I desire to call attention to a matter of very simple character. During the debate on Senator Sir John Griffith's motion, the Government, in opposing the proposal to refer the scheme of Messrs. Siemens and the experts' report to further examination, used the argument that Parliament was the right body to decide the question in its present form. On that ground, a very serious responsibility rests on every member of both Houses to satisfy himself, as far as he can, that the basis of the scheme is sound. It is not a responsibility that can be shifted on to anybody else, and one cannot surrender one's judgment to experts, however eminent they be and however one realises one's own limitations. Where these limitations operate, one does not profess to set up one's opinion against that of experts of eminent character, but there are several matters in connection with this scheme that any plain man, with requisite data, can form his own opinion upon. With regard to our competence to examine this scheme, on the information available, it is quite impossible to form a reasoned judgment upon it. I refer especially to the financial provisions——
THE SHANNON SCHEME—PUBLICATION OF DETAILS.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I cannot allow you to discuss the merits of this scheme, save in regard to the particular matter on which you got permission to speak—the refusal of the Government to publish plans, schedules of prices, and so on. A discussion on the general merits and finances of the Bill would not be in order at this stage.
I was about to urge that the present information is so condensed as to be insufficient for forming a proper judgment. Without the basic figures on which the summaries of costs are founded, it is impossible to form a reasoned opinion on this scheme and discharge one's responsibility as a member of this House. I listened to the debate in the Dáil during one day, with much interest and attention. I was struck by the skilful manner in which the Minister handled the matter, and I was also much struck by an interjection he made when asked why he refused to publish these figures. He said—I think I am quoting his exact words, though I am speaking from recollection—that they "might be put to improper use." I suggest that by being withheld from this House they are not being put to proper use. It is our duty, if we are to deal adequately with this proposition, to make up our minds on the broad, second-reading aspect of the whole problem. I suggest that although Parliament, as a whole, seems to be satisfied with this measure, there is considerable apprehension amongst a small, but very important, section of the community at the lack of information. That small section of the community may be called upon to play an important part in the financing of this scheme. It is necessary that they should be educated and instructed if they are to do so.
I expected to hear some argument as to why plans and prices should be forthcoming. Senator Sir John Keane has simply said—it appeared to me to amount to a veiled threat—that if certain people did not get certain information then these people would not be amenable when it would come to their playing a considerable part later on. I do not know what that means. If it means that there is going to be any stand on the part of banks or financial houses with regard to the financing of this scheme, then it may have to be pointed out to banks, as has been previously pointed out to them, that they do not own all the money that is in their possession. They are merely the trustees of that money for the people who lodged it with them. If the people who put their money there are satisfied, then we do not expect to have any trouble with the banks, but, if we have trouble with them, we are in a position to meet it.
As to the plans and prices and their publication, I have received from Messrs. Siemens-Schuckert plans which are much more than the vague general sort of plan which is put in when a Private Bill is being considered. I am taking this Siemens-Schuckert scheme, in relation to Private Bill procedure, as having its preamble proved, other details being about to be considered and legislation being about to be brought in to carry out the proposals. Private Bill procedure admits of the production of a certain type of plan of a very general nature, and not of much use to anybody. We have plans of a much more detailed character than that —plans so detailed that they cannot be made public, because if these plans, in all their details, were made public, the whole ideas of the contractors would be made public. It is surely unreasonable to say, in the same breath, that there should be open competition and that you should, previous to calling for tenders, make public the tender of the first and main contractor. These people have lodged certain plans with me. These plans are too detailed for me to make public. There are certain plans, however, which should be made known to people who are likely to be affected, such as landowners along the stretch where the new canal is to be. Having got my resolution approved by the Dáil the other day, I am in a position to incur certain expenditure in getting prepared plans of the same general type as would be presented with a Private Bill. These will be made available to people who are interested, but they will be plans of the type I have outlined—not the detailed plans of the contractors, which I have in my possession.
The same thing really rules with regard to prices. Private Bill procedure admits of certain vague estimates as to costs. As Private Bill procedure really applies to private ventures, and as those private promoters may have to bear the loss themselves, I think there is not very much detail required from them. I hold that Messrs. Siemens-Schuckert's proposals, particularly as annotated by the experts, contain much more than would be required if they were proceeded with by way of Private Bill legislation. In so far as my promise with regard to plans goes for the future, and in so far as what has been done in regard to prices is concerned, the Siemens-Schuckert proposals are much more advanced, from the point of view of Private Bill procedure, than Private Bill procedure would warrant. If people have any fears with regard to those prices, I have again to state the position as it is: if Siemens-Schuckert cannot turn out these contracts at the prices they have estimated, then that is going to be Siemens-Schuckert's loss. The costs are binding so far as they are concerned. If they have under-estimated it is their look-out; we do not suffer. If they have estimated at too high a figure, then we have our checks and we can bring these prices down, in the words of the White Paper, to "world market prices" or to the prices that we consider a reputable firm in any part of the world would do any part of the work for. The matter is safeguarded, from the Irish point of view, in two ways. If Siemens-Schuckert have estimated too low, then it is going to be their loss. If they have estimated too high, not merely in bulk, but in respect of any particular item, we can challenge them on that item and by means of the checks provided for in paragraphs 11 and 12, can cut down their price.
I see no reason for giving any details of the prices other than have been given. We have in our possession from Messrs. Siemens-Schuckerts the schedule of prices on which their whole accounts were made up. The consulting engineers employed by us—the four continental experts—have passed these as sound. Where those prices touch on Irish conditions, they have been subjected to the examination of three or four Government Departments and they have been passed as sound. In every way the position is safeguarded and I see no reason whatever for making either the price or the detailed plans available for the public.
With reference to the statement of the Minister, I would like to point out, as one who has spent a considerable portion of his life in preparing plans for Private Bill Committees, that as regards this scheme there is nothing in existence at the present moment to enable anyone interested to form an opinion as to what the proposals are—nothing comparable to what has to be done before a Private Bill Committee. The plans that have to be prepared to go before a Private Bill Committee are not, by any means as vague as the Minister suggests. The Minister also referred to Private Bills as simply private ventures. I think he must be misinformed as regards that. Private Bills refer to Government Bills as well as public ventures. Whenever it is intended to interfere with the property or the interests of anybody, Private Bill legislation requires that plans be laid before the Committee, no matter who the promoters are, whether local authorities or the State. I think it is only fair that the public should have some knowledge of what is proposed. From the information that is given to us at the moment, no one has any means of forming an idea as to how they will be affected.
I am surprised at this demand for further information in view of the fact that the opponents of the scheme have already declared that they have sufficient information to condemn the scheme root and branch.
Would the Senator be more precise on this point.
Anyone has only to read the newspapers or to listen to the speeches that were made here on the last occasion to find out that not one good word was said by its opponents for the scheme at all. I imagine that the opponents of it have studied it so closely that they have saturated themselves with its ineffectiveness, so that it would be a mere waste of time to supply further information that would only confirm them more deeply in their belief that the scheme is absolutely useless and impracticable. Of course, it is an old game to try to kill a scheme with kindness, to show that you are so deeply interested in it that you want every bit of it—in other words, that you want to dismember it and make it absolutely impossible. There are a lot of those avowing interest in this scheme from the point of view of getting information, but it would look as if their object was otherwise, and as if it was being inspired by people, not so much opposed to the scheme, as by a desire to obtain the contract for people other than the people involved. I cannot see why there is such tremendous interest in this scheme across the Channel, except it is a desire to capture the contract for this utterly impractical scheme. I think the Minister has satisfied the House that he has already given all the information necessary, and more than would be required in the case of a Private Bill. If he has done that. I think it is sufficient, and it would be surely unfair, if there is to be competition, that every detail supplied by the firm that examined the scheme and evolved it should be made public. It would certainly place them in a false position. Whatever more details are required should be indicated when legislation is introduced, and when this House, in its wisdom, will have power to hold up the scheme if they think that further information should be adduced. I think that is the time, instead of now, to submit details which in many respects are obviously unnecessary, except for the information of the promoters. The threat in regard to the financiers as to the aspect especially in which they will view the scheme justifies what we have already said, that the opposition has been mainly from the point of view of interested people, or financial interests which may be affected if the scheme comes into operation.
One word more, especially in reference to the remarks of the last speaker. It is astounding that Senator O'Farrell, on more than one occasion, suggested that any comment, or, if you like to call it opposition, or even inquiry in regard to this scheme is based on ulterior motives or is inspired by self-interest. I only speak for myself, and I strongly resent the imputation. I am not, in any way, connected with any interest whatsoever concerned in this scheme, nor with any contractor, nor have I been approached by any interest, contractor or financier, as to what attitude I should take up. I am acting entirely on my own responsibility, and I have no ulterior purposes to serve.
I cannot understand how these estimates are final and binding as maximum in view of the fact that the experts refer to variations owing to change in quantities. Messrs. Siemens say, in their report, that where they come to bogland in the preparation of their embankments a change in quantities may have to be made. Surely, without being an engineer, one may realise that may involve a change in quantities. They will have to be varied and may affect the price. I only mention that as one matter. I have studied this report very carefully, and I could deal with the matter at much greater length if I wanted to. I only want now to call attention to one general point, and that is, to the lack of information upon which one has to satisfy oneself on this and many other difficulties at which one arrives from an examination of this report.
There is just one point I would like to deal with. Page 80 of the experts' report contains the definite statement by the experts that these costs are to be taken as sound within a 10 per cent. variation. That 10 per cent. variation is to be taken as part of the cost with which that chapter in page 80 deals—that is, the civil constructional part. Senator Sir John Keane referred to what he called one of many things. He referred to the only thing in which there is any variation possible, and that variation is possible, remember, just on the point that he has stated—that quantities may vary. But in all this, there are unit prices fixed for the quantities. The quantities may vary. The excavation work in connection with the canal may be through rock or earth, or it may be a mixture of both. According to that, of course, there will be a variation, but outside that there is no possible variation.
Will not that variation be liable to affect the total estimate?
That variation may affect the total estimate ten per cent one way or the other on the civil constructional part of the work.
Is ten per cent. the fixed limit of variation? Are Messrs. Siemens-Schuckert bound to a 10 per cent. variation?
No, but they are bound to have a fixed price for the unit, whatever the unit is, with regard to these quantities. If the quantities vary, say by three hundred per cent. for the civil constructional part, obviously a change will follow. Borings have been taken, the best possible estimates have been made, and the experts' judgment is that 10 per cent. is the amount that can be counted on.
Is it 10 per cent. on the price per unit?
No. Ten per cent. on the total, varying as the quantities vary.
Do you mean that the quantities cannot vary more than 10 per cent.?
I say that the final price of two and a half millions for the civil constructional part may vary by a quarter of a million in addition or by a quarter of a million less than what has been set out, but that is because the quantities may vary, and the experts' best estimate is that a 10 per cent. variation is the most one way or the other that can possibly occur. The unit price for whatever the quantity is, is absolutely fixed, and the only matter is what the multiplier is to be.
How does this 10 per cent. come in? I have often known a cutting, estimated to be clay, to turn out to be rock. Suppose a large portion of a cutting, supposed to be clay, turned out to be rock, am I to understand that the experts say that the cost will only vary 10 per cent.?
The experts have given their opinion that the only thing that can be counted upon is a 10 per cent. variation one way or the other. The excavation to be done may turn out to be entirely through rock. Obviously, then, there would be a huge variation, but it may also turn out to be through clay. As I have said, borings have been taken, and on foot of these borings, certain estimates have been made, and that is the experts' best judgment.
This 10 per cent. is, I suppose, the usual 10 per cent. allowed for contingencies in all estimates of this kind?
No. It is a different matter altogether. Your point about contingencies is also dealt with on page 80.
As regards the Bill which is to be brought forward in connection with this scheme, both in the Dáil and in the Seanad, may I ask whether the plans and quantities which are in existence will be made available for Senators during the discussion on the Committee Stage of the Bill?
Whatever plans have been prepared preliminary to the introduction of legislation will, I assume, be available here. I am not going beyond that. I think I could intimate to the House that I do not see any great consideration of plans arising on the particular Bill which I have drafted.
I take it, then, that the Bill will be merely a skeleton Bill?
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
The discussion is now automatically closed.