Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 11 Dec 1940

Vol. 81 No. 7

Electricity (Supply) (Amendment) Bill, 1940—Report and Final Stages.

I move amendment No. 1:—

In page 3, to add at the end of Section 3, a new sub-section as follows:—

(4) Sections 69 to 74 and 76 to 80 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, shall apply to any compensation payable by the board under this section, and for the purposes of such application the board shall be deemed to be the promoters of the undertaking.

This amendment has been suggested by the Parliamentary draftsman and is intended to facilitate the disbursement of the compensation payable under sub-section (3) of the section. Similar sections appear in the Fisheries Act, 1939, and the Liffey Reservoir Act, 1936.

What is the effect of these sections of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act which are being introduced?

They provide really for dealing with the cases of certain classes of persons, for instance, tenants for life, where difficulties may arise as to who is the rightful person to be paid the compensation. They provide, in short, that the board shall pay the compensation into the Bank of Ireland and, when that is done, the board is in the same position as if it had paid the compensation to the proper persons.

There are two groups of sections—Sections 69 to 74, and Sections 76 to 80. Does that phrase apply to both?

I think so. I will indicate roughly what the sections cover and perhaps the titles will give the Deputy an idea of what is involved. Section 68 is entitled: "Application of compensation: purchase money payable to parties under disability amounting to £200 to be deposited in the bank" and it provides for the application of moneys so deposited. Section 70 is entitled: "Order for application and investment meanwhile"—I presume pending the distribution of the moneys deposited to the parties rightfully entitled to receive them. Section 71 is entitled: "Sums from £20 to £200 to be deposited or paid to trustees." Section 72 is entitled: "Sums not exceeding £20 to be paid to parties." Section 73 provides "All sums payable under contract with persons not absolutely entitled, to be paid into bank". Section 74 provides that "Court of Chancery may direct application of money in respect of leases or reversions as they may think just". Section 76 provides "Where parties refuse to convey or do not show title or cannot be found, the purchase money to be deposited". Section 77 provides "Upon deposit being made, a receipt to be given and the lands to vest upon a deed poll being executed". Section 78 provides for application of the moneys so deposited and also provides for application of the compensation. Section 79 provides that the party in possession is to be deemed the owner, and Section 80 covers the question of costs in cases of money deposited.

In case the money is lodged in the Bank of Ireland, is the person applying for compensation to be put to any expense in asserting his right to it? The Electricity Supply Board are in this case looking for something that is not theirs. They get Parliamentary authority to acquire it. The person concerned gets the lowest possible price that can be paid. That money is put into the Bank of Ireland. Is the person concerned to be put to any expense in securing its release? I have a particular interest in this matter because many years ago, when I was a member of a local authority, £9 compensation was awarded in respect of a small piece of land and it cost £59 to prove title. In this case, I am sure the Minister is taking every precaution to secure that the Electricity Supply Board will pay the lowest possible price and, if they find themselves in any difficulty, will the expense be passed on to the person to whom compensation is awarded?

I could not answer that question. Whether a person will get compensation at all or not, will depend on his ability, to prove title. He will, I think, be under no more expense than he would be if we do not adopt these provisions. These provisions may, in certain circumstances, save him expense. It is quite obvious that, if he is to get compensation from the board, he will have to prove his title. We do not want the work to be held up merely because a person may have difficulty in proving title.

Will the person concerned get paid for proving title?

When he proves it— yes.

That is an undertaking?

The undertaking is in the Bill. The Deputy would not like to go into court and quote my undertaking.

The Minister made answer to Deputy Cosgrave that the person concerned would be paid for proving title.

Then I misunderstood Deputy Cosgrave. We shall act intelligently and, if a person is entitled to compensation, the Electricity Supply Board will not refuse to pay it when he proves title.

I know the answer that will be given when this question arises—that the Electricity Supply Board is a statutory corporation, bound by law, and that it cannot do any such thing.

He has to prove his title in law.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 2:—

In page 3, to add at the end of Section 3, a new sub-section as follows:—

(5) No action shall lie at law or in equity against the board or any contractor, or any officer or servant of the board or of any contractor, for or on account of any act, matter, or thing occasioning a loss in respect of which compensation is payable under this section.

This amendment simply provides that where the board has to exercise its power under this section no action will lie at law or in equity against the board or any contractor to the board. The only claim will be in respect of the compensation payable under the section.

Is that all it is intended to cover?

That is all.

Sub-section (3) is the only sub-section which deals with compensation in respect of this matter —the suffering of loss through the taking and use by the board of any supply of water. I understood this amendment to have a particular meaning— that a person could not say: "I am entitled to get damages through an action in a court for loss caused by being deprived of the supply of water" and, at the same time, to get compensation. The terms of this amendment would seem to have a wider application than is intended. Suppose a workman gets injured, while a contractor is engaged in taking away water. The taking away of water is a thing in respect of which compensation is payable. Does this amendment mean that the workman will be precluded from taking a legal action for compensation against his employer and that he will have to go against the individual who gets compensation for loss of the water-right.

That is not intended.

It is not intended but, on the face of this amendment, it would seem as if such an action at law were precluded. This is an ordinary provision in a Bill like this where there is an arrangement made for compensation so that a person should not have two rights. I merely want to be sure that the amendment is not wider than the intention.

I shall look into that point. It may be that the phrase "occasioning a loss" saves the position. I shall, however, look into the matter and, if necessary, I shall have the Bill amended in the Seanad.

The point is: suppose there is a diversion of water and, in respect of that work, a man is injured. Is that person precluded from taking an action because somebody is going to get compensation in respect of the loss of the water right?

The amendment refers to the kind of loss in respect of which compensation is payable "under this section". Compensation would only be payable in respect of the water right under this section.

In respect of the water right, the owner gets compensation. Suppose, in the course of the work necessary to divert the water, a workman gets hurt——

Say, loses a limb.

Is he precluded from taking an action at law against his employer for injury because compensation is paid for the loss of the water right?

I think not, because the compensation would be sought in respect of the loss of the limb not for loss of a water right. However, I shall look into the point and make certain, so far as that is possible, that what the Deputy fears will not happen.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 3:—

In page 3, Section 4, line 7, to insert before the words "as may" the words "authorised by law for the investment of trust funds as the board, after consultation with the Minister for Finance, may think proper or in such other securities".

When the Bill was in Committee, Deputy McGilligan put down an amendment to give the board power to invest in trust funds or such funds as might be approved by the Minister for Finance. I have endeavoured to meet the Deputy's point of view in that regard and this amendment goes as far as we can go in that direction. It authorises the board to invest its reserves in such securities, authorised by law for the investment of trust funds, as the board, after consultation with the Minister for Finance, may think proper, or in such other securities as may be approved by the Minister for Finance.

This amendment goes very far, but let us see the limitations. I am assuming that the phrase "as the board after consultation with the Minister for Finance" means "as the Minister for Finance decides".

As the board, after consultation, may think proper.

Does "consultation" not mean securing the consent of the Minister for Finance? I would assume that it does. It does in most of this legislation.

I think in such a case we should write it: "with the consent".

If it means that the board may invest in any trustee securities, but before doing so, must consult the Minister for Finance, but need not accept his advice——

They need not accept his advice.

If that is the situation, this goes as far as I want to, but I did not think it had that meaning.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 4:—

In page 3, Section 5, lines 11 and 12, to delete the words "or with the survey, erection, or laying of any such electric wires" and to substitute the words "or with the erection or laying of any such electric wires or with the survey of the proposed routes of any transmission or distribution lines of the board or of such authorised undertakers".

This also covers a point which was raised by Deputy McGilligan with reference to the original phrasing of the section, in which we had the words: "survey the line". We have re-drafted that so as to leave no room for doubt, and to make sure that the survey relates to the route over which the lines are laid.

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

When is it proposed to take the Fifth Stage?

I should like to get it to-day.

I thought the Minister was going to look into certain points?

I will raise them in the Seanad.

Agreed that the Fifth Stage be taken now.

Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass".

On this stage, I should like briefly to call attention to a couple of points. There is one matter which I desire to mention to see whether we can clear up certain confusion which has occurred. The Minister told us during the course of an argument on the Committee Stage that the State had made profits out of the moneys which it had advanced to the Electricity Supply Board. He was questioned about the amount, and I think his answer was that it was considerable. When I asked him would it go as far as £100,000—my meaning was £100,000 a year—I was told that no precise answer could be given me, but it would probably be as much as that. Accordingly, I put down a question asking the Minister to state for each year in which such profits accrued the amount of profit made by the Government through the rates of interest fixed on advances made to the Electricity Supply Board under the various Acts. The answer I got was that the rates of interest had varied from time to time. I was told that the balance may be, if anything, slightly in favour of the Exchequer, but any profits that might accrue would be only casual, and due to the fact that borrowing had been effected at more favourable rates than were anticipated. So the Minister's successor, the Minister for Finance, does not think so much of his efforts to get profits for the State? I asked for a statement of the amount, but the present Minister for Finance refused, or at any rate neglected, to give it. The previous Minister told us they were considerable, and had in fact made it a point in argument that the citizens were to get some profits from the board. He used that more or less as a buttress to an argument he was advancing. Now we are told they were merely casual. I think the idea of the present Minister for Finance is that they are not considerable at all.

The second point is with regard to the advances to the board. On the Committee Stage the Minister told us that, under the various Acts, the amounts which were, so to speak, at the disposal of the board, amount to about £9,000,000—I am giving general figures—that the advances which had been sanctioned by the board to date amounted to £7,000,000, and that accordingly the board had £2,000,000, so to speak, to draw on, about which they had not made commitments. It was because of that I put down an amendment to cut down the sum voted now by £2,000,000, and when I asked about that on the Committee Stage I was told it had been answered earlier on the Financial Resolution.

No; on Section 2.

On the first amendment, which was down in my name. May I come back again to the simple point? The Minister told me in the course of the debate that the sums, so to speak, voted by this House to the board amounted to £9,000,000, and that the advances were about £7,000,000. I find here that sub-section (1) of a particular Act—I am stressing that—is repealed, and it is hereby enacted that the sums advanced shall not exceed the sum of £10,000,000. The old sum in that sub-section was £6,259,000. There are advances here of £4,000,000. If under various legislation the House had voted to the board something over £9,000,000, and under this Liffey Reservoir Act which we are proposing to amend there was a limit of £6,250,000, there is £2,750,000 somewhere else. We are, therefore, voting to the board £10,250,000 under this, and £2,750,000 elsewhere. There is about £13,000,000 voted by the House for the purposes of the Shannon and various additional schemes. Of that, according to the Minister, advances had been sanctioned up to an amount of £7,000,000, and the board has in fact £2,000,000 at its disposal for which advances had not been authorised. As far as I can make any calculation there is now not merely £2,000,000, but an additional £4,000,000. We got a White Paper which showed us how the £4,000,000 was to be disposed of, so there is still £2,000,000 somewhere hidden, and it is on that matter I should like to have information. The Minister could satisfy my curiosity if he would tell me what are the various Acts—I mean prior to this Act—under which sums were voted to the board which came to that total of £9,000,000 odd. If the Minister would give me a statement of the various Acts prior to the amendment which is proposed here, and the sums voted under each amounting to a total of £9,000,000, then I think it would be easy or at least possible to work out the rest. I should like to have that point cleared up, because I understood from the Minister's language that somewhere or other there was a reserve fund of £2,000,000—prior to our voting this sum—at the disposal of the board but not allocated to them. We are now handing over another £4,000,000, and have a White Paper telling us what that £4,000,000 is for.

I did ask the Minister during the course of the debate, and I think he gave me an assent to it, if it would be possible now at last to get the accounts of the Turf Development Board published. The Turf Development Board is now going to be run in some sort of double harness with the Electricity Supply Board, and it becomes more important than ever that the people should know what moneys they have got, what moneys they have expended, and whether any success has so far attended their efforts. The Minister, I think, did assent to my request that the accounts of the Turf Development Board should be published, and I should like to have an assurance from him that as soon as may be we shall see those accounts in proper form. In connection with the accounts, the Minister again gave me an assurance that we would get such figures through the annual reports of the board from this time on as would enable us to get the cost of generating electricity at the Portarlington station. In that connection, I should like if he would see that the cost which will be produced for us will be one comparable with the cost of generating electricity elsewhere. In other words, the Minister will take certain matters into account, notably this, that the board has certain obligations under the Electricity Supply Act of 1887 which Portarlington would not have on it in the ordinary course. I should like to have the figure, when it is brought out, brought out in such a way as to be comparable with the figure which the board has put down as its cost of generating under its various overheads compulsorily put upon it by other Acts.

Another point of detail to which I want to refer is in connection with a matter which was stressed very much here, that is the superannuation scheme for employees. The Minister told us it was now only a question of agreement as between the Department of Finance and the board itself in order to have the superannuation scheme introduced. He was pressed as to a date and, while he would not say to Deputy Norton that he would promise it for early next year, he did say that the employees of the board could expect to have it some time in the year 1941. I am stressing that because at a later stage there seems to be some little decline from that particular promise, and I want to have the promise reinstated, the promise being that as soon as certain detailed particulars, that apparently were the only thing in conflict, were agreed as between the board and the Department of Finance the superannuation scheme would be introduced. There is no longer any point of principle. I understand from that phrase of the Minister's that the principle has been accepted that there should be superannuation for these employees of the board and that it is only a question of arranging the detail.

I suppose two-thirds of the discussion that has taken place on this measure has taken place on the question of the money it was proposed to devote to the Portarlington station, whether that would be a proper experiment as opposed to the moneys which the House generally believed should be expended upon the development of electricity in agricultural districts in rural Ireland. There are two points which arise there. One is as to whether the Portarlington scheme is a scheme already approved of by the board or whether it is one regarded as a risk and experiment by them, as it is by the Minister, and therefore only taken on by them on certain assurances given by the Turf Development Board backed by the Minister and the Government. I think we got precise information from the Minister that the board's independence of action has not been abandoned. I fear it has been somewhat compromised. The Minister has told us they are still in a position to reject this Portarlington scheme if the board so desire. I put it to him also that they would be bound to report in their next report upon this scheme and to tell us their view on it and let the public see what was their attitude to the scheme. The Minister apparently agreed that it would not merely be open to the board but incumbent upon the board to let the public know what was the board's idea of the Portarlington development.

The further matter was the general matter of policy. When the whole electricity measure was under discussion many years ago the biggest point, the point that gave rise to most discussion, was the question of the economics of the scheme. There was a general feeling in those days, as it was very precisely put, that Dublin, with its relatively vast electricity-consuming population, was going to be made the scapegoat for all the other schemes throughout the country. The phrase was generally used that Dublin, with a properly developed scheme, was going to have put upon its shoulders all the bankrupt concerns elsewhere through the country That was always spoken of in the usual context that the scheme itself would never pay and was generally a hare-brained matter. Events have, of course, turned out much more happily than were forecast, and with the board last year selling about 300,000,000 units, when it was believed that they never would sell 110,000,000 units, the early fears have been dissipated. It was arranged, as a result of the original arguments, that no district would be obliged to bear the cost of bringing electricity to any other district. That was in order to satisfy those people who were vocal in regard to Dublin and, generally speaking, the district was established by relation to the transformer station.

The situation under the measure we have at the moment is that the country is divided into districts which are grouped around transformer stations. The obligation that was put on the board is phrased in a negative way— that it shall not be possible or legal for the board to charge any district with the expense of bringing electricity elsewhere than to that district. As I understand, the situation has been reached that the board have developed all the areas which can be called economic, developed all the areas, in other words, which will pay for themselves at a price which will make electricity a desirable commodity for the people. There is quite a number of areas, of course, outside the area of development, quite a number of small towns, which would be even aimed at in the original scheme, to which electricity has not been brought, and when the board are asked about these, I understand the formal answer generally given is that it would not be economic to bring electricity to those areas. You have, therefore, this situation in certain counties that there are small towns in which the board have at the moment an area of supply—that generally being occasioned by the fact that prior to the board coming into existence there was some small local company which supplied electricity but which, of course, charged exorbitant rates; the board stepped in for the relief of the population of those areas, took over the small unit and fed into it Shannon or Pigeon House power. There is, therefore, this anomaly, that you have in a particular area certain towns of a particularly small population, somewhere between 1,000 and 500, tied on to the general Shannon development and other towns, with larger populations, not so tied on. The board feel themselves in the position, I understand, when they answer deputations from those places, that they cannot move any further because their resources are limited and can no longer expand except where it is shown to them that the consumers in a particular area will pay for the cost of bringing the electricity to that place. If a particular view written up in the Banking Commission Report is accepted, the board have at this moment quite an amount of money in hands and that amount will grow from year to year as the board progresses. The board, however, feel that even if they had any money on hands they are prohibited by the Act from bringing electricity to places where they feel that it would be in the interests of the community to do so.

The scheme when projected was looked on as a national scheme. It was thought it was going to bring the amenity of light at least to all people grouped together in communities with a minimum of 500 in number. In the main it was accepted that, irrespective of the distance to be travelled, whether the small area paid for itself or not, electricity would be supplied to the sections of the community grouped in those small towns. One has only to glance through the Electricity Supply Report to see that there is quite a number of places—not so many now as there used to be—where there are small supplies which have not been taken over by the board, but one has only to glance over the history of the development to realise that there is quite a number of places to which electricity can be brought and which are left out.

In the original discussion of the whole electricity scheme the phrase that was generally used about it was that electricity should be brought to the towns of this country of 500 population and upwards. There are three places I want to mention. The town of Ballinrobe has a population of 1,300; Cahirciveen has a population of 1,700; Dingle has a population of 1,800. There is no electricity supply brought by the Shannon to any of these places. There are small stations there. As far as I remember, the price for electricity is 10d. or 8d. a unit for lighting purposes. The board have been requested by all these three places to join on the Shannon supply, and the reply is that on account of the geographical position of these places it is not exactly economic to do it; that they are tied by the phrase in the Act and the policy that was imposed upon them by the Act not to bring electricity there.

We have already had an example in this country of decay that was caused to certain towns in the old days when the railways were planned. It has always been asserted, with certainly a great deal of truth, that the railways as originally planned in this country were planned for strategic purposes and did not follow the ordinary run of trade as trade then was. The result of it has been, one can get the records from history, that certain places which were on the point of flourishing collapsed into decay simply because the railway line was not brought into their neighbourhood. With that example before us, it would be rather fantastic if we allowed the same sort of thing to develop and that one town would be better placed from the development of electricity and the provision of this amenity than another simply because of geographical position.

I suggest that the time has come— it might be that it would arise on an Electricity Supply Board report, if not on some measures that would be specially introduced for the purpose— when the House should get a chance of discussing and coming to a conclusion upon that one big point of policy— whether the supply of electricity is to be spread into other areas, whether we will permit people to get this particular amenity in this way, and whether or not the electricity supply to a particular town is going to pay for itself. We might consider whether it would be desirable to have a change, and if the phrasing in the Act could be loosened somewhat in order to allow the board more discretion. If there is to be additional expense, how that is to be met is another matter. It might have to be done by widening the district, bringing it under some of the Local Government Acts or under a system of county groupings, making special provision for a place like Dublin, which takes nearly one-third of the entire electricity produced in the country.

There is, it could be suggested, a case to be made for making definite areas of charge. In that connection I said earlier that there were certain resources at hand. In the Report of the Banking Commission, on page 373, and continued on the next page, there is an addendum signed by Professor Duncan in connection with the Electricity Supply Board. He draws attention to a specially important matter. He says:

"But contrast the position of the Electricity Supply Board with that of a public company formed for the same purpose: the latter would not be under any obligation (indeed, it would not normally be permitted) to repay its capital to its share-, stock-and debenture-holders. Similarly, municipal undertakings are permitted by statute to provide either depreciation and obsolescence funds or the repayment of their capital, but not both."

The situation revealed in that paragraph indicates the very heavy burdens that were originally put on the Electricity Supply Board. I do not know whether the time has exactly come for the lightening of these burdens, but we are approaching the day when these burdens should be lightened. When the scheme was originally planned, there were numbers of contingent liabilities which could not be precisely estimated. It was thought desirable to make the board do what Professor Duncan calls attention to, not merely to repay its capital, but also to provide for depreciation and obsolescence. Let us take it that 25 years may be regarded as the useful life of the scheme and that after 25 years we are to regard the scheme as having completed one phase. At the end of that period the whole machinery will have been remade, the whole plant reequipped and all the capital will have been paid off, so that the generation 25 years after the introduction of the first Shannon scheme will find itself with a completely remade plant in its possession and no debt. As Professor Duncan says, that is a position that no public company is put into. It is a position that municipal authorities running schemes are not allowed to get into.

There are certain points to be remembered. It was thought unwise, when the scheme was first undertaken, to depart from the arrangements made by Siemens Schuckert. Again, at the time when the scheme could be looked at from a near view, it was recognised these large contingent responsibilities had to be met. On top of that, a huge bill was sent in by the contractors, amounting to over £1,000,000. Until that difficulty was cleared up it was thought desirable to keep the Electricity Supply Board in the position to which Professor Duncan refers. The most of the difficulties facing the inner finances of the scheme have disappeared, but the position at the moment is that, with no big contingent liabilities facing them, the members of the board are forced by law to do that to which Professor Duncan calls attention. They are bound to repay capital and provide for the depreciation and obsolescence of the machinery.

Professor Duncan arrived at the conclusion that, without increasing electricity rates by a farthing, there was £250,000 which could be saved, and this £250,000 could be set aside to form a growing fund for the wiping out of a debt which, he thought, was growing too heavy. If that £250,000 is there, it would appear to be possible to leave the electricity charges as they are at the moment and have a surplus gathered in every year which could be used for the bringing of electricity to small towns or spreading it to the rural community. I do not know whether the time is exactly ripe for that to be done now, but we ought to be getting very close to that period.

The answer may be made that if it is not economic to bring electricity to those towns and small villages, then the £250,000 per annum will soon be dried up. The board usually takes a conservative view at the beginning. When asked to bring electricity to a small town or village they usually begin by estimating the existing number of consumers, if there has been a local undertaking, and they get a pretty accurate idea of how much it will cost to bring electricity there and how many units they will be likely to sell. In that way they are able to estimate the price per unit. But once the electricity is conveyed to the small town or village the records show how amazingly rapid has been the development. I will give one example. At a conference of municipal authorities held in September of this year a gentleman from Kilkee was rash enough to say that a house-holder who now paid from 18/- to a guinea every two months for electricity formerly paid from 6/- to 8/- to the local undertaking. That drew a response from the Public Relations Department of the Electricity Supply Board, a response that was a complete refutation of the phrase used by the Kilkee gentleman.

But there was something else to be got out of the response. The public relations officer said that the Electricity Supply Board went into Kilkee in April, 1938, at the request of the townspeople and, in particular, of the Kilkee Town Commissioners. Prior to this the electricity supply was obtained from a Kilkee electricity undertaking. In its last year of trading this body sold 23,538 units, for which it received £1,075. In the financial year ended 31st March last the Electricity Supply Board sold 217,000 units, for which it received £1,937. If that is to be regarded as typical, the electricity consumption in two years increased by ten times, while the revenue which the board derived increased by only £900 on £1,000. They were able to sell ten times the number of units which Kilkee previously consumed and the residents of Kilkee paid only £900 more. If progress of that type can be achieved in a small place like Kilkee, it seems to be almost a platitude to say that Cahirciveen, Ballinrobe, Dingle, Clifden, Manorhamilton, and a variety of other places with small populations, if they could get electricity at anything approaching favourable rates, would advance to the point where the supply would become economic.

But the board hesitate, because of the rigidity of the existing legislation, to bring electricity to these places. They are afraid when they consider possible consequences. Supposing one town did not make as much progress as another, they might like to be placed in the position that they could charge other districts to make good any losses, but that is a thing that, by the existing Act, they are forbidden to do. There are certain places like Ballinrobe, Cahirciveen and Dingle which leap to the eye, but I could take other places. For instance, in Louth, you have Termonfeckin, Baltray. Dunleer, Castlebellingham and Clogher, where one would imagine it would be easy enough to bring a supply. The people in those areas are deprived of the use of electricity. In Kilkenny there are Gowran, Goresbridge and Borris; in Leitrim, Drumshambo, Leitrim and Drumkieran, and in Galway, Oughterard, Headford and Shrule which are similarly circumstanced. There is a number of places where it seems to me that a business board would make these advances and would certainly find that success would result. The board, confined as it is at the moment, cannot undertake this work.

I suggest to the Minister that he should consider quite soon the possibility of relaxing two points in the scheme under which the board was built up. The first point has reference to area of charge or the district, as the phrase is. Secondly, I should like him to begin to consider the point to which Professor Duncan drew attention—that he would have regard to the internal finances of the board and try to come to a conclusion as to whether or not one of these very heavy obligations could not be removed from the shoulders of the board. Let them either repay the capital so that when the next generation comes to think of its electricity problem, it will have no debt outstanding from the Shannon electricity scheme. Alternatively, let him see that the board will keep the machinery in good order and provide against depreciation and obsolescence so that they will hand it over at the end of 25 years in good condition. Then there is a certain sum of money on hands. I am always speaking, of course, subject to the reservation that Professor Duncan's phrases were written in connection with the accounts of two years ago. Although the account we have for 1939-40, is a rather favourable one, it is by no means as favourable as the one which preceded it and it may be that, for some reason or other, the board's finances are relatively in a decline. Taking the finances as they stood at the time Professor Duncan wrote that phrase, the situation is that by removing one of these obligations there is in the hands of the board a sum of £250,000 a year which could be used to inaugurate a more generous policy on the part of the board in the way of bringing electricity to some of the smaller towns in the country or of bringing electricity to the country. The board, I understand, are anxious for a further extension, but they are not allowed to proceed with it by the present Act.

I desire to endorse the request made by Deputy McGilligan for an early and, hereafter, a regular segregation and publication of the accounts of the Turf Development Board. The Minister, speaking recently at some scientific gathering, where there was a symposium of turf development in this country, stated that he sought informed criticism and that he would be glad to hear it. He admitted that the turf development on which the Government had embarked and in which it had sought to involve the Electricity Supply Board was of an experimental character. On the following day a distinguished geologist turned up and proceeded to furnish in the columns of the newspapers of the day a highly informed criticism of a character which I have heard before but which I have never mentioned here before. That was that there was grave misunderstanding within the councils of the Turf Development Board itself. He suggests that they are approaching this whole turf and bog problem in Ireland on the assumption that the nature of the bogs in Ireland is closely analogous to that of the bogs in Germany and Russia, an analogy, he hastens to add, that does not exist. The nature of the bogs is quite different and the appropriate treatment for them is also quite different. He states that what might be a comparatively economic operation on a Continental bog, which is very dry and which is differently constituted owing to the time taken for its deposit and its different nature, might not only be uneconomic in Ireland but would be quite unfeasible. I admit that once the name of the late Professor Sir John Griffith is associated with any experimental work, one is inclined to approach the matter with respect and to give the experiment the benefit of any doubt one has because one has the feeling that a man of such distinction who had such long and honourable public service thought the experiment was something worth following to the bitter end or he would never have allowed his name to be associated with it. It was because his name was associated with it that I have foreborne speaking about this turf business very much more trenchantly than I otherwise would.

Prima facie the whole thing seems to me the wildest codology. Mind you, when I heard of these latest proposals about turf development, my mind went back to an incident that took place in this House when the most irresponsible member of the Fianna Fáil Government first approached the subject of turf. He had the insolence and the brazen audacity to say in this House— I refer to a statement of the Minister for Supplies, who was then Minister for Industry and Commerce, when he was initiating the scheme for hand-won turf; I think it was on a Financial Resolution to supply money for the purchase of bags in which this hand-won turf was to be disposed of—that the Government was satisfied that this industry would be second only in importance to the agricultural industry itself.

The Deputy, I am sure, is cognisant of the fact that we are discussing turf development in this Bill only in so far as it is associated with the generation of electricity; not the turf development scheme in general.

I fully appreciate that, but having regard to the fact that the Executive Council came forward with this proposal in regard to hand-won turf, and that a member of that Executive Council assured us that it was going to be the second greatest industry in the country, while our experience up to this date is that the only man who made anything out of it was the man who supplied the bags, most of which were subsequently lost, can we be blamed if we look with suspicion on the same Executive Council when they now produce a scheme of turf development in connection with the production of electricity, which will rival the hydro-electric schemes already established and which they say is preferable to the hydro-electric schemes at present available? There is plenty of power to be got in the rivers of the country at present. Yet this Clonsast proposal is being put forward in preference to the hydro-electric scheme by the same Executive Council who told us that the hand-won turf industry was going to be the second greatest industry in the country. My time as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee is spent in trying to ascertain what became of the bags purchased for this hand-won turf scheme. A quarter of a million of them were purchased; 200,000 of them have gone up the spout and we do not know where they are. That is all that is left of the hand-won turf scheme—the inspectors going round looking for the bags—all the rest has gone.

If that is all that is left of the hand-won turf scheme after four years, are we going to have nothing but derelict machinery left out of the Clonsast power scheme after five years? If we are, is it right (1) to spend £1,000,000 of money on this enterprise; and (2) is it right to drag the Electricity Supply Board into it? Because, remember this, the electricity supply scheme was started in this country in the face of the most savage opposition from the Fianna Fáil Party, who denounced it as an extravagant, reckless, mad enterprise which could only properly be described in the classic words of the present Minister for Industry and Commerce as "Cosgrave's white elephant". After that barrage of criticism, it has now become the Fianna Fáil Government's pride and joy. But, what is much more important, it has maintained a standard of financial rectitude and solvency which would reflect credit on any enterprise of the same character operated under the auspices of any Government in the world. Will the Government that sought to destroy it when they were in opposition, now that they are in government, achieve their fell purpose, not through malice, but through incompetence? They are going to drape round the neck of the Electricity Supply Board a turf development scheme.

When we look at all this problem, I think we ought to ask ourselves: Is this Clonsast electric turf development scheme designed to supplement the present available supplies of power, or is it designed as a means of salvaging the immense losses of public money for which the Turf Development Board have been responsible down to date? Because, if it is the latter, then I ask this House seriously to consider the fable of the man who lost his cheese which rolled out of his hand down the hill. He had two other cheeses, and he rolled a second cheese down the hill after the first cheese. Then a friend came up and said: "What are you doing throwing your cheeses away?" He said: "I am not throwing my cheeses away. One cheese rolled down the hill and I sent the other to look for it. If that does not come back shortly, I propose to send the last one I have." It was with the greatest difficulty that the friend persuaded that man to go home with the last surviving cheese and abandon the other two, and so preserve for his family one-third of the provision which they ought to have if the father had been a rational man.

I do not believe that the Government are a bit more rational than the man who rolled the cheese down the hill. I believe they are capable of just such follies. What Deputies have to ask themselves is: Are we rolling the Electricity Supply Board down the hill with the Turf Development Board in the foolish hope that by staking all that splendid property we can redeem the wreckage for which the Turf Development Board has been responsible?

Now, there will be articles in the newspapers to-morrow and there will be loud protests from all the gentlemen on the Turf Development Board; every vested interest getting a living out of those bogs will be up on their ears and saying: "I protest against this foul slander", and time will have to tell whether I am right or whether they are right. I am not easy about this proposal to hypothecate the funds of the Electricity Supply Board and the funds of the Exchequer. I am not easy because I remember the hand-won turf scheme, which was the second greatest industry in the country, and I know what has become of the bags, or some of them at least, and before I am finished I will find out what has become of the rest of them.

I want to ask the Minister this question: Why is he staking his reputation on this scheme while he is still in the position of looking for informed criticism? Why did he not get all that criticism, why did he not invite all that criticism, why did he not seek it out before he made up his mind to commit us to this plan? Was it because his colleagues came to him and said: "The bottom has gone out of the Turf Development Board and if you do not patch that quickly the hulk will sink; do not wait for prudent inquiry; do not wait for a careful survey; do not wait for informed criticism; save the hulk of the Turf Development Board and we will finance the damage somehow afterwards"? I suspect that is what has happened.

Now, that is bad enough if the extent of the patch we are going to put on the sinking hulk can be measured in cash and we know what it is. But are we going to stake the whole of the Electricity Supply Board, in addition to the money provided in the Financial Resolution? Remember, this situation can develop. You start off with an assurance from the Minister for Industry and Commerce that there is no question of hypothecating the assets of the Electricity Supply Board for this purpose. But, once you involve the Electricity Supply Board in this enterprise, what is to prevent the Minister for Industry and Commerce putting in force Deputy McGilligan's suggestion to-day of suspending the obsolescence fund or the capital extension fund for a period of years in order to derive from that source further sums which may be devoted to development? When we come to examine the nature of the development, might we not discover that, instead of developing distribution along the lines outlined by Deputy McGilligan for which I think there is a great deal to be said, we may discover that that development was the further subsidisation of the then sinking Clonsast scheme? And all this at a time when the Minister for Industry and Commerce himself comes into public and says, "I want informed criticism", and within 48 hours gets it, and of a most alarming character.

Now, if the Minister for Industry and Commerce were in a position to say to-day: "Well, I threw out that challenge in a friendly way; I wanted to draw any public-spirited citizen who had comment to make supported by scientific information and I have elicited no replies," then he would be able to claim a certain amount of confidence that there was no unseen pitfall before him. But he calls for informed criticism and within 48 hours he gets a pretty long criticism. I do not profess to be capable of passing judgment on the merits of the opinions on this subject of that obviously public-spirited gentleman who delivered the lecture which appears in to-day's papers or on the opinions of the technical advisers of the board. These are engineering problems and I am not an engineer. That is the situation. I wonder is there any more informed criticism coming forward and if we can get an assurance from the Minister that this critic, who obviously spoke without acrimony or desire to hinder useful public work, will be secure from acrimonious assault and misrepresentation as a saboteur. There is that danger. If that once happened, then nobody is going to risk the same misrepresentation to try to help the Government and the Oireachtas to do what is right in regard to the matter.

I am bound to say that I contemplate the association of the Electricity Supply Board with this Clonsast experiment with the greatest, the gravest, possible misgiving and I do not think that I am far wrong if I add that, were the Minister for Industry and Commerce perfectly free to speak frankly about this problem himself, he would be obliged to say much the same thing. I am very sorry that the Electricity Supply Board has been brought into the matter at all. I do not see how it advantages the thing at all to incorporate it in the Electricity Supply Board scheme. I think this thing should have been allowed to stand on its own legs.

Let them enter into a sub-contract with the Electricity Supply Board for the distribution of the power, if that were deemed the most efficient and economical way to get rid of it. Mind you, there would have been a precedent for that procedure, because I understand that certain of the national electricity undertakings in the United States of America have, in fact, farmed out their power to existing public utility companies who have distributed it on a commission basis or who have bought the power in bulk and re-sold it to their consumers. I see no reason whatever why Clonsast should not have established some such relations with the Electricity Supply Board, and that would have enabled us to see whether the company was a desirable entity to maintain perpetually or whether it would be better to cut our loss and get out of the whole thing.

However, I suppose the die is now cast, and we are committed to certain expenditure, but I hope the Minister will make it perfectly clear at this initial stage that there is no intention in his mind, or in the minds of the Executive Council, at any future date-to hypothecate the securities or solvency of the Electricity Supply Board in order to make this Clonsast venture pay if it should prove eventually to be less satisfactory than was anticipated.

Another thing is that I should also like to go on record as agreeing cordially with what Deputy McGilligan said on behalf of these small towns that have not yet secured supplies of electricity. Subject to the safeguards mentioned by Deputy McGilligan, I subscribe to all he said in that connection, and I desire to confirm, by my own experience, the hardship and seeming injustice of which these small communities appear to have a right to complain.

Now, the third and last matter that I want to refer to is this. On a previous occasion the Minister was good enough to say that he sympathised with my view that schedules of rates for every area in which the Electricity Supply Board was operating might, with advantage, be published from time to time so as to refresh the consumers memories as to what they were actually paying. I should be glad to re-emphasise that request: (1) so as to ensure that widely differing rates would not be charged by the Electricity Supply Board in closely similar areas; and (2) so that from time to time the attention of the consumers could be directed to the advantages they derive from the national supply available; and, lastly, so as to apply a certain permanent pressure on the Electricity Supply Board who will be comparing their published rates with the commercial rates obtaining in the United States of America and in Great Britain, so that under that goad of constant competition by comparison they will be moved to effect reductions at the earliest possible moment that financial rectitude and prudent economics will permit.

I only want to make a few brief observations. Personally, without posing as an expert, I should like to favour a hydro scheme. The Minister gave us a number of statistics which showed how the expenses of running a hydro scheme rose when the water was short, but taking a long view, and considering the available resources in this country, I should imagine that, having regard to the fact that cement is now manufactured here, that the rock would have to be crushed on the site, and so on, there would be very many points in favour of a hydro scheme.

Now, I want to mention one other point. I understand that some of the boilers in the Pigeon House have been adapted for burning turf, and I should like to ask the Minister how far, if that is a fact, any records have been kept as to the performance of a boiler burning turf, because, after all, there is turf available, and we must say that, if there is any enterprise which is capable of using local fuel, now is the time to get all the particulars in connection with that matter, and they ought to be placed before us.

I do not know whether it would be possible for Deputy McGilligan and myself to satisfy each other as to what is exactly the point of difference between us in relation to this matter of the unutilised resources of the Electricity Supply Board. I understood that the point which he wished to have cleared up in that connection was whether or not the Electricity Supply Board had spent without due authority, and in order to show him that there was no substance whatever in that suggestion, I mentioned that so far from the Electricity Supply Board having availed up to the present to the full extent of the power which this House had conferred on the Minister for Finance to lend to the Electricity Supply Board, the board, in fact, had not so availed of that to the extent of, in round figures, £2,000,000. I mentioned in that connection, I think, the figure of £9,200,000, and roughly indicated what was the amount of the board's borrowings as against this power to lend up to £9,200,000. It was, as I have said, roughly £2,000,000 less. I quoted other figures subsequently, and again the margin remained the same. The only difference is that we started, so to speak, at different points of the time schedule in computing the total lending powers of the Minister for Finance, and we did that—at least I did that—because of the fact that, subsequent to the passage of the Electricity Supply Act of 1931, the Parliamentary draftsman thought fit to start with that Act as from scratch, and to leave out of consideration the authority which had been granted to the Minister for Finance under earlier Acts to finance the requirements of the board.

I think, however, that I should now set out to the full, as Deputy McGilligan has asked me, the sums which have been provided for the general purposes of the board under the Electricity Supply Act of 1927 and subsequent Acts.

The advances which the Minister for Finance is empowered to make to the board fall into two categories. First of all, the advances which he may make for the special purposes laid down in the appropriate Act and, in addition, advances which he may make for the general purposes of the board. Under the first of these categories, that is to say, advances for specific purposes, the Minister for Finance was empowered by Section 12 (2) of the Electricity Supply Act, 1927, as amended by Section 2 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1929, to advance to the board the sum of £156,000 to meet the liability of the board for interest and arrears of interest and sums advanced from the Central Fund under the Shannon Electricity Supply Act, 1925, and also for expenses incurred by the board in the operation, maintenance and repair of the Shannon works.

In the same category, that is, advances for special or specific purposes, we can include the sum of £530,000 which was to be provided under the Shannon Electricity Supply (Amendment) Act (No. 2), 1934, for developing the water storage capacity of Loughs Derg, Ree and Allen. The position in relation to these two advances for specific purposes is that £156,000, provided under the 1927 Act to meet interest and other liabilities, has been advanced to the board, but no advance has been requested or made in respect of the £530,000 which the Minister for Finance was empowered to advance to the board for the purpose of developing water storage under the 1934 Electricity Supply Act.

Within the second category of advances which the Minister for Finance has been empowered to make since 1927, that is, advances for the general purposes of the board, we find that by the Electricity Supply Act, 1927, Section 12 (3), the Minister for Finance was empowered to advance £2,500,000 for any purpose other than to meet liability for interest and arrears of interest, etc., upon sums advanced under the Shannon Electricity Act, 1925. Under the Electricity Supply (Amendment) Act, 1931, the same Minister was empowered to advance £2,000,000 for the general purposes of the board. He was empowered to advance a further £365,000, likewise for the general purposes of the board under the Electricity Supply (Amendment) Act, 1932, and a further £1,160,000 under the Electricity Supply (Amendment) Act, 1934, and finally £2,734,000 under the Liffey Reservoir Act, 1936, for the Liffey hydro-electric scheme and the general purposes of the board.

The advances which I have mentioned, for the general purposes of the board, amount to £8,759,000, and if we add to that the sum of £530,000, which the Minister for Finance was authorised to advance in respect of increasing the storage capacity of the Shannon lakes, we get £9,289,000, which I mentioned, in reply to Deputy McGilligan's interjection, as the amount which the Minister for Finance had been empowered to advance for the purposes of the board.

Could the Minister give one other figure? What is this sum mentioned in Section 3 of the Electricity Act of 1931 which has been amended by this Bill?

That is the £2,000,000.

I think so.

Sub-section (1) of Section 5 of another Act is probably what gives the £2,000,000.

Sub-section (2) of the Electricity Supply (Amendment) Act, 1931, provides for the advance of £2,000,000 to the board.

Look at Section 2 of the present Bill.

I have here Section 3 of the Electricity Supply (Amendment) Act. I can read it for the Deputy.

What is the figure?

The total amount of the sums advanced to the board under this section shall not exceed the sum of £2,000,000.

We are now amending that by putting in £10,000,000.

It has been subsequently amended in each of the following Acts: The Electricity Supply (Amendment) Act, 1932, Section 4, provides for the general purposes of the board £365,000 and, in relation to that, there was an amendment of the Act of 1931. Section 3 (2) of the Act of 1931 was amended accordingly. Under the Electricity Supply (Amendment) Act, 1934, a sum of £1,160,000 was provided, and again the original Act of 1931 was amended accordingly. Under the Liffey Reservoir Act, 1936, a sum of £2,734,000 was provided, and Section 5, sub-section (1) of that Act is in the following terms:—

Section 1 of the Electricity (Supply) (Amendment) Act, 1934 (No. 6 of 1934), is hereby repealed and in lieu thereof it is hereby enacted that the total amount of the sums advanced to the Board under Section 3 of the Electricity (Supply) (Amendment) Act, 1931 (No. 32 of 1931), shall not exceed the sum of six million, two hundred and fifty-nine thousand pounds.

£6,259,000? That is now being repealed?

Yes, and we are now bringing it up to £10,259,000.

May I ask one last question? The £10,259,000 is being put in in lieu of the sum that was referred to under Section 3 of the Act of 1931, as amended. What other sum was outstanding except the £530,000 and the £156,000, or are they both outstanding?

The £530,000 is outstanding.

Is the £156,000?

The £500,000 which was provided under the Electricity (Supply) (Amendment No. 2) Act of 1934 is outstanding.

What about the £156,000?

That was provided under the 1927 Act. It is not outstanding. Apparently, the Parliamentary draftsman has taken the 1931 Act, when it was presumed that the affairs of the board had been straightened out, as the basis for all subsequent Acts which make provision for what might be described as the general purposes of the board.

The point I wish to make is that, under this Act, the board would certainly be allowed to draw up to the extent of £10,259,000. In addition, I understand there is £530,000 for the development of the three lakes, which is over and beyond that £10,259,000.

And which is earmarked for specific purposes.

But the £156,000 is not over and above that.

It is not over and above that: it has been paid into the Exchequer already, in payment of the interest and arrears of interest on sums advanced from the Central Fund under the Shannon Electricity Act of 1925, and also for expenses incurred by the board in the operation and maintenance of the Shannon works.

Am I right in taking it that the entire amount is £10,259,000 plus £530,000?

Subject to Ministerial sanction, yes, with this reservation, which is an important one and which should not be lost sight of—that the £530,000 is at the disposal of the board only if it considers it opportune to develop the water storage capacity of the Shannon lakes. It is not available for any other purpose.

Taking it all in all, it is £10,789,000—that is the addition of those two sums?

Yes, though I do not see the relevance of the addition. We must not forget that these two items are very definitely segregated from one another.

Then, £10,259,000 is general drawings, and they have got advances up to £7,000,000?

And there is a White Paper which shows £4,000,000 more?

Very nearly.

No, I suppose he can put it that way if the Deputy likes, but again I must protest at this sort of cross-fire in dealing with the matter. If the Deputy wishes to elucidate a point and not try to trip me, I shall do what I can.

The Minister tells me that advances up to £7,000,000 have been made, but I am given a White Paper which shows the estimated capital advances and it tots up to £4,000,000. That is £11,000,000, when I make a simple addition.

There is no point in making any simple addition. The £4,000,000 which was covered by the White paper is included within the sum of £10,259,000. There is no question of £11,000,000 for the general purposes of the board.

Surely the Minister remembers the argument on which I brought up this whole matter. I wanted to know if the board had got permission for expenditure before they had committed themselves, and I was told they had and that they had not gone £5 beyond the advances. I was told they had got advances up to £7,000,000. There is a sum of £4,000,000 here. I take it that no part of that £4,000,000 has been advanced to them or allowed to them?

No part of that £4,000,000 has been advanced to them. That is so.

Or allowed to them? That was the whole point of the argument.

The Deputy's contention was quite clearly this: that the board had spent money without ministerial authority. That was the Deputy's point.

I was asking that.

That was the Deputy's point. I have assured him that they have not spent money without ministerial authority. Then he suggested, that, even if they had not spent money without ministerial authority, they had committed themselves in such a manner that we should subsequently be called upon to honour obligations which they had entered into. That might be so in this case, but with this big reservation, that the board, having secured ministerial authority for certain expenditure, had incurred the expenditure on the assumption that they would have to finance that expenditure out of their own resources, until such time as we could come to the Dáil and ask for the necessary authority for the Minister for Finance to lend the money, if the board wanted it, to recoup them for the expenditure which they had financed out of their reserves or cash resources. That is the full position in regard to these moneys. In relation to the £2,150,000, the board have got ministerial authority to incur that expenditure; they have incurred it, I think, to the extent of about £1,900,000. They have been able to finance all that expenditure out of their reserves and cash resources, and I would say that the Minister for Finance has statutory authority to lend the board a large part, if not the whole, of the moneys which they have already expended. I think it is desirable that the Minister for Finance should have a margin of that order on hand.

But as I indicated, speaking on the Committee Stage of this Bill, I do not think that it is desirable that we should defer coming to the Dáil until we require so large a sum as £4,000,000. I am sure the Minister for Finance would wish that the Dáil should be aware of the board's requirements at very much shorter intervals, and that the draw upon him at any time should not exceed perhaps £2,000,000 or £2,500,000, as the case may be. However, there were special circumstances in this year and we have to make allowances for that. It would not have been possible for the board at an earlier stage to have formed a very clear opinion as to what its ultimate commitments would be in regard to some of the works which it has undertaken and which it has carried out. There were the difficulties of preparing the legislation in existing circumstances and, accordingly, we have to come and ask the House to give the Minister for Finance authority to lend the board as large a sum as up to £4,000,000. I do not think that is a figure which will be reached again, except in abnormal circumstances, for a very long time. I do not think that it is desirable that the Government should defer coming to the House until the board's requirements have reached as large a figure as that.

As I have said, I think we could make the case that, as far as the board has incurred any expenditure up to the present, the Minister for Finance has full authority to deal with that expenditure, at least full authority to deal with practically the whole of it and to finance that expenditure, if the board should call upon him to do so. I do not want, however, in that connection to make any great point of that, because I think that as we have an opportunity of re-establishing the former position, wherein the Minister for Finance had a fairly reasonable margin in hands to deal with large contingencies which might arise from time to time, and that as circumstances are at the moment, from the Parliamentary point of view, more or less normal, we must ask the Dáil to put the Minister for Finance in the same position as he was in, say, 12 months ago in regard to the requirements of the board. I do not know whether there is any other aspect of that matter which I can clear up.

There is this: that there is about £800,000, which is for new development at Portarlington. Outside that £800,000, how much of this £4,000,000—shall we call it £3,000,000?—can be said to be for future development: for work not already a commitment at this period? I mean now for anything new, starting from to-morrow, other than Portarlington?

I would say about £1,050,000.

No part of which has been contracted for, or even hinted at?

It may have been hinted at. I mean the board naturally have considered——

I mean work for which an order has been given, even contingently?

So far as I know, the board has not come to us for authority to enter into such contingent commitments. The board have indicated what their requirements might be.

Then there is that £1,000,000 still to be spent, plus Portarlington?

There is over £1,000,000.

Plus Portarlington?

Yes. In that connection I might say that, if it were not Portarlington, it would have to be some other station. The £800,000 is for steam plant which would be required either at Portarlington or at some other generating station of the board. The Deputy may recall that when I was, I think, speaking at the conclusion of the Second Reading debate on the Bill, I mentioned that the difference between the capital cost of putting down the necessary steam unit at the Pigeon House and putting it down at Portarlington would be only to the order of 10 per cent., so that, in fact, you might say that out of this £1,850,000 which remains in respect of future development, only £100,000 should be ascribed as the net sum to the Portarlington site.

That is leaving everything else aside: as to whether the money will be recouped or not?

Yes, leaving aside future contingencies. The Deputy suggested that we ought to reconsider the terms of the original 1927 Act in so far as it imposes conditions upon the board in regard to the general management and extension of the undertaking, and in that connection he referred to some suggestions which were made, I think, by Professor Duncan a member of the Banking Commission. I think the matter is not at all as simple as is suggested in that passage of the Banking Commission's Report, and as the Deputy has suggested here, because we have to consider the interest, and I think the rightful interest, of the Exchequer in regard to this matter. The Minister for Finance, in present circumstances, has to borrow upon terms which virtually demand the repayment of the amount originally borrowed within a period of from 20 to 25 years. In the case of the last loan which was issued by the Exchequer the repayment period was fixed at 20 years. In order to meet the sinking fund obligations in respect of these loans, the Minister for Finance has to raise from the taxpayers every year a considerable sum of money, and accordingly if he were to forego the repayment of the loan, as has been suggested, in order that the board might extend its system and develop an electricity demand here, it would be a complete departure from the original principle underlying the Act which was, that the consumers were to pay for the development of the board's undertaking and not the community at large: the Minister for Finance would have as I have said, to forego the amount which he should receive from the board in respect of the redemption of the loans, and, at the same time, would have to make provision out of the ordinary proceeds of taxation for the redemption of those loans. It would, perhaps, be very difficult to justify such a departure to a farmer, say, who, no matter how widespread the electricity supply network might be would never have the opportunity of enjoying the benefits and the amenities of the electricity supply, and who, during the period of his lifetime, and during the currency of the loan, would be compelled to make provision to meet the sinking fund requirements of the Exchequer.

Nor can I think that there is a duplication of provision when the board has, at the same time, to make allowances for depreciation because we are dealing there with different conditions. In the case of the provision which is made for depreciation, the board, if it wants to keep its electricity supply up-to-date, if it wants to ensure that electricity will be available to our industrialists at rates which will not be exorbitant as compared with the conditions under which an electricity supply may be available to their competitors elsewhere, will have to make the fullest possible provision to cover obsolescence. It will not suffice to say that the board's stations will be standing at the end of 25 years and that the original plant and buildings may have been maintained in good order, if that plant can only generate electricity a cost which is perhaps 25 to 50 per cent higher than the cost at which it could be generated by a more modern plant.

This whole question of obsolescence and the provision which has to be made for it is a difficult one. The only thing about it is that engineers' ideas are being enlarged as to the extent to which provision should be made for it, because, while the technical advances in plant in the early days of electricity supply were comparatively slow, they have taken place in the last 15 or 20 years at a very rapid rate, and plant which was up-to-date and modern seven and eight years ago is obsolete and out of date to-day, or perhaps not obsolete, but is so rapidly falling into a state of obsolescence that it would pay you, if you had made proper provision in time, to replace it by more modern plant. Accordingly, while we are making provision for the redemption of the loans on the one hand, that is to say, while we are allowing the board to fulfil its obligations to the community at large, on the one hand, in redeeming these loans, and while, on the other hand, we are enabling it to fulfil its obligations to the consumers by maintaining its plant in the most up-to-date and efficient condition possible, I do not think we are, in fact, covering the same ground.

There is another aspect of the matter to which perhaps we might advert. If the Minister for Finance fulfils his obligations to the public and does redeem the national loans in due course —and accordingly, as far as the taxpayer is concerned, he is imposing no burden on the taxpayer of the day —that is, at the time—when these loans have been redeemed for the purpose of meeting the sinking fund in respect of the moneys which were advanced to the Electricity Supply Board and if, at the same time, the Electricity Supply Board was continuing to pay interest upon the advances which the Exchequer had made to it, which it had not repaid, then, the loans which the Exchequer had raised having been repaid to the public, we know how such a situation could be quite easily misrepresented. We would then have a clamour arising and statements made that: "After all, the Minister for Finance has paid off his obligations to the public. Here is this money which he advanced to the Electricity Supply Board, but in respect of which he has now no obligation to the public. Why should the consumers of electricity continue to pay interest to the Minister for Finance when, in fact, the Minister for Finance is paying no interest on the moneys which the Electricity Supply Board has had from him and is paying nothing to the public in regard to it?". Of course, we know then that the demand would be to wipe out, at the expense of the community and for the benefit of a section of the community, the board's commitments to the Exchequer.

However, I will go as far as this with the Deputy, that, perhaps, the original basis could be relaxed with advantage now, though I do not think that we are entitled to assume that, so far as the Minister for Finance is concerned, the position is even yet very secure. The total amount which has been advanced to the board under the various Electricity Acts is something like £13,610,000, and, towards the repayment of that very large sum, all the board has been able to contribute up to the present is a sum of £57,105. It was able, in the year 1939-40, to make a first payment of £57,105 towards the repayment of the sum of £13,610,000, and, as Deputy McGilligan has suggested, existing conditions and future conditions so far as we can foresee them during the period of this war and perhaps for some time afterwards, are not going to be at all easy for the board, so that I would anticipate that even if the board and myself came to the conclusion that the restrictions imposed upon the board by the 1927 Act could be somewhat relaxed, we might find that the Minister for Finance would have a very different point of view in regard to it, and that, as we can see in the light of the figures I have quoted, he would have some justification for that attitude.

Deputy McGilligan again reminded me of his statement that he hoped there would be a regular segregation and publication of the reports of the Turf Development Board, or, at least, that the costings for the Portarlington station would be published in the board's accounts in such a way as to clearly demarcate these figures from the costings for the rest of the undertaking. I have no hesitation whatever in agreeing to that. I think that the allocation of costings to the various generating stations of the Electricity Supply Board is a very salutary and desirable practice and so far as I have the power, and I think I have the power, to ensure that these costings will be taken out in such a way as to be easily and readily ascribable to the Portarlington station, and to allow comparisons to be made between the working efficiency of that station and the other generating stations of the board, I shall ensure that it will be done.

I think I also indicated to the Deputy that I would see whether we could not publish the accounts of the Turf Development Board. These will be published in due course and as soon as we can get them in proper form for publication.

Will they be published annually in future?

I do not know of any reason why they should not.

Can you give any reason why they have not been published?

I do not know of any reason why they should not be published.

If there was any reason why they were not published, the same reason might operate in future.

I think that the Dáil and the general public are entitled to this information and I do not see that there is any advantage or benefit to anybody in withholding it. One of the reasons why I am anxious that the accounts should be published is that it would be then quite clear to everybody—even, I think, to Deputy Dillon —that the Turf Development Board has ascribed to it a lot of things for which, in fact, it was not responsible. Deputy Dillon was very eloquent about the hand-won turf and the bag containers which had been procured for the transport of that turf. I think that it is only right to say this—I say it very emphatically and I am sorry that Deputy Dillon is not here to hear me say it—that the Turf Development Board had nothing whatever to do with the inception of the bag scheme for hand-won turf. Nor had they anything to do with the ordering of the bags so far as I know. When the Turf Development Board was established, this scheme, which was then in operation, was handed over to it and it was asked to work it if it could be worked conveniently and economically. Having, apparently, decided that the scheme could not be made to work, the board dropped it.

Deputy Dillon entered the House.

For the information of Deputy Dillon, I may say that I have been informing the House that the Turf Development Board had nothing whatever to do with the inception of the bag scheme for hand-won turf, that the bags had been ordered, that the scheme was, more or less, under way when the Turf Development Board was established, and that the whole shooting match was handed over to the board.

Surely we should not be left in the dark as to who the genius was who was responsible for that scheme?

I think the Minister was just going to say that he hoped his remarks would not be availed of to open up that question.

I think we are entitled to know that.

I beg to differ from the Deputy. As Deputy Dillon spoke so emphatically about the bags, I want, with equal emphasis, to disabuse his mind of the idea that the Turf Development Board were responsible for the bags.

The Minister wants to bury the genius responsible for the scheme with the bags. I sympathise with him. It is about the best thing he could do in the circumstances.

Is he still sitting on the Front Government Bench?

On the question of the publication of the accounts, are we to understand that the accounts to be published will cover the £500,000 spent during the past three or four years on turf?

I do not understand what the Deputy means. The accounts to be published will be the accounts of the Turf Development Board. These are the accounts which were asked for, and these are the accounts which will be published.

The accounts since 1934? The board came into existence in 1934, according to the report of the Banking Commission. You will follow them back to that date?

So far as we can.

Will the accounts cover the amounts spent on relief schemes through the Turf Development Board?

May I make this point, which the Minister, who was Minister for Finance, will appreciate? In the Estimates we very often find a note under, say, Estimate 22, stating that expenditure was also incurred under Estimate 37. The note runs somewhat in this fashion: "In addition to the money provided under this sub-head, expenditure has been incurred for this service under Estimate 37". Can we get a note appended to the accounts of the Turf Development Board regarding expenditure of that character which, I think the Minister will agree, was substantial?

I am not going to commit myself to that, because the Deputy may be under a misapprehension regarding the matter. The Turf Development Board has been financed by grants-in-aid, and, accordingly, it has had to carry the whole burden of its organisation on its own shoulders. Out of these grants-in-aid, it has had to finance all its works except when, on occasion, it has been asked by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance to undertake minor bog-drainage works as agent for the Parliamentary Secretary.

May I give the Minister a case in point? There was a scheme on the Bog of Allen, or one of the adjacent bogs, in which an immense system of roads was built by the board through, I think, relief grants which were declared to be ancillary to Turf-Development-Board work. The expenditure could only be justified in anticipation of such work, as the junction is away out in the middle of the bog without any county road at all. In cases of that character, will the Minister require a note to be appended to the accounts stating that money was spent from public funds on road-making or other preparatory work?

I could not commit myself to that, for this reason: In regard to a lot of mineral development undertaken here from time to time— the opening up of quarries and so forth —it is not unusual, where a district as a whole will be benefited, to provide some part of the cost of the road work out of the employment schemes votes where the unemployment situation in the district justifies that course and where no more useful work is available. I should have to consider the Deputy's request. I do not want to be, and I am sure the Deputy does not want to be, unfair to the Turf Development Board. I want to get a clear picture——

And a full disclosure.

If I were to ascribe to them something done on behalf of other people or other interests, I think it would be unfair to them.

We shall have an opportunity of returning to this matter on the Estimate to-morrow. Will the Minister be in a position then to indicate more clearly the nature of the publication he proposes in respect of the accounts of which he has spoken?

I shall. In all fairness to the men tackling the job, I want to make quite clear that they are not blameworthy in regard to these bags. Deputy Dillon has alleged that the Turf Development Board has been responsible for an immense loss of public money up to date. I do not think that that allegation is well founded. Again, I feel that the Deputy is perhaps confusing the Turf Development Board with the Peat Fuel Company, which has got nothing whatever to do with the Turf Development Board. It was operating an undertaking at Lullymore, in which considerable sums of public and private moneys were lost. We lost large sums of money, but the original sponsors of the undertaking lost considerable sums of money also. Our misfortune was their misfortune. I did hear the Deputy praise the product of this company in the House, and I think he will agree with me that if we could find an economical process for producing those peat briquettes it would be well worth while.

I agree, if it were anything like economic.

That was an attempt to do it. It was an ill-starred attempt, an unfortunate attempt, and did not give us the results which we anticipated, but—and this is the only point I wish to emphasise, and I hope the Deputy will accept it and bear it in mind—the Turf Development Board had nothing whatever to do with that enterprise. They have taken over the bog at Lullymore where that enterprise was operating. They are renovating, overhauling and remodelling the plant there, and next year they may again make an effort to see whether they can produce those briquettes much more economically. It will be, as I will tell the House to-morrow, something of an experiment, but the amount of money which is going to be involved in it will be definitely limited.

We are to believe that there is one shining light still left on the bog?

Does not the Minister see that the phrases he is using now are ones from which we can draw a moral? The Minister is very much concerned at the moment with warning us that the Turf Development Board had nothing to do with certain failures. The fear I have in mind—one which is shared, I think, by Deputy Dillon—is that five years hence some Minister will be standing up there and telling us equally emphatically to remember that the Electricity Supply Board had nothing to do with Portarlington. That is the whole problem.

That puts it in a nut shell, and I think the Minister feels that himself.

That is the whole difficulty.

Surely in that event the Deputy will have no difficulty in pointing out the culprit.

It is very hard to find him. I do not know under what symbol he is hanging around.

Is that all we will get for the money?

Who would the Minister say was the culprit in such an unhappy event?

I suppose the individual who had the hardihood to come here and sponsor it before the House. Whether that will be of any help to the Deputy I do not know, but it is a consideration which weighs very heavily with me.

Is the Minister happy in that position?

I think so. I think, in the circumstances, we are justified in proceeding with this experiment.

It is a chilly approval.

The Minister did say that the success of the scheme depended on two things, the winning of a certain amount of turf, plus the consideration of price, and he told us that they had to go a long distance before they got the price down to what was required. Here is what he said the other night with regard to the Turf Development Board; he said that they had produced about half the amount which they had anticipated to date.

Wait now. Of course. again, I have to extend to the Deputy the same consideration which I am going to extend to the informed critic about whom Deputy Dillon spoke. Deputy McGilligan did not hear what I said. He read portion of what I said at that particular meeting. I said there what I have said here, that with half their complement of machines they had, even under very unfavourable conditions and starting from scratch, got half their normal output; that the balance of the machines which are required for the full development of the bog are on order; part of them are coming from America. We hope that the full complement of machines will be on the bog next year, and, in the light of what they were able to do this year, with practically green untrained hands, I do not see any reason—subject only to circumstances remaining normal—to anticipate that they will not secure their full output next year. That is what I said, but the Deputy naturally had to depend upon the insufficiency of the newspaper report.

The word "machine" is not used in any report that I read.

The Deputy heard what I said.

I know, and I am quite certain that the newspapers do not report everything, but the word "machine" did not occur in any report that I read.

Perhaps it did not, but it was quite clear to any person who attended the lecture.

That may be.

It was quite clear to anybody who attended the lecture, because the points were made that the workers had to be trained, that the board had only half the normal complement of machines, that the bog is still in the process of draining, and that, notwithstanding all those adverse factors, they had nevertheless secured half of their normal output.

Half of their best?

No; half of their normal output, half of the output upon which they are banking—120,000 tons —and I gather that the produce which they have produced there is one for which they are finding very satisfactory sale.

May I inquire as to whether that 120,000 tons is based on dehydrated turf or turf as it comes from the bog?

Turf with a moisture content of 30 per cent. The position in Clonsast this year has been somewhat unfavourable to the Turf Board on account of the very dry weather, because the moisture content of the turf as dried fell, and their output in terms of avoirdupois has been less than it might have been in an ordinary normal year.

Deputy Dillon also wanted to know whether we are going to stake the whole Electricity Supply Board upon this venture; he wanted to know whether we would hypothecate the assets and securities of the Electricity Supply Board in order to salvage the Turf Development Board. I think there is no possibility that that will be done; I do not think there is any danger of it. I think, even if the worst came to the worst and we had to close down Portarlington station, that the £800,000 involved therein need not be written off as a total loss. A very large part of the plant could be transferred and utilised elsewhere. All the generators, the switch gear, and most of the auxiliary plant could be utilised. I would not commit myself to the same extent with regard to the boiler house plant, but I am sure a very large part of it could be utilised in the Pigeon House or in any other steam-driven station. Therefore, so far as the risk of loss is concerned, it certainly is very much less than £800,000, even if the worst should befall the experiment.

But that loss would fall as a charge upon the revenues or reserves of the Electricity Supply Board if it fell to be met?

In present circumstances, yes, but as I indicated to Deputy McGilligan my view is that if such a position were to arise it would be the duty of the Government to consider the whole matter, and to the full extent to reimburse the board for any losses which may have arisen otherwise than through the neglect or mismanagement of the board in regard to the concern. The Deputy also stated that he would have preferred that this generating station had been run as an independent undertaking. Well, all I can say in that regard is that I gave a great deal of consideration to that idea, and I came to the conclusion that, as we should probably have to borrow part of the board's engineering staff in any event, and as the board could, perhaps, operate this station more economically with its existing staff rather than having two independent staffs operating separate generating systems, and as the principle of one electricity supply authority had been established here, it was better that we should proceed, if we could, within the framework of the existing order. The station has not been built yet; the commitments in respect of it are not very large and, as I said, it is always open for us to reconsider the other proposal and to adopt it if circumstances indicate that it is the better line to take.

With regard to the publication of a full schedule of its rates of charge by the board, I have already intimated to the board that I desire that to be done and I am sure it will be done in due course, perhaps in the board's report for the coming year.

Deputy Dockrell stated that he would favour a hydro scheme. I think I may say that the Deputy would not find the board in agreement with him in that regard, that their view is, the Poulaphouca scheme having been almost completed, that for the proper development of their plans they require a steam-driven station. I think that, whatever view they may have in relation to the station at Portarlington, they certainly would be rather strongly opposed to the development at this stage of another hyrdo electric project.

Even for the Erne?

At this stage, yes. The Erne is something which should be surveyed and preparations should be made as soon as possible to develop, but the Deputy knows, perhaps a good deal better than most of us, that would be probably a rather long-drawn-out scheme.

There was another project for tying in the Belfast fuel station.

Again, that also has been considered from time to time, but we have not been able to make very much advance in that regard. The co-operation of two independent authorities is essential in order to bring that to fruition.

The Erne scheme has the special advantage of bringing the Electricity Supply Board into Donegal, where it does not at present function.

It would have, but, of course, the cost would be very much heavier. Deputy Dockrell also wanted to know whether the boilers at the Pigeon House had been adapted for burning turf. That is not so. Six of the boilers at the Pigeon House are adapted for burning anthracite or bituminous coal, but no boiler that I know of can be economically adapted to burn both turf and coal.

Question put and agreed to.
Top
Share