Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 5 Jul 1928

Vol. 10 No. 22

GAS REGULATION BILL, 1928—REPORT STAGE.

I move the following amendment standing in the name of Senator Douglas:—

Section 5, sub-section (2). To delete the sub-section and to substitute therefor a new sub-section as follows:—

"(2) Every buyer of gas after the expiration of nine years shall have the right to demand of the undertaker that the meter by means of which such gas is measured shall be restamped according to law; and no such meter shall continue to be duly stamped according to law after the expiration of ten years from the last occasion on which it was duly stamped."

Sub-section (2) of Section 5 provides for the compulsory reverification and restamping of every gas meter once every ten years. That means a very considerable amount of expense to the ordinary small country gas company, and the worst of it is that in a great many cases it is quite a useless expense. I know that the Minister has received opinions very different from the opinions held in England. The Minister has been advised that it is necessary that this should be done every ten years, that meters go wrong, and that this is quite a necessary provision for the protection of the gas consumer. The Board of Trade in England, after investigating the matter, arrived at the opposite view. The amendment proposes to delete the sub-section, and to substitute for it a sub-section making the reverification and restamping of meters compulsory if the gas consumer requires it, and it gives him power to require it at the end of nine years. I would respectfully submit that that gives complete protection to the gas consumer, and I would like to call attention to an amendment which the Minister is about to propose and which I have no doubt the House will accept—Amendment No. 4 on the paper. Under that any consumer of gas can apply, any time he wishes, to have his meter inspected and verified. He will do that at his own risk, because if the meter turns out to be incorrect the gas company will pay for the verification, but if the meter turns out to be right the consumer must pay the cost. There you have a complete protection for the gas consumer all along the line. If you take these two amendments together he is protected during the nine or the ten years by the Minister's amendment, and he would be protected at the end of the ten years' period by the amendment I am moving, because he can get his meter reverified at the expense of the company whether it needs it or not, and when I say at the expense of the company I mean that it will really not be at the expense of the company, because the cost—I would submit, the unnecessary cost—of the reverification of the meters will not be paid by the gas company, but will be paid in the end by the gas consumer, because the price of gas will be put up on account of this expense.

I think the Senator's view of the amendment drafted by Senator Douglas is different from what I have been advised that it does mean. I gathered that—I may be wrong in my interpretation—what Senator Brown stated was this: that if Senator Douglas's amendment and my Amendment No. 4 were passed together there would be complete protection, because I think the Senator went on to say that under Senator Douglas's amendment all meters must be stamped every ten years.

Only if the consumer requires it. It is compulsory if the consumer requires it. That is, if the meter is wrong. He will not require it if it is right, but if he thinks it is wrong or doubtful, and asks for it, it must be done.

I wonder if Senator Douglas's amendment refers only to such meters as would be questioned, or whether it refers to all meters.

Only to such meters as are questioned.

Then I hold that this would not give sufficient protection to the public, and I want my own amendment to be taken in substitution of the amendment moved by Senator Brown. I presume that we can discuss this amendment and Amendment 4 together, because I think they cover the same ground. The difference between them is this: Senator Douglas's amendment means that the consumer has a right to demand a test. If the test shows that the meter is correct the consumer has to pay the cost; if the test shows that the meter is wrong the gas company pays. After that Senator Douglas's amendment goes on to say that only those meters as have been questioned shall continue in use for a ten years' period from the last occasion when they were stamped. This was a Bill that was discussed in the Dáil almost entirely in a non-party spirit, and a big majority of the Dáil was definitely of the view that every meter, no matter whether questioned or not, should be tested every ten years, and they were specially alive to the situation that is created by the amendment put down in Senator Douglas's name, which would leave this gap as we have in the Bill—namely, that unless a person was sufficiently active in his own interests and was willing to run the risk of demanding a test, which might entail certain expense on himself if the test proved that the meter was right, that meters might go on being wrong for generations and would not be subject to re-verification at any time.

The Dáil did want to have this system adopted: that everywhere a consumer has a right to demand that at any time, either in the areas in which the 1859 Act is in operation or the areas in which it is not at present in operation, the meter be tested, and if the test is carried out and the meter is correct the consumer pays, otherwise the gas company pays. But whether there is a demand or not, after every ten years' period meters must be tested and verified. It has been alleged that this will put a considerable burden of expense on the companies, but we have certain figures—I quoted them at great length in the other House, and I can quote them again if they seem relevant to the argument—and we have in fact discovered that it is the practice of the best gas companies to test, whether or not claims are made by the consumers, at periods which work out at less than the ten years' period that we have settled on, and we do not believe that we will be inflicting any great extra expense or hardship on the gas companies, but we believe that the public buying from these gas companies are entitled to the protection that this ten years' test gives. If Senators believe that it is going to involve the companies in any big expense, and that the saving to the public is not to be considered commensurate, they will have to vote against this amendment of mine. But if any of them have been in touch with gas companies, or if any of them have been given returns as to the tests made, they would find that the best companies make these tests without any obligation by law to do so. We are now making it compulsory, and we are only making compulsory what is the general practice. This is the general practice of the good companies. We are really imposing the practice of the good companies on the less good companies, and I think this is a small matter to ask the companies to do for the benefit of the consumer. That is the point of difference between the Senator's amendment and my own. Senator Brown simply wants to have it that only such meters will be considered not to be tested after a ten years' period as were queried and were subsequently verified.

Queried at the end of the ninth year.

I would rather have it that after ten years there must be compulsory verification, and that within that period the consumer can demand it.

I am entirely in favour of the Minister's amendment. It is necessary to supplement the other, and I will vote for it.

Do I take it that the Minister's amendment does not interfere with sub-section (2) of Section 5?

No, that is so.

That stands?

The difference is that Senator Brown's amendment means that within a ten years' period a meter must be stamped at the request of the consumer, and he went on to state that that is better, completely overlooking the fact that during recent years there has been a tremendous increase in the use of gas, and in every tenement house and every small house in the large cities meters are now in use. If the Senator is going to wait for people to demand that these meters be tested he will be waiting a long time. The unfortunate housewife who is putting her pennies into a meter every time she wants to use gas will never dream of demanding a test, and she will never know that under an Act of the Oireachtas power is given her to have a test. She will never bother about that. I think the Minister is right. Every piece of machinery that is being used should be overhauled within certain periods to see that it is carrying on its functions properly. A gas meter is a most intricate piece of machinery. Anyone who sees the intricate nature of these slot meters that are used by poor people will see that it is absolutely essential that even within a ten years' period there should be an overhaul, or an examination of them, to see that they are correct. For that reason I oppose the amendment proposed by Senator Brown, and I support the amendment put forward by the Minister. As I understand, the Minister provides that under Section 5 there shall be a compulsory examination within each ten years' period, and that in the interim, if any consumer thinks that his meter is not correct and demands a retest, if it is proved on that test that the meter is correct the consumer who has demanded it shall have to pay for it. If it is the other way the company must pay. I think that is fair and reasonable. I think that Senator Brown ought to withdraw his amendment and allow Section 5 to remain as it is.

I am perfectly satisfied with the amendment that the Minister has brought in, and I will not move my amendments.

As I read the amendment put down by Senator Douglas, every meter is required to be examined at the end of ten years.

LEAS-CHATHAOIRLEACH

No, only on demand.

I think you would have to alter the punctuation, because it reads: "and no such meter shall continue to be duly stamped according to law, after the expiration of ten years from the last occasion on which it was duly stamped."

LEAS-CHATHAOIRLEACH

He has the right to demand.

Amendment put and negatived.

New section. Before Section 7 to insert a new section as follows:—

"7.—(1) A buyer of gas supplied by means of a meter installed on premises in an area in which the jurisdiction conferred by the Act of 1859 is for the time being not exercisable may, unless such meter has been stamped by a special inspector of meters under Section 6 (which relates to the stamping of meters in areas in which the Act of 1859 is not in force) of this Act, by notice in writing require the person by whom such gas is so supplied to remove such meter from such premises and procure the same to be tested by an inspector of meters appointed by a local authority under the Act of 1859 and if found correct to be stamped under that Act as amended by this Act accordingly.

"(2) If on the testing of a meter pursuant to a requisition under this section such meter is found to be correct the expenses of the removal, testing and stamping of such meter pursuant to such requisition shall be borne by the buyer by whom such requisition was made and in every other case such expenses shall be borne by the person on whom such requisition was made."—(Government amendment.)

This is really the point we have discussed.

I am prepared to withdraw my amendment. In fact I am quite satisfied that it is out of order. On the other hand, there are very great legal difficulties in carrying out the section to which this is an amendment, which the Minister had to admit. We had a conference, and we managed to arrive at a method in which both the Minister's desire and my desire on behalf of the people I was trying to protect will be met, and the Minister has framed an amendment with which I am satisfied.

Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 10, sub-section (2).—To insert before the sub-section two new sub-sections as follows:—
"(2) An order under sub-section (1) of this section shall not be made by the Minister unless and until he is satisfied that the undertaker in respect of whom such order is proposed to be made is able to comply with the obligations imposed by Section 2 of the Act of 1920 on an undertaker in respect of whom an order has been made under the Act of 1920.
"(3) An order under sub-section (1) of this section may be revoked at any time by the Minister by order made under this sub-section, and thereupon any order made under Section 1 of the Act of 1920 consequential upon an order under the said sub-section (1) shall be deemed to be revoked also."—(Government amendment).
Amendment put, and agreed to.
Section 10, sub-section (2) After the word "under" in line 59 to insert the words and figure "sub-section (1) of."

This is almost a verbal amendment.

Amendment put, and agreed to.
Report Stage concluded.
Top
Share