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 28).

When the House adjourned last night this amendment was under consideration. I wish that the amendment was in the name of Deputy Johnson rather than in my name, because on a previous occasion it was remarkable that the atmosphere, during the consideration of an amendment by Deputy Johnson, was strangely different to the atmosphere surrounding a similar amendment of mine on the Committee Stage. There has been so much discussion on the subject-matter of this amendment that it is rather difficult to know how far it is necessary to explain its objects. I do not propose to take up the time of the Dáil unnecessarily, but the amendment is of considerable importance. Deputies will recollect that when the original Shannon scheme was going through the Dáil the object of it was to supply electricity throughout the Saorstát.

Every Deputy may not have had as clearly in his mind then what the limits of the Bill would be, and, therefore, when the Bill came before the House for consideration I think their minds were not as clear on the Bill as they are to-day. In connection with this clause, which deals with the acquisition by the board of authorised undertakings, it has been made clear in the course of the discussion that, so far as the Dublin undertaking is concerned, it is very vital for the Shannon scheme as a whole. I think the Minister has indicated, and it is very obviously the case, that the Dublin supply is the backbone of the whole undertaking. Dublin at present is supplied by an undertaking which has been worked up from small things to a considerable undertaking. It has been worked by the municipality, and I presume it has been looked on by the citizens as an important asset. In connection with that undertaking there is, of course, an important generating station, and the Shannon scheme is presumably going to supply the electricity which has in the past been generated by this station.

The generating of electricity and its distribution are two separate phases of the undertaking, so far as the consumer is concerned. There is no apparent reason why the Shannon scheme, when producing current for distribution throughout the Free State, should be required, especially in districts that have already been developed, to do more than supply current in bulk. I claim in connection with this Bill that its purpose will have been achieved by providing a supply of current in bulk, and by allowing the undertaking to operate under similar conditions to those under which it has grown up, namely, under the supervision and control of the municipal authorities, or whoever may take their place. The only answer I think that will be made against that will be something in the nature of criticism of the undertakings as they exist.

Looking at it from a purely local point of view, I make the claim that when the Shannon scheme is sufficiently developed to be able to supply the Dublin area in bulk it is a reasonable expectation and claim on behalf of the citizens of Dublin that, instead of their undertaking being placed under the absolute control of a central board, it should continue to be controlled, so far as distribution is concerned, and also so far as its development as an industry is concerned, as it was in the past. To deny the citizens that advantage, in face of the fact that the undertaking has continued to grow to its present state under the management of the civic authority, would require very good reasons. It would require a strong argument to convince the citizens that at this stage in the history of the city it is unable efficiently to control and develop an industry which has grown under somewhat difficult circumstances.

I do not think that it can be claimed that any particular economy can be gained by having it controlled by a central board rather than by a municipal authority, but, even if that were so, it would be such an insignificant amount that I do not think it should be claimed that it would override what I may call the natural inclination of the people to have supervision over their own affairs. In the discussion that took place on a previous occasion here I think it was sought to be emphasised that, as the Commissioners were put in to manage the affairs of Dublin City, a good and valid reason was provided for saying that the Board should also be placed permanently in control of the distribution system. That argument, to my mind, is not a very good one.

It was not used.

I can only speak from recollection, but I have a rather lively recollection of, I think, Deputy O'Connell emphasising that as a reason.

I think the argument was used that no compensation had been paid by the Commissioners when replacing the Corporation, and the analogy was then made on the matter of compensation as between dispossessing the present Commissioners and putting the property in the hands of the Board.

It does not very much matter for the purpose of my argument. The inference was that the Commissioners had to be put in to manage the affairs of the city, thereby displacing the natural representatives of the people. I would ask Deputies to hope with me that in a re-arranged Dublin, if I may put it that way, a Dublin extended or otherwise, what might be called the slur of having Commissioners put in to administer the affairs of the city will not continue, and that under whatever form of government the city is going to be placed in future, at all events, the distribution and development of electricity, so necessary in connection with the Shannon scheme, ought to be better achieved under the control of citizens who have been duly elected, and who are carrying on the work of the city. The issue between my amendment and the provisions of the Bill is one with which the Minister is quite familiar, as it has been put up to him, and he has had adequate time to consider the whole matter.

That issue is that the power to take over bodily the distribution system of the city of Dublin is not justified. That is true equally of other areas which are in the same position. I maintain that the development required in connection with the Shannon scheme will be better achieved, and be of greater advantage to the local authority, if they continue to have an interest in their own system of working. I hope that at this stage it will not be necessary to put forward any statement to the effect that the Dublin area will not be developed on account of the Shannon scheme. Perhaps too much has been said on these matters already. I do not want to raise any contentious matters which I can avoid when moving. this amendment. I put it to Deputies that my amendment is justified. It is a natural one, and should appeal to the people of any district concerned. I maintain that it requires a very strong argument on the Minister's part to justify this proposal to give local control to the central board, and to take it out of the hands of the people of the district.

The clause that Deputy Hewat attempts to amend is, in my opinion, the most confiscatory clause in the whole Bill. It is as attempt to take from Dublin citizens their property and put it to the credit of a national undertaking. I cannot see why the Minister seeks power to step in and take from Dublin City the best managed concern and the most valuable asset that it owns. I do not think that it is right for the Minister to seek powers to take over a concern without an inquiry, before which he should give evidence that he, or his Board, could manage the concern better than it is managed at present. The undertaking in its present condition and as it is at present worked, is in a position to give a substantial reduction in the price of electricity to its consumers.

Why do they not give it?

That is what I am going to ask. Maybe the Deputy will be able to give some satisfactory reply when he rises to support the scheme. Why do they not give it? Are they keeping it back for any purpose? Are they depriving the citizens of Dublin of their rights in this matter, and are they keeping back a reduction in order that its benefits may be put to some other portion of the scheme that might show a very substantial loss and that might require to be boosted by taking from the Dublin citizens what they are entitled to? I wonder if the Deputy is aware that on the returns to date the concern could give a reduction of 20 per cent. on the present charges, and, in the words of Deputy Mulcahy, I want to know why they do not do it? The Deputy made my case. I ask why do they not do it? If the Minister's argument is right that profits are illegal and immoral I say that it is time to stop making profits and give the benefit to the people from whom you are taking these profits.

Hear, hear. We are at one on that.

Does the Minister propose to do that?

Will he give us any guarantee that the price of electricity in the City of Dublin will be reduced?

There is an amendment, if the Deputy could understand it.

If he would give a guarantee that there would be a reduction, the reduction will not be due in any shape or form to the working of the Shannon scheme, but to something that is being withheld from the citizens of Dublin by those in authority for the past twelve months. The Corporation scheme, a well-managed scheme, is to-day in a position to give a reduction without the Shannon scheme, and the citizens of Dublin are being asked to give up their most valuable asset for something in the air, without any definite guarantee that electricity will be any cheaper than it is to-day, although I am safe in saying that this year the profits of the electrical undertaking are bordering on £100,000. Last year the official returns showed that they were £64,000. I want to know why a substantial reduction has not been recommended to the Minister, or to the Minister for Local Government, instead of keeping back this money to give an apparent reduction based on the Shannon scheme. I heartily support the amendment. I hope that the House will see the fairness of the case that this well-managed concern, a concern that is in a position to-day to give substantial reductions to the consumers, ought not to be taken over, ought not to be interfered with for something that so far we know nothing about. I wish to repeat definitely that the undertaking to-day can give a reduction of from 15 to 20 per cent. to the users of electricity.

Deputy Hewat spoke of the original Bill, and although I am not sure of the words that he used immediately after that, at any rate the impression was that he had found something unexpected in the terms of the present measure.

No, I did not say any such thing.

The Deputy was speaking of the original Bill and what he expected from it. He went on to criticise the present measure and to criticise it particularly from the point of view of the powers given to the Board with regard to the acquisition of undertakings. Deputy Hewat committed himself on the Second Stage to this statement:—

I think the present Bill does not come as any surprise, because on the original Shannon Bill it was very clear, even at that stage, that the Minister's mind was working in the direction of the provisions which we find embodied in the Bill. That is to say, while he was claiming that generation should be under national control he also indicated, as well as I remember, that he might consider it necessary to extend that State control to distribution.

When I was talking to-day I was not talking about myself at all; I was asking Deputies to visualise what their thoughts were, not what my thoughts were.

I am only pointing out that there was no surprise to the Deputy, that there was no surprise to, say, Deputy Cooper. In view of what has happened since, and in view of Deputy Cooper's appearances on public platforms, in the absence of Ministers, against this scheme, to show what he said on Second Reading——

Can the Minister tell me of any platform on which I appeared which a Minister was not on as well?

I should not say "in the absence," but remaining quiet when the Minister was present on one occasion.

Did the Minister want to be interrupted?

The Minister asked that questions should be put to him, and Deputy Cooper remained silent until the Minister had left the room.

The meeting adjourned almost immediately after he had left.

That is the Deputy's recollection of what happened. I will leave it. Deputy Cooper spoke after Deputy O'Connell had spoken on Second Reading, and he said this:

Deputy O'Connell qualified his general approval of the Bill by a sort of suspicion that there were loopholes which might make it rather less Socialistic than he hoped it was. He need have no fear; this scheme is a thoroughly Socialistic one, but I will admit that it is comparatively moderate and sane Socialism. I do not like monopolies. I prefer, in general, to trust to private enterprise, but I think from the day we passed the Shannon Electricity Act it was obvious that this Electricity Supply Bill would be a monopolistic Bill. There was no alternative. The enormous amount of preparations that were made and of capital that was sunk in it, the fact that its success or failure would make enormous difference, not merely to the future of the Government—as to which I am comparatively indifferent—but to the future of the whole country, made it almost certain that a monopoly of its working would be claimed and that private enterprises would not be allowed to compete.

Later on he said:

If this is to be a State enterprise (that is, on the Supply Bill), and if it is to be a monopoly—and I have reluctantly come to the conclusion it is inevitable that it must be—I much prefer the system of working by a board.

—So that there are at least two Deputies, in addition to those who expressed approval of the whole Bill— who were two of the four, I believe, who voted upon certain amendments to this section—to whom the Bill came as no surprise, and two Deputies who had made up their minds from the 1925 Bill that this Bill had to be a monopolistic measure and that private competition could not be allowed to remain in the field against it. Now we are told that the purpose of the original Bill, despite what Deputy Hewat thought of this when it was introduced, and of how Deputy Cooper's thoughts ran from the date of the introduction of the first Bill, would have been achieved by sale in bulk. I want to relate that phrase to the amendment. The amendment is, in brief, that there must be a public inquiry to ascertain and decide that the non-acquisition of the undertaking will prejudicially affect the working of the Shannon scheme. There is too much disposition in this House to regard the Shannon scheme as something impersonal, something that a number of people have no concern with, something that people may wash their hands of. I am not concerned with whether or not the taking over of the Dublin undertaking will prejudicially affect the working of the Shannon scheme. What I am concerned with is whether the non-taking over of it will prejudicially affect electricity consumers throughout the country, making no division between Dublin and anywhere else, only making a division between Dublin and other areas when one comes to the allocation of distribution charges. I am concerned with the idea that the Shannon scheme set out to achieve, that is, a supply of cheap electricity throughout the country. And whether certain people are going to get their revenge on a particular scheme which had not their blessing at a certain period makes no great difference to me, provided that electricity will be sold, and sold cheaply throughout the entire country. The purpose of the original Bill would not be served by sale in bulk, nor did I ever state on Second Reading that I was limiting myself merely to the generation and transmission. I was asked about supply in both Houses, and although Deputy Hewat has a belief that I told him something, my own memory is that I said here that I had no policy at that moment with regard to distribution, that anything might happen. I did not bind myself to a whole-hearted policy of a distribution and supply scheme such as is here, nor did I preclude myself from it.

I think that is quite clear. From my recollection I agree that what was in the Minister's mind was indefinite at that time.

I stated so. I was searching for the reference, but I have not had time to go back on the old debates. But I have a fairly clear memory that I said if I were asked for a policy I would state that I had none with regard to supply at that moment, I did not believe that any of my advisers had any, and that the whole thing was to be left to be determined in the future. I was questioned about the same point in the Seanad. One Senator opposed the first Bill on the grounds that it meant the complete nationalisation of generation, transmission and supply, and my answer to him was that distribution would be dealt with in a new Bill, that there was no policy in regard to that new Bill, and that we had to make our investigations with regard to supply. But I say now, taking all the circumstances into account, and all I have learned in the last two or three years, that the purposes of the Bill of 1925 would not be served by limiting the Board to sale in bulk, and I want to repeat what I said on Second Reading in regard to this, that it must be made quite clear that the Board was being armed with power to make itself the sole distributor in a short period of years. I went on to say that it was not made compulsory on the Board ta become the sole distributors.

Did not an atmosphere follow that?

A very definite atmosphere which I had to counteract, a very peculiar atmosphere came about. and when I came to the Third Stage, knowing there were things made clear that previously had been left a bit vague, I then stated it would be possibly necessary to insist on making the Board take overall those undertakings, and set it on the way of becoming the sole distributor of electricity in the country, not simply here and now to limit the Board—that is to say, that under no conditions are they going to be allowed to acquire any undertakings unless there is previously a public inquiry and an ascertainment that non-acquisition would prejudicially affect the working of the Shannon scheme. I put this to a variety of people in different ways. I think the best way the matter can be summed up is this: Anybody called upon to act on the Board, to approach the problem of the working out of the whole Shannon scheme, coming to it new, would have to take certain things into consideration, and to find out how far was he being given the powers necessary to keep his own reputation, which would be bound up by his going on the Board, secure against harm.

I can imagine myself inviting somebody to take a position on the Board, and pointing out to him the various difficulties he is likely to meet with in the course of the first four or five years, and that man after certain consideration saying to me: "You have said in one of your speeches that there have to be sold about 110 million units of electricity to about 1,040,000 people, and I find that there are 15 municipal undertakings, and that these 15 municipal undertakings supply 502,000 of the 1,040,000 potential customers. Have I to depend on about 15 sets of middlemen to get my sales increased amongst those half-million customers?" Remember that it is quite clear, I think, that the increased sale of electricity will depend not so much upon getting new customers as, in great part, getting the present customers to use more electricity. Imagine a man asked to go on that Board and risk his whole future, and the successful working of the Shannon operations, able to bring it down to that point, that he must get a sale of 110 million units at a particular period, and then finding that as far as a half-million of those customers were concerned, he had to depend on the efforts of 15 sets of middlemen. I say in opposition to that that it is only fair to give the Board power that if at any time it finds that a particular undertaking is not working successfully, and that the sale of electricity which it thinks ought to be achieved is not being achieved, to proceed to the acquisition of the undertaking.

Supposing we concede that?

If the Deputy concedes that he will vote for the section because that is what the section is. I am told to interpose between acquisition a public inquiry with an arbitrator and a decision: "Will the non-acquisition prejudicially affect the working of the scheme?" I say that is not a proposition to put up a body of men who have to make a particular scheme successful—successful in the sense of getting cheap electricity throughout the country over a limited period of years. I ask, on the other hand, what is the hardship? If I were to go back on the Second Reading debates I could find Deputy Hewat saying——

Does it matter what I said?

Just to let the Deputy know what his mind was at that time—nothing further.

I am sure the Dáil are very interested in what I said.

The Deputy said—

apparently the generation of electricity in Dublin as at present in operation will be disregarded, and the consumer in Dublin will be charged on the basis of the operations of the Board in other areas. It seems to me that is somewhat unjust. Perhaps the Minister will disabuse my mind on that point. In that case I would be in a different position as far as that argument is concerned.

There are two amendments down, one in my name and one in the name of Deputy Thrift. The House can have its choice of the two amendments. The effect of either of these is that the Dublin consumer cannot have any charge put upon him for operations other than the operations of distribution in his own area. If it is not agreed, that that is settled we can see if it can be amended to make that absolutely clear. Once that is settled the Dublin consumer has no complaint. There is no question of his being saddled with any liability other than his own. If there is no hardship going to come on the Dublin consumer, what is the difference between my point of view and that put up by Deputy Hewat? It was expressed to me at a recent deputation in this way: That there had to be a certain municipal pride in a municipal undertaking. That having been put to me by a member of the deputation, another member of the same deputation said: "There has to be in return certain national pride in a national undertaking, and I am for the national undertaking all the time."

I was not on the deputation.

I know that. I receive other deputations than those which the Deputy attends. I think that is all that is between us. I want to give power to the Board which they may operate at any time to ensure this scheme against failure. I have been told when I emphasised the necessity of Dublin to the scheme that I am at last revealing all the things heretofore hidden. Deputy Johnson said last year, it was quite clear to everybody when discussing the first Shannon Bill, that Dublin was essential to the whole scheme, and that met, I think, with general agreement in the House. I put it even stronger. Why was the Liffey scheme turned down and the Shannon given preference over it? Simply because the Liffey scheme was going to tap the Dublin consumption, and without the Dublin consumption there was no place for the Shannon scheme. That was the vital argument as against the whole Liffey scheme. We have got a scheme which is for the whole country. This scheme includes Dublin consumers to make it a success, as it includes Cork consumers to make it a success. Dublin consumers are protected from any liability being imposed on them, other than the liability of their own distribution area. There is no hardship put upon them. I can go no further than that at the moment. I can argue on the cheaper electricity point later. That being so, where is the hardship in saying that if the Board thinks that in the interests of the whole national scheme and of cheaper electricity for the whole country, including Dublin, it finds it necessary at some period to come and acquire the Dublin undertaking? We have got away from this question of compensation—a question which has been revealed as being a most ludicrous idea.

Does the Minister think he has got away from the question of compensation? It is not dealt with in this section.

I am talking of the country generally and the people who are speaking of it. I find no disposition now to have any argument as to the payment of compensation for the Dublin undertaking, and the making of the Dublin consumer pay twice— pay over again for what he has already paid. We are at this simple point: Is there anything unfair in the Board being allowed to see that the sale of current in Dublin is pushed forward at a particular rate—at such a rate as they think can ordinarily be achieved, and which they find is not being achieved? I am told that the only answer that can be put up to this amendment is by way of criticism of the present undertakers—the present controllers of the Dublin station. I am not going to enter into any criticism here, but if certain outrageous and, to my mind, ludicrous claims, are made in this House I will repudiate them and state the facts. At the moment I am not entering on any criticism, so that I simply say that I think it necessary to give power to the Board that if they find a certain consumption not being achieved in Dublin with its so many consumers, and they think that a certain consumption ought to be achieved, they can see what they can do. I do not want to criticise anybody, but I do think that a simple comparison put this way ought to have some effect on this argument? We have at the moment the City Commissioners to whom the chief electrical engineer and the engineers at the station report. Under the new system the City Commissioners will be replaced by a Board specially selected for the purpose of electricity distribution. Is it likely that that specialised Board, selected for that specialised purpose, is going to exercise better control than the City Commissioners? I hold that once that problem is stated the answer has to be in favour of the Board.

Does the Minister recognise that the City Commissioners are not there as City Commissioners, but only there during an interregnum as between the old municipal council and whatever will take its place?

Whatever will take their place will, in fact, be in a worse position than the Commissioners.

Will that new body not be responsible to anybody?

Yes, responsible to the Dublin citizens.

Whom are the Commissioners responsible to?

I am not going to argue as between the Commissioners and, say, a resurrected Corporation. I am speaking from the point of view of the expert supervision that will be made, and I make my comparison as between the City Commissioners at the moment, an electricity committee of the Corporation, and a Board selected for the special purpose of electricity distribution, and without making any criticism on either the Commissioners or the present engineers in charge of the station, I say that one is bound to get better results from the Board. I need not go into the question that Deputy Hewat raises as to the analogy with regard to replacing of the Commissioners. The actual point which was made by me, and I think it was on that point that Deputy O'Connell intervened, was that as no compensation had been paid by the Commissioners when they replaced the Corporation, I could not quite see the analogy as to what should happen when the Electricity Board replaces the City Commissioners. I do not know where I am with Deputy Byrne now. Somebody asked a question from the background, and Deputy Byrne simply repeated it. I would like to repeat and re-echo the question: Why didn't they do it? All I could gather from Deputy Byrne was that he seemed to have an idea that there was an unholy alliance between the chief electrical engineer of the city of Dublin and myself to hold back profits from the Dublin consumers to make the Shannon scheme a success. If Deputy Byrne can bring about that alliance it might help to make the Shannon scheme somewhat more of a success than even it is likely to be. I cannot see why the profits made have not been given in reductions. My whole attitude has been that there should be no profits made, except that if there was a surplus it should go back immediately to the consumer by way of reduced charges, and I have achieved in my amendment that for the future that will be the position. As to why the surplus of last year or the year before has not been carried over to the reduction of the charges to the citizens, I cannot say.

Does the Minister agree that an immediate reduction can be given?

I do not agree to anything of the sort.

Where is the £164,000 made in two years—is it to lie there?

There was several years ago a case which I barely remember about the Humbert millions contained in a safe. When the safe was opened there were no millions. The £164,000 might easily be in that position.

Mr. BYRNE

It has already been reported to the Minister for Local Government in this case in an official report and accepted by him for last year, giving £64,000 as the profit.

One has always to consider two sides of an account. Have there been any debits shown?

Mr. BYRNE

Not to my knowledge in that report.

The Deputy's knowledge is not very full. If he examines both the credit and debit side, he will find where those mysterious thousands have gone. Does the Deputy think that there are £160,000 in the coffers of the City Commissioners at the moment, that they have to disburse by way of reduced charges in electricity or any other way? I do not believe they have. I believe it is mortgaged against certain extensions and certain other matters that have to be paid. I do not believe they have any great amount of money in hands.

Mr. BYRNE

Otherwise they are continuing to make improvements out of profits?

They are continuing to do what they were always expected to do—to apply the surplus of any one year either to the reduction of the charges next year or to the betterment of the plants. I have been asked as to a guarantee as to cheaper cost. I have refused to talk of guarantees—I will not be committed to a prophecy. I gave certain statements. I have shown what the estimates of costs of the Shannon scheme were. Up to date I have given an indication of how that contract has been carried out.

I have indicated that I am going to come to the Dáil as soon as I see it is necessary to reveal to them that it will be necessary to have any increase. I have not taken that step at the moment nor have I indicated that I hope to have to take it at any early stage. I can do no more than say that. I have also indicated that my remarks apply especially to the civil engineering side, the side about which the danger of an increased cost was apprehended. I have said that, as regards the electricity side, I cannot speak with so much confidence at the moment because certain orders are still outstanding, and we have not got to the same degree of certainty there with regard to costs. That being so, I have also given an indication of how the situation in the country has eased in favour of the Shannon scheme by the addition of the fifteen million units seen to be there in 1929. Those are the indications that I have given, instead of simply saying, as I could have done, that there will be cheaper electricity all over the country. I have given the facts upon which the people can form their own estimates as to the likelihood of cheaper electricity. I have indicated that, and definitely put down in the Bill with regard to Dublin, that the Dublin portion of the distribution charges will have to be in proportion to the liability taken over from Dublin. If there is to be a decreasing liability taken over from Dublin, then the charges, as far as the distribution side is concerned, must go down just as the liability decreases. I am allowing, of course, that there may have to be additions and repairs to the mains, and so on, which will have to balance against the actual reduction that it might be possible to make in a particular year. The whole tendency, in regard to the conditions in Dublin at the moment, is downwards, and the charges in Dublin ought to fall, and nothing that the Shannon scheme can do will prevent them falling.

On the generation side, I hold that the generation costs for Dublin can be lowered. I have no reason to doubt that. I have queried the accounts up and down that have been presented, and, as a result of my examination of them, I say that the last accounts presented do not show the true generation cost. I offer, as an additional proof of that, that in the very year in which Mr. Kettle's accounts set out that the generation cost was about .9 of a penny, that he himself appeared before a Private Bill Committee and gave evidence to the effect that the generation costs were 1.1 of a penny. There is a discrepancy there to be explained. I do not know how it can be explained, but it seems to me that an addition must be made to all the other so-called generation costs shown by these accounts. On the other side there is no necessity to go into the matter at any great length except to say that there are two other items which make up the costs, the question of wiring houses and the question of appliances. If the Board comes to Dublin with all the gifts it has to bring to Dublin, there is going to be no hardship inflicted on anyone in Dublin, but there is going to be the very definite probability of lowered charges in every one of the four items that make up final costs. On that account I am asking people to express themselves as being not only whole-heartedly in favour of the Shannon scheme, but to be so whole-heartedly in favour of it that they will allow the specialised electricity Board to replace the City Commissioners in the government of the city electricity undertaking if the Board thinks it necessary to acquire it in the interests of cheaper electricity for the whole country.

If the Minister wants to get the Report Stage of this Bill through to-day I think he will have to refrain from two things: one, making speeches himself lasting twenty-five minutes, and secondly, from referring to what Deputies said on the Second Reading of the Bill. I had not intended engaging in the debate on this amendment at all, but the Minister's speech makes it necessary that I should. The Minister seems to think that I am terribly frightened of him. I am not, and I am quite prepared to repeat what I said in his absence in the Chamber of Commerce. I personally did not wish that the Minister should be absent when I was speaking there. I should like him to have heard what I said, that he was an able and eloquent advocate, an advocate absolutely convinced of the sincerity of his own cause. I am very sorry that he was not there to hear me. His main gravamen against me is that. not having heard me speak, I afterwards cross-examined him. I did not ask him any questions. What is the object of a question? In general. it is to elucidate what is obscure. I will do the Minister the justice of saying that he is very seldom obscure, and there is no necessity, if you listen attentively to him, to ask him questions, particularly if you do as I did, re-read the speeches delivered by the Minister on the Second Reading of the Bill. There is another object in putting questions which some politicians sometimes adopt: that is, to have an unknown friend at the back of the room asking foolish questions to enable the speaker to make a telling reply. I hope I am a friend of the Minister even though I do not come from the Six Counties. I am a little too ca'-canny to adopt that role in public.

In any case, cross-examination is not my business, and, as I say, anything that I have said I am prepared to repeat it here. If the Minister will indicate to me before the final stage of the Bill is reached what particular remarks of mine he wishes to have an opportunity of replying to, I shall be glad to repeat them. He quoted from my speech on the Second Reading when having reassured Deputy O'Connell, over-burdened as he was at the time, that he was consenting to a scheme that was not socialistic enough, I qualified that by saying that this was moderate socialism. Socialism, as I understand it, means the taking of all property without any compensation whatever. The Minister provides for compensation in some cases, and therefore it is a comparatively moderate scheme of socialism. The Minister says I foresaw a monopoly. I may have been to blame in not defining a monopoly more dearly. The monopoly I foresaw from the Shannon scheme was a monopoly of supply, but not necessarily a monopoly of distribution. The Minister used two or three different expressions in the course of his speech on the Second Reading which seemed to show that he did not look forward to a monopoly of distribution, at any rate in the early years, in certain districts. The two things are not the same. The Shannon scheme has undoubtedly committed us to a monopoly of supply, but it need not necessarily, and the experts did not consider that it should, commit us to a monopoly of distribution. It looked forward to the larger towns.

At any rate, on this question of a monopoly of distribution, the Minister's statement came with no surprise to at least two Deputies in the Dáil, Deputy Heffernan and myself, because when the Shannon Electricity Bill was going through the Dáil in 1925 we saw what it would lead to and did our best, by various amendments, to try and get the Bill referred to a committee analogous to a Private Bill Committee before which those affected might come and make objection. Had that been done, all those bodies aggrieved by various sections in the Bill would have had an opportunity of making their case, and the time of the Dáil would have been saved. I visualised at the time the possibility of the Minister taking over the Dublin Corporation Electricity Supply, and I pointed out that if that happened in the days when the Dublin Corporation was still in existence—I think I can recall the words I used on that occasion—that Deputy Byrne would be sounding the war whoop and that Deputy Keogh would be taking down the tomahawk. I said I was not sure that the President would not himself lend an ear to the distant beating of the well-remembered tom-tom. As it is, I said, there are Commissioners in office and there is silence. The situation as I visualised it at the time as a possibility has become a fact. Deputy Byrne has sounded the war-whoop, but the only answer he gets is a question from Deputy Mulcahy. I foresaw the situation arid the outcry that would be raised, and I was anxious to see it dealt with in a legitimate and constitutional way. I wanted the Minister to give a Committee of the Dáil an opportunity of meeting the representatives of any municipal or other body aggrieved.

If he had done that we would have a more satisfactory condition of things than exist at the moment. He did not do that and he would not accept amendments. He told us that all our fears were fallacious, and that he was not going to do anything in the Bill that anyone could object to. He said that when the Distribution Bill was introduced we would be satisfied that all our fears were unfounded. He has brought in his Distribution Bill, and he has consulted none of the bodies that are affected by it. A week's previous consultation with these bodies would have saved about three weeks debate in the Dáil, if the Minister had seen fit to do what he was asked to do. He thinks that he is aggrieved and offended, and goes back on the Second Reading debates and tries to make some small points and to convict some of us of inconsistency. No one has been more inconsistent than the Minister himself. I return to my final and one important point, namely, that a monopoly of supply does not necessitate a monopoly of distribution. If the Board is panting for new fields to conquer, there are plenty of areas in close proximity to Dublin, such as Dalkey, Killiney and Rathfarnham, which are anxious to get electricity. We never heard a word about supplying these areas. They have no supply of electricity at present. and we do not hear a word about the Board developing these markets. They appear to prefer to take over an existing market, a market created by the efforts of others. I do suggest that if the Minister had consented to allow the Dublin Corporation, the Rathmines Council, the Pembroke Council to remain in occupation for a certain limited time to develop their electricity schemes and to supply to them in bulk from the Shannon scheme, and had applied himself to developing the fields that are waiting to be developed, he would have not only less opposition, but cordial and heartfelt support.

Deputy Hewat's amendment closes in the last two lines by a statement about the non-acquisition of the undertakings prejudicially affecting the working of the Shannon scheme. An inquiry which is based on that idea seems to me to be utterly wrong. The object that I would hope to see aimed at by the Board, however it may be constituted, will not be the successful working of the Shannon scheme, but the provision of the greatest possible quantity of the cheapest electricity imaginable to the greatest number of people.

Who is best able to do that?

That is another question. I am speaking now to the amendment, which says that the inquiry is to be directed to the non-acquisition of a particular undertaking prejudicially affecting the working of the Shannon scheme. If there is to bean inquiry of that kind, it should be as to what is the best way of promoting a better and wider distribution of electricity. I am going to vote against the amendment, but I want to make this reservation. My attitude to this scheme of distribution is that the scheme of supply is going to depend entirely upon the powers of the Board and the responsibilities of the Board. I am utterly against the proposition that the Board should not have anybody to answer to, that it should not have a responsibility to anybody except the risk that the Minister might dismiss it.

I am hoping and believing that that particular provision of the Bill will be altered before the passing of the Bill or, after its passing, by the introduction of a new Bill in another Dáil. The question that has been debated here seems to be whether Dublin City could do the work of distribution better than the centralised authority— the Board. I am concerned for the moment not so much with the question of Dublin City as with the question whether Rathmines, Pembroke, and, perhaps, Dun Laoghaire, can do better for their residents in this matter than the existing councils. Following the line the Minister adopted with a deputation. I say that as between Rathmines and Ireland. I am for Ireland; as between Pembroke and Ireland I am for Ireland, notwithstanding that within a few weeks I shall be asking the people of Rathmines and Pembroke to give me their support. Just as, according to Deputies Hewat and Byrne. the Dublin supply has been eminently successful, so the claim is made by both Rathmines and Pembroke that their councils have been eminently successful in connection with their electric supplies. I am not at all satisfied with that statement. I am not at all satisfied that it is a sign of success that after a certain number of years—I do not know how many— Rathmines is supplying at a cost of 5.59d. per unit when, on the same method of calculation, the average price in Dublin City for the private supply was 3.72d. There is no justification for a difference of 2d. per unit as between Rathmines and Dublin. Those who control Rathmines electric supply want the House and the public generally to stand for the right of Rathmines to continue to charge this extra rate—more than is really needed. I want to see the conduct of this electric service put upon such a basis as would give a sure prospect that, instead of charging practically 6d. per unit for the supply, we should get it at half or less than half that price. I have not the slightest doubt that that is possible.

Similarly I find the Chairman of the Pembroke Council making the complaint that, while they were able to produce current at 1d. per unit, the current they got from the Corporation was charged at 1.82d.

At a time also when, according to the Dublin station, it was producing at about .9d.

The Minister has not fairly quoted the figure, if my memory serves me. I think that the engineer clearly showed that the figure .9d. was for current produced, and that it was 1.1 for current sold. However, that is a matter between the Minister and the electrical engineer. Pembroke boasts loudly of its success in this matter of electricity distribution. I find from their returns for last year that the total cost, after providing for capital debt charges, was 3.45d., and that the average price obtained was 4.44d. per unit. That is a profit of about 1d. per unit, or thirty-three and a-third per cent. After all the success and after all the increase of consumption, if we go back to 1916, we find that the cost of production per unit sold, after providing for capital debt charges, was 3.2d., and the average price 3.77d. As far back as 1910, the average price was 3.8d., while last year it was 4.44d. To me, that is not at all satisfactory. It is not a sign of great success or of expanding business. I am concerned to see that the supply of electricity shall be much more widespread than it is or is tending to be. Notwithstanding an increase of 50 per cent. in Pembroke, and, I think, in Rathmines in four or five years, it is not expanding rapidly enough or at a cheap enough rate. I think it can be expanded very much more rapidly and much more cheaply.

As between Rathmines and Ireland, lam standing for Ireland. I seem to remember some years ago certain discussions that took place across the water in public newspapers about the desirability of the Post Office transferring certain rights for the distribution of postal communications within the cities. Once upon a time, parcel deliveries were carried out by private enterprise, and were legalised. That could now be very profitably taken up by private enterprise at the normal rate of postage within a particular area. But nobody seriously claims that it would be a good thing to revert to that legalised distribution of mail packets. The general national interest does, at some point in some services, have to take precedence over local interests. I am quite satisfied that, in view of the possibilities of the wide consumption of electric power for domestic and industrial use, and for lighting and heating, we must move with the idea that the country as a whole is going to benefit, and that one part must stand by the other in this general scheme. I am not, therefore, supporting this amendment, which merely considers this question from the point of view of the efficient working of the Shannon scheme. The efficient working of the Shannon scheme is not by any means the test I am going to apply. If there were a competent body called in to advise the Board or Minister as to whether the taking over of a local supply was going to affect prejudicially the wider consumption of electricity in that area, then I think there would be a case for it. I should certainly like to see introduced into this scheme— clearly set out—some system of local consultation and management—not merely a centralised authority, which is going to act from the bureau, without any consultation with local interests. I know that, in practice, there is going to be such consultation. I know it is inevitable, especially when one is dealing with Dublin area. But this proposition is riot confined to Dublin area, although the discussion has centred round that area. With the reservation I have stated—that the whole scheme is bad, that it is going to be governed by a Board without clear responsibility and without any right of criticism—with that reservation, I shall oppose the amendment of Deputy Hewat.

The Minister has indicated that the Board has got power to take over the undertakings. I stressed the fact that it was unnecessary for the Board to take over the undertakings. The claim I made in proposing the amendment was that there was nothing to be gained on behalf of the Shannon scheme by the taking over of the Dublin undertaking—that the efficiency of the service as it stands, and as it can be developed under the provision for supply in connection with the Shannon scheme, does not justify the Board even in getting power, unless under certain conditions, to take over the Dublin undertaking. It is all very well to say that the Dublin consumer and the Dublin people are not going to suffer because the Board will keep separate accounts as far as the cost of transmission is concerned. But nothing can prevent the question of cost in Dublin being affected by the other portions of the scheme.

Deputy Johnson has gone into the technical side of the question so far as Rathmines and Pembroke are concerned. Might I say to him that there are a great many factors in connection with the production and sale of electricity which make it very difficult to work out either the cost of generation or the cost of supply to the consumer. When he refers to the areas of Rathmines and Pembroke, and asks why there should be such a difference between the cost there and the cost in Dublin, it must be fairly obvious to him that the load factor, so far as Dublin is concerned, is enormously improved by the bulk supply, if I might put it that way. The undertakings in the outlying districts have no such compensation.

That is the point. I want to see them amalgamated.

Then, under amalgamation, the outlying districts and various other places are going to benefit at the expense of Dublin city in connection with the supply and distribution of electricity.

I think there will be a mutual benefit.

I do not want to labour that argument, because I think the present outlook and interests of Pembroke and Rathmines are the same. On the other hand, exactly the same argument will apply to other parts of the country and that is the underlying objection to the swallowing up of the interests of the consumer of Dublin in the whole undertaking.

May I ask the Deputy if he is thinking now of the cost after bulk supply has been delivered?

As far as I can read the amendments and the undertakings of the Minister, the rights of local residents—people supplied by any authorised undertaking—are certainly protected by the amendments put forward in the name of the Minister, so far as the distribution side is concerned.

There is an amendment by the Minister later on. How far it covers the point raised I do not know. The principle that has to be settled on this amendment of mine is not so much on those lines as on the lines that there is no necessity, and the claim that I make is that the operation of the Shannon scheme is not going to benefit, and the distribution area already in possession of Dublin and districts should be continued. In other words, the Board should not have the arbitrary power of taking them over unless there is a very good and proper reason for it. I think that is clearly the issue. Of course the Minister goes into the question of the people of Dublin not being damnified by his action in connection with the Dublin undertaking. I say that the operation of the Shannon scheme does not require any such thing to be done. There is no answer to the point. Provided the Shannon scheme supplies in bulk to the Dublin area and does its part in connection with the extension that is required, so as to enable the quantity of electricity that will be generated under, the Shannon scheme to be disposed of, then I say the Minister would want to make a very good case as to how the Shannon scheme is going to benefit. They are giving the Board which he calls an elected Board, but which I do not admit to be an elected Board, power to take over a distribution system which has been built up by Dublin and the areas surrounded by Dublin and swamping it in the national scheme.

Deputy Johnson says that he is for Ireland as against Rathmines. But in this particular case he can be for Ireland and for Rathmines, by supporting the contention that within those areas they will have done their part, so far as the whole of Ireland is concerned, if they have taken their full measure of electricity that they are expected to take in connection with the original Shannon scheme.

I do not think this is quite the proper time to refer exactly to the question of compensation or the detriment to any particular place. As the Minister said, we shall have an amendment on which that point comes up explicitly, and I do not want to refer to it at the moment, except to say that the point which we have explicitly to deal with here is rather the confiscation. What is the principal object that we should aim to secure under this Bill? With the Minister, I think the principal object is a cheap supply of electrical current throughout the country, including Dublin. The difference between certain Deputies and the Minister seems to me to concentrate on this, that they take different view points as to the operation of the Board. I think there is a misapprehension in certain minds as to what this Bill proposes. It has been said, for instance, that it means a monopoly of distribution. I do not accept that at all. It does mean the possibility of a monopoly of distribution, to my mind, but the Bill itself does not imply that necessarily by any means. I think, in considering the amendment, we have got to consider how the Board is likely to work if it has before it, as its main object, the provision of cheap electrical supply, and if it finds that there are certain difficulties in its way with regard to the provision by means of this scheme of a cheap electrical supply, how to proceed in order to overcome those difficulties. If we take the view that the Board is going to be a bad Board the scheme is ruined. Unless we get a good Board the scheme, to my mind, cannot be a success. Almost everything will depend on the way in which this Board manages its business. To that extent, I agree with Deputy Johnson. If we take the view that the Board will immediately set itself to take over all the schemes that are in operation, no matter how they are worked, then, I think, there is a great deal to be said for Deputy Hewat's amendment.

I think probably the Minister might meet it to this extent, that an undertaking should not be acquired without that undertaking being heard by the Board and its case being put up to the Board. I do not know that that is secured in the Bill, as it stands. I do not think a great deal is going to be gained by this public inquiry, particularly if it is conducted on the lines suggested in Deputy Hewat's amendment. I think an undertaking has a right to be heard. If, in the opinion of those who must be the ultimate judges, namely those who are to be responsible for the carrying out of the scheme successfully, after they have heard all the different points of view, provision of cheap supply can only be secured by the taking over of this, that, or the other particular undertaking, then I think the Board ought to be empowered to do it in the Bill without having to come back to the Dáil for fresh powers. We are more or less in a difficulty over the matter because we are giving powers to the Board which many of us expect they will not have to use in many cases. They will have to use them probably in some cases, but the Deputies who put up this amendment and are supporting it anticipate that they may have to be used very largely, perhaps universally. I do not think that that is the attitude of the Minister. It would not be my expectation as to the working of the Board. But I think the Deputies are right to this extent, that any particular undertaking should have a full opportunity of substantiating its case and showing that it is doing the best it can do to secure the object at which the Board itself is aiming.

I would accept that interpretation of Deputy Thrift. I would appeal to the Minister to change his attitude towards the undertakers and let it be generally known that undertakings would not be taken over unless there was cause shown. After all that is the gist of my amendment. It may not put it clearly but if the Minister would say it is not his intention that there should be a wholesale taking over of undertakings without cause I would be very glad.

For me to state my intention gets us nowhere.

I agree, but the Minister has done a good many things in this way in subsequent amendments. If my amendment does not cover the point, will the Minister consider if he can put in an amendment on those lines that would do it?

I object to any amendment which more or less looks on the Board to be set up as being an unreasonable Board. I am going to set out to get a Board of reasonable people, who have certain driving powers behind them, with powers to try to get a supply of electricity throughout the whole country as cheaply as possible. I am not going to cast any suspicion by way of amendments on the Board.

Where we have a well-managed undertaking that will take over from this Board in bulk and distribute it at reasonable prices, does the Minister still intend to give his Board power to step in and take over that concern?

I give the Board the power to do various things.

Mr. BYRNE

Although they offer to take over in bulk?

Mr. BYRNE

Would not that be the test of the whole Shannon scheme —that a well-managed undertaking will take their supply from you?

The Board can make the Shannon scheme a success and still can provide electricity over the whole country at as cheap a rate as could be expected. The Board has to go beyond merely making the Shannon scheme a success.

Would the Minister object to any further sub-section to say that an authorised undertaking shall have the right to be heard by the Board in order to state their case to the Board?

I do not know where we are going to put it in. It cannot be done now. What is achieved by that—that the undertaking shall be heard by the Board? What really is achieved? You must make up your mind to have one of two things. Either the Board is going to be a reasonable Board or it is going to be an autocratic Board that will sweep people out of its path. If it is going to be an autocratic Board that will sweep people out of its path then hearing an undertaking is going to be a farce. If it is going to be a reasonable Board it will obviously call on the undertakers.

Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 10; Níl, 50.

  • Earnán Altún.
  • John J. Cole.
  • Bryan R. Cooper.
  • Sir James Craig.
  • William Hewat.
  • Séamus Mac Cosgair.
  • James Sproule Myles.
  • Ailfrid O Broin.
  • William A. Redmond.
  • Liam Thrift.

Níl

  • Pádraig Baxter.
  • Thomas Bolger.
  • Séamus Breathnach.
  • Seoirse de Bhulbh.
  • Próinsias Bulfin.
  • John Conlan.
  • Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean
  • Uí Dhrisceóil.
  • Séamus Eabhróid.
  • Osmond Grattan Esmonde.
  • Desmond Fitzgerald.
  • David Hall.
  • John Hennigan.
  • Patrick Leonard.
  • Donnchadh Mac Con Uladh.
  • Liam Mac Cosgair.
  • Tomás Mac Eoin.
  • Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
  • Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
  • Pádraig Mac Fhlannehadha.
  • Patrick McGilligan.
  • Risteárd Mac Liam.
  • Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
  • Liam Mac Sioghaird.
  • Tomás de Nógla.
  • John T. Nolan.
  • Michael K. Noonan.
  • Wm. Norton.
  • Peadar O hAodha.
  • Mícheál O hAonghusa.
  • Seán O Bruadair.
  • Parthalán O Conchubhair.
  • Conchubhar O Conghaile.
  • Aodh O Cúlacháin.
  • Liam O Daimhín.
  • Eoghan O Dochartaigh.
  • Séamus O Dólain.
  • Tadhg O Donnabháin.
  • Earnon O Dubhghaill.
  • Mícheál O Dubhghaill.
  • Peadar O Dubhghaill.
  • Pádraig O Dubhthaigh.
  • Eamon O Dúgáin.
  • Mícheál O hIfeamáin.
  • Risteárd O Maolchatha.
  • Séamus O Murchadha.
  • Seán O Raghallaigh.
  • Seán O Súilleabháin.
  • Andrew O'Shaughnessy.
  • Mícheál O Tighearnaigh.
  • Patrick W. Shaw.
Tellers: Tá, Deputy Hewat and Deputy Cooper. Níl. Deputy Dolan and Deputy Sears.
Amendment declared lost.

I move amendment 28 (a)—

In page 21, Section 38; lines 7, 32, 62 and 65, and in page 22, lines 3-4, and 10, to delete the figures and words "1st day of March" and substitute therefor in each case the figures and words "31st day of March."

It has been pointed out to me that it would fit in much better with the financial year of the local authority or the local undertaking if the date were changed from 1st March to the 31st March. The change has accordingly been made.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments 29 and 30 were defeated in Committee and, therefore, they cannot now be moved.

I beg to move amendment 31—

In page 21, Section 38, before sub-section (7), to insert the following new sub-section:—

"(7) Whenever the former undertaker is a local authority, and has before the 31st day of March, 1927, raised by means of the rates any sum in aid of the undertaking, the new undertaker shall as on and from the date of the vesting order become and be by virtue of this sub-section liable to pay such sum (less an amount equal to the portion (if any) thereof which has before the date of the vesting order been paid to the general revenue account of such local authority in relief of rates) to the former undertaker by ten equal yearly instalments, the first of which shall be payable twelve months after the date of the vesting order, and every other of which shall when received by the former undertaker be paid into its general revenue account in relief of rates."

This is to give effect to a promise made in Committee. Where there are any moneys put to the credit of an undertaking and raised from the rates, whatever is outstanding due to the rates should be paid back. This new sub-section carries out that idea.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment 31 (a)—

In page 21, line 36, Section 38, before sub-section (7) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

"Whenever the former undertaker is a local authority, the Board shall keep a certain account of the cost of and charges for electricity supply in the area of such authority, and such account shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas in the manner prescribed in this Act."

This amendment provides that when the electrical undertaking of a local authority is taken over, the Board should keep separate accounts of the cost of supply and the cost to the consumer. It was suggested originally at the Chamber of Commerce and the Minister, when he was asked would he do it, said: "If the Dáil asks me to, I will." I think the Dáil should ask him to, and this gives him a means of proving his own good faith.

If there is going to be—and I believe there is going to be—a reduction in the cost to the consumer, it is very desirable that the consumer should know that. If you fuse the undertakings of three different local authorities in one transformer station there may always be a certain suspicion that one undertaking is being penalised and is paying more than its fair share of the cost. I do not think this difficulty is insuperable. I am prepared to argue the amendment at greater length, if necessary. I think it is an amendment which the Minister could quite reasonably accept.

I hope the Minister will see that there is a businesslike working of the whole proceedings.

"... the Board shall keep a separate account of the cost of and charges for electricity supply...." What does the Deputy mean?

The cost of the electricity supply as delivered at the transformer station and the charge made per unit to the individual consumer. Then we shall know the generation and distribution cost.

I take it that it means the total cost for the district?

For each district.

Does it mean generation and distribution costs?

Yes, together, with the amount, if anything, necessary for administration expenses.

Plus capital charges.

Generation costs will bear a proportion of the administrative expenses on the generation and transmission side; the distribution cost will include all the distribution charges, but that is not the amendment, which says: "... keep a separate account of the cost of and charges for electricity supply ..." I cannot understand what the cost of electricity supply in an area is. Supply means generation, transmission and distribution.

Will the Minister accept generation, transmission and distribution costs?

No, because that is much worse. Consumers do like to know how the consolidated rate is made up and they should have it stated that so much is for generation and transmission, and so much for distribution in a particular area. I do not think that is what I am asked to do in this amendment. Dublin, Rathmines and Pembroke will be supplied as from the one transformer station. I am asked to insist on the Board keeping separate accounts for those three areas. Why should that be done? The Deputy says that the people ought to know they are getting cheaper electricity. It will not require very much knowing whether they get the current cheaper or not. The cost does not say. It is really an unnecessary thing to make a distinction as between generating costs and the final cost to the consumer. The final cost is what is required to be cheapened. As long as the final cost is cheaper, that is the main thing. I do not want to be loading up the Board with unnecessary accounts. I am quite in agreement with the idea that the rate should be split up, but that is not what is here.

May I suggest that Deputy Cooper's point would be met by an account setting forth particulars in the same manner as the accounts these local authorities have to submit at present under their statutory regulations? It would really be a profit and loss account showing so much received into a municipality and so much sold and distributed under various headings. That could be set out in the present form of accounts, which is a statutory form, and which the Dublin Corporation and the Pembroke and Rathmines Councils keep.

I would not like to ask the Board to stereotype the present form of accounts, because it is a most misleading and unintelligible form. The result at the moment is that nobody knows what is the generating cost in Dublin.

There would be no trouble in the case of the Shannon as you could tell the bulk supply right away.

If there were the same disposition as between administrative and other expenses in that account the bulk of the cost of the Shannon supply could be made to vary by about one halfpenny. If one were to make the same disposition on renewals it would probably vary by about one penny. The present form of account gets us nowhere. I hesitate to ask the House to impose on the Board to keep the accounts in that fashion. The House will have an opportunity of criticising the accounts every year. As to the amendment, I am quite prepared to have an amendment phrased properly so that it will impose on the Board the necessity of breaking up the different charges, but I do not think that that should be done for each separate unit inside a transformer district.

I think that the advocates of Dublin are really injuring their case by insisting too much on the question of costing, because the cost to the Dublin consumer in future will bear the charge consequent on the capital cost of the present undertaking. At Dun Laoghaire, for instance, or where there is no electricity supply the people will have to pay the cost from the transformer to the distribution cost.

Where is that in the Bill?

According to the amendment which has just been passed, the citizens of Dublin will have to get back the amount they paid in rates to the undertaking and that will have to be put on the consumers in the area. The consumers in Dublin under the provisions of the Bill as it now stands will be in an adverse position as against the consumers in a place where there is no electricity, because a man in a new area will have no capital cost to provide for out of his supply cost. Dublin will have to pay the capital cost plus whatever was taken from the rates in the past. A place that has no undertaking will be in an exceptionally good position. Dublin Deputies should not inquire too much into costs as, if they do, they would be doing themselves an injury.

Deputy Wilson is often in sympathy with the Minister for Lands and Agriculture, who once said that his policy was to help the progressive man, and do nothing for those who would not look after themselves. Deputy Wilson wants to encourage those districts which did nothing for themselves and discourage those which had sufficient enterprise to sink their capital. As regards the first part of the Minister's argument, I am prepared to meet him. I am not an expert in matters of accountancy, and I am prepared to accept the heads he suggests. The second part of the amendment is essential. It is that each undertaking should show the costs in the future, as compared with those of the past. A consumer in Rathmines, for instance, will know his own cost, but he ought also know the cost, for instance, in Dundalk. With a view to discussing these accounts properly, Deputies should have a statement before them of the charges made in every authorised undertaking in the Saorstát, so that they may see how they compare with previous charges. The Minister is confident, and, I think rightly so, that there will be a great reduction. Why then should he object to showing these accounts under various heads? It may be difficult where there is a transformer for, perhaps, three separate areas to show the accounts under each. I am afraid we are an eternally suspicious people.

Who are "we"?

I include myself. I am enough of an Irishman to incur occasionally certain suspicions. I suggest that furnishing the fullest information in these accounts will save trouble in the long run, as, otherwise, people will stand up in Rathmines and say, "We are robbed at the expense of Pembroke"; people in Pembroke will say, "We are robbed at the expense of Rathmines"; while in Dublin they will say, "We are paying all the expenses of Rathmines and Pembroke." I think it is possible to keep these accounts. The Minister at the Chamber of Commerce gave the impression that he was prepared to do this. He was asked if he would, and he said that he would do so if asked by the Dáil. He did not say that he would do so if the majority of the Dáil ordered him. He is not entirely committed, but he has gone some distance in the direction in which we would like him to go. I suggest that he would now put on his seven league boots and finish the journey.

I never admitted to the Chamber of Commerce that I was giving any guarantee other than what was given in this House. I said that I was not going to say anything new or make any new promises. I said that if they heard anything that was new to them it was because I had not been reported. If the amendment can be phrased to get in the consolidated rate and break it up into certain parts I would accept something of the sort. In Section 6 there is a statement that the Minister may demand accounts to be presented in a particular fashion. So far as I am concerned, I will try to have shown what we have been speaking about, but not what is in the amendment. If another amendment can be phrased suitably I will be prepared to consider it favourably.

Is not this the proposal? At present there are certain areas and the accounts which are asked to be kept are for those areas. If the Board did not take over an undertaking the accounts that will be furnished will be separate accounts for that year in whatever form is considered best. I think that that is all that the amendment asks. In other words, suppose the Board have no intention of taking over an authorised undertaking which has in the past furnished accounts——

In a bad way.

Perhaps, but, at all events, they have furnished them. Suppose we recognise that they were bad and that the Minister would change the form of accounts, they could be made to give in substance the information asked for.

I want to secure what is not well secured by the words of the amendment, namely, that for each district there shall be shown the various charges, charges of administration, charges arising from capital expenditure, and charges on sinking fund, in connection with which Deputy Wilson is making a serious mistake. These should be given separately, and it should be shown how they are met by the charges in that district. I do not think that it would be difficult to draft an amendment of that kind, but if the Minister cannot do so I cannot.

Is Deputy Cooper desirous that these items should be set out in the account that would be furnished to consumers?

No; in the report furnished to the Dáil.

In the initial stages it would be found that the charges would be something like this: (1) generation cost; (2) transmission cost; (3) capital charges plus the amount that is now being sent back to the rates in Dublin; and (4) distribution cost. I do not think that it is necessary to have this amendment at all.

Supposing I am a member of a future Dáil and I want to debate this report, I cannot go to consumers all over the country. I think the statement should be furnished to the Dáil in the report or in the document accompanying it.

That is what the Minister will do.

Is there any harm in suggesting that he should do so?

Does the amendment secure that?

I agree that the amendment, which I drafted myself, is not one that one could stand over, and I will withdraw it in the hope of rewording it and carrying it in the Seanad with the same object in view.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move:—

In page 21, line 47, Section 38 (7), before the word "appointed," to insert the words "agreed upon by the former undertaker and the new undertaker or failing such agreement."

I think this amendment secures what I promised to Deputy Magennis, namely, that I would put in the Bill a provision allowing the arbitrator to be agreed upon by the two parties and that, in default of agreement, he would be appointed in a particular way.

Amendment put and agreed to.

I move:—

In page 21, line 63, Section 38 (8) after the word "order" to insert in brackets the words "(unless such person elects with the consent of the former undertaker to remain in the service of such undertaker in another capacity.)"

This is a substitute amendment for the next one, which is in the name of Deputy P. Doyle. I think it achieves the same purpose.

I accept the amendment in substitution of that which stands in my name.

Amendment put and agreed to.

I move:—

In page 21, Section 38 (8), line 67, after the word "benefits," to delete the words "as may from the date of the vesting order have accrued," and substitute therefor the words "as may accrue."

This amendment is proposed to meet the case of employees appointed to the service of the former undertaker on a salary scale with annual increments, the maximum of which scale has not been reached before the 1st March, 1927. Such a person, by the terms of his appointment, would be entitled to his annual increments on his scale after the 1st March, 1927, until the maximum of his scale would be reached. The sub-section as it stands would, however, deprive him of all such increments due to him after the 1st March, 1927. The amendment, if adopted, would merely preserve an existing right, and I understand that it is not the Minister's intention to deprive any officer or employee of any of his existing rights.

I think this matter can be made quite clear and satisfactory to the Deputy if before the word "pension" he inserted the word "increment," so that the phrasing would read: "including increment, pension, and superannuation rights."

I would like to make the case that there ought to be embodied in this section, and covered by it, not merely employees who may be covered by this sub-section, but the more general employees, in view of the possibility of their not being able to obtain further employment. The Minister, I think, on the earlier stages gave very general assurances, and I think quite justifiably, that the amount of unemployment as a whole that would be available would be greatly increased. But, again, I want to point out that the person who may be disemployed by the Board on the taking over of an existing undertaking has no chance of getting employment under any other authority, and consequently his position should be quite clearly safeguarded, even though he is not a salaried man at all, but an ordinary weekly wage-earner, subject to dismissal at any moment. The fact that he is not under any long contract of service, or has no special privileges as a salaried officer, should not make it possible for him to be entirely thrown out simply by the change over, and I think that some consideration ought to be given to the fact that there will be no other employment, if the Board at some time covers the whole of the country in its scheme. It seems to me that this section does not completely safeguard the interests of the weekly wage-earners at present in the service of electrical undertakings.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Alternative amendment, to insert the word "increment" before the word "pension" in brackets, put and agreed to.

I move:—

In page 22, line 6, to add at the end of Section 38 (8), after the word "Board" the words, "but nothing in this section shall confer on the Board or the new undertaker in regard to any such person the right of removal of such person from employment in the local area, where he was engaged immediately before the date of the vesting order, to any other local area, without the consent of the aforesaid person."

The Board would, as the sub-section stands, have power to transfer employees taken over by the acquisition of an undertaking. In some cases it would entail much expense and hardship to an employee to transfer from an area where he is domiciled, and where his interests and prospects are located. In some cases a transfer would appear to infringe the terms of appointment. As it is not intended to entail any hardship upon employees taken over by the Board, the point would be met by the amendment, which proposes to give the employee a voice in the matter.

Of course, if removal to another area is a breach of the terms of previous employment, then the removal cannot be effected, because the person is taken over upon the same terms under which he was working on a certain date in March, 1927, with the former undertaker. In any event, I am met now, as usual, from two sides. By one side I am asked, on behalf of the people who are employed in generating stations, to say that the good positions in the generating stations in Limerick will not be filled until every man in Dublin and in other places has had his opportunity, and, on the other side, I am told that when these are removed there should not be power to remove anybody else who wants to remain at home. If it is a question of a breach of the terms of previous employment it cannot be carried out, but if it is otherwise I think the Board should have the power. It has to be remembered that, under the future regime, positions will have a much greater degree of permanency about them than they have had heretofore. I would be prepared to accept some item which would have talked about expenses of removals being added. I do think that it might be a hardship in the case of a person in receipt of a somewhat low rate of wages if, as a condition of his future employment, he had to be removed from Dublin to some place like Limerick, and if there would be a difficulty in regard to the removal of furniture. But that is not what I am dealing with. I will have to ask the House not to accept this amendment, but to leave it to the Board, that there can be removal, subject always to the right of the person to object, when the matter will have to be fought out in some way, in view of what I have already said, that the Board will be reasonable, both in regard to technical matters and in regard to the employment of officials. I think if this amendment were carried it would handicap the Board very much in its attempt to get other employment for people employed in undertakings generally, and it would simply mean an additional burden on the compensation money, and additions to the people thrown out of work through the operations of the scheme.

Would the Minister meet the objects of the amendment in any way by substituting other words?

No, I have no alternative to offer to this. I am simply objecting to the amendment at the moment.

Is it the intention to reconsider it?

Not with regard to the right of removal.

There seems to me to be a reason why special consideration should be given to the man who is regularly employed by an existing undertaking, that undertaking being closed down and he being deprived of his employment as a consequence. The section itself provides for carrying over that person, but carrying over with the power to transfer him to another part of the country, which practically puts up to the individual the alternative of being dismissed or of taking a situation which is equivalent to dismissal. That is to say, he may have to leave his family and go to another part of the country, with the consequence that he has double expense on a single wage. If such an alternative is put before a man for acceptance. with dismissal if he does not accept it, I think it should follow as a consequence that some compensation should be available for him. I will not put it as high as the Board, because the Board will act in matters of this kind on the advice of the minor managers, but it is, unfortunately, quite a common occurrence that the way to evade an obligation is to put forward a condition which is unacceptable and to say that you will take over a man but that you will require him to go to a distant part of the country and break up his home or, alternatively, leave his family and live in another part of the country. That, I think, seems to require that some alternative should be placed before the man, either to accept the transfer, or something in the form of compensation. I think that the idea behind the amendment is one that should be accepted, and I am sorry that the Minister has met it with so definite a refusal.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE took the Chair.

Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 14. Níl, 34.

  • John J. Cole.
  • Séamus Eabhróid.
  • David Hall.
  • Séamus Mac Cosgair.
  • Tomás Mac Eoin.
  • Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
  • Pádraig Mac Fhlannchadha.
  • James Sproule Myles.
  • Tomás de Nógla.
  • William Norton.
  • Ailfrid O Broin.
  • Aodh O Cúlacháin.
  • Eamon O Dubhghaill.
  • Peadar O Dubhghaill.

Níl

  • Earnán Altún.
  • Pádraig Baxter.
  • Earnán de Blaghd.
  • Thomas Bolger.
  • Séamus Breathnach.
  • Seoirse de Bhulbh.
  • Próinsias Bulfin.
  • Sir James Craig.
  • Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean
  • Uí Dhrisceóil.
  • Desmond Fitzgerald.
  • John Hennigan.
  • Seosamh Mac a' Bhrighde.
  • Liam Mac Cosgair.
  • Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
  • Patrick McGilligan.
  • Risteárd Mac Liam.
  • Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
  • Pádraig Mag Ualghairg.
  • Martin M. Nally.
  • John T. Nolan.
  • Michael K. Noonan.
  • Peadar O hAodha.
  • Seán O Bruadair.
  • Máirtín O Conalláin.
  • Eoghan O Dochartaigh.
  • Séamus O Dóláin.
  • Tadhg O Donnabháin.
  • Pádraig O Dubhthaigh.
  • Eamon O Dúgáin.
  • Mícheál O hIfearnáin.
  • Risteárd O Maolchatha.
  • Séamus O Murchadha.
  • Seán O Raghallaigh.
  • Liam Thrift.
Tellers.—Tá: Messrs. A. Byrne and Norton; Níl: Messrs. Dolan and Nicholls.
Amendment declared lost.

I move amendment 36:—

In page 22, Section 38, before sub-section (9), to insert the following new sub-section:—

"(9) If any dispute or question shall arise as to whether any person was, immediately before the date of the vesting order, in the employment of the former undertaker, and was employed by him in relation to the undertaking, and had been so employed before the 31st day of March, 1927, such dispute or question shall, if the Board is itself the new undertaker, be determined by the Minister, and shall, if the Board is not itself the new undertaker, be determined by the Board."

It has been pointed out by Deputy O'Connell, I think it was, that there was no provision made for any arbitration on a dispute arising as to people who might be taken over. This is to meet that position.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment 36 (a):—

In page 22, Section 38, to insert at the end of sub-section (10) the following new sub-section:—

"(11) Whenever the former undertaker is a local authority and any dispute arises between the new undertaker and any person trans ferred by this section from the service of the former undertaker to the service of the new undertaker in relation to any right of such person which dispute, if it had arisen between such former undertaker and such person before such transfer, might at the instance of such person have been referred to the Minister for Local Government and Public Health for his decision, such dispute shall, if such person so requires, be referred to the said Minister whose decision thereon shall be final and conclusive."

This is the alternative which I offer instead of amendment 37 in Deputy Doyle's name. I have limited Deputy Doyle's amendment in two points. The Deputy referred "to the rights of such persons under sub-sections (8) and (9) of this section." Obviously, since the Minister for Local Government was being brought in, the amendment was designed only to have regard to municipal employees, and I am definitely limiting it to that in my amendment. I meet Deputy Doyle's amendment except to limit it, as I think was his intention, (a) to municipal employees, (b) to those disputes which previous to the transfer might have been referred to the Minister for Local Government.

I accept the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment 38:—

In page 22, lines 27 to 36, page 23, lines 1 to 66, and page 24, lines 1 to 12, to delete Section 39.

This section deals with the taking over of undertakings, controlling them, handing them back, and so on. I understood on the Committee Stage that the Minister was agreeing to delete the section. It seems to have no object as far as the interpretation of the Bill has gone. I submit that the Board ought not to have the power of taking over any station in this way. In other words, that if they think the undertaking is not being worked efficiently, or if for any purpose they want to do anything with it, they have ample power to take it over altogether, in the case of an unauthorised undertaking by giving compensation, or in the case of an authorised undertaking by dealing with it otherwise. This section lays it down that the Board can come in and take control for a certain period and then hand it back. There are a lot of provisions contained in the section, which I submit is unnecessary as it stands. I do not know whether the Minister would agree to delete the section or deal with the matter in the light of the discussion that has taken place on the Bill.

I can hardly accept as a reason for taking out a section of a Bill that it is involved and there are a lot of provisions in it. I do not found a great deal on the section. I do not regard it as being of the utmost importance. But I do not think it should be taken out of the Bill without some consideration of the section itself and of the merits which I think are in it. I have attempted to meet certain objections to the details of it, and I am speaking of the section with the amendments which are down in my name to take away some of the fears that were expressed with regard to it. I am amending paragraph (f) of sub-section (3) and also the whole section, so that the undertaking under control may at any time end control by saying "acquire." Deputy Hewat wants to take out the question of control altogether, and leave simply the choice to the Board either to sell in bulk and allow the undertaking to run on, or acquisition. I regard this as rather a useful half-way house between acquisition and allowing the particular undertaking to remain as it is found.

I put it further. As I said previously, there may be undertakings in the country which are quite outside the range of the Shannon transmission network in the early period, and that it may be necessary to have these prepared for the eventual coming of the Shannon scheme to a particular area. Certain changes might be deemed to be desirable which, if made at a particular time, would effect a very easy way for the taking of Shannon current, and if delayed might obstruct consumers in a special area, and the consumers throughout the country. It is, at any rate, something that an undertaker, if given a scale of charges to which he objects, and which the Board insists to be a reasonable scale, should have the power lo say: "Very well, we take you at your own word; come and ran this undertaking at your own rates, at what you say it can be done, and show us that it can be done." I believe I have taken away from this section any of the items that seem to be dangerous and undesirable. If that is so, and I believe it is, then I would ask the House not, in a casual way, to remove this control section. It has merits and benefits. It is a half-way house to acquisition, and may stop the Board from acquisition in certain cases. They may, by simply controlling, put the undertaking in a more efficient state and then hand it back to the original authority. I do not know if Deputy Hewat will agree, but I put it to him that the objectionable things that were exciting alarm have been taken out of the section. If that is so I cannot see any argument for removing the section. The section cannot operate adversely to an undertaking, and it may operate favourably to an undertaking which does not want to be acquired. If it is removed the Board have only one of two alternatives: to leave the undertaking as it is, or acquire it.

I agree that the Minister's amendment does make the section less objectionable, but I would rather the section was removed altogether. I think that there ought not to be any occasion for the Board to be in any doubt as to whether they should take over an undertaking or not. The Minister says that the Board may force on an undertaking a certain scale of charges that the undertaking may not be willing to adopt. I would rather that he did it the other way—that the undertaking ought to be sufficiently autonomous to be able to put forward a scale of charges for the approval of the Board, rather than that the Board should force on them a scale of charges which the undertaking could not accept. It is just really to put the thing in the reverse way. A certain undertaking may be called upon to submit their charges for examination. The Board will be able to get all the information it requires to say whether the charges are reasonable or otherwise. If the dispute reaches the point that those in charge of the undertaking say that the scale of charges they submitted are the lowest the undertaking can carry on with, and the Board refuse to ratify those charges, then you will arrive at the point at which I say that the continuous dispute as between the two can only be settled properly by the Board exercising its right to acquire the undertaking.

This question of control coming in will always be a factor that will create disputes as between the undertaker and the Board, and there ought to be the very definite right for an undertaker to say in a case of that sort, when dealing with an all-powerful board, that he cannot operate the station at the charges specified. He ought to be able to say to the Board: "If you say that you can operate the station at those charges, then my interest in the undertaking ought to disappear altogether, or you may come in and establish yourself as the authorised undertaker in the district." All the sub-sections in the Bill on that basis are, I think, quite unnecessary, because the Board will have all the power if it wants to deal with a dispute of that kind. The natural inclination of the undertaking will be to satisfy the Board and carry on its work efficiently in its own interest. If the Board wants to place something that I might call uncommercial on the undertaking, then I think the Board ought to take the responsibility of the whole undertaking, and not leave the question uncertain, but rather definitely come in and decide the matter one way or the other.

I ask the Deputy to look at amendment 41, in my name, which reads: "The authorised undertaker may, at any time during the control, require the Board to acquire the undertaking and the Board upon being so required shall forthwith acquire the undertaking." Let me take the position the Deputy sees. An authorised undertaker is faced with the problem that he wants a clean cut. The Board decides on control. On the day after control the authorised undertaker may say "acquisition" and the Board has to acquire it. There may be other undertakers that do not want to come in. They want the control to go on, and why prevent them from allowing it to go on?

This proposition appeals to me in this fashion. There may be an undertaking in a part of the country which is going slow and yet which has capacity for development. The idea is not so much to impose a certain scale of charges against the wishes of the undertaker, but rather to come in and put, shall I say, a manager at the head of the business, to extend and stimulate its activities for the purpose of supplying a larger area and a larger number of people with power. After a time this undertaking sees that it had not been awake to its possibilities, and is then prepared to carry on under the new stimulus, and maintain all that has been handed over to it by the Board. I think the views of the Deputy and others are rather met by this proposition: that you may get a new stimulus and new ideas, and, as a result of that, the existing undertaking will carry on, having had this new experience of, shall I say, the new management. Deputy Hewat is well aware of many instances where a creditor will put in a manager who will give new life to an existing and almost bankrupt undertaking. That is how the matter appeals to me, and I hope the Minister will stand by the proposition. It affords one of the possibilities of retaining something like local experience and local interest in the smaller areas.

I wonder if Deputy Hewat is giving full force to amendment 41? It seems to me that amendment 41 simply leaves to the option of the undertaking to say whether the section is to deal with it or not. I put it to Deputy Hewat that in all the unfavourable cases he has cited, if this clause is deleted, there is no choice left, and the Board would have to acquire. The section states that if the undertaker would prefer to be acquired then you must acquire, but if he does not desire that, then he will go on under control.

I agree that amendment 41 is a valuable one, and meets any very serious objection that I might raise to the section itself. I say that under amendment 41 you might as well take out control altogether. Of course, that is a matter of opinion. I am not going to go into all the cases that might occur in connection with the control section. For instance, control might operate in this way, that the undertaker might not object to control coming in, and it also might enter on a new branch of business altogether, as Deputy Johnson visualises. That may not be successful, and the undertaker later on may be compelled to say: "Very well, take it over." In other words, you drive him into the position of asking to be taken over. I do not see any particular value in this, but I do not press the matter on the House, because I agree straight away that the Minister's amendment removes the real objection that we have to the clause as it stood.

It makes it practically controlled by agreement.

It does that, I agree.

Amendment 38, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment 39:—

In page 23, line 9, Section 39 (3) (b), after the word "Board" to add the words "provided that no such person shall be transferred from the undertaking without his consent."

This amendment is similar to that already moved to Section 38, sub-section (8). The earlier amendment applies to employees in acquired undertakings. The present amendment aims at giving the same right to employees in undertakings controlled by the Board.

I think the amendment is wrongly placed, whatever may be the merits of it. The Deputy wants to introduce the point that no man may be transferred from the undertaking without his consent. That must be put quite specifically as a new item in the sub-section, and consequently it must be clearly and definitely limited that no such person shall be transferred from the undertaking during the controlled period without his consent. If the amendment could be amended in some such form as that I have very little doubt with regard to it.

Mr. DOYLE

What form does the Minister suggest?

It will be necessary, at least, to insert after the word "shall" the words "during the control period."

I presume Deputy Doyle is visualising that during the period which the Board is in control of the undertaking a person in the service of the undertaking before the Board got control would become a servant of it, and under its orders might be transferred somewhere else. If the control merged in an undertaking that was ultimately taken over, there would be continuous service, but if the Board handed back the concern to the undertaker, then the man might meantime have been transferred and would lose his job in the undertaking. I am only trying to interpret what the Deputy means. Obviously, the whole question arises as to whether the Board, during the period of control, is to have the right to transfer men, whether they are going to hand back the control to the undertaker or not.

I am prepared to accept the amendment with the insertion of the words "during the control" after the word "shall." It maybe necessary to have the amendment further amended elsewhere.

Mr. DOYLE

I am prepared to accept the amendment to my amendment suggested by the Minister.

Amendment, as amended, put and agreed to.

I move amendment 39 (a):—

In page 23, line 22, Section 39 (3), before paragraph (e) to insert a new paragraph as follows:—

"The Board shall keep the accounts of any undertaking acquired in this manner separate from the accounts of any other such undertakings acquired by the Board and such accounts, which shall show inter alia the cost at generating station, at any transformer station that may be necessary, and the cost of distribution, shall be presented to each House of the Oireachtas annually in the manner prescribed by this Act."

This is really a corollary to the Minister's amendment, No. 41, because it is obvious that once the undertaking part with their control over their undertaking and allow it to be taken over temporarily by the Board they cannot decide whether they are to exercise their powers under amendment 41 unless they have accurate accounts as to the manner in which the undertaking has been carried on. If the Minister thinks that the stipulations I have laid down are unnecessary, I would meet him on that. It is obviously desirable that the persons who are temporarily removed from control of the undertaking should be given material on which they can exercise their option under amendment 41, and the most convenient form is not by private information, but by the presentation of the accounts that are to be prepared to the Oireachtas. In that way, not only will the undertakers themselves have the necessary information, but also Deputies and members of the Seanad. We will also be in a position to criticise, if necessary, the manner in which the Board is exercising its power under this section.

I misunderstood the Deputy's amendment because he had introduced the word "acquired" in the second line. I thought he was looking forward not to the period anterior to acquisition, but to the post-acquisition period. His amendment refers to "any undertaking acquired." I thought that referred to the time when the undertaker had said "we do not want control any longer; let us have acquisition."

With the leave of the Committee, I will substitute the word "controlled" for "acquired."

Item (d) in sub-section (3) states that during the control period in regard to these undertakings "the Board shall have all the benefits and perform all the obligations of the authorised undertaker under any contract subsisting immediately before the commencement of the control but so far only as such contract is to be performed during the control." The whole thing is framed in a way to make the Board during the control period, being an authorised undertaker, keep these accounts the Deputy has referred to.

Including the statutory accounts.

I should not have said the accounts the Deputy has mentioned but to keep accounts in the manner the Deputy referred to in his last amendment—the sort of accounts that the Dublin undertaking or any of the other municipal undertakings set out. That is the form. I hold that form is bad and I presume that the Board will proceed to alter that form, so that the accounts, when shown in the future, will definitely give material on which people can form a judgment as to generating cost and so forth. Whatever accounts are at present demanded from authorised undertakings will be demanded from the Board when in control of any undertaking. If the Board insists on a definite type of accounts for any of these undertakings, that will again bind them qua undertaker in control.

According to the paragraph the Minister has quoted, an undertaker will be under the necessity of presenting bad accounts. How will the Board alter that?

It will be altered, in accordance with this statute, by special order made by the Board. The position at the moment is that all the Electricity Acts are, more or less, carried forward as they are, save where they are definitely and explicitly repealed by this Bill. Any really important changes will have to be made by the Board by special orders. These special orders must come before both Houses and an adverse vote of either House will annul the Board's order. There are certain orders and regulations which apply to authorised undertakers. The Board when it becomes a controller becomes an authorised undertaker. Therefore, it falls within the regulations and is subject to all the consequent obligations. If the Board changes its orders and regulations, it will have to be done in the way I described. The change will apply to authorised undertakings, and the Board for the purpose of control is an authorised undertaker.

There are certain forms of account which I described a few moments ago as bad. I meant, of course, that the form of account was bad and not that the accounts presented were bad. The form of account, as imposed by the Board of Trade and as now required by my own Department, is bad and should be changed. But it subsists. It will continue and it will also operate on the Board. If they change it, the changed form of account will hold as against the Board equally with any other authorised undertaker. Whatever form of account is demanded from an authorised undertaker will also be demanded from the Board under this section.

I hope I am not unduly suspicious, but the Minister has not altogether convinced me that it would not be possible for the Board, when they change the form of account, to provide for showing figures for bulk without segregating one undertaking from another, so that, in fact, the information given would be misleading and it would be impossible for any undertaking to know precisely where it stood. Does my amendment seriously weaken the Bill? Does it impose any substantial disability on the Board, provided I alter "acquired" to "controlled"?

I have described the form of legislation. We carry over everything except what is explicitly changed by this Bill. The Deputy has talked about the change the Board might make and has suggested that it might really produce worse accounts than are produced now. The House will have an opportunity of judging that. It is one of the matters that must come before the House. If the Deputy makes this provision, then it will mean that the Board will be prevented from devising any form of account in opposition to what the Deputy sets out, because that will be precise and explicit in the Bill and cannot be altered by regulation.

The Minister is not correct there. I state in my amendment that the accounts shall show, inter alia, three things. They must show these three things, but they can show other things. The Minister for Finance and the Minister for Industry and Commerce can prescribe the form in which the accounts shall be kept and that will apply to these undertakings as well as to the others. This amendment does not suggest any form of account. It merely suggests that the accounts shall show three things. I do not think the Minister disagrees with me, that these are matters on which information should be given. If the Minister would like to consider the matter more fully, I think I could find a member of the Seanad who would take pity on me and put down an amendment there. I do not think the amendment impairs the position of the Board. I think it is a desirable safeguard in the case of these undertakings. Otherwise they may find the accounts shown in bulk and they will not know where they stand or whether they should exercise the option given by another section.

That could not be so.

I should have said: "They may not know where they are."

The Board could not do what the Deputy has suggested. The Board could not so mix up the accounts of the controlled undertakings so that, by examination, one could not find the generating costs, and so on. One would have to do what one has at present to do in connection with returns of public undertakings. A little research into these returns brings you a fair way towards getting the actual generating costs. It does not bring you the whole way. I would not suggest to the Deputy that he should have this amendment moved elsewhere, because I should like to put my objections to the points he has set out. The amendment refers to "the cost at generating station, at any transformer station that may be necessary, and the cost of distribution." I presume the Deputy means that these costs are to bear their proper proportion of overhead expenses and so on?

I think that will have to be set out. Clearly the Board must keep accounts in a specified way of controlled undertakings. It is only a matter of what accounts have to be produced at the moment and what has to be done before any change can be made.

A controlled undertaking may be an undertaking that is taking power in bulk from the Shannon. The cost at the generating station would surely not be necessary in such a case as that.

The cost would be at the transformer station.

The amendment applies to both.

Then it would be the cost at the Shannon station.

That is what I want to point out. Surely, it is not suggested that, in the case of a controlled station which is taking power from the Shannon in bulk, the cost at the generating station at Ardnacrusha should be given.

Let us take the expert's figures. The cost at the generating station at Ardnacrusha is put at 42, and outside Dublin it is .53. Transmission makes the difference.

It is always a pleasure to be convinced by Deputy Johnson, and, with the leave of the Committee, I will withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment 40:—

In page 23, line 32. Section 39 (3) (f), after the word "undertaker" to insert the words "to an amount not exceeding in respect of any year the amount of the average annual losses (if any) incurred by the undertaking during the period of five years immediately preceding the date of the commencement of the period of control."

This is an amendment which I promised in Committee. It had appeared that there was not a perfect balance between items (e) and (f) in sub-section 3, and I said I would have the section patched up to a certain degree. This amendment indicates that the amount the Board may recoup itself out of the reserve or other funds of the authorised. undertaker shall be limited to an amount not exceeding in respect of any year the amount of the average annual losses (if any) incurred by the undertaking during the period of five years immediately preceding the date of the commencement of the period of control. I was going to produce a rather elaborate chain of amendments to this clause, but I thought that amendment 41 covered most of the points, because it provides that if at any time during the control the undertaker finds there is anything peculiar happening to his particular concern he can say, "Acquisition!" The ordinary compensation terms then flow. That is, in the case of the private company. I think this amendment meets the point that was raised, that the Board might set out simply to plunder the reserves of an undertaking of which it took control. If, as I have been saying, accounts of a particular type have to be produced, then the owners, or the authority governing the undertaking, will have access to these figures and, under amendment 41, can step in and say, "We want this control business put an end to, and we want acquisition." It was because of that that I did not produce the rather elaborate series of amendments to balance (e) and (f) which I spoke of. I think this amendment does meet the material point raised.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment 41.

In page 23, Section 39 (3), before paragraph (g) as follows:—

"(g) the authorised undertaker may at any time during the control require the Board to acquire the undertaking and the Board upon being so required shall forthwith acquire the undertaking."

I have explained the effect of this amendment already.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment 42.

In page 28, Section 48, before sub-section (2), to insert the three following new sub-sections:—

"(2) In the exercise of its powers under the foregoing sub-section the Board shall have regard to the desirability of taking measures to ensure the promotion and extension of the manufacture in Saorstát Eireann of electric lines, fittings, apparatus and appliances.

(3) All charges made by the Board or by an authorised undertaker for the sale or letting on hire of electric lines, fittings, apparatus or appliances shall be fixed at such rates that the revenue derived by the Board or by such authorised undertaker (as the case may be) from such sale and such letting on hire shall not be less than the expenditure incurred in or about such sale and letting on hire including the cost of providing or (in the case of the Board) manufacturing such electric lines, fittings, apparatus or appliances.

(4) The Board shall keep separate accounts in relation to moneys received and expended by it in or in connection with the manufacture, provision, sale, and letting on hire of electric lines, fittings, apparatus and appliances."

This amendment is designed to meet the point raised by Deputy Thrift regarding the sale and hiring of electrical apparatus. The amendment is divided into three parts. In the first paragraph. I meet the point raised by a few Deputies, of whom Deputy Hennessy was one. The first section simply brings in what was described as a pious aspiration, (first paragraph quoted.) The other two paragraphs refer to points raised by Deputy Thrift. I had promised to make it quite clear that the revenue from the sale or letting on hire of electrical lines and fittings, apparatus and appliances should be such as would meet the outgoings on those particular items. The other point was as to the keeping of separate accounts and the third paragraph of the amendment refers to that.

A third point was raised by Deputy Thrift—that the Board should not be allowed to delegate its powers with regard to the sale and hiring of electrical apparatus to anyone—in other words, that it should not be allowed to licence a trade sales corporation to do all this wiring and hiring of electrical apparatus for it. On questioning that point. I have been advised that one cannot argue from the absence of prohibition against such a thing that the power is there. In fact, it is quite the other way—that is, where powers are given to a trade corporation, unless there is a specific power of delegation to it delegation does not arise. The only people the Board can delegate to are its own servants and I have insisted that that power should remain. That is my answer to Deputy Thrift's third point.

I accept that. Sub-sections 3 and 4 go a certain distance. I would just like to ask the Minister if they include for example administration costs of special departments set up under the Board. In the last three lines special things are mentioned, and when special things are mentioned a doubt is raised as to what is included and what may not be included.

I think I referred to this point myself previously, when I was giving a warning to some Deputy who wanted to add a specific item. If certain things are specified it is taken as meaning the exclusion of other things. The word "includes" shows that you are not intending to be exclusive; you are selecting one or two of a series. The word here is "including." This has been specially put in for drafting purposes and administration expenses would definitely be covered.

In connection with sub-section (4), I ask the Minister to be quite sure that the section does not require the Board to do more than it intends should be done. The sub-section reads:—

"The Board shall keep separate accounts in relation to moneys received and expended by it in or in connection with the manufacture, provision, sale, and letting on hire of electric lines, fittings, apparatus and appliances."

I gather that the intention is that the sale or letting on hire of electric lines, fittings, apparatus or appliances shall be accounted for separately. But it can well be read to mean a separate special account in regard to the manufacture, provision, sale and letting on hire of electric lines; fittings, another separate account; appliances, another separate account. I think that interpretation is possible from the drafting and it is doing much more than is intended. It would cause complications for book-keepers and accountants.

I will have to get that considered, because it certainly is not the intention. Deputy Thrift's only requirement was that pretty well all the things covered by 48 should be in a single department and self-contained. I shall have that point examined.

Amendment put and agreed to.

I move amendment 43:—

In page 30, line 53, Section 55 (1), to delete the words "in the generating station of" and to substitute therefor the word "by."

In the generating station there may have to be some other cost added than merely generating station cost. If the generating station costs were outside, as it would ordinarily be away from where distribution started, there would have to be the cost of bringing it to the point from which distribution starts.

Amendment put and agreed to.
AN CEANN COMHAIRLE resumed the Chair.

I move amendment 44:—

In page 31, line 10, Section 55 (4), after the word "electricity" to insert the words "including (in the case of an undertaker who brings electricity from the generating station of such undertaker to a central station for distribution therefrom to consumers) the costs (if any) incurred by such undertaker in bringing such electricity to such central station but not in any case including any capital charges which remain to be borne by an undertaker after taking a supply of electricity in bulk under the foregoing provisions of this section."

This is an amendment which I offered in Committee, that there should be added to the Shannon costs, costs incurred by an undertaker in bringing such electricity to such central stations, but not in any case including any capital charges which remain to be borne by an undertaker after taking a supply of electricity in bulk under the foregoing provisions of this section. It recognises as quite fair and equitable that where an authorised undertaking is offered a supply in bulk it should be allowed to take off from its own costs the capital charges that would remain to be borne even after the bulk supply were taken.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment 45:—

In page 31, Section 58 (1), to delete all words after the word "Board," line 26, to the end of the sub-section, and substitute therefor the words "authorised and permitted undertakers may with the approval of the Board make similar scales for electricity supplied by such undertakers, and the Board, or any such undertaker with the approval of the Board, may from time to time revise or revoke any such scale made by them respectively or any particular item therein."

This is an amendment which I referred to on a previous amendment as rather placing an obligation on the undertakers to make the charge themselves rather than that the charge should be imposed upon them by the Board in the first instance, the Board requiring, of course, to have before them the rate proposed to be charged by the undertaking. In that way they would be able to criticise it. At all events, they should retain the initiative in their own hands rather than that the Board come along and impose a condition on the undertaking as regards charge, involving that undertaking in either accepting or rejecting it. In other words, that the undertaking in the usual way would manage its own business as far as a scale of charges is concerned and submit them to the Board, who would either refuse or accept the scale as submitted to them. This is not an unreasonable proposition.

I would ask Deputy Hewat to consider his own. amendment in relation to sub-sections (2) and (3) of amendment No. 47. There is not very much between us. This had been previously spoken to in Committee and I promised to go some way to meet the point put up. I believe I have done that in sub-sections (2) and (3) of amendment 47. Amendment 47 means that sub-section (1) of 58 would remain as it is, that is to say, the Board may make scales fixing the rate of charge. "Before making, revising or revoking the Board shall send by post to such authorised undertaker notice in writing, signifying its intention to make, revise or revoke, and the Board shall not make, revise or revoke until the expiration of a period of one month from the sending of the notice." Then under the third sub-section "the undertaker receiving the notice may submit to the Board a scale of methods of charge and rates of charge for electricity by such authorised undertaker not later than one month, and the Board shall consider every scale of methods of charge and rates of charge for electricity and every revision or revocation." My attitude is that the Board shall, in the first instance, fix the charges. Deputy Hewat wants instead that the undertaker shall be the first person to put up the scale of charges.

I agree that there is not much left between us. If the Minister emphasises a preference for his I shall withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The following amendments were on the Order Paper:—
46. In page 31, line 30, Section 58, to add at the end of sub-section (1) the words:—
"The Board in making scales fixing the methods of charge and the rates of charge for electricity supplied to consumers in an area which was the area of supply of an authorised undertaker whose undertaking has been acquired by the Board under this Act shall not include in any scale applicable to such consumers any charge in respect of liabilities assumed or payments made by the Board in consequence of the acquisition by the Board under this Act of any other undertaking."— Liam Thrift.
47. In page 31, Section 58, before sub-section (2), to insert the three following new sub-sections:—
"(2) Before making, revising or revoking any scale fixing the methods of charge and the rates of charge for electricity by any authorised undertaker or any permitted undertaker the Board shall send by post to such authorised undertaker or such permitted undertaker notice in writing signifying its intention so to do, and the Board shall not make, revise or revoke any such scale as aforesaid until the expiration of a period of one month from the date of such notice.
(3) Every authorised undertaker or permitted undertaker upon receipt by him of a notice under this section signifying the intention of the Board to make a scale fixing the methods of charge and the rates of charge for electricity by such authorised undertaker or such permitted undertaker or signifying the intention of the Board to revise or revoke any such scale may (where such notice relates to the making of any such scale as aforesaid) not later than one month from the date of such notice, submit to the Board a scale of methods of charge and rates of charge for electricity by such authorised undertaker or such permitted undertaker and may (where such notice relates to the revision or revocation of any such scale as aforesaid) not later than one month from the date of such notice, submit to the Board such revision or revocation of the scale to which such notice relates or of any part thereof or of any particular item therein as such authorised undertaker or such permitted undertaker thinks fit, and the Board shall consider every scale of methods of charge and rates of charge for electricity and every revision or revocation of any such scale or of any part thereof or of any particular item therein submitted to the Board under this section.
(4) The methods of charge and the rates of charge for electricity fixed by a scale made under this section which relates to consumers of electricity in an area which was previously the area of supply of an authorised undertaker whose undertaking has been acquired by the Board under this Act shall be so fixed that such consumers of electricity shall not be required thereunder to bear any charges in excess of the charges borne by such consumers in respect of the same services immediately before the date of the acquisition by the Board under this Act of the undertaking of such undertaker as aforesaid."—Aire Tionnscail agus Tráchtála.

I do not know whether the Minister would prefer that I should move this amendment before he moves the next one, because this amendment and sub-section (4) of the Minister's amendment certainly ought to be taken together. Perhaps the Minister would prefer that he should move the next amendment, particularly referring to sub-section (4), and then discuss one with the other. I will take whichever course he likes.

If the Deputy does not mind, I can speak on sub-section (4) of amendment 47 and amendment 46. They set out to allay the same fears, but the procedure is different in the two cases. Sub-section (4) of amendment 47 suggests simply this, that where there is an undertaking acquired by the Board the consumers of the area shall not be required to bear charges in excess of the charges borne by such consumers in respect of the same service immediately before the date of the acquisition by the Board; that is to say, if Dublin were going to be acquired, it is definitely now laid down that for the same services the Board cannot make excess charges over and above what the charges were prior to the acquisition. The amendment which stands in Deputy Thrift's name goes about it in another way. Take the same sort of an example. An area previously the area of an authorised undertaker and acquired, the consumers there shall not have put upon them any scale which would include a charge in respect of liabilities assumed or payments made by the Board in consequence of the acquisition of any other undertaking. It simply means if Dublin is acquired the scale of charges put upon Dublin shall not include any charge in respect of liabilities assumed, or payments made, by the Board in consequence of the acquisition of any other place than Dublin. The two amendments, of course, are quite different in their effect. My amendment should really appeal to the timorous man, the man who says I never hope to get anything out of this.

The people who are really fearful of excess cost by reason of the Shannon scheme should plump for sub-section (4) of amendment 47. The people who are not so fearful of what is going to happen under the Shannon scheme, who merely say that the costs should not be more than on the date in question, should accept Deputy Thrift's amendment. Deputy Thrift's amendment is quite clear in its terms. The cost of any area must be a cost which includes only the liability taken over by that area or the moneys paid with regard to the area. The other amendment simply says the maximum charges cannot be higher for the same services than they were on the date prior to the acquisition. It is immaterial to me which of these amendments is taken. I rather think, as we have got, I think, a better atmosphere in regard to this whole measure, that 46 might be a preferable amendment. Forty-six is better. It states that the consumers in an area will have the benefit where the liability is small and where it is decreasing. That is merely preventing people letting their fears run away with them.

That involves a guarantee.

It is more than a guarantee. This amendment simply says the Board shall not do certain things. I have no doubt the Board will find it very easy to fit it in under, sub-section (4) of amendment 47. But amendment 46 is the more business-like way of looking at the matter. I have only one doubt about amendment 46. It refers to the rates of charge for electricity supplied to consumers in an area which was the area of supply of an authorised undertaker whose undertaking has been acquired.

Let us take the three areas of Dublin, Pembroke and Rathmines. That would almost drive the Board to the keeping of separate accounts with regard to these three areas instead of having the three thrown together. All three areas will, eventually, be served by the same transformer station, and all three can get benefit from the amendment in the sense that the charges will, undoubtedly, be lower. But whether this is going to make the Pembroke consumer feel that he is going to bear some of the Dublin consumers' liabilities, I cannot say. That might mean that the Pembroke consumer would always insist on the Board apportioning amounts in such a way that the Pembroke consumer would bear only his own proportion. On the whole, I recommend to the Dáil the acceptance of amendment 46.

A point occurred to me while the Minister was speaking that did not occur to me before. I am not quite sure that the amendment really covers what was in my mind. Amendment 46 is quite clear as between different undertakings, but supposing we consider a place where there is no undertaking at present, and supposing capital charges had to be incurred with reference to distribution in that district, under amendment 46 would it not be open to the Board to distribute charges arising from such capital expenses over all the acquired districts, as well as the district in question?

No, because the cost of the new network would be a payment met by the Board.

I ask the Minister to consider the point carefully, because I would be afraid there would be a loophole there. As regards the two amendments, I would like to make my position clear. This is really the compensation clause. I agree with those who have spoken to-day and in other places that much of the agitation which is going on at present is badly timed. It should have taken place two years ago, when the Shannon scheme went through. It was perfectly obvious then, from the figures the Minister gave us, that in order to make the scheme a success the large supply taken in Dublin City would have to be absorbed in the system. I think the support the Shannon scheme got from the whole country shows that in this respect the districts cannot now complain if certain risks are involved, and there are risks involved in this whole scheme, national rather than local risks. With Deputy Johnson and the Minister, I think this matter ought to be considered from the national point of view to a very large extent indeed. I quite agree that districts which undertook large expenses, and very considerably repaid themselves for these expenses by the costs they have paid for current since they were supplied with current, ought to get the benefit of that at this stage. Both the Minister's amendment and my amendment give them that advantage, and any district which has very largely paid up the capital costs of its undertaking will get the benefit of it possibly more through amendment 46 than through the Minister's amendment.

With reference to a comparison of the two amendments, it is pretty much, as the Minister said, a choice between the pessimist and the optimist. The optimist will approve, entirely, of amendment 46. The pessimist will say the scheme is going to be a failure. Pessimists will cover themselves up and say: "We will cut our losses, and we certainly will not have to pay more than at present," and then they will accept sub-section (4) of the Minister's amendment. Those who hope, and have hoped, that the scheme will be a big scheme for the country will say: "We are ready to take our share in the risks that are incurred by the scheme with the rest of the country, provided we get allowances made for the expenses that we have been under up to the present in providing ourselves with our own schemes." Judgment between these two amendments must depend on one's general temperament and attitude of mind with respect to how the scheme is to turn out. If it is going to be a success, then the Minister's amendment, as against amendment 46, might not be so very desirable.

It appears to me from what Deputy Thrift has said that there is still an ambiguity about the difference between the present and the original scheme. Under the original scheme it was the clear and definite intention to supply in bulk to the different stations.

I question that; it is quite wrong.

The Minister may question it, bat I have re-read the original scheme and I can read nothing else into it. I have read carefully the present scheme. The present scheme acquires existing undertakings and it goes further—it confiscates these undertakings. Now, between those two there is a very marked difference, and that marked difference has brought about all the trouble we have had in connection with this scheme. If the Minister had adhered to the terms of his original scheme there would have been very little trouble; but when he made such a marked change in policy and did things under this Bill which are very questionable, then he brought about all the trouble. Notwithstanding what Deputy Thrift, the Minister or I may say, we will still have optimists and pessimists in connection with this scheme. It has just occurred to me that if we embody the good principles in both amendments in the Bill, then we will have met both parties.

There has been a rather important development in connection with the whole question arising under these amendments. At an earlier stage we had the question of Deputy Johnson being for Ireland rather than for Rathmines.

Is not Rathmines in Ireland?

Is that a conundrum? The whole of this dispute, if you might so term it, rests on that question. As regards Dublin, Dublin is within the Free State; it is part and parcel of the Free State. So far as Dublin is concerned, it is not called upon to sink its identity with the rest of the country. Dublin will be Dublin irrespective of other questions. I am taking Dublin as a particular instance, and if the Minister will say that Dublin is going to be allowed to continue to manage its own affairs, then the question of compensation under the terms of this amendment disappears. If it is the intention of the Minister to absorb the Dublin undertaking under the centralised Board, then all this question of compensation, etc., arises. Of course we have got on very well to-day, relatively.

A red-letter day!

If the Minister would disabuse the minds of the people that he is going unnecessarily to interfere with the administration of Dublin affairs by the Dublin people themselves, then I think we would have got over a great deal of the irritation and eloquence, if I might so put it, that have been evolved. I concede to the Minister the necessity of allowing the central Board to have full control so far as the operation of the Dublin station is concerned.

I quite understand what the meaning of the word confiscation is, what the meaning of the word robbery is, and I quite understand the meaning that some people attach to the word socialism; but I am at a loss to understand exactly what Deputy Hewat meant in his closing sentences. The position in which we find ourselves in regard to the Shannon scheme is a very simple one. Here are potentialities for the generation of millions of units of electricity and the best customer is the City of Dublin. Deputy Hewat in a very innocent way wishes to know if we are going to allow Dublin to run its own affairs in accordance with its own wishes, in its own way and according to its own desires. If we do we can write in confiscation, socialism, robbery and everything we like into this measure.

No; we get over a great deal of the trouble involved.

I take it to be the other way about.

Well, we cannot do that and we must have this amendment. This amendment was promised on the very first occasion the question of confiscation arose. Dublin must be taken over. I am not in the Minister's mind, and he never told me that he was going to take it over, but from what I know of the Shannon scheme from the very beginning I am aware that the whole of Dublin and Rathmines must be taken over. All the generation of electricity that takes place in the country must be from the Shannon. It must be—it is a necessity.

Does the President not recognise that in the event of the City of Dublin—the area of Dublin—taking a bulk supply, it has then, in fact, done all that is required under the Shannon scheme?

A bulk supply? According to a document I have seen this evening, Dublin ought to be allowed just to manufacture what it wants, and everywhere else should be allowed to manufacture just what it wants, and then any bulk supply required by these competent, efficient and splendid undertakings all through the country—anything extra that they may need—they will very kindly take from the Shannon, being interested in the Shannon scheme.

That is not the proposition. The President ought not to be running hares.

This hare has been very well run heretofore. Hares have been slain on several occasions.

There is a good deal of life in this hare yet.

The President is demonstrating that.

After the tea adjournment this evening the last word will be heard of confiscation, robbery and socialism so far as the Minister for Industry and Commerce is concerned, and probably the last word will be heard of the desire of all these most competent, careful and efficiently-managed undertakings that wish to be left severely alone. They are all going to come in and get supplied by the most efficient machinery that could be established in the State, and it is very much in their own interests. One of the things that amuses me when I see it in the Press is the small generation cost in the city of Dublin—something like .73. For a long time I had been a member of the Dublin Corporation and I was once called on to arbitrate between two committees. The Improvements Committee had agreed to take a supply in bulk conditional on getting it at the cost to the Electricity Committee. The price in 1916 was .9d., leaving out a great many things that should have been included. It has gone down now though the price of coal, oil, labour and other things has gone up. It has gone down now to .73. I wonder how all these great things are done. This amendment justifies the attitude we have taken up from the beginning, namely, taking over the bulk supply of Dublin and supplying every part of Dublin in bulk. There is no compensation in this amendment and there never was. To those who have an unbalanced mind in regard to municipal trading there was a claim in respect of compensation, but what is being given here is an undertaking that the cost incurred in providing machinery, mains, and so on is not again to be borne by the city of Dublin. That is now secured. It was promised to be secured on the last occasion but it is now secured. I hope we have heard the last about this being the most efficient undertaking in the country and the only one.

Does the Minister now propose that the supply should be taken in bulk in Dublin? If that is so, there is no question of confiscation or acquiring the Dublin station, which, so far as I know, is prepared to take its supply in bulk from the Shannon provided it does not increase the present cost.

Is not this an amendment fixing prices?

I am speaking in reply to the President.

This matter was raised by Deputy Good, followed by Deputy Hewat, and subsequently by the President. I have a soft spot in my heart for Dublin and do not object to hearing people talk about it, but I heard too much about it to-day. We cannot have the Dublin undertaking discussed on every amendment. We had it on the first amendment proposed to-day and we had a long discussion then. This is an amendment dealing with the fixing of prices, but what we have had so far has been a Second Reading debate.

It is going to be accepted unanimously.

Deputy Thrift has called attention to one aspect of the amendment. The first part of the amendment refers to the making of scales, fixing the method of charge and the rates of charge for electricity supplied to consumers in an area which was the area of supply of an authorised undertaker whose undertaking has been acquired by the Board. There is no reference to charges fixed on consumers in an area not previously under an authorised undertaker. The amendment has nothing to do with undeveloped areas. Deputy Thrift thinks that the section might be interpreted to mean that the Board could build these 135 new town networks and load these all on to Dublin. I was going to suggest an amendment to the following effect:—After the word "consumers" in the third line of the amendment to insert the words "including consumers" and put the words from "including" down to the word "Act" in line 5 in brackets. That would meet the first point. Let the rest of the amendment run on as it is down to the end of line 6 and add on to the words "in respect of" the words "charges for distribution in any other area including." That would mean that each area would bear the cost of its own distribution network.

I think that would be satisfactory.

I am proposing that alteration, but it may have to suffer further change eventually at the hands of the draftsman.

Yesterday, on Deputy Hewat's amendment, No. 28, I made objection to the prejudicial effect of a certain action on the working of the Shannon scheme. I am curious to have enlightenment on this point. There is nothing in the Bill which requires the Board in making its scale of charges to have regard to anything except the success of the scheme, and in making its scale of charges it may fix a charge, say, for an undertaker who is going to take a big supply for his special purpose at a very low price. There may, perhaps, be only one undertaking capable of consuming that load at that low price, thereby utilising the quantity generated, and they may make the domestic consumer pay unnecessarily high, to recoup for the low price to a particular class of consumer. So far as I can see, there is nothing to stop the Board adopting such a policy. This power given to the Board is quite unwarranted, and the only remedy would be to dismiss the Board. I think that is a great fault in the Bill.

I may say that I am asking the Dáil to accept amendment 46 or sub-section (4) of amendment 47, but I am not offering both.

That is to say, if No. 46, as amended, is adopted, sub-section (4) will be deleted from amendment 47?

The proposal is that amendment 46 should be amended to read as follows:—

"The Board in making scales fixing the methods of charge and the rates of charge for electricity supplied to consumers (including consumers in an area which was the area of supply of any authorised undertaker whose undertaking has been acquired by the Board under this Act) shall not include in any scale applicable to such consumers any charge in respect of charges for distribution in any other area including liabilities assumed or payments made by the Board in consequence of the acquisition by the Board under this Act of any undertaking."

In sub-section (4) of the Minister's amendment there was something more than what is in the present amendment. In that sub-section it says: "Such consumers of electricity shall not be required thereunder to bear any charges in excess of the charges borne by such consumers in respect of the same services immediately before the date of the acquisition by the Board under this Act of the undertaking of such undertaker as aforesaid." That goes further than the amendment proposed.

I am willing to have either taken, but not both.

Could we not embody that?

No. Both taken together would put such a handicap on the Board that there would be no possibility of their getting proper working in the early years. The two things together would impose an extraordinary handicap on the Board, and they would be tied far too tightly with regard to rates.

Amendment No. 46, as amended, put and agreed to.
Top
Share