Vol. 77 No. 8
I move:
That the Dublin Gas Order, 1974, proposed to be made by the Minister for Transport and Power and laid in draft before Seanad Éireann on the 1st day of April, 1974, under Subsection 4 of Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, be approved.
In moving No. 1 I wish to move an amendment to it as follows:
I move:
That in the English version of the motion instead of "the 1st day of April, 1974", to insert "the 9th day of April, 1974", and to make a similar amendment in the Irish version.
The question is that the motion, as amended, be approved.
Gas undertakings generally operate under special Acts which authorise them to manufacture and distribute gas in certain specified areas. Such modifications to these Acts, as may be required by the Gas undertakings from time to time, are made under section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, which enables me to make by order the required modifications. Before an order of this kind is made it has to be laid in draft form before both Houses of the Oireachtas who may, by resolution, approve the draft order either in the form submitted or with modifications and additions. When such approval has been given I may then make the order in the form which has been approved.
In 1954 the then Minister for Industry and Commerce made an order under the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, which gave the Alliance and Dublin Consumers Gas Company—more usually known as the Dublin Gas Company—power to appoint as a director of the company one of the following—the general manager, the chief engineer or the secretary of the company. In 1969 the then Minister for Transport and Power made an amending order which gave the company power to appoint all three persons mentioned above as directors. Under this order the chief engineer and the secretary were appointed directors, the general manager having already been appointed a director under the 1954 Order.
Directors appointed by virtue of the positions they hold in the company are, for convenience, referred to as executive directors; the directors who do not hold executive positions in the company are, for convenience, referred to as non-executive directors.
Under the Alliance and Dublin Gas Act, 1866, the number of directors of the Gas Company is limited to nine. The board are at present at full strength. The former general manager retired recently and, accordingly, ceased to be an executive director by virtue of his position as general manager. He has, however, been reappointed to the board as a non-executive director. The new general manager was formerly the chief engineer and as such was an executive director; he has now been appointed an executive director in his capacity as general manager. The board of the Gas Company, accordingly, consist at present of seven non-directors, that is to say the general manager and the secretary.
The Gas Company have applied to me for an order which would give them power to increase the total number of directors from nine to ten and to appoint not more than four directors from the following executive staff—the general manager, the chief engineer, the secretary, the financial controller or personnel manager. It is not the company's intention to appoint more than three executive directors at present but they wish to have the power to appoint a fourth executive director at a later stage if such a course seems desirable when a vacancy arises. All appointments as directors are subject to approval at the annual general meeting of the company.
The company have also asked me to include in the order an authorisation for the use of certain lands owned by the company at Sir John Rogerson's Quay for the manufacture of gas. The company propose to erect a new plant on these lands to meet increased demand for gas. The provisions of the Planning Acts will, of course, attach to the company's proposals for new buildings on the site in question and the making of the proposed order will in no way prejudice the application of the Planning Acts to the Gas Company's proposals.
I see no objection to the company's proposals and, following consultation with the Minister for Industry and Commerce, I intimated my agreement to having the necessary arrangements made for introducing the draft order. Thus, the order now laid in draft form before the Seanad will if approved give the company the necessary authority to:
(a) increase the total number of directors of the company from nine to ten;
(b) permit an increase from three to four in the total number of executive directors that may be appointed;
(c) use additional land for the manufacture and storage of gas.
Notice of the proposed order was published in Iris Oifigiúil and in a daily newspaper. No objection to the order was received.
I am satisfied as to the company's need for this order and am satisfied also that there is nothing in it which is repugnant to the public interest. I, therefore, recommend the order for the approval of the Seanad.
We, on this side of the House, have no objection to this order and we are prepared to agree to it. There are one or two questions I should like to ask the Minister, since we are discussing this matter. As he has told us the Government have, in fact, considerable authority over the Dublin Gas Company and gas undertakings in general. As the Minister has said, they have to authorise them initially to manufacture and distribute gas in certain specified areas, they have to authorise increases or decreases in the number of directors and so on. We are also, in this order, giving power to use additional land for the manufacture and storage of gas. There is a considerable amount of public control over the activities of gas companies and over the activities of the Dublin Gas Company in particular. Therefore, we are entitled to consider very briefly whether this control should be used either by the Government in certain directions or whether the Government ought to consider taking further control over the Gas Company.
I am referring in particular to the very peculiar situation that arose some months ago when the Dublin Gas Company, with almost no notice, without reference to anyone, without, so far as one knows, consulting the Government in any way, imposed a very abrupt and drastic rationing scheme on their customers. This was very drastic action indeed and, in many respects, highly unsatisfactory in that there was no way in which the customer concerned could know precisely what his ration of gas was. I do not intend to go into this matter in any detail but I would ask the Minister if he has any powers at all in this regard.
For example, when he was agreeing to an order such as this to be put through the Oireachtas did he ask the Gas Company, should such an occasion arise in the future—which may very well happen with the energy situation as it is at present—to consult with him on such matters? Alternatively, has he considered the possibility of taking further power over the proceedings of the Gas Company? This is a very important undertaking carried on in a completely independent way. We had a situation here where their customers were put to considerable inconvenience. Gas Company customers form a very large proportion of our people and a very high proportion of the population of Dublin city. We find, at the same time, that the Government have very considerable control over the activities of this company. These two things do not really coincide. Either they are an independent company or they are not. I would, therefore, ask the Minister if he has considered this matter and if the present situation is, in his view, satisfactory.
I notice in the Minister's speech that:
It is not the company's intention to appoint more than three executive directors at present but they wish to have the power to appoint a fourth executive director at a later stage if such a course seems desirable when a vacancy arises.
I note also the Minister's remarks at the end of his speech:
I am satisfied as to the company's need for this order and am satisfied also that there is nothing in it which is repugnant to the public interest. I, therefore, recommend the order for the approval of the Seanad.
In his speech the Minister has not given us any reason whatsoever as to why he should give authority to the company to appoint a fourth executive director. I should like to know the Minister's reason for giving the company that authority. I am not particularly interested in the activities of the Dublin Gas Company as I am from the west but I should like to know about these reasons. Under the terms of this order I do not think it is necessary at all.
I should like to take the last point raised by Senator Garrett first. The company wish to be a bit freer about whom they can bring on to the board. At present they are confined in the number of executive directors they can have and they want to enlarge this number so that men of experience, who are intimately connected with the working of the Gas Company at ordinary level, can be made available to the board as directors. They have no intention, at the moment, to appoint anybody but they want to feel free to do so in the future should the occasion arise. I am satisfied that it is a good idea to have as many top executives as possible taking part in the policy decision making of the board combined with and blended with outside experience of business as the board at present are constituted.
As regards the point made by Senator Yeats, the Dublin Gas Company could not bring in formal rationing without my permission. They did not bring it in although they had intended seeking my permission when the supply situation for naphtha, which is the oil used in the manufacture of gas, looked as if it was going to become critical before Christmas. Prior to Christmas they sought co-operation from the public, in an informal rationing system, to cut down on the use of gas. The quantity of naphtha available to the Gas Company then, due to the energy crisis throughout the world, had reached a critically low level and they thought that that situation would continue into the new year. They sought, pending their application to me to be allowed to introduce formal rationing and my sanctioning of that application, co-operation from the public in the meantime to cut down on the use of gas by, I think 30 per cent. In any event, it did not turn out to be necessary because they were able, at a very high price, admittedly, to purchase a cargo of naphtha, which got them over the critical period in January.
The Minister will appreciate that they terrified their customers by threatening to cut them off.
I appreciate that and I also appreciate that they became terrified when they saw the critical level which their stocks had reached. During the energy crisis there was complete inability on anybody's part to see a long distance into the future as regards supplies. At one stage prior to Christmas the Gas Company stocks were down to a very low level. At that stage we managed to get some stocks to tide them over Christmas and the New Year. Then they were able to purchase quite a large cargo of naphtha in January which obviated the necessity for rationing or for a cut-back in consumption.
Does the Minister think that in future gas will not be cut off from people in certain categories?
Part of what the Gas Company had in mind at the time was that domestic consumers would not be rationed at all, that it would be the industrial consumers who would be rationed. It was not very practical and it would be impossible to police a rationing system without the employment of many extra staff. I do not remember the "glimmer men" during the war, some of the Senators here may remember them. They had hoped to be able to devise a system so as not to ration gas to the normal domestic consumers—certainly the old age pensioners and people living alone. They would confine the rationing to larger concerns.
Would the Minister concern himself about people on social welfare assistance who are practically trusting to gas for their existence, their livelihood and their food and heat? Would he see in future that, if the gas has to be rationed— domestic consumers can be rationed— old age pensioners and people on social welfare assistance would be cared for rather than anybody else in that category.
Anybody to whom the Gas Company have contracted to supply gas would be entitled to some quantity of gas, but I would certainly accept the Senator's point that the people in the categories he has mentioned are more dependent on and more deserving of supply than other consumers.
Is the Minister satisfied now as to the availability of naphtha?
Senators, this is neither Question Time in the Dáil nor Committee Stage in the Seanad. I have allowed some latitude in regard to this, but I do not think the debate should continue.
Short and mediumterm, yes, long term, no.
Might I inquire as to the source?
The Senator may inquire, but I do not know. I am not saying I will not give him the answer, but I have not got it here.
