Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 10 Dec 1958

Vol. 50 No. 3

Electricity (Supply) (Amendment) Bill, 1957—Second Stage.

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

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. S. Lemass)

The purpose of this Bill is to effect a number of miscellaneous amendments in the legislation relating to the E.S.B. These amendments relate to rural electrification, fisheries, compensation for interference with a public bridge, powers to dispose of land, membership of the Oireachtas and pension matters.

With regard to rural electrification, the effect of the Bill in Section 2 is to raise the authorised limit of expenditure to £30,000,000 from the existing limit of £25,000,000 which was authorised in 1955. It was contemplated that the need for new legislation raising the limit would arise this year.

The effect of Section 3 is to reintroduce a capital grant which had been payable from the commencement of the rural electrification scheme until 1955. In 1955, it was considered that the financial position of the board was such that they could provide from their own resources the finance required for future development, and the grant was withdrawn. In the year ended 31st March, 1955, the board had a considerable revenue surplus, including a surplus of £445,130 on rural revenue account. The financial expectations aroused by the satisfactory results in that one year were not realised in subsequent years. In the year ended 31st March, 1957, the board had a deficit of almost £500,000 on the rural revenue account and that was more than sufficient to absorb the surplus on the general account and to put the whole of the board's operations into deficit. In the year ended 31st March last, the board had a still larger deficit on the rural revenue account which produced an overall deficit of £180,000 on the general account.

It should be made clear, in view of certain misinterpretations of my remarks in the Dáil on this Bill, that the board do not need a subsidy in any sense of the term. The provision of this capital grant is to enable rural dwellers to obtain a supply of electricity upon terms which would be reasonable from their point of view. Without some provision of this kind, either the charges for rural suppy would have to be very substantially increased or, alternatively, the board would have to continue incurring these heavy deficits on its rural revenue account, involving an overall deficit on its general account. It is clear that the requirements of rural electrification have meant in recent years the difference between a modest surplus on the board's general account and a loss. That is a situation which is likely to persist in default of something being done about it in succeeding years. The areas left to be connected under the rural electrification scheme are the least economic— the areas from which the average return on capital, represented by fixed charges, will fall heavily—and the annual deficit on the rural account in the absence of any provision for a capital grant would, on completing the scheme, be well over £1,000,000 per year.

Of course, it was part and parcel of the original electrification scheme that a 50 per cent. capital grant would be given to the board. The relief which such a grant will afford to the board is not sufficient to eliminate losses on rural electrification so that to some extent it may be said that the general electricity consumer is supporting, in the charges he pays for electricity, the higher cost of providing a supply on reasonable terms to rural dwellers. There is no doubt that the rate and extent of rural electrification would have been very different if commercial considerations had been taken into account. As commercial considerations were ignored on the insistence of the Government, who desired to see the supply of electricity extended to all rural areas, it is reasonable that the Government should assume as far as possible some responsibility for the financial consequences.

Sections 4, 5 and 6 deal with certain changes considered desirable in the board's accountancy procedures. Section 4 of the Bill will relieve the Minister for Finance and the E.S.B. of the obligation to earmark particular advances to the board as being for rural electrification or for general purposes. In practice it was found difficult to determine beforehand the purpose to which a particular advance would be applied. Actual expenditure on rural electrification will be limited to £30,000,000 and it is contemplated that expenditure for general purposes will be limited to an overall total of £100,000,000.

The effect of Section 5 of the Bill is to permit the board to charge against their general revenue any expenses which they must incur on investigating the potentialities of a fishery before they can decide whether or not to preserve it. Under existing legislation, all such expenses, including expenditure incurred in maintaining and protecting stocks of fish while the investigations are going on, are chargeable to the fisheries account, even though the fishery concerned might never be operated. The restoration of the fisheries is difficult enough without loading these expenses on to the fisheries account. Under Section 5, it is proposed to charge these expenses to the general revenue account.

The object of Section 6 is to enable the board to transfer to the general revenue account the annual profit or loss arising out of their operation of fisheries. It is clear that hydro-electric development involves such damage to fisheries in a river that their rehabilitation assuming it is possible at all, is a long and costly process and deficits are likely to occur for many years before the fruits of restoration work can be expected. As the board's involvement in fisheries is a direct result of hydro-electric development, these operations cannot be regarded as a separate undertaking.

It is proposed, therefore, to abolish the separate capital accounts and balance sheet and incorporate the results of the board's fishery transactions in their general account. In that way, the board's fisheries will be treated in the same manner as their other subsidiary activities, such as installation work and merchandise trading. Separate trading and profit and loss accounts are published by the board in respect of these activities. That will be continued, but the balance on each of these accounts will be transferred annually to the general revenue account.

Section 7 of the Bill authorises the board to pay compensation to persons who have suffered serious loss or inconvenience as a result of the submerging of the Fitzgibbon Bridge by the Lee hydro-electric scheme. The board is empowered under its legislation to submerge or otherwise interfere with any public or private road or bridge for the purpose of carrying out a hydro-electric scheme. That legislation provides that in case of private roads and bridges, compensation shall be payable by the board, but there is no provision in any earlier Act for the payment of compensation for interference with a public road or bridge. In general, in such cases the board are required to provide suitable replacements, unless relieved of this obligation by Order made by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, after consultation with the Minister for Local Government.

In the case of the Lee scheme, the approval Order provided for the submerging of the public bridge over the River Dripsey, known as Fitzgibbon Bridge, and for the erection of a replacement bridge some distance from the site of the original bridge. On investigation, the board found that, because of the nature of the site, the construction of a bridge would be technically difficult and that the cost would be out of all proportion to any use which might be made of it. They sought an Order relieving them of the obligation to construct the replacement bridge. I informed them that the obligation to provide a replacement bridge must be discharged by them, unless they could negotiate an agreement acceptable to the majority of the landholders concerned. I told them then if they succeeded in concluding a satisfactory agreement with the landholders I would promote the necessary legislation to enable them to implement the agreement. The majority of the landholders have now agreed to do without the bridge in return for compensation payments, the amounts of which have already been agreed with the board.

The position now is, therefore, that although the board have negotiated satisfactory agreements with most of the landholders, they have not got the necessary legal powers to make the compensation payments. The object of Section 7 of the Bill is to give the board the power to make these payments.

Section 8 of the Bill is designed to remove doubts about the board's powers to dispose of property. Some of the lands acquired for the carrying out of a particular hydro-electric scheme eventually become surplus to requirements. These powers have never, it is true, been seriously questioned, but it is essential that the board should, if necessary, be able to satisfy a purchaser that their powers of disposal are adequate. Otherwise, a situation might arise in which they would have to retain property they did not need, which would be undesirable. The purpose of Section 8 is to put the board's powers beyond doubt but it does not confer any new powers on them.

Section 9 of the Bill revokes Section 3 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1927, which disqualified members, officers and servants of the board from nomination for, or membership of, the Oireachtas. In more recent legislation, the principle followed in relation to State-sponsored bodies is that where membership of the Oireachtas is incompatible with membership of the body, the person concerned may opt for one or the other. The practice now is to provide that a member of the Dáil or Seanad may not be a member of the body and that if any member of the body becomes a member of the Dáil or Seanad, he shall cease to be a member of that body.

The present Bill provides that a member of the Dáil or Seanad would have to resign before he could be appointed a member of the board or take up employment under the board. As regards seeking election to the Dáil or Seanad, it is proposed to make a distinction between members of the board and officers and servants of the board. It is proposed to provide that a member of the board would have to resign before offering himself as a candidate for election or on nomination as a member of the Seanad, but that officers and servants of the board should be free to seek election and if one is elected, that he shall be regarded as absenting himself from his employment with the board and shall not be paid for the period of his absence. He shall be regarded as seconded from the service of the board. In that regard, the aim of this legislation is to put employees of the board on much the same footing as employees of C.I.E. Provision is included to enable an officer or a servant of the board who becomes a member of the Oireachtas to preserve his right to a pension from the board.

Section 10 to 13 are designed to enable the board to pay to their former employees pension increases similar to those provided for other pensioners under the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1956.

Section 14 proposes the amendment of the superannuation terms of the present chairman of the board. It is proposed to cancel Mr. Browne's Civil Service superannuation allowance, and instead, to grant him superannuation on the lines of those payable in the Civil Service and based on the aggregate of his service in the Civil Service and in the E.S.B. The effect of the amendment is that Mr. Browne, on retirement, will be paid a pension of half his retiring salary, together with a gratuity equal to one and a half times that salary. This section implements a decision taken by my predecessor.

Section 14 of the Superannuation Act of 1942 provided that the board could add up to ten years to the period of pensionable service of employees who were 40 years of age or over on the passing of the Act in 1942. Under Section 15 of the Act, they are also empowered to pay supplementary pension allowances to certain persons transferred to the service of the board from undertakings acquired by the board. Section 15 of the Bill is designed to permit the surrender of the whole or part of these supplementary pension awards in return for an appropriate annuity for a dependent, as may already be done in the case of ordinary pensions.

Under Section 14 of the Superannuation Act of 1942, the board are empowered to add up to ten years to the period of pensionable service of employees who were 40 years of age or over on the passing of the Act. Under Section 15 of the Act they are also empowered to pay supplementary pension allowances to certain persons transferred to the service of the board from undertakings acquired by the board. Section 15 of the Bill will permit the surrender of the whole or part of these supplementary pension awards in return of an appropriate annuity for a dependent, as may already be done in the case of ordinary pensions.

Section 16 of the Bill is intended to remove any doubts which may exist regarding the dates of operation of amendments to the existing superannuation schemes of the board.

The purpose of Section 17 is to amend certain provisions of the manual worker's superannuation scheme which have been in dispute between the board and members of that scheme for a number of years following the introduction of an amending scheme in 1952. It is a complicated problem which would take some time to explain to the Seanad. The position, however, is that after various efforts to resolve the dispute were unsuccessful, some time ago a compromise solution of the difficulties was agreed between the parties and as I am satisfied that the solution is fair and reasonable, the necessary section has been introduced to implement it.

The next provision of the Bill is Section 18, which refers to the rate of interest payable by the board on loans made to them by the trustees of the superannuation funds. Section 14 of the 1949 Act provided that the rate should not exceed 4 per cent. With the increases in interest rates which have taken place in recent years this rate is no longer realistic and a position has now arisen in which the trustees can secure a better return on their funds elsewhere. Unless, therefore, provision is made for the payment of a more attractive rate of interest they may invest their funds wholly outside the board. As these funds represent a useful source of additional finance for the board, this would be most undesirable. It is proposed, therefore, to remove the limit of 4 per cent. In view of the possibility of further fluctuations in interest rates generally it would be inappropriate to fix another figure in substitution for the existing limit, and it is proposed, therefore, to provide merely that the rate payable shall not exceed that charged at the time on advances from the Central Fund.

Mr. Baxter

I wish to say a word or two on Section 3 and I want to welcome the Government's decision to extend the facilities for the completion of rural electrification. We have been chopping and changing with this policy over the years, but, despite that, we have managed to bring light to a great part of rural Ireland. I suppose it is true to say that the more difficult and the more remote regions have yet to be tackled. The Minister points to the fact that the areas left to be exploited are probably the most uneconomic and will prove a greater drain on the funds of the board than those which have already been developed.

I want to urge on the Minister that whatever the cost, this work must be done. Improvements have been brought about in rural Ireland over the years, but nothing has done more to brighten the lives of the people there than the expansion of the Shannon scheme. The experience, however, of many enthusiastic country people in trying to bring current to their districts has been very discouraging in many cases. The Minister is aware, as I am sure most Senators are, of cases where the enthusiastic few go out and canvass their neighbours to try to get the requisite number of signatories so that the scheme will be brought into the district. At times, the results are very discouraging.

I think there is a necessity for reconsidering the policy of the E.S.B. in regard to the returns which they must have before they start exploiting a particular district. We are now into the more thinly populated and poorer areas and amongst a type of farming community, many of whom are not particularly concerned whether they get light into their areas and into their homes or not. These are the people whom we must stir into a consciousness of their responsibility to their families, to their future and to the country as a whole.

Rural life, and living it to the full, is terribly important in the life of the nation and it must be the policy of the Government, and of the Oireachtas, to develop our national life to the full over the whole of the country. Areas must not be left dark, silent and unexploited. These are the areas into which the E.S.B. has now to go and they must go into them. It is hard to get many of the people in these areas to move in this matter. They look at the cost and they find in many cases that the cost of installing power into their homes is prohibitive.

I have had experience of a case within the last month in an area which was almost completely exploited, with the exception of one or two homes. These are left out and now they can be given current only at a price which makes it prohibitive for them. If the people are to live here, they will have to make other provision. That situation must be conquered. The standard of life in rural Ireland to-day is judged by what light you have got on the scene and the day is now past when you can keep young people in the country, going around with oil lamps, candles, hurricane lamps and that sort of thing. They will not stay in such surroundings and we can make up our minds about that.

Accordingly, if we want to give serious consideration to the problem which must be conquered—keeping the people in the rural areas—the nation must do everything it can to make life attractive there, so that the people will stay there. There is no doubt whatever that nothing is more conducive to a satisfied life in rural Ireland than having light in the home. Light in the home not only means that men can see around them but that there will be light in their minds as well and that their minds can be opened. They will have visions of things which were not open to them before.

In my judgment, the first thing we have to do is to open the minds of the people. We have got to open first the minds of the women and then they will open the minds of the men. One would think that there was almost a conspiracy to keep those in rural Ireland in darkness and drive them out of rural areas altogether. We are compelling them to live in conditions which, to them, are not acceptable. I say that whatever the cost may be, this situation must be put behind us.

I know that somebody from an urban or city area, or the financiers, will say: "But it is costing too much." Any of us who have experience in local authorities know that we have all to put our hands in our pockets, living on the farms as we are, and make our contributions so that each local society will bring water and sewerage schemes in to all our towns and villages. We are not bringing them out to the countryside, but the man on the hillside has to put his hand in his pocket and make his contribution so that the people in the towns and cities—the larger towns, anyhow— will have these amenities. I do not quarrel with that at all, but I should like these amenities to be shared, and I hope nobody will have the hardihood to rise in this House and suggest that this is a scheme which is very expensive, a scheme which, because of its extension to the rural districts and remote areas, which are costly to exploit, is raising the price of electricity to the consumers in the towns and cities.

I can understand these people having a grouse, but I think that if they take the long view, they will agree that it is vital for this country to-day that we keep our people where they are on the land, even in the remote places, because if they leave that land, I do not know who is to work it. It would not be difficult to take many more of them off it to-day and I think that by bringing light and power into the more remote rural districts at a price which they can pay, a price which will not be too high—and when I say "too high", I mean that if the E.S.B. demands are of such a nature that the sum which the intending user will have to pay in his charge is too high, you will just not have light or power brought into that home—we will do much to keep them on the land. The day is not too far distant when that home will no longer be a home. We can have thousands of these and, goodness knows, we have more than enough of them already.

I should like to commend the Minister for what is being done, but I want him to carry this work as far as he possibly can. Let this work go on with all possible haste; let the E.S.B. not be afraid to go into the more remote and difficult regions; let them not demand such returns of people seeking light and power in their homes, with all the names in a book, as will justify them in deciding that it is an economic proposition. I do not think that, if the Minister is waiting for that from the various districts, he or anyone else in this House will see light in these homes.

I hope what the Minister said will be justified by events and that by 1961 or 1962, this work will be completed and then we can say it is well done.

Mr. Burke

I should like to agree with what Senator Baxter has said relative to rural electrification. We should look on each farm, particularly the isolated farm, as an industry to which we have to give light and power. Most of the produce with which the Government White Paper on farming deals can be converted for use by our live stock only by making power available for the grinding and crushing of the grain grown on the farm.

Much has been said about the eradication of bovine T.B. and better hygienic conditions, but without electricity in the cowshed and without washing facilities, it is impossible to have good hygienic conditions, not only in the cow parlour but in the home. The will of the farmers to do the job and produce more—and that is the task and the challenge that is set for all of us—will be facilitated and enormously encouraged by the full development of rural electrification.

Many of the people about whom Senator Baxter speaks, who live in the more isolated places, feel a certain sense of grievance that they are being overloaded in the charges, in that they have to pay double what their neighbours a mile or half a mile away have to pay. I ask the Minister to consider these people as a producing element of our community rather than to look on rural electrification as an amenity or a luxury. It has often been said that the luxury of to-day is the necessity of to-morrow. For those people who are isolated, to-morrow has arrived. They cannot carry out the tasks of their agricultural industry without rural electrification.

The real reason I rise to speak to-day is to touch on another facet of the board's activities which I mentioned on a previous occasion. When electricity development took place in this country, it was necessary and obvious to everyone that it was an undertaking, responsibility for which the State would have to carry, and the powers which both Houses of Parliament gave in order to facilitate the acquisition of land and buildings, the submerging of bridges and all the enormous powers that have been given to the E.S.B.— which would naturally be given because they are acting in the common good—are all to be commended; but, to my mind, they have been allowed to engage in an activity in which we ought never to have allowed them to engage and I hope the Minister will seriously consider withdrawing those powers from them.

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator will understand that this Bill has to do mainly with rural electrification.

Mr. Burke

It has, Sir, but I wish to say that the selling of all the appliances for rural electrification, the wiring of the houses and all that work should be left to private enterprise. Do you rule, Sir, that that is not relevant?

An Cathaoirleach

I do not rule that the Senator has not a right to advert to the matter, but I suggest there should not be a discussion of all the powers of the board or the whole policy of the board. I would ask the Senator to refrain from referring to such matters.

Mr. Burke

I should like to refer to this one facet of the matter: the board are engaging in trading which I consider should be handed over to private individuals and I ask the Minister to consider that matter. In all the important towns in Ireland, they have established showrooms. That is all to the good because it advertises the uses of the appliances of modern ingenuity in the electric field, but I believe these should be sold and the work done by private individuals rather than by the board.

In conclusion, I wish to say that from all the surveys I have read of our economic position, we seem to be moving more towards statism than any country in Western Europe. The Minister is a man of wide ministerial experience and he can appreciate as well as any of us, the desirability of seeing to it that this aspect of the board's activities will not be allowed to grow apace and to harm people who could do this business as well as, if not better than, the board. I shall have an opportunity at another time to develop the point as to the advantages the board have with regard to finance, publicity and other rights which are denied to private traders, but I wish to take this opportunity, as I shall take advantage of every other opportunity afforded to me, to bring the matter to the attention of the powers that be because I regard it as a highly undesirable development in our economy.

Miss Davidson

I should like to direct attention to a situation which is causing much concern among certain employees in the service of the E.S.B. It arises particularly in the case of persons who were excluded, by age, from certain allowances in the E.S.B. Superannuation Act of 1942. The matter which gives rise to the dissatisfaction was caused, to a large extent, by the time-lag between the establishment of the board in 1927 and the coming into operation of the superannuation scheme in 1943 and the fact that a number of the employees had not attained the age of 40 at that time.

Section 14 of the Act of 1942 provides for the payment to employees of 40 years and upwards at the time of the passing of the Act, of certain supplementary allowances over and above the pension in cases where the board is of opinion that owing to the age of the person on entering the scheme, such pension is unduly small but the allowances apply only to the 40 and upwards class.

In the service of the board when the scheme began were a large number of employees who, while not 40 years of age, had a considerable number of years' service and although they will be credited with half of their prior service, they cannot qualify for pension at the full rate of 40 eightieths. There are some cases too where, even were the full years of service allowed, the employee would still be some years short of the maximum required to receive a full pension at age 65 but where special consideration would be justified.

Much of the hardship to these employees could be removed if the Minister would agree to accept an amendment to Section 14 of the Act of 1942 which would delete the age limit, delete the fixed number of years that could be added and establish a right of appeal from the board's decision where the persons concerned were dissatisfied with the manner in which their pensions were computed.

In support of the claim being made on behalf of these employees it should be borne in mind that these early E.S.B. workers were not trained at the expense of the board. Most of them entered the board as fully trained, experienced operatives and placed that skill and training at the service of the board when its survival and future success depended, in large measure, on such skill being available. Many of these operatives gave up remunerative employment with promising prospects to serve the new enterprise. They are, therefore, entitled in justice to receive a full pension having regard to their special value on entry.

Any expense to the board in giving them what is only fair treatment should be set against the value they brought into the board at its formation.

I am aware that the board made certain regulations whereby employees could retrieve the balance of their prior service by the payment of additional superannuation contributions but as the time was 1943, in the height of the emergency difficulties, it proved impossible for most of the employees to pay the added contributions and very few in fact did so.

I would, therefore, ask the Minister to give sympathetic consideration to the claims of these early employees by accepting an amendment to the Act now before us. The number of those concerned will diminish as time goes on and the cost will not be a recurring one.

Mr. Cole

The point I want to make rather emphasises what Senator Baxter and Senator Burke had to say. In a way, it is a particular case. In a rural electrification area, which is usually an area of about five miles square, normally all the people who apply get light after their houses have been measured, and so on. The board have a sort of plan of their own whereby, even in that area, if one or two or three houses are a little away from the rest or in a more distant corner of it—perhaps very old houses or houses some distance from the main line—the people in them must pay an extra charge. In other words, the people who live in an isolated or backward area are further penalised because they live there. I should like the Minister to try to correct that position. Surely the charge should be equal all round?

I have particulars here of a case which will illustrate my point very well. I wrote to the E.S.B. about it and I got a letter from them from Dundalk on 10th September. I will not mention names. They said that Messrs. D., M. and K. are three people in an uneconomic group. That is what they call it; I prefer to call it a backward area. They then said they quoted them the normal charge— Mr. D. 16/4, Mr. M. 13/9 and Mr. K. 15/1. Now Mr. K. refuses to pay the special charge so back comes the E.S.B. inspector and says that Mr. D. and Mr. M. will have to pay extra charges of 8/2 and 6/2 respectively. I was informed only last week that one of these men, with the other, has either refused to take it or is moving out, with the result that another third charge will be put on the remaining man simply because he lives in a backward area, but still in an area that is part of a rural electrification scheme.

I ask the Minister, in advising the Minister for Finance to grant these moneys, to look into cases of very particular hardship like that because these people live in a very backward area and yet they are charged more than the man who lives along a main road.

Mr. Barry

We are dealing now with a most attractive and mouth-watering £100,000,000 monopoly, and this is an opportunity for us to ask some questions. The Minister and his predecessor whenever they were asked questions by us in our efforts to seek information about some of the activities of the board, always replied that there was no function residing in the Minister. This is now our opportunity. I shall be very brief and just ask a few questions.

An Cathaoirleach

This is not an opportunity to discuss the whole policy of the E.S.B.

Mr. Barry

I shall ask just two questions. I think it is an opportunity on which we might examine the entire picture. I am wondering whether the work of this monopoly has been satisfactory to the consumers. I would ask the Chair to allow me to support Senator Burke in this. The Department and this House should examine whether or not the encouragement given to the board to engage in commercial trading in equipment has not been overdone and if it is quite fair to those who, by their taxes, support this board and have to compete and live against it. Above all, I would ask the Minister to convey to the board that we disapprove of the dragooning and brutal method of accounts collection practiced by the board to-day.

Mr. O'Quigley

To a certain extent, the Bill removes the prohibition on the staffs of semi-State bodies from becoming members of the Oireachtas. We should all welcome the provision which establishes the principle that the staffs of semi-State bodies should be permitted to engage in politics. We have heard so much in recent times about politicians and politics that it is a good thing the Oireachtas should decide that politics are not such a dangerous thing that the staffs of semi-State bodies should not engage in them and that they constitute no danger to the efficient operation of semi-State bodies that some members of their staffs are members of either House of the Oireachtas.

The regret I have to express on this aspect of the Bill is that the Bill provides, on the one hand, the right of members of the staff of E.S.B. to become members of the Oireachtas and in the next sub-section of the section, all but takes away that right. It takes away the right inasmuch as a member of the staff of the E.S.B. will be unable to sit in either House of the Oireachtas, although he should wish to do so and although the people may have expressed a desire that he do so, because he will be seconded from his employment and will receive no wages. I do not understand the necessity for that provision. I think there is adequate precedent to cover the proposal I would make that a member of the staff of the E.S.B. who becomes a member of the Oireachtas should be entitled to continue in his employment and to get such proportion of his wages as the board consider adequate in proportion to the amount of time he could spend in their service.

If you look at the case of national teachers, you will find that a national teacher who becomes a member of either House of the Oireachtas still receives his pay. There was a time in the British days when it was unlawful for a member of the teaching profession to attend even a political meeting. With the advance of time and the strenuous efforts of the national teachers, they were enabled to attend political meetings and in more enlightened times, they have been able to sit in the Oireachtas and continue in their employment. I do not see why there should be a discrimination between national teachers and the members of the staff of the E.S.B. It is also true to say there have been members of the Oireachtas who have been employed by local authorities, people such as dispensary doctors, who were entitled to continue in their employment and receive their salaries, subject of course to their putting in a locum during their absence. You also have the position of county medical officers who have been members of the Oireachtas. As far as my information goes, I think members of the clerical staffs of local authorities have been continued in their employment while members of the Oireachtas.

It does not seem to me that there is a great deal of use in giving members of the staff of the E.S.B. the right to sit in the Oireachtas, if it means they are solely dependent for their livelihood upon the allowance they get from the Oireachtas. If a member of the E.S.B. staff did become a member of the Oireachtas, it would be a very dangerous thing if he had to depend on such an allowance to maintain himself and his family. It might well be that such a person would have to seek other means of being subsidised. Without casting any aspersions upon members of the E.S.B. staff who might become members of the Oireachtas in the future, it is easy to see how an undesirable situation could arise where a person wanted to take his seat in the Oireachtas but at the same time had to rely upon outside sources in order to get sufficient money to support himself and his family.

The Minister should consider leaving some discretion to the board which will enable them to pay a salary to persons becoming members of the Oireachtas in proportion to the amount of time they have could spend at their employment. That probably would not impose any administrative difficulties or any undue expenditure on the board.

The second point I wish to deal with is the point made by Senator Miss Davidson in relation to superannuation. I understand that the position under Section 14 of the 1942 Act has not operated as advantageously for some members of the staff as it might. Under that section, the board have discretion to give the full ten years as additional allowance or whatever proportion they think fit. In the case of some members of the staff, the allowance has been worked on a rule of thumb basis, by which half their service prior to 1943 has been given to them by way of years for an additional allowance. That has not worked to the advantage of the staff. If it were, at a minimum, compulsory on the board to give the full ten years, it would go some distance to meet the position of these people.

As Senator Miss Davidson said, the time when this option to buy back their service prior to 1942 was given was a very unfavourable time financially for these people. It was a time of a wages standstill Order. In those circumstances, the persons who had to make that contribution found it extremely difficult. In addition, the staff of the E.S.B.—I am quite certain it applies on the technical side and it must have applied equally on the clerical side—were recruited at a time when it was necessary that the newly-established E.S.B. would have people of experience. That meant that these people were fairly advanced in years at that time. Consequently, it meant that if they had to pay for their prior service, they were at a disadvantage compared with people entering the service of the board at present.

As far as I can understand the superannuation scheme of the E.S.B., which has been confirmed by Order of the Minister, the amount of the contribution payable by a person who wishes to get credit for prior service is related to the salary which the person had at the time he opted to pay for prior service. That imposes a great hardship because a person might be on a salary of £800 at present and will have to pay a contribution in respect of £800, whereas for the years of service in respect of which he received credit he would have been on salary of £400 so that he is actually paying back more than he would have paid if the superannuation scheme had been in operation at the time. The time lag that Senator Miss Davidson referred to was, indeed, undue. It would be unfair that members of the E.S.B. should now be in a worse position than they would be in if, in the earlier Acts, provision had been made to enable the board to establish a superannuation scheme.

In contrast with the position in the E.S.B. you have the position under the Voluntary Health Insurance Act, that the board is enabled, immediately on establishment, to set up a superannuation scheme so that its employees will not be faced with the type of situation with which employees of the E.S.B. were faced in 1943.

I do not quite follow what the position is in regard to the increase in pensions. As far as I can see from the Bill, there are different categories of people who will get increases in pensions from apparently different dates. Perhaps the Minister might expand on that in his reply. I certainly welcome the provision enabling the board to increase pensions, even by the limited sum set out in Section 1.

There is another matter to which I should like to refer, that is, the position in regard to the inhabitants of the area where the Fitzgibbon Bridge is or was—I do not know whether it has been submerged or not. The case was made in the Dáil by the Minister that a majority of the local inhabitants were agreeable to accept compensation and that the compensation offered by the E.S.B. was in some cases on quite a generous scale. It appears that there is a minority who do not accept what it is proposed to offer them. I think the Minister took the view that that was a case where the majority view should prevail. It would be a very sorry day for this country, if we were not to have regard to the interest of minorities and even of individuals.

If the E.S.B., in the interest of the common good, must submerge Fitzgibbon Bridge and if, in its own financial interests, it does not want to erect a bridge in its place, that is no reason why any individual citizen should be placed at a disadvantage. I do not think the principle that the E.S.B. should be the sole arbiters of the amount of compensation payable even to one individual is a principle that would be acceptable to this House. It is well established that no man should be a judge in his own cause and neither should any semi-State body be a judge in its own cause. The Minister stated that there was no means by which compensation for disturbances in a case of this kind could be assessed. It is certainly not beyond the wit of man —it is certainly not beyond the wit of the Minister—to devise ways and means by which compensation for disturbance can be assessed.

I would suggest that the Minister should reconsider Section 7 in the light of an Act of 1919 under which there is certain machinery for the appointment of arbitrators to give compensation to people, where land has been taken over. I think there is also some provision in respect of disturbance in the Town Planning Acts. We have a town plan for the City of Dublin and many people will be disturbed. I do not know whether there is machinery in the present Town Planning Acts for assessing compensation in the case of people who are disturbed, but certainly some machinery should be devised. If it is provided in Section 7 of the Bill, there will be some kind of precedent for the town planning situation, when it arises. I would not at all agree that the E.S.B. should be the sole arbiters in regard to the compensation to which these people are entitled. These people are entitled to have that determined by somebody who is independent.

If the Minister thinks these people are being unreasonable—perhaps they are; I do not know—he can make provision whereby they will have to pay the cost of arbitration proceedings, in the event of their being awarded a lesser sum than they were offered. Then at least if people are being unreasonable and foolish, they will pay for their folly in that way. At all events, we ought to see to it that these people are given the right to have this matter determined by some independent authority.

The Long Title of the Bill is "An Act to amend and extend the E.S.B. Acts of 1927 to 1955". I should have thought that at this stage the time was opportune to amend Section 99 of the 1927 Act. That section is the section under which the E.S.B. wields the arbitrary powers about which there have been so many complaints and to which Senator Barry has just referred. I addressed a communication to the E.S.B. asking them upon what grounds of morality, of responsibility as a public utility and of fair play between a great corporation, such as the board, and a humble citizen they could justify the activity which they have been engaging in by disconnecting the supply of electricity. I received a reply from the board and they made no attempt to answer that question.

The section in the 1927 Act confers upon the board the right to disconnect the supply from people who neglect to pay their accounts. The trouble with semi-State bodies, with all statutory bodies, is that they have no right to do anything which they are not authorised to do under a statute. Consequently, since the duty is imposed on the board of connecting electricity for people and giving them current, there must also be a specific power included in the statute to enable them to disconnect current where people neglect to pay their bills.

It is an extremely wide power but it is one which, in my opinion, was intended by the Oireachtas to be used sparingly. There are very few circumstances in which an individual citizen who has been deprived of his rights can forcibly enforce them against the person who deprives him of them. If a landlord has a tenant who will not pay his rates, or his rent, the landlord, under the rule of law which prevails, cannot go in and throw him out with a crowbar. That time has gone. If a hire-purchase firm hires furniture to an individual and the individual falls down on his payments, the hire-purchase firm cannot go into that man's dwelling and take away the furniture without an order of the court.

It seems to me that when the E.S.B., established for the benefit of the people, are given this extremely wide power, it should be used most sparingly and only under great provocation. The kind of provocation I would have in mind is where a person consistently refuses to pay his bill. But the power has not been used in that way. The power has been used in cases where people have paid their bill; it has been used in cases where people have not received bills, and it has been used in circumstances which ordinary people would condemn. It would seem to me that the board is adopting the attitude of a bully. It is using its powers tyrannically and there will always be a reaction. In fact, I think there has been a reaction. The board may justify its activities on the ground that it is necessary to do this to keep down costs, but in the long run, the board may very well find that it will not have kept down costs and will not have increased efficiency in administration. Some people have already adopted the device of not submitting their accounts to the board when they submit their cheques. Then reference numbers have to be looked up and separate receipts made out, instead of endorsing the accounts furnished to the consumer.

That is not going to contribute to efficiency and keeping down costs. I wonder if the Minister would not consider amending the relevant section of the 1949 Act in order to make it obligatory on the board in certain circumstances to apply to court for an order in the same way as other individuals must go to court to recover debts. I do not think any difficulty should arise from the collection of accounts. People know that they have to pay the electricity bill and the bills will be paid in the same way as people have to pay rates and rents. It seems to me that the present activity of the board may well become a boomerang in that people may consider what devices they can adopt to bring the board to its senses.

As I said, the matter upon which I should like to get some further information is the question of increases in pensions and perhaps the Minister might indicate the categories and classes to which they will apply in his reply.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

I should like to refer to three sections in this Bill, two of which have been referred to just now by Senator O'Quigley. The first is the section dealing with the rates of increase in pensions. I notice seven different categories are mentioned. Starting with category (a), where the amount of pension does not exceed £100, some people are to get an increase under this Bill of 15 per cent. I should like to ask a question along similar lines to that asked by Senator O'Quigley as to what kind of people are these retired employees of the E.S.B. who are struggling, at the moment, to live on a pension of £100? Are they people of very short-term service, or people whose original salary was so small as to warrant a pension of only £100?

It seems to me that to expect such people, if they are in any numbers, to be satisfied with an increase of 15 per cent. is to ask something that we should not ask. The last Act mentioned here in this section is the 1955 Act. In 1955, the cost of living index stood at 131. It now stands at 146 or perhaps a little more. The figure of 146 was for May in 1958, and consequently even if we take the most recent year mentioned, 1955, for these Acts and compare it with May this year, we find that there has been an increase in the cost of living of something like 11½ per cent. It is only the first three of the categories mentioned here (a), (b) and (c), which are to be compensated at that rate or a little over. Categories (d), (e), (f) and (g) are given less compensation by way of increases in pension than is a reasonable counterpart of the 11½ per cent. rise in the cost of living since 1955. In other words, I think we should not be satisfied with the rate of increase in pensions here mentioned. I realise that these rates are common form, and this is not the first time I have risen to my feet in this House and protested against the niggardly rate of increase to pensioners. I always have the feeling that if only pensioners had the capacity to organise a strike, their pleas might be more readily listened to and accepted. They cannot go on strike and consequently they frequently tend to be forgotten. This Bill does not forget them, but I suggest it deals with them with a niggardly hand.

I should like to know from the Minister, if he has the figures available, how many people are in each of these categories (a) to (g) under this section, and what kind of people are these who are apparently now expected to live on pensions of £100 per year or less.

I should like to refer to Section 15. We have had similar legislation before. This is the section which permits a man on retiring to surrender some of his pension which will be paid as an annuity to his widow when he dies. The point I should like to make is one I have made before in relation to a similar provision in another Bill. It seems to me that the very pensioners who would be most concerned to surrender some proportion of their pension for the benefit of their widows, are those who might not be in 100 per cent. good health. I am querying the justice or equity of putting a provision in sub-section (1) that it is only in the case of retired employees "whom the board consider to be of good health" that this concession will be given, allowing them to surrender some of their own pension, not somebody else's money, for the benefit of their widows. That certainly would be a harsh provision because it seems to take away from those who might most desire to make such a sacrifice the possibility of so doing.

The other point relates to Section 7. I am sorry for referring to it in reverse order, as it were. The point has been made, and well made, by Senator O'Quigley in relation to Section 7 that we ought not to accept, even in relation to a few people, the principle that the board itself shall decide whether it will pay any compensation and, if so, what amount, to people who are put to inconvenience by action of the board. I simply want to support what Senator O'Quigley said there, and to appeal to the Minister as to whether he cannot find a formula whereby there might at least be an appeal to himself arising out of such compensation, or at any rate some mechanism of appeal, because as it is at present phrased, this Section 7 says in line 25 onwards:—

"... the board may, if they so think fit, pay to that person compensation in respect of the loss or inconvenience aforesaid of such amount as the board consider reasonable having regard to all the circumstances."

I should like to support what Senator O'Quigley said, that it does not seem just that the decision to pay compensation should be left entirely to the board without any appeal and that the decision as to what amount of compensation is equitably due should be left entirely to the board without appeal.

Mr. Murphy

This Bill gives us an opportunity of saying something about the E.S.B. and I should like to say that, in my opinion, the E.S.B. has been a very efficient organisation. I think it was the first semi-State organisation set up in this country and it has done an amount of good work since its early days. It is a fact that, of late, it has been getting into some difficult weather, both as regards cost of rural electrification and its efforts to improve its efficiency.

I support what Senator Baxter said about the importance of rural electrification, but in urging rural electrification, we must appreciate that we are piling a burden on the E.S.B. Up to now, the E.S.B. has been dealing with an expanding and worthwhile economic market, but now we are asking them and encouraging them to expand in a part of the market which will be largely uneconomic. I think they should expand in that direction, and should be encouraged to provide light and power in the rural areas.

It is because of these difficulties that the E.S.B. has perhaps been trying to reduce its costs by collecting its bills more quickly than was previously the case. All of us appreciate, I think, that money outstanding is not very much good, and that if accounts are paid up to date, costs will be affected appreciably; but unfortunately the E.S.B. have been lacking in tact, lacking in their public relations and have neglected to educate their consumers and the public generally as to the need for this improvement before using the heavy fist.

I appreciate that the E.S.B. must collect their bills and must collect them as quickly as possible, to keep their costs as low as possible, but I often wonder whether or not the approach to this might not be some method of fining the people who neglect to pay their bills currently. It is true, of course, that these people who neglect to pay are a charge on the other consumers. These people should be asked to bear that charge themselves, when they do not pay their bills and they have to be carried forward to another period and the E.S.B. should be permitted to put an extra charge on their bills, and of course eventually, if they do not pay, to disconnect the supply altogether and take court proceedings for the amount outstanding. The E.S.B. in my opinion have been a little too hasty and lacking in tact in their approach to their consumers and they will not get the co-operation they would like to get because of that lack of tact.

I direct the Minister's attention to Section 9 and ask for his sympathetic consideration and, I hope, the sympathetic consideration of Senators in relation to it. The Minister said in the Dáil that his approach was to provide that the practice at present existing in relation to C.I.E. employees elected to the Oireachtas should be extended to E.S.B. employees. I do not think that is happening because so far as I know, the practice in C.I.E. is that where a person is elected to the Dáil, he can maintain his position in the superannuation fund, even, if he is in the fund, by paying both contributions, the board's contribution and his own contribution. He is not limited and not pegged to the salary of which he was in receipt at the time of his election.

The Minister can appreciate that rates in a particular job may vary over the years and so far as I know it is the practice in C.I.E. to allow a person contributing, maintaining his position in the superannuation fund, to have regard to the change in the rate payable for his job. In other words, if he was employed as a clerical officer— some have been elected—at the time of his election and if the rate for that clerical officer grade changes, then the person concerned pays 10 per cent. or whatever it is of the new rate and not 10 per cent. of the rate of which he is in receipt at the time of being elected.

That is good both for the individual concerned and for the superannuation fund and I feel that the board should be allowed discretion in this matter. They should not be tied as they are in paragraph 5 at the end of page 5. That paragraph reads:—

"A reference in this or the next following sub-section to the receipt by any person of remuneration from the board shall be taken as a reference to the receipt by that person of remuneration from the board at the rate at which he was being remunerated by the board on the last day of his whole-time employment...."

The board and the individual should not be pegged down quite so tightly. It would be good for the superannuation fund and the individual, if account could be taken of the change in the rate of remuneration.

I remember an instance in C.I.E. where a person had been in public life for quite a long time. He was maintaining his position in the superannuation fund, but he represented that if he had stayed in the service, quite obviously he would not be in the particular post he left ten or 15 years ago. In other words, he would have had the opportunity of promotion and the probability was that he would have been promoted out of that post. I think the approach of the board, in agreement probably with the superannuation fund, was to recognise that there was justice in that claim and to permit the person to pay at an increased rate of contribution into the superannuation fund.

I should like the Minister to look at that aspect to see if it would be right that a certain discretion should be allowed to the board, probably in consultation with the management committee of the superannuation fund affected, to take account of changes both in the rate for the job and the possibility that the person concerned could, if he had stayed on in the service, have got promotion from the post which he left.

Mr. O'Leary

We all want to see rural Ireland brightened up. What is the real position? If any Senator who is a member of a local authority gets a request from businessmen, professional men and others to have a couple of lights in their village, we are told by the officials that it is not a scheduled village. There are certain villages in my constituency where the people are paying for other villages while they themselves remain in the dark. That is wrong. That is happening all over the Twenty-Six Counties. The people in one village are paying for light in another. Unless a businessman puts a light outside his door, that village is in darkness and there is no hope of getting light.

In spite of all the lights to-day in certain parts of rural Ireland, I am conscious of the fact that you would not find a young man or woman there, no matter what light you put in the country. They are gone because there is nothing to keep them in it. Electricity will not keep them in the country and there is no use in talking about brightening it up. We must provide other means.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

We are not discussing the other means.

Mr. O'Leary

We often hear it said that rural Ireland should be brightened up. Why is it not brightened up? When you canvass a village and go into houses asking people if they will take electricity, what is the one snag they are afraid of? It is that they would not be able to pay at the end of two months because their husbands might be unemployed or it might be a case of a widow or an old age pensioner in a cottage. You will be told: "I would like electric light all right but two months is too long to keep me without paying. I would not have the money to pay the bill after two months." Could there be any other way of collecting the money as it is a hardship on people who have no means? Why not collect it weekly or monthly? Why fix the period at two months?

If you have not the money in two months' time your supply is cut off and that is happening in certain parts of the country. When a man becomes unemployed, he has not the money to meet it from what he gets from the employment exchange. He cannot afford it. Let us be candid and honest with one another. Then, again, the valuation goes up. I hear farmers complaining that when they get electric light, their valuation goes up. That is not encouragement to a man to brighten up his home. Something must be done with regard to the position.

We have three semi-State bodies— E.S.B., C.I.E. and I.T.A. Some of us have been members of local authorities for a number of years. Whenever a question is asked in the Dáil or if you write to the Department in connection with any of these bodies, you will be told that the Minister has no function in the matter and that you should write to the board, company or association concerned. Although the Government are voting money every year to these bodies, the Minister has no function; that is wrong. If the Minister has no function, then the ratepayers who are voting the money ought to have a say. But nobody has a say—only the board. The board is the boss, no matter what we say or do. Even the Minister is powerless. That is the position in the country at the moment; no one in charge to answer for these bodies and Ministers have no functions.

There should be some way whereby, when the Minister receives representations from a local authority, he can say to the officials: "You must do something for these people. The people are paying. You must give them light." Surely that would be better than putting it off from one day to the other? That is why some people will not sign.

I had to canvass in my constituency on a few occasions. The parish priest called a meeting. He brought the county councillors and all the people to the hall and tried to get them to sign in order to get the light in the country. We were met with that opposition from poor people who were afraid they would not be able to meet the demand after two months. The same thing happened in the town, where there are many houses. There is a demand every two months. You have the rent of the house, which is very dear, and the electricity bill. You have to pay either one or the other. It goes over a couple of months. After four months you will get a final notice and the supply will be cut off if you do not pay the bill.

I have been a member of a local authority for a long time. In our town, the water is pumped by electricity. Some years back, when the officials came to the urban council, they told the members of the council that the more was pumped, the lower the cost. But that is not the case to-day. Pumping water by electricity is a very heavy burden. I suppose the same will apply as time goes on. When you get it in, you are yoked to it. Then they scourge you and charge you what they like and you have no redress. If the Minister could do something with regard to the payment every two months in certain areas, it would help the people there and encourage them to have electricity installed.

Mr. McGuire

Just looking over this Bill and its sections, I think we are all more or less in general agreement with its provisions and the objects it sets out to attain. But I find, listening to the Minister and looking over the several sections of the Bill, that I am provoked to some general ideas and thoughts to which I should like to give expression in a very few words.

We all agree that the E.S.B. have done a magnificent job of work and are an admirable organisation in every way. I think they are a model organisation in this country. We can be proud of the way in which they carry out their duties, on the whole, and of the appearance of their machinery and stock everywhere. On that point, I wish I could say the same about some of our other State organisations. I wish I could say that the outward appearance of their goods, their staff, and so on, is as good as that of the E.S.B. If such were the case, we could be very proud of our State and semi-State bodies generally.

I agree with the provision by the Minister for the expansion of rural electrification which is proposed in this Bill. I think Senator Baxter's remarks on this point were very apt. We are all in agreement with the idea of making our rural areas bright and attractive for people to live in because of the effect their way of living has on their minds and eventually on their actual way of working. I think, in a way, it can be said—without any degree of insult or anything like that—that our people who come from the country are rather heavy looking. I said this once before when talking about the Army. You would not take long to recognise an Irishman from the country at Euston Station, London. That may be all right on the Abbey Stage, and so on. I think we would like to see our people mentally smartened up, dressed smartly, and so on. All these things arise originally from the home. If people live in bright, clean homes where they have light, electricity, water, and all the other amenities, they will not only look different in the future but act differently. In that way the provision of electricity in the rural areas will have a very great ultimate effect on the lives of our people.

I agree with Senator Burke and other speakers who have spoken about the question of the activities we are asked here to support with money—the activities of the board in giving supplies and services to the people. It is only right that they should be asked to confine their activities to providing supplies and services that cannot reasonably be provided by private enterprise. Undoubtedly, the E.S.B. have been trading in electrical supplies and equipment in competition with private enterprise and traders who contribute to the very existence of the E.S.B. It is rather hard luck on people who can only provide moneys for the E.S.B. through their way of business, if the E.S.B. compete more or less unfairly with them because of the immense facilities the E.S.B. have from other sources. Very often, these people have only their own trade from which to make a living. This is a matter of general principle which applies to other State bodies. Other State bodies definitely intrude on the realm of private enterprise. They were never intended to do so, and I believe they are doing positive harm to our economy.

I should like to quote from Section 108 at page 40 of the Government's Programme for Economic Expansion:

"The Government favour the system of private ownership of industry and will not be disposed to enter any manufacturing field——"

I presume this applies to commercial fields as well——

"in which private enterprise is already operating successfully."

That is a very praiseworthy principle and one that ought to be more meticulously carried out. We have here the example of the E.S.B. where it is not carried out, and this is a cause of much annoyance and difficulty for traders.

Again, on page 34, Section 90, it says:—

"Special reference should, of course, be made to particular industrial schemes which, for reasons of public policy or because it is considered unlikely that they will be initiated by private interests, it is proposed to sponsor as Government projects."

Surely the things I refer to are not things that have not been initiated or sponsored by private interests? They definitely are being so sponsored and were initiated and in existence before the E.S.B. came into being. I would draw the attention of the Minister to that aspect and ask him if something could be done, not only in the case of the E.S.B. but in the case of other State bodies as well.

As I have said before, I believe the whole future of our economy lies in the happy co-ordination of State enterprise and private enterprise. At the moment, we have gone as far as we can with State enterprise. I believe that is recognised by the Government in their statement in this booklet. I feel that, now and in the future, our great and only chance of development is on the private enterprise side of our economy, in co-ordination with our State organisations. The E.S.B. provides power and light, the lifeblood of our industrial economy. If that body can be properly geared in a sensible manner with our private enterprise economy, both can move in harness together towards a brighter future and much greater expansion in our industrial and commercial economy.

My own belief is that up to now we have been putting far too much emphasis on State enterprise. In fact, I believe it is the cause of our lagging behind. We have the slowest rate of development of any European country, outside the Iron Curtain. I should like to qualify that by saying it is not a note either of despair or too much criticism. It is saying that we have now prepared the ground and, through State enterprise, we have got the foundation upon which we can build; but we have built sufficient foundation and we should now build the structure on top of it.

These are general remarks, and this is not the first time I have said them. I will continue to say them so long as I am here, because I believe in them so deeply. I believe we have never really got down to things in the way I have been expressing day in and day out. I think I can say that that seems to be the philosophy expressed in the recent booklet produced by the Secretary of the Department of Finance. I was happy to see that and I hope the Government in future will take their lead from some of the headings in that statement.

Finally, I should like to commend the E.S.B. for what it is and what it has done. I trust that this Bill will enable it to become even bigger and better than it is at present.

Professor Stanford

There is one small point in Section 7 I should like to raise. It is a point of general interest, which seems to me to be bad from the point of view of legislation. If the House looks at Section 7, they will find that the E.S.B. can, in the matter of the Fitzgibbon Bridge, act as an interested party and as judge in its own case. The Minister has explained that. He has told us that the amount of compensation is already agreed on. That goes far enough to meet the present case, but it does seem to me a matter of some seriousness that we should be passing this section which may act as a precedent for future pleas.

If we read this Bill as it stands, it looks as if we are sanctioning the principle that in certain cases of inconvenience, the board may award compensation and award such compensation as they think reasonable; but against that the people who are being inconvenienced according to this measure have no right of appeal, no right of saying: "We do not think this reasonable compensation." If I am wrong in that, I hope the Minister will correct me and I will not continue; but as I read this section, it is not made clear that the amount of compensation is already determined. I think there is some danger here that later on in this House we will be told: "Well, the E.S.B., according to Section 7 of this Act, have the right to award compensation, if it thinks fit and such compensation it thinks fit, without any further appeal. If my fears in this respect are unwarranted, I should be grateful if the Minister would put that right, but I should like to put it on the record here that I personally and many members of the House are very hesitant to pass a section which makes the board both an interested party and judge in its own case.

Mr. S. Lemass

During the course of the debate, many Senators referred to the rural electrification scheme. It seemed to me that their remarks indicated a certain lapse of memory as to what this scheme contemplated. I would strongly agree with those Senators who said that the rural electrification scheme was the most important social development, so far as the rural areas are concerned, in our time. Indeed, I so described it when putting the scheme and the legislation to put it into effect through the Houses of the Oireachtas.

That scheme required a great deal of very careful preparation and estimation before it was committed to writing. Finally, after a great deal of examination of the possibilities of bringing a supply to the rural areas, what seemed to be a practical scheme emerged. The problem was this and Senators, I think, have not completely grasped it: whether you could supply electricity to a rural area at a rate of charge which would induce rural dwellers to take supplies in sufficient number as to make it technically possible. It was considered in the end practicable to go ahead with that scheme on two understandings. One was that half the capital cost would be provided free of charge and the other that the E.S.B. would not be obliged to bring the supply to any house where the cost of bringing it to that house was more than 16 times the fixed revenue charge to be derived from the house.

The whole scheme was based on the assumption that the rural dwellers would get a supply of electricity upon the basis of what was then the rural tariff of the E.S.B. That 16 to one calculation was vital to the whole scheme because its practicability depended on it. On the basis of that calculation, it was assumed that 70 per cent. of our rural dwellers could get the supply at that rate or charge. In respect of the other 30 per cent., it was accepted that they just could not be supplied under that scheme or at that rate of charge.

Subsequent to the coming into operation of the scheme, that ratio was altered from 16 to one to 24 to one and the E.S.B. undertook to supply current at the standard charge to any dwelling where the cost of bringing the network to the door was not more than 24 times the fixed charge revenue. In cases where that ratio could not be realised and where the cost of bringing the wire to the dwelling was more than 24 times the fixed charge, an additional charge had to be paid by the person receiving the supply, or by someone else.

When I was in opposition some years ago, I raised in the Dáil the question of abolishing this additional amount which some of our rural dwellers have to pay because they cannot be brought within the scheme. I thought that the amount of revenue which the board was getting from these additional special charges was so small in relation to the board's total revenue that the board could easily carry it, but I found out that was not so and that the abolition of the special charge would mean that other rural dwellers would have to pay at least an increase of 10 per cent. in the cost of the current, if the charge were abolished.

It is true that these houses, which cannot be supplied without some additional contribution from the occupiers because they cannot be brought within the scheme, are generally isolated, but that does not mean that they are occupied by people who are poorer than the rest of the community. The most uneconomic area would be a place in County Meath with three or four residences. The most economic area was found to be near Spiddal in County Galway which was largely populated and where the average standard of living would be much lower than in the area I mentioned in County Meath. Consequently, we must not always think in this matter in terms of helping out a section of the people who are entitled to some help from the community resources which the rest of the community cannot get.

The rural electrification scheme is now almost complete. Naturally, the E.S.B., having regard to their financial difficulties and to the problem of raising capital for various purposes in recent years, were inclined to drag their feet on the rural electrification scheme. They proposed to me that they should stop at this stage and only take it up again at a later date. I did not agree to that.

The Houses of the Oireachtas decided during the course of the war that the rural electrification scheme should start, because of the benefits it would confer on rural dwellers, when the war was over and supplies of materials were available in sufficient quantities to enable a beginning to be made. I stated then that the intention was to complete the scheme in ten years. There was quite a large number of people who said it could not be done. It was not done in ten years, but it will be done in 12 years.

I dislike interfering with the administration of bodies like the E.S.B., but I told them in regard to this matter of policy, namely, the completion of the rural electrification scheme, that they had no choice; that the rate of development was a matter for themselves but that the intention of the Government to get it completed within a certain time must be met. They have undertaken to complete the scheme by 31st March, 1962.

It is inevitable that the scheme will involve a substantial deficit upon the board's rural revenue account—a deficit that will have to be offset by a surplus secured from other activities which they undertake, particularly the activity of selling electricity in urban areas. One of the calculations upon which the finances of the scheme were based in 1942 was that in the post-war period the cost of materials would be 33? per cent. higher than before the war. That was the optimistic mood we were in in 1942. That assumption was proved to be completely incorrect, with the result that even if we had been able to stick rigidly to the line laid down in the scheme published to the Oireachtas, the financial results of the whole operation would be different. The board must now carry the rural deficit for as long as is necessary. Eventually, the deficit will be wiped out. But not for about 20 years.

Senators Burke and McGuire referred to the merchandising activities of the board. I have an open mind as to whether the ordinary merchant selling electrical equipment or providing electrical service has suffered or gained from the competing activities of the board. If I were asked to make a decision, I would say he gained and gained considerably. The merchandising activities of the E.S.B., the operation of their showrooms, their advertising campaigns and the general sales promotion activities upon which they engage redound to the benefit of private traders. I find that individual traders have no hesitation in admitting that. I believe that the general level of the sales of electrical appliances would be a great deal lower, if the board had not entered into that field. It is in the interests of the board that individual private merchants should be as active as they are in promoting the sales of electrical appliances and bringing to the notice of the public the advantages that will accrue from a greater use of electricity in the home.

Mr. Burke

That is not so in our town.

Mr. S. Lemass

The board went to every individual merchant and said that if he sold electrical appliances on the hire purchase scheme, the board would finance his operations. Surely that was not a sign of hostility to the private merchant? Indeed, the whole aim of the board is to try to encourage merchants to be more active in seeking sale for their appliances, and thereby increase the sale of electricity. I think it would mean a very considerable falling off in activity in that field, if the board were to step out of it.

Mr. Burke

I cannot agree with the Minister.

Mr. S. Lemass

I will deal with the matters raised here in the order in which they were raised. Senator Miss Davidson and others referred to the pension scheme of the E.S.B. I want to be quite specific about this. I brought in that pension scheme in 1942. There is always a problem, it is true, when a pension scheme based upon the creation of a pension fund, with equal contributions from the employer and employee, is created in an organisation which has already been some time in existence. The problem of service prior to the date of introduction of the scheme has to be dealt with. The E.S.B. pension scheme is a contributory scheme based on a fund which is managed by a committee and which has to be kept solvent by them on the basis of the contributions it receives.

In respect of those who were 40 years of age and over on the date on which the scheme was brought into operation, the board was empowered to provide for the payment of supplementary pensions out of their own resources, without contribution. That was to meet the problem of those who, because of age on that date, could not benefit by the other provisions of the scheme, or were unlikely to be willing to do so because of the cost to them. Another provision was that the board were required in respect of that prior service to pay their contributions so that the employee got pension rights in respect of half his prior service free of cost to him. An employee could get rights in respect of the other half of his prior service by increasing his contribution.

At this stage, 18 years later, a number of E.S.B. employees who did not elect to buy their prior service want to get the benefit of it free of charge. I think that is impossible. It would disrupt the whole scheme and it would be completely unfair to all those who, over the past 18 years, have been paying higher contributions in order to earn that right. I do not think they have any grievance. I think the statement made by Senator Miss Davidson that some people surrendered better prospects in other employment in order to serve the E.S.B. is very strictly for the birds. Both then and now, persons who are in permanent, pensionable employment with the E.S.B. are regarded as the favoured members of the community. So far as the additional supplementary pension to persons over 40 years of age when the scheme was introduced is concerned, my information is that the board has been extremely liberal under that section.

Reference has been made by a number of Senators—Senators Barry, O'Quigley and others—to the board's collection methods. Whatever may be said about their collection methods— I am not going into a discussion on them—I think it is deplorable to hear Senators suggest that when the board goes to some person who has taken a supply of electricity, has not paid for it and is cut off, they are depriving that person of his rights. It is deplorable that members of the Oireachtas should try to encourage people into thinking that they have a grievance when they suffer penalities for not paying their debts——

Mr. O'Quigley

It has happened in cases where people have paid.

Mr. S. Lemass

The E.S.B. are no different from the Post Office, the gas companies, or other people who have to insist on payment for service they render. It may be that the board's method of collection, the periods over which they charge their accounts and other arrangements of that kind, could be modified and improved. I do not know about that; it is a matter for the board to consider. Nobody is entitled to a supply without paying for it and it is necessary to keep in mind that the great majority of the people who are customers of the E.S.B., and who are paying regularly for their supply are paying a bit more than they need pay in order to make up for the people who are defaulting on their obligation to pay promptly.

With regard to the question of the rights of employees of the board to seek election to both Houses of the Oireachtas, what we are doing in this regard is something that might have been done long ago.

The 1927 Act set up the E.S.B. as the first of these State bodies and there was this strong feeling that persons who are members, or employees, of that board should not be in the Oireachtas. That problem was met by providing that if they were employees of that board, they could not go up for election. Since then, the constitutionality and desirability of that method had been questioned and now the matter is put the other way around. Members of the Oireachtas may not be members or employees of the board without resigning membership, but everybody is free to seek election and if he secures election, he is free to make his choice. What we are doing is just putting the E.S.B. in the same position as other State organisations.

I think it would be highly undesirable to contemplate the position where a person could be a member of the Oireachtas and at the same time, a member of the E.S.B. and perhaps be able to speak on its affairs with greater authority than the Minister. Whatever we may feel about politics, it is to be recognised that there will be difficulties created if people who are active in politics and members of the Oireachtas are also employees of a State body dealing with members of the public, or working with other employees or with subordinate staff under their supervision. Therefore, we have established in regard to all these State bodies that a member of the Dáil or Seanad may not be on the board or in the service of these bodies. However, we provide that they may seek election and, if elected, can be seconded from the service of these organisations and have the right to re-employment when they lose their membership of the Oireachtas or retire and their pension continuity is also provided for.

I mentioned the intention to put the E.S.B. Staff member in the same position as the C.I.E. staff member in this respect and by and large that has been done, but certain different considerations, due to circumstances, arise. In the case of a member of the staff of the E.S.B. who gets elected to the Dáil and wants to maintain service pension rights in the E.S.B. fund he can continue to pay on the basis of the salary which he was receiving at the time he became elected. This is the only practical arrangement and, in certain circumstances, it is protection for the individual because in the last resort, the pension he will get at the age of 65 will be based not on the size of his contribution but on the salary he is actually earning on that date.

I propose to say a word about Fitzgibbon Bridge, because there has been some misunderstanding with regard to the obligations of the E.S.B. in that regard. The board had the duty of providing a bridge, but they asked me to release them from that duty because of the technical difficulties and very high cost involved. I said that I would not release them, unless they could get agreement with the people directly concerned to accept compensation in lieu of building the bridge. They said: "Must we get the agreement of them all?" and I said that it should be the agreement of a substantial majority. I understand that they have the agreement of ten out of 14, that they are expecting to complete agreements in other cases, and that there are only a couple of cases where people have not agreed to accept compensation. In one case, indeed, there may even be some question of the validity of a claim.

The position is that unless we pass this section, the people concerned will get neither a bridge nor compensation, because the board, in consideration of the fact that they have already concluded agreements with the individuals concerned, have already been released from the obligation to build a bridge, and the final step in the whole process is the passing of this section, which will empower the board to pay the compensation. They have not got that power now, because it was never contemplated that they would compensate for the closing of a public road or bridge.

Professor Stanford

Have these people any kind of appeal, if they think that compensation is inadequate?

Mr. S. Lemass

No. There is a misunderstanding of the position in this regard. The board want to pay compensation. They say: "We are going to spend a lot of money building a bridge that very few people will use, and it will not even be built in the most convenient place. Would it not be far better to give that money to the people concerned and let them use it for their own benefit rather than waste it in a rather futile type of construction, because it would be a costly bridge and one which only very few would use?" The board have been negotiating the amounts of compensation and their intentions are quite generous. The suggestion that we should bring in an arbritrator to deal with the question of values is impracticable, and it also implies that we should go on some legalistic basis of calculating the actual amount of loss. Approached in that way, the people concerned would get a great deal less, because the financial loss they could prove to have suffered would be considerably less.

Professor Stanford

Does the Minister agree that it is rather a bad precedent to give the board the right to judge its own case?

Mr. S. Lemass

I am most concerned not to establish such a precedent, and I wish to say here and now that the fact that we have agreed to pay these sums in compensation to certain people in the area of the Lee hydro-electric scheme is not to be taken as a precedent involving the board in paying compensation for alleged loss on the closing of a public road in any future case.

I do not know what terms of reference you could give an arbitrator, and I should hate having to draft them.

I was given to understand that because certain legal proceedings had been started by a few people in the area against the board, these people may fear that the board will retaliate now by prescribing lower compensation in their cases than in the cases of people who are not associated with those proceedings. In the Dáil, I have given a very specific assurance that no such prejudice shall operate and that the rates of compensation fixed in the remaining cases will be in line with the general level of those fixed in cases in which it was done by agreement.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage fixed for Wednesday, December 17th, 1958.