I think it would be necessary to have some explanation of this Bill and what it is about from the Minister. I want to draw attention to the fact that though it may be customary for some of us to make ourselves acquainted with the case for and against Bills by reading the debates that took place in the Dáil, we only got the debates this morning for Wednesday, Thursday and Friday last, so that it was impossible to do so. I hope the Minister does not expect the House to pass the various Stages of this Bill until we have had an opportunity of reading the report of three days' debates in the Dáil.
Electricity (Supply) (Amendment) Bill, 1930—Second Stage.
Question proposed: "That the Electricity (Supply) (Amendment) Bill be read a second time."
I thought it was the practice not to have any statement on the Second Reading in the Seanad. This is a difficult Bill to this extent, that it is necessarily legislation by reference to start with, and secondly, because most of the clauses stand on their own. There is very little connection between the different sections. The first section is merely a defining section. The second section calls for a small change. It brings in under the definition of "local authority""any body of persons having power under an Act of Parliament of Ireland or any local or personal Act of the United Kingdom Parliament to assess and levy a rate on land or on persons in respect of their occupation of land." That is specially brought in to bring within the definition of "local authority," and consequently to bring into legislation dealing with the Electricity Supply Board, the Commissioners of Merrion Square, who have the right to levy for certain purposes on property adjoining the Square. It may bring in other property as well. We think it desirable that the phrase "local authority" should have that wider application. The third section is to meet a difficulty which arose in the course of the construction work under the Act of 1925. I got very extended powers, but in carrying out my duties I found I had to contract obligations with certain outsiders, and they were not as clear of my powers under the Act of 1925 as I was. I want to remove any doubt that may exist in their minds. Under Section 3 I was given certain power. Details of the powers given me are set out, but in order to avoid any defect and to close every hole this is to alter paragraph (m), which gives me power to do anything necessary or expedient to do. That seems to be sufficiently wide to cover most things, but, nevertheless, at a certain period of the contract parties had doubts as to my powers not being wide enough. What I want to do, instead of paying compensation to people for damage done, is to be able to repair the damage, and I believe, by having contractors under me bound by certain obligations, I can get the work done much more cheaply than they could if they had to go round and get their own contractors.
A doubt arose as to whether I had power to do certain things in lieu of compensation. The whole thing is governed by the words "in lieu of compensation." I take power here, and it is retrospective, that where a person is entitled to compensation in respect of anything lawfully done or intended to be done "the Minister may execute for the benefit of such person such works as the Minister thinks proper, and such person agrees to accept in satisfaction or partial satisfaction of his claim for such compensation."
Would the Minister look at line 10 dealing with rates? How does that work out?
On sub-section (5), if in carrying out any powers I have I find the works going to be done are works that would ordinarily be counted as part of the Shannon works, and be granted exemption under the old Act, then I want to make clear—and I have to have the consent of the Minister for Local Government in this—that the exemption applies to the minor type of work as well as the main Shannon work. This sub-section is inserted in order to meet a situation that if I hand over works executed in lieu of compensation, and if those works had to be valued and pay rates— it is very hard to get the true valuation put on these works—certain subtractions would have to be made, and it would be very difficult to get parity. It looks as if I were seeking wide power, but it is only to the minor works this sub-section has reference. Sections 4, 5, and 6 are finance sections. Section 4 is designed to meet one difficulty. That difficulty arose in connection with the purchase of the Cork station. Under the old Act, we gave to the Board a maximum sum of £2,500,000. That maximum sum is not being interfered with, but under the old Act a prohibition was put on the Minister for Finance against granting more than £400,000 in a single half-year. It so happens that the bargain for the Cork station involves more than £400,000 and has to be paid in one sum. Consequently, if the Board has made contractual obligations it must be enabled to receive from the Minister for Finance, and the Minister for Finance must be empowered to grant more than £400,000 in any half-year. It is always within the discretion of the Minister for Finance to over-ride the maximum sum of £2,500,000. The sum under the 1925 Act still remains. It is not an increase in the sum given to the Board but only a licence to the Minister for Finance to grant more than £400,000 in any particular half-year. Sections 5 and 6 deal with the rates of interest. As the original Act stood the rate of interest to be paid by the Board on the advance had to be fixed at the time of the advance. Advances may be made and are being made from time to time out of State moneys which have been raised at different times on which the rates of interest may vary. It is only fair that the Board should have to pay, at least, the same rate of interest as the State finds it necessary to pay when borrowing, plus whatever charges there are for the accommodation. It is in order to enable the Minister for Finance to vary the rate of interest this section was put in. Otherwise, he would be tied to a particular point.
Section 7 of the amending legislation contains a change in the finances of the Act, but on very minor points dealing not with a matter of interest, but rather with a matter of time. The change is definitely shown in the sub-section which is being inserted. It is contained in paragraph (b).
"All interest due on the said advances or any part thereof at the time when the Board becomes liable under this section for the repayment of the said advances or such part thereof shall be paid to the Minister for Finance within the period of six months or such longer period as the said Minister shall in any particular case direct."
Under the old Act repayments fell due and had to be made within a period of six months. Now it has become clear that there are certain questions with regard to compensation which will not be decided for some little time, and consequently it will not be possible even at the date when certain property of the Government is handed over to the Electricity Supply Board to determine the full liability, and consequently the sum upon which interest has to be paid. That cannot be determined until the six months' period, or such longer period as the Minister for Finance may determine. It is to meet that small point. The other sections also make the same change with regard to time. Section 8 carries forward the same definition of local authorities as in Sub-section 2 of Section 96 in the principal Act. Section 9 amends the first schedule of the principal Act by inserting the words, "receive from such authorised undertaker or statutory undertaker." Senators will see that by the first schedule people were entitled to compensation, but it did not say who were to pay the compensation.
Sections 10, 11 and 12 deal with rates, and although the three sections will have to be considered separately, the main effect of the sections could be described in this way: Section 96 of the original Act is maintained. That is the section which exempts from liability to rates the Shannon works as defined in the Principal Act, and the other two sections go to make it clear that where the Electricity Supply Board takes over property, maintaining the exemption granted under Section 96. Where the Board takes over any other property than one of these the section declares that the rates shall be payable. We cannot stop simply at that point, for we have to prevent certain raisings of valuations in a penal way against the Board, say, in the case of undertakings to be acquired after the date of the Act the valuation is stereotyped at the rate it was at the date of the vesting order. If the date of the vesting order is the date prior to the passing of this Act, then the valuation is as it was on the first day of the financial year of 1929. We stereotype those valuations against the Board for all time, and where the Board leaves property unused it will be valued as when it was taken over. If the Board decides, having become possessed of the Dublin station, to abandon it and to build a new station, it will still continue to pay rates on the old station at the rate paid on the day of the vesting order. That is a temporary expedient that may be re-adjusted afterwards. Another section says that hereafter any premises which the Board builds and does not acquire for the purpose of generation or distribution fall within the exemption granted by Section 96, and they are relieved from liability to rates.
The net effect of the three sections is that on premises which the Board acquires, and from which local authorities in the past have been in the habit of receiving money, the local authority is going to get that sum for the future. It is going to get the rates, whatever they may be, fixed on the valuation which is stereotyped, if fixed after 1st April, 1929, or on the date of the vesting order if the vesting order bears a date prior to the introduction of the Act. It will be noted that if the Board builds in any area where there are no premises at the moment, say, for a showroom or offices, that falls liable to valuation and to payment of the rates in the ordinary way. Sections 13 and 14 deal with the compensation of employees. There are two small points about which doubts have arisen in the Principal Act. It is quite possible that if these were to be decided by litigation they would be decided against the Board, and it has been decided, to save the expense of litigation, to settle the matter once and for all by legislation. Section 13 meets a difficulty. The terms of compensation were set out in the schedule of the 1927 Act. That compensation began to flow when the Board closed down an undertaking by order, but on any occasion on which the Board, by order, closes down a generation station compensation under the old Act still continued to flow, and the scheme of the old Act would operate against the generation station either by an order closing down or by taking over. When it took over under the scheme of 1927 the Board became an authorised undertaking, and we intended compensation to apply. That did not work out. This is necessary to establish that compensation flows, whether there is a closing order issued by the Board or whether the Board closes down after taking over. It does away with the necessity for a closing order before compensation flows. Section 14 deals with another small point. Where an undertaking is closed down because it is taking a bulk supply, then again compensation flows to the employees of the generating station who are dispossessed.
The Minister said that the Bill had certain defects inasmuch as it was legislation by reference. Of course, that is an inevitable defect, but there are certain principles in the Bill which are wrong. The first principle which is wrong is this: there is a clause which provides that any new buildings to be erected by the Board shall be exempt from rates, while any buildings to be acquired by the Board are to be liable, but up to a certain fixed figure.
Cathaoirleach
What the Minister said was that the buildings for the power station would be exempt, but that those for showroom purposes would not be exempt.
I am going to ask the Seanad not to accept this principle of exempting any buildings from rates.
Would it not be better if we had that on the Committee Stage, after we had time to read quietly what the Minister has said, and to look up the original Act? Hardly any Senators are in a position to debate the matter now. We could deal with the matter next week when we are in Committee, after reading what the Minister has said, and the undertaking he has given.
Cathaoirleach
You can move the rejection of the section, or an amendment to that effect.
There is another point which affects the principle of the Bill. There are certain vested fishing rights which were injured, and which have been acquired by the Board, in respect of which compensation is payable. There are also the cot fishermen about Killaloe who have no vested rights, but I think the Seanad should insist on their getting compensation. The Minister said in the Dáil that in respect of lands which have been permanently flooded compensation is paid. The result of the slowing down of the flow of the Shannon has been to render a considerable area of land liable to flooding, but there is no provision for compensation in that case. I mention these matters in order that the Seanad may be in possession of some of the objections to the Bill. The main objection is that there are Shannon works erected in County Clare that under the law were rateable and should be rateable, just the same as premises acquired are admitted to be rated. I do not know whether these matters should be dealt with now or in Committee. I leave the decision to the Cathaoirleach. They are very serious matters for a certain part of the country.
May I express the hope that when the Senator brings forward these points dealing, for instance, with flooding, he will give us details, for it is important we should have these rather than a general statement.
Yes.
I have been reading the long discussion which took place in the Dáil on the question of flooding. The Minister made certain lengthy statements which were rather confusing. He defined flooding as what he calls permanent flooding—that is, flooding over the whole year—but when it comes to a question of flooding for short periods— for instance, an overflow of the lake on account of a temporary holding back of the water—he seemed to entirely exclude these from any right to compensation. He suggested that that flooding to a certain extent was rather an advantage to the owners than otherwise. Afterwards he seemed to wind a great deal around this matter, and was not clear as to whether people subjected to temporary flooding on account of the works would get any compensation or not.
Cathaoirleach
The Bill is one dealing with a specific matter and the subject which the Senator now raises is outside the scope of the Bill.
I was going to suggest that the Senator's criticism was entirely outside the scope of the Bill. The Bill does not deal with who is to get compensation or what they are to get it for. It is simply a declaration whether a person is entitled, under the present Act, to compensation. The Minister may, at his own election and on agreement with the other party, pay compensation in kind instead of in money. It is not a question as to what is to be paid for flooding.
It provides for compensation in certain cases not provided for in the Act.
Cathaoirleach
In certain cases, yes, and an amendment will be needed if compensation was to be paid on the lines suggested by the Senator.
We only see now the hardship in it.
Section 13 of the Act provides compensation for people employed in the generating station who have lost their employment. But certain people have lost their employment who were not employed in the generating station. For instance, there are the employees of the Shannon Navigation. The Shannon Navigation is shut up and these people have lost their employment, and I want to ask the Minister if he would make provision for having them included amongst the people covered by Section 13. These people are as much entitled to compensation as those who have lost their employment in the generating station.
There are just one or two questions on general principle on which I would like information. The first is the implication of the words "Shannon works." When the Oireachtas, in the 1927 Act, exempted the Shannon works, I do not think it ever contemplated that the County Clare should be prejudiced by that action. All I think the House ever thought was that the County Clare would get no benefit inasmuch as the buildings erected there for the Shannon Scheme would not be rated. But the actual facts have gone much further. Certain lands have been acquired by the Electricity Supply Board, and these lands represent, of course, in the books of the County Council a certain rateable value, and that rateable value has now been destroyed. I understand the County Council is the loser, so far as the rates are concerned, on the Shannon works, to the extent of something between £400 and £600 a year. I think in equity that should be restored in some way, because I do not believe it was ever the intention of the Oireachtas that the County Clare should be the loser if it was not its intention that it should benefit. As to the general principle of this rating exemption, I think the Minister should make the case as to why he has departed from the old practice. This is an entirely new practice with regard to rating under this Bill.
One can understand exemptions, partial or total, but this stereotyping of valuations is very puzzling. Apparently the Minister is afraid of the raising of valuations in some penal way, but surely it is not suggested that the machinery of the Valuation Office would be disposed to act in a penal manner towards anybody, including the Electricity Supply Board. Surely if it is likely to act in a penal manner towards the Electricity Supply Board, it is equally likely to act in a penal manner towards the ordinary citizen. Besides the Electricity Supply Board will enjoy all the safeguards that the ordinary citizen enjoys. It can appeal to the revising valuer, and bring the case to the courts. I think the word "penal" is puzzling in that connection. I am not clear how far this stereotyping extends. Apparently if the Minister requires an undertaking that is no longer occupied, it still pays the stereotyped rate. Then apparently if sold to the ordinary citizen, the Electricity Supply Board still continues to be liable for the stereotyped assessment. In addition to that there is the new objection also.
It seems all so puzzling, and it seems to me to be an unnecessary complication to introduce into a fairly straightforward, well established valuation law. It strikes me, also, that it might become a somewhat dangerous precedent. Moreover, there appears to be a somewhat arbitrary distinction between works and other property. As regards the works themselves that will be quite clear, but surely there will be a lot on the border line cases, of assembly shops, or repair shops, dealing with smaller fittings that would come under the ordinary valuation law? I raise all these points because it occurred to me that they are rather puzzling. No doubt the lawyers had gone into all this, but even this Bill shows that the lawyers cannot sometimes foresee things, and it is therefore necessary to call attention to these difficulties. Would the Minister be prepared to make a statement now with regard to the position of permitted undertakers? I wish to meet the Minister in a reasonable way in this, but it has been hanging up for a very long time. I know the inner history of this possibly as well as he does, but these negotiations have been going on for nearly two years now and it is time that the matter should be dealt with.
There is a particular case that I would like to bring to the notice of the Minister. There is the case of the Electricity Supply Station in Cork, which is a permitted undertaking, and which was also responsible for the carrying on of the tramway system in that city. By the taking over of the power station of that company it is very likely that the tramway system will close down. It is generally believed in Cork that the electricity end was the paying end, whereas the tramway company was uneconomic. In this instance, if the tramway undertaking is closed down, the tramway men, it would appear to me, would have as good a claim for compensation as the men in the power house. I would like some information as to whether these men can be covered by an amendment or by some arrangement arrived at in Committee Stage.
There is another case of the men employed at the Pigeon House as coal fuellers that I would like to bring forward. They were temporary employees of the Corporation. These men worked there for a number of years. The taking over of the Pigeon House by the Electricity Supply Board, and the elimination of coal, will mean that these men's services will be dispensed with. I should like to know what position these men will be in as regards compensation. These men are as much affected by the taking over of the Pigeon House as are the men in the generating station, and the same applies to the tramway men in Cork. I should like to have the Minister's views on these matters.
I want to ask one question which, strictly speaking, does not relate to any particular clause of this Bill, but, perhaps, as we are dealing with the Bill in connection with the Electricity Supply Board generally, the Minister could give me some information upon this point. The services of the Grand Canal Company have been suspended for the last year. I would like to know if there is any possibility, or likelihood, of this service being restored soon. The hardship is an economic one on the traders and people in that area in so far as there is a very wide discrepancy in the rates to Limerick, Killaloe, and all places south as between the charges of the Grand Canal Company and the Railway Company. In some cases the difference amounts to from 18/6 to 25/6 per ton. I want to know if there is any possibility of getting the Grand Canal Company to operate that route again for traffic and if it would be possible to make any accommodation arrangement with the railway company or induce them to give adjusted rates to meet the emergency.
Cathaoirleach
That does not arise in this Bill but if the Minister desires to give the information asked for he can do so.
The opportunity arises as we are dealing with this matter of the Shannon Scheme, generally, and I think it might not be amiss to make such an inquiry as I am now making.
The question of exemption from rates was raised by Senator Comyn and Senator Sir John Keane. As I understand Senator Comyn is going to ask the Seanad to accept the principle of exempting all buildings, I will leave that over until the amendment comes on. Senator Sir John Keane raised certain points which would not be met by a specific amendment. He asked if this was a new practice in rating law that was being introduced. It is a new practice, and I do not defend it. If I had any thought of its being followed, I should certainly not hold it up as a model. It is a temporary expedient, to be used as such, and the only reason for it is this: here we have a big undertaking started with a board which has given to it the task of recovering, through payments made by electricity consumers, the moneys which the State has embarked on in this scheme to the extent of nearly nine million pounds, all told. It was definitely recognised at the time that the Shannon scheme was embarked upon that there was going to be a period of between one and a half and three years during which one could not expect the electricity consumer to bear all the burdens that would afterwards fall upon him, and because of that we capitalised a certain amount of the arrears. In these circumstances, I am met with this situation: that the Electricity Supply Board had legal opinion as to whether they were liable at all for rates and income tax. I had always told them, when they were set up, that they were liable for income tax and for rates on property that they acquired. I want to insist that they carry out the obligations which were before them when they entered on their duties, but I do not want to put any extra obligations upon them.
Certain local authorities have been in the habit of looking to certain property that they had as a means of getting income. I do not want to deprive them of that income at the moment. The Electricity Supply Board entered on its task in the knowledge that the Shannon works, as such, were exempt from rates. I do not want to throw back on the Board an obligation which the Oireachtas previously took from them, but in a few years' time, when they are able to make both ends meet and to pay their way—the indications at the moment are that before next year is out, that is to say, a year before the latest date that we gave them, they will be paying their way—will be the time to have the whole thing reconsidered.
As between the electricity consumer and what he pays, and the taxpayer who might have to pay more if the Board had not to pay income tax, and the ratepayers in the different localities, we cannot take away an exemption that was previously granted to the Board by Section 96 of the Act, throw on them the full charges with respect to rates on the whole of the Shannon works, and then stereotype, as we do in this Bill, certain payments which certain local authorities have been getting during the past year or two. This is a temporary expedient. But nobody, with the finances of the Electricity Supply Board as they are, could, in addition to the £60,000 now imposed on them as a first charge which they must meet for rates, put upon them a valuation of the whole of the Shannon property and then strike a rate on that.
That would mean that you would be making them pay twice for certain things. Two years, or one year, hence will be the time to deal with the question of putting the whole Shannon property under rates. When that time comes I think there will have to be an adjustment of certain burdens which the Board have to bear at present. That is the principle upon which I am working. It would not be fair to make this Board operate with all the burdens of an ordinary commercial undertaking with regard to rates and income tax, and at the same time put upon them a burden which no commercial undertaking at the moment shoulders— that is to say, the repayment of its capital within a certain period. If the Board is going to be made a commercial undertaking, suffering the penalty of rates and income tax, we certainly must say, "Very well, as an ordinary commercial business operate as a commercial Board," but it would be unfair to say to them, "We are putting upon you charges in relation to rates and income tax and, at the same time, simply because you are financed from the Central Fund, we are imposing on you all the obligations that flow from Central Fund financing, that is to say, liability for interest and sinking fund charges." When that is equalised and spread out, then I think we will have a proper adjustment as between the electricity consumer, the taxpayer and the ratepayer, but I think it is a little bit too soon to do that yet.
I put this before the Seanad: that as everyone now is very keen on this undertaking, and because it has now come to a better point of success than even the most optimistic of us dared to hope, is hardly the time to come and put upon the Board an obligation that was never thought of at the time the 1927 Act was going through. So far from remitting any charges, we are putting upon the Board much heavier obligations than any commercial concern is asked to shoulder. Senator Sir John Keane spoke of stereotyping penal rates. I am not doing anything of the kind. With regard to electricity undertakings, I think the rating system at present in operation is unjust to hydro-electric schemes. If a station were run on fuel it would get certain allowances with regard to coal, the capital expended on the purchase of oil and certain other things. A hydro-electric station gets none of these advantages. When the Bills in connection with the hydro-electric scheme for the Liffey were before the Joint Committee of the Oireachtas this fact emerged, that the Dublin power-house, which was then run on fuel, had a certain valuation. It was pointed out that if the Dublin power-house were supplied from the Liffey its valuation would be raised four times. I think that is unfair, and that a change must be made in the law.
So far as hydro-electric schemes are concerned, there is a penalty in the law as it stands. There is this further fact to be considered, that some three years ago the amount derived in rates from the Dublin undertaking amounted to about £5,000 a year. At the moment the sum is £30,000. Why that should be so I do not know. It is certainly not because there has been such an advance in the value of the property. In the past there may have been laxity in appealing against the valuation, but the rate payment to-day in regard to the Dublin station is £30,000, whereas three or four years ago it was £5,000. Senators should know that the figure that I am stereotyping in this Bill is the £30,000 and not the £5,000. I think that even when one considers these things there is a case for stereotyping these payments for a year or two. The Electricity Supply Board knows what its obligations are. One is that local authorities who have been in the habit of getting money from certain rateable property now taken over will know under this Bill what they are entitled to get for a year or two. I admit that before the property is taken from them they ought to get notice.
Senator Sir John Keane wanted information with regard to certain other matters—that we knew the position as regards the power-house and the show-rooms, but as to certain other things that might be betwixt and between I think Section 11 deals with the point raised by the Senator, and is rather precise on it. It is, I think, met in paragraph (d) of sub-section (2). It reads:
(2) This section applies to every hereditament or tenement which, for the time being—
(d) is used exclusively as a generating station or as a transmission system or part of a transmission system or as a distribution system or part of a distribution system.
In other words, if there is any element of anything else the exemption does not apply. As to the permitted undertakers, I do not know exactly what the situation is between their Association and the Board, but I do know where I stand in the matter. I made very definite promises both here and in the Dáil with regard to the permitted undertakers. I put the matter this way: that the permitted undertakers could only be bought out by their own agreement. In other words, that if there was a question of price the price had to be one to which they agreed. It was put to me at the time that there was a loophole in the clause that I introduced, because it spoke of something like an alternative supply being at hand or available. It was pointed out to me that when the Shannon supply came along there would be an alternative supply, and people might be ruled out. I was glad the question was put to me by, I think, Deputy Thrift. I answered that I thought the matter should be adjusted before two years had passed, and we were then two years off the supply from the Shannon current. I certainly said my idea was that the right of these undertakers to fix their own terms remained: that if we did not get success under that system of agreement, there would then have to be legislation, and I am still standing by that. If the permitted undertakers have a grievance, and if in fact any of them are being ousted from their occupations because an available supply is being put in on top of them, then that is a breach of the spirit of the 1927 Act, although it may not be a breach of the Act.
Is the Minister aware that the Electricity Supply Board offered arbitration on the question of price at one time but that they have since withdrawn that offer ?
I knew they had made the offer but I had no information that they had withdrawn it. I think that arbitration is the proper method. If the permitted undertakers like to stand by what was undoubtedly the rights given to them, or at least intended to be given to them by the Oireachtas in 1927, it may mean new legislation, but that will have to be brought in. I think I said at the time that as the permitted undertakers were a statutory body that we had no right to demand information from them, and therefore we could not know what their commitments were. We were given power to call for certain returns. I said that if on those returns no agreement was reached we could then come before the Oireachtas with the fuller information made available, and I still stand by that.
Numerous questions were asked regarding compensation. If there is any question of land being flooded, permanently or temporarily, as long as it flows from any portion of the Shannon and it can be proved, then compensation must be paid. That was a definite right given by the 1925 Act and it cannot be defeated. But what can be defeated are spurious claims. If everyone who has a bit of land that gets flooded says that flooding is due to the Shannon Scheme, well that is a matter that is susceptible of proof. The situation, at any rate, is that if people suffer they can claim. If their claims are not met they can demand arbitration and force arbitration under a particular process.
The case of individual cot-men around Killaloe has been referred to, while Senator Foran referred to two sections of people: those employed in the tramway end of the Cork undertaking and certain coal fuellers at the Pigeon House. I must draw the line somewhere about compensation. I cannot have the whole community getting compensation from the Shannon Scheme. If I were to compensate the Killaloe fishermen, there is no reason why I should not compensate every one of the three million people in this State, because everyone in this State had the right to fish in the Shannon. In the Dáil I used, by way of absurd analogy, such a case as Senator Foran has brought forward. I said that if I were to compensate all the people who exercised a public right to fish in the Shannon, why should I not be asked to compensate the people who previously had got employment in the coal business and whose field of employment was likely to be limited in the future. That was not such a far-fetched analogy, because Senator Foran now brings in these very people as a special case to be dealt with.
While these men on whose behalf I have spoken were not permanent employees of the Corporation, they were at least indirectly employed by it to discharge the coal steamers. That coal was used to generate the power distributed from the power-house. In my opinion these men have as good a right to be regarded as employees of the Corporation as the men actually employed in the power-house.
The case of the Shannon navigation employees was also mentioned. I cannot compensate the employees of another undertaking. I cannot agree that the Shannon navigation employees have been completely thrown out of employment. Neither can I agree with Senator Connolly that the Shannon navigation has been closed. My information is that it has been opened since the 24th February of this year. With regard to the Grand Canal Company, they wanted to put upon me a certain condition to render the passage down to Limerick even safer than it was previously. I do not intend to be coerced into giving them a safer passage than was there previously. But, if they think they have a claim they can test that out as far as I am concerned. I hold that the Shannon navigation has been opened since the 24th February. If there is any defect in it that is not due to me or to the Shannon scheme.
Would the Minister deal with the question that I put to him?
I said that I could not undertake to compensate the employees of an outside firm.
This is not an outside concern.
Cathaoirleach
The Minister maintains that it is.
As the Minister has stated that the exemption from rules is only necessary for a year or two, would he be prepared to put that in the Bill?
Cathaoirleach
That is a point that might be raised by way of amendment on the Committee Stage.
With regard to the advances referred to in Sections 4, 5 and 26, are these advances made from the Central Fund to the Electricity Supply Board to enable them to carry out the work and functions imposed on them?
Yes, decidedly.
That is a point— was that the rate of interest which the Minister claims to control?
Yes.
The Minister claims to control the interest the State is to receive for the money paid to the Electricity Supply Board. The interest the State pays for money borrowed by the Government from the public is at varying rates and it is controlled by the general market conditions as to the price of money, whereas the Minister controls the rates to the Board. I suppose one is governed by the other?
Yes. The purpose of this is to enable the Minister for Finance to charge, from time to time, the rate which he himself will have to pay for the money, plus the charge for raising the money.
I understand.
Question agreed to.
Committee Stage fixed for Wednesday, 25th June, 1930.