When we adjourned consideration of this Bill we were dealing with an amendment by Senator Sir John Griffith to delete Section 104.
ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) BILL, 1927—COMMITTEE STAGE (RESUMED).
The Seanad went into Committee.
CATHAOIRLEACH
Any consideration that we have been able to give this matter in the meantime rather fortifies my view that certain functions which the Commissioners of Public Works have should be handed over to the Board. I spoke yesterday on the question of navigation. There is the other question of drainage, or, rather, the prevention of flooding. There again the position is that owing to what has been done in connection with the canal works there will be a much better control of levels which hitherto caused flooding, than at any time in the past. Control must always lie with those who are looking after the electricity supply. I do not see circumstances in which they can exercise that control so as to cause flooding. After all, there are two ways of carrying over the water: the old channel of the river, as before, plus the canal. There might be the possibility of having, at times, to lower the particular level. The only effect that would have would be to prevent flooding. My only suggestion at this stage is that I could bring forward the particular amendment on the Report Stage which I suggested yesterday with regard to the Order having definitely to come before both Houses and that an adverse resolution of either House could reject it, or, putting that in a more positive way, that a resolution may have to be moved approving of that. That would meet the minor point raised by Senator Jameson.
I am very much opposed to double control, but I am more opposed to single control where the single control has conflicting interests and where there is not any control of that single control. I suggest to the Minister that it would be better to leave this section out of the present Bill altogether. The difficulty cannot arise for some considerable time and in the meantime the Minister would have time to think of the best solution of this difficulty. If necessary, he could introduce subsequent legislation on the matter. It would not take very long, and it would avoid what is, I believe, a very dangerous precedent.
CATHAOIRLEACH
Would it not be possible to arrive at a solution now which would enable the Board to do all these things with the concurrence of the Board of Works, and that in case of a disagreement the matter could be left to be determined by the Executive Council? I should imagine that the two Boards would work probably in perfect harmony, and if there was any cardinal question of principle on which they disagreed then the matter would be left to the determination of the Executive Council. I think that would get rid of the difficulty.
Is the work to be delegated to the Shannon Board to be done at the expense of the State and under the Board of Works Vote?
CATHAOIRLEACH
That is another difficulty.
I would think, if Section 104 stands it must be enlarged so as to provide that the new Board would have handed over to it the assets of the Board of Works and whatever are its sources of revenue. That is necessary if they are to take over the functions and duties. That would mean, whatever the revenues of the Board of Works are, I would have a clause brought forward to indicate that these are in the event of Section 104 remaining. If it is deleted it is finished. I do not think the matter can ever finish there. Definitely there must be an amendment of a considerable number of old Acts with regard to navigation. There are conflicting interests, as Senator Brown has submitted, at the moment under the Board of Works, the interests of navigation and drainage. Will there often be conflicting interests? It only means that these conflicting interests are going to be handed over to the Electricity Board, adding to it, if the Senator likes, the additional interest which may be in conflict with the other two.
As far as drainage is concerned I do not see how the interest will conflict. On the navigation side there may be. There again certainly I will have to come forward here, if not on this clause on other legislation, to ensure that in any conflict the navigation interest would have to give way. As to the suggestion made that this matter would be one for agreement between the Board of Works and the Electricity Supply Board and that any case of dispute should be determined by the Executive Council, I think that would hardly meet the case. I understand, under the present regime we have had at times the Board of Works going along in the ordinary way and keeping certain levels. There is in fact flooding being caused, and you have the peculiar and rather ridiculous spectacle of a man galloping on a horse to the nearest telegraph office to send wires to the Board of Works asking them to pay attention to the particular circumstances. If we were to add that, not merely might that happen but there would have to be an appeal to the Board of Works and the Shannon Board, there might be a conflict, and the matter would then be referred to the Executive Council. I am afraid irreparable damage might be done before there could be agreement.
I suggest that it would not weaken the Senator's position with regard to the deletion of the clause if this matter might be left over for two or three days for consideration, so that Senators might see in its amended form what my proposals are with regard to what we have here, transfer of the assets and of the revenues of the Board of Works, and, in addition, this matter of the Order being laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas. I do not like to postpone things until the Report Stage. I would rather that they were decided on the Committee Stage. I do not think the Senator's position with regard to the deletion of the clause will be weakened by two or three days' delay, and it might be possible to have the matter clearly before the Seanad then.
What is the proposition? Last evening when the Minister stated that he placed electricity in advance of drainage and navigation I felt that he immediately went contrary to my personal views. However anxious I may be to further this great work, yet I am bound to stress the view that one of the great dangers we are face to face with is the question of flooding. I do not like to take up the time of the Seanad on this subject, but still the importance of it is so great that I feel disposed to read an extract from a lecture I gave at the Royal Dublin Society in 1922.
The River Shannon is the largest Irish river; its catchment basin above Killaloe is over 4,000 square miles, or one-eighth of the total area of Ireland. The flow of the Shannon varies between wide limits. Recorded flows range from 32,460 cubic feet per minute to 1,947,600 cubic feet per minute, or a ratio of 1 to 60. From the middle of the eighteenth century it has been continuously under State control, and no river in the United Kingdom has been kept more carefully under observation. All the early work was designed in the interests of inland navigation, with the object of opening up the country by providing ready access by water from the principal ports. The Shannon was connected with Dublin by two canals, the Grand Canal and the Royal Canal.
It is, of course, not possible to enter into details of the engineering works on the Shannon. It will be sufficient to say that in 1835 an Engineering Commission, consisting of Sir John Burgoyne, Sir Harry Jones, Sir Richard Griffith, Sir William Cubitt, and Mr. Thomas Rhodes, was appointed by the Treasury, under powers vested in them by Act of Parliament. The primary object of the Commission was to improve navigation, and at the same time keep in view the flooding of adjoining lands. After the completion of the works recommended and carried out by the Commission, complaints were made that the works had caused flooding of the adjoining lands.
After the great floods of 1861 the Government employed Mr. John Frederick La Trobe Bateman to examine and report on the state of the river. He recommended the insertion of sluices in the weirs and certain improvements in the channel. He estimated that these works would cost £290,000, but only £58,000 was spent. In 1885 the Royal Commission on Irish Public Works reported on the river. The Chairman of this Commission was Sir James Allport, and it included two well-known and distinguished engineers, Sir John Wolfe Barry and Mr. James Abernethy. They recommended, amongst other things, the lowering of the navigation level of Lough Derg by two feet. This has not been done, and the Chairman of the Board of Public Works explained to us on the Commission dealing with the water power resources of Ireland that this could not be done without Parliamentary sanction.
It is those restrictions that exist in some Acts connected with the Shannon which are very important, and I rather fear the temptation will be to get water for electricity power at the expense of some of these other interests. The Shannon Electricity Act of 1925 gives power under Section 9 to drain lands. I cannot find that it gives power to flood lands. Section 8 gives power to improve navigation. I cannot find any power to injure navigation by lowering the level. Sir George Stevenson, the late Chairman of the Board of Public Works, in his evidence to the Water Power Resources of Ireland Sub-Committee, stated that the navigation level of Lough Derg could not be lowered without Parliamentary authority. The Minister stated that one of the reasons for inserting this clause was to obtain a single authority over the Shannon that could lower the level of the water in the interests of electric supply, even although injurious to navigation interests. There are, therefore, reasonable grounds for fear that the Electricity Supply Board would flood lands in the interests of electric supply and adopt the views of the experts as given on page 18 of their report on the Shannon scheme:—
In projecting embankments on the three lakes and along the river, the authors of Messrs. Siemens Schuckert's scheme have had the fundamental idea of protecting, as far as possible, all lands which, under the present circumstances, are subject to periodic flooding, or which can be flooded by the increase in the level of the lakes.
It should, however, here be noted that from the viewpoint of the cost of production of power, flooding on a greater scale with a lessening of the embankment to be built would be more advantageous.
I should fear that a Board whose sole object is probably the development of electricity would seize on that as a good reason for interfering with the drainage of the country and raising the level of the water. There is nothing, as far as I can see, in any Act to prevent them raising the level of the weir near Bennettsbridge. Personally, I believe it would be best to retain dual control of the Shannon. It seems to me the only way to exercise any control of the Shannon Electricity Board. Any differences which might arise could easily be settled by the Executive Council, and thus any injury to agriculture, drainage or navigation would be avoided or adjusted. If such grave powers as the lowering of the navigation level and flooding lands are necessary they should have been provided for in the original Shannon Electricity Act of 1925. One recognised defect in the Shannon scheme is the deficiency in storage capacity, and the temptation to improve this will naturally be a great temptation to the Electricity Supply Board if they find themselves short of water. Leaving the care of the Shannon in the hands of the Board of Works will, at any rate, act as a check against such act being done without the knowledge and sanction of the Government. I therefore would urge upon the Minister and the Seanad the adoption of this amendment and the deletion of Section 104. I certainly think that would be the wiser plan in the first instance. There is no real hurry about this. I quite understand that it will require very careful preparation of a Bill to carry out all the requirements that will be necessary. I urge the Minister to take such steps as are necessary to make the Shannon Electricity (Supply) Bill a perfect success.
I have had brought under my notice some circumstances in connection with flooding caused by the Shannon at a place called Meelick. Some two years ago there was considerable flooding in the district, and the people affected found great difficulty in getting in touch with the Government Department concerned. There was a good deal of damage done by the flooding, and the people found that there was a lot of red tape attached to getting in touch with the Government Department responsible. I understand from the Minister that under the Shannon electricity scheme the Board is to have the highest control and the management of the Shannon levels. It is quite possible that if there is dual control in future people will experience the same difficulty in regard to flooding. If the Shannon Board is to be the prime authority in future they should have undivided authority, and the power at present in the hands of other departments should be taken from them so as to prevent anything happening that would endanger the Shannon scheme.
It is very difficult to attempt to intervene after such an able authority as Senator Sir John Griffith, but after all a great many of these flooding dangers were considered when the Shannon electricity scheme came originally before us. Some of us were satisfied that arrangements, probably ample arrangements, were made to prevent flooding by reason of an alteration of the levels. It is obvious from what Senator Sir John Griffith has said that his great anxiety is the scrapping to some extent of the Shannon scheme rather than to prevent any loss to navigation or any danger of flooding that would be incurred. That is the impression I got from his very able statement. For my part I consider that we have committed ourselves definitely to the success of the Shannon scheme. It was admitted when we were considering the original Bill that certain stoppages and certain disadvantages would accrue to navigation. We accepted that position. That being the case, and seeing that any dual control would vitiate the whole system as Senator O'Connor points out, and would delay attention to the dangers which will probably arise, I certainly think that control by one Board would be more advantageous than control by two Boards. Having to go from one Board to another and back to the Executive Council would be a pernicious system. For that reason I think it better to accept the scheme as it stands. The suggestion of the Minister that he would place on the Table any new Orders to be made would give the advantage of having these Orders considered by the Oireachtas. Any danger that would be likely to arise under these Orders could then be prevented by both Houses. I think it my duty to disagree with the amendment.
I would suggest to Senator Sir John Griffith that he should allow the amendment to remain over until the Report Stage, and in the meantime we will have the advantage of considering it adequately and consulting with the Minister.
It will make the matter a little clearer if we get what is in dispute. Senator Griffith has dealt with both drainage, flooding and navigation. On the navigation point I would like to be quite clear on what is necessary. Reading through the expert's report and taking the minimum level of the lake and what one might have to come to in the driest year—that is, say, once in thirty years, one would say that it is a matter of the possibilities in 30 years, that the existing level might have to be lowered a matter of inches for a period of two months once in every thirty years. If that is to be done in the interests of electricity supply I would make navigation suffer to that extent. I would like to be quite precise on that.
Might I say our Committee recommended the lowering and the dredging of the lake —at least, the lowering of the lake level in the way the Minister referred to. We only meant a comparatively small amount of dredging in the upper part of the lake, but there was no authority to do it with Parliamentary sanction.
Any order that might be made under the section where there is an impediment, at the moment, put on the Board of Works against allowing the navigation level to go below a certain point, then that might be a modification as against the thirty year emergency I would look for. On this matter of flooding, Senator Sir John Griffith has read part of the expert's report. On page 17 of the report the expert says:
"In projecting embankments on the three lakes and along the river, the authors of Messrs. Siemens Schuckert scheme have had the fundamental idea of protecting, as far as possible all land which under the present circumstances is subject to periodic flooding or which can be flooded by the increase in the level of the lake."
Then they continue, and Senator Griffith laid stress on it indicating the fear that this might be taken as a direction by the Board:
"It should, however, here be noted that from the viewpoint of the cost of production of power, flooding on a greater scale with a lessening of the embankments to be built would be more advantageous."
But I submit that had only reference to the projection. How was the scheme to be built out? How were the works to be done in order to see that flooding would not occur? If one was only considering a power scheme he would say: "Flood any amount of land." It is cheaper to flood than to store up. I am arguing that that quotation has not anything ominous in it about the future. The experts have said that they have projected embankments carried out from the opposite point of view.
"The experts, however, from a general national economic viewpoint, feel themselves bound to support the idea in the scheme that as much cultivated land as possible should be protected, even at some cost to the economics of the power production. On this consideration, therefore, the fundamental basis has been taken that all land must be protected which lies above the normal navigation level and below the proposed high water level."
Later on they say:—
"The experts do not wish, however, if the full development is to be carried out at a still later period, that portions of land should be subject to flooding lasting longer than previously, or arising in more unfavourable seasons, because of the lake regulation in the partial development. The experts have therefore insisted that a special study should be carried out in which the extent and the cost of those embankments would be gone into, which are necessary for immediate prevention of floods on areas affected by the partial development."
That stage has been carried out, and the embankments necessary are going to be built. Take the 2,000 acres of land ordinarily flooded between Meelick and Banagher. That is going to be protected. There is going to be more attention paid to having better regulation of the weir at Meelick and Coolock. Anywhere there is land there is going to be prevention of flooding.
As far as I can make out, the definite fear in Senator Sir John Griffith's mind is that by raising the level of Lough Derg, say beyond the present winter level, the Board might think it necessary that they should flood land not now flooded, or at seasons of the year when it is not flooded. The scheme as projected is said to give sufficient storage for the purpose of partial development by keeping the level of Lough Derg not at a level of 111 but at 110. It does, in fact, make them hold it at 110 for a few months longer in the year than would now occur. Recognising that there may have to be embankments projected which would prevent flooding for a longer period of the year, the fear would be that the Board might raise the lake about 110. If that is a fear, let us prohibit that in this Act; let us say "Such orders or regulations shall not, without the consent of the Executive Council, exceed such and such a point." If I could get concrete points put to me—if there were fears I could dissipate them and put a definite protection in the Bill.
I agree with all the Minister has said. It would take time not only for him to prepare the clause but for the other House to take it into consideration. I believe it would be wiser to eliminate the clause within the present Bill and let it be passed as a perfectly clear issue, giving us all time to consider it. If, however, the Minister would allow this to stand over until Report and let us see what he proposes it would, I think, be better.
I would prefer that, but if in the meantime I could get other special points on which there are fears, such as the question of the lake being raised above the present winter level, then I will see what prohibition could be imposed with regard to the modification of the present powers and duties of the Board of Works.
I happen to know something of the country through which the Shannon flows, and the fear of people in certain districts is that there may be flooding. They are more afraid of flooding than of anything else. The question of flooding has been dealt with in the proposals of the engineers, and they have certainly given very considerable attention to this particular matter. As to whether they would succeed or not in the event of flooding remains to be seen. Anyhow, that question is immediately pressing, because we cannot tell how far the flooding is likely to proceed until the scheme is completed. It seems to me the proposal of the Minister in his last remark is a good one. He suggests that the Board, whatever its constitution is, should be expressly forbidden in this Act to allow flooding beyond a certain height without the express permission of the Executive Council. That seems to me to be the proper way to deal with this question. When you have a flood it is not a question of cabling to Dublin, Limerick, or some other place to open a sluice. You want to have someone on the spot to get rid of the water. You do not want to impound it. In our climate you want to get rid of it as quickly as possible. It seems to me that the regulation made that the water of Lough Derg, Lough Rea, or Lough Allen shall not be raised above a certain point without the express permission of the Executive Council is a great safety.
Senator Sir Thomas Esmonde raised a point which is somewhat away from what we are discussing. I have stated in the Dáil and here that the attitude under the Shannon project is that lands which were going to be flooded should be bought out and flooded. That is to say, more or less, that the area of the river bed would be enlarged to a certain extent. Where lands are subject to periodic flooding, and those lands are not going to be bought out, that flooding was going to be stopped. I thought that was a clear issue, but now in certain areas of the country it has transpired that people are going to claim compensation from me for taking away the good water that used to irrigate their lands.
On the assumption that the suggestion the Minister made is going to be carried out, that is the consideration of this to be deferred to the Report Stage, I would like to point out a matter to which I hope he will direct his attention. It is one in which the people of Limerick are very much interested and which they asked me to raise. I understand they have already had an interview with the Minister with regard to the navigation. The Minister has been quoting from the report of the experts with regard to the navigation. He proposes to depart from the recommendations of the experts altogether.
No, I am in accord with the later recommendations of the experts.
The only ones I read were contained in the published book. The position is this: The canal at Limerick was originally intended to be connected with deep water at the harbour. The British Treasury when carrying out the project for some reason cut it short and never completed the proper connection between the canal and the deep water navigation. The canal has been practically not fulfilling the duties it was originally intended to fulfil, for want of this connection. That was supposed to be removed by the recommendations embodied in the report of the experts. The Government seem to be treading in the footsteps of the British Treasury and to have abandoned that part of the report of the experts, with the result that the navigation will be as badly off as it ever was and would have no connection with the deep water, as far as I can ascertain. These things are kept in the dark and one does not know what is intended. One hears one day that the intentions of the Government have been abandoned for a comparatively small expenditure.
I think it was £250,000.
It was nothing like £250,000. The Abbey River is going to be attended to partially.
Sufficient for the purpose.
I hope when the Minister is re-drafting this clause or when the matter is brought up on Report that he will deal with that aspect of the situation. It is very closely connected with the question I raised before as to the establishment of factories. If this navigation is made possible between the canal which is already under construction and the deep water at Limerick there is a very large area of land suitable for factories close to the generating station. In my opinion and in the opinion of the people of Limerick it is a matter of vital importance to the country. There is a bridge known as Park Bridge which is very old and impossible for navigation and if it is not reconstructed I do not see how any efficient navigation can be conducted on the Abbey River. I always thought the £250,000 was an unnecessarily expensive proposal, but I hope they will do something to improve the navigation.
I suppose the Senate is aware that this hydraulic lift which was to elevate the salmon and other things has been abandoned. The maintenance of the navigation is essential, and the canal will be deprived of the water altogether, It is proposed, as far as I can ascertain, to substitute the new canal coming down from the power house, and that will be a good improvement. When the new canal ends at the power house there will be a hiatus of some two or three miles between it and the deep water navigation at the port of Limerick. That might be got over by some improvement on the Abbey River.
That has nothing to do with Section 104, which is concerned with the transfer to the Board of certain functions of the Commissioners of Public Works.
The section provides that future navigation is to be placed in the hands of the Electricity Board.
No, it is the building of the new channel.
If you do not build, your navigation would be irreparably damaged.
I have had many complaints on this matter. I have had a deputation recently and it raised, for the first time, the question as to how far not proceeding with the idea of deepending the Shannon down towards Limerick was going to affect the power scheme as a power scheme. They immediately got their answer that the experts recommended that this matter should be abandoned in the partial development: that it was a waste of money.
That was in the original proposal?
Was the placing of the weir at a different point in it? I always said, distinctly and clearly, that I was taking the plans, and that, here and there throughout the experts' reports, it was stated what would have to be done by the engineers. I never believed that the report was to be taken and followed out word for word. The whole thing was to be subject to expert engineers' examination. The weir had to be shifted up the river because there was no rock foundation——
That is the upper weir. There is an upper and a lower weir.
I am talking about the upper weir. The Senator may tell me that the upper weir was at a certain point in the scheme, and that the original weir is not there now. He may tell me that embankments were projected, and found to be of no use where they were projected, and that where embankments were not projected it was afterwards found necessary to build some. I said, in the Dáil, I was given a certain sum of money and told to produce a certain amount of power, and I was told to proceed along the lines of the Siemens Schuckert plans as modified by the experts, and that if there was to be further modification it should be again laid before the experts and that their benediction should be got on it. That has been done. The Senator talks about maintaining the present navigation and communication with the harbour, bringing boats down to the canal from the power house, through the tail-race and swinging into the Abbey River. What is being done to prevent the present connection with the ocean harbour? Not one single thing.
I will tell the Minister one thing. It is perfectly obvious the navigation, unless the Abbey River is improved, will end at the power house at Ardnacrusha, three miles away, and unless something is done to improve the navigation in Limerick boats will never be able to come down.
Boats will be able to come down through the canal. The routes between the canal harbour and the ocean harbour are not interfered with.
They cannot come down to the canal harbour with any ordinary reasonable facilities, unless some improvements are made in the Abbey River and unless the Park Bridge is rebuilt.
Why should the Senator proceed on the assumption that these things are not being done? I said most distinctly, with the engineers to back me up, that boats will be able to come down the tail-race through the Abbey River under the reconstructed Park Bridge into the harbour.
We do not know what subsequent changes may have been made or what various opinions the experts have given. The Seanad can only deal with the information before it, and the information placed before it was that the boats would come down the new canal through Ardnacrusha, that the Abbey River channel would be deepened so as to make navigable the portion of the river to the harbour. The Minister cannot deny this, that now in private and without anybody's knowledge that is completely changed.
Without anybody's knowledge?
I am asking the Minister a question. I am asking him instead of taking them down the main river to take them down the Abbey River.
Why should the Senator get excited about points he does not understand? He talks of what has been done without anybody's knowledge, although it was something done by the advice of the experts.
The Seanad does not know that.
Has the Seanad asked for it?
We are asking for it now.
And you are getting it on the first occasion it is asked for. The answer about things which you say were done in the dark is that they were done by the advice of the experts. While the daily operations are being supervised, and while daily conflicts between the two groups of engineers may occur, the Senator seems to think that I should make statements here day by day as to what is happening. The Senator asks for information for the first time, and he is getting it.
It is not the first time this information has been asked for. I have seen correspondence extending over months dealing with this matter between the people of Limerick and the department of the Minister. The Minister is very expert in drawing red herrings across the trail.
CATHAOIRLEACH
You are getting far beyond the subject matter dealt with in this section. If it is to be further dealt with I must ask the Senator to put down some amendment that will call attention to it on the Report Stage.
If I might continue for a moment. The Abbey River is to be deepened.
As far as the canal harbour. I asked was the canal harbour in the navigation as proposed in the report of the experts as submitted to us?——
We want to know is there to be navigation between Lough Derg and the sea, and for what size boats?
There is, and for 180-ton barges. I hoped that the Senator would have asked what was going to happen. Boats will come down from the power-house through the tail-race, through the Abbey River under the reconstructed bridge to the canal harbour.
What is the distance?
Let me continue. From the canal harbour to the ocean harbour the situation as to the harbour is as it was. There was nothing projected in the way of any improvement there. There were certain alternatives given by the experts as to the different methods of navigation, and a statement was made by me that, as to which one of those was adopted would depend upon which one would use the navigation, and when they give me that information I shall be able to determine.
CATHAOIRLEACH
I think we are still in the dark as to whether there will be, under this scheme, or plan, navigation from the canal harbour to the sea. We had better adjourn this discussion to the Report Stage.
Does not this matter arise out of the proposal made by Senator Sir John Griffith?
CATHAOIRLEACH
I have given the fullest latitude. Have I not allowed you to make five speeches already? The question raised by Senator Sir John Griffith will now stand over and will be reconsidered on Report Stage. May I throw out the suggestion that I think very much could be done if there was a meeting in the interval between the Senator and the Minister.
Sections 104, 105, 106, 107 agreed to and added to the Bill.
With regard to Section 108, I want to refer to a matter that I think the Minister might accept and that is to insert after the words "corrosive substances" the words "poisonous substances," and to mention the river as well as the Shannon works. If not, the fishing will be injured and it will not be to the advantage of the Board, and it will but help their unpopularity to add to the other things against them. It would be to the interest of the Board to protect the fishing, and as there are many substances that might be introduced into the river from the excesses of the creameries every opportunity should be taken to prevent pollution.
I do not think such a suggestion as the Senator has made should be accepted without some further consideration. This raises a very important matter in connection with creameries, and it would be well we should have an opportunity of considering the case and of making some suggestions for dealing with it.
CATHAOIRLEACH
This amendment has been suddenly sprung on the House without notice, and the Seanad has not got it in writing. Would Senator Gogarty kindly hand it in to me.
I do not want to delay or hold up the Bill, but I would ask the Minister to accept the principle of it.
CATHAOIRLEACH
We can consider it on Report.
Section 108 put and agreed to.
Sections 109, 110, 111, 112 and 113 put and agreed to.
FIRST SCHEDULE.
2. Every person who was employed by an authorised undertaker or a statutory undertaker for a period of not less than five years before the 31st day of March, 1927, and was so employed at the date of an order made under this Act requiring such authorised undertaker or such statutory undertaker to cease to use a generating station as a generating station and who by reason of such generating station ceasing in pursuance of such order to be used as a generating station—
(a) has suffered loss of employment, or
(b) has relinquished his employment in consequence of being required to perform duties such as were not similar or were an unreasonable addition to the duties which he was required to perform by such undertaker on the 31st day of March, 1927, or
(c) has suffered diminution of salary, wages, or emoluments, or
(d) has been placed in any worse position in respect of the conditions of his employment than he was in in that respect on the 31st day of March, 1927,
shall be entitled to receive from such authorised undertaker or statutory undertaker compensation in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Schedule.
4. The compensation to be paid under this Schedule to a person who either—
(a) has suffered loss of employment, or
(b) has relinquished his employment in consequence of being required to perform duties such as were not similar or were an unreasonable addition to the duties which he was required to perform on the 31st day of March, 1927,
shall be an annual sum not exceeding in any case two-thirds of his annual remuneration and emoluments on the 31st day of March, 1927, and, subject to that limitation, to be calculated at the rate of one-sixtieth of such annual remuneration and emoluments for every completed year of his employment with the authorised undertaker or statutory undertaker by whom the compensation is payable under this Schedule less an amount equal to the annual amount or annual value of any sum payable to him by such authorised undertaker or such statutory undertaker by way of pension, superannuation, or gratuity on discharge.
5. The compensation to be paid under this Schedule to a person who either—
(a) has suffered loss or diminution of salary, wages, or emoluments, or
(b) has been placed in any worse position in respect of the conditions of his employment than he was in on the 31st day of March, 1927.
shall be an annual sum not exceeding in any case two-thirds of his annual remuneration and emoluments on the 31st day of March, 1927, and subject to that limitation, as nearly as possible the equivalent in money of the annual diminution in remuneration and emoluments or of the worsening of the conditions of his employment (as the case may be) suffered by him and shall be payable during the continuance of the employment in which such annual diminution in remuneration and emoluments or such worsening of the conditions of his employment (as the case may be is so suffered by him as aforesaid.
7. In computing the period of employment of a person who is entitled to receive compensation under this Schedule there may be added to the actual period of employment of such person with any authorised undertaker or any statutory undertaker such number of years not exceeding ten years for and in respect of the special qualifications or exceptional conditions of employment of such person as the Board may in any particular case require so to be added to the actual period of employment as aforesaid.
11. If any dispute or question shall arise—
(a) between any person and any authorised undertaker or any statutory undertaker or any permitted undertaker as to whether such person is a person entitled to compensation under this Schedule, or
(b) between any person entitled to compensation under this Schedule and the authorised undertaker or the statutory undertaker (as the case may be) by whom such compensation is payable as to the amount of the compensation so payable, or
(c) between any person who is in receipt of an annual sum by way of compensation under this Schedule and the authorised undertaker or the statutory undertaker (as the case may be) by whom such annual sum is payable as to the amount of the capital sum of money by payment of which the whole of such annual sum as aforesaid is to be commuted,
such person or such authorised undertaker or such statutory undertaker may appeal to the Board or, where the Board is a party to such dispute or question, the Minister, and the Board or the Minister (as the case may be) may hear and determine such appeal and the decision of the Board or the Minister (as the case may be) thereon shall be final and conclusive and not subject to appeal to or review by any court.
12. Where any person who is entitled to receive compensation under this Schedule is also, whether under statute or by the terms of his contract of employment with the authorised undertaker or the statutory undertaker by whom such compensation is payable under this Schedule, entitled to receive compensation in respect of the same circumstances as those in respect of which he is entitled to receive compensation under this Schedule then and in every such case such person shall be entitled to receive compensation as he so elects, under such statute or such contract as aforesaid or under this Schedule but not under both such statute or such contract and this Schedule.
I move:—
First Schedule. Paragraph 2. To delete in line 61 the words and figures "31st day of March, 1927," and to substitute therefor the words "date of the said order."
This deals with compensation and with the protection for the existing employees of authorised undertakings. It is to provide for compensating those who will lose their posts as a result of the generating station ceasing to be used as such. Some of these undertakings will be acquired almost at once. But others may not be acquired for three, four or five years to come. Meanwhile the staff attached to some of those undertakings, in the case at any rate of the municipal undertakings, will have been advancing in their salaries scale. They will naturally have a higher remuneration in three or four years than they had on the 31st March, 1927. If dismissed in five years' time, as a result of this undertaking being taken over by the Board, the basis of the compensation would be the remuneration paid them on the 31st March last.
Sub-section (c) has nothing to do with the scale of salary. Take the sub-section before it. There is no date mentioned in (c).
I take it that the next one explains the date. It does so, in my opinion.
I do not think so.
Subsequent paragraphs state it. In another paragraph the Minister will find what the employee will get. The employee will get one-sixtieth of his salary for each year of his service up to the 31st of March, 1927. The whole basis of the compensation is the remuneration drawn by the employee on the 31st March last. Most of the subsequent amendments put down by me bear on that question. My amendment suggests that the compensation be reckoned as on the date of the order. As a precdent we have the compensation in the Railways Act, 1924. That was one of the principal Acts in which the question of compensation to employees was discussed and in that case the compensation was to be made on the basis of the salary and emoluments on the day of the amalgamation or on the day of the absorption as the case might be. Where the compensation has been paid in the case of the railways, it has always been paid on the basis of the previous year's remuneration. I think a similar principle should be observed here. In the case of tradesmen, there will be, as a rule, the ordinary standard of the particular trade and that is pretty well the same from one year to another and has very little fluctuations. Even in their cases the paragraph, as it stands, may have a detrimental effect. But in the case of salary grade they are generally on a scale and it would be a great injustice in the case of an undertaking taken over five years hence that the employee should be compensated on the basis of the salary paid last March. It is to remedy that that I put down this amendment.
When I saw the amendment I was in doubt as to what it meant. If the Senator will look at the First Schedule he will see an item in paragraph 2 (c) which reads: "has suffered diminution of salary, wages or emoluments." There is no date mentioned; the employee does not suffer by reason of the salary enjoyed on the 31st March last. In paragraph 5 that same phrase is taken to be "has suffered loss or diminution of salaries, wages or emoluments." The date has been put in in two sections. What had been aimed at was this—one had to prevent the deliberate increasing of wages or bettering of conditions just prior to acquisition, so that the Board would not be handed a definite liability and responsibility which the previous undertaker had not borne. I would be prepared to meet the Senator to a certain point. I think it is desirable that a man's position should count as from the date of the order as long as the Board would have control and that there was not a bettering of the conditions or any additions to salary so as to secure a larger compensation just because acquisition was ahead. I think that (c) of paragraph 2 and (a) of paragraph 5 have no dates with regard to the point. It leaves rather getting in the appeal as against the Board. That may have to be attended to—the bettering of conditions.
Supposing the wages are to be regarded as different from the conditions of employment. In other words, the conditions of employment cannot be taken to include salary, wages or emoluments. Then the only other point would refer to bettering the conditions of employment, that is to say, giving a man an assurance that he would not be transferred from one place to another, so that thereafter he would be able to hold that against the Board. We thought the best position to stereotype was the position on the 31st March, 1927, before the people began to realise what was in this Bill. That was specially supposed to be taken in the light of the Bill. I would be prepared to give special consideration to this matter and to meet the Senator on the point referred to. Obviously it would be more equitable that the date should be a later date than the 31st March, provided there should be some supervision that the salary and wages were not specially raised at a later date in order to increase the liability of the Board.
If it were the annual income?
Yes, I am in agreement with the Senator, and we can possibly put in some words so as to include annual increments prior to the 31st March, 1927.
That satisfies me. All I want is that the normal operation of this undertaking would be left to go on, and so long as there is not the position to be faced that the man is to be compensated on the basis of what he had on the 31st March, 1927. That covers really all these deletions of mine.
It does not cover amendment 68.
CATHAOIRLEACH
Perhaps it does not cover 68. It applies to 66, 67, 69 and 70. These will stand over for report.
I move amendment 68:—
First Schedule. Paragraph 4. After the word "Schedule" in line 22 to insert the words:—
"with an addition thereto based on the number of completed years of his service and calculated according to the following scale:—
If he has twenty or more completed years of service, an addition of ten-sixtieths of his remuneration and emoluments;
if he has fifteen or more completed years of service and less than twenty such years, an addition of seven-sixtieths of his remuneration and emoluments;
if he has ten or more completed years of service and less than fifteen such years, an addition of five-sixtieths of his annual remuneration and emoluments;
if he has five or more completed years of service and less than ten such years, an addition of three-sixtieths of his annual remuneration and emoluments."
This amendment makes it definite that there shall be a certain number of years added in the case of people who are displaced and who are to be paid compensation and are entitled to compensation as a result of being displaced. When you remove a person, when you deprive him of his employment, something for which he has been specially trained and to which he has settled down in life and got into a certain groove, you pay him compensation at the rate laid down in the Bill on years of service. If he has a comparatively short service you are not giving him full compensation for his loss of service. If a man has ten years' service and you throw him out on the labour market in its present state it is poor compensation to him to pay him ten-sixtieths of his salary. It is quite inadequate to live upon having regard to his prospects of getting employment because of the numbers that are being added on account of this development to the unemployed each year. His prospects of getting employment are poor indeed. That principle was recognised in the British Railways Act of 1921, and in the Saorstát Railways Act of 1924. There is a definite basis laid down providing that a man who had 20 years' service should have ten years added; if he has fifteen years' service there were added seven years. Between fifteen and ten years' service five years were added, and up to five years' service three years were added for the purpose of calculating his compensation. My amendment merely proposes that a similar procedure shall be adopted in the case of those people who lose their employment as a result of the Shannon scheme. It will not make a tremendous lot of difference. I do not know that the number will be great. I think this House should give it the fullest possible consideration. There is a precedent in the Act passed in 1924, the Railways Act, which has not been repealed so far. I think it would be inequitable if we had not similar conditions in the case of the people affected by this Bill.
I know that the subsequent sub-section does not make provision for certain added years not exceeding ten. But this provision was put in in respect of special qualifications. But they are absolutely at the discretion of the Board. A man may be employed late in life because of certain professional qualifications. If he is disemployed there is power to add a number of years for the purpose of the compensation. My amendment seeks to cover the ordinary employee. I move it accordingly.
A discussion with regard to this amendment arose previously in the Dáil, but it did not happen to be carried to any great extent. A further amendment had been set down, however, with regard to people having certain qualifications. I accepted the amendment, and it now appears as paragraph 7 of the schedule. A Deputy drew attention to the phrase "exceptional conditions of employment." I paid particular attention to this, so as to meet the case where possible hardship might be brought upon individuals. I did say that on this matter of added years for abolition that I regarded the people who are to be compensated under this section in an entirely different position from the railway workers. When the railway workers were under consideration here it had been pointed out, and had been definitely known, for instance, in the Unemployment Insurance Act, that there were certain conditions of permanency about the railway workers, and this is recognised in the Act of 1924. After three years' service they are regarded as permanent. But that does not hold in the case of men employed in a generating station. It must be remembered that this section applies only to employees working in a generating station. Obviously, people who are employed in other than generating stations are going to have increased areas. There is going to be an increase in employment except in the generating stations themselves. A generating station may be closed down. There is not the same degree of permanency generally about the employee in a generating station as there is in railway employment. In the Dublin Station there is a certain recognised permanency, and those people may be regarded as in a different class. There are special men, seven-day a week people, who have to do work on Sundays as well as on the ordinary weekdays, and have to work under particular difficulties. Paragraph 7 was designed to meet the exceptional conditions of their employment, bringing the Dublin undertaking, so far as the men employed in the generating part of it, within this paragraph. We have only to consider those who are occupied in the generating stations in the country. There is no idea of permanency there. These men are employed under conditions of service terminable on a week's notice or a month's notice, and there are generally no conditions of permanency. It may be said that 90 per cent. of the people who are employed in any of the generating stations can, in fact, be employed upon the transmission and distribution side, and in a variety of ways on the Shannon works, as, naturally, they will have the first consideration owing to their experience. The people one has to consider are narrowed down to a very small class, the technical men employed in the generation station of Dublin and, possibly, Limerick. Cork, however, is not in the same position, being under a company, and there are no indications that conditions of permanency in their employment. Even with regard to these men they have the best chance of immediate employment.
I do hold that the phrase "exceptional conditions of employment" was designed to meet the seven-day week men, and possibly it might be enlarged to meet some of the other people. But I would hesitate to have an amendment of this sort which was founded on the Railways Act where the conditions are entirely different. There was some idea of permanency about railway workers. That cannot be said to be the case with regard to employment in generating stations. I ask the Senator to consider whether paragraph 7 does not meet in the main those points which he has been urging. If the Senator thinks that a small enlargement of paragraph 7 would meet some other classes, but not the whole group, that could be brought in, I should be prepared to consider it.
The Minister might enlarge it to carry out exactly what he said. My reading of the paragraph does not satisfy me that it guarantees to the people all the Minister has said it is intended to cover. Practically the whole staff of the generating station in Dublin are as he describes them, men working in shifts and who are really employed seven days a week, with a few of the clerical staff attending as well. Most of the engineering staff, the engine men, labourers and fitters, and men of that type, switch-board engineers, mostly work on the shift system. If the Minister will put into words what he said it is intended the paragraph should cover, we will be satisfied.
I think "exceptional conditions of employment" would cover a seven-day week, but that could be made clear.
I would be glad to have it made clearer so as to remove any doubt.
The words "exceptional conditions of employment" are exceedingly vague, and the meaning would depend on the mentality of the person interpreting them. A man working three days a week might be considered as having "exceptional conditions of employment."
CATHAOIRLEACH
Perhaps it would be better if you substituted "special" for "exceptional."
That is probably a better word.
The words are specially designed to meet the case of people who are working under harsh conditions. I intend to omit them, and make the definition more clear and precise, but I am doubtful as to the clerical staff.
I think the number employed on the clerical staff is very small.
CATHAOIRLEACH
The matter stands over for consideration between this and Report. The same applies to amendments 69 and 70.
Amendment 71 withdrawn.
I move:—
First Schedule. Paragraph 11. To delete all after the word "undertaker" in line 37 to the end of the paragraph and to substitute therefor the words "or the Board, where the Board is a party to such dispute or question, may appeal to a standing arbitrator appointed by the Minister after consultation with the Attorney-General, who shall hear and determine such appeal and whose decision shall be final."
The schedule, as it stands, provides that where there is a dispute in regard to compensation between the employees of an authorised undertaking and the undertakers there shall be an appeal to the Board, and the Board shall be the arbitrator and there shall be no appeal from its decision. If, on the other hand, there is a dispute between an employee and the Board there shall be an appeal to the Minister, and the Minister shall constitute himself the arbitrator and decide the issue. From him there is no appeal. In my opinion that is a very undesirable procedure, because both the Board and the Minister are undoubtedly interested parties. It will be in the interest of the Board that the compensation shall be kept at the lowest possible level, and to that extent it might be argued, with a good deal of reason, that they were an interested and biased party and that they should not be asked, as a Board, to act as arbitrator. In a lesser sense, the Minister might also be said to be an interested party. From a financial point of view he would be anxious that the lowest possible compensation should be paid. The amendment proposes that in any of the instances mentioned where there is any dispute of that kind the appeal shall be to a standing arbitrator appointed by the Minister after consultation with the Attorney-General. A subsequent amendment provides that the arbitrator shall be paid. I think it is desirable, if possible, that the same arbitrator should act so that there may be continuity and consistency with regard to the awards, and that he may be familiar with the general terms and the various details that would arise in cases of compensation. I dare say the Minister does not want his Department to be taken up deciding cases in dispute, and I hardly think the Board would either. In my opinion it would be more satisfactory all round, and would certainly give more general satisfaction and confidence to the employees if there was an arbitrator who would decide all the cases at issue. I think, for certain reasons, it is very undesirable that the Minister or his Department should take the responsibility of deciding what are very largely legal questions and allow no appeal.
As the clause originally stood, a dispute could only be brought to the Board. It was after hearing a deputation from representatives of the men's union, from a certain number of officials and employees, that I agreed, on their suggestion, to bring in an appeal to the Minister. I think the section should be allowed to stand. A dispute would only arise about three things which are stated. There is the capital sum by payment of which the annual sum would be commuted. There could not be any dispute about that. It is an actuarial calculation. The second is as regards a person entitled to compensation and the amount of the compensation that is payable. It is a case in which the Board is a party, and the Board would then be removed from the discussion and the matter would come for decision to the Minister. His duty will be towards the consumers, to protect them against big costs and compensation. In the matter of electricity, he will have to be impartial to secure, on the one hand, that the consumer is not to be billed with big sums for compensation, and, on the other hand, that the employees are not to suffer with regard to the amount of compensation. Any decision by the Minister could be criticised in either House, and the same would apply under (a). I should say that disputes under (b) would be more numerous. That is a question of deciding what people are considered to be attached to the generating part as distinct from the sales or distribution end of the undertaking. I want to be clear as to a man's hours of employment, and as to whether the employment is insurable or not, or whether it is partly insurable or not. That is a question of finding out what hours are spent in that particular work, and what hours on other classes of work. That is an easy matter to determine. The only difficulty I see is in regard to (b). The Minister will have to stand impartially between the consumer on the one hand and the employee on the other, and he will have no special reason for leaning towards one side as against another.
I think what the Minister has said is correct. There could be no question as to the Minister not being impartial. Some of the reasons the Minister gave in favour of the section as it stands, such as the arbitration being questioned in the House, are, in my opinion, reasons in favour of the amendment. Unless there is going to be any great cost, and I do not see that the fees would be large, it would be better to have an arbitrator as suggested in the amendment, not because the Minister would not be impartial, but because giving a decision on arbitration by the Minister would mean giving it to one of the officials of his Department. I know there are officials of his Department thoroughly competent to deal with such a matter, but I think it is better that the arbitration should not be the subject of question and answer, which would be the case if the Minister were involved.
The purpose of the amendment, as far as I can see, is to endeavour to get arbitration through the Minister's Department, as in the case of the settlement by arbitration of disputes in industrial questions between employers and employees. In the same way the amendment proposes arbitration to decide on an issue as between the employee and the Board. What the amendment asks is that the Minister himself shall not be the arbitrator, but that the person who is to decide as between the employees and the Board shall be appointed by the Minister in consultation with the Attorney-General. I think that, for the sake of his own peace of mind, the Minister would be well advised to accept that proposal.
Is the suggestion to keep the first trial or discussion from the Board, and the Minister, or would there be a preference to let this procedure run first: that there should be an appeal to the Board, and that then the Minister may hear and determine such appeals, and that there might be a further appeal to a standing arbitrator appointed after consultation with the Attorney-General?
I think that would be hardly desirable. It would be only lengthening the chain, and it would prejudice the case of an employee or undertaker if the Minister had already decided one way or the other. There is the question as to whether a man is entitled to compensation or not, and that has proved a very complicated matter, on which there have been big legal arguments, as far as railway men are concerned. It will be more complicated in the case of an electrical undertaking. A second question to decide is the amount which an employee is to receive by way of compensation. The third question refers only to commuting the annual pension for a lump sum. I think there will be no appeal from that. There may be very few appeals. It is only in the case of failure to settle that there would be an appeal, and that appeal should be made to somebody who is a legal authority. It would be much better to say that the decisions of the arbitrator could not be questioned here or elsewhere.
That is my view. I think it would be a mistake to have an appeal from the Minister to the arbitrator.
It will mean complicating the section a little. We might be able to get agreement with regard to this. Does the Senator want this with regard to (c)?
No, (a) and (b).
It might be as well to have it for (a), (b) and (c). I am accepting this amendment subject to drafting.
Amendment deferred until next stage.
I move:—
First Schedule. Paragraph 11. To add at the end of the paragraph the following:—
"There shall be paid to the arbitrator appointed under this paragraph such fee in respect of every arbitration held by him as shall be determined by the Minister with the approval of the Minister for Finance, and such fee shall be paid by the Board."
I am not particularly keen about this amendment, but some provision must be made for the payment of an arbitrator.
I refer the Senator to sub-section (5) of Section 88, which states:—
An arbitrator appointed under this section shall have power in his discretion to award to any party to the arbitration his costs and expenses in relation to the arbitration or any part thereof to be paid to him by any other party to such arbitration, and whenever any such arbitrator so awards any such costs or expenses he shall have power to fix the amount of the costs and expenses so awarded.
CATHAOIRLEACH
You are not leaving it to the arbitrator to fix his own fees?
No. Sub-section (2) states:—
There shall be paid to every arbitrator appointed under this section such fees in respect of every arbitration held by him under this Act as shall be determined by the Minister with the approval of the Minister for Finance.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question—"That the First Schedule stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
Second Schedule and Title ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Bill ordered to be reported with amendments.
The Seanad went out of Committee.
Bill reported with amendments.