This amendment, which is joined with amendment 11a and other consequential amendments, is to meet a promise I gave in Committee, that I would insist on the auditors furnishing not merely their accounts, but a special report, and that these would be brought before the two Houses.
ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) BILL, 1927—REPORT (RESUMED).
Government amendment: 2a—Section 7, sub-section (2). To delete lines 13-14 and to substitute therefor the following:—
"(2) The accounts of the Board shall in each year be audited and be the subject of a report by duly qualified auditors appointed annually for the purpose by the Minister."
Amendment agreed to.
The following Government amendments were also agreed to:—
3a. Section 7, sub-section (4). To delete the word "auditor" in line 29 and to substitute therefor the word "auditors'."
3b. Section 7, sub-section (4). To delete the word "auditor's" in line 39 and to substitute therefor the word "auditors'."
3c. Section 7, sub-section (4). To delete the word "auditor" in line 30 and to substitute therefor the word "auditors."
3d. Section 7, sub-section (4). To delete the word "auditor" in line 34 and to substitute therefor the word "auditors."
I move amendment 5a:—
Section 11. After the word "undertaking" wherever the same occurs to insert the words "in Saorstát Eireann."
This amendment is in connection with the remarks I made yesterday with regard to holdings that possible members of the Board might have in other electricity undertakings. I think the whole section is very drastic and quite unnecessary, as it will put members of the Board in a very uncomfortable position with regard to holding shares in electricity undertakings. May I point out that it is not merely an undertaking for the development of electricity that it applies to. It might also apply to the stock of a Corporation, such as the Dublin Corporation, who are makers and developers of electricity. Under the section, as I read it, a member of the Board will be precluded from holding, say, Dublin Corporation stock. If, however, the amendment is accepted, it will confine the prohibition to electrical undertakings in the Free State, and will allow a member of the Board to hold shares in undertakings outside the Free State. As I stated yesterday, when the Currency Bill was being discussed in the Dáil a question was raised as to whether a member of the Currency Commission might hold shares in a bank. One Deputy suggested that it should be universal in its application. The Minister for Finance took exception to that, and pointed out that although it would be irregular for a member of the Commission to hold shares in an Irish bank, it would be very onerous for him if he was precluded from holding shares in, say, the Bank of England, or any joint stock bank outside the Free State. Personally, I should like to delete the section altogether, but as that might not meet with the wishes of the Seanad, the amendment suggests that the reservation should be in reference to electrical undertakings within the Free State.
CATHAOIRLEACH
I think the Senator should make the amendment read: "wherever the same occurs in this section"; otherwise it would mean that the words were to be inserted whenever the word "undertaking" occurs in the Bill.
Very well. That is not intended.
This is a radical change. The points on which we went in framing the Bill were the ordinary ones that would occur to people's minds. We thought, for instance, that it was undesirable that a member of the Board should have shares in, say, the General Electrical Company of America with which the Board might hereafter do business, or hold shares in any manufacturing concern with which the Board were likely to do business. The analogy with the Currency Commission, and what was stated in the Dáil, hardly applies, because the Currency Commission is not likely to do business with banks outside the area of the Free State, whereas the Board's business will be largely with concerns outside the Free State.
I should like to point out that one of the provisions of the Currency Bill is that there should be a bank in London to pay the legal tender notes, so that the Board will be concerned with banks outside the Free State.
Would it be in any way which can be affected by the fact of a member of the Commission having holdings in any bank outside the Free State? I think the Minister for Finance's statement was that the holding would really have to be immense before there could be any thought of impartiality being destroyed. The same thing does not hold here. I think the circumstances are entirely different. The Board will be dealing for the main portion of their business, in so far as they do business, with electrical undertakings—for electrical appliances, cable, etc.—almost entirely with concerns outside the Free State. I am not addressing the argument particularly to the limitation which the Senator has in mind by putting in the words "in Saorstát Eireann." Outside that there is simply the point which the Seanad will have to consider: Is it advisable to have on the Board, which will be making big contracts, people who may have shares in some of the concerns with which the contracts are to be made?
Would it not cripple the Minister if he found that someone he wanted on the Board owned shares in an electricity undertaking in Canada or some such place that had nothing to do with the production of electricity in this country? The section, as it stands, would preclude the Minister from taking on the Board anyone who owned such shares. Would it not be better if there were words added that would allow discretion on the part of the Minister to get, for instance, a declaration from anybody who might be nominated as a director as to his holding in any electricity company? Then, if the Minister thought that the shares so held would allow the implication that that company might have dealings with the Board, he should communicate that fact to the proposed director before appointing him. I think the Minister is crippling himself in his choice by retaining the section, as it stands, and that is my chief objection to it. I admit that the amendment proposed by Senator Guinness does not relieve the Minister from all his troubles, but it leaves it open to anybody who has shares in a big electrical manufacturing company outside Saorstát Eireann to be eligible for the Board.
The people concerned in this matter are not more than three or four—six is the greatest possible number. Is it not better to have the section water-tight even if there is a danger of men having shares in other electrical producing companies? The Minister has pointed out that this Board will be dealing with people concerned in the production of electrical power, and there is the possibility of a man having an interest in an electrical undertaking outside being put on this Board. It is unfair that a member of the Board should be dealing with an outside company in which he has an interest. On the whole, I think it is better to leave the section as it is.
The answer to Senator Jameson's point was given by Senator Guinness, who raised it himself yesterday—that if there was anybody suitable for membership of the Board and it was discovered he held shares in other electrical undertakings it would be a matter for his choice as to whether he would sell out and become eligible, or whether he would decide to hold the shares he possessed and not be eligible. There is the alternative of choice. I think it is better in the interests of fair dealings as between the Board and outside firms that the section should remain as it stands.
It is far better to leave the section as it is. If a man wishes to come upon the Board and holds shares in another electrical undertaking he has the choice of selling out.
I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Government amendment 7a—Section 12, sub-section (9). To delete the sub-section.
Sub-section (9) of Section 12 is not in the Bill because the Bill has not been reprinted with the amendments inserted in Committee in the Seanad, but the sub-section has reference to portion of Sir John Griffith's amendment with regard to allowing the 1932 date to be postponed, and this sub-section made arrangements for finances in connection with that. It has been pointed out since that that is not the proper way to appropriate money, and the deletion of the sub-section would leave the matter in this way: Once the date is extended it will be necessary to make legislative proposals so as to secure the money, and that will follow as a necessary consequence of changing the date.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment 9:—
New section. Before Section 14 to insert a new section as follows:—
"14.—All property in the ownership or under the control of the Board shall pay income tax and poor rates."
The object of the amendment is to ensure that the property controlled by the Board should pay income tax and poor rate. I do not wish to introduce any personal note, but I feel that if this had not been discovered the Bill might have gone through both Houses—I have no recollection of the matter being brought out in the Dáil—in a manner that would allow these works to be exempt from rates or taxes. I think if we were to do that we should do it with our eyes open, having regard to the precedent created and the principle involved. What justification is there for subsidising an electrical undertaking in this very important respect? How does the production of electricity stand in any different relations with regard to rates and taxes from the work of the farmer who produces milk or the manufacturer who produces any ordinary commodity?
I can see no difference except, as I said before, that at all costs, even at the sacrifice of consistency and principle, this scheme must be made a success. If the House is prepared to accept that view and to introduce this extraordinarily dangerous precedent, I am afraid I cannot be a party to its decision. You will have further, as far as I can see, this curious inconsistency that as long as the undertaker remains independent he will pay rates and taxes.
No.
Is it right then that all undertakers, whether controlled by the Board or taken over by the Board, will be exempt from rates and taxes?
No, there is a distinction.
I can see no distinction in the Bill.
Is it in the Bill that they are exempt at present?
The Minister told me on the Committee Stage that if I wanted to secure their liability to taxes I would have to introduce an amendment to that effect. If he says that I am wrong, then, of course, that puts a different complexion on the matter.
The Senator spoke of two types of impositions, income tax and rates.
Surely existing undertakers pay income tax?
Yes.
And they will continue to pay income tax unless they are taken over by the Board, and then they will be exempt?
The Board will pay income tax.
If that is so, the Minister left me under a misapprehension as regards what he said on the Committee Stage.
The Senator asked me whether it was provided in the Act that the Board would pay income tax on property under Schedule A. The answer I made was: "If the Senator wishes to achieve that purpose he will have to put down an amendment." The Senator further asked me if I was prepared to put down an amendment and if I had considered the matter. I replied that the Bill represented my point of view. The exact effect of that is that while I might like to see the property of the Board exempt from income tax, if that is to be achieved it will have to be achieved by an amendment to the Finance Act which I understand is to come later before the Seanad. It cannot be done under this Bill. The position with regard to income tax is that the Board will be liable. With regard to rates I have an amendment down dealing with that question exempting the works from local rates and putting them in the same position as municipal undertakings are in today.
I think the reply which the Minister gave to me on the Committee Stage is a justification for my misunderstanding of the position. It is clear now, at all events, that the Board will pay income tax. The arguments that I have to put forward with regard to the payment of rates I shall reserve until we come to the amendment dealing with rates.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment 10—
Section 19. After the word "electricity" in line 54, to insert the words "and facilitate the establishment of factories for the consumption of the same."
When I raised this question on the Committee Stage I think considerable misapprehension arose as regards the intention of my amendment. The wording of Section 19 is as follows:— It shall be the duty of the Board...
(c) to distribute, utilise and sell the electricity generated by the Board in the Shannon works, to promote and encourage the purchase and use of such electricity and..
I proposed on the Committee Stage to add to that "including the erection of factories consuming the same." I understood at the time that the words "to promote and encourage" would refer to that section but you, sir, pointed out that it would be more advisable to amend my amendment and to bring in a new amendment on the Report Stage. I have amended the amendment which now reads: "And facilitate the establishment of factories for the consumption of the same."
CATHAOIRLEACH
My difficulty was this, that I could not very well hold that an amendment imposing on the Board an obligation to promote the establishment or erection of factories was consistent with the purpose of the Bill. It is another matter to say that they should encourage.
To follow the views that you, sir, expressed on the Committee Stage, I have varied my amendment to read in the terms in which it now appears on the Paper. I am not going to weary the Seanad with all the arguments I brought forward on the last occasion in favour of the establishment of factories. I think everyone will be at one with me as to the desirability of establishing new factories. From the very beginning the country has been led to expect that new factories would be established as a result of this scheme. It was felt that as a result of the Shannon scheme, new factories would be established, and that that was really the only way to get rid of the unemployment difficulty. The fundamental idea of the amendment is that this is to be a permissive duty, as far as the Board is concerned: that it may do these things. The Act, apparently, has been drafted with the idea of carrying out the assurance which the Minister gave to the country; that the Shannon scheme was to be self-supporting within a few years. There are several ways of making it self-supporting. It can be made self-supporting either by selling electricity to existing undertakings or to new undertakings. As regards the difference between the two, I think there can be no doubt as to which would be the more beneficial to the country at large. We have been talking in millions in connection with this scheme. I have heard people very glibly allude to the fact that 110,000,000 units are to be disposed of. I do not know that, when speaking like that, people realise what 110,000,000 units mean. When you talk of 110,000,000 units the figure is not such an enormous one as the average man in the street might think it is. I will endeavour to put the matter in terms that will be readily understood, and that will bring home to people what 110,000,000 units really mean. The Minister, when introducing the Shannon Electricity Bill, said that it was proposed to establish works to develop something like 90,000 horse-power. As a matter of fact, if one works out the figures given by the experts, it is not quite as much as that. Since then the scheme has been modified to a certain extent, because the fall has been reduced by the elimination of the tail race.
It has not been reduced.
At any rate, that is not a question that arises on this amendment. However, to enable people to grasp what 90,000 horse power means I would like to put a concrete example before them. We read from time to time in the newspapers of new ships being floated. We see that these new ships have a horse power of from 50,000 to 55,000, so that the total amount of horse power that will be available from the Shannon will be about equivalent to the horse power generated by two of these large vessels. That is not an enormous quantity. I do not mention that as an argument against the scheme, because I give the Minister credit for the energetic way in which he has brought the scheme forward. It is a fine scheme, and he has brought it to a head, not always, however, by methods I approve of. For the scheme itself, I have nothing but words of praise. I am afraid, however, if this Bill goes through without any suggestion being made that it is the duty of the Board to try and find the most profitable kind of consumers for the electricity when it is available the idea may go forth that it is no portion of its duty to do so, and that it will be merely obliged to sell to existing undertakings.
I would like to ask what great advantage the country at large will obtain from bringing this electricity up here to Dublin and selling it to the Tramways Company so that they may run the trams more cheaply? What great advantage to the country at large will it be that the Dublin Corporation should get their electricity a little cheaper? It will, however, be an enormous advantage to the country at large if new industries are established. That undoubtedly has been the idea all through. The speeches of Ministers on the hustings recently prove it and I want to make it quite clear that this Board will have power to do something. I do not want to make it incumbent upon the Minister or the Board if they cannot sell electricity in this way to withhold the sale of electricity elsewhere but I do want to make it clear that it will be portion of their duties to sell it in the best way it can possibly be sold. If they sell this electricity here in Dublin this 90,000 horse-power is not such a very enormous quantity that it cannot be run through in a very short time. If it is sold for what seems to me rather more or less unremunerative purposes, then the country and the whole nation will be very injuriously affected. I think it should be made perfectly clear that they should sell it in the best way and if they cannot sell it in the best way then they can dispose of it in any way they can.
I second the amendment. It seems to me that one of the effects of this scheme will be to facilitate factories and the insertion of this particular sub-section will be a sort of instruction to the Board in every way possible to assist factories. Section 45 of the Bill gives the Board power to acquire land compulsorily and if it appears feasible to the Board to establish a factory, say, near a waterway I think it would be a useful direction to the Board that they should acquire land compulsorily to facilitate factories to get electricity in this manner. I do not think it is necessary to add anything further to the statement made by the Senator who moved the amendment, but I do think that the addition of these words would make it perfectly clear to everybody that the intention of the scheme eventually is that factories should be started in the country by means of electricity. I think the amendment as proposed goes further and makes it perfectly clear that that intention will be carried out.
I think we are wasting a great deal of time on these amendments, because they are all based on the assumption that the Board will consist of a lot of imbeciles. If we go on in this way we will have no scheme for another year.
I cannot find within the four corners of the Bill that it will be any part of the Board's duty to try to get consumers through the erection of new factories unless this amendment is inserted.
I would ask Senator how the Board would facilitate the erection of factories? Remember money is being handed over to the Board for a certain purpose. We are now going to give, by the amendment, facilities to the Board for the erection of factories. In other words, the Board is to subsidise the erection of factories. That may not be the Senator's intention, but that is the effect. Senator Bennett has put down a later amendment. That later amendment is that the Board shall have power to acquire land compulsorily for the erection of factories or other works by persons under agreement with the Board. That is the way facilities should be given. That is a departure I should like to call attention to. Up to date we have had the example of lands being compulsorily acquired for public purposes. Never yet had any leave to be given to acquire lands compulsorily to hand it over to a company, that company to work it on the basis of profit, and that would be the effect with the two amendments joined together. Outside that facility, what facility can be given? The senator himself says that within the four corners of the Bill he could not see that the Board would have any power to increase the sale of electricity. The section itself states that "it shall be the duty of the Board to distribute, utilise and sell electricity generated by the Board in the Shannon works, and to promote and encourage the purchase and use of such electricity." That is where the offer to the factory may come in if it can be encouraged by the use and provision of cheap electricity. I would ask the Seanad to disagree with this amendment, which would lead to the subsidising of factories by the Board.
We are not now discussing the sub-section regarding the acquisition of land. The facilities which I propose to give are very largely to enable people to obtain land. The Minister says land is only being acquired for public purposes. Could any more useful public purpose be mentioned than the establishment of factories?
Not by the Electricity Board.
You will never get men to come in and establish factories unless you give them some encouragement. One of the most necessary encouragements is that you should give them a site at cost price or a little over cost price.
Amendment put and negatived.
I move:—
Section 22. After the word "terms" in line 11, to insert the words "including security."
This is an amendment to which, I gather, there is no objection. It is simply amplifying the terms.
Previously it had been suggested by the Senator to insert the words "and security," and then it was pointed out that "terms" includes security. The point of view that has been expressed to me about that is, that if the word "terms" includes security, then security is there without calling attention to the word. If "terms" does not include security putting the phrase in this way will not operate to bring security inside the clause. If the Senator wishes to have the point he should revert to his first term "and security."
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move:—
Section 22.—To delete the words "including security" inserted in Committee in line 9.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment 11a.— Section 32, sub-section (3). To delete the sub-section and to substitute therefor a new sub-section as follows:—
"(3) The Minister shall lay before each House of the Oireachtas a copy of every report made to him by the Board under this section together with a copy of the last capital account, revenue account, profit and loss account, and balance sheet of the Board and a copy of the auditor's report on such accounts and balance sheet, and shall with every such report by the Board lay before each House of the Oireachtas copies of such statistics, returns, and accounts furnished to him by the Board under this Act as may be necessary for the proper understanding of such report."
The sub-section which it is proposed to substitute rather definitely repeats all that is in the sub-section which it is proposed to delete, but it includes the provision by which there must be laid before each House a copy of every report made to the Minister by the Board together with the auditor's report. It is necessary to read with this amendment, amendment 2 (a). I make another proposition with regard to this and, perhaps, the Seanad would like to deal with it now. There is a later amendment, No. 12, in Senator Sir John Keane's name, which insists on a date being arranged, but it is quite impossible to be clear as to the time. If it is agreed to insert such words as "The Minister shall as soon as may be lay before each House" I would be prepared to accept that.
I accept it for what it is worth. I put that amendment down as we sometimes get rather belated reports. Two Government Departments have been two years late with their reports and it is desirable to have them promptly.
In ordinary accounts during normal years the reports would be all right, as obviously there will be time within six months for the auditors and the Board to make reports. Supposing, however, there was a year in which criticism was directed to something important in the accounts, the auditors might take considerable time to write on it, and the Board might take a considerable time to submit their report. The insertion of the words "as soon as may be" will always give people an opportunity to query the Minister as to delay.
Very well.
CATHAOIRLEACH
It is proposed to alter the amendment by inserting the words "as soon as may be" after the opening words "The Minister."
Amendment, as amended, put and agreed to.
CATHAOIRLEACH
That disposes of amendment 12 standing in the name of Senator Sir John Keane.
Government amendment—Section 34, sub-section (5). To delete the sub-section and to substitute therefor a new sub-section as follows:—
"(5) Whenever any regulation proposed to be made by the Board under this section contains any provision relating to any gas undertaking, railway, canal, inland navigation, dock or harbour such regulation shall not be made until after consultation with the Minister and the service of such notices (if any) and the holding of such inquiries (if any) as the Minister may require to be served and held."
This amendment is to meet a point raised by Senator Dowdall on Committee, and I said that I would insert a new sub-section. That sub-section is now before you.
I have been asked by Senator Dowdall to say that the deletion of his amendment scarcely fulfils the position as he desires it. In this respect, gas and other undertakings are timorous that certain of their rights may be taken from them by order of the Board without consulting them. The Minister was aware of that fact, and up to a certain point this new amendment would meet the wishes of those people, but it is considered that some sort of representation should be made, formal or informal, informing them of any proposed change. Senator Dowdall's amendment, as accepted by the Seanad, arranged for the insertion of an advertisement giving notice of the intentions of the Board to make certain regulations. That was the important point in the amendment, but the present amendment does away with that, and does not absolutely arrange for any consultation to be held between the owners of the undertakings and the Board. The amendment passed by the Seanad did arrange that there should be such consultation. If the Seanad accepts this amendment and rescinds the amendment made in Committee that arrangement, with regard to advertisement and consultation, will disappear, and it will be in the power of the Minister to decide whether he does, or does not, desire a consultation. Perhaps, he would make some concession and would amend this amendment so as to provide for consultation with the owners of such undertakings. Otherwise, on behalf of Senator Dowdall, I would oppose rescinding the previous amendment.
I should, of course, have mentioned that the sub-section which it is proposed to delete is not the sub-section in the printed Bill but the new sub-section (5) which was inserted by the Seanad. I think that Senators will agree that that sub-section was inserted, mainly, because of the closing words in the Senator's speech and a number of people were under the impression that the amendment was accepted by me. My objection to that amendment was that it imposed the necessity of an advertisement and the holding of a formal inquiry in any case in which it is proposed to make regulations changing the present position with regard to gas undertakings. I hold that there are certain regulations which could be made, which will have to be made with the consent of both Houses, but it is not necessary to call attention to the fact that such changes are to be made. In such cases it might be considered that the notice was too short and in others that it was too long. I hold that there is a sufficient guarantee under the Bill. The present position is stereotyped with regard to gas undertakings. If there is a regulation about to be made regarding any change it must be done by means of an order laid before both Houses and it could be rejected by an adverse vote.
Before a regulation is made, according to Senator Dowdall's amendment, there should be consultation between the undertakers concerned and the Minister, and these undertakers should be heard. I quite appreciate the Minister's objection with regard to advertisement, but it is desirable that undertakers concerned should be heard before any regulations are made.
The only difference between Senator Dowdall's amendment and mine is on the point of advertisement.
And consultation.
No. Consultation is dependent on the Minister directing an inquiry to be held. My amendment is that any regulation making a change shall not be made until after consultation with the Minister. There is to be consultation with the Minister and there is to be service of such notice as the Minister may require and also the holding of such inquiry as he may consider necessary. The inquiry referred to in Senator Dowdall's amendment depends on the will of the Minister. If the Minister decides that it is necessary to hold an inquiry he has the power to impose an obligation on the Board to admit those concerned and to let them be represented professionally. It is discretionary.
I agree, but the amendment we have passed made it essential that the bodies concerned would know that such an inquiry was to be held. Under the amendment, as proposed, there may be a consultation between the Board and the persons concerned without the knowledge of the people most interested in the matter. It is not clear in the section that a consultation with these people would be held before the inquiry takes place. They would be in the dark.
Yes, and they would be in the dark under Senator Dowdall's amendment except they would see that the regulation was going to be made.
And that is an important point.
Is there any great point in having knowledge of the fact that there is a change to be made, if the Minister says there is to be no inquiry, and no representation at the inquiry, if held? What is the safeguard in all this? I had discussions with people concerned, and I believe my amendment would meet their wishes. What is the guarantee? It is that the Minister for Industry and Commerce has shed his responsibilities with regard to electricity, but that he retains, and must retain, all his responsibilities with regard to gas undertakings, harbours, and ports. He has a statutory obligation with regard to these which he would be neglecting in particular cases if he did not have an inquiry. If the point of professional representation is to be stressed, while it is not stated in my amendment I have been advised that that could be imposed as necessary at the holding of an inquiry. As to the other point: what is the value of having an advertisement?
My point is that under the section as it stands you have between the Board and the Minister a consultation. The persons concerned are not aware that there is such a consultation, and consequently they have no means of influencing by advice or otherwise the decision to be arrived at.
The decision will be given by me.
After all, the Minister will be influenced by the points of view presented to him. Would it not be well that the people intimately concerned should have the chance of consulting with the Minister at the same time as the Board?
Would it not be desirable that the parties affected would be heard before any regulation is made?
On every occasion?
Yes. I am not questioning the point about the advertisement. If the Minister, for instance, in the case of a gas company proposes to make a regulation affecting that company, surely it would be only fair that the company should be heard before the regulation is made?
It depends on the Minister. If there is a big point coming up the Minister will say, "Let us hear the company, and let us serve notice of the holding of the inquiry." If it is a small matter that will not be done. The only difference between Senator Dowdall's amendment and my amendment, now before the Seanad, is with regard to the issue of an advertisement. Senator Dowdall's amendment imposes the necessity of people concerned being represented at an inquiry by professional advisers.
It means more than that. The Board and the Minister may meet to consult about certain matters, and the interested people have no knowledge of such a meeting between the Minister and the Board. My suggestion is that there should be put into the Minister's amendment some such words as "and with the undertaker."
That is not in Senator Dowdall's amendment.
His amendment has been changed. You are taking away the great safeguard of advertisement by regulation or otherwise, and giving nothing in substitution for that. I suggest that there should be a consultation, even informally, with the undertaker concerned.
If the Minister would insert the words "after consultation with the Minister and the undertakers," it would meet the situation.
That means the Senate believes whoever is to be responsible for statutory obligations as regards the gas undertakings is not going to carry out his duty.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Amendment 13, 14 and 15 not moved.
Government amendment—Section 37, sub-section (4). After the word "not" in line 13, to insert the words "until the Oireachtas otherwise determines."
This is to meet the points which were not specially dealt with in the amendments which have been withdrawn. It arose out of them, and it deals with an unauthorised undertaker. Some doubts were expressed that the particular provision in sub-section (4) of Section 37 might be operated against an unauthorised undertaker if the future running of the Shannon scheme were in other hands. The amendment is to meet that point of view, and it is more or less a sign-post with regard to future legislation.
I think that is very satisfactory, and meets the point of view I expressed in Committee.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Government amendment:—
Amendment 15b—Section 37, sub-section (4). To delete the word "applicable" in line 20 and to substitute therefor the words "as apply or may be applied."
Amendment put and agreed to.
Government amendment, 15c— Section 39, sub-section (7). To delete in line 19 the word "other."
If the word "other" is kept in it seems to have a repercussion upon the first payment. The putting in of the word "other" would indicate that the first of those payments may not be dealt with in the same way.
I do not think that the clause would read with the amendment.
I was not sure either and I queried it. I was told it is quite good—Shakespearian in fact. If the Senator amends it to "each," I will accept it.
I propose that we put in the word "each" instead of "other."
I second that.
Amendment 15c, as altered, agreed to.
I move amendment 15bb:—
Section 39, sub-section (8). To delete the word "Minister" in line 32 and to substitute therefor the words "High Court."
Sub-section 8 of Section 39 deals with the compensation which is to be awarded to authorised undertakers who are not municipal bodies, if their undertaking is taken over by the Board. As the section stands, that compensation is to be fixed, in default of agreement, by an arbitrator, and if they cannot agree about an arbitrator he is to be appointed by the Minister. These questions of compensation to authorised undertakers will be difficult questions, and I think it would be better to relieve the Minister of the rather invidious task of appointing an arbitrator between the Board and the authorised undertaker. If you left it simply to arbitration, without saying anything further, and the parties could not agree about an arbitrator, then they would have to come to court. It is a simple process and the court could appoint as arbitrator a qualified person.
I second the amendment.
Inasmuch as the amendment has to do merely with this sub-section—that is to say, with the compensation to be awarded to the authorised undertaker——
That is so.
I would be prepared to accept it, but I would like the Senator to advise me as to a later section. It is laid down there that where any matter is set out to be determined by an arbitrator, then the Minister shall appoint him in a particular way. That would not conflict with this amendment. But the section states that there shall be paid to every arbitrator such fees as the Minister for Finance shall approve and the arbitrator shall have power to award costs and apportion them. I presume also the High Court would have that power.
I do not think that is so. We will have to amend that.
If there be the necessity to pay the arbitrator a fee, would that be determined by the High Court or the Minister for Finance?
By the Minister for Finance.
CATHAOIRLEACH
Are you suggesting that the appointment be made by the High Court in express terms? You are not leaving it to any special judge.
I am deliberately not putting it on to a special judge.
CATHAOIRLEACH
What will the procedure be?
There will be a summons under the Common Law Procedure Act.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Amendment 16 not moved.
I move amendment 17—
New section. Before Section 40 to insert a new section as follows:—
"40. The rates for electricity charged by the new undertaker under Section 39 of this Act shall in no case exceed those charged by the former undertaker."
This is a matter that was discussed in Committee. The amendment seeks to ensure that a new undertaker shall charge no higher rates than a former undertaker. The Minister is prepared to accept that if Section 59 (1) is given up. I have examined both and they are totally different things. The Minister, from what he said, should have no hesitation in accepting this amendment. He said all along that he is very confident that the new rates shall not be more than the old. That should dispose of the matter. His argument is if he makes an area self-contained and does not impose any outside charges on that area—merely arranges that it shall continue as a separate accounting entity and bear its own fair costs—it is not reasonable to ask him to accept the other condition. They are quite separate matters. One is a precaution to ensure that the rate shall not be higher. The other is intended to ensure that no unfair or outside charge shall be put upon a district like Dublin with a favourable load. The argument has been that where you have a dense population like Dublin and can give, presumably, lower rates, you should not, in any way, exploit those conditions in favour of less fertile areas. Those are two separate things and I hope the Seanad will agree with me that there is nothing unreasonable in asking the Minister to accept both those conditions.
When this amendment was moved before, I think it was Senator Guinness asked me was I wise in accepting it. I said I was not accepting it, and I do not propose to ask the Seanad to accept it. I am not sure if the amendment is correctly placed. "The rates for electricity charged by the new undertaker under Section 39 of this Act" might be read as the rates charged under Section 39. The Senator does not mean that. He means the rates arising owing to acquisition under Section 39.
That is what I mean.
"Shall in no case exceed those charged by the former undertaker." At any time?
At the time of acquisition.
That is not stated. Let me take one undertaking. There is one, not far from Dublin, where the definite policy has been to make a scale of charges which will never make electricity pay its way. The undertaking cost £6,000, and it has cost the ratepayers in that area £10,000 extra. Is the Board to keep up that uneconomic rate? If the Board acquired that undertaking at Kildare, it would have, under the amendment, to keep up that uneconomic rate. That is absurd. With regard to the reaction of Section 59 (1) on this matter, in one case I unwisely bound myself, in reply to certain criticisms, to apportion to each area definitely and clearly its own liabilities when taking it over. In addition to that the Senator asks me to provide that the rates for electricity shall in no case exceed those charged by the former undertaker. I would like that analysed to find out what it means. It might mean, if both those provisions are put in, that the Board, in acquiring some undertakings down the country, would have to set against the consumers in the new area liability merely for that and, possibly, give the new consumers in that area electricity at a price which would be proportioned to the liability taken over but which would bear no relation to new liabilities—cost of buildings, extension or anything of the sort. You stabilise the position without realising what the changed conditions are. Dublin has adopted, since the advent of the Shannon scheme, certain devices for attracting new consumers of electricity. At the moment there are two methods of charge—one, in which you simply pay a fairly high rate per unit, and another in which there is paid a percentage of the valuation of the house, plus a lower charge per unit. Which of these is to be stabilised, or are both? Or must the Board be kept down to the established minimum in any one of the devices at present in operation? There are a variety of circumstances which will have to be adverted to. To impose a clause of this sort on the Board, together with the extra impediment that is in Section 59 (1), and to say that there shall be apportioned to a particular area the liability only of that particular area, would tie the Board's hands completely, and would leave it powerless to make changes which would undoubtedly be for the good of the consumer. This amendment would put a tremendous handicap on the Board. People can examine for themselves the variety of charges for services. Some of these charges may be quite wrong. Some may be particularly favourable to individuals. We must have regard not merely to the taking over of municipal and authorised undertakings, but to the unauthorised undertaking. The unauthorised undertaker may have a whole gradation of charges, one favoured consumer having a low rate and others really paying for that. These charges would be stereotyped for all time as at the date of acquisition.
I trust the Minister will not tie his hands. We all hope this scheme will be a financial success. If the Minister is going now to insert that the rate to be charged by the Board in any area shall not exceed the rates hitherto charged in that area he will tie his hands in a way that will make the scheme very unremunerative.
I see the Minister's difficulty in the case of the special tariffs, and therefore I withdraw the amendment. The acid test of the Minister's optimism is, however, the test as to the existing rates and the new rates.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I have put down a series of amendments for the protection of the Grand Canal Company. Since the Committee Stage I have had an opportunity of discussing the matter with the Minister. To all but three small points, the Minister has agreed, and as to those three small points he has satisfied me that there is no real danger to the Canal Company. He has kindly got the draftsman to put my big number of amendments into three or four short ones, which I am prepared to accept.
CATHAOIRLEACH
Where are they?
The Minister has them and I will withdraw my amendments in favour of the Minister's amendments.
Amendment 18 not moved.
Government amendment:—
Amendment 18a.—Section 45, sub-section (3). Before sub-section (3) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
(3) The Board shall not make a special order under this section in relation to the compulsory acquisition of a right of impounding, diverting, or abstracting water in or from any canal without previous consultation with the Minister.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Amendments 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 not moved.
Government amendment:—
Amendment 23a.—Section 47, sub-section (3). Before sub-section (3) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
(3) A special order under this section authorising the compulsory acquisition of a right of impounding, diverting or abstracting water in or from any canal shall not be made by the Board without previous consultation with the Minister.
This is to correspond with amendment 18a in a different section. It is definitely put down to meet a point in one of the amendments which Senator Brown has withdrawn.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Amendment 24 and the next four amendments are covered by the last.
CATHAOIRLEACH
What about amendment 26—is not that a verbal amendment?
That was consequential on the other. Numbers 25, 26, 27 and 28 are also withdrawn.
Amendment number 28a is my suggestion. It is:—
Section 55. To delete the section and to substitute therefor a new section as follows:—
55. The Board shall not without previous consultation with the Minister place or authorise any authorised undertaker to place any electric cable across any navigable river or navigable waterway, whether such cable is placed above or below water or under the ground.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment 29 withdrawn.
There is a number of Government amendments here. The first is 29a, which reads:—
Section 56, sub-section (4). After the word "which" in line 21 to insert the words "having regard to the items of cost included in the comparative rate of charge for a supply of electricity in bulk."
This amendment is necessary in this section dealing with the supply of electricity in bulk by the Board. There may fall for comparison what is described as the local generating charge as opposed to bulk supply. We have it that the two figures shall include the same item.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment 29b to Section 59, sub-section (1) reads:—
To delete all from and including the words "the Board" in line 50 down to the end of the sub-section.
There are two other amendments, 29c and 29d, which are on the same point, though amendment 29d is to a different section. Amendment 29c reads:—
Section 59, sub-section (2). Before sub-section (2) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
(2) The Board in making scales fixing the methods of charge and rates of charge for electricity supplied to consumers in a district served by a transformer station which is co-terminus with or includes an area which was previously the area of supply of an authorised undertaker whose undertaking has been acquired by the Board under this Act shall not include any charge in respect of liabilities assumed or payments made by the Board in consequence of the acquisition by the Board under this Act of an undertaking in a district served by any other transformer station.
I did mention here in Committee Stage that Section 59, as inserted in the Dáil, had been found to be wrongly phrased. It imposed a bigger handicap on the Board than I thought was right. I said then I would bring in an amendment and these two amendments can be taken together. What was regarded as the protective portion of that section for the use of the Dublin consumer has disappeared, but amendment 29c makes up for that deletion.
May I be permitted briefly to state the difference between what is proposed to be deleted and what is proposed to be substituted for this? It gets away from the word "area." The net result is simply this: let me relate it back to the circumstances here. It means that the Board will have to keep a separate account for the present consumers in Dublin, in Pembroke and in Rathmines, and another charge for the new consumers in each of these three areas, and a further charge for all consumers outside those three and in another district which might be served by the same transformer station. Instead of having seven charges it means that they will have one. They will have to bear indifferently the acquisition cost in Pembroke, Rathmines and Dublin.
The Minister does not repeat in the new amendment "In respect of charges for distribution." The difficulty I see is this: that you may not pass on the capital charges from one district to another. But if you make a loss in the service of one district is it not possible to recoup that loss by higher charges in another district? I am hoping that Dublin and the townships are so self-contained that they will bear the charges applicable only to their own areas and not bear any loss that may occur in working any other areas. I should like an assurance that that is the position.
The Senator refers to the wording of the section that is proposed to be deleted. Now that disappears and it is substituted by the words "any charge." To my mind that is a much wider term.
There may be a charge for distribution.
Surely the distribution will be a liability assumed. One does not take over distribution and run it for nothing. Say the Board takes over Dublin, then the Board has to run the distribution system in Dublin. It incurs a liability for running it. Say it also takes over Kildare, and it assumes a liability in Kildare, but it cannot charge against Dublin any liability for the loss in Kildare or in any other undertaking. The wording as it stands is meant to be comprehensive.
I see that Dublin is not protected against revenue losses elsewhere. That is a difficulty I see.
Can the Senator imagine the circumstances, the section being there, in which the Board would be able to charge the Dublin consumers for the cost of running Kildare?
I think it is all right now. What I was thinking was that the loss on an undertaking in a rural area might be made up by the profit on an urban area. I wanted to know if that were possible.
There is always leave through the bulk price charge, and there will be, to pile up a reserve fund. Instead of .5 of a penny or .8 of a penny, say, for the bulk supply charge in Dublin and all over the country, one would say: "We will charge 1d., and the balance of the penny will be set aside for opening up uneconomic districts." That has always been possible, and it is possible under Section 59 (1), because the Board has to set aside a fund for renewals and reserves and for other purposes.
The bulk supply charges can be so arranged that the profits in one area can be made use of to assist other areas that are not quite economic.
I do not think they can.
It is possible the actual cost of the bulk supply for Dublin would be .6d. I think the Minister said the Board had power to charge a penny.
The Board would be always up against a comparison with the local generating cost.
We are fully seized of the fact that the bulk supply charges will not necessarily represent the cost. There may be a profit made on the bulk supply which will be used to help the scheme in less fertile areas. I think that is new to me. Other Senators may think differently. I am not prepared at short notice to give an opinion on the matter.
I have always stated that it would not be incumbent on the Board—and I would scrap the Bill rather than make it incumbent on the Board—to cut to the bone on every item of the bulk supply charge. What the Senator says cannot happen. The Board could not manipulate prices and indicate they were going to charge a certain figure to Dublin consumers because there were losses in Kildare. A fraction of a penny, say .1 of a penny, can be charged all over the country on the bulk supply ex-transformer station for the purpose of setting up an extension fund. That fund may be used in order to open up new districts. One cannot have it that the profits made in one area are to be devoted to meeting any losses in another area. What is possible and I think it would be proper thing, is to give the Board power, not to cut to the bone all these charges, but to apply some small portion for the building up of an extension fund at the start for uneconomic areas. That is in the Bill.
Can the Minister say whether a flat rate is going to be charged for delivery at certain stations all over Ireland? Will Dublin have one price, Tralee another price, and Cork still another price? Will there be a flat rate for delivery to various towns in the country?
That is not determined in the Bill, but this determination will always be there; that the Board, in fixing their rate, will always have to apportion it. So much will be allowed for delivery to the transformer station outside the town and so much will be allowed for distribution. Of course, there will always be a comparison with the local generating cost—the rate at which electricity can be generated in the locality. There is a place very far removed where the Shannon lines will not extend for years. That place could run the Board very tight in the matter of generating cost. The Board there might have to lower the costs to absolutely cut-to-the-bone prices if it wanted to go into the area. I do not see it going into that area for many years to come.
I ask the Seanad to hesitate before determining that there shall be a flat rate. The thing desired by Dublin, Cork and Limerick is that they would be charged with only the station charge plus the cost of delivery over the system. They would gain, whereas the rest of the country would lose on the cost for bulk supply. The Board must have leave to determine whether it is going to have a flat rate or different charges for each town.
The explanation has gone pretty far, but all Ireland is paying for this, and I think electricity ought to be delivered all over the country at the same price. I do not say the distribution charges should be the same; they would depend upon the size of the town, but electricity ought to be delivered at the same price in all parts of the country. Otherwise the people in Connaught and other places would have a great grievance.
This matter is very important and is quite new to me. The position is that each district will bear its own distribution charges and internal capital liabilities, but its profits can be drawn upon to serve outlying districts. You do not gain much by making a district self-contained as regards distribution charges and its own capital liabilities. This is different to what is done in Canada. In Canada that principle has never been adopted.
There every municipality is entirely is subsidised quite independently. This is subsidised quite independently. This fund that has been referred to need not necessarily be expended for extension purposes; it may go to meet losses on distribution in adjoining areas. It is too late now to cut the whole thing to pieces, but this particular aspect is quite new to me.
What the Senator has said should not be generally known, because a lot of it is inaccurate.
Can the Minister say whether it is possible to ascertain the profits and loss in each particular area? This amendment protects, say, the Dublin area from being debited with the cost of the acquisition of any undertaking. It does not prevent them paying costs of the charge where there is no undertaking at all for the establishment of a new distribution system.
It does.
I would like to know where?
It is a liability.
A liability of the Board in consequence of the acquisition of the undertaking, but if there is no undertaking to acquire, and there are hundreds of districts where there is no undertaking, you merely establish a new system. Existing undertakings for areas are not protected against payment for that. It is quite obvious that what would happen is that profits made in one area would help to develop areas where there are no undertakings now. That may be a good principle, but it is impossible to follow it, in my opinion, under this amendment. This amendment is not so carefully worded as the original Bill to cover against costs of distribution.
Amendments put and agreed to.
CATHAOIRLEACH
I want to enter a caveat here. I want to warn the Minister that it seems to me to be an almost superhuman task for one individual to follow all these changes, amendments and so forth. I think it would be very desirable, as there is only one official here to do this work which, under the circumstances, must be very difficult to follow, if the Minister's staff would consult with him and see that they both agree as to the shape the amendments should take. Otherwise this official will have a responsibility cast on him, and in the circumstances under which we are working, I do not think he should be called on to take that responsibility.
On behalf of Senator Dowdall I move:—
Section 59, sub-section (5). Before sub-section (5) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
"(5) Every scale made by the Board fixing the methods of charge or the rates of charge for electricity by a local authority which is an authorised undertaker shall be reconsidered by the Board at the expiration of each financial year of such local authority, and, if necessary, shall be revised and thereafter maintained so that, so far as is reasonably practicable, no contribution from the rates leviable by such local authority under this Act will be required for the purpose of defraying any expenses which such local authority may incur under this Act or otherwise in respect of its authorised undertaking during the next financial year; provided that the Board shall, in no case, make any scale whereby the charge for electricity used by such local authority for lighting or any other purpose shall be at a higher price than that charged to consumers using electricity for similar purposes and for the like hours of supply."
The principle underlying this amendment has been embodied in other orders in England under the Electricity Acts. The intention really is to secure that local undertakers shall be enabled to balance their budgets and that there should be no loss on any electricity undertaking. The Bill provides for the revision of prices so as to balance expenditure and revenue. As it stands, the section provides for the revision of the rates from time to time. I suggest the section would be better if the amendment were accepted, so that at the end of every financial year there should be a consideration of all the charges in connection with rates. They would be adjusted and not be a burden on the ratepayers to make up deficiencies on the electricity undertaking.
The Minister, no doubt, will say there is a certain provision in a subsequent sub-section providing that as long as the scale is in force it shall not be lawful for any undertaking to charge a price over and above, but Section 71 provides that any deficiency in the undertaking may be made up out of the local rates. It is to prevent such a deficiency being made up from the local rates that I think this amendment, or some modification of it, would be desirable. For example, I submit that it would be possible for an electricity undertaking to charge for lighting a town a smaller rate than it would charge for ordinary domestic lighting or other purposes. If that were so, it would be possible to subsidise such a difference out of the rates and make good the deficiency by calling on the local ratepayers. Such a situation has been made impossible under various Orders made in England. The Chichester Electrical Special Order (1922) provides for revision of prices so as to balance revenue and expenditure:—
The scale of prices charged for electrical energy under this Order shall be such that so far as is reasonably practicable no contributions from the rates of the city will be required for repaying the future expenses of the undertaking during the next three years. There shall not be made against the district rate or any other rate for energy used by the undertaker for street lighting or any other purpose a charge at a higher price than that charged to consumers using energy for similar purposes and for the like hours of supply.
In other words, what is suggested in the amendment here is that in no case shall the Board make a charge for electricity used by such local authority for lighting or any other purpose at a higher price than that charged to consumers using electricity for similar purposes and for the like hours of supply. Under the Bill I would suggest that if a local undertaking so desired they could charge for street lighting a different rate from that charged for other lighting. Very likely they would not do so, but there is a possibility, and if the amendment were accepted that would be impossible. There should be a uniform charge over all. Then the suggestion that at the expiration of each financial year there will be a reconsideration by the Board would help the local undertaking to balance its budget and would ensure that the price would be adjusted each year, so that there would be no loss on the undertaking.
This seems to be an important amendment, and this is the first time that I realised it is possible for deficiencies to be put on the rates. I must blame myself for not reading this complicated Bill more carefully, but now it is apparent that part of the costs of the undertaking can be passed on to the ratepayers. I wish the Minister would tell us the exact position. I take it that it is entirely permissive on the part of a local authority to become an undertaker? There is no machinery by which a local authority can be forced to become an undertaker. It is only when the local authority becomes an undertaker that the question of rates arises. As long as the Board is the undertaker the rates are exempt. To that extent the remedy, I suppose, is in the hands of the local authority? It need not put its neck into the noose unless it likes, but one knows that in the case of local authorities the pill is always coated with sugar; they take on responsibility where there is a small grant attached, and before they know they find there is a very substantial burden on the rates. That is a common experience. If a local authority takes on an uneconomic scheme I do not know that this amendment will give much protection, because the rates may be entirely prohibitive. The undertaking would certainly have to pay the capital charges, and it would mean prohibitive rates for electricity or an increase in the poor rate. I hope the House will do its best to safeguard local authorities. The answer to that, I suppose, is that if local authorities incur the obligations it is their own fault.
The position under the Bill is that a local authority which is an authorised undertaker and not acquired keeps its present position. That is to say, that the rates may be called upon in an unremunerative year to bear the loss. That is the present position, and I did not set out to change that. Of course, this amendment is entirely in line with my principle in this whole matter. My principle is that the service of electricity should be conducted neither at a loss nor to make money, but to make both ends meet. The Board is empowered with regard to the allocation of the surplus to see that that goes back to the consumer. This is the other side, that the local authorities shall not be allowed to charge an unremunerative rate and throw the loss on to the ratepayer. I am quite in sympathy with the principle of the amendment. I am not so much in sympathy with its drafting, particularly the proviso that "the Board shall in no case make any scale whereby the charge for electricity used by such local authorities for lighting or any other purpose"—that is a very big addition —"shall be at a higher price than that charged to consumers using electricity for similar purposes and for the like hours of supply." What the proviso is designed to meet is quite clear.
The first phrase has crept into certain electricity orders in England at the request of gas undertakers who found themselves, as big ratepayers, mulcted in heavy losses where remunerative charges were not, in fact, being made by the undertakers of electricity. Then, when the first part was put in, a gap was discovered, that by the local authority charging itself very heavily for electricity it would in fact have to increase the rates in order to meet the charges for electricity sold to itself. There was that loophole, but that loophole has been stopped without this proviso. I have not had time to get the amendment considered in its drafting, but the principle is one with which I am in line. It is the counter to no profit at all that there should be no loss at all. But remember that if the House accepts the amendment it is definitely moving away from the position of the deficiency. The undertaker, being a local authority, has at present power to charge the rates. This only applies to what Senator Sir John Keane referred, a local authority running a statutory undertaking of its own. Once the Board steps in the Board cannot change the rates.
But what is the attitude of the Minister in regard to local authorities which may wish to become undertakers? A county council, say, might be persuaded to go into electricity and might begin to borrow money which, presumably, they could get from the Board, and saddle themselves with a very heavy capital liability which they cannot meet because they may have miscalculated. Will the Board in any way guard against that, or will such local authorities be allowed to do what they like? People may not be taking current, and the charge might be 1/- or 1/6 per unit, or even in the famous Mallow case that we had two years ago, 2/1. That is possible, and then the only remedy, presumably, would be the rates. I would like an assurance from the Minister that any county council will be discouraged from doing or not allowed to do this. Municipalities might have some justification for wanting to be undertakers. Would the Minister give us any assurance to that effect?
No, that is for the Board.
Would they not have to get the consent of the Board?
And of the Minister for Local Government?
It is perfectly obvious that the Board might be very glad to get somebody else to hold the baby.
Would not the Board and the Minister for Local Government have to give their consent?
Yes.
I would like something more than that. I think there is a danger that if they get into a tangle what I have suggested will happen. It shows the danger of this.
According to our time table we have to get this Bill passed by to-morrow, and it is very difficult to give proper consideration to amendments in the time at our disposal.
It seems to me that the amendment meets the very point that Senator Sir John Keane anticipates, and there will be others who will have to be satisfied—the Minister for Local Government and the Minister for Industry and Commerce.
No.
I mean that it must be an authorised undertaking, and surely it will not be authorised if it behaves in the manner indicated by Senator Sir John Keane. It is very unlikely. I think the amendment meets the case that the rates are not to be called upon in such an eventuality.
It is not very clear that if it is immoral for electricity to pay rates it is also immoral for the rates to pay electricity?
Quite right. I have stated so.
CATHAOIRLEACH
I want to know where we are with regard to this amendment.
The Minister accepts the principle but would like some slight alteration in it.
CATHAOIRLEACH
When is that alteration to be effected, and who will effect it?
Would the Minister agree to the deletion of the words "or for any other purpose"?
Is it not clear that we will have to adjourn the Report Stage until to-morrow? Under our rules we cannot pass anything except verbal amendment on the last stage.
I was proposing to accept this and to bring up to-morrow, if required, what would only be a verbal amendment.
In relation to the first sentence in the amendment, is it intended that the Board shall have the right to revise every year the rate charged by a local authority? In other words, is it intended that the Board should have power to come to Dublin and say: "Your rate for the last year has been sixpence; next year, in view of all the circumstances, it is to be a shilling"? Is that what the amendment seeks to authorise?
Yes. If I might put the case of Kildare again, obviously if the Board decided to have anything to do with the Kildare undertaking it would immediately have to raise the Kildare rate. The Kildare undertaking has been losing money from the start. I think there is no doubt that the rate would have to be raised. But the necessity would be to prevent the ratepayers from subsidising the electricity undertaking in that town.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 61, sub-section (3). After the word "Board" in line 22 to insert the words "which expense shall be taken into consideration in fixing the rates of charge for electricity for all areas for the benefit of which such generating station is maintained."— (Government amendment.)
This is to meet a new point which emerged from a rather long amendment by Senator Hooper, moved by Senator Brady. This amendment pays attention to the keeping open of a generating station for purposes of stand-by. It refers to the authorised undertaker, with the consent and at the request of the Board, being bound to maintain a generating station, or any part thereof, for the purposes of the Board and at the expense of the Board, and then it continues "which expense shall be taken into consideration in fixing the rates of charge for electricity for all areas for the benefit of which such generating station is maintained." Then we get the case again of the Dublin undertaking being required, some part of the Dublin station scrapped, and the rest of it held open as a stand-by station. It would then be kept open at the expense of the Board, and the Board would recoup itself from the consumers of all areas for the benefit of which that generating station was being maintained. This meets the point raised in Senator Hooper's amendment.
I welcome the amendment, because it goes a considerable way towards meeting the objects which Senator Hooper had in view in the series of amendments which he tabled for the Committee Stage. I am sorry he is not here to enjoy the reward of his labours, but he is unavoidably absent. His object was to secure that if any portion of the undertaking were retained and used, that the benefit that would ensue from such retention would be charged to the people who enjoyed it. For that reason the Senator is to be congratulated on obtaining a very substantial concession from the Minister, who only carried out the undertaking which he gave in Committee when he said it might be necessary to enlarge Section 61, so as to say that the liability of the generating station used as a stand-by should be transferred to those actually benefited by the stand-by service.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment 29e.—Section 65. After the word "person" in line 42 to insert in brackets the words "(other than the Board") put and agreed to.
Amendment 30 not moved.
Government amendment 30a.—Section 86. To add at the end of the section the words "or on any contract or agreement for any such conveyance or transfer"—put and agreed to.
Amendment 31 not moved.
Government amendments:—
31a. Section 90. To delete in line 52 the words "by the Board" and to substitute therefor the words "(in case of any dispute or question) in the manner hereinafter mentioned."
31b. Section 90. To add at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—
(2) If any dispute or question arises between any person and an authorised undertaker as to the amount of such minimum annual sum as aforesaid such dispute or question shall be determined by the Board and if any such dispute or question arises between any person and the Board such dispute or question shall be determined by the Minister or, if the Minister so thinks fit, by an arbitrator appointed by him.
These two amendments are to meet the point which Senator Dowdall had adverted to in amendment 31. The first makes it clear that where the Board is a party to a dispute that the dispute shall be decided in the manner hereinafter mentioned in amendment 31b. This simply cuts out the Board, where the Board is a party to the dispute.
Amendments agreed to.
Government amendment 31c:—New section. Before Section 96 to insert a new section as follows:—
96. The Shannon works (including any portion thereof separately handed over to the Board by the Minister under this Act) shall, while in the exclusive possession and control of the Board, be exempt from assessment for poor rate and also from assessment for any other rate made by a local authority.
This is the amendment I referred to when Senator Keane was speaking on the question of exemption from rates and taxes. It has been explained what the position is in reference to income tax, and that position remains. This is what I propose with regard to rates. It puts the Board for the future in line with the present position of municipal authorised undertakings, which are so exempt.
This is an important matter. The only argument the Minister vouchsafes for the amendment is that in the case of municipal undertakings rates are not charged on the electrical property of the municipality. It might be perhaps clearer and more business-like to do so, but it would be merely taking the money out of one pocket and putting it into the other. The Minister is making this electricity undertaking practically a State operation. There is to be a Board divorced altogether from municipalities although its property will be, of course, located all over the country within the area of county councils, municipalities, or urban authorities. First of all we must look at it from the point of view that this is a commercial undertaking. If we heard that once we have heard it thirty times. But a municipal undertaking is not a commercial undertaking, —it is a public utility service. This is going to be a commercial undertaking, and surely one of the first things it should do is to pay liabilities to the State and to the local authority. Everybody has to do that. We would be relieved of many anxieties in commerce if we had not to pay taxes or rates.
This is a so-called commercial undertaking. Look at it from this point of view alone. The Board takes power to go in and supersede an undertaker who can give a cheaper service. But is the test fair? It is going to supersede an undertaker—not necessarily a municipal undertaking—whose undertaking is paying the current rates. This Board goes in, subsidised to the extent of the rates. Of course it is not a fair test at all. From every test the thing appears to be utterly unfair, and will create, moreover, a dangerous precedent. Where is it going to end—especially with this rapid extension of State enterprise—if you are going to exempt all those so-called commercial undertakings from contributions to local services?
Take County Clare, which is a poor county. Clare has a very considerable property now established in the county. The use of that property and all the attendant circumstances throw a charge on the local services. The people connected with it use the roads; the employees use the hospitals; they react on the poor law; and the whole of that undertaking is to be exempt from rates. Is that just? It is a question of "all hands to the pumps." At any cost this scheme must be passed over to the public—whether it is done by a dangerous precedent or sound finance does not matter. The public has to bear it. In this case the ratepayer, the small farmer in West Clare, has to subsidise this through free local services. I really think it is time to cry halt to this wholly unprecedented way of proceeding.
The Minister goes around in this spirit. He goes to Canada, sees something there which he likes, and takes it out. He ignores what he does not like. I know it may be said they do not pay rates in Canada—I believe they do not pay taxes. He ignores the fact that the municipalities practically own the hydro-electric undertaking in Canada. He simply takes what he likes. He goes to Sweden, and sees a State Board there, but he does not realise that there is another undertaking beside it which is commercial and that the two balance one another and create rivalry. He takes all that suits him out of the various schemes all over the world and puts it in. I really do ask the House to realise the danger of the precedent— the injustice to the rural population of this proposal.
This amendment of the Minister once and for all blows sky-high his repeated allegation that this is a commercial undertaking. It is commercial when it suits his argument to prevent Parliament having any effective control over it. He argues that principle all the time, and it was a magnificent argument when it was sought to insert a fair wages clause yesterday. The majority of bankers and brewers in the House rubbed their hands with glee and voted down the amendment, because we were going to have a grand concern run on strictly commercial lines. Every commercial undertaking not only has its rights but its responsibilities. Nobody would dream of calling a concern a "commercial undertaking" that is going to be exempt from income tax. Obviously this is now to be exempt from rates.
It is not exempt from income tax.
We know it will come along—the Minister has indicated that it will. There will be no justification for exempting it.
The Senator should not say "is" with regard to income tax.
The Minister may quibble with the word, but I will venture to be a prophet and say it will be exempt.
I hope you are a prophet.
It is to be subsidised by the rates, but it is to be run on State funds for a start and is going to get a monopoly, and it cannot lose. It has a monopoly of what it retails or sells, and, consequently, can charge sufficient to make ends meet. And this is the commercial undertaking we are told about. It is only commercial, in the accepted sense, to the extent that there is no effective national authority in the country controlling it except a Board to be appointed by the Minister or the Executive Council. It is a farce talking about it being a commercial undertaking in these circumstances. When the Minister says that he wants it run on commercial lines he is playing with words and trying to humbug the country and the House.
I wish the people who quote me would quote me accurately when they pretend to give my actual words. I said yesterday, and made this distinction, and clearly recognised this distinction, that this was not to be regarded as a commercial concern. I reiterate that; it is not going to be regarded as a commercial concern. The key note of a commercial concern is a concern doing business for profit making. It is completely removed from that; it is to be run as a service for the benefit of the people of the country. I always made the statement, and I continue to make it, that its management should be allowed to operate in the way that a commercial concern is managed. There is quite a difference, and if anybody is hoodwinked Senator O'Farrell has hoodwinked himself by misquoting me. I may say the whole electricity undertaking is not commercial in the sense that it is not run for profit. I put it on the same footing as a municipal undertaking as regards exemption from rates, simply because it is on the same footing. A municipal undertaking is exempt from rates because it was understood that if there was an undertaking in a particular area, serving the ratepayers in that area, to pay a contribution to the rates on such an undertaking would be only shifting the money from one pocket to the other. What is the Board going to do? It is going to serve an aggregation of all the municipalities in the country, an amalgamation of all the municipal electrical concerns. It is cutting out the profit-making concerns and buying them out on the basis of so many years' purchase of profits. Thereafter it will stand in the position for the whole country of a single municipal undertaking and should be relieved on exactly the same principle.
As to what I gathered from my visit to Canada, and as regards all those fantastic ideas which I am supposed to have brought back with me, if Senator Sir John Keane would not pay so much attention to the Sunday newspapers, and if he would confine himself to the arguments brought here and leave me to express my own imagination, if it is my imagination, we would get on much better. I never even studied what happened in Canada in regard to the hydro-electrical undertaking, but I have certain information upon that point. I do not agree that what the Senator said is a proper description of what happens in Canada, that the hydro-electrical undertaking there is owned by the municipality. There is a Board which is elected by the Government, but they are trustees for the municipalities. So will the Board be here. They will be elected by the Government and will be trustees for the municipalities. I put them on the same footing as a municipal undertaking. They will be trustees and they will benefit the ratepayers in certain districts, and it would simply be shifting moneys about from one pocket to another to ask them to pay rates and then proceed to charge that to the electric consumers of the area.
The Minister, I think, is not quite correct in his simile. He has compared this work, entered into for the benefit of the whole of Ireland, to a municipal undertaking which is for the benefit of the ratepayers in a particular municipality. Now here we have works which are situated in the County Clare. There is a tremendous lot of damage done in the County Clare where this concern is going. Men engaged in these works call upon the hospitals; they use the roads which are maintained out of the rates, and they call for the assistance of a great many other public services which are rendered them by the definite locality. They act on the ground that this is a municipal or national undertaking and Clare should suffer this loss. I do not think that is right. As a matter of fact if this section is passed Clare will suffer considerable loss. There is a considerable amount of property that will go to the Board and that at present pays rates in Clare. That property is being acquired by the Board, and now, in future, it will pay no rates. I do not think that is right. I think that these works should pay rates to the immediate district in which they are situate, and which has incurred a considerable amount of expense in consequence of them.
Really the Minister must be finding himself in a very tight corner when driven to the argument he has advanced, that this Board is to claim the benefits of a municipal undertaking when it ceases altogether to be a municipal undertaking. It abolishes all municipal undertakings and, having extinguished them, it claims to retain certain advantages that were peculiar to municipal undertakings. Does the House realise that the buildings in which we sit actually pay rates? The whole of the Government offices pay rates. Every bit of Government property pays rates. The Civic Guard barracks pay rates, but here is an undertaking, which the Minister says, or does not say, is a commercial undertaking, though not a profit-earning undertaking, and it is to pay no rates. The Minister applies one test of profit-earning. Surely there are other tests—the test, for instance, of paying liabilities. There is an expenditure side of a commercial account, and in what commercial account do you find the expenditure side exempt from liability to rates to pay for the services it receives from the local ratepayers? I think this is simply tantamount to confiscation, getting services free and simply passing them on to one section of the community, that is, the electrical consumers.
I must say that I think a case has been made against the amendment introduced by the Minister. Looking at the matter impartially, I think it is hardly fair to expect that localities in the counties of Clare and Limerick should be saddled with the expense and the responsibility of maintaining the public services required and with making roads in connection with the Shannon works, and that buildings erected in connection with the scheme should escape from the liability of paying rates. The Minister says that the municipal undertakings have not to pay. I do not think it is fair that the ratepayers in these two counties should be required to bear the expense of maintaining services such as roads, etc., in connection with the works which are to supply power all over the country without getting any compensating advantage. This amendment is an afterthought, because a proposal of this kind was not embodied in the Bill as drafted originally. Viewing the matter in an impartial way, I think a case has been made against the insertion of this amendment. I think that the Seanad would be doing an injustice to the ratepayers in the counties of Limerick and Clare if it were to agree to the insertion of this amendment.
The whole argument has proceeded so far on the lines that the counties of Limerick and Clare are the only counties in question. Senator Barrington and Senator Sir John Keane have been the most able helpers. I have had to make the scheme a success and not to embarrass it in any way. We got a contribution to-day from Senator Barrington about the rates in Limerick and in Clare and certain other things. I ask: have these two counties got no benefits from the Shannon scheme to date that no other part of the country has not got? Is the position to be that they are going to be allowed to have all the benefits and not have any small deductions made from what further benefits may hereafter come to them from the scheme? Senator Sir John Keane says that this building in which we are pays rates. It does as an act of grace, and if this amendment is passed the Board will be in exactly the same position as a Government Department is in at the present time.
Will the Minister give an undertaking to that effect?
I cannot give any undertaking on behalf of the Board. The same point will arise in connection with the Board as arises in the case of Government Departments in the matter of the payment of rates. Senator Farren spoke about the making of roads. The roads that are there leading to the power-house we built ourselves under the Shannon scheme.
The roads are impassable and have been for years.
The roads were impassable before work was ever started on the Shannon scheme. If certain people in Limerick, of whom Senator Barrington is a good representative, had not been out to clutch everything they could from the Shannon scheme and had not taken up such a selfish attitude as they did at least one other industry would have been established there, but because of the grasping tendency displayed that advantage passed to another district. What happened in Limerick compares adversely with what occurred in Carlow where the beet sugar factory has been established. Owing to the extravagant demands that were made, and the selfish attitude taken up by certain people in Limerick a particular industry did not go there. A big number of transformer stations will be scattered all over the country. Supposing a positive amendment is passed that there shall be a liability to pay rates it means that all over the country, where there is a transformer station settled on property which at any time paid rates, there is going to be a small contribution asked from the Board, and that small contribution will be charged to the consumers in the particular area served by the station. That would be putting it in exactly the same position as the municipal undertaking. With regard to the station at the Pigeon House in Dublin there is no demand made at the moment for the payment of rates because it is understood that a particular section of the ratepayers are getting benefit from it. That is an argument that should also apply to the Shannon works. With regard to the power-house at Limerick, there may have been a certain amount of damage done to property. Certain lands may have been taken. There may have been hindrances and impediments, but if that has been the case there have been corresponding benefits conferred on this area by the scheme, benefits that are very much greater than anything that has been done in the way of harm to the people by taking any property away from them. As to the rates on land in the County Clare which will be exempt they will be in exactly the same position as if a post office was built there. If the amendment is passed there will be nothing imposed by law to make a payment in lieu of rates.
Is the Minister making that statement on legal advice? I would like to point out to the Seanad that the property of the Board will be in a totally different position to State property.
It does not require legal advice to make that statement, but merely common sense. Government property is exempt at the moment from rates.
Why put this in then?
Government property does not apply comprehensively, but for most purposes it is so.
Why then is it necessary to put this amendment in the Bill?
The Senator is so persistent that it may be necessary for me to write a letter to the "Sunday Times" in order to get to him. If it is not put in, will the counties be in any better position than they are at the moment as regards Government Departments? They get a contribution in lieu of rates at present from Government Departments. To make a contribution to local bodies in lieu of rates is not imposed on Government Departments, and they have no right to demand it. It is simply an act of grace on the part of Government Departments to make such a contribution. So far as that point is concerned, the Board will be in exactly the same position as a Government Department. It will be exempt from the liability to pay rates. The question of local services in Limerick and Clare has been stressed at great length by Senator Barrington. My answer to that is that the roads were torn up and remade with Government money in the form of special grants. Applications were made to the Minister to repair certain roads that the lorries of Messrs. Siemens Schuckert never once passed over. These roads were torn up by the lorries of certain commercial firms in Limerick. These firms were obliged to put extra lorries on the road because of the extra trade brought to Limerick as a result of the Shannon scheme. Because of the damage that these commercial lorries did to the roads we are to be asked to make that damage good and to pay for it. The position seems to be that the people in Limerick want to take all the benefits arising from the operation of the Shannon scheme and to pay none of the costs. That is Senator Barrington's idea of making a contribution towards local services.
Would the Minister give us some proof of the statement that he has just made? According to my information, Limerick has derived little or no benefit from the works that are going on there in connection with the Shannon scheme, but rather an immense amount of inconvenience. Nearly all the goods consumed on the Shannon works are, I am informed, imported from Germany. German firms supply almost everything that is required, and I do not know that Limerick gains any advantage whatever.
I simply leave the matter at the stage.
I am one of those quarrelless, inarticulate members who have done their best all through the debates to help the Minister, because we think it is everything for the country that this scheme should succeed. But on this point I am not quite sure that there is any justice, as far as I understand it, in relieving the Shannon Board and, therefore, the consumer of electricity, from liability for some portion of the rates at the expense of those ratepayers who, presumably, do not consume electricity. That is how the matter strikes me. I waited in vain for any word from the Minister which would be a guide to me as to whether the passage of the Government's amendment is essential to the success of the scheme. Can the Minister show us that if the Shannon undertaking is saddled with rates it will be so serious a matter that his project will in any way be endangered? If he can show us that, I think we will have some grounds for assuming that there is no injustice in relieving it of rates and even saddling the ratepayers with some portion of the cost of the benefit that the consumer will receive, but so far we have not had any indication from the Minister that that is the case. I think it would be a great help to those of us who are anxious to see the scheme a success if he could quietly and without heat, tell us exactly what his views are on that point.
I think there may be an injustice to the ratepayers involved in the amendment, but the amount at stake is very small. Rates would only have to be paid, except in the case of Limerick, for transformer stations at the various centres. These are small things and the amount of rates cannot, in the aggregate, be very large. The only place where I think the rates would be levied to any large amount would be Limerick. Unlike Senator Barrington, I think that Limerick has got, and will get, considerable benefits in the future, from this scheme as a set-off against the rates. I should like the Minister to state whether the amount involved, excluding Limerick, is large. It is probably extremely small.
I do hope the House will not be persuaded by the argument that the Government is going to remit these rates. If this amendment is inserted in the Bill is it likely that the Government is going to remit the rates?
Again, that is not my suggestion.
The Minister said that the rates need not be paid, on the analogy of a State department.
My argument has been misunderstood. The Senator said something in regard to a contribution for rates. I simply said that if this was passed the Board would be in the position of a State department and then might give this contribution in lieu of rates. Senator Guinness has asked if the amount involved would be large. The amount involved in the case of the station in Clare would be a very big amount, and the law would have to be changed, because the particular method of assessment on a hydro-electrical station would simply leave the hydro-electrical station burdened with a huge cost. Taken in comparison with other wealth-producing things—buildings erected around mines, even a coal electrical station—the hydro-electrical station would run to about four times the amount they would have to pay. Then, in addition, considerable property will be scattered all over the country. There will be several sub-stations erected all over the country and the rates on these stations would be very considerable.
I do not think the British Government, under the former regime, paid rates for the different buildings.
No, they made a contribution, but they were not bound to pay.
I was interested in some property in Cork occupied by the Board of Trade, and I do not think they paid any rates.
They only paid as an act of grace.
I am very much surprised at the efforts made by a section in this House to load the scheme with every possible expense that can be put upon it. The very genesis of the scheme was to make up the great leeway that existed in this country, both from a manufacturing point of view and the point of view of science as applied to the agricultural industry, and our backwardness generally, as a country in competition with our neighbours That was what induced the Government at the time to take their courage in their hands, and to inaugurate this scheme and supply cheap power in this country in order to induce capital from abroad to come here and possibly to stimulate the investment of native capital, of which there is a very large amount lying in the banks, and to induce the establishment of industries in this country, because industries will follow. Manufacturers will come to any country—capital is very mobile—if they have an assurance of cheap and continuous power and if the transport facilities and loading facilities at the ports are of a proper kind. Capital will be induced to come from outside and establish itself here. That was the whole impulse, the whole consideration and argument that induced the Government, at the time, to take their courage in their hands and to give a forward impulse in this way to our position by establishing the Shannon works and by providing cheap power. They also felt that it would free us from the risks that we have hitherto incurred of the coal supply, on which manufacturers are dependent, being cut off, and the whole manufacturing industries being brought to a standstill.
It is argued that works erected under the scheme should be liable to rates. Where is the ratepayers' grievance? Before this scheme was set on foot the works were not there and no rates were being paid, because the buildings or the distributing or transforming plant were not in existence. This is a new asset created by the people out of their own resources. The taxpayer is taxed for this scheme, and its development throughout the Free State. That money has to come out of the Central Fund, and is collected from the taxpayers. All these works are being newly erected, and the municipalities or the local rate striking bodies derived no rates from these works before they existed. These works have been brought into existence by the present scheme, and the municipalities put in a plea that rates should be paid on these works and buildings. Take the biggest end of the construction—the works and buildings in Clare and Limerick— is it fair that the ratepayers there should benefit so inordinately out of proportion to the ratepayers in other parts of the community? Take it that 50 or 60 per cent. of the work in connection with the whole scheme is established in Limerick. Are the ratepayers there for all time, in addition to the great benefits they have been deriving from the work done in their area, to reap the benefit of this very great rate that is going to be put on that 60 per cent., while the ratepayers in other parts of Ireland who will have to contribute to the upkeep of the scheme will have no corresponding benefit?
What I take umbrage at is, that, having put our shoulders to the wheel, and having applauded the initiation of this scheme, which proposes to use our own resources and cut ourselves clear from our dependence on the English coal supply, I am surprised to find right through the discussion, and in connection with nearly all amendments tabled here, the Minister seems to be harassed at every point. There seems to be a disposition now to load the scheme with every liability that can be dragged in. It seems to me that some Senators would like to see the scheme a failure. That is the impression left on one's mind by the trend of the arguments. Some members apparently hope that the scheme will eventually be a disaster. It will either be a white elephant, of the whitest possible description, or it will be brilliant success. It can only be a brilliant success by giving it every opportunity and by everybody helping in this great national venture. It is rather unworthy to stress these matters further, particularly on the lines on which they are being stressed, namely, by vague general attacks which, when analysed, are seen to be full of discrepancies.
I intended to reply to Senator the Earl of Wicklow, but I think that the answer given to Senator Guinness would cover his point. The burdens would be considerable, and they would be relieved in some way by the charges to the consumers. There is a big property at Ardnacrusha, and it will be rated in a particular way. The method of assessment is such that hydro-electric stations have to pay four times more than fuel-using stations. There are, in addition, numerous subsidiary buildings throughout the State. There will be a main transformer building and all sorts of sub-stations. Everything, even the very poles, will have to be assessed for rating purposes, if rates have to be paid.
In that case the Government have power to legislate on the question of re-valuation.
Amendment put. The Seanad divided: Tá, 25; Níl, 8.
Tá
|
T. Westropp Bennett.Sir Edward Coey Bigger.Samuel L. Brown, K.C.Mrs. Costello.John C. Counihan.The Dowager Countess of Desart.James Dillon.James G. Douglas.Sir Thomas Grattan Esmonde.Sir Nugent Everard.James P. Goodbody.Sir John P. Griffith.Henry S. Guinness. |
Benjamin Haughton.Rt. Hon. Andrew Jameson.Cornelius Kennedy.Patrick W. Kenny.Francis MacGuinness.James MacKean.John MacLoughlin.Joseph O'Connor.Bernard O'Rourke.Dr. W. O'Sullivan.Siobhan Bean an Phaoraigh.The Earl of Wicklow. |
Níl
|
William Barrington.P.J. Brady.Michael Duffy.Thomas Farren. |
Thomas Foran.Sir John Keane.Colonel Moore.John T. O'Farrell. |
Amendment declared carried.
CATHAOIRLEACH
Senator Brown got an amendment passed substituting the words "High Court" for the word "Minister" in Section 88 and the result of that requires several small consequential amendments. Perhaps this might be an opportunity of putting them.
There is a provision that the arbitrator appointed in Section 88 by the Minister is to be paid certain fees and that certain other matters are to apply to the arbitrator appointed under this section. In order to make it apply to the arbitrator appointed by the High Court in my amendment, it is necessary to alter the word "section" to the word "Act." I therefore move:—
In sub-sections (2), (3), (4), (5), and (6), Section 88, to substitute for the word "section" the word "Act."
Amendment put and carried.
Government amendment:—
Section 104. To delete the section and to substitute the following new section therefor:—
104. (1) The Executive Council may by order transfer from the Minister or the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland (in this section referred to as the Commissioners) respectively to the Board all or any of the functions, powers, and duties conferred or imposed by or under any statute on the Minister or the Commissioners (as the case may be) in relation to the care or conservancy of the navigation or the drainage of the River Shannon or any tributary thereof or of works constructed for the improvement of such navigation or drainage, and any such order may transfer all or any of such functions, powers, and duties in relation either to the whole or to any particular parts or part of the said river or any tributary thereof.
(2) Where by reason of the existence of the Shannon works it is impracticable for the Commissioners to exercise the functions and powers or perform the duties conferred or imposed on them by any such statute as aforesaid in accordance with the provisions of such statute the Commissioners shall exercise such functions and powers and perform such duties as nearly as may be practicable having regard to the existence of the said works, in accordance with the provisions of such statute, and upon an order being made by the Executive Council under this section transferring all or any of such functions, powers and duties to the Board, the Board shall exercise the functions and powers and perform the duties to which such order relates as nearly as may be practicable, having regard to the existence of the said works, in accordance with the provisions of such statute.
(3) Whenever any functions, powers, or duties are transferred to the Board by an order under this section the Executive Council may by the same or any subsequent order authorise and require the Board to exercise and perform all or any of such functions, powers, and duties in relation to all or any of the canals, locks, wharves, piers, landing places, quays, or other works constructed by the Minister under the Shannon Electricity Act, 1925 (No. 26 of 1925), and upon such order being made the works to which such order relates shall be deemed to be included in the works in relation to which such functions, powers, and duties are exercisable by virtue of the statute by which the same were created and such statute (with such modifications, if any, as are specified in such order) shall be construed and have effect accordingly.
(4) Whenever any functions, powers, or duties are transferred from the Commissioners to the Board by an order under this section the Executive Council may by the same or any subsequent order transfer to and vest in the Board all or any of the locks, lock-houses, eel-weirs, or other property which immediately before the date of such order were vested in the Commissioners and were used by them either for the purpose of or in connection with the exercise or performance of the functions, powers, or duties so transferred or for the purpose of providing revenue for the exercise or performance of such functions, powers or duties.
(5) Whenever any functions, powers, or duties are transferred from the Commissioners to the Board by an order under this section the Executive Council may by the same or any subsequent order transfer from the services of the Commissioners to the service of the Board any person employed by the Commissioners in relation to or for the purpose of the exercise or performance of such functions, powers, or duties, and every person so transferred shall thereupon become and be a servant of the Board upon the same terms as to remuneration and superannuation, pension or gratuity (if any) as those on which he was employed by the Commissioners immediately before such transfer and shall for the purpose of such superannuation, pension or gratuity (if any) be entitled to reckon his period of service with the Commissioners as service with the Board.
(6) Whenever any functions, powers, or duties are transferred from the Commissioners to the Board by an order under this section the Executive Council may by the same or any subsequent order impose on the Board the obligation to pay as from the date of such order any pension which at the date of such order is payable by the Commissioners to a person formerly employed by the Commissioners in relation to or for the purpose of the exercise or performance of such functions, powers, and duties, and thereupon the Board shall become and be liable to indemnify the Commissioners against all and every liability in respect of such pension as from the date of such order.
(7) An order made by the Executive Council under this section transferring any functions, powers or duties from the Commissioners to the Board may be expressed and if so expressed shall operate to require the Board to keep a separate account in relation to the exercise by it of the functions and powers and the performance by it of the duties to which such order relates and may be expressed and if so expressed shall operate to require that the functions, powers and duties to which such order relates be exercised and performed by officers and servants of the Board employed by it solely in relation to such functions, powers and duties.
(8) Every order made by the Executive Council under this section shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made, and if either such House shall, within twenty-one days after the first day on which it sits after such order is laid before it, pass a resolution annulling such order, such order shall be annulled accordingly but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder.
I have an amendment down to delete Section 104, and I would like you, sir, to tell me how to deal with it, as both are rather mingled.
CATHAOIRLEACH
If you wish you can move the deletion of the section and tell us what you wish to put in its place.
Senator Brown thinks that we had better hear the Minister first. I am willing to agree to that.
CATHAOIRLEACH
I must leave it between you. I understand that you want to get the section away altogether?
Yes.
CATHAOIRLEACH
Perhaps it would be more convenient for the Minister to make his proposals now.
Sub-section (1) proposes to allow the Executive Council by Order to transfer to the Board any or all of its functions, powers and duties in relation both to navigation and drainage on the Shannon. Sub-section (2) is new. It is to meet the point that it may be impracticable to exercise the duties and functions imposed, and then they shall exercise them as may be practicable having regard to the existence of the Shannon works. Sub-section (3) is an enlargement of what was in the previous section, 104, and is really a continuation of sub-section (2). Sub-section (4) is an addition, vesting not merely the powers, duties and functions, but it also transfers and vests the property which the Board of Works previously had. Sub-section (5) deals with the staffs, and it transfers them, preserving all their existing rights with regard to pay, pension etc. Sub-section (6) is a technical point. It is an enlargement of one of the points in sub-section (5). Sub-section (7) deals with the Order transferring the powers, duties and functions, and it provides that the Board can be ordered to keep a separate account of the functions and powers handed over. The last section embodies a provision I promised, that the Order would have to come before both Houses of the Oireachtas, and on an adverse vote by either House the transfer could not be completed.
CATHAOIRLEACH
These are very important sub-section and raise a lot of very new contentious matter. If no proceedings could be taken effectively under this new sub-section unless and until the Orders have been confirmed by the Oireachtas, is there any pressure about them? Might it not be better to make them the subject-matter of a special Bill? They are exceedingly complicated, and I understand they are not to be put into operation until the Orders made under them are laid before the Oireachtas and sanctioned by them. There will not be very much opportunity for doing that for a considerable time. I understand the Minister has to bring in supplementary legislation for other purposes in connection with this Bill. Might it not be better to leave over this contentious matter until then?
There is to be other legislation, but that would not come on until the beginning of the year. Very little could happen under sub-section (1), but sub-section (2) is important, as it may become immediately impracticable that the Commissioners could carry out certain functions.
CATHAOIRLEACH
Would sub-sections (1) and (2) be enough for you?
I think Senator Sir John Griffith would refuse to grant sub-section (1). The other sub-section puts a limitation on the powers to be transferred.
There is no need rehearsing my objections to the removal of this authority over the Shannon from the Board of Works, for since I moved my previous amendment the Minister has made it clear that it is at the instigation of the Board of Works this section has been introduced. I think it must be generally admitted that this provision as inserted in the Bill was rather immature and did not take into account the difficulties of the transfer. It has to be met by the carefully prepared section the Minister has put before us to-day. I may say that since I heard it was at the instance of the Board of Works the change was to be made I tried to think out an amendment necessary for this section. I may say the Minister has done a great deal towards meeting me. There is a section of the work regarding which I think a more stringent regulation should be placed on the Board than at present. For instance, I think they should be prohibited from raising the level of Lough Derg above the level which was contemplated in the reports of the experts and of the contractors themselves. I think they should not be allowed to lower the level of Lough Derg below a certain level which will permit of the navigation being carried on by boats of the class of the Grand Canal Company. That, I think, will be readily agreed to, because it was recommended by the Royal Commission over which Mr. Allport presided that the navigation level might be lowered two feet. The Commission over which I was chairman came to the same conclusion, that two feet would be an advantage from the point of storage, so there can be no possible reason against inserting such a provision. I am particularly anxious that there should be a limit to the power of the Board in raising the water level, because to my mind there will be a great temptation for them to do so. One of the defects I consider most glaring in the Shannon scheme is one of storage capacity. The only means of increasing that is by raising the water level.
CATHAOIRLEACH
You apparently do not object to the proposals contained in the Minister's clauses, provided they are augmented or supplemented.
Yes. I was anxious to get those items included. I think, as I read them out, we may concur, whether he approves of them or not. "The Electricity Supply Board shall be the Conservancy Board for the Shannon and its tributaries." I think that is covered by the Minister's amendment. "It shall take over the duties, liabilities and control of drainage, navigation and fisheries in the catchment basin of the River Shannon, at present vested in or under the care of the Commissioners of Public Works." That is covered also. For these duties it shall be responsible to the Minister for Finance or the Minister for Industry and Commerce. I believe, as a matter of fact, that the Board of Works are under the authority of the Minister for Finance at present. That is really a matter of adjustment. My view is that these works in connection with conservancy will be perfectly exposed to view. It will make annual reports which will have to be laid before the Parliament year by year. "It shall make annual reports to the Minister for submission to the Dáil and Seanad." I think that is included. "Separate accounts shall be kept of the conservancy receipts and expenditure and of the electricity supply. These shall be laid before both Houses." The staff of the conservancy shall be separate from the electricity supply staff. The Board may lower the navigation of Lough Derg two feet.
CATHAOIRLEACH
That is the first, I think, which is not covered.
And it shall not allow the level of Lough Derg to rise above the level of 110 feet Ordnance Datum. Those are the two items which I am particularly anxious to be taken into account if this clause is passed in its second form.
CATHAOIRLEACH
Would it not be wise if you moved to amend those clauses proposed by the Government by inserting two new sub-sections to cover the point you raised?
Could I not have the alternative of postponing these two clauses until a small Bill is brought in? The Government amendment is an admission that Section 104 was the result of immature and ill-considered legislation to remove the control of the Shannon conservancy from the Commissioners of Public Works. The legislation of the last 80 or 90 years is to be repealed on the Report Stage of the Electrical Supply Bill. That such a clause should have passed through all its stages in the Dáil without challenge passes my comprehension. No hint was given until the Minister spoke on my amendment of the reasons for the introduction of this clause. The principal reason appears to be that the Commissioners of Public Works had come to the conclusion they could no longer be responsible for the conservancy of the Shannon in regard to drainage, navigation or fisheries. If Section 104, even as amended by the Government, is allowed to stand, no control of the regulation of the Shannon will exist. There will be nothing to prevent the Electricity Board from raising the level of the Shannon to any level they desire, or of lowering it to any level. All that the Board need say is that, in the interests of the electric supply, they consider it the best thing to be done, and that they are fortified in this opinion by the experts, who considered it the most economical thing to do. The readiness with which the design, as submitted to Parliament, has been departed from already should be a warning to the Seanad to hesitate in granting these powers without due information and consideration. The improvement of inland navigation, which so fascinated the people of Limerick, has been abandoned; the site of the weir at O'Brien's Bridge has been moved up the river 1½ miles, consequent on imperfect preliminary investigations; portions of the embankments around Lough Derg are to be abandoned, and additional land flooded, the flooded land being bought at a valuation. I consider it an unfortunate outrage that such legislation should be forced on the Seanad in the Report Stage of the Bill. I would ask the House to accept my amendment and simply delete Section 104. If the Government then consider it necessary they can bring in a considered Bill to disendow the Commissioners of Public Works of the conservancy of the Shannon and all their obligations and transfer them to the Electricity Supply Board. If they took that course I am perfectly sure it would receive the support that I tried to give to all the proposals of this Bill. I feel strongly that we have been treated harshly by having this long amendment thrust upon us at the very end of our work without really time for most of the Senators to understand the clause. I scarcely think half of us who read the clause through understand its full meaning. For those reasons I ask the Seanad to impress on the Minister to seek a postponement of the legislation necessary to transfer the conservancy of the Shannon from the Board of Works to this Board for electricity supply.
There is an order made with this section. I would like to know from the Minister whether in his opinion it would be possible for the House to amend such an order in the direction suggested by Senator Sir John Griffith, or would we simply have to take it or leave it?
You can force an amendment by refusing to pass the order. The postponement Senator Sir John Griffith seeks with regard to this matter of the 110 level or the navigation level can be achieved when the orders come to be discussed in the Seanad. There can be no order before autumn. If there is an order made in the next day or two the Seanad can refuse to take it, and the thing lapses. It will be in the Seanad's power to hold up any order until such points with regard to the level of the lake, and particularly with regard to the navigation level, are attended to.
That is so, under sub-section 8 of the proposed new section.
CATHAOIRLEACH
Under that the Oireachtas will only have the power to annul it or pass it. They have no power to amend it, and I do not think they have power to hold it up.
They can refuse to pass it.
CATHAOIRLEACH
They must annul it. You may amend this clause, but all the powers given under this clause at present are to annul. They have no power to hold up.
Would the Minister be prepared to accept this alternative— that the order shall come into force when each House has passed a resolution? It is a very much easier thing for the House to decline to pass a resolution until certain things are inserted in the order than to attack the whole order.
There is a clause drafted in that form. I have not got it here, but it can be quite easily brought in.
CATHAOIRLEACH
That might get rid of another infirmity in clause 8. As it stands, clause 8 makes any order annulling without prejudice to anything previously done under the order. A lot of work might be done and it might make it uneconomical for the House to annul the order.
You, A Chathaoirligh, suggested that this matter might be postponed until the next session, when a new Bill could be brought in Senator Sir John Griffith has suggested the same thing. I imagine very few members of the House understand what is implied in this new clause. It has been stated that it is not a matter of very great urgency and, in two or three months hence when the Bill can be brought in, it will be quite time enough to discuss this and pass it if it is considered desirable. I suggest that those clauses should be deleted and incorporated in a Bill in the next session.
CATHAOIRLEACH
What I feel is that we are running a grave risk. We may be over looking things while giving the fullest consideration to the Bill in the time we have. It is inevitable that these flaws will be discovered later, and if we had a little more time we might obviate all the difficulty.
On the point as to newness, Section 104 has been in the Bill almost since the start.
How it escaped the Dáil I do not know.
I have gone through this new section carefully. It does exactly what is wanted for the purpose of protecting the Shannon navigation and drainage from the dangers that might arise if there were a single control with conflicting interests. It solves that perfectly. The only points that are left are those two points about the levels. That being so, I would urge on my friend, Senator Sir John Griffith, that we might let this Government amendment be carried, with the slight amendment suggested of having a resolution of the House necessary before the order comes into operation.
Personally I should very much prefer the course I recommended—that is, eliminating the clause and asking the Minister to bring in his Bill. But if the House is satisfied that this is sufficient protection, I should be prepared to withdraw my amendment.
I am reluctant to leave too many things to orders which are laid on the Table but seldom read.
CATHAOIRLEACH
Under the change the Minister says he is willing to accept nothing can be done unless the House passes a resolution of approval. You are quite right, Senator, as to the laying of papers, but with the suggested amendment the position will be altered. Shall we allow this matter to stand over until to-morrow morning, so that this suggestion may be before the House? We have agreed that Clause 104, as it stands in the Bill, is to go, and in its place will be inserted the clauses standing in the name of the Government. That is subject to the Government bringing in to-morrow morning an amendment to sub-clause (8). It will then be for the House to determine whether it will accept the Government's proposal, as amended, in sub-clause (8).
Agreed.
I move amendment 33:—
Section 104. To add at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—
(4) It shall be the duty of the Board to take all such steps as may be necessary to put into and maintain in an efficient condition for navigation by barges of 180 tons the channel leading from the head race at Ardnacrusha to the navigable waters of the Shannon at Sarsfield Bridge, Limerick.
I rise with a considerable amount of diffidence to propose this amendment, because, to a shy and nervous man like myself, the intimidatory attitude the Minister assumes towards any suggestion which other people regard as an improvement is very embarrassing. I never had any desire to hamper the Bill, but every desire to amend it. I never differed with the Minister as to the desirability of carrying out the Shannon works, but we have a serious divergence of opinion as to the methods he adopted to do so. My whole desire is that the Bill should pass with the utmost advantage to the country at large and with the minimum of injury. There are a great many points on which we differ, but I do not think the Minister treated me fairly in pillorying me the way he did a short time ago for supporting Senator Sir John Keane. In order that the Seanad should understand the position with regard to navigation, I think it will be desirable, in the first place, to read what the Minister himself said when he was introducing this Bill. I should preface that by saying that while things were in the hands of the British Treasury they occasionally economised in a way which we did not think desirable. For example, they commenced works connected with drainage with the best intention, and they did not finish them. The connection between the canal at Limerick and the deep water at Limerick was never completed. This is the way in which the Minister described the position at the introduction of the scheme:
With regard to navigation, the present position is more or less this.
He then proceeds to describe the course of the navigation and goes on:
The limitations of that third side canal (at Corbally Mills) are what have obstructed navigation on the Shannon up to this.
Now, those words, "up to this," had a particular significance. The obstruction existed there, and he got his Bill on the understanding that he was going to remove the obstruction. He describes the position in this way:
Towards the end of its course here the barge meets with the point where the canal discharges into the Abbey River. That Abbey River again discharges into the Shannon to meet the two bridges, Matthew Bridge and Balls Bridge. The position with regard to these two bridges is that they have been built so low that only at neap tide is it possible for an 80-ton barge to get access to the river. It can only get access to the river in one hour out of the twelve, and not even then, one hour out of every twelve. There are certain seasons in which there is no access to the river, and the risk is so great that the owners of the barges will not take cargoes down unless prohibitive rates for insurance are paid.
There are several alternatives set out in the experts' report with regard to the future, under the new conditions.
The Minister then goes on to describe proposed new works, and traces the passage of a barge:
It proceeds to O'Brien's Bridge, and it is then diverted into the power canal, and by means of a ship's hoist is lowered to the tail race level. It proceeds along the tail race water, sailing beyond the point where the Abbey River flows down towards the junction with the side canal already spoken of. It then passes along the bed of the river, passes Thomond Bridge, which, for this purpose, has to be equipped with a swivel-bridge, and gets its exit through Sarsfield Bridge, also equipped with a swivel-bridge, to the ocean harbour.
That was the Minister's proposal.
No; that was one of the alternatives. Did I say anything about the alternatives?
The Minister went on:
So that, so far as navigation is concerned, you have the position that, instead of there being a very dangerous passage for 80-ton barges down to the junction of the side canal with the Abbey River, and an almost impossible passage below these two bridges down to Limerick, you have the position that barges of 150 tons can go down the river from Athlone, pass through the power canal, and be taken into the ship's hoist, left in the tail-race and proceed along the tail-race through Thomond Bridge and Sarsfield Bridge and actually moor at the side of ocean-going vessels. That is the alternative. The power scheme has nothing to do with navigation as such, but certain things occur in it which are incidentally good for navigation, and these have been improved upon.
The Minister then proceeds to mention what has to be done, and he points out that if the navigation is to take the old course there would have to be built into the weir at O'Brien's Bridge a new lock which he estimated would cost £20,000. He says:
So that by interfering with the river for the purpose of power production there would necessarily be incurred a charge of about £20,000. The experts have considered that if the alternative method by which they are to have a ship's hoist put in which is purely for navigation purposes is adopted the power scheme should bear the cost of that to the extent of £20,000, which it would otherwise have to expend on the provision of this lock in the weir at O'Brien's Bridge.
The Minister proceeds to describe what the ship's hoist would cost, and he mentions:
Navigation will be charged with £75,000, that is, £95,000 minus the £20,000 which will be charged on the power scheme for the lock facility at O'Brien's Bridge.
He has abandoned all that on the experts' advice, and he is leaving us with the old defective canal. He leaves us with this navigation, which he has pointed out was never efficient and never could be efficient. He is, apparently, putting the £20,000 which was intended for the lock at O'Brien's Bridge to the credit of the scheme.
No, he is not; he is putting it into the navigation.
In Limerick we think that this is a very unsatisfactory position. We thought that what the Minister described as a very defective state of affairs "up to this" should be remedied, and we expected him to carry out the promise which he gave over and over again to improve the navigation so that the barges could come down and moor alongside ocean-going vessels. There is a very small portion of the river to be dealt with. The Minister is proposing to make the Abbey River navigable as far as the canal lock. Once the boats get to that position he proposes that they should ascend to the canal harbour by means of the ordinary lock which is at present there. He is, apparently, overlooking the fact that it is only at certain stages of the tide that can be done. The right thing to do is to improve the few hundred yards of the Abbey River running from the canal harbour to where it connects again with the Shannon at the Custom House. Improvements could be effected on that portion of the river which would enable the barges to get alongside the sea-going ships instead of having to stop at the canal harbour. That was the proposal originally put forward, and it was on those grounds that the Minister got the Bill. Changes have taken place in the meantime without outside people being made aware of the fact.
It was at least expected that Limerick, through the first native Government the people have had for many years, would have been treated in a better way than it was treated under the British Government. I happen to know that the improvement I have mentioned could be made with the money saved in connection with the lock at O'Brien's Bridge. It is an improvement which, if carried out, would permit practically the entire internal navigation of Ireland to be brought into direct connection with sea-going vessels at Limerick. The Minister gave us statistics as to the amount of navigation likely to pass, and he mentioned the traffic passing along there. How could traffic pass along there in face of the obstacles he so well described and that I have described? What traffic will pass through it with the Shannon scheme in operation is quite another matter. I ask the Minister to approach this matter not by way of intimidating me or anybody who tries to get a slight improvement made, but in a broad-minded manner. I ask him to carry out the scheme which was originally outlined.
All this can be answered very briefly. It is not the duty of any native Government to charge the rest of the country for the carrying out of an improvement at Limerick. The Senator has read a whole series of statements of mine having regard to one alternative proposed by the experts. My conclusion was that whichever of these alternatives was to be adopted depended on what the people were prepared to pay for. The people interested in navigation there have told us that they are not prepared to pay even a small sum.
Surely the Minister knows that when he speaks of navigation, the people concerned with navigation are really the Government themselves? They own the canal. As regards the people who have been running barges from Dublin to Limerick, it is idle to ask them to pay this cost. The Government own the Shannon navigation and, of course, the Minister has the decision in his own hands.
The Government have asked the people who mainly use the canal to make some contribution, and those people are not prepared to pay even a small sum. The Grand Canal Company operate fully eighty per cent. of the traffic on that stretch. I cannot see how a Bill dealing with electricity supply can seek to throw it upon the Board to make certain constructional changes in the Shannon works which were not inserted in the 1925 Act. This, I hold, is an amendment to the 1925 Act and not to this Bill.
The Minister asks why should the cost of this be thrown on the consumers of electricity and on the Board. The Minister knows perfectly well, and everybody else knows, that the price that will be charged in future will not depend so much upon the amount which is expended as upon the demand for electricity. It is not on the capital expenditure. The capital expenditure involved in this change would be trifling; it would be infinitely more than covered by the £20,000 which they say they will save. If they increase the demand for electricity they will reduce the price.
Will letting 180-ton barges down to the harbour increase the demand for electricity?
Undoubtedly, because you will open a field for the construction of factories. I dwelt upon that matter to-day.
And it was a suggestion which the Seanad decided to reject.
I asked the Minister the other day whether the navigation would be from Lough Derg to the portion of the river which ocean-going vessels can reach, when the electricity scheme has been completed. The Minister said, certainly, for 180-ton barges. Now, so far as I can understand it, he is saying something totally different. There is, I believe, a stretch of river which is unnavigable, and which, unless it is made navigable, will prevent 180-ton barges going down to meet the ships. If, on the other hand, it means that this can only happen once in a while, when the tide is in, and for one hour in the day, I do not consider that efficient navigation.
It is the only navigation there is. What I did say to the Senator is a matter I would like to deal with now. If I led the House to believe that barges of 180 tons would go through the tail-race from the power house, through the Abbey River and down to the harbour, that is wrong. Barges of 180 tons can go into the canal harbour, but from that on the navigation is as it was. We are not interfering with the present situation.
That is contrary to what the Minister said the other day. I asked him could I understand there will be navigation in future for barges from Lough Derg to the sea-going ships, and for what tonnage. He said, certainly, the navigation would be from Lough Derg to the sea-going ships for 180-ton barges.
If that was the impression created it is not quite correct. I think the argument now is entirely on another footing; it deals with present conditions, and how far they are being disimproved. If I did indicate that 180-ton barges can go down that stretch from the canal harbour to the ocean-going vessels, then I want to disabuse the minds of Senators on that point. That is not so. I would like a ruling on this point. There is an amendment that it shall be the duty of the Board to take steps to maintain in an efficient condition the channel leading from the head race. That is not in the construction of the Shannon works. It was one of the alternatives which the navigation people have rejected. The Shannon works will be handed over to the Board in a state that will not allow of this. Is the amendment a proper one for an Electricity (Supply) Bill? It was a proper one for the Bill dealing with the construction of the scheme.
At the time we were given to believe that the tail-race would be brought down to the main river and that the boats could go up there.
That was one of seven alternatives, but it was not the one chosen.
CATHAOIRLEACH
I have great difficulty in holding that this amendment is in order. "The Board should cause no injury to the existing navigation by anything they do under this Bill," would be quite an appropriate amendment. In the Senator's amendment he is imposing on them an obligation to give a navigation to people that they never had before. They are to utilise this Bill for the purpose of improving the navigation at Limerick.
They should carry out one of the alternatives the Minister instanced.
CATHAOIRLEACH
The Bill does not provide for any of these alternatives. I think it is outside the scope of the Bill. It would impose an alteration of an expensive character, and not necessarily appropriate to the work with which they are entrusted by the Act. I regret I have to rule the amendment out of order.
Section 105, sub-section (2). Before sub-section (2) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
"(2) Where as a result of an order made by the Minister under the foregoing sub-section prohibiting navigation in or upon the River Shannon or any particular part thereof any water-right, fishing right, or right existing in respect of the River Shannon or the part thereof to which such order relates is terminated, restricted or otherwise interfered with, the termination, restriction or interference of such water-right, fishing right or other right shall for the purposes of sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Shannon Electricity Act, 1925 (No. 26 of 1926) be deemed to be authorised by that Act and the said Act shall apply accordingly."— (Government amendment.)
This is simply to make it clear that the protection given under the previous Act will continue under any stoppage that may occur under this. A change has to be made in this amendment. The Shannon Electricity Act is described as "No. 26 of 1926". If course it ought to be "of 1925."
Amendment, as amended, put and agreed to.
Section 105, sub-section (2). To delete in line 62 the word "any" and to substitute therefor the words "such limited."
Section 105, sub-section (2). To add at the end of the sub-section the words "as may be required by the Board for the purposes aforesaid."— (Government amendments).
Amendments put and agreed to.
First Schedule, Paragraph 1. After the word "two" in line 33 to insert the words "not more than five."— (Government amendment).
This is a simple amendment to the Schedule. There is a definition with regard to people who have five years' service and a certain determination with regard to people who have more than two but have not five years' service. It looks as if they could be ruled under either of the two sections and this makes it clear.
I think the Minister is making a mistake there. I take it that under the Bill it is intended that anybody with five years' service shall be paid on the basis of a pension, while those with less than five years' shall be paid by way of a lump sum?
Yes.
According to this a man with five years' service will only be paid on the lump sum basis?
No.
Paragraph 2 of the First Schedule states: "Every person who was employed by an authorised undertaker or a statutory undertaker for a period of not less than five years," so that under one paragraph he will get a lump sum and under the next he will be paid on the basis of a pension. I think that that could be changed. In order to remedy the position I suggest that the Minister should accept the words, instead of "not less than five,""not more than five," because that is what he intends, that this two years' service would be paid on the basis of a lump sum. Otherwise the two paragraphs would be quite contradictory.
CATHAOIRLEACH
You mean more than two but less than five?
At least two and less than five years' service.
The second paragraph of the First Schedule means that people are to be paid as determined thereafter if they have been employed for a period of not less than five years.
That is, more than five years?
CATHAOIRLEACH
Five years and a day.
That is, five years and everything beyond it. Then the first paragraph, as I propose to amend it, is for other people people who are employed at least two and not more than five years. If they are employed for more than five years they go under the next paragraph.
CATHAOIRLEACH
I think it is all right, Senator.
It is all right, but the wording is different from that of the Railways Act.
Amendment put and agreed to.
First Schedule. Paragraph 3. After the word "conditions" in line 3 to insert in brackets the words "(including where applicable the payment of reasonable expenses of moving to the locality of such employment."—(Government amendment).
Senator Dowdail had an amendment down for compensation in certain cases, and I understand from him that his point was to meet the question of removal expenses. It is better to have it inserted here.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I do not propose to move amendment 36, because the Minister proposes to meet the point in the last amendment on the paper, but I want to ask him one question. Do the words "with the approval of the Board" mean, if an undertaking acquired about four years ago, having given a man his increments meanwhile, can show to the Board that these were given in a regular way, that they would be passed?
Yes.
They do not need the approval of the Board in advance before the Board acquires them?
No.
First Schedule. Paragraph 7. To delete the word "exceptional" in line 57 and to substitute therefor the word "special."— (Government amendment.)
This is my attempt to meet a long amendment that was put down by Senator O'Farrell. I have not exactly met the amendment, but I have met the points raised and discussed then by the Senator. I think it was your own suggestion, sir, that the insertion of the word "special" definitely includes a seven-day week.
Will the word "special" cover what we know as shift time?
Yes.
Amendment put and agreed to.
First Schedule. Paragraph 11. To delete all from and including the words "to the Board or" in line 37 down to the end of the paragraph and to substitute therefor the words "to a standing arbitrator appointed by the Minister whose decision shall be final and conclusive and not subject to appeal for review by any court."—(Government Amendment.)
Does the Minister think that this amendment meets the position? He proceeds to delete all the words after and including "to the Board or," provided that the Board is an interested party. If there is a dispute between a redundant employee and the Board there is no provision at all for an appeal.
Yes, there is, in every case now.
This is in regard to appeals between a redundant person and an authorised or statutory undertaker. In the paragraph previously it was provided that where the Board was a party to any such dispute there should be an appeal to the Minister. There is no provision in the amendment in a case where the Board is a party to the dispute.
It is covered in every case. I have cut the Board out completely.
The arbitrator in this case is to be appointed by the Minister. Would the Minister not agree to have that altered, as in Section 39— the High Court?
I am taking what the Senator himself proposed in Committee.
I was simply keeping it in line with Section 39.
Senator Brown has made it an appeal to the High Court on the single point of compensation for the authorised undertaking.
I take it that in a case of this kind he would be a lawyer. Why not say "in consultation with the Attorney-General"?
It was in before.
He will be a standing arbitrator appointed by the Minister. The Senator will see that Section 88 definitely states "The Minister may, after consultation with the Attorney-General, appoint a fit and proper person to be an arbitrator to determine any matter which is by this Act or any order or regulation made thereunder directed to be determined by an arbitrator appointed by the Minister." It is covered by that.
Amendment put and agreed to.
First Schedule. To add at the end of the Schedule a new paragraph as follows:—
"13.—References in this Schedule to the duties which a person employed by an authorised undertaker or a statutory undertaker on the 31st day of March, 1927, was on that date required by such undertaker to perform and to the terms and conditions on and under which such person was so employed and the annual remuneration and emoluments of such person on that date shall in every case in which such duties or such terms and conditions of such annual remuneration and emoluments were after the 31st day of March, 1927, altered with the approval of the Board be construed as references to such duties, or such terms and conditions, or such remuneration and emoluments as so altered and this Schedule shall have effect accordingly." (Government amendment.)
This meets the point that Senator O'Farrell made with regard to the date from which things were to be counted, that it should be the date of the order and not the 31st day of March.
Amendment put and agreed to.
The Minister agreed to an amendment to Section 66, sub-section (6), which I moved, subject to a certain change, and he has accepted the following amendment:—
Section 59, sub-section (6). Before sub-section (6) to insert two new sub-sections as follows:—
"(6) Every scale made by the Board fixing the methods of charge and the rates of charge for electricity by a local authority which is an authorised undertaker shall, at the expiration of each local financial year, be reconsidered by the Board, and after such reconsideration shall, if necessary, be revised by the Board and thereafter maintained so that, as far as is reasonably practicable, no contribution from any rate made by such local authority will be required for the purpose of defraying any expenses which such local authority may incur whether under this Act or otherwise in respect of the authorised undertaking of such local authority during the local financial year next subsequent to the local financial year at the expiration of which such revision takes place.
(7) The Board shall not make any scale fixing the methods of charge and the rates of charge for electricity by a local authority which is an authorised undertaker whereby the charge for electricity used by such local authority for lighting purposes shall be fixed at a rate which is higher than the rate fixed for consumers using electricity for lighting purposes and for the like hours of supply."
CATHAOIRLEACH
You are responsible for the original amendment and you agree to accept the alteration suggested by the Minister?
Yes.
Amendment agreed to.
Sitting suspended at 6.50 and resumed at 8 o'clock.