Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 31 May 1928

Vol. 23 No. 20

GAS REGULATION BILL, 1928—REPORT STAGE (RESUMED).

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I move:—

In page 3, line 27, before Section 6 to insert a new section as follows:—

(1) The Minister may, from time to time, if he so thinks fit, on the application of any seller or buyer of gas supplied by means of a meter installed on premises in an area in which the jurisdictions conferred by the Act of 1859 are for the time being not exercisable, by order (in this section referred to as a testing order) in the prescribed form appoint, subject to the provisions of this section, a person (in this section referred to as a special inspector of meters) to perform in relation to such meter the functions of a special inspector of meters under this section.

(2) Whenever a testing order is made it shall be lawful for the special inspector appointed thereby to examine and test the meter to which such order relates in the place where such meter is installed and if necessary for such purpose to remove such meter from such place, doing as little damage thereto as is possible, and if such meter is found correct to stamp the same with a stamp of verification prescribed by the Minister under this Act and for such purposes such special inspector may enter upon the premises on which such meter is installed.

(3) Every person who obstructs a special inspector in the exercise of any of the powers conferred on him by this section shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding five pounds.

(4) There shall be paid in respect of the testing and examination of a meter under this section such expenses and fees as may be prescribed and such expenses and fees shall be payable either by the buyer or by the seller of gas supplied by means of such meter as the Minister shall direct or by both such buyer and seller in such proportions as the Minister shall direct.

(5) All fees and expenses payable under this section in respect of the examination and testing of a meter by a special inspector who is an inspector of meters under the Act of 1859 shall be paid to such inspector and applied and accounted for by him in like manner as if the same were fees received by him under the Act of 1859.

(6) All fees and expenses payable under this section in respect of the examination and testing and stamping of a meter by a special inspector who is not an inspector of meters under the Act of 1859 shall be paid into the fund established under Section 7 of the Act of 1920.

(7) The Minister shall provide every special inspector with such standards and equipment as are necessary for the performance by him of his functions as such special inspector and are not already in his possession or procurement.

(8) Every person appointed to be a special inspector shall possess a certificate under Section 14 of the Act of 1920.

(9) An inspector of meters appointed by a local authority under the Act of 1859 shall not be appointed a special inspector of meters without the consent of such local authority.

(10) In this section the expression "prescribed" means prescribed by regulation made by the Minister under this section.

This amendment was brought in to meet the point of view that was expressed on the Committee Stage that an allowance should be made with regard to testing on the sites, and it gives effect to the wishes then expressed.

Professor THRIFT

On this amendment I think a question arises as to whether the provision for the testing of meters in situ should not be formally put on the same footing in the cities of Dublin and Cork, as for the rest of the country. It seems to me that there is everything to be said in favour of the equalisation of treatment for these two places with the rest of the country. No doubt the Minister will say that it is open for the local councils to give them that provision, but the fact remains that they have not got it up to the present, and inasmuch as this amendment leaves the whole question optional on the Minister's discretion, subject to certain provisions, I would ask him to consider whether it is necessary to keep in the limitation that he has in the amendment or not, or whether it would not be really a better plan to make the thing identical for the whole country.

Mr. LEMASS

This amendment has been introduced on the Report Stage and at short notice, and it places Deputies in the situation that those who agree with the principle of the amendment but who might wish to amend it in some of its details will have no opportunity of doing so. It seems to me, as Deputy Thrift pointed out, that the provision which is made in this amendment to permit in certain circumstances of the testing of meters in situ throughout the country could be extended to Dublin City also. It is contended, of course, that testing in situ is more expensive than testing at the testing stations and that some additional charge in the rates might result therefrom. However, the whole possibility of such an additional charge can be avoided by ensuring that the gas undertakings concerned would pay whatever additional charges are involved. It would merely mean that the rates for testing in situ, fixed by the Corporations in Cork and Dublin, would have to be increased in excess of the rates at present in vogue for testing at the stations.

The local authorities in Dublin and Cork have power to test in situ. At present, in fact, they do not do it. Of course the situation that will arise after the passing of the Act will be altogether different from any circumstances which have arisen up to the present, because the periodical reverification of meters involved, and the reverification within the initial period of five years, will mean a very considerable increase in the number of meters to be tested. I should like if the Minister would explain what are the arguments which induced him not to provide that, on the application of an undertaking that is prepared to pay any additional costs involved, in Dublin or Cork, the testing of meters in situ could be permitted.

I think also that the practice of legislating in this manner—that the Minister may from time to time, as he thinks fit, do this, that or the other— is not altogether a sound principle. If the Government are satisfied that testing in situ can be permitted in certain circumstances, they should definitely state the circumstances under which it would be permitted, and then give a statutory right to the people concerned to demand testing in situ under those circumstances, instead of leaving it indefinite as at present. We have no information concerning the circumstances which the Minister considers would justify the testing of meters in situ. The only information we have is that contained in the amendment, that he might do so and so from time to time, as he thinks fit. Would the Minister indicate, even at this stage, what circumstances he thinks justify him in using the words in the amendment, and why it is not possible to embody general principles in the Bill which would enable the terms of that Order to be known in advance, and give the undertakings concerned a statutory right to this privilege under the circumstances defined in the Bill?

Mr. J.X. MURPHY

I should like to support Deputy Lemass. Speaking for the Dublin undertaking, I know that they have in use about 80,000 meters, and if these have to be reverified in ten years, it means 8,000 meters per year. The cost to the undertaking is going to be very heavy if these meters have to be brought to the testing station, when the testing can be done just as well in situ. I know the Minister is aware that the Dublin undertaking promised that they would bear the entire expense if inspectors were appointed to do the testing in situ, and I really think he should not put the gas company to the extra expense which he proposes.

MINISTER for INDUSTRY and COMMERCE (Mr. McGilligan)

I am asked, first of all, by Deputy Lemass as to why the amendment takes this form, "that the Minister may from time to time, if he thinks fit." That is common form with regard to matters which are of so intricate and complex a character. The instances would be so numerous that I think it would be very difficult to set down precise regulations governing every case. The form adopted is that one leaves it to the discretion of the Minister, leaving it always to the further matter of Parliamentary question and answer to find out what are the conditions which in a particular case have rendered the thing desirable to a particular Minister, who was given charge of the ordering of certain things from time to time. I am not prepared to—in fact, I think it would be impossible to set down rigidly in the terms of the Statute all the conditions which are to operate in order to necessitate the appointing of the special inspector referred to in Section 1. If any Deputy thinks that that can be done, and that an amendment can be brought forward laying down the circumstances and simply saying that in certain conditions, and in no other conditions, can the appointment of a special inspector be considered, I am prepared to give time to have such an amendment considered. I think it would be found quite impossible. I know my own Department would give up the task in despair of having to draft and set down for embodiment in legislation a definition or even a series of definitions, that could cover all the matters that might fall to be dealt with under this section. The areas in the jurisdiction conferred by that Act of 1859 are cut out and that is done deliberately. At present two areas have adopted the Act of 1859, and in these two areas, where that took place previously, there is allowance for testing on the site. It has not been availed of very often. I think it has not been availed of very often because the people concerned are not convinced that, except in special cases, the expense of testing on the site will be less than the expense of testing at the station. If this is going to be made applicable to the whole country, it will mean a very radical alteration in the 1859 Act. I certainly would not put it to the House that they should agree to the adoption of the line of action that would be taken if the 1859 Act were not completely amended, because the situation then would be that there would be an inspector appointed by the local authority here for a certain purpose, and the gas company would call on that inspector for a certain purpose, and there will be some overlapping as between the work which the two sets of inspectors will have to do, and for certain different purposes the Minister will be called upon to make appointments.

It has been stated here that the gas company is prepared to do something. One, of course, could not draft an amendment merely on a statement made in the House that the gas company is prepared to do something. It would have to be definitely put down in the Statute that the expense of the appointment of an inspector, when made at the discretion of the Minister, would have to be met by the gas company. It would have to be made statutory. I am told that may be arranged. If so, I should like to see the amendment.

Mr. LEMASS

Could not a scale of charges be drawn up that would provide for the additional expense?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

No; the circumstances must be faced up to. If this was made applicable to Dublin, where I am told there are 80,000 meters in use in consumers' premises, we would have to adopt one of two lines of action. We would either say, "We will make no appointment until the first demand comes in from the gas company for a test on the site," and when the first demand came in we would then proceed to get whatever number of inspectors would seem to be required and train them. It would probably be a year before the first test on the site could take place after the first application being made. Or else we would proceed to build up a staff immediately to meet the maximum number of cases that might fall. I am told that we might have to appoint six inspectors. I am further told that experience will show that a test on the site could not be availed of, and that what we would be doing would be at the expense, say, of the gas company, training and appointing six officials who might hereafter not be used except in very special cases. If the gas company is ready to meet that condition let the gas company have an amendment brought forward. This Bill has to run the gauntlet of another House. Let that case be argued there and let the gas company definitely say if it means that six whole-time appointments at certain salaries are necessary to meet the possibility of the gas company wanting testing on the site done in future in exceptional cases they will pay the expense. That certainly cases the situation, but I do not think that it is a sensible thing to do.

I am told of the expense involved. Deputy Murphy said there were 80,000 meters in the area of the Dublin Gas Company—I do not think it is quite so many—it is nearer to 70,000; 72,000, I think, is the exact number. As I said yesterday, of these, 47,000 have been brought in within the past five years for the purpose of overhauling and restamping. That is to say, that they have been coming in at the rate of 9,000 per year. We are now told that they are to be brought in at the rate of 8,000, so that there is going to be no extra expense.

Mr. MURPHY

Of the 47,000 meters mentioned by the Minister about 26,000 are new meters not in use before.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

They are new meters put in to replace old meters?

Mr. MURPHY

New meters which have to be stamped when they come here into the Free State.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

They are to some extent replacing old meters; they are not all new customers.

Mr. MURPHY

They all represent new customers.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I query the fact that the gas company has acquired 26,000 new customers in the last five years. I query that; I do not accept the statement that there are 26,000 new customers who have had new meters put in, but I admit that a certain number of them are meters that came in by reason of certain defects alleged against them. They are sent out, and these might be additional to 8,000 per annum which have to come in for examination under the referendum process, but there has been no case made that the Dublin Gas Company are going to be involved in expenditure by reason of the reverification period of ten years. If it had been made yesterday I think the House would be willing to allow the ten years to be extended to fifteen years. I certainly would have been willing if a case had been made, but a case was not made. I think we are in the same situation with regard to the argument backing the proposition that it should be extended to Dublin. Provided the gas company say they are going to meet any expense incurred at the discretion of the Minister acting under this section, that certainly will ease the situation, but that would have to be set out definitely in an amendment and would have to become part of the law, otherwise we could not put any reliance upon it.

Mr. MURPHY

Would the Minister allow that amendment to be brought forward?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

It could be brought forward in the Seanad. If the Deputy wants to have it brought forward here at this stage the Bill could be postponed if the House would allow, and if the Deputy thinks it worth while. Meantime there is no amendment before the House by which we could impose on the Gas Company the expense involved. Until that situation arises I think we should pay attention to what the Dublin Commissioners say when they express the opinion that to have the amendment applicable to the area of Dublin would involve the local authority, and consequently the ratepayers, unless the other amendment is carried, in considerable expense. There may be an argument used that there would have to be experienced people at the Dublin testing station and that the same people would have to be used for testing on the site. That is not the case; the actual testing in the station has to be done under the supervision of a particular inspector. One inspector in fact does it. If there were to be inspectors appointed not merely to supervise but to do the whole work of verification and whatever else is involved on the site it will mean it may be six or eight, but it will mean some number of fully-trained people corresponding to the single inspector at the station. That would involve the community in a big amount of expenditure. The question of expenditure, however, may be met by an amendment that may make its appearance later from the Gas Company, in which we could have it clearly before us that any expense involved would be put on the Dublin Gas Company. In that event the situation would be much clearer, but even then there would have to be a calculation as to which is to be the more costly process and the more troublesome process. There would have to be further consideration as to whether or not we could get out of the present situation that would arise in the double jurisdiction of the local authority operating under the '59 Act and the Minister operating under this Act. These are points that arise on the amendment.

Mr. MURPHY

Do I understand the Minister to say that if the House did not object he would agree to postpone the discussion of this Bill for, say, a week, until we put up a proposition to him?

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

That is what the Minister said.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

The Deputy should understand also that if the amendment comes before the Seanad and is accepted there it will have, then to come back to this House.

Professor THRIFT

Did I understand the Minister correctly to say what I think he said, that it was shown that the average number of meters tested in the last five years was really 4,000 per year instead of 9,000 he thought?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Yes, per annum for the last five years.

Professor THRIFT

Whereas the new provision would make it 8,000, and if that was so that he would consider more favourably the period of fifteen years?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Certainly, but not on this amendment.

Professor THRIFT

May I suggest it would be more satisfactory if Deputy Murphy would put up these matters in the Seanad and we can reconsider them again.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

But we cannot go back on the ten years here.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

We cannot go back at this particular stage on it. We cannot go back on a decision already reached on the Report Stage. All we can do now is to postpone the further consideration of the Bill on Report for a week or longer, as the House may decide, but then we cannot reverse decisions already taken.

Mr. ANTHONY

That does not mean that we are going to re-open the discussion on amendments 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6?

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

That is what I have indicated. We cannot go back on these decisions.

Mr. MURPHY

I understand that the postponement referred to amendment No. 8.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

And those that follow that?

Mr. MURPHY

Yes.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Is it now being moved that this Stage of the Bill be postponed for the purpose of bringing in the amendments, or is the Deputy going to proceed in the other way indicated?

Mr. MURPHY

I understand that the Minister would be agreeable to postpone this debate until we have an opportunity of bringing in amendments here?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Yes. I do not suggest that that course should be followed, but I agree, of course, the House has to do it, not I.

Mr. MURPHY

Would I be in order in moving the postponement of this debate for a week?

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The Deputy is in order in doing that. What I am not quite clear about is what precisely the Deputy wants to do; I do not want the debate adjourned and to have it then discovered that the Deputy cannot do what the debate is adjourned to enable him to do. If we pass this Bill here and send it on to the other House any amendment made in the other House must be considered here subsequently, and any other amendment relative to the amendment made in the other House would be in order. These are the alternatives. The whole Bill will be before the other House, but here, if we postpone it at this stage, there are certain limitations that I could not possibly remove.

Mr. MURPHY

Then we had better take our chance in the Seanad? I understand from the Minister that if a serious amendment is put in he will consider it.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I am bound to say in reply to what An Ceann Comhairle said in reply to Deputy Murphy—that I feel that the amendment which the Deputy requires to this amendment 8 might require such amendment of the 1859 Act as to make that amendment out of order on this Bill.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

If that is so, better not do it, and so we had better continue. Amendment 8 is, I take it, agreed?

Question put and agreed to.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Amendments 9 and 10 not moved.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I move amendment 8a.

In page 4, line 14, to add at the end of Section 9 a new sub-section as follows:—

"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."

I offer this amendment in order to meet the points expressed in amendments 9 and 10 not moved. It meets, I think, a substantial point put before the House that the order should come before the House and that the House should get a chance of annulling it. I am only making the exception in 9 which occurred in 10, that is to say, that an order made on the application of the undertaker need not come before the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments 9 and 10 not moved.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Amendment 11 is outside the scope of the Bill.

Question—"That the Bill, as amended, be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.

Fifth Stage ordered for Friday.