I move amendment 1:—
In page 3, line 8, to delete the word "ten" and substitute therefor the word "fifteen."
PUBLIC BUSINESS. - GAS REGULATION BILL, 1928—REPORT.
Amendments 1 and 2 go together.
The period of ten years for reverification is too short. Persons who have been engaged for several years in this business, and who have inherited the experience and knowledge of the previous generation, say that twenty-five years would be a reasonable time for reverification, and that in practice there is very little use for it. Gas companies and consumers keep a watch over the meters, and if any irregularity is detected, the meter is re-tested. The consumer of gas has the right to require his meter to be taken out and re-tested if he considers it is not correct. Equally, the gas companies re-test their meters if they have any idea that the meters are registering against them. The six-year period for reverification suggested by Deputy Anthony is altogether too short and, in the circumstances which will arise after the passing of this Bill into law, it is altogether unreasonable, having regard to the arrears of meters to be re-tested. There is no provision requiring reverification in any English or American gas legislation. It is understood that the question was considered in England, but the principle of reverification did not appear to the Board of Trade to be desirable or necessary, and it has not been adopted. The expense of reverification is unnecessary. Meters in existence for 30, 40, and even 50 years have been tested and found to be accurate. The fact that both consumers and the companies have the right at any time to have the meters tested is sufficient protection to both of them.
As far as the consumer is concerned, the experience of meters going out of order is that they work in favour of the consumer in registering less gas than actually passes through, so that the company for their own protection, if they are not satisfied, test the meters from time to time. In addition, the expense thrown on the companies would very seriously injure the smaller undertakings. In the case of Cork and Dublin, while the expenses would be heavy, the companies would be strong enough to bear it, but there is grave danger of the smaller companies being crushed out of existence.
Since the Minister has thought well to adopt the principle, the time mentioned is too short. A term of fifteen years is a reasonable period in the opinion of those qualified to judge. The companies could make their calculations accordingly if that time were allowed, but if a shorter period is insisted on it would inflict very grave injury on the smaller undertakings and may so interfere as to close them down. If such a thing took place in any district, it would be a very serious affair. As we all know, the people who will be most affected probably will be the smaller consumers of gas —the workingman who has a gas stove or oven. Expense like this is necessarily passed on to the consumers and they certainly will not thank us for putting unnecessary expense upon them.
I should like to support the remarks made by Deputy Egan. He has said everything I could say. Really no case has been made out for reverification of meters. As he said, it has been left to the Free State to discover the necessity for this. It is not required in England or anywhere else. He also said, quite rightly, that the cost of all this would tell very much against the poor consumer of gas—the workingman. Most of the meters, at any rate in Dublin, are used by such people, and if gas companies are put to any very great expense in connection with this the expense will not ultimately be borne by the gas undertaking, but will be put on to the price of gas. Therefore, the least the Minister could do, if he insists on re-verification, is to extend the time to fifteen years.
I am certainly surprised, if not alarmed, by the wonderful solicitude of Deputy Egan and Deputy Murphy for the poor working man. From the beginning it was quite evident that both Deputy Egan and Deputy Murphy were well briefed for vested interests, as represented by the gas companies, whether these gas companies be located in Cork or in Dublin. I am very glad to see such an awakening of interest and such solicitude, as I have said, for the poor working man and the small consumer—names to conjure with at times of elections. There is one thing I can do this evening, as I have sometimes done before, and that is at least to pay some tribute to the Minister for making an attempt to protect the consumer. Notwithstanding all that has been said by Deputy Egan in his carefully-prepared and, I am sure, inspired statement, I must pay some tribute, at any rate, to the Minister for making a genuine attempt to protect the consumer.
This amendment of Deputy Egan seeks to substitute the word "fifteen" for the word "ten." Perhaps it may be news to Deputy Egan and also to Deputy Murphy to know, or to hear, perhaps, for the first time, that five years is the term for which makers guarantee new meters. Therefore, I cannot understand the reason which actuated either of these Deputies to ask the House to substitute the term of fifteen years for that of ten years. It has been argued that because such a thing as this is not in operation anywhere else it should not be put in operation in the Free State. If we are to pursue that class of argument we should wait for something to be done in Great Britain before we do anything on our own in this country. I have sufficient national pride, at any rate, to suggest to this House that possibly when this Bill passes into law the people across the Channel may wake up and do something likewise. This is not the first time that this nation gave a lead to other countries on legislation such as is under consideration in this House at the moment. I might also say in that respect that Cork has always taken the lead.
We hear something about smaller companies and the question of what it would cost these companies to get the meters tested once in every ten years. I would like the House to appreciate what is suggested in the Bill, and also to pay attention to what I suggest in my amendment. I suppose I would be in order in taking my amendment and that of Deputy Egan at the same time. It is simply a difference of a few years, but it makes all the difference to those engaged in the industry. Somebody said something about the expense that would ensue if meters had to be sent from the small cities and towns to have the meters re-tested.
resumed the chair.
If either of the Deputies who have spoken, or the Minister, is prepared to have the meters tested in situ I am prepared to agree to that. In the Bill as presented we have certain safeguards for the consumers, and while Deputy Egan has spoken as to having sought information from people who know something of the industry, I, too, have sought information from people connected with the industry, and my information goes to show that the expenses entailed are not of the proportions suggested by Deputy Egan. I would issue, if I were permitted to do so under the Standing Orders, a challenge, and let my amendment stand or fall upon that challenge. I am prepared to say that the position in relation to the cost that would be entailed by bringing these meters to the testing stations in Cork or Dublin was, at least, one hundred per cent. over-estimated by Deputy Egan.
I suggest, in my amendment, that there should be a limit to the time that a meter may be used before it is re-tested. In the Bill presented to us the Minister suggested ten years. In my amendment I suggest to substitute six years for ten years. I submit to the Minister and to the House, in view of the fact that the makers of these meters guarantee them for a term of only five years, that that in itself is a very serious and good reason why we should insist that meters should be re-tested within a period of, say, five or six years. I suggest six years as a compromise between the original amendment I put down and ten years. I can see no reason why this House should be asked to vote for an amendment giving a period of fifteen years. In my view, and in the view of those in the industry competent to judge and who have experience of from fifteen to fifty years, the period I suggest would be the correct period in the interest of the consumers and all those connected with the industry. I ask Deputies to weigh carefully this amendment and the amendment of Deputy Egan suggesting a term of fifteen years, and I contend that I have the weight of logic and experience behind the amendment I am moving.
Deputy Anthony issued a challenge. I accept it, and I remind him that he said that his amendment stands or falls on the result of that challenge.
The question, I take it, that we are discussing is not whether there should or should not be a periodical re-verification of meters, but rather the term which should elapse between each such re-verification. There are three suggestions before the House. The term of six years is suggested by Deputy Anthony, the term of ten years is mentioned in the Bill, and I presume the Minister adheres to that, and then there is the term of fifteen years suggested by Deputy Barry Egan. There has been mentioned by Deputy Anthony, and I think he is correct, that the period for which a meter is guaranteed by the makers to be accurate is five years. I think it is only fair to assume that a meter will, in fact, remain accurate for a longer period than that. If Deputy Anthony buys a watch from a jeweller he will, as has been pointed out, get a guarantee of one, three or five years with the watch, but he can generally rely on the watch keeping accurate for a longer period than that covered by the maker's guarantee. We have to consider that the re-verification of meters will cost something. Whether it will cost what certain interests allege it will cost, or half that, as Deputy Anthony stated, does not really concern the argument, because the cost, whatever it is, will eventually be passed on to the consumer. If the re-verification is to take place frequently, the cost will be high, and if it is to take place at less frequent intervals it will be low. What we want to do is to strike a medium to ensure that the actual additional cost of re-verification, which will be passed on to the consumer, will not be high enough to rob the consumer of any benefits which re-verification will give him.
Considering that the meter is guaranteed for five years and can be relied on to remain accurate for a considerable number of years beyond that, and also that experience has shown that, in the majority of cases, the inaccuracy which develops in the meter is in favour of the consumer and not of the gas company, I am inclined to the opinion that the term mentioned in the Bill is the most equitable. As far as I am concerned, I will oppose both amendments and adhere to the ten years' period mentioned in the Bill.
Deputy Lemass has said a great deal of what I had intended to say, except this, that his argument has led me to the decision to support the amendment suggesting the fifteen years' period rather than to adhere to the term in the Bill. It seems to me that the question of expense is the really important thing. That, as Deputy Lemass has said, will undoubtedly ultimately fall upon the consumer. It is the consumer who will have to pay, probably in getting a less quantity of gas for his money than he got before. I want to raise that point particularly in connection with a class of consumers mentioned by me on different stages of the Bill. They are not an entirely unimportant class, that is, those who happen to own their own meters. I know at least one very large consumer of that kind. I have not exact information beside me, but I do not think it would be an exaggeration to say that that particular consumer might have fifty large meters. The expense of having these meters verified would be very considerable indeed. If that expense had to be gone through every five years, or even every ten years, it would mean very considerable additional cost to that particular consumer.
I think Deputy Lemass was also quite correct in saying that in the great majority of cases the fault that develops in a meter is one which ultimately tends to benefit the consumer, and even in the odd case where it does not, it is a fault which is generally detected very quickly by the consumer when he finds that he is not getting proper value for the gas for which he is paying. All this argument seems to me to lead very strongly to the desirability of making this period over which re-verification must take place as lengthy a period as we can do with safety. It seems to me that fifteen years is a much better period to choose than ten. With reference to the distinction that has been made between Dublin, Cork and other places, I think the remarks that I wish to make on that would arise better on one of the other amendments that are to follow.
I support the point of view that has been urged by Deputy Lemass. I certainly am of the opinion that the consumer needs all the protection that the Minister proposes to give him in this Bill. It is all very well for Deputy Barry Egan to say that this is going to increase the cost of gas to the consumer and put forward arguments of that kind. Take the case of the ordinary consumer of gas in the City of Dublin. As things are at present, he is absolutely at the mercy of the gas company. I know that quite recently there have been very many complaints made as to the amount of gas received and the amount of gas charged for. Deputy Barry Egan said that the consumer had some rights under this Bill. In the City of Dublin what happens in practice is: a man comes in and checks your meter. In the case of an ordinary penny-in-the-slot meter, the collector tells you that your meter has consumed so much more gas than you have got money in the slot to pay for. He tells you that the company will send you a bill for the balance, and what happens in 99 per cent. of the cases is that the consumer has to pay the extra amount charged in the bill. I think the Minister is wise in introducing this amendment, and I propose to support the Minister and Deputy Lemass on the point at issue.
I prefer, as the question has now come to a betting match, to back Deputy Barry Egan rather than Deputy Anthony, and I do so with every possible respect for Deputy Anthony's eloquence and loud-toned talk about the poor unfortunate working man. I think Deputy Anthony must have been listening to Deputy Cooper earlier in the day and sort of copied his tone and manner of debate in this matter. I am quite prepared to admit that Deputy Lemass is a greater expert on gas than I am, but not on gas meters, or he would have stopped earlier. There is no case whatever technically for re-verification, and that is the real issue. Anyone who knows anything about the construction of meters—I do, because it happens to be my business—knows that in modern meters you cannot envisage defects which would tend to go against the consumer unless a mouse or something of that kind got into them. Those acquainted with the ordinary defects which belong to the technique of meters knows that. Apparently, the House is not prepared to accept the fact that a meter is going to be right always. The House wants some period in which there will be re-verification. That period ought to be in the interests of the consumer, because every single charge of every sort and kind on an industry which is in free competition does go on, and it is in the interest of the consumer himself that the period should be as long as possible.
That is an interesting doctrine.
I am prepared to stand over that, and over most interesting doctrines. I am for the longest period. I am for a period of 20 years if the Minister says 20 years, and for a period of 25 years if he says 25. As the longest period proposed is 15 that is why I am backing it, but if anyone proposes a longer period I would be in favour of it. I hope that by the time the period is out very little gas will be used and that we will have reached a stage in which we will not be using meters of that kind. I am sorry Deputy Lemass has wandered the straight path, as he has in not being in agreement with me. I am saying that now because in some future time there may be a difference of opinion, and Deputy Lemass and other members of the House will recognise that when they differ from me they are wrong.
The House is now in a difficult position, for it knows there is no technical justification for any re-verification. Although the House has passed that it knows now from what Deputy Flinn has said that it will have to stultify itself by continuing on with this proposition which it accepted on the Committee Stage. Then we have Deputy Barry Egan's argument that re-verification would impose a most extraordinary burden on the gas companies which would be unloaded on to the consumers. What are the facts with regard to the burden? In Dublin alone there are in use in consumers' premises about 72,000 meters belonging to the Dublin Gas Company. In the last five years 47,000 of these have in fact been repaired and re-verified. They have been coming in at the rate of 9,000 a year—I mean on the average, and not that they are coming in actually at that rate. We are asking that they should come in compulsorily every ten years. The Gas Company has in the past been bearing, or passing on to the consumer, the cost of the verification of meters at the rate of 5,000 per annum. We are asking that they should do it at the rate of 8,000. That is the difference. Of the 47,000 meters examined in the five years a couple of hundred or a couple of thousand of these may have been examined two or three times on complaints made. That may be, but what we are insisting on is that instead of a select number being brought in by some process under the 1859 Act every meter should be brought in within a ten years' period.
It is for the House to consider whether for the expense to be incurred by the gas company, and to be borne by the consumer afterwards, there is at any rate now secured to the consumer accuracy and fairness. We have Deputy Flinn's statement that there is no technical justification for any verification, and, therefore, we should leave it in the hands of the good, beneficent and technically unable-to-do-wrong gas companies, and in opposition to that that you have simply to estimate the expenditure. I do not know if Deputy Anthony is moving for six years. Between the six years and the 15 years there is certainly a big difference, and the six years would, I think, in so far as one can find from calculation as to what is actually happening at the moment, put some extra burdens on the gas companies compared to what they have been bearing. As Deputy Lemass said, 15 years would give them greater latitude. On the last occasion, in regard to this amendment, I think I got assent from every part of the House for taking the 10 years' period. Even with the 10 years' period being set down for the purpose of having an argument as to that period, I remember stating that if we got an amendment allowing for testing on the site that that definitely had to be taken in conjunction with that period. If one eases the situation for the gas company by allowing testing to be done on the site less objection could be taken to the length of the period within which re-verification would have to take place. We are now proposing to have testing on the site, and I offer 10 years as a reasonable period for re-verification.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment 2, by leave, withdrawn.
I move:—
In page 3, to delete lines 14 to 26 and substitute the words "in respect of any meter whichever of the following periods is the lesser, that is to say, the period of two years from the passing of this Act, or the period during which such meter remains continuously so installed after the passing of this Act."
The arguments I used in favour of the first amendment could also be very well used in support of this, and this amendment would reassure the public mind when the Bill becomes an Act.
The objection to this amendment is the same as to the other. The amendment, as it stands, makes a reasonable distinction between two types of meter, one the type brought into the country and installed in the consumer's premises without any stamp, and the other the type that came in with the Board of Trade stamp and passed some test with regard to accuracy. Paragraphs (a) and (b) of the section as it stands recognises that, and the distinction is made with regard to the different periods in which they are to be brought in. I object to the amendment in so far as it destroys that reasonable distinction. I think that the five years and the two years periods in the Bill might be left there, for though the period of five years is established as the maximum period, as described in paragraph (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 5, in fact a lot of these meters will be possibly tested earlier than the five years period, for there will be in all these meters a repercussion of sub-section 2. In other words, a meter bearing the Board of Trade stamp for eight years will have to be verified within two years, for though the five years would be the maximum for the type of meter spoken of in paragraph (a) it will not be the period for all the meters. I think the Deputy will admit there is a reasonable distinction as between the two types of meters I have referred to, and he perhaps will withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move:—
In page 3, line 26, to add at the end of Section 5 a new sub-section as follows:—
"(4) The provisions of sub-section (2) shall not apply to undertakers situate in areas outside the jurisdictions of county boroughs that have adopted the Act of 1859."
This amendment affects Section 8 of the Bill, and is intended to dispense with the necessity for periodical re-verification of meters outside the boroughs which adopted the Gas Act of 1859—namely, Dublin and Cork. One of the reasons in favour of the amendment is that, except in a few cities, there are comparatively few meters, and the gas companies are working in a very small way. The expense would bear heavily on consumers in small towns without any gain in comparison with the expense involved. In the second place, the test for such re-verification would have to be done in Dublin, as the Cork station is too small. There are no other stations outside those two. In either event, the cost of testing and stamping would be very great. Small companies would need a reserve supply of meters and in the event of the test proving expensive, it would mean further expense in the supply of gas. I think that the argument which I brought forward on my first amendment applies also to the present amendment. If this section passes without an amendment such as this, it will mean that the cost of gas will have to be increased to the consumer.
Is there any necessity to press this amendment if the Minister gives an undertaking, as promised, that he will make arrangements to have meters examined on the site?
I would not like to have it taken for granted that the method of testing on the site is to be the method adopted in future. That may or may not be the case. We will, however, have to see what are the comparative costs between testing on the site and testing at the station. I think there are very inaccurate ideas abroad as to the difference in the cost. Deputy Egan states that the number of meters outside Dublin and Cork is very small.
I mean apart from places such as Dublin, Cork, Limerick, and Waterford.
Yes, and consequently there will be very little expense other than in Dublin or Cork. It is for the House, having decided that re-verification is a principle, to say whether they now cut away all the meters, even though the residue be small, except those in Dublin, Cork, Limerick, and Waterford. It is a question if the consumer needs protection anywhere, does he need protection less outside Dublin and Cork?
My argument is that the consumer is amply protected by the system which has been carried on up to now.
Then why introduce the Bill at all?
I think that the Bill ought to operate in the towns as well as the cities. We do not get gas bills in the country, but we pay 1/3 a quarter for the use of a meter. We do not get any advantage in a reduction in the price of coal. We do not want to fleece the gas companies, but we should be treated fairly. Deputy Egan says that there are very few meters in towns like Midleton, Mallow and Fermoy. I wonder is he serious in that?
I am.
At any rate I claim that the Bill should apply to the towns as well as the cities.
There appears to be a great deal of doubt as to what particular amendment we are on.
I have no doubt.
I have an objection from the Dublin City Commissioners to changing the present system of testing meters.
That comes up on Amendment 6.
Amendment put and negatived.
I move:—
In page 3, line 26, to add at the end of Section 5 a new sub-section as follows—
"(2) All meters required by law to be stamped shall be examined, tested, and stamped, under the provisions of the Act of 1859, as amended by this or any other Act in the order of priority in which such meters are presented for such examination, testing, or stamping."
This amendment is intended to allay the fears expressed by some small companies that in the event of congestion at the testing station, as a result of the passing of the Act, the claims of companies in Dublin and Cork will be given priority to those of companies outside those boroughs. It is thought that the amendment, which will do nobody any harm, will ensure, in view of the fact that there may be congestion, that small companies will have their meters tested in the order of priority in which they are presented. As Deputy Egan pointed out, the Cork station is small, and it may not be able to cope with all the business. The same may apply to Dublin, and it is not likely that a new station will be established. I think there is in some Act a provision that a meter presented by a company in Dublin or Cork to a testing station must be stamped and tested within three days of its presentation. That would only apply to meters presented by these companies, but not to those presented by those outside the boroughs mentioned. It might happen that small companies throughout the country might suffer considerable delay in this respect and might be guilty of a technical breach of the Act as a consequence. Therefore, I suggest that this amendment which, as I say, does harm to nobody should be inserted.
I have a variety of objections to this amendment. I think that Section 4 carries forward all obligations which used to be on the inspector in regard to the two boroughs.
If that is so I am prepared to withdraw the amendment.
There is a monetary penalty on the inspector if he fails to stamp within three days of presentation. There will be varying periods involved. Imagine a station with a number of meters for testing, some of which have to run eight years and others to run ten. It would be wrong if those had to be stamped in the order of priority. I think that Section 4 carries on all the obligations I have mentioned.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move:—
In page 3, line 26, to add at the end of Section 5 a new sub-section as follows:—
"A gas undertaker shall not be convicted for failure to comply with any enactment requiring any meter to be duly stamped unless it is shown that such failure was due to or arose out of the circumstances within the control of such undertaker."
This amendment is somewhat akin to the last one. It is to avoid any injustice being inflicted in consequence of the possibility of congestion in either of the gas testing stations. It is to ensure, also, that a gas undertaker shall not be convicted for failure to comply with any enactment requiring any meter to be duly stamped unless it is shown that such failure was due to, or arose out of, circumstances within the control of such undertaker. In the event of congestion at the testing station circumstances might conceivably arise which would compel a gas undertaking to keep an unstamped meter in a place for a longer period than the Act allows, or to continue a stamped meter for a longer period than the Act allows. It is to provide against the possibility of an injustice of that nature being inflicted that this amendment is moved.
The amendment as explained, seems to be much less formidable than as put down. It goes much further than what the Deputy wants to ensure. It means in every case that the onus of proof will be thrown on the inspector. I think it will be accepted that generally the onus of proof is thrown on the person who has a peculiar knowledge which the other person has no opportunity of getting. In this case the inspector would have thrown on him the onus of proving that the failure was due to or arose out of circumstances within the control of the undertaker, the undertaker being the only person who could explain the circumstances and which he can at present explain by way of defence. It is a reasonable ground for defence, but as put down it would mean that it would apply to every case in which the inspector would appear as an opponent of the gas undertaking. He would have to prove positively that whatever was complained of was due to or arose out of circumstances within the control of the undertaker. If the amendment is meant to apply to the point upon which Deputy Lemass spoke, I think we could leave the matter to be dealt with under the Act of 1859, because there the inspector is bound to test the meters within three days unless he can give reasonable grounds for delay. Obviously, there would be reasonable grounds for delay if the station were full of meters, so that it would be quite impossible to get through in time. In fact it would probably be such reasonable ground that no departmental inspector would like to urge the initiation of proceedings against the company in the circumstances the Deputy explains. I think that the point is met, but it is only met in the way I have stated before— the carrying forward of the penalty in the Act of 1859.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The discussion on amendment 8 can hardly be concluded to-night and as this is the Report Stage there are two amendments which I would wish to have amalgamated and in which at the same time I would like to make a change. I would like, therefore, to give notice of an amendment which I propose to offer inelieu of amendments 9 and 10. Amendment 9 states that "an Order made by the Minister under this section shall before coming into effect be laid on the Table of the Dáil and if within 21 days during which the Dáil has sat a resolution is passed by the Dáil disagreeing with the Order such Order shall accordingly be annulled." Deputy Egan's amendment is much the same, except perhaps in regard to one point, which I think is valuable, that, unless the Order is made on the application of an undertaker, it shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and shall not come into operation until approved by a resolution passed by each such House. The form in which that type of regulation has appeared in previous Bills has more or less been this:—
"Every order made by the Minister under this section other than an order made on the application of an undertaker shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made, and if a resolution is passed by either such House within the next subsequent twenty-one days on which that House has sat annulling such order, such order shall be annulled accordingly."
Accordingly I am giving notice that I wish to put forward an amendment to that effect.
Might I ask does that mean that all these orders shall have to be printed and circulated to Deputies?
"Laid on the Table" means that it shall be laid on the Table in the Library either in typescript or in printed form.
I am simply giving notice now that I will move this amendment to-morrow.
I got the amendment from the Minister some time ago and I thought before the House left the matter he should give notice of raising it to-morrow. The amendment is of course similar to amendments 9 and 10 and is in common form. I am prepared, therefore, to accept it and it will be on the Order Paper for to-morrow.
I move the adjournment of the Dáil until 3 o'clock to-morrow.