I should like to begin by saying that, as far as I am concerned, I have found this a very helpful debate, helpful from the point of view that everything which I have said as to the merits of Portarlington scheme has not been accepted without reasonable reserve, and I must say that those on both sides of the House who have doubts and qualms about the prudence of proceeding with this scheme have voiced their hesitations candidly, moderately and reasonably. If I had further time it would perhaps have given me an opportunity fully to resolve any doubts with which they may regard this proposition. I would welcome that, because the more we discuss these things and the more we have put forward here not merely the arguments in favour of a proposal of this sort, but also those which appear to stand against it, the more we shall, if the proposal is a good one, carry conviction to the minds of the majority of our people. To do that, in my view, is not doing any disservice to the Government, to the policy of the Government or to the work of national development.
Before I come to deal with the two major questions which have been raised in the debate, one, the wisdom of proceeding with the Clonsast development, and the other, the possibility of undertaking a large-scale scheme of rural electrification, I should like to deal with one minor point which has been mentioned here, but that is not, perhaps, strictly relevant to this Bill, and that is the question of pensions for the staff of the Electricity Supply Board. That is a matter which has been under discussion between myself and the Electricity Supply Board and the Minister for Finance. We have not reached complete agreement as to the basis on which the pensions scheme for the staff of the Electricity Supply Board should be formulated, but we are, I should say, within measurable reach of that agreement, and I hope that we may be able to come to the Oireachtas to ask it to authorise the Electricity Supply Board to prepare a pensions scheme for its employees.
Coming to the questions which were raised in relation to Clonsast development, the point was made very frequently during the debate, that there would be less hesitation on the part of some Senators who were critical of the project, if they had an assurance that the proposal had been submitted to expert investigation. They asked me whether, in fact, that had been done, and who was responsible for the figures which I quoted in the House. The first question we have to ask ourselves is, what experts would carry conviction. I submit, so far as the problem of using peat to generate electricity is concerned, there are no persons likely to be more expert and better informed on that problem than the engineers of the Electricity Supply Board. But this is a matter, at any rate, upon which experts do not differ.
Senator Sir John Keane asked me was there any report by experts upon the possibility of using turf to generate electricity and, if so, why was the report not published. The answer to that is simple. The possibility and practicability of using peat for raising steam in large boiler units of the capacity which would be utilised in the Portarlington electricity works is as well established as the use of coal is, and it is not necessary for us to spend money putting that simple question to experts. It is recognised now as a practice which can be undertaken without running any risk and, in fact, as we know, there are many industrial undertakings in this country which do use peat as a fuel for raising steam. And, of course, the whole process at Portarlington depends upon steam, the generation of steam being the basic operation.
The next question is how would the use of peat in an electricity generating station at Portarlington compare with the use of coal, say, in the power station at the Pigeon House for the purposes of generating electricity. Again, that matter has been investigated by the engineers of the Electricity Supply Board who, I may say, in that connection, within the past nine or ten years, have completely re-designed the Pigeon House and made it one of the most modern and one of the most economical generating stations in the three kingdoms. The answer which they have given me is that if they can get an assured supply of peat with a moisture content of not more than 30 per cent. and of normal calorific value, they expect to be in a position to generate electricity at Portarlington as cheaply as they can generate electricity at the Pigeon House, provided that the cost of the peat to them is not more than 10/6 in normal circumstances or, in other circumstances, if the cost of coal goes up, more than one-third of the cost of coal. That is to say, that with peat at a minimum cost of 10/6 in normal circumstances or, where the cost of coal is rising, not greater than one-third of the cost of coal to them at the Pigeon House—there is a decimal place of about one-thousandth of a penny per unit of difference in generating costs between Portarlington and the Pigeon House—but it would be as cheap from their point of view to use peat at Portarlington as it is to use imported coal at the Pigeon House. In that connection again I should like to say, in regard to the figures which I have cited here in the House, that they have been supplied to me by the Electricity Supply Board and that the engineers of the Electricity Supply Board have fully investigated the practicability of building the station at Portarlington, and again the only reservation they make—and it is a reservation of which it is well that the House and the people should be aware—is that they will be assured of an adequate supply of peat of the requisite quality at Portarlington.
I would like to put the other side of the picture. We can assume—and we are proceeding on the assumption— that that supply will be forthcoming. If, however, it is not forthcoming and if, in fact, the experiment turns out to be a failure it must not be thought that so far as the Electricity Supply Board is concerned it is going to be at the loss of this £800,000. Some money would be lost but, in my view, nothing like £800,000 because, with the exception of the special furnaces which will be designed for the combustion of the peat, practically all the rest of the plant to be installed at Portarlington could be dismantled and could be re-erected at the Pigeon House. So that, accordingly, the ultimate risk in this matter is what would be involved in dismantling the plant at Portarlington and transferring the greater part of it to the Pigeon House.
We should, of course, lose the buildings and lose the foundations, but I would like to say, in my belief, it would not represent, say, more than 20 or 25 per cent.—I do not want to be pinned to a figure—of the total capital invested in the station, and if we reduce that to a specific sum, we get something of the order of £160,000 to £200,000. That is about the maximum risk, I think, we are accepting in connection with this experiment because I do feel that, whether the experiment succeeds in relation to the generating station or not, we shall, at any rate, be able to produce an article at Clonsast for which there will be, in the post-war circumstances as we can now visualise them, a ready sale for so long as the bog has a workable life.
Senator Sir John Keane also wishes to be assured that there has been no pressure on the board. In that connection, I would like to say that it has been indicated to the board that we feel that it is in the national interest that they should undertake this experiment, but it is open to the board, if they feel that it is not advisable for them to undertake it as a board, to come to me and to make representations accordingly. If those representations are made, naturally I shall consider them, but that does not mean that I shall be prepared to abandon this experiment because the Electricity Supply Board have a doubt about it. On the contrary, I think that in such an event I should have to come to the Oireachtas and have to ask it to give me authority to constitute a new statutory undertaking, the purpose of which would be to erect this station and to operate it and to sell electricity to the Electricity Supply Board for distribution over its network to the Electricity Supply Board's consumers. That would be the alternative. In fact, before this Bill was drafted, I considered that as an alternative proposition. I felt, however, on the whole that there was a great deal to be said for having a unified authority in this country in charge of electricity supply and I decided to proceed in the way we are doing and in that connection to clear up any doubt which there might be in the mind of the Electricity Supply Board as to their powers to erect a station of the kind contemplated at Portarlington.
Senator Sir John Keane also wanted to know about the costings for the Turf Board. I have already given an undertaking in the Dáil that at an early date, as soon as we can get the accounts in form for publication, the accounts of the Turf Development Board will be published. It will be seen when they are published that quite a large amount of money has been spent upon what might be described as survey and preliminary development work.
Senator Baxter wanted to know if we had made a survey of the bogs of this country. We have made a survey of most of the larger bogs of the country, and a very exhaustive survey too. At least, the Turf Development Board have made that survey and the cost of it has been defrayed out of the Grants-in-Aid which have been voted to the board by the Oireachtas every year. As I am on that point of the survey of bogs and their future development, I may answer the question which was put to me by Senator Liam O Buachalla who wanted to know what the position was in regard to the Attymon bog. That is a bog of about 1,400 acres. It has been surveyed. The report on the survey has been satisfactory. We hope to put the drainage of the bog in hands in the near future with a view to its ultimate development. I am not in a position to answer the question relating to the Connemara bogs.
Senator Hayes wished to know what employment would be given on the Clonsast bog. There were employed there during, I think, practically the whole of the turf-cutting and harvesting season of this year, between 400 and 500 men. When the bog is in full production it is expected that during that season about 600 men will be employed and, for the remaining months of the year, between 200 and 300. That is an aspect of this matter that is worthy of attention. It will be seen that, for the purpose of providing for the employment of people in the rural areas who are not required on the land, and of keeping them living in country surroundings, in reasonably pleasant surroundings, the Clonsast experiment, if it succeeds, is going to be a very important thing.
Senator MacDermot wishes to know when we anticipate the Portarlington station will be erected. In my view it will be, perhaps, in 18 months. I should like to qualify that with this reservation: if all goes well. Because the position is that contracts have not been placed for the plant and, until the working drawings have been prepared, the erection of the buildings cannot be undertaken, or the foundations for the plant put down. Accordingly, I should say it will be at least 18 months before this station can be in operation and, in view of the present uncertainty, it may be a great deal more. But I hope we can proceed on the assumption that we will be able to start the erection of the Portarlington station in the course of the coming year. If we are not able to get the plant for Portarlington, then I am afraid we are going to have equal difficulties in regard to the plant required to complete the Poulaphouca scheme and to undertake the extensions at the Pigeon House, which will also become necessary within a very short period of time, in view of the future development of the undertaking. In these circumstances we may be compelled to try to put some limitation upon the use of electricity in this country. What I have said in regard to plant might also apply, in certain circumstances, even to the coal which is required as fuel for the Pigeon House, so that you can see that even if we had not this incentive to try to utilise to the full extent whatever natural resources we have, if we had not this incentive to try to provide employment in our rural areas, there are other circumstances which would undoubtedly urge us to consider very seriously the erection of a station such as that proposed at Portarlington.
Senator O'Callaghan expressed the view that we were, perhaps, rather foolish in undertaking the development at Portarlington, because he felt it would be much wiser for us first to develop all our water-power resources. In that connection he said, I think, that water costs nothing. If he were to consult any engineer who has had to consider these matters very carefully from the point of view that once he became an electricity supply undertaker he had obligations to the public which he had to fulfil under very heavy penalty, perhaps he would not continue to hold the view he has expressed here in regard to water-power. Water-power is, in fact, not cheap. In normal circumstances, in a country like this, water-power is not a cheap source for electricity. As well as that, it is a motive agent the cost of which, in use, may be very variable. It is entirely at the mercy of the weather and, as I have said in the other House, the weather, from the point of view of the Electricity Supply Board, is as important a factor as it is to any working farmer in Ireland, the only difference being that the interests of the working farmer and those of the Electricity Supply Board are liable on occasions to come into conflict with each other, as they have done this year.
Perhaps I shall bring that fact more clearly home to the House if I give some figures relating to our actual experience with the Electricity Supply Board undertaking. Senators will remember that the year 1933-34 was a very dry year. The total number of units delivered to the Electricity Supply Board network in that year amounted to 182,000,000 in round figures. The total number of units which the Electricity Supply Board were able to get from the Shannon works at Ardnacrusha amounted in that year to 101,500,000, and the average cost per unit delivered was 6356 pence, which was very much higher than the cost in the previous year or in subsequent years and, in fact, was much higher than anything we have since experienced. In contrast to that year, when we got only 101,500,000 units from the Shannon, in the year 1938-39, the board was able to get 284,000,000 units, and the average cost per unit delivered in that year fell to .2725 pence.
I am giving these figures merely to show that if we are going to operate this electricity supply undertaking in the most effective manner, experience has shown us what had already been intimated to the State and to the board by the experts, that we must maintain a proper balance between that part of our plant which is dependent on the weather and that part of it which is independent of the weather. The Shannon being a water-power undertaking, its capacity is largely influenced by the weather conditions which prevail almost from day to day, because you can get a year in which you would have an abnormally heavy rainfall, if you take the 12 months as a whole, but you might have a dry period during the critical portion of the year in the summer months and the capacity of the Ardnacrusha plant might be adversely affected. It all depends on getting water when water is likely to be scarcest. If that happens the capacity of the plant is considerably increased and, by reason of the fact that you have that great potential capacity available there—it is important to bear this in mind—you can secure in those circumstances a very great reduction in the average cost of your total output.
I have given some figures for 1938-39. In that year the total number of units delivered to the Electricity Supply Board network was 367,000,000 of which, as I have already said, 284,000,000 units came from Ardnacrusha and only 81,000 had to be taken from the Pigeon House—only 81,000 units were generated, so to speak, from imported coal. In consequence of that the average cost per unit delivered to the network was .3775 pence. In the following year, that is for the year 1939-40 whereas the total output delivered to the network increased to 388,498,000 units, the number of units delivered from the Shannon power station fell to 208,023,000. The total number of units delivered from the Pigeon House in the same year increased to 179,080,000, but because the output from the Shannon was less than the preceding year, the average cost of generation rose to .4170 pence. I have already indicated to the House what the position was in respect to the driest year when the average cost per unit was .6356 pence. From that it will be quite clear that it would be economically unwise and imprudent to over-develop our water power resources as against the development of our steam generating plant. We have to maintain a balance between them.
We have also this very great difficulty —and it is a point that is very often overlooked—that the installation of hydro-electric plant represents a much greater export of capital than the installation of steam plant. Accordingly we have to proceed in this matter with great caution because, apart altogether from the fact that we are exporting capital, we are exporting it long before we are able to utilise that capital to its maximum capacity. On the other hand, I am not to be taken as opposed to development of our water power resources. In fact I feel that this year, and the years which we are about to face, are going to teach us that we were unwise in being so prudent in the past, if I might put it that way. I think the development of our water power does put us in a position of independence and does give us a national task which has important reactions upon our psychology. I think it is true to say that the fact that we were able, so soon after the unfortunate civil war, to undertake the development of the Shannon scheme had a good effect upon us all. We can all look back and take equal pride in the fact that there were some people who had the courage and the vision to tackle the project at that time. Accordingly, if it were possible to develop either the Erne or the Boyne —which would rank next to the Erne in regard to its possibilities—I certainly should not be at all unwilling to ask the House, if it were my responsibility at the time, to give us the necessary power to proceed with the scheme. I think, however, that is perhaps going a bit off the track at present.
The next matter which was raised in the debate was the method of charging for electricity. We heard a great deal about the unfairness of the valuation charge, but I can assure the critics of the valuation charge that they will find no support for their attitude from any person who is interested in the economics of electricity supply. It is my view, for what it may be worth, that we should never have had the extraordinary development in the use of electricity which has taken place here over the past ten years had the board not adopted that system of charging. It is the fairest system than can be devised. It is one which apportions, as reasonably and as fairly as it can be done, between the various consumers the cost of giving them a supply. I think that we have sufficient evidence of that fact in the progress of the undertaking. In 1929-30 the total output from all the stations in the Twenty-Six Counties amounted to 61,000,000 units, which were sold to 48,000 consumers. In 1939-40, ten years later, the output was 409,000,000, sold to 172,000 consumers.
In that regard, I might say that this increase was not due to novelty in the earlier years, because within the past four years the number of consumers connected to the electricity supply mains has increased by 50 per cent. We may be perfectly certain that that increase would never have taken place if the system of charging, which the board had adopted, was not fair and satisfactory to those who took the electricity supply. In fact, I should like in that connection to say that if the board were to depart from that system of charging it would probably be found that people in the smaller towns would have to pay a very much higher amount than they have at present. So far as there is any unfairness in this matter, the unfairness falls, not on the smaller towns, but on the more densely populated centres like Dublin where the valuations are very much higher and where, accordingly, the fixed charge forms a much higher proportion of the electricity consumer's bill.
We come now to the question of rural electrification. First of all, I should like to disabuse the minds of some of those who have spoken on that point in this debate of an impression which I think they hold subconsciously. That is, that every inhabitant of our cities and our urban centres enjoys the benefits of electricity. There is nothing further from the truth. The great bulk of residents in Dublin do not have electricity in their homes. Some of them may have gas, but a very large number of them have to depend upon candles or paraffin for their illumination and they are people who have to work very hard. The fundamental principle on which the Electricity Supply Board has to operate is laid down in Section 21 of the Act of 1927 which prescribes this:—
"All charges made by the board after the appointed day for electricity... sold by it in bulk or direct to consumers... shall be fixed at such rates and on such scales that the revenue derived in any year by the board from such sales and services together with its revenue... from other sources will be sufficient and only sufficient... to pay all salaries, working expenses and other outgoings of the board... and such sums as the board may think proper to set aside in that year for reserve fund, extensions, renewals, depreciation, loans and other like purposes."
That is a way of ensuring that the electricity supply to any consumer will not be subsidised by the general taxpayer. That is the foundation upon which our electricity undertaking rests: that so far as it exists it has to be paid for by the users of electricity. That is the principle which has to govern the board when it is considering the question of incurring additional expenditure upon its networks, transmission lines or plant.
What we are asked by those who assume that the electricity supply is something which has been provided by the State for the special benefit of individuals is, that we should depart from that principle and that we should make the electricity supply as generally available throughout the country as roads are. In order to do that it would be necessary in certain circumstances to subsidise and very heavily subsidise the supply when it is given to some consumers, that is, to the consumers who live in certain rural areas which are at a considerable distance from the Electricity Supply Board's distribution mains. Well, that would be, in my view, though I would be subject to argument and perhaps to a change of view in relation to it, a revolutionary change; because it would be very difficult to justify the subsidisation of an electricity supply to the rural consumers and at the same time to condemn it or oppose subsidisation in the case of the urban inhabitants who are living in circumstances in which at the present moment they cannot afford to take an electricity supply.
Accordingly, it will be seen that the fact that the distribution networks have not been erected in a more widespread manner over the country has not been due to any reluctance on the part either of the board or the Minister to undertake it, but because of the fact that very big issues are raised, and these are issues which we, at any rate, would have to find some way of resolving before the project could be undertaken in the widespread way in which it has been advocated here. It has been advocated here on the basis that the agricultural community have paid for this, as they have been presumed to have paid for everything else in the country, and that they have been getting nothing out of it. I dealt with that argument in the other House and I pointed out that, in so far as the agricultural community in common with the rest of the community, had accepted the risks which were inherent in undertaking a large project of this kind, they were being fully compensated for those risks in the form of the interest which the Electricity Supply Board pays to the Exchequer on their advances, and that interest has always been fixed so as to cover the risks and the various difficulties which the Exchequer might have to meet in providing the necessary moneys for the operations of the board. Accordingly, though the amount involved may be relatively very little, nevertheless the agricultural community have secured their share of that along with the rest of us.
