I have to announce that, in line 26 of Section 1, there is a printer's error. The number 16 at the end of the line should be 15 and I have asked the Clerk to have it amended.
Electricity (Supply) (Amendment) Bill, 1948—Committee and Final Stages.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
I move amendment No. 1:—
In sub-section (8) to add at the end of the sub-section the following:—
and if a resolution is passed by either House within the next 21 days upon which that House has sat after the Order has been laid before it annulling the Order, the Order shall be annulled accordingly but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder.
This section provides the board with power to make regulations for any purpose connected with the generation, transmission, distribution or use of electricity or for any purpose connected with the performance by the board of any of their powers, duties and functions. Where the board makes such regulations, they are to be presented to the Minister for confirmation and the Minister shall confirm the regulations, return the regulations to the board for the making of such amendments as he thinks proper or refuse to confirm the regulations. The position therefore is that the board having made the regulations which they consider essential for the carrying out of the works, these regulations may be amended by the Minister, and in order to make known to the public what these regulations were and how they affected the public, the Dáil, by an amendment in sub-section (8), provided that all orders made under the section should be laid on the Table of each House as soon as may be after they are made. The purpose of my amendment is to ensure that not alone will the regulations be placed on the Table of each House but that this or the other House will have an opportunity of considering and discussing them, and, if they think that the regulations—either those originally proposed by the board or as amended by the Minister—should be annulled, of annulling them.
I will accept the amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 2, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Captain Orpen
I intended to ask what provision is made for scrutinising these orders. I take it that these orders are made by the Electricity Supply Board and that, unless the Minister makes an objection to them, they stand, and I was anxious to know what mechanism exists for scrutinising these orders from a point of view other than that of the Electricity Supply Board. That did not seem to be clear, but the amendment now accepted by the Parliamentary Secretary seems to me to provide the necessary machinery and it is, therefore, unnecessary for me to go into any further detail.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 3 to 7, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 8.
Question proposed: "That Section 8 stand part of the Bill."
This section appears rather strange to a person who does not know what is behind it. It provides that certain employees may inquire from the board whether it is the board's intention to pay certain supplementary allowances under Sections 14 and 15 of the Superannuation Act of 1942 and the board may say whether or not it proposes to pay such allowances, but there is nothing in the section which would seem to require the board to pay any such allowances.
One wonders what is the point in granting a legislative right to an employee to ask a question as to what the board proposes to do. Surely the man has a constitutional right to ask that question in any event? Why should it be necessary, if there is no compulsion on the board to grant any such allowance, to insert a special section in the Bill giving him the right to ask the question?
At present, under the sections of the 1942 Act, if an employee asks the board whether or not he is to get a supplementary pension on retirement, they cannot inform him in advance of retirement. He can ask the question, but they need not answer it. Under this, they can inform him in advance of retirement of what his pension will be and what the supplementary allowance will be.
Sections 8 and 9, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 10.
Question proposed: "That Section 10 stand part of the Bill."
While many of the workers who were originally employed by the Dublin Corporation at the Pigeon House appreciate this section very much, I understand that there is some difficulty in regard to a small number of people. I have particulars of one person who, although conforming as closely as possible to the conditions laid down, does not come under the terms of this section as it stands at present. He was employed by the board. He started work in the Pigeon House in April, 1941. The Pigeon House was closed down, I understand, in 1930. That man had been employed at various other times—1921, 1922, 1923. He was employed, too, in Ardnacrusha and subsequently again in the Electricity Supply Board. Regardless of the provision made here and of the fact that he was an employee of the board, he has now been informed that he does not come under this superannuation scheme. I should be very grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary would look into the matter. It would be very unsatisfactory if even one person, who conformed with the conditions, was omitted from receiving the same benefits as his fellow-workers.
I shall have the case to which the Senator has referred examined. I think I should say on this section at this stage that I undertook in the Dáil to introduce an amendment in the Seanad if the persons concerned were prepared to opt whether they would take the existing pension or whether they would allow their gratuity, when it will be payable on retirement, to be abated to the extent of the gratuity which was paid to them for the short period during which the Pigeon House was closed. Since the matter was discussed here the persons concerned have been interviewed by representatives of the Electricity Supply Board and representatives of the Department of Industry and Commerce. They are all prepared to retain their present position. In other words, they are satisfied with the status quo. Therefore, the offer which was made to them has not been accepted by them and consequently the service, which it was urged during the passage of the Bill through the Dáil should be regarded for pensionable purposes—that is, the service which they had for two years when the Pigeon House was closed—will not count. As I say, I undertook to bring in an amendment at this stage. No amendment has been brought in as a result of the situation which developed by reason of these people not wishing to have the gratuity abated.
I am thankful to the Parliamentary Secretary. If, after having looked into the matter, he finds there is a case to be made, I am sure that now that the Bill has, I understand, to go back to the Dáil he will have the necessary amendment drafted.
Sections 10 to 15, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 16.
The amendment submitted by Senator Hawkins on this section has been ruled out of order.
Question proposed: "That the section stand part of the Bill."
I should like to repeat much of what I said on the Second Reading of this Bill and the reasons which prompted me to put down the amendment. If we are going to maintain democratic institutions in this country, it is essential that we should make every possible opportunity available to people to take part in democratic political organisations. While it may be reasonable to debar persons who hold membership of a board or of a semi-State board from being members of this House or of the other House, it is certainly not in the interests of democracy that we should put obstacles in the way of such a large number of people as are employed by the Electricity Supply Board or any such semi-State organisation. We know that in the future, regardless of what we may have said in the past about semi-State organisations, we are going to have more of them.
The Senator is hardly in order.
I should have liked to have had an opportunity of making the point. However, as the Cathaoirleach has ruled it out of order, I hope I shall have an opportunity on the Report Stage.
Mr. Hayes
I am not making a point of order. The matter is one of importance. I think Senator Hawkins could have the subject discussed by putting down a motion. A general principle is involved and the matter is one of great interest. As he says, we are developing more and more State concerns. Therefore, this matter arises, though not so much on this Bill, and it could form the subject of a very interesting and non-Party discussion.
I am afraid Senator Hawkins will not be able to discuss it on the Report Stage either.
Sections 16 to 18, inclusive, agreed to.
Schedule and Title agreed to.
Bill reported with one amendment.
Agreed to take remaining stages to-day.
Question: "That the Bill, as amended, be received for final consideration"—agreed to.
Question proposed: "That the Bill, as amended, do now pass."
First, I should like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for the very capable manner in which he has presented the Bill to the House and for being reasonable in accepting one of the amendments submitted. I think, however, that it would not be in the public interest if I were not allowed to draw the Parliamentary Secretary's attention to those people for whom this Bill proposes to make provision. While Section 3 of the 1927 Act specifies to a certain extent and prevents members of the board, employees or servants, from being members of this House, it has been read into by those people in charge of the Electricity Supply Board that none of their employees are to take part in any political activities of this country or be members of any political organisation. I know that that was probably not the intention of those who put the amendment into the Bill. Some time ago a circular was issued to each employee saying, on the basis of this sub-section, that he or she was not under any circumstances to be a member of any political organisation in this State. That circular was later withdrawn to an extent, I believe. It is because of that position and seeing that the Bill is being returned to the Dáil that I would again request the Parliamentary Secretary to have the matter examined in so far as it relates to this board and have the broader issue discussed later, as Senator Hayes suggested, on a motion.
I do not know whether I have missed my opportunity to make a general remark on this Bill, but it was my intention very shortly to refer to one matter on which certain people, including myself, feel very strongly. Living as I do in the centre of Dublin in a part which is considered still to be habitable and by some to be beautiful, and which has been gradually encroached upon by Government and semi-Government boards, the chief offender being the board under discussion——
I am afraid that has nothing to do with the motion before the House.
I am in entire agreement with the Senator but the matter, I agree, is out of order.
My intention was to support Senator Hawkins' amendment that has been ruled out of order. I wonder—I am merely asking the question out of the depths of my ignorance—how it could have been out of order?
I am afraid that the Senator cannot challenge the ruling of the Chair.
It seems to me that under Article 16 of the Constitution anybody, unless debarred by particular laws or regulations, is eligible for membership of the Oireachtas. Therefore, if the Bill before the House prevents somebody from standing for the Oireachtas, I am merely wondering how it can be out of order to consider an amendment restoring to him his rights.
That discussion is in regard to membership of the Oireachtas. It is not touched upon by the text of this Bill and that rules it out.
I wanted to raise the question.
Captain Orpen
Before the Parliamentary Secretary replies might I ask what machinery is available to the ordinary man in the street to ascertain what the Electricity Supply Board proposes to do in future under Section 16? We find from past experience that the first the public hears of what they are going to do is that they have done a considerable amount of preliminary work and then, of course, one feels that it is wrong to make a protest because a protest is too late. On the Second Stage of the Bill I put in a plea that for the sake of our grandchildren and their children we should preserve one waterfall in the country and I suggested that that waterfall should be Torc. I understand from a White Paper issued a long time ago that Tore waterfall was one of those to be used for electrical generation. If it has only gone as far as a preliminary survey one can get up and make a protest, but what I feel is that the public is entitled to get fair warning before some major operation such as the damming up of the Boyne, the Lee or some other large river or the example which I gave of eliminating for all time the last large waterfall is embarked upon. It seems a weakness in our system that a semi-autonomous body can go ahead quite far with its plans and preparations before the public has any knowledge that something is happening. I would welcome the Parliamentary Secretary suggesting what steps might be taken to overcome this difficulty so that when the Electricity Supply Board engineers have decided to eliminate something the public want the public can decide whether they prefer Tore waterfall or more watts.
I would like to support Senator Orpen from another angle altogether. I am not interested in Torc waterfall, but I am interested in the cemetery at Camden Row in Dublin which is one of the most ancient cemeteries in Dublin. Many famous men are buried there, notably Archbishop Hurley, who was martyred in Stephen's Green, and Father Austin, the noted Jesuit. I heard some talk about a power station being erected there and also that a certain objection had been made, but when I went there I discovered, to my amazement, that the power station was almost complete. We do not think much of the living sometimes as the same argument can be made of the dead. We have seen many cemeteries covered over for playgrounds. I suppose you cannot keep cemeteries in existence in the centre of the city, but this was a particular cemetery. An objection was made to this power station, and it is almost completed. The grave of Dermot O'Hurley was a place of pilgrimage for many years, until the penal times became severe and the pilgrims had to stop. We have reached the enlightened age of 1949 when we have concerns like the Electricity Supply Board, which is only concerned with its own needs and the erection of a power station on such an ancient cemetery, and I want to protest.
The point which Senator Hawkins raised and which was also mentioned on the Second Stage is a matter which will have to get consideration. The fact that this prohibition was put in the 1927 Act is undoubtedly due to the fact that the number of State companies was very small, probably only one or two, whereas it has grown since. I think that this is a question that must be considered and it is a question that should be considered in a detached manner and fully, because there are possible results from employees of State companies being members of the Dáil or Seanad that might react unfavourably on these companies. On the other hand, with the increase in the number of such companies there is an ever-widening sphere in which people by reason of their employment in these companies are deprived from membership of either the Dáil or Seanad. I think this is the only Act that has this very stringent prohibition, but in practice, I understand, employees of State companies do not continue in their employment when they are elected to the Oireachtas.
The question raised by Senator Orpen and by Senator Colgan in a different way is provided for under the Act. Notice must be given to any person whose property is to be entered upon; and not only is notice given, but there is a provision in the Act that full particulars, if that person so requires, must be given of the layout of poles or other machinery or any interference that may be considered.
The point which Senator Colgan made is the same as was raised on the Committee Stage by Senator Mrs. Concannon. I understand from the Electricity Supply Board that it was necessary to erect a transformer in that part of the city, and having surveyed all possible sites they found that the only available one which was suitable was this graveyard. It is unfortunate that that should be so, but the position being explained to the Representative Church Body and to the corporation, the approval of the Church Body was granted for the work concerned. The remains of certain people buried there had to be disinterred and reinterred, all of which took place in the presence of the incumbent. At the same time, the headstones or plaques on the graves concerned have been placed along the wall, so that, in so far as it is possible to retain the character of the graveyard, it has been retained. It was only in the peculiar circumstances which required that a transformer be erected there that it was necessary to enter and put the transformer in the graveyard.
I am not satisfied with the explanation and I think it an outrageous thing to happen in the City of Dublin.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered: That the Bill, as amended, be returned to the Dáil.