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 I find here that sub-section (1) of a particular Act—I am stressing that—is repealed, and it is hereby enacted that the sums advanced shall not exceed the sum of £10,000,000.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.
