Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 23 Jun 1949

Vol. 36 No. 14

Electricity (Supply) (Amendment) Bill, 1948—Second Stage.

Question Proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. Cosgrave)

The Bill, it will be seen, deals with a number of matters which, while unrelated to one another, have the feature in common of dealing in one way or another with electricity supply.

The first matter to which I may refer are the provisions relating to general regulations under Sections 33 and 34 of the Electricity (Supply) Act of 1927. The board are empowered to make regulations for various purposes and did in fact make regulations in matters relating to the generation, transmission, distribution and sale of electricity When made, the board found that the absence of any specific provision in regard to the publication of the regulations made by it created a position in which any of its regulations would not be judicially noticed in the courts. It would, accordingly, be necessary for the secretary of the board to prove the regulations in a court of law on each occasion on which they might come into reference.

Apart from these considerations, it has for long been regarded as objectionable in principle that the board should be enabled to make regulations enforceable mainly against itself.

The object, therefore, of Section 2 of the Bill is to enable the board to make regulations for various necessary purposes and, having made them, to submit them to the Minister for Industry and Commerce who may then, if he approves the regulations so made, by Order confirm them. This procedure has at least a double advantage. Firstly, confirmation by Order gives the regulations the force of law and, secondly, since the Order and the regulations attached to it as a schedule will be published as a statutory instrument under the imprint of the Stationery Office production of a copy of the Order must, in accordance with the provisions of the Documentary Evidence Act, be accepted prima facie in any proceedings before a court as being a true and valid copy of the regulations as made and confirmed. The Bill also provides in Section 17 and a schedule for the repeal of Sections 33 and 34 of the Act of 1927 referred to earlier. It may be pointed out that every Order made by the Minister confirming these regulations will be laid on the table of both Houses of the Oireachtas.

Another important matter dealt with in the Bill is the establishment of a tribunal to arbitrate in the case of disputes which may arise between general employees of the board and the board. This tribunal will be on exactly the same lines as that for manual workers which was set up under the provisions of the Electricity Supply Board (Superannuation) Act of 1942. The experience of that tribunal to date shows that it has functioned smoothly and effectively and has been the means of removing many possible causes of friction between the board and its manual workers in regard to conditions of employment. It should also be noted that the representatives of the general employees of the board have by an overwhelming majority voted in favour of the establishment of such a tribunal.

In the Electricity Supply Board (Superannuation) Act, 1942, the board has power to pay allowances supplementary to the pension payable from the board's pension schemes to employees transferred from the services of other electricity undertakings with pension rights at the date of their transfer. It has similar powers in regard to certain elderly employees recruited directly to the board's service and at the date of the passing of the Superannuation Act in 1942 were over 40 years of age. By reason of their age at the date of the establishment of the pension scheme the rate of contribution required of them was very high and the maximum benefits obtainable by them were less than the maximum benefits normally payable under the scheme.

It is proposed in the present Bill to give both these classes of employees power to seek a declaration from the board as to the extent to which it intends to apply its discretionary powers in regard to supplementary allowances when these employees are due for retirement on pension.

The next matter to be considered is Section 9 which deals with the superannuation of certain persons formerly employed by local bodies.

Provision was made in the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1927, that on the acquisition by the Electricity Supply Board of an undertaking formerly owned and administered by a local authority the pension rights of any employees who possessed such rights at the time of the transfer should be preserved to them in respect of their service with the former undertaker. In other words, they were to suffer no loss of pensionable service by reason of their transfer.

In the year 1929 the Electricity Supply Board acquired certain electricity undertakings owned by local authorities, notably those of Rathmines, Pembroke and Dún Laoghaire and on acquisition the electricity staffs of those authorities became employees of the board. Those employees had no pension rights at the time of transfer. Subsequently, the urban districts of Rathmines and Pembroke were merged in the Dublin County Borough and that of Dún Laoghaire with other local authorities in the newly formed Borough of Dún Laoghaire. Following this rearrangement the employees of the various bodies constituting these new authorities who possessed no pension rights up to then acquired them under the statutory provisions covering the mergers, both in respect of their service with the dissolved authorities and such later service as they might have with the newly created boroughs. These benefits did not, however, extend to those of the former employees of the dissolved bodies who had, prior to the mergers, been transferred to and entered the service of the Electricity Supply Board.

At a much later stage the responsibility for public lighting in the Rathmines, Pembroke and Dun Laoghaire areas, which had been assumed by the Electricity Supply Board on its acquisition of the relevant electricity undertakings was, by arrangement, retransferred to the two boroughs concerned and, in consequence, a certain number of the former employees of the Rathmines, Pembroke and Dun Laoghaire Urban Councils who had been engaged upon maintenance of public lighting were retransferred to the service of the bodies which had succeeded the urban councils, namely, the Boroughs of Dublin and Dun Laoghaire. By the provisions of the Local Authorities (Electrical Employees) Act, 1937, the employees so retransferred were given the benefit of their (i) past service with the local authorities; and (ii) service whilst with the board; and (iii) later and future service with the relevant boroughs, the aggregate service under the three heads counting for pension purposes on ultimate retirement.

Those of the transferred employees who had no option but to remain in the service of the board made representations pointing out that their former colleagues who at no time had left the service of the local authorities concerned, and, more particularly, those who had been transferred with them to the service of the board and later retransferred to the two boroughs, had acquired pension rights for their entire aggregate service whilst they who were still in the service of the board had obtained no such corresponding rights. Following these representations, which were supported by the board and by the Arbitration Tribunal established under the Electricity Supply Board (Superannuation) Act, 1942, it has been decided that it would be only fair and equitable to give to the transferred employees remaining in the service of the board the same pension rights as have been acquired by their former colleagues. The number of persons concerned is 32 and the cost, which will be borne by the board, will be relatively small.

Section 10 of the Bill relates to the superannuation of certain persons who were employed at the Pigeon House generating station when it was closed down following its acquisition by the board and is framed to meet the case of a few former employees of the Dublin Corporation who were compensated by means of lump sum gratuities on the termination of their employment by the board following the acquisition by the board of the Pigeon House generating station. Other such employees who had longer service at the relevant time were compensated by way of pension in respect of their service up to the closing of the station. At a subsequent stage the board found it necessary to reopen and maintain continuously in commission the Pigeon House station, the former employees being reemployed.

Those who had been compensated by way of pension were, on re-employment, paid at the appropriate rate for the work on which they were reemployed, the pension being abated during their employment.

It was pointed out in the case of these persons that the break which had occurred in their service during the short period in which the Pigeon House station had been closed by the board operated to deprive them of the pension rights on ultimate retirement in respect of service after the reopening which they would otherwise have possessed under the Dublin Corporation pension scheme. Provision was, accordingly, made in the Electricity (Supply) (Amendment) Act, 1942, to enable, on final retirement, the pension already awarded at the time of the closing of this station to be terminated and a fresh pension substituted, the latter being based upon the aggregate service: (a) up to the closing of the station, and (b) from the date of re-employment to the date of final retirement.

The position of those persons employed at the station who had been compensated by means of gratuities has only recently been brought to notice and it is felt that these persons should not, through no fault of their own, be prejudiced by losing pension rights in respect of their service from the time of re-employment by the board. In their case, however, since these persons were awarded lump sum gratuities in respect of their service up to the closing of the station it was felt when the Bill was drafted that credit could not be given for the service in respect of which the gratuity had been paid.

In the course of the Committee Stage debate in the Dáil certain Deputies, however, referred to this fact and suggested that some means should be found whereby the previous service could be counted for pension purposes, and on the Report Stage in the Dáil I made an offer which, if accepted, could be given effect to by an amendment on the Committee Stage in the Seanad. Senators will appreciate that to give credit twice for the same period of service would introduce a most undesirable principle and possibly constitute a precedent which might have serious repercussions in other directions in the future.

Briefly, I offered to count the prior years of service in respect of which gratuities had been paid if the persons concerned elected to take the benefits of the board's superannuation scheme and agreed to set off against the gratuity payable to them under the board's scheme on their final retirement the gratuity which was paid to them by way of compensation for loss of employment in 1930. I propose to have this amendment introduced on the Committee Stage.

In the course of the Committee Stage debate in the Dáil reference was made to the case of a few persons at present employed by the board who formerly had been employed by the Dublin United Tramway Company in connection with the generation or distribution of electricity by that company. These persons possessed no pension rights when in the employment of the company and had no such rights on their entry to the service of the board. Nevertheless, it was pressed upon me by various Deputies in the other House that had these men's employment with the company not been interrupted by reason of the company taking its requirements of electricity from the board and closing their own generating station they would have eventually qualified for a pension under the scheme now operated by Córas Iompair Éireann. In this class also, I undertook to have the matter considered in the interval between the Committee and Report Stages of the Dáil, and having done so and having consulted the Electricity Supply Board I decided to make provision in the Bill to enable the board at its discretion to pay supplementary pensions to these former employees of the tramway company on the same basis as supplementary pensions are payable by the board to employees transferred from other electricity undertakings without pension rights or prospects of pension rights in their former employment.

The Electricity Supply Board (Superannuation) Act, 1942, enabled the board amongst other things to establish a superannuation scheme on a contributory basis for these manual workers. It was provided in that Act that in the event of any manual worker through wilful action on his part causing an interruption in the generation, transmission or distribution of electricity by the board or impeding the due performance of any of the functions or duties of the board, penalties by way of loss of service and of contributions made by him to the superannuation fund would be imposed on him. This "penal" clause as it has been called had many objectionable features and I decided during the course of the Bill through the Dáil to remove the penal clause for the 1942 Act. Section 12 of this Bill removes those parts of Section 7 of the 1942 Act, while retaining the remaining provisions of that section.

I come now to Section 13 of the Bill which amends sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Superannuation Act of 1942. Amongst other things, that Act authorised the payment of pensions to whole-time members of the board under certain conditions. Under the provisions of the sub-section of the Act referred to, a member of the board, in order to qualify for a pension, must have at least ten years' whole-time service as a member and that service must include at least one term of office of five years as a whole-time member of the board. In the case of one existing member of the board who has served as a whole-time member since the 11th February, 1935, the various warrants under which he was appointed by the Government have been for the periods of four years; 77 days one year; three years; three years; one year; and the warrant at present in operation is also for one year only. Consequently, having regard to the terms of sub-section (1) referred to this member of the board or any other member who might be similarly circumstanced would fail to qualify for a pension under the Act as it stands for the reason that he has not completed one term of office of five years as a whole-time member and this position would continue until he had the opportunity of completing at least one term of office of five years under one warrant. It is considered that this limitation is inequitable and Section 13 of the Bill amends the provisions of the Act of 1942 so as to provide that a pension will be awarded (a) after not less than ten years' continuous whole-time membership, or (b) after two or more periods (whether continuous or discontinuous) of whole-time membership of the board which amount in the aggregate to not less than ten years and include at least one term of office of five years as a whole-time member of the board.

This amendment, it will be appreciated, will enable any whole-time member of the board to qualify for a pension provided he has at least ten years' continuous whole-time membership and without having had one term of office of five years. A member who has not had ten years' continuous service must have at least one term of office of five years' duration in an aggregate service of at least ten years.

Section 14 of the Bill amends Section 8 of the Superannuation Act of 1942 which latter section relates to certain financial provisions in relation to superannuation schemes. Under the section of the 1942 Act referred to the trustees of the superannuation fund set up under that Act may lend superannuation moneys to the board and the board may accept such loans, the rate of interest on which must be approved by the Minister for Finance. The amendment provided for in this section of the Bill merely provides that the consent of the Minister for Finance to the interest rates will no longer be required, but in lieu of that consent provision is being made that the rate of interest shall not exceed 4 per cent. per annum.

The superannuation funds and the contributions thereto and the benefits payable are calculated upon an actuarial basis and for this purpose it is essential that the actuary and management of the funds should be placed in a position to know that when they lend moneys to the board as an investment that a definite interest rate will be paid. The funds in this case have, by agreement, been based upon an interest rate of 4 per cent. and this section of the Bill will authorise up to that rate to be paid on future loans.

Section 15 amends Section 11 of the Superannuation Act, 1942, which relates to the reference of disputes to the Manual Workers' Tribunal. Under the definition of the expression "manual worker" as set out in the Manual Workers' Superannuation Scheme made under the 1942 Act, workers whose employment is of a casual character are excluded and there is, therefore, no means by which disputes in which they are involved can be brought before this tribunal. The effect of Section 16 of the Bill will be to enable the Manual Workers' Tribunal to deal with disputes in which such casual workers are involved.

Section 16 increases the advances which may be made to the board from the Central Fund by £16,000,000. Capital Expenditure by the Electricity Supply Board is financed by means of repayable advances made to the board by the Minister for Finance from the Central Fund. The limit up to which such advances may be made is fixed by the Electricity (Supply) Acts and that limit has been increased from time to time according as the undertaking has developed. Provision must be made for future commitments. As the demand for electricity expands and it becomes necessary to provide additional generating capacity, the means of transmitting and distributing that energy, and the services and assets auxiliary and ancillary to the supply of that energy, the statutory limit within which advances may be made must be increased so that the necessary capital expenditure may be financed. The current capital programme of the board referred to below requires that provision for further advances be now made.

The board has submitted an estimate of the capital required for its projected programme during the period to 31st March, 1952, including capital expenditure to which the board is already committed. This programme envisages expenditure totalling £29,500,000 (allowing for the provisions for advances in the Act of 1945), viz.:—

	£
Generation	18,783,000
Transmission and Distribution	12,440,000
General	2,762,000
Shannon Fisheries	15,000
Rural Development	8,000,000
	42,000,000
Deducting therefrom the amounts of £7,500,000 and £5,000,000 provided in the 1945 Act under Sections 38 and 41, respectively	12,500,000
Total	£29,500,000

Having regard to the magnitude of the amount involved, and in view of the uncertainty as to the trend of prices and supplies of materials within the next few years, there would be no useful result in attempting at this stage to estimate with even approximate exactitude the capital expenditure which the board may find it necessary to incur in the period in question, or the advances which the board may require. It is, however, abundantly clear that the board's development programme within the next few years will entail very substantial commitments, if the demand for electricity is to be adequately provided for, and it is, therefore, proposed in the Bill, as an interim measure until the situation becomes clearer, that the existing statutory limit of the advances which may be made for general development purposes be increased by £16,000,000. It is not proposed to provide in the Bill for further advances for rural electrification, as the existing limit of such advances is considered to be sufficient for the present.

The remaining two sections of the Bill deal merely with the repeal of the provisions set out in the Schedule and the Short Title, Collective Citation, etc. The repeal of Section 33 and 34 of the Act of 1927 is a necessary consequence of the provisions of Section 2 of the Bill. As regards sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Superannuation Act, 1942, this sub-section of the 1942 Act, relates to a case in which a whole-time member of the board is entitled to a pension in respect of other and previous service, either with a public department or under a local authority, and has the following effect:—(a) if a Civil Service or local authority pension equals or exceeds the amount of any pension calculated under the Superannuation Act of 1942, the latter pension does not become payable, and (b) if a Civil Service or local authority pension happens to be less than the amount of any pension calculated under the Superannuation Act of 1942, only the difference between the two rates of pension may be paid.

This provision of the 1942 Act affects one member of the present board who is entitled to receive a pension from a local authority in respect of his services with that authority before he was appointed to be a member of the Electricity Supply Board. If the member in question had been allowed to complete 40 years' service with the local authority, his pension, under the Local Government Act, 1925, would have been very much higher than that which he was granted when he left the local authority to take up the appointment with the Electricity Supply Board.

It is considered that, although the case is an exceptional one, if the Act of 1942 is not amended in the manner proposed, this member of the Electricity Supply Board will, on retirement, be prejudiced by reason of his transfer from a local authority to the Electricity Supply Board, and it is, therefore, proposed to remove the sub-section of Section 3 of the 1942 Act which precludes the payment of pension in respect of service with the board in the particular circumstances of this case.

The Schedule also provides for the exclusion from Section 8 (3) (c) of the Electricity Supply Board (Superannuation) Act of 1942 of the words "or by the board to such trustees". The trustees of the superannuation funds find it convenient to lend the moneys in their hands to the board and regulations made by the Minister under the Act mentioned provide for the repayment of such moneys on 90 days' notice by either party. It has been represented by the board, the trustees, and the matter was also raised in the Dáil on an amendment by Deputy Larkin, that it is desirable that the board should be in a position to give a guarantee to the trustees that they will hold the moneys lent to the board for a reasonably long term, so that for actuarial purposes stable conditions over a period may be assured. The deletion of the words referred to will enable the board to do this.

The third matter dealt with in the Schedule is consequential on the deletion of the penal clause from the 1942 Act.

Mr. Hawkins

We welcome this Bill, mainly because it makes provision for the setting up of an organisation which we hope will eliminate any possibility of a stoppage in the supply of such an important essential as electricity. The Bill will be regarded by all members as one which can be more properly dealt with in Committee and I do not think there is very much we need say at this stage, except in so far as the title of the Bill suggests that we might be able to have a discussion on the importance of electricity for our people. It is essential, if we are to develop the industrial arm here, that we should have cheap power. There are many people who will agree with me that we have not got that cheap power and it might be in the national interest that we should have an inquiry into the present organisation, with a view to seeing whether we can provide something which is so essential not alone in the lives of the ordinary people but in the development of the country's resources, at a much cheaper rate than at present.

We have had the experience of local organisations which were supplying light and power which were taken over by what one might describe as a nationalised board, with the result that charges were increased. We have at present on foot a scheme to give light and power to the people in rural Ireland, and, to my mind, it is not going to achieve its object because of the charges demanded by the Electricity Supply Board. We have, first, the installation charges, which, if compared with the prices of local contractors, will be found to be rather exorbitant. We have, then, the charge in relation to floor space. We all know that, in rural Ireland, the houses had large kitchens, where, before we introduced the Dance Halls Act, our people had their little dances and, in addition, there was ample accommodation for farm animals of every kind. We find now that the charges by the Electricity Supply Board are based on floor space and I think that, if an investigation were made into the matter, some more equitable system could be devised whereby we could provide power and light at a more reasonable charge.

This Bill makes provision for the workers in general. It sets out to guard against strikes and against the curtailment of the supply of electricity and sets up an organisation similar to that which has been set up already in relation to other of the board's employees. If, however, we look at the 1927 Act, we find there a very peculiar section. Section 3 provides that no member of the Electricity Supply Board can become a member of this or the other House. While I agree—and it has already been embodied in legislation—that no member of a board set up by the Oireachtas should be a member of this or the other House, I would go so far as to say that it is not in keeping with the Constitution to put such a disqualification into this Bill in relation to an employee because he happens to be employed by a particular organisation or association. Looking at it from the point of view of the membership of this House, we have here what we hope is a vocational Seanad. If there is in the employment of the Electricity Supply Board, as I am sure there is, a member of the engineering profession who would be a very efficient member of the House, I do not think that, because he happens to be an employee of the Electricity Supply Board, he should be debarred from being nominated to this House by the profession he represents and I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to look into that matter and see whether that impediment could be removed.

Captain Orpen

I want to avail of this opportunity to deal with matters relating to generation and generating plant and to distribution, especially in the rural areas.

An Cathaoirleach

Rural electrification is not dealt with in this at all.

Captain Orpen

Surely, in Section 16, there is a sum of £8,000,000 allotted for the provision of additional rural electrification. We have an extensive body operating and doing all that is necessary in regard to the provision of electricity and we are apt to look on these bodies as highly efficient. Perhaps they are, but it is well to remember that when we have a body such as the Electricity Supply Board, a body that we find difficult to question and about which the only information we have is that which the Electricity Supply Board itself gives us, I think that while I am not casting any reflection on the Electricity Supply Board, it is well to remember that the outsider is not in a position to judge how these boards or concerns are managed. In these matters, we have no means of getting down to detailed information other than that supplied by the Electricity Supply Board and such bodies in the normal way and published for the use of those interested. I think that is very important because the tendency has been with the growth of extern boards as they get bigger and bigger, to give just the same amount of information each year.

I think it is a pity in hydro-electric development where we see very fine bits of engineering and interesting and sometimes very beautiful work that we have the whole effect spoiled for a ha'porth of tar. It is only natural, especially in high-fall hydro-electric that that has to be found in beauty spots. It is necessary to develop these high falls where you can get them because it gives you the cheapest electricity for the water available, but is there any reason why we should give complete freedom to engineers to go in and unnecessarily interfere with a beauty spot?

We have at Poulaphouca a very nice piece of concrete work, but on top of it we have an abominable erection—a dam, and alongside it we have what has been aptly described as a bloated tin dustbin for research work. In projected works published by the Electricity Supply Board, they are going to develop the Lee and eventually Tore waterfall. I suggest we should keep one waterfall in this country as a specimen for posterity. I suggest that the Electricity Supply Board should be asked to consider that Tore will be preserved for future generations so that the coming children will not have to look at the dictionary for a description of a waterfall. Looking around the country I am horrified at the way some of the rural network has gone up. I see quite constantly poles going up all over the countryside, and for economy these poles have been placed regardless of the field system. I suggest that the country and farming operations will be hampered seriously by poles placed close to a hedge. They should be either in the hedge or in the middle of a field, and some consideration should be given to the question of the field system.

An Cathaoirleach

I think the Senator is going too far into the fields away from this Bill.

Captain Orpen

I think there is in some cases a tendency by the Electricity Supply Board to operate in a rather arbitrary manner. It is convenient for their engineers, who because they are not under Parliamentary control, to go ahead with engineering proclivities which might otherwise be curtailed. I would like to support Senator Hawkins, who said we should look into the question of the charge which is being made for electricity. Is it excessive? Can it be reduced? We should see whether these charges are really excessive and if we can do anything to make them more acceptable to the small user.

It is quite true that the two-part tariff system is probably the soundest from the point of view of the generating company. It gets a fixed income and charge for current is low, but I notice that in the rural areas it is very difficult to get people to understand the reason for it, to accept it and to be prepared to pay, as they put it, regularly, for electricity whether they use it or not. No doubt, as rural electrification extends, the person in the country will be more amenable to the two-part tariff system but I find extreme opposition to it.

I was wondering whether the Electricity Supply Board are putting over their work in rural areas quite as efficiently as it might. We see in a town an all-electric house as a feature. I have yet to see an all-electric farmyard in operation as an advertisement. It would be a very useful thing to have and it might be used to try out machinery.

I have been critical. I do not want it to be thought that I am critical of the Electricity Supply Board because I do not like what it is doing. So, let me finish on a note which is not of criticism. I notice that the Electricity Supply Board has flooded Lower Fitzwilliam Street with offices. I am very glad to observe that they have left the 18th century character of the frontage and they have not tried, in a utilitarian concern, to bring chromium-plated horrors around their doorways.

Mr. J.T. O'Farrell

This Bill has been so improved during its passage in the other House that there is very little, to my mind in any case, deserving criticism here, except of a favourable character. We are all very pleased at the setting-up of this tribunal to avoid risk of strikes in a very essential national service but I was wondering if it really was necessary in a tribunal covering 400 or 500 people, to give the tribunal the power to examine on and administer oaths and to give them in many respects all the powers of the High Court. The findings of this tribunal are not binding on either side. We hope they will always be accepted. But, why the necessity for this? The Railway Wages Board, covering an immensely greater number of people, which has been in operation for 26 years, has no such provision whatever and there has been only one official strike in the whole of that 26 years, both sides having accepted its findings on all but one occasion.

In regard to the question of the superannuation fund, the Parliamentary Secretary has referred to the provision whereby the trustees of the fund may lend moneys to the board and the board have the right to pay up to 4 per cent. interest on the loans. The actuarial soundness of the fund depends absolutely on not less than 4 per cent. being paid on all its investments. There is no compulsion on the board to accept the whole of the advances that will be available and if at any time the board did not accept the whole of the surplus then the trustees would have to seek an investment elsewhere and, at the present price of money, would certainly not be able to get 4 per cent. on a gilt-edged security. To that extent, the fund would become actuarially unsound and both the board and its employees would have to pay higher contributions.

It is a pity, I think, that the practice which has been adopted in all the railways on the other side of the Channel was not adopted instead. In their case what happens is that the railway companies guarantee a minimum of 4 per cent. on the whole of the investments of the funds regardless of where they are invested. They must be invested in gilt-edged securities. In fact, very little of them are invested in railway stocks. They are invested elsewhere but, to the extent that they do not earn 4 per cent., the companies make up the amount by way of special contribution. If that system was instituted as far as the Electricity Supply Board is concerned, the actuarial soundness of the fund would be far more real than it can be in a position in which there is no compulsion on them to accept any advance, or in which they may find that there is no necessity for the money sought to be advanced to them, which would be available every month or in which they may, if they so desire, get money elsewhere at less than 4 per cent. However, I take it that, with a board composed of people who desire to make the fund a success, they will do their very utmost to continue this arrangement.

There is one aspect regarding the spread of the network which is of some importance. As far as I can gather, the board will not advance the network, as far as towns are concerned, at any rate, unless they find that it is a paying proposition, that they are able to recover the interest on the capital expended. For geographical and other reasons, some towns can look forward to a very dark and dismal future in that connection. I have one example, the best I know, that is, the town of Castletown Berehaven in County Cork. The nearest part of the network is Glengarriff, 19 miles away. The whole population of the town have been pressing for the extension of the network to Castletown but they are informed by the board that it would cost £11,000 to extend it across the mountains from Glengarriff and that the return they could expect would render that expenditure entirely uneconomic. The country in between will not be exploited for years to come, apparently, under the rural electrification scheme because, again, of the small return that might be expected, with the result that that 19 miles between the end of the network and the town of Castletown-berehaven, which itself has too big a population to come under the rural electrification scheme, must exist without electricity.

These people have been terribly heavily hit economically for historical reasons. They lived largely on the British fleet when it was there and on a garrison in Bere Island. They have neither power nor light now and they are not likely to have it under the present policy, so that nothing but decay can face the residents of that town. As this is a community service, I would suggest that a town of that size should not be deprived of electricity service any more than it would be deprived of postal service because it would be difficult to deliver over a terrain of that kind. It is carrying the commercial side of the proposition a little bit too far to insist on that principle being applied in a particular case of that kind which, for historical and geographical reasons, requires special consideration. I know that the board is master of its own affairs in matters of that kind. I do not know to what extent a suggestion from the Minister would induce them to try and make a special case of Castletown. There are probably other towns, too, but Castletown is the one I know best. I think it would be a terrible hardship and a matter of injustice if they are to be deprived indefinitely of a great national service like that of electricity.

Mrs. Concannon

I wish to bring to the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary a letter which appeared in to-day's Irish Independent. I have not a copy of the newspaper by me. I admit frankly that the letter is not germane in the middle but it is rather important. It is in connection with a threat by the Electricity Supply Board to erect a transformer station in St. Kevin's Churchyard. That is one of the most historic places in Dublin. The remains of the martyred Archbishop Dermot O'Hurley rest there. I had the honour to write his life and I am naturally interested and perhaps I will, therefore, be excused for introducing the matter. It would be a great pity that holy ground, in which we shall all, perhaps, rest some day, should not be given the reverence that is due to it. I think that it is just a matter of drawing the attention of the Electricity Supply Board to the feelings that would be aroused if their desire to erect a transformer station there is persisted in.

Mr. S. O'Farrell

We are all in favour of settlement of disputes by arbitration. In so far as this Bill proposes to set up a tribunal for the adjustment of disputes between the Electricity Supply Board and employees by arbitration we must support it. While it is practically certain that all disputes will be brought before the tribunal by one side or the other, you have thus compulsory arbitration. It is not made clear in the Bill—at least to me—whether the decision arrived at by the tribunal must be accepted or not. I can see nothing in the Bill which makes acceptance of the decision compulsory or which provides for any alternative course, if turned down. I see that the tribunal can, at its own discretion, refer any dispute— before it inquires into it—to, we assume, the Labour Court. The Labour Court can be asked to adjudicate. We know the rules governing a Labour Court decision but, where the matter is not referred to the Labour Court, as far as I can make out no provision is made in the Bill for any other stage if the decision of the tribunal to one side or the other is unsatisfactory. I may be in error but that point has yet to be cleared up.

I need not go into the question of what disputes will come before them. Other matters, I think, arise on this Bill. While we are strongly in favour of the adjustment of disputes by arbitration and while this Bill provides for arbitration between the board and its employees it confers on the same board arbitrary powers over the public and the public have not the right of appeal. They have not even any right against the Electricity Supply Board. Under Section 2, the board may make regulations for any purpose connected with the generation, transmission, distribution or use of electricity. They may do anything they desire to do that—subject, of course, to the fact that the Minister may subsequently say he does not like it and refer it back. But it is purely a matter between the Minister and the board. The rights and desires of the public are nowhere taken into account in this Bill. Presumably the Minister would be acting on behalf of the public but there is no provision here under which the public dislike or resentment towards a proposed Order can be brought to his notice.

It may be rather far-fetched but I can give this instance. Remember that the board may make regulations for any purpose connected with the generation, transmission, distribution or use of electricity. The board, if it so desires, could under that clause declare that only certain types of electrical machinery would be used in any house and that only certain makes of electrical machines would be used. They could render all existing machinery not of that specified make obsolete and impose a penalty for continuing to use it. I am not saying they would do that but they would have the power to do so. I dislike giving statutory or semi-State bodies too much power because they will always use it. I am afraid we are drifting too rapidly into a form of police State here. That is borne out by the fact, referred to by other Senators, that this tribunal, when set up, has power to call for evidence on oath, to demand documents and to insist on the attendance of anybody it so desires—and contempt or refusal to obey these orders will be treated as contempt of court and a statutory penalty not exceeding £10 is to be imposed. I do not know what right any board will have—if it be not a properly constituted law court—to insist that I should go and regard these people who are set up haphazardly, as if they were judges of the High Court and that I must bow and kowtow to them, do what they say and, if they decide, pay a fine. I might be asked before that tribunal, a mere householder, to give evidence on oath that I saw an employee of the Electricity Supply Board working, or not working, in a certain place at a certain time. I might say that that is not my business. If I saw that a man in a certain place was not working, well, he may have had some reason for it. Why should I be brought into it? Unjust as it may seem, I may be asked if I saw this man smoking a pipe, say, at a certain time —and be penalised if I refuse to answer the question.

It is provided that this tribunal shall arrange its own remuneration. No indication is given as to how these gentlemen shall remunerate themselves. Indeed, in relation to the tribunal, the expenses shall be defrayed by the board as part of the general expenses of the board. There is no indication as to what salaries or remuneration they will give themselves but there is a hint that they ought not be too generous with the employees. In Section 5, the tribunal is reminded that in determining a dispute in relation to rates of remuneration they must have regard to the principle that the men employed by the board have constant work and certain pension rights—which is a hint to the effect that these men are better off at the present time than the fellows outside.

Senator Hawkins mentioned an important matter. This is a statutory body but it is not a part of the Civil Service proper. Yet members of the staff of the Electricity Supply Board are debarred from becoming—if the people want to elect them—members of the Dáil or of the Seanad. I think they should have that right. In this age when more and more people are calling out for more and more socialisation you may find dozens of other semi-State bodies set up, including a railway State authority. You will find that four-fifths of the population are, accordingly, in State employment and are, therefore, not eligible to make the laws of the State.

Dr. O'Connell

Reference has been made to the cost of electricity and I think everyone will agree as to the necessity for having a cheap supply, for power purposes especially, and I think also that a number of people will agree that in this country it is more expensive than in any other country I know of. It seems to me that this is due entirely to the method of financing the Electricity Supply Board. As I understand it, we make these million pound advances on the understanding that eventually not only the interest must be paid but the capital must be repaid. I do not know whether any of that capital advance has been repaid yet. It might be unorthodox to ask why should we repay capital and should it not be sufficient to pay interest. If the capital is not being repaid now, when will it be repaid? In 30 or 40 years' time, when it will be of no interest to us? As we are repaying it to ourselves and electricity is an essential commodity, might not only the interest be repaid? It may be unorthodox on my part to make that suggestion, but I cannot understand why it should be necessary to repay the capital.

Mr. Cosgrave

None of it has been repaid up to the present except a very small sum.

Dr. O'Connell

Is it intended to be repaid?

Micheál Ó hAodha

Sin ceist eile.

Dr. O'Connell

When we advance up to £29,000,000 we should be content with interest. May I ask whether any provision has been made for a sinking fund for the repayment of the capital?

Mr. Cosgrave

Yes.

Dr. O'Connell

That adds to the cost of the electricity. My view is that we should content ourselves with advancing money to the Electricity Supply Board and letting them pay only interest while they give us cheaper electricity as a result.

Mr. Cosgrave

There are not many matters that require to be dealt with, but I think, as Senator O'Farrell said, the Bill has been substantially improved in the course of its passage through the Dáil. There was general agreement in the Dáil as to the changes made and it was in response to suggestions or amendments put down by Deputies that these alterations were subsequently made on the Report Stage and I think the Bill has been substantially improved as a result.

Senator Hawkins and a number of Senators referred to general electrical development in use with particular reference to the charges. The use of electricity has far outstripped anything that was contemplated. Even the most optimistic forecast at the time of the establishment of the Shannon scheme did not expect that the amount of electricity would be used that is used at the present time. In fact, one of the major criticisms of the Shannon scheme was that in was too big, too ambitious, for the country and should have been started on a smaller river or on a smaller scale. Of course, time has altered that and we realise now that not only was the Shannon scheme inadequate for the present demand for electricity, but that even with the Poulaphouca scheme and later the Erne and other schemes which are contemplated, certainly not for a considerable period will the Electricity Supply Board be able to meet the demand for electricity. Generally the charges for electricity are 40 per cent. higher now than in 1939. Taking everything into consideration, I think that that increase bears a favourable comparison with the increases which have taken place in the cost of many commodities including most of the items which the Electricity Supply Board requires for the development and extension of electricity supply.

It is true, as Senators remarked and as Deputies remarked in the Dáil, that there is no effective method by which either Deputies or Senators or for that matter the public can question the actual charges with the exception of the annual accounts which are published and laid on the Tables of both Houses or on an occasion when an amending Bill or a Bill which deals with the Electricity Supply Board comes before the Oireachtas. At any rate, however, once a year Deputies and Senators can question the activities of the board and also the charges for electric current when the accounts are laid on the Table. It is true that on comparing charges here with charges elsewhere, in a number of countries electricity is cheaper, but taking into consideration the cost, I think that at the present time 40 per cent. higher than in 1939 cannot be regarded as excessive.

Dr. O'Connell

It was high in 1939.

Mr. Cosgrave

It is true that it was high in 1939 but since then the cost of everything including wages has risen considerably.

Senator Hawkins mentioned the fact that under Section 3 of the 1927 Act members of the board or employees are debarred from nomination to the Dáil or Seanad and from sitting in either House. The question of political activities on the part of members of State companies is one which has received consideration in both Houses from time to time, mainly when statutory companies were being set up or when some additional powers were being conferred on existing companies. It is not quite the same now as it was when the Electricity Supply Act was passed in 1927. The number of statutory companies at that time was extremely small, but whether it is wise to allow members or employees of State companies to take an active part in political life is a question which, I think, would require mature consideration. Elsewhere, particularly in Britain, the practice generally is that if such a person is elected to Parliament he ceases to take any part in the activities of the State company.

Of course, the growth of State companies has been much more rapid in recent times, but in some instances the person concerned resigned. On the other hand, it is a rather unusual proviso in the 1927 Act which debars employees and members of the board from nomination. It is obvious that if members or employees of public companies are to take an active part in politics there is a danger that that would react on the efficiency of the particular company. I think there are a good many considerations both pro and con in the point which the Senator made, but I must say that in view of the fact that it has been raised here and in view of the reference by, I think, Senator S. O'Farrell as well, I will have the matter considered. In the first instance it would be a matter for the Government, but I think that in general active participation by employees or members of State companies would not have desirable results from the point of view of the efficiency of these bodies, and for that reason any material change is unlikely at the present time.

Senator Orpen referred to the question of beauty spots being altered to the detriment of their scenic value by the activities of the board. I can only say to him that I will bring his remarks to the notice of the board but I imagine that in matters of that kind the board adheres to the necessity for taking steps rather than to considerations of retaining in its existing character a waterfall or area of the country.

Senator J.T. O'Farrell referred to the wide powers which the tribunal has. It is true that it has wide powers which in general are only granted to bodies on which there is legal representation, but the particular functions relate only to the employment of staff under the board and for that reason it is confined to a very narrow ambit. It is governed by Section 11 of the 1942 Act, which this Bill alters only in so far as this new tribunal includes workers who were not considered under the tribunal established under the 1942 Act.

The Senator also said the railway companies guaranteed 4 per cent. and in the event of the funds not earning that money they make up the difference. The Senator is, no doubt, aware that the superannuation fund established under the 1942 Act was unusual in so far as it was set up many years after the board had been established. A number of employees who had entered the service of the board or who probably had previous service with other electricity undertakings, were advanced in years and consequently the rates of contribution were high for a number of them. In order to retain the fund in a sound position, they actually estimated that 4 per cent. on the money was essential. It was in order to meet that position and to allay any apprehension which the trustees had that the amendment was made to which I refer, under which the board may now pay up to 4 per cent. Formerly, the sanction of the Minister for Finance had to be obtained. Under this Bill, that sanction is no longer required and the board can pay up to a maximum of 4 per cent.

I will have the point raised by Senator Mrs. Concannon brought to the attention of the Electricity Supply Board.

Mr. Séamus O'Farrell

The Parliamentary Secretary did not answer the point I made. Does he think it wise to give the board such wide powers over the public, who have no appeal whatever? They might declare every existing apparatus that has been purchased obsolete. There is no protection for the public.

Mr. Cosgrave

As the Senator knows, the regulations which may be made by the board in future must be laid on the Table of both Houses. First of all, they must be put up to the Minister, who may approve or disapprove. If a regulation had any power in it of the nature referred to by the Senator, or if it reacted unfavourably, in the opinion of the Minister, on the public, he could reject it himself; but assuming the Minister passed it and a Deputy or Senator considered it was unnecessarily restrictive on the activities of the individual or interfered with the right of people to choose their form of equipment, then when the regulation comes before the Dáil or Seanad it can be rejected. In actual practice, the power to make regulations has been vested in the board over a long period and generally, I think, those powers are exercised in a reasonable manner. The board has to take into consideration questions of safety, suitability of equipment, and so on, but in so far as regulations are concerned in the future, they must be laid on the Table of both Houses.

Mr. Hawkins

There is a provision in sub-section (2) of Section 8 that every Order must be laid on the Table of the House. I wonder does it make any difference that the ordinary provision is not made whereby these regulations might be annulled within 21 sitting days.

Mr. Cosgrave

It does not make any difference. Any Deputy or Senator can move to reject it.

Mr. M. Hayes

It is also correct to say that when the Minister has power to approve regulations, a Parliamentary Question can be asked in the Dáil or the matter can be raised here. When a Minister has power to do anything, the question of his doing it or not doing it can be made the subject of parliamentary debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for Thursday, 30th June.