Electricity (Supply) (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 1934—Committee Stage.
Question proposed: "That the Bill be considered in Committee."
I rise simply to repeat what I said yesterday, that it was my misfortune to be absent from the meeting of the Seanad last Thursday night, when the Minister explained the Bill now before us. Yesterday I intended to ask the Minister, if at all possible, to postpone the consideration of this Bill. It is a measure of very great importance and it comes to us at the fag-end of the session, when there is scarcely time to consider the details in any shape or form. I have had the good fortune to be able to read in the Official Report what the Minister said last Thursday night. One sentence of his remarks seems to me to support my view that it would be of great advantage to the Bill and to the House if the consideration of this important subject were postponed, at any rate, until the autumn. The words used by the Minister towards the end of his speech were:—
"It is not yet possible to give any definite indication as to what the policy is likely to be, because we are awaiting the reports of experts and others who are examining this matter for the purpose of giving us their opinion."
That appears to me to support my view—that time is required to consider this matter and to consider the reports to which the Minister looks forward. There is no use in my wasting the time of the Seanad by entering into the details so far as I have been able to make them out. Senators know that I have almost a prejudiced view against the Shannon, and in favour of the Liffey. I do not think that it would be advisable at this stage to occupy the time of the House in discussing details.
I am afraid it would not be possible for me to agree to the postponement of consideration of this Bill. It is a necessary measure. The additional storage for which the Bill makes provision will be required within the time during which the works to be undertaken can be constructed. The remarks of mine which the Senator quoted, and the reports to which he has referred, related to the development of production of electricity in the Saorstát after the full utilisation of the Shannon had been achieved. This Bill is, of course, only a step in that direction. The original experts' report on the development of the Shannon contemplated the creation of storage so as to yield 827,000,000 cubic metres of water per year. The existing storage provides for only 210,000,000 cubic metres, and this Bill makes provision for 260,000,000 cubic metres, giving a total of 470,000,000 cubic metres which, as Senators know, is well within the original experts' estimate of 827,000,000 cubic metres. The construction of these works marks a necessary and inevitable step in the development of the Shannon—a step which was contemplated when the harnessing of the Shannon was originally undertaken. The remarks of mine which the Senator quoted referred to the further development after this additional storage had been provided. Before any legislative proposals affecting such additional development are enacted all the information upon which the Government's decision is based should be, and will be, given to members of the Oireachtas.
I do not know whether it is fair to ask the Minister whether the works contemplated for the storage of water are the identical works recommended by the experts on the Siemens Schuckert report. If I remember rightly, it was proposed in that report to save land from flooding. Under the present Bill, I gather from what the Minister has said that it is proposed to flood some 6,000 acres, and to compensate for the loss of that land. The original scheme by Siemens Schuckert, supported by the experts employed by the Government, appeared to me to indicate that they intended to keep the reclamation of that land safe by the construction of a very expensive system of pumping. I cannot find that any item in respect of pumping has been included in the Estimate under this Bill. It occurs to me that the Minister has made up his mind to purchase the land in preference to attempting to maintain it as suggested. These are some of the points that struck me, but I should have liked to have time to look into the whole subject and to have seen the reports of these gentlemen to whom the whole system, if I understand rightly, has been referred —the question of the Shannon extension, the question of the Liffey, and the question of steam.
So far as the storage works contemplated are concerned, I should say that the experts engaged by the board reported upon three alternative methods of securing additional storage from the Shannon, each method giving a different result in storage and costing, it was estimated, a different sum. The decision as to which of the three methods should be adopted was made by me in consultation with the board. The experts merely indicated the quantity of water that could be procured by each method and the works which would be necessary to procure that quantity of water, with the estimated cost of these works. It was fairly obvious from the alternatives submitted that one of them had outstanding merits, inasmuch as the volume of water, in relation to the cost, was considerably greater than in the other cases. The decision to undertake that particular method of creating additional storage in the Shannon was made by me in consultation with the board and the experts of the Board.
Would the Minister tell us whether the method now adopted was the method recommended by the experts, or whether that decision was taken on the ground that the method was the least expensive? This is the first we have heard of alternative methods. The Minister accepted one which, in his wisdom, he considered to be best. We have had no reason given as to why this particular system was adopted.
Cathaoirleach
I think the Minister said that he consulted the Board.
Would the Minister say to what experts he referred. Did he refer to the experts who originally advised, or to some subsequent body of experts?
The original experts, re-engaged for this particular purpose.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 1 to 15 put and agreed to.
SECTION 16.
(3) Every grant made by the Minister for Finance under this section shall be applied by the board for such of the following purposes as is specified in the relevant certificate of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, that is to say, the execution of the scheduled works or the doing of any other thing which the board is authorised by this part of this Act to do or the payment of interest on moneys advanced to the board from the Central Fund under this Act.
I move amendment No. 1:—
Section 16, sub-section (3). To delete all after the word "do" in line 60 down to the end of the sub-section.
I understand that these grants made by the Minister for Finance are grants to supplement the ordinary moneys that are advanced to the Electricity Supply Board in this way, that it is agreed that these works are not fully economic and, partly on account of the employment involved, the Minister for Finance has to advance the difference between the actual and the economic value of the work. That being so, it would appear only right and proper that these moneys should be spent solely on the work itself and not applied to the payment of interest. There may be some purely book-keeping reason why these words are in, but in the absence of any explanation, I think these words should go out and that those grants made by the Minister for Finance should be spent solely on works and not on the payment of interest charges.
I have already explained to the Seanad that it is very probable, having regard to the reduction in the rate of interest charged upon advances to the board, that no grant will be made at all, inasmuch as the actual cost and the economic value will coincide. On that point, I am quite prepared to accept this amendment. It is most unlikely, even if a grant does arise to be made, that any portion of it will be used for this purpose. The reason the words were inserted was because the total cost towards which these grants were to be made included, of course, interest upon the advances until the works proved remunerative to the board. Consequently, in drafting the Bill, provision was made for all charges that would arise to be made out of moneys provided. As it is most unlikely, under any circumstances, that any of the grant will be used for this purpose and, as it is now becoming extremely improbable that any grant will be made at all, I have no objection to the amendment.
I should like to ask whether any profits are being made out of the Shannon scheme? Some years ago, when this scheme was started, we were told that after a certain number of years it would be economic and, in fact, it would mean an addition to the income of the State. I was a strong supporter of the scheme when it was introduced. The starting of it involved an expenditure of £5,500,000. It has up to this cost nearly £10,500,000. I do not know how we are going to get on if we continue pouring out money like that. None of the promises made at the beginning, even after we doubled the original expenditure, is being carried out. I think it is a very objectionable thing partly to dry up some of our finest lakes. Everything seems to be sacrificed to the development of this scheme, which one of our Ministers has described as a white elephant. I should like to have some explanation as to its present position.
It is not quite correct that it was ever stated that if the Electricity Supply Board realised a profit it would accrue to the benefit of the Exchequer.
On the contrary, the Act of 1927 is so framed as to debar the board from making profits. The board is required to fix charges to produce revenue to meet working expenditure and provide certain reserves. It is clearly indicated in that Act that profit out of the working of the scheme for the benefit of the State was not contemplated. The profit and loss account for the year ended 31st March, 1933, showed a small surplus of £5,800. The accounts for the year ended 31st March, 1934, have not yet been published. The accounts are in process of audit and will probably be available in the course of a short period. What those accounts are likely to reveal, I am afraid I cannot indicate at this stage.
As regards the section to which Senator Sir John Keane has been referring, am I to understand that the whole £93,000 are applied for the purpose of paying interest on moneys advanced to the board from the Central Fund?
I am agreeing to accept Senator Sir John Keane's amendment. On the general question, I do not see that it can make the slightest difference to the board whether it pays the money in the form of interest to the Exchequer or to the contractors, provided that the work is paid for.
It looks as if it were a book-keeping matter. Does the Minister want to leave the section as it stands?
Cathaoirleach
He is accepting the Senator's amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 16, as amended, and Sections 17 and 18, agreed to.
SECTION 19.
(1) Whenever the Minister is satisfied, on the application of the board, that the erection of buildings or of a particular class or particular classes of buildings under or within a particular distance of any particular transmission wires involves risk of injury to the public or to such buildings or the occupiers thereof and that the removal of such transmission wires to another site would involve unreasonable expense or substantial technical difficulty, the Minister may, if he so thinks fit, by order (in this Act referred to as a building prohibition order) prohibit the erection of any building whatsoever or any building of a specified class or specified classes under or within a specified distance of the said transmission wires.
(2) The Minister may, if he so thinks proper, at any time by order amend or revoke a building prohibition order on the application of the board or of any person whose land is affected by such building prohibition order.
I beg to move amendment No. 2:—
Section 19, sub-section (1). After the word "Minister" in line 41 to insert the words "after consultation with the Minister for Local Government and Public Health."
I made the case for this amendment on the Second Reading. There is no need to repeat it if the Minister is prepared to accept the amendment.
I have no objection in principle to the amendment. The only doubt as to the wisdom of accepting it is the possibility of loss of time which may be involved. In the ordinary circumstances consultation with the Minister for Local Government would undoubtedly take place, but it is quite possible that there may be obvious cases such as repetition cases, cases where a decision having been given on a typical case, it would be held to govern all similar cases. The amendment in the form proposed would require automatic consultation and consequently be the occasion of delay. If the Senator will be satisfied with my assurance that such consultation would take place whenever anything would arise that would be of interest to the Minister for Local Government and withdraw his amendment, I would much prefer it, but if he presses the amendment I am quite prepared to accept it.
I feel that the Industry and Commerce view of what is in the interest of local government may differ from that of the Minister. I feel it is an important issue and it would be far better to have something of this kind inserted in the Bill. Of course I accept at once the assurance that, in the normal course, consultation with the Minister for Local Government will take place before an order is issued. I think it is desirable, nevertheless, that before the Minister makes up his mind to issue such an order, which he does on the application of the board, the views of the Minister for Local Government should be asked for. I do not think there will be any delay, because an order would not be issued without inquiry, and while the Minister for Industry and Commerce is making his own inquiry he could automatically ask the Minister for Local Government to express his views. I think it is a desirable amendment and I would like the Minister to accept it.
I think there would be great delay and there certainly would be duplication of work and consequent expense. Moreover, this is a section prohibiting building under transmission wires. What interest has the Minister for Local Government in transmission wires running over the open country? He has only a very indirect interest in transmission wires that go into towns and villages. There would be duplication of responsibility, duplication of trouble, and duplication of official expenses, and seeing that you have swallowed the camel in this section, it seems to me that you are straining at a gnat. You are taking power to prohibit building under transmission wires without compensation to the person who owns the land. A man may have given a licence to put up wires and pylons, when he thought that an agreement made by him would not involve the serious position which now arises, which prohibits him from the free use of the land. Seeing that you do that in this section it might be let go as it is drafted. As far as I know anything about official matters, duplication of responsibility means the doubling of delay and the doubling of expense, and less of that efficiency which arises from the direct control of one man.
I desire to support Senator Comyn's remarks, that there is no object in tying the Minister up in this way. The section is a trivial one, as people are not going to build under wires. Where some foolish person may attempt to do so the matter may be left to the Minister to decide, without going to another Department for sanction. The amendment is quite unnecessary.
From Senator Comyn's argument one might say that the Minister should not consult the Minister for Local Government, notwithstanding the fact that we have been assured by the Minister for Industry and Commerce that normally he would do so, except in repetition cases, so that that disposes of the suggestion that delay would ensue from the insertion of this amendment. What I feel about it is that it is a question of public interest as distinct from the interest of the owner of the land. There is a question of the development of building operations where the authority is the Minister for Local Government. In this case the Minister for Industry and Commerce is assuming authority to act on the application of the Electricity Supply Board. To my mind that is a reversal of the proper order of things, as when we are dealing with matters affecting local development, building operations, housing or other things, the Minister for Industry and Commerce is not the authority which should be empowered to issue these prohibitions against building. The proper authority would be the Minister for Local Government, but, as the Minister for Industry and Commerce is so closely associated with the Electricity Supply Board, it might be advisable for that Minister to have this power, provided he exercises it after consultation with the Minister for Local Government, who is looking after the interests of local authorities in respect of local developments. This matter is important and I should like the House to agree with the amendment.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 3 not moved.
Section 19 and 20 agreed to.
SECTION 21.
(1) Whenever any local authority which was an authorised undertaker whose undertaking was acquired by the board under the Principal Act has refused to pay to any person who was transferred to the service of the board at the time of such acquisition or to the personal representative of any such person the whole or any part of any salary, wages, or remuneration which such local authority might lawfully have paid under sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Local Government Act, 1933 (No. 5 of 1933), the board may, subject to the provisions of the said Section 7 (so far as those provisions are applicable) and of this section, pay to any such person or personal representative the whole or any part (as the case may require) of any of such salary, wages or remuneration.
I move amendment No. 4:—
Section 21, sub-section (1). To delete in lines 59-60 the words "transferred to the service of the Board at the time of such acquisition" and to substitute therefor the words "at any time employed by such local authority for the purposes of such undertaking."
The object of the amendment is to effect a verbal change in the wording of the Section, the purpose of which is to permit the Electricity Supply Board to pay certain sums due under the Act of 1933 to officers of a local authority who were absent from duty due to internment and other political causes during the period 1919-1923. I explained previously that the Dublin Corporation declined to make payments due to its officers who had been transferred to the Electricity Supply Board, on the ground that the assets and liabilities and everything attached to the electricity undertaking had been transferred to the Electricity Supply Board. They contended that payments should properly be made by the Electricity Supply Board. That view was accepted, and a section was included in the Bill to enable the Electricity Supply Board to make these payments. As the section was drafted it referred only to officers transferred to the service of the Board, but it appears there is one case where an officer entitled to payment was not transferred, through illness, and who would be entitled to payment but for the fact that the assets were transferred to the Electricity Supply Board. The purpose of the amendment is to cover such cases, so that injustice will not be done.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 21, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Senator Guinness asked for certain information with regard to the results of the operations of the Electricity Supply Board for 1933-34. I am in a position to give that information now, but I am not sure whether it should be given on this section or not.
The House would be very glad to get it.
Cathaoirleach
I think it might be given now.
Senators will be able to relate the information to that already published. The total number of units generated in 1933-34 was 185,000,000, as compared with 166,000,000 units during the previous year. The number of units sold was 139,000,000, as compared with 120,000,000. The revenue from the sales energy was £1,150,000, as compared with £1,044,000 during the previous year. The number of consumers was 86,554, as compared with 81,675 during the previous year. The total industrial motive power load was 52,352 h.p., as compared with 46,036 h.p. in the previous year.
We know that there was very dry weather for a couple of years, but it would be interesting to know what proportion of their supplies the Electricity Supply Board got from burning coal and from the hydroelectric process.
Cathaoirleach
The Minister should have notice of that question.
I gave that figure on a previous occasion. The total number of units generated in 1933-34 was 185,000,000 and from steam 82,000,000.
Arising out of those figures, I should like to know from the Minister if he considers them satisfactory. On the other hand, I might point out in regard to consumers that in 12 months they increased by about 4,000, from 81,000 to 86,000. That does not seem to be a very large increase but, on the other hand, it is fairly reasonable and the Minister is satisfied. I must say that an increase of only 4,000 consumers from the year before does seem very small. It looks to me as though they are getting to the end of their work.
The increase in the number of consumers was 5,000, which compares with 3,300 as between 1932 and 1933. The number was 86,544, as compared with 81,000. It is nearer to 87,000 than 86,000. It represents an increase of very nearly 5,000 consumers, which is a greater increase than took place as between 1933 and 1932. The most satisfactory aspect of these figures, however, is the very substantial increase which has taken place in the industrial motive power load, which has doubled since 1931.
I have just got a correction which shows that the number of consumers was 89,890 and not 86,500, which makes it much more satisfactory.
Question put and agreed to.
Second Schedule and Title put and agreed to.
Bill reported; Report Stage to be taken on Wednesday, 5th September, 1934.
