Seanad Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 31 Mar 1925

Vol. 4 No. 18

COUNTY BOARDS OF HEALTH ACCOUNTS ORDER, 1924. - THE SHANNON SCHEME—MOTION BY SIR JOHN GRIFFITH.

Sir JOHN GRIFFITH

I move:—

That in the opinion of the Seanad a Special Commission should be appointed:

To consider the documents entitled "The Shannon Scheme— Siemens-Schuckert and The Shannon Scheme — Report of the Experts appointed by the Government," laid on the Table of the Seanad on the 25th March;

To enquire into the present consumption of electricity in the Free State, and the rate at which such consumption is likely to increase in the future; and

To report to the Oireachtas whether in its judgement it is advisable that a scheme of such magnitude as the scheme entitled the Shannon Scheme should be undertaken by the State at the present moment, having regard to the financial and economic resources of the State.

That in the opinion of the Seanad such Special Commission should be composed of persons appointed by competent bodies, such as the Council of the Institution of Civil Engineers of Ireland, the Council of the Irish Centre of the Institution of Electrical Engineers, the Associated Chambers of Commerce, and the Irish Farmers' Union.

My reason for proposing this resolution is that on Wednesday last these papers were submitted to the Seanad. It appears to me of very great importance that the Seanad should understand thoroughly the meaning of the proposals contained in those reports. It will be in the recollection of the Seanad that early in March of last year the Government divulged their contract with Messrs. Siemens-Schuckert and on the 7th March laid on the Table of the House what is called the White Paper. No particular notice was taken of that paper. No discussion arose out of it, and it has been said, as no discussion took place in connection with it, that the House assented to it. I am particularly anxious that in the case of the present report that should not recur, but that every member should take advantage of his right and take advantage of those two reports, and, if possible, study them, or, at any rate, get the real gist of them. It would be impossible for a layman to grasp much of the information which is of a technical character. It has been suggested that this is an entirely new scheme. I am particularly anxious that I should not get into controversial points this evening, for my only object in bringing this motion before the House is that those reports shall receive careful consideration and critical investigation by men belonging to this country who are capable of doing so. That is my one object in bringing forward this motion. Naturally it will be said, as it has been said, that Sir John Griffith is so associated with the Liffey that he cannot see anything else. I wish to try and make it clear that I am perfectly desirous that the Shannon should be utilised as one of the great sources of power for Ireland.

I differ completely from many of those suggestions in those reports. I had written on the subject some months ago in the form of notes on the speech made by the Minister, which was a carefully-compiled — I cannot say argument, but — statement of the report which he has in hands, the report of Messrs. Siemens-Schuckert. In those notes I endeavoured to point out as clearly as I could the points in which my opinion as an engineer was at variance with some of the proposals made. I deprecated, at the beginning of those notes, discussing the point without having the whole documents before me, but, in consideration of the very full nature of the information given by the Minister, I felt it my duty, as far as lay in my power, to let Senators and others know my views. It appears to me that the Siemens-Schuckert proposals involve the country in serious risks — firstly, engineering risks; secondly, agricultural risks; and, thirdly, financial risks. The Shannon, as we all know, is our greatest river. It is the greatest river in the British Isles, one hundred and sixty miles in length in its main course. It covers in its catchment basin one-eighth of the whole country. Its flow is extraordinarily variable, from 700 feet per second to 32,000. These are the figures, as far as my memory serves me, and they are extremes in the ratio of one to 46. For electrical uses this variation is a matter of great difficulty, and all our efforts as hydro-electric engineers are to try and conserve the water by storage so that we may get a uniform supply.

Just about this time six years I was Chairman of the Water-Power Resources Sub-Committee of Ireland, and the Shannon problem occupied a great deal of our time. We came to the conclusion that a certain amount of power could be obtained without interfering with the land. That was the great principle; we must not interfere with the agricultural interests of the valley of the Shannon. The result was that we could only get something like forty-five per cent. of mean discharge of this great river available for power purposes.

If you approach the problem from the point of view of power, the more storage you can get the better. The way that has been adopted by Messrs. Siemens-Schuckert has been to surround these great lakes, Lough Derg, Lough Ree and Lough Allen, representing something like 65,000 acres in area, by embanking them and raising the level of the water by troughs and basins to increase the storage capacity. In the case of Lough Derg the water level is to be raised something like seven feet, in Lough Ree four feet, and in Lough Allen about ten feet. With that it is hoped to get a very large supply of water for power purposes. Anyone who has worked at these plans will readily understand how one thing after another conflicts with the objects in view. If one was seeking the drainage of the country the thing to do is to run down the river and get the water away as fast as possible. Once you embark on navigation you have to keep up the water. When you begin to discuss fisheries the problem is to leave things alone. The item introduced lately is power. That seeks to utilise the greatest possible volume of water available, and the temptation in seeking so to use the waters of the Shannon is naturally to increase storage. The method adopted by Messrs. Siemens-Schuckert is the natural one. I do not say anyone facing the problem at first, with the intention of only using the river for power purposes, would embank the lakes, embank the rivers, and raise the water level. You then come to a difficulty as regards the drainage of the lands outside these banks. In this case the introduction of electric power has enabled them to provide something like 35 pumping stations. The level of the embankments is variously estimated from 150 to 200 miles—probably 150 miles is nearer the mark. There you have a gigantic work, and I may say, at once, a tremendous risk in the scheme. All that embankment must be water-tight, if the scheme is to be a success. By raising the level of Lough Derg over the ordinary measure they are able to ensure having 100 feet of a fall at their power station. A curious construction occurs at Killaloe. The great head-race or canal, some 6½ miles long, is to start from the neighbourhood of O'Brien's Bridge. Lough Derg is extended down the river to O'Brien's Bridge between two embankments of about 10 to 12 miles in length, counting the two sides. To my mind that is a source of extraordinary vulnerability and of great risk in connection with this scheme.

In passing, I may say that the directors and the experts laid great emphasis on carrying out the work by one power station having a long canal or head-race. Our Water Power Resources Committee investigated the problem very closely. We had plans made, and estimates, as regards a single station, and we came to the conclusion that it was a wiser step, and a safer one, to treat the river and the power stations between Killaloe and Limerick in the manner that the French Government have adopted very widely of late, that is by steps. It increases the number of your stations and it is the first reason that gives the impression that it is uneconomic. In the case of the Shannon, it has been carefully worked out that it is a perfect proposition to work by steps rather than by a single fall. That is a temptation to me to wander into controversy. It is one of the questions that will naturally come before the Commission suggested by the resolution. The impression made in my mind by a study of the two reports before the Seanad is that the Shannon problem has been viewed simply from the standpoint of electrical development. The river presents the most complex problem of any river in Ireland, and the engineer is between conflicting interests. It is easy, obviously, to utilise the river in the interests of one or other of these particular requirements.

The Siemens-Schuckert scheme is designed purely in the interest of developing the maximum amount of electrical energy obtainable from the river regardless of other interests. Agriculture is Ireland's greatest industry. It should take precedence and be absolutely safeguarded. So far from this being the case in the Shannon valley, it becomes absolutely dependent on the success or failure of this electrical project. A failure of the one electric power station, whether through accident or crime, would leave the whole country destitute of electrical power. The failure of any part of the embankment between Killaloe and O'Brien's Bridge would allow the whole of the water in Lough Derg above the level of the lake outlet at Killaloe to rush down the river channel to Limerick and overwhelm that city with a disaster greater in magnitude probably than any on record of a burst dam. This would be followed by a complete stoppage of the supply of electricity throughout the Free State. The electric pumps for the drainage of land outside the embankment around the lakes would be unable to work. This would be followed by the flooding of these lands and the conversion of this area into a gigantic lake without outlet until the water rose to the level of the embankments. When it is understood that this disaster could be brought about by a couple of hours' work of a gang of criminals, it is difficult to believe that a responsible Government would listen to such a proposal. The financial risk is that for many years there would not be a sufficient market demand for current to pay for the outlay. The estimate of the demand reaching a hundred and fifty millions of units in a few years is, I believe, entirely misleading. It would mean a more rapid growth than has occurred in any industrial country like Switzerland. For these reasons I believe the present proposals to be a mistake, needing the most careful examination by the Seanad and the Dáil, and I would ask the Seanad to adopt the resolution which I now propose.

Sir JOHN KEANE

I rise to second this motion. I was somewhat alarmed not long ago by a statement that fell from the lips of the Minister when he said that the motion would not merit, by this House, an examination of the various reports. I fail to see how, without some examination of these reports—I do not refer to a technical examination, but to the financial and general aspect — it would be possible for this House to form an opinion that would justify them in dealing with any measure of the kind. I realise that a very heavy responsibility rests upon anyone who stands up to criticise or oppose a project of national development, to which this country may be looking forward — and, rightly, we have all been looking forward to it for many years — and now that the country has gained its political independence that is what is naturally expected. We must, however, be quite clear what we mean by development. Development may mean, on the one hand, schemes carefully prepared from a business point of view, subject to the accepted business principles, financed by private enterprise as a commercial proposition, and in response to a public demand. On the other hand, development may mean a scheme, idealistic, perhaps, with an element of romance appealing to national sentiment, conceived largely on theoretical lines, projected for a problematical future, with no satisfactory estimates of costs or income, and with no clear understanding as to how existing rights are to be dealt with. Here is an important point; as I suggest, such a scheme can only be dealt with out of public funds. Projects of this latter kind, however attractive they may appear at first sight, will in the end prove a dis-service to the State.

I further say that the present scheme, in the form in which we have had it before us, is a project of the latter nature. This scheme must be examined in the light and with the aid of the relevant documents. There are the Siemens report, the report of the experts, and last, but by no means least, the White Paper. Sir John Griffith has referred to the failure of this House to draw attention to the White Paper when it was originally presented. Admittedly, and in the light of subsequent events, we are to blame for that, but that in no way precludes us from dealing with the White Paper now, as it is inextricably bound up with the two reports that follow it. With regard to this White Paper, I would like to ask whether it is in any way based on a contract, moral or contractual. It is referred to, I notice, on more than one occasion by the experts as an agreement. I think the House should know exactly what is meant by that agreement. I do not mean to say that the Government should know what is in the minds of the experts, but we should know what undertaking, moral or contractual, the Government have incurred with Messrs. Siemens in respect of the White Paper. In the White Paper Messrs. Siemens undertook to produce a binding estimate. These are the actual words on page 1:—"You will make a binding estimate as to cost." Have the Government a binding estimate? I presume they must have, as the experts have reported that the conditions of the White Paper have been carried out. If the Government have this estimate, when are we going to see these figures, and are they based on quantities and schedules of prices? The report is to have regard to the limitations imposed by economic circumstances. Personally I am not very clear as to what these words mean, but I presume they may mean all circumstances attendant on the supply of current to the user. Yet I cannot see any reference in the report either to the costs or the organisation of distribution, except, incidentally, a figure which leads one to believe that the distribution is going to cost almost as much as delivery to the transformers. Furthermore, under the terms of the White Paper the report is to show that the project has every likelihood of being a sound commercial proposition. How can this be possibly answered without any knowledge of costs to the consumer, as there is no figure given on this point? The experts actually say that this very important information cannot be given. I presume that means at the present stage.

These are the exact words. I am reading from page 102 of the experts' report:

"It would carry us too far to consider the figures of the cost distribution to the individual consumers in towns and in the country. At the same time, in considering the future supply of electricity this question is a very important one."

On that statement alone I would be quite satisfied to rest my whole case for further inquiry, not on engineering but on economic and financial grounds Then we have only one figure given by Messrs. Siemens as an illustration of possible costs to the user, and that is for Mallow, where current costs 3d. per unit at the transformers — I hope I am using the term correctly— but at the point to which the bulk supply will go will be increased by another 3.8 of 1d. to the consumer, making it 6.8. To any of us with knowledge of power that figure is distinctly disquieting in its likelihood to stimulate demand, because for any of us who use electric power for heating—and Messrs. Siemens estimate that 40 million units would be used for heating, although the experts reduce that figure—knows that 1d. per unit for heating by electricity is much dearer than heating by coal or by gas.

Messrs. Siemens also agreed in the White Paper to make a comparison with alternatives. The exact words are:

"Your proposals will be devised on the basis of the scheme as representing a sound commercial proposition, and an adequate return on the capital invested in it. Your scheme is to be compared with any alternative of providing power in the Free State."

I cannot see that any close examination has been made of alternatives. Alternatives might suggest to the layman the possibilities of using our coal reserves for steam generation over a limited area, for, mind you, Messrs Siemens and the experts have in mind the supplementing of the Shannon scheme under certain conditions, with steam. Furthermore, I can see no critical examination by Messrs. Siemens, although experts do refer to it, of the Liffey scheme as a beginning. Now we come to the examination of the work as outlined in the White Paper. There are certain considerations which should command the close attention of this House. The contract for the work is evidently not to be on a competitive basis. I do not mean to say that Messrs. Siemens are to be given carte blanche to proceed as they like, but the distinct and clear element of competition is absent. There is to be a certain control over costs on the basis of market prices, but bearing in mind the trouble the Government took, and always have taken, in the expenditure of public money to ensure competition, the omission of this safeguard is important and deserves consideration.

A firm contract appears to be impossible, even if it is not a competitive contract on the terms of the White Paper, because prices have to be comparable with world market prices. Of course, this scheme will naturally take several years to accomplish. If prices move upwards during the period the contractors will naturally claim to be allowed to revise on the basis of that increase; similarly, the Government would claim if prices moved downwards the right to revise, so that on that basis alone it looks as if any firm price is impossible. It must be left open, and, as everyone knows, these open contracts, subject to revision from time to time, contain great dangers, and generally the burden of any additional expense is not borne by the contractor but falls on the employer.

There is also a reference, regarding structural work, to a minimum tender. Are we to take it that the present costs as given by Messrs. Siemens represent a minimum tender? If they do not represent a minimum tender, at what stage does the minimum tender appear? And if, as is implied in the White Paper, Messrs. Siemens are to get the work. What is the exact meaning and bearing of this term in the White Paper? Further, the White Paper arranges, and this is especially to be noted, that the contractors are to draw their own specification. That is, to say the least of it, unusual in any business relations. Again, they are to receive payment for work presumably in connection with the drawing of specifications or supervision, outside payments ordinarily made to the contractor, thereby implying that they are to act in a dual capacity, mainly as contractors, and, to a certain extent, in a fiducial capacity in carrying out the work. A critical examination of this White Paper reveals a document in which one firm is virtually appointed contractor, where the estimates purport to be binding, and yet they must not be higher than the cost of other reputable firms, who, presumably, will not be called upon to tender. How are costs going to be compared unless they are to be called on to tender? Apparently the cost of these binding estimates are to be adjusted according to world market prices, and the contractor is to draw his specification subject to expert control. I ask the House whether there is any reason for departing from ordinary business practice? You have the employer, the concessionaire, capitalists of the Government, who employ advisers, and get architects or consulting engineers who draw plans and specifications and are responsible for the supervision of the work and you have below that the contractor acting independently who carries out the work. Is there any reason why that well-established practice need be departed from in this case? If this White Paper is an indication of the business mentality of the Government, I suggest that we should hesitate before we give the Government the free hand it claims to spend a sum amounting to 25 per cent. of our annual revenue on a project, however promising it may be. Now we come to the financing of the project. In ordinary cases finance is fairly simplified in commercial works, and works of development, because the finance is found by private parties who take care that the proposition would bear examination before they embark on it.

This is not to apply in the present case if the Government do it, but none the less it is incumbent upon them—in fact we, as trustees of the nation, should regard it as a solemn duty—to see that the financial aspect is carefully examined before the scheme is sanctioned. For that purpose we naturally turn to these reports for guidance on this all-important question of finance. Incidentally, there is an interesting figure which has been given to me and which the Minister can examine. I have been told, and I speak subject to correction, that this partial development scheme of the Shannon to produce 153 million units at a cost of five millions roughly, will be compared with the Lochaber scheme, which is a scheme actually in course of construction on binding contracts, where four to six million units are going to be produced at a cost of, roughly, three and a half millions. With regard to finance, the experts refer on page 79 to the matter in these words:—"The total estimate is based on basic prices, appearing in Siemens' report, and the authors of the report have arrived at these prices partly as the result of their own inquiries and partly and in accordance with the figures given to them by the Free State Government." I do ask the House to regard that as rather too general and vague as an assurance in respect of this all-important matter. These foreign experts naturally cannot have been too familiar with local conditions. They only spent a very short time in the country, and in matters of cost there is nothing more difficult than for anybody, however familiar and however expert with local conditions, to arrive at satisfactory results. I think also one should know something more detailed with regard to the figures given to these foreign experts by the Government in order to enable them to satisfy themselves on this estimate. Then further on the experts say that they have given special consideration to the question of labour costs in the execution of works and have examined in the light of labour conditions the basis of Messrs. Siemens' report.

If these experts have been able to probe into all the mysteries of labour troubles in this country, and to understand all the difficulties that we have recently experienced in this country in regard to domestic differences in the labour world, they will certainly be experts in every sense of the word. All I can say is this, that I have had recent experience of a project to develop the city of Waterford, where tenders were called for for a building estimated by our architect to cost £13,000. These tenders were advertised for. Only one tender was received, and that amounted to the sum of £25,000. That shows how difficult it is to arrive at satisfactory figures of cost without the most detailed examination, and whatever the experts had before them, we can only depend on what we have before us. We have one page of Messrs. Siemens' report in which costs are summarised — nothing more whatever. We have on page 145 one item for nearly two and a half millions — no details whatever. Have the Government got estimates and schedules of prices on which these prices are built up? If so, I submit that Parliament should see them, and that they ought to be examined by somebody such as the Commission asked for in this motion.

Experts assume that the Government would finance the scheme—and I would draw the particular attention of the Minister for Finance to this, as I notice he is present. They would like its directors when they are carrying out the work to be much more independent administratively than is ordinarily the case in the case of State administration. We had, of course, during the war, very considerable experience of Government officials carrying out works independently of strict control, and it will be exceedingly dangerous if any body of men is allowed abnormal administrative powers unless there is a strict check on the amount of money they can control. I notice, in the financial portion, that credit is taken for £200,000 for melioration of land. Has any indication been obtained from the farmers as to their willingness to pay a rate on improved land? The only experience one has is of a drainage scheme for the Shannon, I think in the eighties, where it was proposed to expend £300,000 if the farmers undertook to contribute something towards it. It broke down because the farmers would not contribute anything. Many of them say, and honestly believe, that it is not altogether a disadvantage to have certain lands periodically flooded. Certain lands that are periodically flooded are very remuneratively let as grazing lands and are exceedingly valuable as fattening lands in dry seasons.

The next important point the Seanad has to consider is the question of the market for power. The experts stress its importance on page 102, but there is no indication, in order to arrive at the likely market for power, of the prices to be charged. As regards the procedure, if we have to spend a sum of five millions of money, a sum that is equivalent to one-fourth of our annual revenue, surely some procedure similar to that obtaining in the case of a Private Bill is necessary. The Private Bill procedure is set up to protect the interest of the various parties concerned. In this case the party concerned is the nation, and some procedure should be set up to protect its interest. There should be some independent inquiry, not, perhaps, so much on the technical part — on that Sir John Griffith's experts may be qualified to speak—but on the economic and national aspect of it on which, surely, experts who have been only a short time in the country cannot speak with any great authority. The whole project at present appears to be too general. In Switzerland, which has been quoted, there is no such big unified power scheme as this. The experts, themselves, refer in a comparison of costs in Switzerland to as many as, I think, eight power schemes, and they are only representative of a number. Switzerland and all these other countries have grown up, I would suggest, from very small beginnings, and that is the natural way of development. You grow as your demand grows up. You educate your public in a small way. You begin in a small way in everything. Leverhulme's, Guinness's Brewery — there is no undertaking, no big undertaking in the world such as these, which had not small beginnings.

The process of gradual growth is a process that is practically part of an undertaking's existence. Here we are proposing to start on an overwhelm ingly large scale, and we will wait for the demand to grow up. There is nothing to show that a big demand is likely to come about, or that for many years it would be equal to the supply that it is estimated can be given. In countries quoted by the experts, where undoubtedly the establishment of electrification stimulated a very great and very rapid demand, they were largely mechanical and industrial before electrification was introduced. They were, as I say, largely mechanical and industrial before, or otherwise they had, as in Norway, large chemical industries using electrical current. Here is a country where there has been little or no demand for current, and where there is comparatively little industrial activity, and yet there is estimated a supply of current three times in excess of any demand that could be stimulated.

I would ask the Seanad — and I do so in no spirit of opposition — to agree that this matter does deserve much closer consideration. During the war we got into the habit of thinking in millions. The sum of three millions as affecting this country would represent, proportionately, one hundred millions in Great Britain, if one may judge by equivalent wealth. That makes one think that to spend a sum, the equivalent of which in Great Britain would be one hundred millions, needs the most careful preliminary investigation, such as this motion asks for.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Before Senator Sir John Keane had concluded, he made a mistake in the figures he quoted in regard to Lochaber. He stated the production there would be from four to six million units at three and a half millions.

Sir JOHN KEANE

I said four to six hundred millions.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I understood it was four to six millions.

Sir JOHN KEANE

I really meant four to six hundred.

Dr. GOGARTY

There have been many criticisms of this scheme, both legitimate and in an underhand manner. The underhand manner consists of sending articles to members of this House while this matter is more or less sub judice. None of the critics criticised the experts. They reserved all their criticism for the Free State Government. I do not propose to criticise the expert, Senator Sir John Griffith, who has, I think, deservedly earned a reputation for the utmost probity. I direct my criticism to the body to which Senator Sir John Griffith proposes to refer this all-important scheme. To begin with, the Farmers' Union is mentioned. The Farmers' Union is a body whose alacrity is more or less confined to opposing tariffs, the Summer Time Bill, the Land Bond Bill, and I believe they were not very much in favour of the Railways Bill, while they were altogether against the Enforcement of Law Bill. Their criticism was very active towards the Ministry for External Affairs. I do not think the Farmers' Union is a body to which this matter should be referred. If it is to be referred to the Farmers' Union, why not to the Abbey Theatre, or the Sick and Indigent Roomkeepers' Society, who are also interested in electric lighting? The other body is the body of Irish engineers. I do not blame the Irish engineers. They never had much encouragement in the direction of developing the resources of Ireland. There was this reason: the House can readily understand that if some years ago a proposition were put forward to send current over copper cables, and if that proposition was brought to “Buckshot” Forster, or if a water power scheme was brought to “Bloody” Balfour, or even to our friend the lumbering Greenwood, it never would have been met in an encouraging spirit. There was, therefore, no chance for the engineers of Ireland to envisage schemes of such importance as this. The fact is that Continental experts, from countries that thrive on the use of water power, have planned schemes which have confused the minds of our engineers. That is no reason why we should add to the confusion by throwing the while onus of the development of those schemes on such a body.

The engineers here never had experience of the development of water power on such a large scale and we can never hope for the development of the country until they emerge from the condition in which they are in. No doubt Senators noticed the letter in the Irish Times to-day from an engineer, Mr. A.E. Porte:

"My immediate purpose is to tell the public that no engineer could possibly arrive at any final conclusion upon the matter contained either in the Siemens' Report or the Experts' Report."

What is the good of inviting any of those people to help us forward? We have already employed and paid the most reputable experts in Europe, against whom no engineer has uttered a word of criticism. They were experts engaged by the great firm of Siemens-Schuckert. There were experts here whose references to that firm amounted to open criticism. There is no use in further adding to the confusion that apparently exists in the minds of those gentlemen who take it upon themselves to speak for the engineering profession at the moment that it was under discussion in the public Press.

There is another point, and it is a point that must have occurred to many members of the Seanad. I fail to find any opposition to the Shannon Scheme that is disinterested. In the Daily Mail, as the members of the Seanad may have noticed, there is interested opposition to the Shannon Scheme. Nobody would suggest that we should refer the matter to the editorial staff of the Daily Mail. The Daily Mail will lament the Teutonising of Ireland, but, at the same time, it permits the construction of motor boats, costing one million, in Germany. In other words, German brains were good enough for Great Britain, but when the development of Ireland's water-power resources was left to German brains, that action is considered most reprehensible. It is all a matter of interested opposition.

Senator Sir John Keane very eloquently spoke of things having very small beginnings, and suggested that the Shannon Scheme was too big to begin with. What is good enough for Denmark, a country that has very few waterfalls, ought to be good enough for us. Other countries have had water-power assisting very largely in their prosperity. In London, where there is no cheap source of power, in order to link up and unify the different sources of production of current, they intend to spend ten millions of money. Here we have the power; one of the physical advantages the country has is its rainfall, and there is a huge storage capacity in three natural reservoirs on the Shannon. I think this is a matter the Government ought to be trusted in, and external and interested destructive critics should, at any rate, mind their own business, and at any rate, be withheld from influencing members. All the forecasts of the engineers are on the basis as to whether the demand will be sufficient to pay for the current. That is not a proper basis—that we may expect an immediate payment of overhead capital charges. Even if the Dublin Corporation has paid off its overhead capital charges, one has to realise the immense size of this undertaking. The Siemens-Schuckert firm proposes to erect at Limerick, or near it, that ingenious novelty of a supply canal which amounts to a matter of genius in its construction, a system of producing current which is larger than the Niagara works on the Canadian side. There are to be fixed pipes 19½ feet in diameter, through which two railway engines could go. Each of these actuates a rotor or fly-wheel of 190 tons. That is how the current is to be produced from the Shannon.

Then of course this matter of the drainage comes into it, and in spite of the alarmist statements as to what would happen to Limerick in the case of a puncture of the dam, I am very glad to say that the undeterred citizens of that rather courageous city have sent up, this morning, a memorandum from the Trade and Labour Council of Limerick urging the Government to go on, apparently undeterred by the watery death with which they are threatened. They want the scheme carried to a conclusion. The only criticism that I could conceive is that the River Shannon may not be full of fish, or, if so, they might be in a condition half-way towards canning. Even if half the county of Limerick were submerged, they would be the last people to complain of it, if it were for the general interests of the Saorstát.

Some of the submerging will be accompanied by a method of drainage. The question, therefore, I think, is not so much "can we afford the scheme?" as "can we afford to delay it?" Surely, the experts have had a full knowledge of the conditions that will govern the distribution of current. It will have to be distributed to small centres. If they did nothing else they must have seen this, and they report that it is cheaper to distribute the current from the Shannon than to procure electricity through any local method. We must give the experts credit, at any rate for being intelligent people, before they produced a report which will have to stand the criticism of the whole world.

There is another point which has been lost sight of by the people who want this enormous scheme to pay for itself in a few years. That is a more important point than the solvency of the actual machinery of lighting, heating and producing power, and that is that in this country under the long established British Government, and under a silent body of engineers, we have reached the lowest standard of living in any country in Europe. The houses that will be improved by this scheme are houses that will require it more than any houses that hold human beings in Europe. In these houses the lowest standard of living has been reached of any country in Europe, owing to the fact that the potato was the chief article of food. Even in savage countries they have, in this respect, certain physical advantages of weather and other things over us. I do think that if the Government made a gift of five and a-half millions of money to the people of Ireland to raise their standard of living they would be doing a thing that nobody could criticise. The demoralisation caused by unemployment, and the condition of the children of the unemployed workmen, will cost more to overtake in the long run than a scheme which will alleviate and improve the condition of the citizens of this nation. This Shannon scheme will be of benefit to the country, even if it never paid a penny.

There is another important matter to which I would refer, and it is this, that we have heard the highly intelligent analysis by Senator Sir John Keane of the financial side of the scheme. Into this I will not go, because I am not qualified to treat with the matter, but I am wondering how the decision that we are to come to here can be improved by reference to the financial problems that absorb the Senator, if he gives the matter to the Farmers' Union, or to the different people mentioned in Senator Sir John Griffith's scheme of rehabilitation. I was speaking a few days ago to a very intelligent and well-known Irishman, who brought to bear on this subject the only faculty that many of us in the Seanad are qualified to bear on it, and that was the faculty of commonsense. He said: "Don't bother me about the Liffey or the Erne, but if you are looking for water-power, go where water is." That is why I conceive that the Liffey is to the Shannon as a halfpenny dip is to an are lamp. This matter must be a matter of trusting the experts, and that is a matter of trusting the Government. There are certain things that no amount of consultation will forward. The experts are, beyond cavil, capable men in non-protected trades, constantly rivalling each other and constantly answering to competition, and we must trust to their judgment. This is a matter of taking a certain amount of risk. Nothing has ever been done in development, political or economic, without taking a certain amount of risk.

I wish, before I conclude, to except altogether from any remarks that might have been reprehensible, Senator Sir John Griffith, for whom we all have the highest admiration, and whose Liffey scheme, as far as it goes, is a splendid one. But this is a matter of Dublin against the whole of Ireland, and the Government must consider whether it is going to be the Liffey or the Shannon. You have the Liffey on one side, a river without lakes, and as a rival to that you have the excellent system of the natural reservoirs of the Shannon. I understand from what I am told of hydro-electricity that it is more important to have a constant head of water than a high altitude. The Shannon gives that constant fall of water. The Liffey can only stand between the development of the country and the development of the City of Dublin.

Mr. DOUGLAS

Senator Sir John Griffith in introducing this resolution stated that he intended as far as possible to avoid controversy on the issue as between the Liffey and the Shannon, and while I am not sufficiently expert to know whether he quite succeeded in doing so, I believe that that was his intention. I believe that it is the duty of the Seanad to consider whether in their opinion, as stated in the resolution, these reports, as presented to us, would be better examined by referring them to a committee such as Senator Sir John Griffith suggests, or whether it is better to go on in the course which we understand the Government proposes. That, I think, is the question. And the only question, which we have to decide. We have not in any sense to decide whether we believe the Liffey or the Shannon, or some amalgamation of them or other schemes, is the best, but whether, in the matter of the Shannon scheme now presented to us, any advantage is to be gained by referring it to a commission. Personally I hope that the Seanad will reject the resolution. Like every other Senator I have the greatest respect for Senator Sir John Griffith, but my definite opinion is that at this stage, after the matter has been more or less in the public eye for a year, and after the report by the experts has been presented, whatever course we might take, it would not be wise for the Seanad to refer the matter to an entirely independent commission such as he suggests, nor do I think we would gain anything by so doing, and I will try briefly to state my reasons.

In the first place, Senator Sir John Griffith mainly referred to the difficulties of the layman in understanding the experts' report, and I for one am a living example of that difficulty. Therefore I will not try to deal with matters of that kind. He has been to some extent answered by Senator Sir John Keane, who says that for him the experts are experts and he does not think that it can be very well dealt with by a commission, but that matters of national interest and of finance might be so referred. My opinion is that at this stage, whether we like it or not, the Oireachtas has got to make up its own mind on the matters of finance and national interest in this proposal; has got, whether it is fully competent or not, to go to the root and form its own opinion of the experts' report. To form that to the best of its ability it has to go into the finances to be presented to us by the Minister, to form an opinion as to whether the State can bear that expenditure where it is proposed in the national interest, and the responsibility lies on the Dáil and on the Seanad. But at this stage to postpone matters by referring this to a commission which would delay a month or two would not leave us, I respectfully suggest, the tiniest little bit better off. We might have added to the experts' report an opinion expressed by certain persons who would be appointed on the commission. We know most of their opinions at present, that is, we know the opinion, anyway, of the engineers, because they have, quite rightly and I welcome it, unhesitatingly expressed their views. But would we be any better off if we referred this matter to another body?

I will give one final reason as to why I think we should not pass this resolution. That is, that it is reasonably certain from the attitude taken up by the Government, and from their commitments, that they will not appoint this Commission. The question then is: would the Seanad be wise in attempting to set up this body on its own? My own opinion is that things, having got to the stage at which they are, apart altogether from other reasons, we ourselves would not be wise in attempting to set up a Commission, which is virtually what the acceptance of the resolution would mean. Whether the Minister takes the same view or not, I certainly hold that every possible matter which would help to have the thing better and more fully investigated will be brought before the Seanad, the Dáil, or any committee which they may set up to investigate it. But I do not believe, at this stage, that we would be wise, nor further than that, that it would be to the credit of the Free State, if we were to refer it to such a commission. I am not competent to go into the details, and I do not express a view as between the Liffey and the Shannon, but I do really think, on its own merits, with all respect to Senator Sir John Griffith, they would not be wise in accepting his resolution.

Mr. BAGWELL

I rise to speak for the motion. I have read the documents mentioned therein, and I have read all the other literature that is available on the subject. I may say that I first read the Siemens-Schuckert schemes and I next read the report of the experts thereon, before I read anything else about it. Therefore, I did not approach the thing, at all events, already prejudiced against the scheme; I purposely read everything together. As regards the technical parts of any of these documents, I am entirely incompetent to express an opinion. But one thing I can understand, and every one of us can understand, and that is that the issue in this matter is whether millions and millions of public money shall be spent or not. That is what is in contemplation, the commitment of a very large sum of public money. I must say that I am immensely impressed with my own responsibility as a member of this House, and I think that every member of this House and of the Dáil feels the greatest responsibility in a matter of such tremendous magnitude, having such very great possible effects, one way or the other, on the material welfare of the country.

If these millions were spent and the whole thing turned out to be a great failure, what a terrible thing for this country it would be. It may be asked: "What right have you, without any technical knowledge, to speak in this gloomy way upon a matter of this kind which may be a very good thing." To that I would say that although, as I have admitted, I have no technical qualifications. I have heard what Senator Sir John Griffith has had to say. I know Senator Sir John Griffith's record, as everybody knows it, and I know that if he is called upon to stand the fire of criticism with regard to any opinions he has given, or any action he has taken, he will be here to defend himself in what might be described as a more exposed position than that of Zurich and Stockholm. I am very much impressed with his doubts on the technical aspect of the question. But quite apart from that, I feel myself perfectly competent to judge, say, as an investor, of the project regarding what I am able to understand from all the literature available. Of course, it does not very much matter what a person with no expert knowledge of this great subject may say, but still one has sometimes to judge of things of which one does not know every part, and all of us may be liable to be called upon to judge of the merits of a scheme as investors. As an investor, I have no hesitation in saying that I would not put a penny of my own money into this scheme, because I have not sufficient belief in it. If a great deal of information which I do not possess came into my possession, it is quite possible that it might change my mind, but I say advisedly on the literature which is available and which I have read, I would not put a penny into it. It seems to me that the whole thing from a business point of view, bases itself upon this: if this thing is to be a success the consumption of electricity must increase at least three times. If you believe in it you must also believe that it will so increase. I do not believe that; I may be quite wrong, but I do not believe it. I do not see sufficient reason for believing that it will increase three times.

This scheme may come into effect and may be carried out. If it is, I hope I shall be alive and that I shall be able to stand the criticism of having disagreed with it, if it then becomes a success. That is my reason for taking upon myself to speak on a subject upon which I know very little, that I have not got confidence in it. Why is it likely that the consumption of electricity should increase three times? As far as I am able to understand that side of economics, it will not increase simply because the power is there. You require certain other factors besides that. The two most important are that the inhabitants of the country should be of what one might call the industrial temperament, and the second is that you should have favourable conditions regarding raw materials. I do not think that either of those factors is present here in sufficient measure to make us, without a great deal more information than what we have got, feel justified in assuming that this estimate is a correct one and that there is a reasonable probability that the consumption of electricity will increase by at least three times what it is at present. These are my reasons for supporting the motion moved by Senator Sir John Griffith. As regards the criticism brought to bear upon the motion by Senator Douglas, all of us can see the value of it. It is asked what practical good will the passing of this motion have. I think if this House passes this motion it will do all that this House can do—at all events, it will bring to bear on the subject, and make responsible for it, those people in this country who are qualified to express a responsible and an expert opinion on the issue that is now before the country. That, I think, would be very much to the good. We must depend on the experts to a certain extent, and when that is so, I would rather that the experts were in my own country than that they should live in a country a far way off. The experts in my own country will be sure to be on the spot afterwards to be criticised if the scheme were not a success. I hope that the Seanad will adopt the motion standing in the name of Senator Sir John Griffith.

The EARL of MAYO

I desire to say a few words with regard to the motion before the House. Senator Sir John Griffith begins by saying that, in the opinion of the Seanad, a special commission should be appointed, and then he proceeds to put the motion under four heads: (1) to consider documents entitled, etc.; (2) to inquire into the present consumption of electricity in the Free State, etc.; (3) to report to the Oireachtas whether in its judgment it is advisable to have a scheme of such magnitude, etc.; and then we come to the fourth reason, which is really a separate resolution entirely, because there the Senator sets forth what should be the composition of the special commission which we are asked to appoint.

Not only are we asked to appoint a special commission but, I might say, Senator Sir John Griffith's motion gives the terms of reference as well, because they are set out in items 1, 2, and 3 which I have quoted. I agree with Senator Douglas that this is a matter which, I think, the Seanad should not pass. I am not going to go into any technical details whatever. I only know this, that this big scheme will most likely employ a great many people. I believe, too, that the Government have gone very closely into this question. As Senator Sir John Keane had every right to do, he picked the White Paper to pieces. That White Paper has been laid on the Table of this House for a very long time, and the Senator had every right to do that. My opinion of this matter is that if we are going to have a Government at all, we had better trust them, and if this motion that is now before the Seanad were to be passed, it would delay this matter which has been before the Government for over a year. What is the use of delaying. After all, we know a great deal about it. We have heard one matter that was mentioned— that the lakes are to be embanked, and someone said it would be a dreadful thing if this embankment were to burst through. If you do not take risks you do not take anything at all. I believe that the Government are going to take this risk and that electricity will be produced in large quantities. Surely, if there is that danger, that enormous pipe canal which was mentioned by Senator Gogarty, in which two railway engines could run alongside one another, ought to be able to deal with the masses of water that are in these lakes. I shall vote against Senator Sir John Griffith's motion, and I hope the Seanad has no idea of passing such a resolution at the present moment.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

A motion has been put on the Order Paper by Senator Sir John Griffith, and it has just been analysed by Senator the Earl of Mayo. It asks that a commission should be appointed to consider certain documents, to go into the present consumption of electricity in the Free State, to report as to the financial risks involved in undertaking this scheme, and suggesting that a commission should be appointed and should be composed of representatives from certain bodies named. I am addressing now one of the two Houses which compose the Oireachtas of this country. Certain technical matters come before it for its judgment. These very highly technical matters have been referred to four eminent European experts, and the report of these experts is now in the hands of the Seanad. If we refer merely the technical parts to such competent people as the Institution of Civil Engineers of Ireland and the Council of the Irish Centre of the Institution of Electrical Engineers, what more can they write, or what more plainly can they write, for the Seanad to pass final judgment on than what the experts have already written on? If you are not going to refer that to any of these bodies, but if you are going to refer to the Associated Chambers of Commerce and the Irish Farmers' Union such questions as the possible rate of increase in the consumption of electricity in this country, the financial risk involved in the carrying out of a scheme of this magnitude, then, I say, this Seanad is simply dishonouring itself. There are certain matters which have been referred to the four experts. The opinion of these four experts is before the Seanad. I am prepared, as a layman having no technical knowledge of these matters, to justify before the two bodies of laymen who form the Oireachtas of this country, the Siemens-Schuckert scheme in its partial development and as modified by the experts, and to stand or fall on the justification I put before you and ask you to accept or refuse. It is not for me here to go into all the questions as to the merits of the scheme which have been touched on by two at least of the speakers, but certain statements have been made, and an answer should come quickly and sharply to those statements.

Let me refer to one thing that passes as criticism of this scheme, and of the experts' report on the scheme. Criticism was ventilated in yesterday's Press which came from an engineer who is a director of one of the Liffey companies. That engineer states that a certain embankment is to be made of a certain width, and that width, incidentally, is much greater than he states it actually is. The width is fifteen metres or 45 feet, and this engineer is of the opinion that a single spade cut through an amount of earth 45 feet across, might cause a catastrophe, and let loose the whole mass of this water upon Limerick with horrible consequences to Limerick. Now, if that engineer believes that by a single spade cut he can cut through this mass of earth, then the giant shovels which I saw myself in Germany will not be required here, and we can get our canal dug at much less expense. This engineer has such fears for the inhabitants of Limerick, that he must rush into print over it. Will it be believed that this engineer, who is a director of one of the Liffey companies, would construct, 200 feet above Ballymore-Eustace, a dam for the holding up of the waters of the Liffey, and would construct a dam of such a type that the only expert witness who appeared before the Private Bill Committee passed his judgment upon it, and his judgment was that it was unsafe, and that statement is in the Minutes of Evidence of the Private Bill Committee? Senator Sir John Griffith says that an embankment of this kind is of a sort which criminally-minded people might blow up at a moment's notice. The Government that would embark upon a scheme that involved that danger is, I suppose, criminally-minded also. But crimeless people would build a dam above Ballymore-Eustace which was not able to pass the criticism of Herr Buchi, who appeared before the Private Bill Committee. Yet this man, who is on one of the Board of Directors introducing a Bill for the employment of the waters of the Liffey, and who would put up a dam of that sort, has the temerity to write to the newspapers about a dam which has not been judged unsafe, but has been judged safe and completely safe, by four experts of European reputation.

That is one type of criticism. I do not intend here to go into all the matter spoken of, but those things have been said and must not be allowed to get a start. Now, as to navigation. Navigation has not been attended to, is the cry. There is a separate chapter in the experts' report, and it says distinctly that the regulation of the river will improve navigation. Whether you have navigation or not in the Siemens-Schuckert report, the experts were not called upon to make any reference to navigation.

Drainage also is referred to, and here, I presume, we get foreshadowed by Senator Sir John Keane, the contest that is likely to occur in the future when any question arises as to melioration of the land foreshadowed. He speaks of the sum of £200,000 to be drawn from the inhabitants of certain areas, and put in as income to the scheme, and he asked if the farmers had been consulted about that. They have not been consulted because this does not occur in the partial development, and it is only partial development that we are concerned with at present. What the farmers may think afterwards about the rates they will pay for land meliorated under the prevention of flooding in the final scheme remains for the farmers to say later on when asked about it. There is no question of any money being drawn from anybody along the banks of the river for melioration of land under the partial development scheme. These things are broadcasted, and it is necessary to emphasise, when it is stated that £200,000 is to be taken from those people, that the fact is not one penny is to be taken from them under the partial development scheme. But what really is done? Here I get to the drainage, but what really ought to be referred to is the prevention of flooding. This simple statement I make as a layman: I am prepared to justify to the two lay bodies that compose the Oireachtas, that the river is not interfered with under the partial development; Lough Derg is the only one of the lakes with which there is any interference, that it is not, as stated, raised 117 feet; the height is 110 feet. That is the fact. The river is interfered with at Lough Derg. The experts say that the influence of that will be felt as far as Meelick, but in return for that, they say that flooding will be rendered absolutely impossible from Meelick to O'Brien's Bridge by means of an embankment. It goes further. Although the experts' judgment is that the regulation of the river to Lough Derg will only have its influence in the river as far as Meelick, nevertheless embankments are built between Meelick and Banagher, so that flooding will be rendered absolutely impossible from Banagher to O'Brien's Bridge. Further, certain river obstructions occurring in the channel of the river are, in the partial development scheme, although not necessary for the purpose of power producing, cleared away between Meelick and Banagher, and the experts make the statement that that will relieve flooding as far as Athlone. Take that as one single point.

Drainage is a matter very much canvassed in connection with this scheme. Let me state the result again. As far as the production of power is concerned, the river is only interfered with at Lough Derg. The influence of that will be felt as far as Meelick. The reaction to that is the embankment between Meelick and O'Brien's Bridge, so that all flooding will be prevented not merely flooding that will be caused by the operations of the lough, but all present flooding will be wiped out between Meelick and O'Brien's Bridge. The experts go further—although the influence of the regulation of the lough will not be felt higher up than Meelick —and say that the embankments between Meelick and Banagher, with the clearing of certain obstructions in the channel of the river will, they hope, make the alleviation of flooding felt as far as Athlone. That is one item which, without expert knowledge, but simply from reading these reports, I am prepared to justify and to stand or fall by, should I be called upon to defend that proposition later.

The question of Mallow and the 6.8 pence per unit has been spoken of. First, it was written anonymously as if it meant sixpence to the town of Mallow. It means sixpence to the rural districts about Mallow, and if it is stated to me that the farmers at present would not be very glad to get light into their houses at sixpence per unit where at present they are paying something like 1s. 6d., then I admit the scheme is of no benefit. But let it be understood that this 6.8 of a penny is not for Mallow, but for Mallow rural district where at present the figure would certainly not be less than 1s. 6d.

Sir JOHN KEANE

Would the Minister give us an idea of what the power would be in the rural district at Mallow?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

At the moment I have no information on that point. Perhaps we can go into that question on the further discussion that we shall have here this day week. There are certain other heads that I wish to refer to here. The White Paper has been much abused and discussed and condemned since it made its appearance. I would like to assert and make the admission that that White Paper, so far, is unusual, but I make the claim that unless it was unusual there would be no Shannon Scheme. One had to get out of the methods that tied people hand and foot formerly before any such schemes could be produced. No damage has resulted from the White Paper. I am prepared to admit that paragraphs 11 and 12 were drawn up a year beforehand, but they are now found to contain every possible safeguard that we could possibly seek to put in if we were forming a contract with a German firm at this moment. Senator Sir John Keane says that competitive prices are ruled out. I fail to see how they are ruled out. I see the statement in the White Paper that the contractor is to supply the material at world market prices, and that the Government "would require to satisfy itself that your firm would supply material at prices not higher than those at which similar material of first-grade quality could at the time be obtained from a reputable firm in any part of the world." I believe that the engineers who may be appointed under the Government to carry out the contract in connection with this White Paper will find that paragraphs 11 and 12, agreed to by the Siemens-Schuckert people, contain all the necessary safeguards they would seek to put into a contract were it to be made now.

Paragraph 13 comes in for criticism. I do not want to argue this point, but I want to say that not a penny of money will be paid under paragraph 13. Not a single penny will go from the Irish Government to the Siemens-Schuckert firm under paragraph 13, and I can produce letters from the firm agreeing with that. Whatever may be the interpretation put on it by Senator Sir John Keane and by individuals, the fact remains that not one single penny will be spent on paragraph 13. When we come to the merits of this scheme later, I will deal with the other question of the White Paper.

May I return to the question of drainage and the prevention of flooding of which I spoke, and which was referred to in the remarks made by Senator Sir John Keane? Apparently, although we do not intend to get money from the riparian owners whose lands are bettered by the prevention of flooding, this argument of the Senator is ingenuous, and will have its effect on the Barrow drainage. Farmers have been complaining for years in the Barrow area that their lands are flooded. The Government is about to embark on a scheme to drain those lands. It will be possible, from those who have their lands destroyed in the area of the Barrow, to get some return for the drainage of their lands. The lead given by Senator Sir John Keane might enable them to say, "No; you will pay damages instead. This water was a benefit to the land and you are now taking it away."

Sir J. KEANE

May I explain I did not state the question in general terms. I said that in certain cases occasional floodings are held to do no harm to the land, but I did not say that all the land flooded by the Barrow is improved by floods, and that the farmers should be compensated for the removal of the flooding.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I did not say that the Senator expressed himself in general terms, but I point to the danger of every individual saying that his land was the particular type of land which was better owing to having water flowing over it.

The question of a market for power and the question of State expenditure have also been raised. The market for power is not one to refer to the Farmers' Union or the Associated Chambers of Commerce. I am prepared to take a simple test. There was evidence given before a Private Bill Committee by the city engineer in Dublin as to his idea of the likely increase in consumption under present conditions in Dublin. Thinking of what the present conditions in Dublin are with regard to the supply of electricity, read what the experts have to say on that question, compare Dublin with the series of towns set out in the three tables of the report, see if Dublin in its present condition can be regarded as the sole ideal, and see if the estimate of an increase in consumption can be regarded as anything outside the bounds of possibility. Taking the figure as estimated, I am prepared to come here and justify the statement of the experts that in a certain time there will be such a consumption as will make this scheme economic, and that is founded on one thing, namely, the statement made by the city engineer as to his idea of the rate of consumption for Dublin. I am speaking now only of Dublin and of the power which may be sold in Dublin, and which we are aiming at.

There is just one other point with regard to what Senator Sir John Keane said. He said something to the effect that two conditions were required for rapid consumption, one, a cheap supply of electricity, and, two, an industrial outlook.

Sir JOHN KEANE

What I meant to say was that there was already an industrial demand made by other sources of power which would be available to convert into electricity.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I think my answer will meet even that. The basis on which this scheme is built up is not a demand arising from new industries. It is the demand for household purposes, and we are prepared to introduce examples from countries like Norway, omitting the amount consumed for industrial purposes, and giving only the amount consumed in the home and in the streets. We are prepared on that to show that the estimate of the experts with regard to future consumption is very conservative. It does not mean that there is no power for industrial purposes, for the electrification of railways, or for an electro-chemical industry, if that is to be set up. This scheme is based on the most conservative estimate possible. There is an estimated generation of 150 million units. That estimate is made for the dry month of the driest year in thirty years past. That is to say, the energy produced by that particular development is the energy produced if every month in the year were as dry as the driest month in 1905. In an average year there is such a surplus power that we have 135 million units at our disposal to be given away to industry at such a nominal charge that it would not be felt in the industry.

These are all things clearly explained in the experts' report, and it is on the basis of the experts' report that we wish to make our case. I put it to this House that if they refer this to bodies such as the Irish Electrical Engineers or the Irish Civil Engineers, they will merely get, supposing they are competent to go into the experts' judgment on this matter, a second pamphlet on the technical side of the experts' report. That will form the basis of the final judgment on the question of consumption and financial risk. This House is able to consider the experts' report and the explanation of technical matters. and this House and the Dáil, as far as the Constitution is concerned, are competent to determine the other two matters. This is one of the two Houses representing the Oireachtas of the country. If we are not competent, having got the technical details explained fully by a layman to laymen, simply to decide and to form a final judgment as to whether the consumption is likely to grow, or whether the scheme is to be a financial loss, then Parliamentary institutions have, by your vote to-night, been adjudged to be useless.

Mr. O'FARRELL

On behalf of Senators generally, I would like to congratulate the Minister on the exceedingly lucid manner in which he has, in a short time, explained the position. I think it must be obvious to the most partial observer that the resolution as drafted, and the speeches made in support of it, are definitely hostile to the scheme. I think it would knit the issue more clearly if a resolution was put down definitely opposing the scheme and asking the Seanad to give its adherence to such a motion. Personally, it would seem to me as if the influences behind the resolution had made up their minds that the scheme was not desirable, and consequently they adopted the familiar and time-honoured procedure of seeking to refer it to a Commission. In order to make its fate all the more sure, it is seriously suggested that that Commission should be composed of people selected from four competent bodies, so-called, two of whom have from the very beginning persistently and almost spitefully abused and ridiculed this scheme. I think it is a motion that is not likely to mislead the Seanad. If there is one act of administration in which the Government seem to have acted in a business and statesman like manner, in my opinion, it is the way they have dealt with this proposal to utilise the water-power of the Shannon for the electrification of the Free State.

The Government first of all called to its aid a world-famous firm of engineers to survey and make a report. This firm has behind it a wealth of experience, great technical knowledge, and many notable achievements of world-wide fame. In my opinion, the Government has not committed itself in any way to this firm. The Minister, I think, has made that very clear. The firm of Siemens-Schuckert have made a report and, in order to make the position doubly sure, four international experts—men of international repute— have examined into the reliability of the report of the German firm and its practicability, taking all the circumstances into consideration, for the development of the Saorstát. It must be borne in mind that these experts have no financial axes to grind. It is absolutely immaterial to them whether the scheme is adopted or not. The experts cannot be accused of ulterior motives. These men, in my opinion, would be very jealous of their international reputations before making a recommendation on a scheme which in the future might turn out to be badly devised. They had experience of conditions in Scandinavia, where the population is even more widely scattered than in Ireland, and where the normal demand for electricity is less than here per square mile. The experts had also experience of Switzerland, so that one must believe they took into consideration the whole of the circumstances surrounding the position here before they made their recommendations. In the main these recommendations endorse the Siemens-Schuckert report.

The main and indeed the only audible opposition has come from two or three sources, the Irish engineering profession, and those financially interested if the scheme comes to fruition. I hope I am not unduly unkind to the Irish engineers when I say that their attitude in this respect is rather influenced by professional jealousy. From the very inception of the scheme, they have set out to ridicule it, to under-estimate its possibilities, and to throw a cloud of suspicion, not only on the source of the report, but on the Government. One can quite sympathise with their feelings in not having got the job, but it must be remembered that they declared in advance that there were no possibilities in the scheme and that it was not worth talking about. Moreover, the arguments in favour of giving a task of that magnitude to a firm of experts like Siemens-Schuckert rather than to engineers who had no experience, who are mere babies in a matter of this kind, were obvious and need no recital in an average assembly. As Senator Gogarty stated, our engineers have had no experience in such matters, and it would be the height of absurdity, and unfair to them and to the State, to give them the task that has been entrusted to the great German firm.

We cannot afford to be concerned with the jealousies of any profession in a matter vitally affecting the future economic sources and intellectual development of the State. One feels sorry that the engineering profession has gone to such an extent to try and discourage this scheme. There has not been one single letter from that profession that pointed out one good element in the proposition. Difficulties have been pointed out, and, in my opinion, magnified, while hardly a word was said in support of the scheme. Surely, there must be a good side to it? As a layman, I prefer to follow the considered advice given after prolonged scientific investigation by the representatives of the engineering profession in Germany, whose ability and brilliance has made Germany one of the greatest economic forces in the modern world. I do not think we can be so very far wrong in taking their advice as against the advice of Irish engineers who have not explored the position at all in the same way, and who have never had the experience of their continental colleagues.

Of course, the position of those financially interested in other schemes can be very well understood. I daresay they will receive a good deal of sympathy in many quarters in the Seanad. Personally, I sympathise with them, but I sincerely hope in the interests of the country, that they will fail in their attempt to torpedo this scheme. The proposal to submit the question to another Commission, composed, at least half composed, of avowed enemies of the scheme, is really grotesque. We seem to have gone absolutely Commission mad. At the present time we have a Commission on National Health Insurance, a Commission on Old Age Pensions, a Commission in connection with the Irish language, the Greater Dublin Commission, the Liquor Traffic Commission, a Poor Law Commission, and last, but not least, some sort of Alcoholic Commission. The supporters of this motion say: "Another Commission will not do us any harm." But this scheme has been dealt with already by what is equivalent to two Commissions, and they are the only competent bodies to deal with a matter of the kind. The motion is superfluous, and it is only trying to delay and eventually spike the whole scheme. I am informed, and I think the information is fairly correct, that there are very powerful influences working against this scheme. One has only to read that delightful journal, the Daily Mail, to observe the furore that it has created at the other side of the Channel. It is alleged that the influence of the British Government is being sought to bring pressure to bear on the German Government with a view to discouraging German nationals from financing or in any other way making this scheme a possibility.

I think the Government, if they were at liberty to do so, might give some information that would startle the House in regard to these ramifications. Senator Sir John Keane in his speech dealt largely with the contract—who was to get the contract. Is it a fact that financiers here have been telling the Ministers that unless a British firm get the contract—no Irish firm is capable of undertaking it—any loan floated is not going to have their support? There is possibly a good deal of truth in that statement. It is, I think, immaterial to us who get the contract, provided they do it at a reasonable price. One must, however, bear in mind certain things that happened in the past. It is a matter of history that when Galway was being developed as a port, the captain of a ship was given a large sum of money to run his ship on the rocks outside Galway Bay. He wrecked the ship in order to bring about the ruin of the project in its infancy. That has been proved beyond dispute, and it was alleged that it was a large shipping company which provided this blood-money, so to speak, for wrecking the ship and destroying the prospects of the port. For that reason. I do not think that one can have so much faith in humanity as to believe that such things are not possible to-day. There are many possibilities for good arising out of this scheme. It would lead to a brightening of Irish life and enlivening our desperately dull and drab countryside, as well as our villages and towns. It would help to restore our trade balance, because it would lead to a material saving in imported coal for fuel purposes. There is no reason why there should not be a demand for electricity in rural Ireland as there has been in rural Germany. I read recently in an article that in the year 1920 there were in Germany 2,970 electrical co-operative societies organised for the purposes of purchase and distribution of electric supplies both for power and fuel. The German farmer is not by any means a luxurious individual, and he purchases his electricity for power purposes because it is more economical than coal or oil, and rather than use horses or other beasts of burden he uses electricity. This would, in my opinion, be one of the first great steps towards bringing about that much-talked-of normality. It would be an indication to the world at large that we have confidence in the stability of the State, and the result of that would be of far greater importance than any immediate commercial gain arising through the scheme itself. It would be a good proposition if the State at all times paid the overhead charges.

That would not mean an enormous sum, even for the Saorstát, for cheap power. It is ridiculous to state that you must wait for industries to grow up before you create your power. History has shown that where there is a river capable of transport a town has grown up on its banks. It would be absurd to suggest that you must build the town first and then put the river through it. The town has grown because the river has provided transport and other requirements of humanity. The scheme would also mean that industrial and economical development would be removed from the cities to the towns and villages. Outside the few cities in Ireland there is very little modern development or up-to-date civilisation. There has been too much centralisation in the large towns and the removal of industries to the centre of the State would make for a higher order of civilisation generally, and lead to the development of a proper industrial spirit, as well as generally raising the standard of living of the Irish peasant. Referring this to another commission, composed in the manner suggested, or any commission, would, in my opinion, throw the whole thing into the melting pot and reduce us to a position of absurdity. The only object of that proposal would be to torpedo the scheme through delay. I hope that in this vital period of our industrial and political history we shall have sufficient vision and courage to take whatever risks may be involved in this scheme. No project worth anything was ever achieved without risk of some kind. In this matter the risks are more than counterbalanced by the great results to be achieved in the future.

Mr. MacLYSAGHT

I made various attempts to speak, but I now simply want to suggest that the question be put.

Mr. BARRINGTON

Before the question is put I wish to make a few remarks, if for nothing else but to raise the tone of this debate out of the somewhat deplorable position of abuse and vituperation to which it has descended. If I were to use the celebrated reply of Sheridan to some of his critics, I would say that some speakers depended on their memory for their jests and on their imagination for their facts. That, I think, summarises the position pretty accurately. Before going further, I want to make my position clear. I am a whole-hogger for the Shannon. I was born in the city by its banks. I have lived there all my life, and as I cross the river twice a day in the course of my business I have never ceased to regret seeing the waters of the Shannon running waste to the sea. The river is a national asset absolutely lying idle. While stating these facts I want to make it clear that, although I am entirely in favour of the development of the Shannon in principle, it does not follow that I am in favour of the method by which it is proposed to carry that principle into operation.

I think it was Senator Douglas who made some criticism which seemed to be very much to the point. He said that if a commission were now appointed it would only have the effect of further delay and that the Bill ought to be introduced. I entirely disagree with him in that. I am in favour of the scheme and I want it carried out. I believe, however, that the scheme, as introduced, can be vastly improved and that the time to improve it is before the Bill is cut and dried. Once the Bill is reduced to the element of plans and is printed, there will be little chance of improving it. I should like to say that the history of the interference of man with the Shannon goes back to a very long period, portion of which is almost legendary. Above Killaloe can be pointed out two suspicious looking mounds which we are told were erected by an ancient King of Munster with the object of flooding Connacht in order to bring the people of that province into his subjection and under his control. He did not, however, succeed. I am rather afraid, if the Bill goes through in the form in which it is proposed, so far as I can make out, in the experts' report, it may end in the Minister succeeding in flooding the country with an amount of debt from which it will be found impossible to escape.

If the present scheme is rushed through without full consideration of every point by practical people who know the country, I fear that will probably be the result—that not Connaught alone but the rest of the Free State will be submerged in a flood of debt. I am not questioning the capacity of the eminent firm that designed this scheme, and I am not for a moment questioning the capacity of the experts. I have every confidence in them, when they say that certain results can be obtained in the shape of power by the development of electricity, but the scheme, from the very nature of things, and from the nature of the people employed on it, was bound to be spectacular. It is spectacular and theatrical. The name on the cover is a bit bombastic. It is called the electrification of the Free State, and it seems to me that in all probability the experts and the original promoters have erred on the side of magnitude. They may have designed a scheme which was more calculated to glorify their reputation than to meet the needs of a small country struggling for freedom to develop along the lines for which it was most suited. They have gone a long way in excess of the actual requirements of Ireland. It is clear that at present we do not possess industries to absorb all the electricity that they are going to produce.

There has been a good deal of talk, especially on the hustings, as to nation building. Everybody has been exhorted to take part in nation building. I am entirely at one with that. I think it is a most desirable thing to do, but if we are going to ensure the bringing of cheaper electricity to industries already in existence, such as the Dublin Tramway Company and Corporation of Dublin, to make a little more profit, that is not nation building. What we want is to bring new industries in. I have searched this document from cover to cover for evidence of any design, of any consideration on the part of the experts of the means that are necessary to do that. There is only one way of doing it. I have seen it done in other countries, and I do not see why it should not be done here. You should be prepared to give to manufacturers, and to people who are prepared to be manufacturers, some inducement. The inducements are very obvious. First of all, you must give them cheap power; second, you must give them cheap sites for factories, and the means of developing their factories; third, you must afford them cheap transit by means of communication with deep-sea navigation to enable raw materials to be cheaply brought in and manufactures exported; fourth, you must give them a modern town especially laid out to meet the necessities of manufacture, and also to provide for the housing and welfare of the industrial population; fifth, you must provide them with some freedom from excessive rates. It seems to me that if some provisions of that sort were put into the Bill it would not be beyond the bounds of possibility that people would come into the country, as they have been got to go into the various districts in America and elsewhere. I was at Niagara when the works there were originally proposed, and I saw the country covered with advertisements calling on the people to secure their sites while there was cheap power available, and means of transport. It was not long before these sites were taken up, and the works had to be doubled.

Some materially-minded people have estimated a nation's progress and civilisation by the amount of horse-power it produces and consumes. If this is correct, the decadence of some of those people who depend on the coal fields, oil, and natural gas for their power cannot be very long delayed. While in Ireland we have got the sun, the ocean, and the Atlantic breezes you will have water-power available here that will never fail.

I ought to give you an example of some of the obvious errors in the report as it stands. On pages 43 and 44 of Messrs. Siemens' scheme, and page 78 of the experts' report, they deal with the question of the railways it would be necessary to construct. Siemens propose a double-line three-feet gauge light railway from Longpavement to above O'Brien's Bridge, and a single line on to Killaloe, which, they say, is roughly 12½ miles. This involves 20 miles of track. It is proposed it should be fully equipped——

Mr. MacLYSAGHT

Would not this be more relevant when the general debate is on? I have already asked that the question be put, and it was not put. I do not like to prevent the Senator giving his important contribution on this matter, but I think it might be reserved for the general discussion.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

I was in doubt whether the remarks the Senator was addressing to the House were altogether applicable to the matter, but he is now criticising the report itself, and that seems to me to be directly relevant to the question.

Colonel MOORE

I would like to call attention to the fact that Senators have to catch their trains.

Dr. GOGARTY

I move that the question be now put.

Mr. COUNIHAN

I second.

Mr. BARRINGTON

I suggest I have a perfect right to proceed with the remarks I have to make.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

Well, would you hurry up?

Mr. BARRINGTON

The experts provide £27,750 for this railway, fully equipped. Now, if we are to judge of the correctness of the remainder of the estimates by this figure, I do not think that we would have any difficulty in coming to the conclusion that they are not, perhaps, as correct as they might be. I would like to correct one mistake made by the Minister when he was criticising something that appeared in the Press. He said that evidence was given before a committee by some engineer that a dam was to be constructed close to Ballymore-Eustace, and that was insecure, and that because that engineer criticised the Shannon embankment, and said that it might easily be damaged by a shovel, he was incorrect. It is necessary to point out that the two things are quite different. The dam that was proposed at Ballymore-Eustace was not condemned by Herr Buchi, as stated by the Minister. It was a different dam altogether. The dam that was proposed was to be of concrete; the dams at O'Brien's Bridge are made of clay. It may be easy to damage a dam made of clay. I am not disputing that, but I must dispute the statement that has been made by the Minister.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

Senator Sir John Griffith has the right to speak in reply, if he wishes to exercise it.

Sir JOHN GRIFFITH

I do not think there is any need for me to reply.

Mr. BROWN

I did not intend to intervene in this debate, but I will not have very much to say. I am very glad Senator Griffith brought this matter before the Seanad. I am glad I have listened to the debate. I do not agree with Senator Barrington that the tone of the debate was anything but good. It has cleared our minds and has done a great deal of good. I feel that the Commission to which Senator Griffith wishes to refer this matter is not a Commission that can properly deal with the question. I do not think it is a good Commission to deal with expert matters connected with engineering. It is a bad tribunal for any such question. It is not a good tribunal to deal with the financial aspects. I am afraid that in the end the Seanad and Dáil will have to deal with those. I suggest that as we have had a most useful debate, which has cleared our minds and done a great deal of good, Senator Griffith, having done all this good work, should not ask us to go to a division.

Sir JOHN GRIFFITH

I will agree to that course.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

Do I understand that the Senator withdraws his motion?

Sir JOHN GRIFFITH

Yes.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

I am sure the Seanad recognises the spirit in which you have done that, Senator. Now the Minister was threatening us with another meeting next week to discuss this matter. He is under the impression, I think erroneously, that Senators are been on having another debate. I think I may relieve his mind on that point. Unless he absolutely requires it, I think we might postpone any further discussion on this matter until after the Easter Recess.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

As I was introducing a resolution into the Dáil, I thought it was only courteous to the Seanad that they should have an opportunity of discussing the same resolution here. I suggest that the Seanad could consider that resolution either next week or after the Easter Recess. It is immaterial to me at what time they desire to consider it.

Mr. GUINNESS

Is it necessary that there should be any resolution before the Seanad?

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

The Minister said it would be equally convenient to him whether the resolution is discussed here either before or after Easter. He wants to give the Seanad an opportunity, if it likes to avail of it, of discussing, and passing if it wishes, a resolution similar to the one to be introduced in the Dáil.

Mr. GUINNESS

Then there is no statutory obligation?

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

No; he is not forcing it on us.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

The resolution that will come before the Dáil suggests that it is expedient that legislation be introduced at the earliest possible date. If the Seanad does not wish to discuss it now, the first opportunity it will have of discussing the matter is when the Bill is actually introduced.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

I think the Seanad will probably welcome the opportunity of discussing the resolution. I can bring that matter before them after Easter, and if they are anxious for another full-dress debate, I am sure you will comply.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Most certainly.

Mr. O'FARRELL

I suggest to the Minister that the sooner he brings the matter forward the better. I can assure him that the overwhelming majority of the House is in favour of the scheme. If he has any doubts, he can test the matter.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I wanted to get an expression of opinion, in a general way, from the Seanad, as well as from the Dáil. If the withdrawal of the motion to-day is an admission, well and good.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

I was going to suggest that the Minister should be satisfied.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I was wondering if I could accept the withdrawal as an admission, and if I could found my intentions upon it.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

We leave you to draw your own conclusions.