions regarding the fixing of prices. In effect, this Board is in a position to determine the economic and social policy of this country without any responsibility and with practically no right of check by the Parliament. I pointed out that there is no check upon this Board in fixing its tariff policy, and consequently it may deflect at its own will the economic course that the country may take.

The Board is empowered to decide whether electricity generated by Shannon power shall be used in the main for industrial operations. It may decide that the power shall be used for lighting houses to the detriment, perhaps of industrial undertakings. There is nothing in the Bill which gives anybody any authority over the policy of the Board in respect to how electricity shall be utilised. One can imagine, for instance, that the Board may consider it is very desirable to utilise the full production of Shannon power within a certain area, and so long as they can pay the costs they may decline even to extend the transmission lines and may concentrate upon certain industrial operations or certain power requirements such as tramways or railways without any particular reference to other possibilities. The Board may utilise all the power produced by the Shannon scheme for transportation. Nobody is responsible for the determination of policy. The only remedy the country has is to dismiss the Minister for not dismissing the Board. I think that is a radical defect of the scheme.

I have taken some little trouble to look up one or two cases where you have national institutions, semi-public undertakings, which are run on business lines, and where it is desired that these undertakings shall be run without interference in regard to the administrative work. In no case can I find anything near a parallel to this. During the discussions upon the Railways Bill, which was introduced from these benches, there were certain public pronouncements made by the Stock Holders' Association and. favouring the idea of amalgamation, they put forward the analogy as an example to be followed of the Port of London Authority. That is a very big concern with very great powers. The Port of London Authority may not alter its tariffs without the permission of the Minister of the Board of Trade. There are certain requirements in regard to the budgeting, but the tariff policy, at any rate, must be approved; changes in tariffs must be approved. I find, in reference to the Canadian railway system, which was taken over in a bankrupt condition from private undertakings and is being run on behalf of the State by a great railway manager, Sir Henry Thornton, an interesting state of affairs. I find in a newspaper report, which I have, reference to the appearance of Sir Henry Thornton before the Committee of the House explaining his Budget for the forthcoming year and explaining proposals regarding administration which he had to satisfy the House were reasonable and proper. Being satisfied and getting authority, he proceeds with the administration. Somebody is responsible to the public through the legislature.

I can find no parallel to this proposition, that the State should hand over £7,000,000 to a Board which is given practically unlimited powers and which is to be trusted to use wisdom and discretion in the use of these powers. If its discretion is unwisely used, nobody may be called to book, and the only alternative to the Ministry allowing the Board to do exactly as it wishes, whether in regard to administration or in regard to policy, is dismissal. I think that the scheme, therefore, is unacceptable in view of the powers given to this body, more particularly in view of the deliberate refusal of responsibility by the Minister for the actions of the Board.

We have recently established a unified railway system. The private railway company is in a position very like the position in which this Board will be in respect to the particular work it has to do. The railway company has a monopoly of the railway service, but it may not alter its tariff without reference to an authority set up by this House.

Upwards.

It may not alter its tariffs upwards.

It can reduce.

It can, but the point is that it is limited in its operation by an authority set up by the Oireachtas. It is not an authority which has been supplied out of State funds for its capital. The question of preferential treatment is supposed to be dealt with. There is supposed to be a protection in regard to preferences that might otherwise be given by the Board to consumers. That would be quite illusory and of no value whatever if a Board decided its policy was to favour a particular kind of undertaking. We have all read of the Standard Oil Company and the Rockefeller interests in certain railways and of how, notwithstanding the law against preferences, they were able to give their effective preference to the Rockefeller interests and very effective handicaps to Rockefeller's rivals and still remain within the law. The conditions of sale, the quantities offered for sale, which might only be available to one particular purchaser; would quite easily enable the Board to give the preference that it might desire and, being free to act without any responsibility except the responsibility of a reputation, which is not enough, this Board may do these things to the detriment of the public interest and the furtherance of particular private interests that they may think advantageous to the company they are dealing with or to a particular course of policy which they may prefer to advance.

I think when we are dealing with a public service of this kind with potential and tremendous economic possibilities, we ought not to hand over power to a Board in this way. Anything the members of the Board are doing in the way of the administration of this electrical supply scheme should be done with the authority and the responsibility of the Minister and the definite control of policy should be kept in public hands. I do not want to make it possible to interfere with the ordinary administrative activities of the Board. I do want to safeguard the public interest and to ensure that the policy of the Board shall be directed to what is certainly the Minister's desire but what he does not ensure in the Bill.

The Board is expected to do certain things. "It shall be the duty of the Board to produce and generate electricity in the Shannon works ... to control, manage and maintain in good repair the works ... to distribute, utilise and sell electricity generated by the Board in the Shannon works ... to control, co-ordinate, and improve the supply of distribution, and sale of electricity generally in Saorstát Eireann." There is nothing amongst those duties which will require the Board to do all those things at the cheapest possible rate consistent with making the scheme economic. What is required of the Board is that outgoing and income shall balance, that there shall be no profits, but there is nothing amongst those duties saying that its policy shall be to generate and distribute electricity at the lowest possible price consistent with balancing the accounts. It would not be necessary to impose on the Board such forms of obligation if we had any guarantee that the Board would be bound to follow out that public interest, but as the Board has not responsibility, and as the Minister has not responsibility, we have no reason to be satisfied that the Board is going to follow out a public spirited policy. The defects in the Bill in this respect are so pronounced that I am going to ask the House to vote against the Bill at this stage, and I hope that the Bill will be immediately defeated, rather than that it should pass in its present form. I make this promise, that, if it is not defeated in its present form, I shall do my best to have these defects remedied in a future Dáil.

I think Deputy Johnson is opposing this Bill as a whole, and I would like, perhaps from a different standpoint, to take up the position that, as the Bill stands, and in case of a division, I could not vote for it. The Bill is a very elaborate and ambitious one. I think it would be quite right to say, without having as full a knowledge as I would like of legislation in other places—and I think it would be fairly safe to say that there is no corresponding legislation in any country to the Bill now before us—the Shannon scheme, as laid down in the original Shannon Bill, does not require any such measure as this for its development. One would have expected that, following the adoption by the Dáil of the original Shannon scheme, it would have been followed very shortly afterwards by the appointment, under a Bill brought forward by the Minister, of a Board which would in the meantime have been working towards the problem and seeing how far and where the output of the Shannon scheme when fully developed would be absorbed. Thus by the time this development had taken place and the current was ready for distribution the Board would have become so conversant with the needs and possibilities of the scheme it could come to the Minister with a considered Bill as to the best way in which the undertaking should be developed.

I think it is rash, to say the least of it, for the Minister at this stage to place reliance on the forecasts in connection with the provisions in the Bill, and that established industries throughout the country are immediately to be taken under the control of the Board with such arbitrary or autocratic powers as are placed on the Board by the provisions in the Bill. The proposition here, not so much as regards the Bill, but as regards the declaration of the Minister, is a peculiar one. It is that the working of the electricity scheme shall be on the lines of private enterprise, with the State providing the capital, this House having no power to interfere in any way with the working of it. In other words, in connection with the whole proposition it is nationalising electricity for the country and, at the same time, carrying it on under a system of private enterprise. The two things cannot harmonise, because there is bound to be the clash, already outlined, as between the right of control of this House as against the claim of the Minister for non-interference with the administration or policy of the Board as laid down.

At this stage and during the passage of the Bill, I have contended that the interference with the undertaking, as carried on in the form in which that interference is authorised by the Bill, is unnecessary. If it is unnecessary, I think the Minister has gone further in that direction than the proposition required. I think the Minister has laid it down that the reason the powers are given to this Board is that he must secure the output from the Shannon at a certain figure so as to avoid loss. Is that any real reason for all the provisions of the Bill? The Minister has stated in this House that before the Bill comes into operation he can easily foresee and exceed in the year 1929 an output of 75,000,000 units. He saw no reason to change his view that in the year 1932 the output, as laid down as necessary by the experts at 110,000,000 units, could be achieved. With the incentive of this undertaking before the country I would agree absolutely with the Minister on his own figures that the output of 110,000,000 units in 1932 is likely to be achieved, but it would be achieved just as readily without the steam-rolling process involved in the Bill.

I think it would, in fact, be achieved more easily, because, in my humble judgment, the interest and enthusiasm that would be kindled by the Shannon scheme coming into operation would be greater if the Minister had not considered that it was necessary to force a Bill of this sort on the House. I cannot agree that the lines of this Bill are the best on which the whole scheme should be developed. Deputy Johnson laid considerable stress on the powers that have been placed in the hands of the Board. That has, of course, been the central factor in connection with the discussion that has taken place. In the first amendment in Committee. I raised the question in what the Minister called a very undesirable light, but, at all events. I raised the question of the personnel and qualifications of this Board. I would also like to add in emphasis and in support of Deputy Johnson's contention that this Board, without any overriding authority, may be a menace to the undertaking as a whole. The Minister will, of course, say that this Board will be an enthusiastic worker in favour of the scheme. It would, undoubtedly, in the early stages, but as we pass to the later stages we will have committed ourselves to a policy by which, beyond a certain point, the whole administration of electricity in the country will be in the hands of the Board, without reasonable criticism and, so far as the administrative costs are concerned, this House will have no control.

One cannot help saying that the tendency of legislation here is in the direction of nationalising certain things; and, at all events, putting them in the position that the Ministry are taking out of the control of the House, or, rather, the tendency is to take out of the control of the House, matters of considerable importance. In connection with this new State we ought to be very careful at this stage about what we lay down as a policy, and in this case we are laying down a policy which is certainly a novel one, and which, I think, is dangerous, and may have very far-reaching effects in connection with future legislation. If it is wise and prudent at this early stage of our history to appoint a Board under the conditions under which this Board is appointed, and to stifle, override and overrule things that are in existence, whether they are satisfactory or otherwise, instead of trying to reform on the basis of what we find existing to-day, we start out on a novel process of creating something new and suppressing what is in existence; then we are going on a road which may carry us very far, much further than some of us may approve. But at all events, it is centralising power in certain pockets, which power may be used at a later stage to override the will of the people. On those grounds I oppose the Bill in its completed form, and will vote against it.

I join with Deputy Hewat and Deputy Johnson in objecting to this Bill. They have pointed out that the very preliminary principle of the Bill, the setting up of a Board with very wide powers, responsible to nobody, is in itself a most dangerous principle. That Board is to be appointed by the Executive Council for a period of five years. In the passage of the Bill we have endeavoured to get some qualifications attaching to the members of the Board. We have not succeeded in getting any. The answer that has been given to us is: "Trust the Executive Council." While the Board is to be reappointed at intervals of five years, it will be practically a Board that will carry on operations in connection with the supply of electricity for what we may look upon as an indefinite period. It will be appointed at intervals of five years. While we may be quite willing to trust the present Executive Council, it is rather too much to ask us to trust all Executive Councils of the future to make wise selections, and it is rather a curious coincidence that when we are appointing this Board for periods of five years, we are at the same time passing a Bill which regulates the life of Parliament for five years. Let us compare those two proposals. When a new Executive Council comes into power five years hence, one of its first duties will be to nominate members to this Board. Is it beyond conception that those in the future will be political appointments and that this Board, with its wide and serious responsibilities, in charge, on behalf of the State, of most important duties, will be appointed under qualifications as politicians? That would be a most unfortunate circumstance, but nevertheless when you couple the two facts I have given, it is not at all merely a matter of imagination that that is what will happen, and that that is what this Board, with these serious and important duties, will develop into.

There is another principle involved in the Bill which, to my mind, is a very serious and far-reaching one; that is, the methods by which they will acquire municipal undertakings. I need not explain the provisions of the Bill in this connection; we are quite familiar with them. The Board is to take over these different undertakings and discharge any liabilities that exist on the capital accounts, in addition to any liabilities that exist on the revenue accounts; a very pleasant method of acquiring property. But when it comes to a question of acquiring private property, that is treated on quite a different basis. Owners of private property are to be compensated for what the State takes over, but no such privilege is to be extended to local authorities. Why this differentiation between the property of a local authority and the property of a private individual? If the two are put up for auction in the public market no such differentiation exists. When we questioned this principle, we were told that one is a concern for profit and that the other has really no saleable interest in its property, the reason being that the capital that was originally put into the undertaking has been partially paid off, that what has not been paid off will be paid off, and that, therefore, the citizens have no interest in their property. That to my mind, is a most dangerous principle.

Let us go a little further with the principle and see the effect of it. All these local authorities which have been mentioned during the discussions on this Bill are owners of large numbers of houses. Whether the Minister would make any differentiation as between the house property of a local authority and its electricity undertaking I do not know. I cannot see any difference between them. Let us apply the principle that there is no interest in the electricity undertaking once the liability on the capital account has been discharged. Can the tenants of these hundreds of houses belonging to these local authorities rise up to-morrow morning and tell the local authorities: "You have no interest in our houses; we and our predecessors have paid off the capital and you have no further interest in these houses—you have no saleable interest in them"? Is that a principle that we are going to stand for? That is the principle embodied in this Bill, and we are asked to approve of it. I say that that is the most dangerous principle that could be introduced in this House, and I can apply no other words to such a principle than to say that it is pure and unadulterated confiscation of property.

The Deputy scarcely means all that.

Deputy Johnson's contribution to the motion before the House was an objection to the Bill, root and branch, because of one flaw which he found in it, that flaw being that the Board was what I described as removed from political interference, but what Deputy Johnson described as removed from all responsibility to the Oireachtas. I spoke on Second Reading on this point with as much clarity as I could command, and I asked the House to agree with me that it was necessary to remove the Board as far as possible from political interference. I stated what political interference in various forms might show up as in this House—questions as to the details of management, discussions now and again by way of motions on any question that might be raised, seeing that there was a Minister or somebody to be responsible for the whole operations of the Board in the House. I objected to that, and I asked people to consider that this was a business concern, and that as a business concern it should be removed as far as possible from that day-to-day incessant Parliamentary questioning, and what I described as Parliamentary interference. I am not sure whether through this new combination of Deputy Good, Deputy Hewat and Deputy Johnson against this Bill, I have Deputy Good and Deputy Hewat approaching Deputy Johnson's point of view, that it is right and proper that a business concern—because I doubt if there will be anyone to question that this is in essence a business concern—should be brought under incessant supervision by a Government and by a Parliament, or whether, as I suppose is really the case, Deputy Good and Deputy Hewat are merely joining with Deputy Johnson from quite a different angle in any attack on a measure which they dislike on other grounds.

Deputy Johnson said that the Board is removed entirely, or almost entirely, from criticism here, and that nobody is responsible for it. He did say that he would, himself, agree that the details of the administration of the Board should not be subjected to review. I would like him to frame amendments which would prevent day-to-day questioning and all the interference that there might be, as there is at the moment in the case of, say, the Post Office, and, at the same time, make a Minister responsible in the House for all the actions of the Board. If he can do that I will see how far I can go with him. But what position has the Board been placed in? Certain people are to be appointed. There is to be, what I described in my Second Reading speech, as much publicity as possible given to the actions of that Board by reason of published accounts, certain statements and certain statistics——

At the end of the year?

Every year, and that this is all to be published and certain of them are to be presented to both Houses of the Oireachtas, on which a debate can be staged.

But who answers for the Board?

No individual Minister answers. The Board's accounts and statement are presented. If it appears to the House generally that the actions of the Board, as indicated in that report, have been wrong, that their whole course of policy has been wrong, surely the House can formulate a demand that the Executive Council should remove the Board from office, and if a majority in the House believes that the Executive Council should remove the Board from office, and the Executive Council refuses, believing that the Board is right, the net result is that the Executive Council is removed from office. That is the only hold. It is the only one I think desirable, that there should not be interference in the day-to-day affairs of a business concern such as this is likely to be, but that if some big blunder is committed, if something has gone wrong that should have been attended to, then that can be raised at a particular period, and the Council can be made to dismiss the Board, or the Council can be dismissed itself, if that policy appeals to the majority of the House. I suggest that that is the reasonable course to pursue, that we should have this Board removed in the farthest possible way from interference, and leave it to operate as a business concern, subjecting it to review every year. I hope that even that review will not occur every year, but the opportunity for it will be given every year, and if some big blunder has been committed, or something big has gone wrong with its working, then certain action can be taken. That is the plan that Deputy Johnson disagrees with, but it is the plan I outlined on Second Reading, and there were very few to question it; in fact, it was not questioned explicitly by anybody. Certain people referred to the very wide powers given to the Board, but no one on Second Reading spoke of bringing the Board more within the control of the Parliament than has been suggested. I can offer nothing to Deputy Johnson on this. I hold that this is the best method, this absence of control in the ordinary affairs of the Board, balanced by as much publicity as possible, with the definite point that the members may be removed, and the removal can be called for on the presentation of the report.

The Board has the discretion as to what it will put in the report?

No. There are certain things that are necessarily called for in the report, and if there are things that are not in the report that might have been called for by either of two Ministers named, then surely that will be an administrative omission on the part of these two Ministers and they can be held up for it. That gives the limit for control that I think ought to be given to the Parliament with regard to the operations of the Board. I cannot follow Deputy Johnson's point as to any omission in the section which deals with the duties of the Board. I take the duties of the Board as defined in Section 18, and I balance them with certain obligations with regard to finance put upon them under Section 20. They are told to make their charges so that after a particular year revenue must be sufficient to meet outgoings. That being the limitation put upon them, they are told that it is their duty to produce and generate electricity in the Shannon Works so soon as such works are handed over. I do not see what, except negligence on the part of the Board——

Or extravagance.

Or extravagance. Extravagance can be met on the discussion on the accounts and they can be brought to book for that. What, other than negligence, would permit the Board to act in the fashion Deputy Johnson seems to indicate?

The Minister misses my point. I dealt with this question of extravagance. The Minister says it may be discussed on the accounts. The Minister disclaims responsibility for the accounts, or for the conduct of the affairs of the Board as shown in the accounts. He is not prepared to say whether too much money has been paid, let us say, to wages, if you like, to salaries, for the purchase of way-leaves or anything of that kind. The Minister is disclaiming any responsibility in respect to the expenditure of the Board. Where are we in respect to the examination of those accounts in the Dáil?

We are at this single, but very vital, point, that if the judgment of the House in examination of the accounts, is that either too much or too little has been paid in wages, then there can be a call made for the dismissal of the Board. and if the Executive Council does not agree, and there is a majority against them, the Executive Council goes.

Really the Minister is putting the alternative of practical chaos—the dismissal of a complete Board or of accepting things as they are. It is the kind of alternative that should not be put to any body of people.

What chaos? Whatever the chaos would be, that would supervene when a Board is changed, in the interval before the appointment of a new Board. Obviously if the Dáil could command the dismissal of the Board, they can command the appointment of a new Board. I do not see chaos resulting from that for very long.

A short period of chaos is enough!

Can that chaos be avoided? If the Government is going to change any member of the Board, or change the Board as a whole, unless it has new members ready to step into the shoes of the old ones, there is going to be chaos for a day or two. At any rate there are officials and servants of the Board who will keep the concern running for the limited period which must elapse before a new Board is appointed. Remember further, the power the Executive Council has, subject to the approval of the House, to remove from office all or any members of the Board, when they consider that necessary in the interests of the effective and economical performance of the functions of the Board. I think that gives considerable control over the members of the Board. At any rate, I put it that that was the basis upon which the whole Bill was founded—that it was to be looked upon as a business concern, and as a business concern it was realised that it could not be operated efficiently and economically if all its actions were to be subjected to day-to-day criticism by way of question and answer and motions in the Dáil. We wanted to avoid that, and that has been avoided. I do not know what is the half-way house that Deputy Johnson wants us to arrive at. It may appear later, and we can discuss it.

As to the other matters. Deputy He was has spoken of the powers given to the Board, and how they will operate those powers, and of his general dislike to the Bill as a whole, but not, except just by accident, the point that Deputy Johnson is objecting to. Deputy Hewat objects to the powers given to the Board to take over undertakings, if in the interests of cheap electricity for the people the Board considers it necessary that undertakings should be acquired. On that I have argued so much that I do not intend to say anything further. I want merely to refer to a few points that Deputy Good made by way of addition to what Deputy Hewat said. Deputy Good has again repeated that during the discussions on this Bill he endeavoured to get qualifications established for the Board. He did nothing of the sort. All that he did seek to do was to say that if incompetents, as he judged was my intention, had to be appointed, then those incompetents were to be chosen from two classes, electricity supply undertakers and commercial men. That was the beginning and end of the qualifications amendment proposed either by Deputy Hewat or Deputy Good, and it carried nowhere. After that Deputy Good got back to the old question of confiscation. I was rather pleased to hear the Deputy, at any rate, calling attention, for the first time I have heard it from him, to the provision of sub-section (6) of a particular section with relation to private enterprise. If one were to judge from discussions here, and from Press discussions, the impression must have been gained that everybody—private owners, companies operating for profit, and municipal undertakings equally, were all to be wiped out on the basis of no compensation to be given.

I had lectures read to me from various platforms as to the danger of the Government indicating a line of action such as this. I say that my dealing with private property in this Bill is in the most approved method. It is a matter of having an agreement, if possible, arrived at as to the terms upon which a private company operating for gain may be bought out, and in the absence of agreement the arbitrator is to assess compensation on the basis of fair value as a going concern. How that particular action can be described as confiscation, or any of the other terms used, passes my comprehension. That is the ordinary method of dealing with a private company operating for gain, but it might never have been in the Bill for all the consideration that has been given to it to-day.

On the other hand, there is the question of municipal undertakings. It would not be right at this late hour to go through the whole gamut of arguments again as to whether those under takings should be profit-making concerns, whether somebody unknown is to be compensated for what the electricity consumers of an area have built up, and whether these charges are to be imposed on the future electricity consumers of the area in question. So far as sub-section (7) of Section 38 remains, with the addition to it that has been put in safeguarding the particular consumers about whom there has been apprehension, for it as it stands now I have no apology. The rates, in so far as they have given subventions to any municipal undertaking, are going to be repaid whatever is outstanding. That finishes the just claims of the ratepayers. As far as stockholders are concerned, whatever outstanding capital liabilities there are will be taken over and paid off. That clears the Board of the stockholders. After that it is a question of protecting the electricity consumer. Fears were expressed that the consumer in one area might have to bear charges for the liability on another area. That has now disappeared. That being so, it is a question of purely a change of trustees, and on a change of trustees no such item as compensation can be tolerated, particularly when the result of compensation would be that for a second time electricity consumers would be asked to pay for a particular piece of property.

I suppose there will be a combined opposition to this vote from Deputy Johnson, who has his own particular point of view, and who feels there is a flaw in the make-up of the Bill with regard to this matter of responsibility, joined by people with whose main contention, the question of municipal undertakings, he has no agreement. That, I presume, is part of what has to be suffered in the type of Parliamentary procedure we have. But I would like to emphasise again what I have emphasised previously, that when there is talk of opposition to this Bill in this House, and particularly of opposition to certain sections dealing with municipal undertakings, that on the amendments which aimed at effecting changes in those sections I had the support in defeating them of every member of my own party present in the House, of every member of the Labour Party present, of every member but one of the Farmers' Party present, and of several of the Independents, and when such amendments can be rejected by such a combination of parties, all having different points of view, the Bill can hardly be described as one that is outraging public opinion, if the members of the House are in any way supposed to represent the people outside.

Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 41; Níl, 14.

  • Pádraig Baxter.
  • Thomas Bolger.
  • Séamus Breathnach.
  • Seoirse de Bhulbh.
  • Próinsias Bulfin.
  • Séamus de Búrca.
  • John Conlan.
  • James Dwyer.
  • Osmond Grattan Esmonde.
  • Desmond Fitzgerald.
  • John Hennigan.
  • Seosamh Mac a' Bhrighde.
  • Liam Mac Cosgair.
  • Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
  • Patrick McGilligan.
  • Risteárd Mac Liam.
  • Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
  • Liam Mac Sioghaird.
  • Pádraig Mag Ualghairg.
  • Martin M. Nally.
  • John T. Nolan.
  • Michael K. Noonan.
  • Peadar O hAodha.
  • Seán O Bruadair.
  • Conchubhar O Conghaile.
  • Máirtín O Conalláin.
  • Eoghan O Dochartaigh.
  • Tadhg O Donnabháin.
  • Micheal O Dubhghaill.
  • Peadar O Dubhghaill.
  • Pádraig O Dubhthaigh.
  • Eamon O Dúgáin.
  • Seán O Duinnín.
  • Donnchadh O Guaire.
  • Mícheál O hIfearnáin.
  • Fionán O Loingsigh.
  • Risteárd O Maolchatha.
  • Seán O Raghallaigh.
  • Mícheál O Tighearnaigh.
  • Caoimhghín O I Uigín.
  • Liam Thrift.

Níl

  • Earnán Altún.
  • John J. Cole.
  • Bryan R. Cooper.
  • Séamus Eabhróid.
  • John Good.
  • William Hewat.
  • Connor Hogan.
  • Séamus Mac Cosgair.
  • Tomás Mac Eoin.
  • Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
  • Pádraig Mac Fhlannchadha.
  • James Sproule Myles.
  • Ailfrid O Broin.
  • Eamon O Dubhghaill.
Tellers—Tá: Deputies Sears and Tierney. Níl: Deputies Hewat and Corish.
Motion declared carried.

I would like to make an appeal to the House that I should be permitted to take the Fifth Stage of the Bill to-morrow. The Bill, as amended, will be in the hands of Deputies by the first post to-morrow morning. The only amendments possible on the Fifth Stage are verbal amendments. The Bill was debated for two days on Second Reading, five days on Committee Stage, and three days on Report Stage, and if it be not released from the Dáil by to-morrow it can hardly be taken by the Seanad next week. On these grounds, and looking to the importance of the measure, and the necessity of giving to the Seanad such time as it thinks desirable for the Committee Stage and the interval they may demand as between the Second Reading and Committee Stage, I ask the House to allow me to have the Fifth Stage set down for to-morrow.

I would like the Minister to recognise the possibilities of that. There have been eighty or ninety amendments passed on the Report Stage, with some alterations that have come on more or less as additional to those set out to the Bill. There is, to say the least, a possibility that the Bill will not be passed by the Seanad, and, consequently, in 270 days, the Bill, as it passes the Dáil, will be law. Therefore, it is important that the Bill, as finally passed, should be as near perfect as care and consideration can enable it to be. I think, from the Minister's own standpoint, and certainly the standpoint of the responsibility of the House, that he should not allow the Bill to be passed to-morrow without affording time for anyone who wants to go through it doing so. Whether we do that or not, the responsibility is with us to do it, and if we agree now that this Bill, with the eighty or ninety amendments inserted on the Report Stage, is to be passed to-morrow, with the possibility that in nine months it will become law exactly as it leaves the Dáil, then I think we are shirking our responsibility, and we should not do that. I do not think it is reasonable for the Minister to make this claim. It does not give him or his Department an opportunity to see whether the Bill, in its final form, is free from verbal amendments.

Will the Minister be seriously prejudiced if he postpones the final stage of this Bill until Tuesday? Members of the Seanad will receive copies of the Bill as amended on Report. In other words, they will be acquainted with the whole tenor of the Bill, except in so far as verbal amendments may be necessary. Surely it makes no very great difference to them—I do not think the Seanad is meeting until Wednesday— whether we take the final Stage to-morrow or on Tuesday. I am not putting this from a party point of view. I recognise that, before the Dissolution, it will be necessary to make some arrangements for the marketing of electrical power from the Shannon. I recognise that whatever imperfections there may be in the Bill, and however much I dislike certain features in it, it is necessary to pass some Bill dealing with that matter. Therefore, I think that the Seanad will be no worse off if we deal with this Bill on Tuesday instead of to-morrow.

The difficulty with regard to the Seanad is this: The Seanad's Standing Orders prevent a Bill being received for consideration unless three clear days elapse. That can be amended by motion in the Seanad, but I understand that a motion to suspend Standing Orders cannot be set down with regard to a Bill until after that Bill has left this House. If this Bill does not leave the Dáil until Tuesday, it would mean that the Seanad could not discuss the Bill, even with the suspension of Standing Orders, until Friday and the Seanad may not meet on Friday.

The Minister will recognise that had this Bill not been passed through to-night it would be under discussion to-morrow, and the evil that he seems to fear would have been present just the same.

I agree, but having got through to-night?

I cannot understand what the urgency is.

The urgency is a week. No matter what the imperfections of the Bill may be according to the spectacles it is viewed through, it is at any rate unchangeable as far as this House is concerned except in the matter of having verbal amendments made. I think the House can rely upon it that there will not be any necessity for verbal amendments. Considerable precautions have been taken to avoid that. The question then is, whether having regard to the state of public business and the number of Bills that there are before the Dáil, a week's delay should be put between this measure and its consideration by the Seanad?

Now I submit, in all fairness, that it is unreasonable to put in that week, bearing in mind the one thing only that is guarded against—verbal amendments.

A very important point made by the Minister is this—that if we do as he asks it will make a very great difference to the Seanad in the time that will be available to them for discussion of the Bill on Second Reading and Committee Stage. If the Bill is held over for a week, it will make a very great difference in the attention they can give to it. I think we ought to stretch a point and let the Seanad get the Bill as early as possible.

I would appeal to Deputy Johnson to withdraw his opposition. I do not foresee, as Deputy Johnson foresees, the rejection of this Bill on Second Reading by the Seanad and the holding up of the Bill for nine months. I do foresee, however, substantial amendments by the Seanad in Committee to the Bill. These amendments shall have to come back to us, and it is very desirable that we should have time to discuss them; as well as that the Seanad should have time to discuss the Bill. I do not want to be taken as approving of the Bill. But I realise that there must be some Bill, and, if we are to be in a position to discuss amendments which the Seanad makes, then we should allow the Bill to pass its final stage to-morrow.

Question put: That the Fifth Stage of the Bill be taken to-morrow.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 44; Níl, 9.

  • Earnán Altún.
  • Pádraig Baxter.
  • Thomas Bolger.
  • Séamus Breathnach.
  • Seoirse de Bhulbh.
  • Próinsias Bulfin.
  • Séamus de Búrca.
  • John Conlan.
  • Bryan R. Cooper.
  • James Dwyer.
  • Osmond Grattan Esmonde.
  • Desmond Fitzgerald.
  • John Hennigan.
  • Connor Hogan.
  • Seosamh Mac a' Bhrighde.
  • Liam Mac Cosgair.
  • Maolmhuire Mac Eochadha.
  • Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
  • Patrick McGilligan.
  • Risteárd Mac Liam.
  • Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
  • Liam Mac Sioghaird.
  • Pádraig Mag Ualghairg.
  • Martin M. Nally.
  • John T. Nolan.
  • Michael K. Noonan.
  • Peadar O hAodha.
  • Seán O Bruadair.
  • Conchubhar O Conghaile.
  • Máirtín O Conalláin.
  • Eoghan O Dochartaigh.
  • Tadhg O Donnabháin.
  • Mícheál O Dubhghaill.
  • Peadar O Dubhghaill.
  • Pádraig O Dubhthaigh.
  • Eamon O Dúgáin.
  • Seán O Duinnín.
  • Donnchadh O Guaire.
  • Fionán O Loingsigh.
  • Risteárd O Maolchatha.
  • Seán O Raghallaigh.
  • Micheál O Tighearnaigh.
  • Caoimhghín O hUigín.
  • Liam Thrift.

Níl

  • Séamus Eabhróid.
  • John Good.
  • Séamus Mac Cosgair.
  • Tomás Mac Eoin.
  • Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
  • Pádraig Mac Fhlannchadha.
  • Ailfrid O Broin.
  • Eamon O Dubhghaill.
  • William A. Redmond.
Tellers.—Tá: Deputies Sears and Tierney. Níl: Deputies Corish and Everett.
Motion declared carried.
Fifth Stage ordered for to-morrow.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.25 p.m.
Top
Share