Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 2 Apr 1925

Vol. 10 No. 21

HYDRO-ELECTRIC EXPLOITATION OF THE SHANNON. - MOTION BY THE MINISTER FOR INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE.

MINISTER for INDUSTRY and COMMERCE (Mr. McGilligan)

There is a resolution standing in my name on the Order Paper which I propose to move. It is as follows:—

De bhrí go bhfuil na hEolaigh, a cheap an Rialtas chun scrúdú do dhéanamh ar thairsgeana Siemens- Schuckert chun abha na Sionainne d'úsáid i gcóir uisce-leictreachais, tar éis tuairisciú i bhfabhar glaca le scéim an tsaothrúcháin leathran- naigh ach atharuithe dhéanamh uirthi, agus	Whereas the Experts appointed by the Government to examine the pro posals of Siemens-Schuckert for the hydro-electric exploitation of the River Shannon have reported in favour of the adoption with modifi cations of the partial development scheme, and
De bhrí gurb é tuairim Dháil Eireann gur cheart tosnú láithreach ar na tairsgeana do moladh i dtuar- asgabháil na nEolach do chur i bhfeidhm.	Whereas Dáil Eireann is of opi nion that steps should be taken forthwith to give effect to the propo sals recommended in the Experts' report.
Anois ar an abhar san beartuítear leis seo go bhfuil sé oiriúnach an reachtúchán riachtanach do thabh- airt isteach chó luath agus is féidir é i dtreo go bhféadfar na tairsgeana san do chur i bhfeidhm do réir an Pháipéir Bháin ina bhfuil an có- fhreagarthas idir an Roinn Tionn- scail agus Tráchtála agus Siemens- Schuckert, agus gur cheart idir an dá linn dul ar aghaidh le pé roimh- shocruithe is féidir a dhéanamh chun tosnú na hoibre a bhainfidh leis an scéim do bhrostú chun cinn.	Now therefore it is hereby resolved that it is expedient that the neces sary legislation be introduced at the earliest possible date to enable the said proposals to be carried into effect in accordance with the White Paper setting out the correspondence between the Department of Industry and Commerce and Siemens-Schuc kert, and that meanwhile such pre paratory arrangements as are prac ticable with a view to expediting the commencement of work on the scheme should be proceeded with.

I wish, at the beginning, to call attention to two phrases in the terms of that resolution, as it may lead to a certain limitation of the debate which might otherwise be too wide. It is stated, "whereas the experts appointed by the Government to examine the proposals of Siemens-Schuckert for the hydro-electric exploitation of the River Shannon, have reported in favour of the adoption, with modifications, of the partial development scheme." I want to refer specially to that—"the adoption, with modifications, of the partial development scheme" of the Siemens-Schuckert proposals, and, secondly, to a phrase which occurs later, that the proposals be carried into effect in accordance with the White Paper. My statement on that I can leave until later. I would stress the first thing for this reason, that there has been proposed in the Siemens-Schuckert proposal a partial development and a full development and that has been extended by the experts in one way. They have introduced a second development which they call a "further partial development stage." They make certain recommendations, and they apportion costs to these three stages. The only stage at present under consideration, the only stage on which the Government has any proposal, the only stage approved by the Government is the first partial development stage as modified by the experts.

Now we are speaking merely and solely of the first partial development stage as modified by the experts. I am assuming that there is no necessity for me to repeat what I said here in December when I gave a very general, somewhat vague, outline of what the scheme was to be, but in which I touched on all the important details of the scheme. There is no necessity for me to go again into details as to the site of the canal, as to the whole question of the construction of the canal, as to the power-house, and as to the simple idea of transmission lines of three types, 100 k.v., 35 k.v., and 10 k.v., carrying current, when you get to the end of the 10 k.v. transforming stations, to all towns and villages in this country of about 500 population. I am assuming the general outline of the scheme is known. I am assuming also that what might be called the proposals lying beneath that partial development stage are generally known.

I want to deal, this evening, with the first partial development, and with the first partial development only, from four points of view. There have arisen really only four questions in connection with this. The first is what is generally described as drainage, but what should more accurately be described as prevention of flooding. Secondly, there is the question of fisheries; thirdly, navigation, and fourthly, the question of how far can a market for power be found in the country—how far is the economy of the scheme sound. One other question will certainly arise, the question of the terms of the White Paper. These are the five main sub-divisions on which I wish to speak. Drainage is the first question, and more objections have appeared from correspondents to newspapers on the question of drainage, or what is called drainage, than on any other point. Apparently, around the district of Portumna, which is excessively flooded at the moment, there seems to be almost an organised body of opposition to this scheme on the grounds that the scheme, or the development of the river for power purposes, is going to cause extra flooding in the Portumna neighbourhood.

Perhaps it would be better to take the course of the river, as far as it is affected by the partial development proposed, in a certain number of sections, from the river mouth to O'Brien's Bridge, from O'Brien's Bridge to Meelick, and from Meelick further north. As far as this scheme is concerned in the partial development, the maximum level of the river is not raised anywhere. Lough Derg is the only point where the river is regulated, and the maximum height of Lough Derg is not increased. One thing, however, does happen. Certain land is flooded, at the moment, alongside Lough Derg when the Lough is at its highest, and that flooding takes place with the Lough at its maximum level in the ordinary course for one month. Under the regulation of the river for the partial development scheme, that Lough will be kept at its maximum, not for one month, but for four, and possibly five, months. When I say no extra flooding can possibly occur— before we go to any point of modification by way of protection—simply by reason of the development of the river for power purposes, I mean that no new flooding can be caused. Existing flooding can, however, be made worse. I admit it can be made worse, in the proportion of the level of the lake being kept at its maximum for one month under ordinary conditions and under the new conditions for about five months. It is further stated, and the experts' judgment is, that this regulation of the maximum height of the lake will have its effect felt on the river as far as Meelick. Beyond Meelick nothing that is done in the partial development stage can have any effect on the river.

What is the proposal to meet that? On the stretch below O'Brien's Bridge the river is diverted. A canal is being built and for the future the river, where previously it had only one course, will have two courses to follow. A large amount of water will be taken off into the canal, and that canal is being built to a sufficient height to prevent any flooding along its banks. That canal will discharge through the turbines into the tail-race, and that tail-race is being excavated, at the cost of a quarter of a million, to such an extent that it will carry off, without any danger of flooding, all the water discharged into it. The remainder of the water left on the old bed of the river should not be sufficient to cause any flooding as between Limerick and O'Brien's Bridge. As far as the stretch of the river between Limerick and O'Brien's Bridge is concerned, the prevention of flooding arises naturally. It comes through the diversion of a great portion of the water into the canal, that canal being built specially to contain that amount of water, and consequently it will obviate flooding, the tail-race being so deepened that it can take the discharge of the water without flooding, the old bed of the river having simply now to accommodate a very much less quantity of water than previously flowed down it.

On the stretch at Lough Derg, and up to Meelick, the experts' judgment is that the regulation of the lake, by keeping this maximum for five months instead of the one month it would ordinarily take, will be felt as far as Meelick. The protection against that can be stated in the most simple possible way. It is this, that there will be such embankments built that flooding from the river will be rendered impossible between the exit from Lough Derg and Meelick. There are embankments to be made at every point at which at present flooding can occur —I say can occur, not that flooding does occur at the moment, because the normal water-mark taken by the experts, when they looked for their embankment, was the highest flood that happened in the thirty years for which we have measurements. The shores of the lake and the river, as far as Meelick, are banked so as to contain the greatest flood that may occur comparable with the greatest that actually did occur in a period of thirty years. Of course, there is something further. On the protected shores of the lake the embankment rises to a height of at least four feet above what was the highest flood mark for thirty years, and on the exposed portions of the lake it rises to at least twice that height. That is because in the thirty years' period there has been observed one or two occasions on which certain wave formations have been seen on the surface of the lake rising to a height of about five feet, and these wave formations may again occur. For the highest flood for thirty years and for the highest point ever noticed for thirty years, embankments on the lake have been provided so as to prevent any flooding if that exceptional circumstance were again to arise.

It is said, however, that it is not merely the lake that is to be regarded. The regulation of the lake, as it is affected, is felt as far up as Meelick. Consequently, the same principle has ruled: embankments to contain the greatest flood in a thirty years' period on the river have been provided for as far as Meelick. That, in the experts' judgment, was the furthest point at which the regulation of the water in the lake could be felt. But they have gone beyond that in the question of protection. The stretch from Meelick to Banagher will be protected. Although in the experts' judgment the river regulation in the lake will not be felt further than Meelick, yet the embankments will go further. On the stretch between Meelick and Banagher embankments of the same type as I have already described on the lower stretch will be built, and the result is this, that as between the exit from Lough Derg and Banagher the river will be so embanked that no flooding can be caused, even by the exceptional floods that have been observed over a thirty years' period, and when I say the river, that applies to the side streams. The Brosna joins the river at one point. It has been estimated up to what point the regulation of the river in the lake would be felt, even in this tributary, and embankments have been put up along the banks of that tributary to the point it was expected that the river regulation would affect even the tributary. That principle holds throughout.

With regard to the Shannon, between Meelick and the exit from Lough Derg it may be said that it will now be practically impossible for any flooding to occur. That is the question of the prevention of flooding. That goes as far as Banagher. In addition to that, there are certain obstructions in the bed of the river between Meelick and Banagher which, although they have made no difference to the power scheme, are to be removed and the cost charged against the power scheme, in the hope and in the expectation that there will thus be given some alleviation of flooding from Banagher to Athlone. So that, as far as the prevention of flooding by embankments goes, any flooding between Banagher and the exit from Lough Derg is absolutely impossible, and by removal of river obstructions it is expected that flooding above Banagher as far as Athlone will be somewhat alleviated. There is, of course, another side to this question. There will be certain water which will, by percolation, find its way through these embankments, and there will be water which will fall on the land outside the embankments. The experts' report on several pages deals with how this is to be attended to. The first big factor having been looked to, how flooding is to be prevented, they then went to the consideration of the lesser item, how you are to get rid of water which would be discharged, not necessarily from the overflow of the river. Three arrangements have been made to deal with this: side drains, pumping stations, and a syphon arrangement. In that way, whatever water is found on the land along the banks of the Shannon, but not discharged from the Shannon, under the partial development scheme, will be returned to the Shannon in some one or other of these three methods.

In that connection, I might refer to one of the more absurd criticisms of this scheme that has appeared, coming, peculiarly enough, from an engineer, who asked what provision was there for the maintenance of these embankments, and what provision was there for the working of the pumps. It apparently passes the comprehension of the engineer of this company, who is also the director of a hydroelectric scheme, that you can have pumps electrically worked, that they are automatic, and that the only provision required is somebody to attend to them now and again and to see that they do not go out of order. It apparently passes his comprehension that the maintenance of the embankment and the slight provision that is necessary for seeing that these pumps are in order should have been considered by the firm which put forward the proposals and by the four experts appointed to examine into them. That has been attended to. The cost of attending to these pumps is almost insignificant, but it is borne on the maintenance charges of the plant.

As far as the prevention of flooding and as far as drainage are concerned, the state is as I have described it. It will be noticed, however, that the experts referred once, I think even twice, to other drainage work which they say should be done in conjunction with the power scheme and which they describe as being the foundation of a proper drainage method along the area. This particular word drainage, unfortunately, covers a great many items. I have described it in so far as it covers the prevention of flooding and in so far as it covers what might be called arterial drainage. When you come to the point of what is called thorough drainage, what ought to be done by the inhabitants along the banks for themselves in their fields, the experts simply make the statement that when we do so much in conjunction with the power scheme, that would be the time to see that these other people do what is required for their own betterment in draining the land. So that as far as actually going into a farmer's field and seeing that he puts in drains and diverts the water into the side drains, where it would be carried off by the provisions we are making, we are not going to say to the farmer: "Do that." Having given him the bigger thing we would expect, if he is wide awake to his own interests, that he will attend to the smaller thing himself.

Before I leave the question of drainage, might I allude again to the criticisms passed by this engineer to whom I have referred. The suggestion is made that a sum of £200,000 is to be taken from the inhabitants along the banks of the Shannon for land which is improved under whatever pumping process there will be. I am not at the moment concerned with further developments, their cost and economies, but not one penny piece will be charged to any inhabitant along the banks of the Shannon for what happens in the partial development scheme. There is a sum of £200,000 set down in the further development scheme, but not a single penny piece will have to be paid by anybody, as far as the prevention of flooding and the drainage is concerned that I have described in the partial development scheme.

With regard to navigation, the present position is more or less this. I have to take the general average of 80 tons for barges on the Shannon at the moment, although 80 ton barges cannot move everywhere on the Shannon. But taking that, at its best, the present position is that if you follow a barge from Athlone down to Limerick, its course would be just that it follows the river mainly to O'Brien's Bridge. There is just one side canal above O'Brien's Bridge. It uses that, but otherwise the barge follows the course of the river to O'Brien's Bridge. At a little below O'Brien's Bridge, at a weir called the World's End, it is diverted again into a side canal, and continues down a considerable stretch until it again meets the river. At Corbally Mills it is again diverted into the third side canal. The limitations of that third side canal are what have obstructed navigation on the Shannon up to this. Towards the end of its course here the barge meets with the point where the canal discharges into the Abbey River. That Abbey River again discharges into the Shannon beneath the two bridges, Mathew Bridge and Balls Bridge. The position with regard to these two bridges is that they have been built so low that only at neap tide is it possible for an 80 ton barge to get access to the river. It can only get access to the river in one hour out of the twelve, and not even then, one hour out of every twelve. There are certain seasons in which there is no access to the river, and the risk is so great that the owners of the barges will not take cargoes down unless prohibitive rates for insurance are paid.

There are several alternatives set out in the experts' report with regard to the future, under the new conditions. There has to be a sum of over one quarter of a million expended in deepening the tail-race below the power house and below where the Shannon joins at the other end of the Abbey River. The new proposal is that the barges should proceed, as before, to O'Brien's Bridge, including the side canal above O'Brien's Bridge. For other reasons that river would be so regulated that it will keep at a normal navigation level, and the passage of the barge will be rendered easier than previously. It proceeds to O'Brien's Bridge, and it is then diverted into the power canal, and by means of a ships' hoist is lowered to the tail-race level. It proceeds along the tail-race water, sailing beyond the point where the Abbey River flows down towards the junction with the side canal already spoken of. It then passes along the bed of the river, passes Thomond Bridge, which, for this purpose, has to be equipped with a swivel-bridge, and gets its exit through Sarsfield Bridge, also equipped with a swivel-bridge, to the ocean harbour.

So that, so far as navigation is concerned, you have the position that, instead of there being a very dangerous passage for 80 ton barges down to the junction of the side canal with the Abbey River, and an almost impossible passage below these two bridges down to Limerick, you have the position that barges of 150 tons can go down the river from Athlone, pass through the power canal, and be taken into the ships' hoist, left in the tail-race, and proceed along the tail-race through Thomond Bridge and Sarsfield Bridge, and actually moor at the side of oceangoing vessels.

That is the alternative. The power scheme has nothing to do with navigation as such, but certain things occur in it which are incidentally good for navigation, and these have been improved upon. If navigation is going to be improved to the extent I have spoken of, there is one charge which has to be met. That is a charge of £75,000. It arises in this way, and its justification is this. Once the power canal has to be built, a weir is necessary at O'Brien's Bridge. If the navigation is to take the old course down the Abbey River, coming down through the canal at World's End, and so on, there would have to be built into the weir at O'Brien's Bridge a new lock to allow of a passage to these barges. It is estimated that would cost £20,000. So that by interfering with the river for the purpose of power production there would necessarily be incurred a charge of about £20,000. The experts have considered that if the alternative method by which they are to have a ships' hoist put in, which is purely for navigation purposes, is adopted, the power scheme should bear the cost of that to the extent of £20,000, which it would otherwise have to expend on the provision of this lock in the weir at O'Brien's Bridge.

The ships' hoist would cost £95,000. Of that sum, £20,000 will be charged on the power scheme, and if the navigation company desire that new method of navigation, £75,000 would be an additional charge upon them. If they desire to proceed in the old way, then the power scheme will have to bear the charge for the new lock at a cost of £20,000, and navigation will be as before. Navigation has at least these two alternatives. Five are set out in the experts' report. I take the two, the old stage and one new stage. If the navigation people like to continue in the old way, this provision of the new lock in the weir at O'Brien's Bridge allows them to proceed as before. If they prefer to have this addition, and the way is prepared for them by deepening the tail-race at a cost of a quarter of a million, then the course will be as I have described. Navigation will be charged with £75,000, that is £95,000, minus the £20,000 which will be charged on the power scheme for the lock facility at O'Brien's Bridge. There are several other alternatives provided in the experts' report, and it is a matter for the navigation people in the working out of this scheme to consider which one of these they deem to be best, which one of them would not be too expensive for them to be able to meet by increasing their tolls or in any other way.

The question of fisheries appeared on the White Paper and it has to be attended to. The White Paper definitely foreshadows that it might be necessary to neglect the fishery interests in the cause of power production. We have not got to that point, that it is definite that the fishery interests will have to be neglected. In the absence of the Minister for Fisheries, I had an interview with certain people of his Department who could speak with authority on this point, and the situation appears to be that it is impossible, until the scheme would be in working condition for a period of years, to determine how far the new condition, within certain limits, would harm or would affect the fishery interests. There are certain things you can say will happen. There are certain things you can say will not happen. There is a set of circumstances in between, which nobody can forecast and it would need experience to examine the conditions and say what exactly is going to happen. However, the White Paper has already foreshadowed that the fishery interest would not be allowed to predominate against the greater interests of power production, and the fishery interest will not predominate. Provision has been made by way of compensation and, if necessary, that compensation money will be paid.

The fourth item is the question of the market for power and how far the experts' estimates of consumption are likely to be realised in the period in which they must be realised if the scheme is to be a paying concern. The way in which the costs of the scheme are built up must be here attended to. It has been estimated that the building out of the plant will cost a certain amount of money, taking everything in —the transforming stations and all the three types of lines—and the estimates have gone on this assumption: that during the three years' process of building there would obviously, as there was no current to sell, be no return on whatever money was invested. The experts have gone further and said that it would not be reasonable in the three years after it is built to look for the ordinary return on money. Consequently, they take a total of somewhere about £4,600,000 for this type of development and to that they add fifteen per cent., that fifteen per cent. being money with which to provide interest on the scheme over the three-year period for construction, and over the three-year period of working, during which it was not estimated that the income of the full five and a half per cent., plus amortisation costs, would be realised from the sales of current. We have to get some basis of time to get this matter argued properly. If it be assumed that the building and constructional works were to start in 1926 and were to be completed in 1929, there is provision made in the capital of £5,200,000 for deficiency of interest up to 1932. After 1932 the revenue must be equal to whatever be the working costs of the particular type of construction then established. I make that limitation for this reason. The question was put to me: What would be the loss to the State if, when the scheme had been embarked upon, it was discovered that no current was likely to be sold to the country. It was put to me: What amount of the £478,000 will not be realised? To that I made this answer, that it would not be necessary then to look for the £478,000, because that sum would not be necessary. What I mean is this: if you embark upon this scheme you embark immediately upon the construction of the canal, the power-house and certain embankments. There is no good doing that unless you are going to supply current to consumers. The main consumers are Dublin, Cork and Limerick. To get current to these places you must build the 100 k.v. lines and the transformer station. If you take the cost of the constructional work, plus the cost of those lines, the income required is £315,000. If you do not build the 35 k.v. lines and the 10 k.v. lines, then you need only look for an income of £315,000, but you must get that income from Dublin, Cork and Limerick. According to what stage of development, according to what construction actually is done, the cost will vary, and as the cost varies the necessary income to meet the cost will vary also. If it was discovered in the building-out period that people everywhere were refusing to take current and that there was going to be no sale for current, then you would not build the 35 k.v. lines, nor the 10 k.v. lines, but you would confine yourself to the canal, and the construction necessary for current, and the distribution of that merely to Dublin, Cork and Limerick.

There are two tables given in pages 103 and 104 of the experts' report. The last four columns on each of these pages give their estimate of sale price to meet or to return the income, and the four preceding columns to the last four give the bulk amount of income to be derived to pay for different items. In one of these columns you are shown a price which must be charged in order to bring in a certain amount, that amount being the return on the cost of building, simply the canal and the power works. You have, in addition, in the next column the 100 k.v. transformer lines and station; in the next column the 35 k.v. transformer lines, and in the column after the 10 k.v. lines. It is quite obvious that when you embark upon this scheme you do not immediately and necessarily embark upon an expenditure of £5,200,000, nor do you immediately and necessarily set yourself out to get an income in 1932 of £486,000. It is worth mentioning here by way of contrast that the experts' opinion is that, if during the building-out period the demand for electricity will be revealed to be so much, you will not proceed with the partial development, but you will proceed to what they call the partial development in its second stage.

Now, to take these two pages, 103 and 104. The tables differ in the last four columns of each. They differ because the estimated cost per unit is built up on a different basis. There are actually four alternative methods given of getting sufficient income so as to pay for this scheme, so that the scheme must be considered as economically sound if these conditions are arrived at. There is one alternative given in the Siemens-Schuckert report. There is one given in the experts' report on page 103 and a second on page 104. The fourth is not quite clearly stated, but is included in an earlier chapter, about pages 50 to 54. These differ in this way. It is necessary to go into this in some detail, otherwise there may be confusion. A certain number of units are to be generated; these have to be sold. Depend- ing on where you have to sell it, or where you are likely to sell it, the price will vary. If you take the table on page 103, what is done there is simply this: you take the income necessary if the scheme is to be considered economically sound, that income being the sum necessary to pay for the building of all the power plants, plus the 100 k.v. lines, and you divide that by the number of units and the price would be .53 of a penny. That is to say, if all the units were to be delivered and sold over the 100 k.v. lines, sold in these three cities, you need only charge .53 of a penny, and you get your return. If you are to build in addition your 35 k.v. lines, and you are to sell your number of units over the places served by the 100 k.v. lines, and the 35 k.v. lines at a flat rate, then the price will be as stated in the second last column on that page. If you were to add further the 10 k.v. lines and station and if all over the area in which you sell current, you sell at a flat rate, making no distinction between Dublin and a farmhouse which would be near a 10 k.v. transformer station, then you could sell at .89 of a penny. That is one way of estimating. On the next page there is given a different way. What is done is: you take the same construction rates for the power plant and the 100 k.v. lines, and you get the same figure, .53 of a penny.

Mr. JOHNSON

It is .52 in the report and .84 in the last column.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

Yes.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

That is so. .52 is correct. On the other hand, on page 104 the system of charging is somewhat different. What is done in the second case is this. The first estimate is arrived at in the same way: you have the cost of power plant, plus cost of the 100 k.v. lines, and if you can sell your whole power, you can sell at .52 of a penny. For the table in the second stage you have to take a different item into consideration. You add on the cost of the 35 k.v. lines and station. You find out what was the additional cost of that and you charge that against those who take it from the 35 k.v. lines and you add that price to the .52—the cost of bringing it over the 100 k.v. lines—and arrive at the figure given in column 15, page 104, 1.21d. The same is done for the third type—the 10 k.v. line—the cost there being discovered and charged to people supplied from it, who could not be supplied unless it was there. You add that to the original cost of bringing it over the 100 k.v. lines and 35 k.v. lines and get your price at 2.46 of a penny.

Those are two alternative methods. The one method is simply a flat rate. The other method goes on this basis, that inasmuch as it costs more to bring current to a country consumer, you are going to charge a country consumer more for what is brought to him. Siemens-Schuckert in their plans give a third estimate in great detail, and I am not going to deal with it here and now. On page 52 you get to the third point, and that marks the transition from cost per unit, which is one thing, and the number of units sold, which is another.

All I have said, so far, is: if you take the flat rate you can sell X units at .52 of 1d., building only the power plant and the 100 k.v. lines. You could then make your necessary income, if you sold at .52 and if you sold X units. The question is: what does X units represent, and how far is X units likely to be sold? Here we are somewhat in the region of prophecy, and of course it is going to be criticised here that the prophecy is very optimistic, and is not reasonable. It has been described as being the hilarious idea of a hilarious Irishman. I want to take an Irishman who cannot be described, I think, as very hilarious —Mr. Kettle, the city engineer. I take the estimate that Mr. Kettle gave as to consumption. May I get my comparisons in order? If Deputies look at page 52 of the experts' report they will see that getting to the point of number of units likely to be sold they have got to a particular type of estimate. The estimate here is that in the partial development the experts have calculated on a consumption for the three large towns of certain units which they enumerate, totalling 115 units per head per year. In getting to the point of what is the reasonable estimate of the number of units likely to be sold about the year 1932, when the plant has to produce its own income, here is one estimate—115 units per head of the population of the three cities. This proceeds to a division into four — the three cities, Dublin, Cork, and Limerick, towns over 5,000, towns under 5,000 and down to 500, and rural districts. On page 53 it is stated that for the middle size towns of 5,000 of a population, they have estimated a consumption per inhabitant of 55 units in the first load stage. On page 54 you get the other two divisions. The estimate for small towns is 30 units and for rural districts 26 units. That is the experts' estimate, that in 1932 you will get a consumption in the three cities of 115 units per head of the population; in the middle sized towns 55 units per head, and in the other two divisions 30 and 26 respectively.

Let us take that for the towns and see how it works out. What is to be looked at is the experts' estimate, on which the economy of the scheme is based: first, that in what is called the first load stage—that will be about three years after the building out, or about 1932—there will be in Dublin, Cork, and Limerick, a consumption equal to 115 units per head of the inhabitants of the three cities.

This is where I return to the city engineer. The city engineer gave his estimate of increase of consumption in Dublin as 15 per cent. per annum. These calculations may be made by individual Deputies afterwards. I simply want to state them here. You start off, as you do, with a consumption per head of the population of Dublin, 80 units in 1923, 42 of these being for ordinary household and domestic purposes, and 41 being equivalent to what is used for tramways. It is estimated that tramways are not going to increase. You are going to let the tramways drift along without any increase in consumption and the figure 41 will be continued up to 1932. Take the other figure of 42 for domestic use; you take 15 per cent. on that and it means that in 1924 the figures will be 47, in 1925, 54, and so on until 1931, when it becomes 108. To that 108 units you must add 41 units for tramway purposes not increased by anything in that period, which means that you arrive on Mr. Kettle's estimate of consumption at a consumption per head of 149 units. The experts have estimated in that year 115 units. Siemens-Schuckert estimate a little beyond 115, but nothing approaching 149. See what that means. Mr. Kettle estimates a 15 per cent. increase under the present hopeless conditions by which Dublin is being supplied with electricity. Even under these conditions the increase would be such an amount as brings you—and the figures can be checked by anyone—about the year 1931 to a figure of 149 units per inhabitant.

That is what I bring forward to show the conservative basis on which the estimate of these experts has been built up. Mr. Kettle also gave very definite figures in evidence, to which I do not want to refer here, not merely of an increase per head and the arriving at a unit of consumption at the end of the period, but he actually gave the number of units then estimated as sold, and it is more than the amount to which I have referred, taking it on the increase per head and unit per head basis. He did give a figure of 15 per cent. Since, the figures for 1924 are available, and show that in Dublin under the present hopeless conditions the increase is not 15 per cent. but 17 per cent. If that is to be taken, and if you are to estimate accordingly on those lines, the experts' estimate is very conservative. In the course of the debate it may be necessary to refer to how that estimate compares with other places, and figures may be given. I want to get to the two other points quoted. The argument has been used that no new industries are going to arise in consequence of the provision of cheap electrical power, and that the provision of cheap electrical power, if you can produce it, which is denied, is not going to matter. This scheme is not built up on the sale of power for industrial purposes. It does not depend on new industries for the sale of its power. It will have power in abundance for industrial purposes if required, but the basis of the scheme is not dependent on the rising up of new industries to take electrical power or the electrification of railways or the starting of a new electro-chemical industry. It is simply: will people for domestic convenience advance in their demand for cheap electrical power as they have under the present hopeless conditions in Dublin? The answer on Mr. Kettle's estimate must be that the experts' estimate is a conservative one.

I can refer to other countries, and a rebutting argument, I am told, is that other countries, so far developed electrically, used electricity mainly for industrial purposes. I have here figures for Norway. Four groups were taken, the first being a city of more than 100,000 inhabitants. The total number of units per inhabitant in 1923 in that city in Norway was 760, whereas we are aiming in 1932 to have a unit consumption of 115. Of that 760, 475 units represented the use for domestic purposes, and 245 were units for power purposes, per inhabitant. The second group is that of four towns containing from 26,000 to about 100,000 inhabitants. The consumption of units per inhabitant in 1923 amounted to 1,870. We are aiming at 115 in 1932. Of that 1,870, 800 were used for domestic purposes and 230 for power or industrial purposes. In seven villages containing from 1,200 to 2,300 inhabitants the total number of units per inhabitant was 880, of which 740 units were used for domestic purposes only. In four rural districts taken together you had a total number of units per inhabitant of 1,100—810 for domestic purposes. In five further rural districts, more definitely ruralised than the last group, there was an average of 630 units per inhabitant, of which 590 were used for domestic purposes only. When it is said that electricity and the advance in the use of electricity must depend on industry, and that if you have not industry you cannot have any demand for power, that argument is definitely falsified by those figures. I can meet the argument in another way. I am told by distinguished engineers who write to the newspapers, that even though you do provide power at cheap rates, the item represented by power is so small among the whole multitude of costs that it does not come to anything whether you get power cheap or dear. Let me take that argument with the other argument, that you must get power for industrial purposes. I believe the figures for Norway falsify that and I can get other figures for other countries which will do likewise. Take the first argument, that power is not used for industrial purposes and secondly, that whether you get cheap power for industrial purposes or not does not matter. The two statements conflict. If it is no good to provide power for domestic purposes because people will not avail themselves of it, and if it does not matter whether it is cheap or dear for industrial purposes, then the opinion of Irish engineers is against that of the whole world. They are the only sane men while the whole world has gone mad. The whole world is agog about electrical development. It is spoken of everywhere. The whole trend of countries since the war has been to use the water power nature has given them and develop it to produce power. The Irish engineers say: "What is the good of power? It is no good for domestic purposes at all; people will not buy it. And for industrial purposes, it does not matter whether it is cheap or dear." It is a peculiar situation. We get back from the island of saints and scholars to the island of sane men—the only sane men in this mad world where everybody is violently active about electrical development. We stand here and rely on Irish engineers who have little knowledge of electrical development and who tell us that it does not matter whether you progress electrically or not.

I can give at a later stage, if required, figures not so much with regard to development, but figures with regard to units consumed per head of the population in different countries. Denmark is often quoted as an example that we should follow. It is a country with a scattered population, something like our own. It is mainly agricultural. I have been asked what is the state of development in Denmark. The state of Denmark with regard to electricity is this, that it has at present a consumption per head of the population of 55 units. If we get the partial development and if it is successful, in 1932 we are aiming to have a unit consumption per head of this population of 35. If it is asserted that Denmark might be able to supply power more cheaply than we could, I can answer that that is decidedly not so. I will point simply to this in justification of my answer, that the greater portion of the power that Denmark gets, and uses to the extent of 55 units per head of the population, comes by submarine cable from Sweden. That is the example we are often asked for—the example of an agricultural country similar to our own. We are asked to find out what are the conditions in such a country, what use is made of electricity, and what point of development electricity has reached. And we find that in 1923 Denmark's consumption of electricity worked out at 55 units per head of the population, while we are looking forward in 1932 to having a consumption per head of the population of 35 units. With regard to consumption, then, I say that the experts' calculations are very conservative. If other points arise in the course of the debate, if there are other view-points and other ways of looking at this matter, I would like to have those view-points put forward, so that I can examine them from whatever angle they are put forward.

I want to allude to one other point in connection with the question of consumption. As I have said, the scheme is not based on the use of power for industrial purposes. It is based on the sale of a certain number of units and the estimate is a very conservative one, even on the basis of Mr. Kettle's figures. If that number of units be sold at .5d. in these three cities, or at a flat rate of .8d. all over the country, the scheme will be economically sound. But I want to say, in addition, that with partial development it is proposed to have 153 million units generated. That is estimated on figures for the last thirty years. Figures have been kept with regard to the river flow for the last thirty years, and, on investigation made on these figures, the estimate has been based on the driest year of the 30 years. You could even go to the point of saying that it is based on the driest month of the driest year of those years—1905. If you were to have another year like 1905 after the power scheme was completed, you would not only have 150 million units constant, but you would have, in the five wet months of that year, an additional amount of energy of about 90 million units. In the dry months of an average year, you would have over and above 150 million units, about 45 million units, and, of course, in the wet months of an average year you would have a corresponding additional increase. It really comes to this, that although this scheme can be built up on the sale of 110 million units, at varying prices, according to whatever tariff plan is adopted, and although that consumption is estimated by experts to be reached, undoubtedly, in 1932, you have, over and above that 110 million units, something between 90 and 135 million units to be distributed for nothing. If an industry needs electricity, and needs it at a nominal price per unit, we will have, not absolutely constant, but for the ordinary year and for the wet months of the driest year for 30 years, something in the neighbourhood of an additional 100 million units, which could be distributed to industries for nothing. That is beyond and above the 110 million units for which a price of some amount must be got to make the scheme pay.

The resolution speaks of carrying the scheme into effect "in accordance with the White Paper." Under the White Paper there are two alternatives. The Government can take the scheme in hands as a State scheme or the firm of Siemens-Schuckert will be authorised to carry out the scheme, the firm, in that alternative being placed under the usual statutory conditions and accepting such statutory obligations as the law may, from time to time, impose upon electrical undertakings. The scheme will be run not by the firm of Siemens-Schuckert, but as a Government scheme. When I say that, I do not want it to be interpreted too freely. It is a Government scheme to this extent, that it will be backed by Government, and that Government will take in hands the financing of it. But whether it will be Government-controlled down to the lowest point of distribution, is a matter that has to await further consideration, and that will be dealt with in the second of the Shannon Bills which must be brought in. The first Bill which will have to be brought in will be the Shannon Power Development Bill. The second Bill will deal with organisation. It remains to be considered what type of organisation will be required.

There are three paragraphs—11, 12, and 13—in the White Paper at which we have now arrived. These paragraphs deal with the question of contract. Under paragraph 11 it was proposed by the firm of Siemens-Schuckert that they should have the contract for the supply of all material and for the construction of all works at world-market prices, subject to the material being up to first-class specifications. The Government answer to that was:—

The Government would be prepared to give your firm the contract under the following conditions: It would reserve to itself the right of testing the quality and prices of the material to be supplied by your firm in such manner as the Government thought fit. The Government would require to satisfy itself that your firm would supply material at prices not higher than those at which similar material of first-grade quality could at the time be obtained from a reputable firm in any part of the world.

The proposal in paragraph 12 states:

The civil engineering constructional work is to be offered to the Siemens Bau Union at a minimum tender, the firm agreeing to employ to the fullest practicable extent Irish labour and Irish contracting firms.

The Government answer to that was:

On this side of the work also the Government would require to reserve the right to satisfy itself that the prices quoted by the Siemens Bau Union were not higher than those at which the work could be performed by any other reputable firm. It would also stipulate for the use of Irish materials where reasonably practicable. In any event, the Government would require to reserve the right, in respect of any works affecting public interests to obtain such advice as the Government thinks proper and to require the works to be carried out in all respects according to any directions given on behalf of the Government. This would apply to dams, navigational works, river diversions, and other works of the same kind.

There is a third paragraph—13—to which I will refer in a moment. These two paragraphs are the paragraphs which rule the future consideration of the contracts, and this much-criticised White Paper has brought us near the point at which the work of making the contract will have to be begun. In that, these two paragraphs will rule. I hold that in these two paragraphs there is every possible guarantee for the security of the State and for the making of a good bargain for the State. Were the White Paper being drawn up now, in the light of the information we have since obtained, I suggest that there is nothing that we would wish to add. There is the fullest possible protection. The material is to be at world-market prices, and the Government has to satisfy itself that certain things will be done in a certain way. Those are the two paragraphs that are to rule. Those two paragraphs will rule, and under them the Government have all the possible checks that they could possibly wish to put into any general agreement leading up to a contract.

Now let me relate that with the Siemens-Schuckert proposal. According to the earlier portion of this paper their estimates were to be binding. Their estimates are binding. They have put in certain costs for certain things. Sometimes these depend on quantities, and while the unit prices cannot vary, the quantity may vary, but except for that, which is ordinary engineering work, these prices put forward are binding. People have stated that it is not possible to construct such a type of dam at such-and-such a price. My only answer to that is, that we have a firm to do it, and they say they will do it at that price on a contract basis, and they will be bound to it. While they can be bound in the sense that their prices are fixed, we have in these two paragraphs the fullest possible check so that we can secure, when the works come to be dealt with, that each individual item is checked, and while Siemens-Schuckert are bound by these things we are not bound. We are bound to them as general contractors, but when it comes to individual items, they have put before us binding estimates. You may say it is a maximum for them, but it is by no means a minimum so far as we are concerned.

Paragraph 13 has lead to a great deal of criticism. I do not want to go into a discussion of what is supposed by the various critics to be the only possible meaning of it. The only one point I wish to assure the House about is this, the question of a fee approved by the German Institute of Engineers. It may seem to some people that that will hide some further expenditure. I have the fullest authority of Siemens-Schuckert to say that under that paragraph not a single shilling will be paid. If anyone has his suspicions that paragraph 13 adds something to the cost, he may dissolve his fears. We have now come to the point where the scheme must be approached with some idea of a decision, and I would refer to one small matter in which I am to a certain extent involved. In December last in this House I intimated that I was making further preparations so as to be in a better position to deal with the scheme, and I was interrupted by a Deputy as to what that phrase of mine would mean. He asked did that mean expenditure, and I replied that it meant an expenditure merely of time and energy. To that extent I was bound, further than I would have been bound in the ordinary course, not to incur further expenditure. But it is obvious that in a scheme of this kind I must have engineering aid at my disposal. Bringing forward this proposal has the effect of absolving me of any pledge I have given that I would not incur any ordinary administrative expenditure in connection with any preparations made for carrying out the scheme. That is a minor point particular to myself, and I wish to make it quite clear that when I said there would be no expenditure involved. I hold that if this resolution is passed I am absolved from that pledge. That is all I have to say by way of opening the question on this resolution.

I have a hope that this debate will be conducted in an intense way and that arguments founded upon portions of the report and not upon fears or imagination will be put forward, and also that points will be made which can be answered from the experts' report or by other technical people. I bring forward this, and I pride myself in bringing it forward early, so as to get a debate at the earliest possible moment on the merits of the scheme as so far understood. I hold that we have come to the point where a decision has to be taken on (1) is the scheme, in so far as laymen can judge it, sound; is it economically feasible and is it a good financial proposition? (2) I want a decision on paragraphs 11 and 12 of the White Paper. I have announced that in so far as the White Paper gives alternatives, the alternatives can no longer exist. The scheme will be Government controlled. Take it from the other standpoint, it means that the scheme will not be entrusted to Siemens-Schuckert to carry out and control afterwards. It is Government controlled from that point. How far and how deep the Government will have to go on control and how far the employees will be under its control is a matter which will have to wait for the Shannon Organisation Bill.

Mr. BLYTHE

I formally second the motion.

Mr. CONNOR HOGAN

I beg to move the following amendment:—

To delete all words after the word "scheme" in the first paragraph of the preamble and substitute therefor:—

"Now, therefore, be it resolved that Dáil Eireann is of opinion that the aforesaid proposals should be further examined by other experts of international reputation with reference to the feasibility of the commercial hydro-electric exploitation of the River Shannon, with further reference to drainage, utilisation of existing roads and bridges, navigation, and fisheries, in the catchment area of the river, and the Dáil further considers that pending the production of a favourable report on the scheme by the second group of experts, no new work should be initiated or obligations financial or otherwise incurred by the Executive Council."

It will be well within the memory of Deputies that last week, when the Minister for Industry and Commerce gave notice to the House that he proposed, within a subsequent day or two, to bring forward, after consultation with the Executive Council, the motion which to-day stands in his name, he said that he would bring it forward in a vague way, that it would be rather loosely worded, and that it would not commit the House to any concrete proposal. Bearing that in mind, I have put down the amendment to the Minister's scheme asking, in effect, that the House should be of opinion that the aforesaid proposal should be further examined by other experts of international reputation with reference to the feasibility of the commercial hydro-electric exploitation of the River Shannon. Further on I state that pending the production of a favourable report on the scheme by the second group of experts no new work should be initiated or obligations, financial or otherwise, incurred by the Executive Council. I worded that following the language of the Minister in the House over a week ago. I am not to be bound to those words, "experts of international repute," as a concrete and crystallised motion. The idea which underlies them, and which I have already expressed in this House, is that we should proceed very cautiously with this scheme, that we should not be swept off our feet and that we should proceed on commercial lines when dealing with a commercial project. As I say, I am not tied to the words "experts of international repute." If there is a general wish expressed to delete those words and substitute other words, for instance, "by a Committee of the Oireachtas," I am quite willing to do so, and to make any subsequent or consequent amendment in my motion. I have already expressed the opinion that this scheme should be approached in a businesslike way, that we have no place in this country for emotionalism, and I said in the House last December that the success of this scheme depends on several things: first, on the cheaper production of power to the general public; secondly, on the demands created; and thirdly, that it comes reasonably within the reach of the people who will utilise it. Otherwise I said it would be left as a white elephant on your hands. What are the things that go to constitute industrialism, or what can appertain to industrial revival in this country? I submit, first and foremost, we must have commercial enterprise and initiative; secondly, we must have technical skill; thirdly, we must have cheap materials, or materials readily accessible; fourthly, power at reasonably lower figures. These, I think, are the basic factors which go to create the power of an industrial State.

I want at this stage to say that my motion is not opposed to the electrification of the Shannon. On that I am keeping an open mind still. As I said last December, we should maintain a calm suspense of judgment and something like a judicial equipoise. In this connection it is perhaps right for the sake of emphasis to stress the point that this subject should be approached with a complete sense of intellectual and commercial values. The chief thing I would deprecate would be that this scheme of the hydro-electric exploitation of the Shannon should be brought to the hustings. We want to get away from that groove and that course of events. Opinions have been expressed in other places that we, the farmers, when we come to criticise this scheme are hostile to it, and it is suggested that perhaps we are not capable of dealing with it. I was very much struck on Tuesday in another place, in a constituent part of the Oireachtas, by an attack that was made on the Farmers' Party in dealing with this question. We were told that we had opposed many Acts of the Oireachtas.

It is supposed, I believe, in certain quarters of the country that to offer legitimate criticism, to demonstrate certain objections against a scheme, or a Bill, is not legitimate, and that we have no right to do so. If that were the case our functions here would cease, and I think the Dáil would be well advised to ask us to vacate our seats and let better men fill them. I do not admit incompetence on the part of the Farmers' Party; I do not hold with the idea that people are perhaps physiologically cast in a better mould than we are. It is said, and it is conceivable, that some men have greater opportunities, but it would not, I think, be in accordance with human nature if you had to regard some men as endowed with nature by a divine right as better and having greater ability than we have. The sophisticated rhetoricians who raised these objections against us must be answered. I listened carefully while the Minister was boosting the scheme. I cannot discern one intellectual idea, one argument advanced, or anything that would stand criticism that could be put up in a scientific manner in support of his motion. Having dealt with this to some extent, it is well to go on to the scheme itself. This, as everybody will admit, is a stupendous undertaking for an infant State, for a State which is starting the world handicapped by the troubles that convulsed the country in the last few years, a State whose credit is shaken unfortunately to a very large extent.

DEPUTIES

No.

Mr. CONNOR HOGAN

I am prepared to hold to that opinion. Well, if not in that respect, I will say a State whose resources have been seriously depleted, which is the equivalent, by the activities of the past decade. I submit that we have to proceed on very cautious lines. Seeing that the scheme, according to the statement of the Minister, will be financed by the Government and will, although carried out under Government supervision by this firm of Siemens-Schuckert as contractors, and that we are raising a sum in the first instance, I think, of £4,600,000, and as this scheme will not be productive and cannot pay anything in the nature of a dividend for a number of years to come, we are adding 15 per cent. to that and charging it as a capital figure, bringing the amount, in other words, up to £5,200,000 and adding interest. On that, at the end of seven years, in 1932 as the Minister said, there will be two charges presented to the taxpayer. He will have first and foremost to meet with unfailing regularity the dividend due on the money borrowed, and he will have to make some provision for the sinking fund. This will have to come under the heading of interest, but if, in addition, the scheme should not be earning its working cost, he will have to make good the deficiency. The scheme must be given a reasonable time to justify itself, not necessarily seven years, but perhaps twenty or twenty-five years. It is well to bear these facts in mind, and that while the Minister for Industry and Commerce spoke of certain running costs he mentioned, with regard to the partial development, and only supplying the three cities of Cork, Dublin and Limerick, that the running expenses will run to something like £315,000. The power generated must be sold at such a figure to these cities that the total revenue produced will be at least £315,000 before it will have been earning working expenses.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Does the Deputy mean to imply that the £315,000 does not include such things as interest, amortisation, maintenance, repairs and renewals? If he implies that he is wrong.

Mr. CONNOR HOGAN

Not the interest on the capital sum.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

£315,000 per annum includes everything.

Mr. CONNOR HOGAN

Admittedly this sum of £315,000 includes the sum under interest. That would leave it that the running costs would be something in the nature of, say, £60,000 or £70,000.

That is not an excessive sum, I admit, but I ask the Dáil to take it this way: Has the State—remember, as I said in the beginning, we have to deal with commercial principles in this matter—such a record of success, the State not alone in this country but in any country, that it can give an assurance, with any reasonable prospect, in contrast with a commercial company, to pay a dividend after bearing the customary working costs? I doubt it. We certainly have not in this State any such record. Therefore, I hold that we ought to proceed slowly in this matter. When you come to examine the principles on which these estimates are based, you must realise that, industrially, we are at a very low ebb indeed. It is well, I think, to go into the cause which has left us in that unhappy position. I regret to say, but there is no disputing the fact, because it is an undoubted truth, that the commercial enterprise of our people, in the main, is at a very low ebb indeed. They have not shown any great initiative, and to the knowledge of everyone, even under the best prospects and the most cheerful hopes, they have not shown a great degree of commercial enterprise. The monied interests in this country—I am speaking now not alone of the great financiers but of the men in the towns of the country with money to speculate —have not gone into these things. In the first place, they have not done so because they have been seriously hampered by the want of skilled labour, or perhaps they have not got the commercial instinct or brains. These facts are notorious, and there is no doubt about them. In the second place, we have not the technical skill in this country. Even if any great expansion of industry were to take place in the country tomorrow we are short of skilled labour. At the moment, if millions of money could be poured into the country for industrial development, we are handicapped in this respect, that we have not a sufficient number of skilled tradesmen who would be ready to come forward and meet the demand created.

Some months ago, Deputy Good, in this House, put forward one reason why that was so. He said that young people cannot be got to go as trade apprentices because they can earn quite as much in unskilled trades or as unskilled labourers. It is well, of course, to realise that, in the course of years, we can remedy that state of affairs. We can, I hope, arouse a commercial instinct, and through the medium of the schools create an interest in technology, but, I submit, that must necessarily be the work of years. It will be largely beyond this generation to remedy that state of affairs, because it is only into the adult population that this idea can be infused. Unless you can get the parents to move, get them to encourage their sons to take advantage of the best education which the country can give them in these matters, there is no doubt whatever but that our industrial regeneration must be deferred to another generation. I could, if I desired, frame a terrible indictment against the secondary education system of to-day.

In order to come to a proper realisation of this Shannon project, it is necessary that I should touch on that subject briefly. Until the business instinct is aroused in the schools, and until we put away the idea that the centre of gravity is in another world, and that perhaps all visible and tangible objectives are placed there also, I have no great hope that such a scheme for the Shannon—a fine one, I admit—as that outlined can, within the time allowed by the Minister, come to fruition. It does not do to put our heads in the clouds or in the air. The Minister bases his case on the intense demand that will be created for electricity. Speaking in a general way, and ignoring for the moment the cities, let me take the rural areas. How many shopkeepers in the country villages, I ask, will take in electricity? How many of them have installed the telephone? Even in towns with a population of four, five or six thousand people, a comparatively small number are telephone subscribers. I know a town with a population of between five and six thousand, and I am sure there are not more than 40 telephone subscribers in it. Perhaps commercially you may say that they are retrogressive, but that is the truth.

This report has been prepared with the idea that a good part of the electrical energy generated will be devoted to agricultural purposes. I think it is like drawing the long bow, to a very large extent, to say that, in the near future, farmers will instal a plant in their homes. I doubt it very much. That, then, is seriously curtailing the demand. I know a village where one of the residents—the man in question, who is well known to the Minister for Education, resides in the village of Corofin and is a prominent supporter of the Minister—incurred great expense in putting in at his place a suction gas plant. The village has a population of about 400 people, and I may say that quite a large number of them are well-to-do people. This gentleman put in a suction gas plant at a cost of £1,000, from which he generated electricity. Not one person in the village took a supply of electricity from his plant, and he now uses it simply to light his own house. That is a hard, ugly fact in connection with this scheme which I would ask Deputies to bear in mind.

In dealing with this I am putting forward the idea that the State is scarcely the best body to deal with this question. I am not opposing the scheme, but I am endeavouring, as far as possible through my amendment, to have a most complete examination of the whole problem so as to save the taxpayers of the country. I am not doubting the fact that the engineering problem can be made a success, or at least a reasonable success. Deputies on these benches must necessarily have regard to the questions which have been brought forward, namely, navigation, drainage and the utilisation of the existing roads and bridges. That is one of the reasons why I am inclined to move that a committee of the Dáil should be set up to deal with the whole question, or, perhaps, better still, a committee composed of representatives of the Oireachtas which could go deeply into the whole question and then make a report.

No individual at the moment can very well enter into a stupendous mass of calculation that arises out of the Shannon Scheme in the Experts' Report. The thing needs, I think, before we can pronounce finally upon it, to be condensed somewhat more, and it would be very well if a committee of the Dáil or of the Oireachtas could be set up to go into it. We do not want at this stage to pronounce for or against the scheme; that would be hardly fair. I have no doubt whatever that the experts have done their business in an excellent way, But after all, we are plain citizens and we are simply the common jury of the nation. In a trial at law does not everything hinge on the verdict of the jury? Do not the experts and counsel in that case come forward and plead and leave it to the intelligence of the twelve men in the jury box to determine the verdict? That is what I am seeking in moving this amendment. I would deprecate any idea of rushing this scheme and I think it would not be in the best interests of the State to do so. The objections I have raised to the fact of the State becoming the projector could be met in this way. If the people up and down the country shouting and clamouring for the hydro-electric exploitation of the Shannon are prepared to come in on their own and lend this money to the Government let them do so, but let them not press for guarantees from the taxpayers. If they will come in on a speculative issue I think a great deal of the opposition must necessarily be withdrawn. If they are prepared to take their fortunes in their hands and say to the Government: "You manage this scheme; make it a commercial success, but we will take the risk. We will not embarrass the State by seeking dividends or interest on the money we lend for construction."

That would be the real test of the worth of this scheme, but we have not got it. I am not very keen on seeing the indebtedness of this State increased. We unfortunately must create some debt, but, at the time when our trade balances are not so good it would not be wise to pitch ourselves forward. I ask the Government, if they do not accept my amendment to put up some counter-proposal that would give us an opportunity of proceeding slowly, so that we could get the considered judgment of the country upon this issue. The statement of the Minister certainly influenced me to this extent: that I am of the opinion that as an engineering proposition the Shannon presents no insuperable difficulty as to drainage, although there are some things to which we should have very great regard and some things which we should bear in mind. Now, it is a well-known fact that storms, and very severe storms, rage periodically at Lough Derg. I wonder has that been borne in mind by the experts? Perhaps the safety of the dams on the occasion of these storms might be seriously imperilled. That is a question we have to look to. I really want to be helpful. It is possible that by an accident of nature the dams might give way. I am not frightened at the idea of that, still at the same time we are justified in seeing that reasonable precautions are taken by bringing intelligent criticism to bear upon constructional or meliorative work as it is called. I understood, from the Minister's speech and from the Report of the experts on Messrs. Siemens' scheme, that these syphons and drainage-trenches and pumps, necessary for power, and for the drainage of the Shannon, will incidentally be a charge upon the scheme. Will there be any cost whatever to the riparian owners? or, if there is a cost, what percentage of the cost of lifting the water by hydraulic power from trenches, and emptying it into the canal, must be borne by the riparian owners? That is a pertinent question, and one on which we must get some details at some later stage at least.

There is one thing I would like to dissociate myself from in connection with this matter. It has been suggested that some criminally-minded people might blow up the dams and flood the surrounding areas. That is a thing I do not like to contemplate. It certainly is not my opinion, and it should not be stated as a reason for preventing the development of the scheme. I say that is put up as a serious objection. I refrain from doing it. It is dishonourable to our country to think that the mass of our people would be so base and treacherous to their country, and to their neighbours that they would deliberately wreck the dams, flood the country, and drown thousands of their own people.

There is just one more factor that I would like to give. I have endeavoured to point out that the Minister outside the cities cannot hope for, nor will there be any, great demand for power, except for light and industry. I believe to any large extent, the farmers, at least for many years to come, will not take it in. The same may be said perhaps for the small villages. The bigger county towns, in some instances at least, will be rather slow, and in places where energy is taken it will be used more for light and power rather than for heat. There is no doubt whatever that the utilisation of electricity for heating is scarcely an economic proposition. Gas or coal provide cheaper fuel. It is scarcely, I think, right, in dealing with Norway, to speak so much of domestic consumption of electricity in their rural areas and towns. The climatic conditions in Norway are totally dissimilar to Ireland. In-Norway you have a very severe winter; they must have a fire in every room in the house and all over the premises. Is it not a reasonable thing to assume that the very high percentage of consumption of electricity per head of the population is due to that fact and to the difficulty of obtaining fuel in Norway? I submit it is not unreasonable, and, also, that the great demand in Denmark is due to the highly industrialised conditions there. I am speaking now in the agricultural sense, and in Denmark there is a highly technical development of agriculture which cannot be created in this country for the next twenty or thirty years. I suppose it would need another generation of Irishmen to bring about that desirable state of affairs.

The Minister stated that he does not anticipate that the demand will be for power for industries alone. Somehow or other I disagree with him in that. I think that even in the towns it is power that will be most in demand and industries will certainly, to a very large extent, consume the energy. You will not have so much left for heating purposes. In the cities, like Dublin or Cork, the application of this power will be to new industries more than to anything else. Remember that a lot of established industries have already got furnaces, and they have other means of generating power than electricity. A change in that respect will not be brought about in a day or two, and the Minister is rather optimistic in thinking that in eight or ten years people will scrap their existing plants in favour of installing electric power.

In conclusion, I reiterate the idea I have given expression to during the debate. We should proceed slowly with this thing and not commit ourselves. Let us not rush this thing on the public. Less than a fortnight has elapsed since these documents were placed in our hands. We have not been able to examine them in the careful way that they merit. I submit it is hardly fair to ask the House at this juncture to give a preliminary endorsement of the Siemens-Schuckert proposal. If the scheme is deserving of all the experts say of it, it will justify itself in time. Let it justify itself. Give it time and it will confound and confuse its critics. Our credit would be very adversely affected by rushing with undue haste into this thing and embarking on this project. Let us realise this fact in addition: that it is not alone the money sunk in the Shannon scheme that would be actually lost, but that crash would have its reactions in every phase of our industrial life. Those are the things which have led me to put down this amendment. I would ask the Minister and the Government to proceed very slowly and very cautiously in this matter.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Before the amendment is seconded, let me point out that Deputy Hogan's amendment is to delete all words after the word "scheme" in the first paragraph of the preamble and substitute other words. In discussing that amendment, I propose to allow Deputies to touch on questions raised by it, and also raised in the amendment that stands in the name of Deputy Figgis, if that amendment is to be moved or if anybody desires to discuss it, and I will also allow discussion on the general matters raised by the Minister when he was moving the main question. I then intend to put the question that the words proposed to be deleted stand part of the motion. In that way the debate will not be restricted to any particular amendment on the Paper, and will also touch on any matters that were raised by the Minister. Who seconds the amendment?

Mr. HEFFERNAN

I beg to second.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

As I have already intimated to you, A Chinn Comhairle, it is not my intention to move the amendment on the paper standing in my name. I came to that decision because of a debate in another place where certain issues were raised that I do not desire to enter into on this occasion. I did not desire to enter into those matters on any occasion, but the Minister's speech in the debate last December has made it inevitable that something should be said in regard to them. It is all the more inevitable because of his speech and the speech of certain persons in a debate that took place in another House. I had intended doing so quite briefly, and I will do so quite briefly. I will ask the indulgence of the House while I do so. It will naturally come into the mind of any Deputy of this House—and the suggestion, as I say, has already been made in other places—that anyone who was identified with the Liffey scheme, and who speaks upon the Shannon scheme, is really arguing in his own interests and is not a sufficiently disinterested person. I, therefore, find it necessary to make it clear that I am speaking in this matter, as far as possibly can be attained, as a disinterested person, if, by way of interest, is meant a desire or search for monetary profits in the defeat of the proposal now before the Dáil. That has been the suggestion that was made.

Why I touch upon this matter is this: I was sorry that the Minister should have himself given sponsor, by innuendo, to the suggestion of interestedness. It is perfectly true that I have been connected, and Sir John Purser Griffith, who moved another amendment similar to that which stands in my name, has been connected with a proposal for the development of the Liffey rather than the Shannon, having in the first instance carefully compared both at the time when the field was clear for both, and having come to the decision that the economic interests of the country were best served by a development of the Liffey. I want to make it clear at this stage that at no moment of that discussion, or at no moment of that promotion, was the question of personal profits entered into or considered by any of those who undertook that decision.

Mr. GOREY

Very creditable, indeed.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

Perhaps the Deputy may have some comments to make on the matter after I have finished.

Mr. GOREY

I admired the sentence.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

When the company with which I am connected had been started, its first step was to get a report from a well-known expert as to whether the project was, in his judgment, sound or not. When that was received, a decision was come to at once, at a meeting of the board at which all were present, that the proposal for the Liffey development should be offered to the Government, that a proposal should be made to the Government to undertake it as a State scheme, and that the company would put it through and would present it to the Government. That letter was written by the chairman of the company, Sir John Purser Griffith, to the President of the Executive Council, on the 16th April, 1923, the company having been started the previous month. I will read the letter:—

"You are, no doubt, aware of the interest which I have taken in the development of the water power resources of Ireland for many years past, and particularly in that of our own river, the Liffey. My one desire is that this development shall be carried out in the best possible manner in the interest of the city and district of Dublin. I have, for the past four years, devoted a great deal of time and thought to this object. I have lost no opportunity of advocating State ownership and control of this great national asset, and rejoice greatly that the Constitution of the Free State asserts its ownership and authority over such resources. It has been my wish that the Swiss method of State control should extend to individual development in Ireland and that in this way the State should exercise a dominating control even over the development of the water power resources of the Liffey. In a letter which I received last February"—from a certain person who is named; I omit the name—"the Secretary of the Ministry of Industry and Commerce, he referred in very cordial terms to certain papers which I sent him on this subject, and used the following words:—

"‘It is obvious from studying them that water power has a most direct bearing on the economic future of the country, and it is much to be hoped that some able and determined body of undertakers will present themselves in the near future, ready to develop on business lines this dormant asset.'"

That was the quotation made in the letter by Sir John Griffith, and I again revert to his own words:—

"It seemed evident to me from this letter that the Government did not see its way to undertake the work themselves. The danger was very obvious, that the project might fall into the hands of financial speculators, with whom financial interests would take first place and the interests of the country second place. With the aim of safeguarding the position, a small private company has been formed to obtain the necessary statutory authority to construct the works and hand them over as the State may determine to a State Department or to a trust or to a statutory company under lease or licence, as contemplated by the Constitution. The private company above referred to includes"—certain members who are named—"To ensure success it is essential that we should have the goodwill of the Government, and we would ask you to grant two or three of our number an interview at such time and place as may suit your convenience best, in order that any doubtful points may be cleared up so as to enable us to meet the wishes of the Government and further this great work."

That is a letter that I have not the least hesitation, as his colleague, to describe as characteristic of a very noble mind, whose intention throughout this whole matter has been, in the closing years of his life, to confer some legacy that might be of benefit to the people of this country and not entered upon in the sense of personal profit or exploitation. The words explain themselves. The President of the Executive Council, in reply to that letter, did accord the interview that was asked for, and a conference was held with him on the 3rd May, 1923. He was accompanied by executive officers of the Department of Industry and Commerce. He met two members of the particular body with which Sir John Griffith was associated. A minute was kept of all these affairs, the minute being made that day, and checked over by all the persons on our side who were present at this conference. At that meeting the suggestion was made to the President that the Liffey scheme should be put through and taken by the Government and conducted and continued by the Government. A suggestion was made that if the Government so desired, being at that time busy in regard to other matters, the Company would put the scheme through and would present it to the Government. At that meeting this was the proposal that was put to the President of the Executive Council. It was suggested to him that the scheme might be presented in one of three possible forms: (a) as a State scheme, (b) as a public-body scheme, and (c) as a private-enterprise scheme. We did not venture to suggest any preference between these schemes. Our desire was that the best scheme should be employed, and to assist in the prosecution of that scheme with all the knowledge and information at our disposal. We suggested it was a matter for the head of the Government to state which of these schemes, in the consideration and judgment of the Government, was the right one to be adopted. On that decision everything else hinged. If it were to be decided that the scheme should be made a State scheme, a Government rather than a Private Bill would be necessary.

In that case the company was prepared to put the scheme into working order for the Government, and in making such an offer they were as far disinterested as they could be in that they were involved in no contracts or pre-contracts. The same offer held good, if it were decided to proceed with the scheme as a public-body scheme. In that alternative a Private Bill might be necessary, but it would have to be of a different kind of Bill from the kind necessary for private enterprise. In either of these two alternatives the company was willing either to put up the proposal or not, as it was decided. That was the suggestion made before the President of the Executive Council, and his decision was that if this matter were to proceed it would have to proceed as a private enterprise, that the State would not undertake it, that their hands were too full of other things, which was a reasonably accurate description of the state of affairs existing at that time.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

took the Chair.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

We were invited to proceed with the scheme as a private-enterprise scheme, to prove, as he said, that such schemes could stand on their own feet without any need of State assistance. Following that conference, a further conference was invited by the Company with the Minister for Industry and Commerce. It was pointed out to the Minister for Industry and Commerce that the Government had stated it might be prepared to back a certain part of the issue of a private enterprise of this kind with a guarantee of debentures in order to cheapen the actual price that would be paid by the consumer by lowering the initial capital outlay. A request for a further meeting was made, this time directly from the Minister concerned, that is to say, the predecessor of the present Minister for Industry and Commerce. That meeting was held on the 31st May. I will only read one part of the minute of it. It dealt with a number of small matters, chiefly of a technical kind. The part which I will refer to deals with a matter that is important for the House to know, not only in connection with the Government's position in this matter, but also in connection with certain parts that properly belong to the consideration of the Shannon scheme. We asked to know what was the meaning of the suggestion that had been put forward by the Secretary of the Department at the earlier meeting that the Government might be prepared to guarantee interest on stock during the years while the work of construction was going on, and while it lay out of profit. The Secretary for the Department replied that he had merely thrown out the suggestion, that he was not giving it as an authorised suggestion, and that he believed the Department, however, would be prepared to recommend the guarantee of the issue of a certain number of debentures. I ask the Dáil to recollect that, because it has an important bearing on a matter that will return afterwards. I would like also to draw the attention of the Dáil to one other part of the minute touching this meeting, for this reason—a reference was made to Article 11 of the Constitution. We always held that in the development of the water power of this country, Article 11 did give a very clear superintendence to the Government, and a superintendence of which the Government could not disacquit itself. It was decided that that matter should be referred to the Attorney-General. Obviously people are not going to raise questions of that kind if they are concerned at any moment with interests of a purely personal character or with interests of purely personal profit. All the way through, the President and the Minister took the line that developments of this kind were not going to be undertaken by the Government; that they would have to be pressed through by Private Bill legislation, and that it was not in the power of the Executive Council—and I ask the Dáil to consider this point particularly—to step in and prejudice the procedure required in the course of ordinary Private Bill legislation. That was the attitude that was taken up then.

I ask the Dáil to reflect whether the procedure now taken in the matter of the Shannon was not a complete violation of the procedure required in such matters, and of the procedure defined by the Oireachtas as necessary to follow a certain stated process according to the Standing Order, for Private Bill legislation. Then arose a long series of letters backward and forward. I only propose to read just through one or two of them. They are very important. They involve—I will make the statement reluctantly, but I am bound to say it—the good faith of the Government. We had asked whether it might not fairly be assumed that in as much as a certain person who held a Government position was identified with the rival project, the Government was identified with this project, and whether the Government did intend in matters of water power development to observe an attitude of strict impartiality. This was the reply we got, dated the 29th June:

"The Minister is unable to anticipate in what concrete form schemes for the development of the Liffey will ultimately be put forward. But he is satisfied that until a practical and detailed scheme does emerge, the impartiality of the Government in so far as it may be concerned in the matter, is in no way affected."

That was followed on the following month, of July 27th, by words that were even more emphatic. He said:—

"The questions you have addressed to this Department appear to the Assistant Minister—"

At that time, I should mention here, Deputy Whelehan was acting, as the Dáil will remember, for the Minister, because the Minister himself was concerned with important military duties at Portobello. The letter goes on:—

"The questions you have addressed to this Department appear to the Assistant Minister to be answered by the statement already made, that the Government is, and intends to remain, entirely impartial in this matter."

Further inquiries were made with regard to the suggestion that in the first instance emanated from the Government itself for a guarantee of debenture stock so as to reduce initial capital outlay and so as to reduce the cost price of power to the consumer, and this was the answer made on October 15th. Now we are approaching an interesting date. We are approaching October.

Mr. GOREY

In what year?

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

October, 1923. I will show exactly why this date becomes astonishingly interesting. The answer made to that proposal, which was initiated in the first instance by the Government and not by us, was:

"The proposal that the Government should guarantee interest on debentures is, in the view of the Minister for Finance, impracticable in the present financial circumstances of the Free State."

That is a sentence that also has a certain amount of bearing on the proposal with which we are confronted here today in respect of the Shannon. Now I come to a letter which I suggest is a very remarkable one in view of the circumstances that have since transpired. We learned that two of the other bodies promoting Liffey schemes had had a joint consultation, as it appeared to us, under the superintendence and chairmanship of the Department for Industry and Commerce, and we wrote inquiring to know what exactly the meeting was for, a very legitimate and proper question. On December 12th we got this answer:—

"As indicated by the President, by the Assistant Minister for Industry and Commerce, and even more recently by the Minister, the Government would gladly welcome any joint proposal with regard to Liffey power development."

That was in December. On the following January the White Paper came out. Now Christmas intervened. It is perfectly clear that the White Paper was the result of very long continued negotiations, and I would like to know if these negotiations were actually proceeding at the time when this letter was sent to us inviting us to—

The PRESIDENT

No, sir, there were no negotiations when that letter was sent.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

There were no negotiations on December 12th?

The PRESIDENT

No, there were none.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

Well, the President has said it, and that is always quite sufficient for me. But in view of that letter which was sent, once negotiations were started would it not have been a very proper thing that those who were invited by the Government, as they are here invited by the Government, to undertake this matter, and incur expenditure, should have been informed that this letter was to be cancelled? I am charged when I make criticisms in the Dáil with regard to the Shannon that I am doing so from reasons of interestedness, with regard to profits. I make that clear. I say the correspondence that I hold here in my hand, if passed between any two firms in this country, would constitute a contract that would be held binding in the courts or else that the breaking of such a contract would be followed by certain damages that would ensue. As I have already said, in January the White Paper was published. I had already been invited to proceed in this matter——

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Does the Deputy say that the White Paper was published in January?

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

My recollection is that the White Paper was circulated in January.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Letters in the White Paper are dated the 26th and 29th of February. It could hardly have been published in January.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

I am obliged for the Minister's correction. I was relying on my recollection in this matter, and I still state what I have already said, with the correction that a month later than I had informed the House certain matters occurred of which it would have been right that we should have been informed. The Minister knew when he stood up in the Seanad, or he could easily have procured the information, because it is in his Department, that when he suggested by implication in the Seanad that there was financial interestedness in the matter when opposition was being put forward, that that was not the case, and that we had from the beginning to the end of the whole business acted in consultation and in constant and continual touch with the Government and with his Department.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

This is another lapse of memory on the Deputy's part. Does he insinuate that I stated that in the Seanad?

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

I ask the Minister what he meant when, in answer to criticism of a certain engineer who is a director of the company of which I am director, said to the Seanad: "A director of a company promoted for the development of the Liffey." What is the meaning of that sentence?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I will explain it this moment. A letter had appeared in the Press from Mr. Delap stating that a certain dam projected in the Shannon works was weak and would burst. I stated that a certain dam projected in the Liffey by Mr. Delap had been condemned by an expert, whereas the dam in the Shannon has been passed by four experts. It was a case of one dam versus another, and the case of a director versus another.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

The Minister very deftly steps aside. I shall deal with that particular criticism of the Minister's with regard to whether these dams are not worth other dams. But what was the meaning of this deft remark that he dropped that this person who had written was the promoter of a scheme for the Liffey if it was not to instil into the minds of the persons who heard him that there was interestedness in the matter?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Not at all, it is quite obviously a question between two schemes, and it was to show the unsoundness of one scheme.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

The Minister put a very innocent construction upon the words that nobody else who heard them put on them.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I mean my explanation with regard to the non-imputation of disinterestedness to apply merely to Mr. Delap.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

I never suggested that the Minister excluded that imputation from others. I know very well that he has included everybody in it, and I made it perfectly clear that he had no right to have included one person, so far as our particular company was concerned, and that information was within his procurance in the files of his Department. But not only that. I urge that the Minister has no right whatever when he brings forward proposals in this House to load them with the particularly sentimental bias with which he has loaded this strictly business proposition. His speech last December in the Dáil referred in very glowing terms, terms not less glowing than justified and well-earned, to the work that has been done on the Shannon by Mr. Chaloner Smith. It was understood by Deputies—and I have checked the effect—that Mr. Chaloner Smith was a person who believed in the prosecution of the Shannon scheme.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Did I say it, though?

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

Oh, no; you did not say it; you were much too subtle for that. But if he was not cited for that purpose then why was he cited?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

For one thing— for water flow.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

Very well, I will cite him to show that he has gone on record to describe the Shannon scheme as the great Shannon myth, not this scheme, but the Shannon Power Development. But another matter has been introduced, and this also, I suggest, should not have been used by the Minister. Now occur the words that he used here in regard to a representative in this country of Siemens-Schuckert, Dr. McLaughlin. He said:

It gives me considerable pride in the University in which I graduated to find that it was a young Irish graduate of that University who, being in the employment of Messrs. Siemens-Schuckert, first thought of and followed with enthusiasm this project of the development of the River Shannon.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

"This project?"

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

This project. I said "this project."

Mr. McGILLIGAN

You did not emphasise it.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

I am emphasising it now—"This project."

It is possibly a year since this project of the utilisation of the power of the River Shannon for the country's needs first came clearly before the mind of Dr. McLaughlin, and over that period while the scheme was part forming and while his attention was directed to other events, he showed so much energy and enthusiasm in getting this particular project brought to a head that he did finally succeed in imposing his point of view upon the directors of Siemens-Schuckert firm——

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I have the word "impressing."

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

Impressing; very well.

impressing his point of view upon the directors of Siemens-Schuckert firm and upon the Cabinet of the Irish Government. It does seem to me to be a matter worthy of comment that in a country in which electrical engineers have so little chance of being properly developed there was discovered, at the proper time, a young graduate of the National University who, in a distant country, could conceive the idea of this, could interest the great firm of Siemens-Schuckert in it, and could, by attention to details that were within his own province, help to get prepared a scheme which has secured the approval of these experts, the approval which has been in part put before you this evening.

Therefore, Dr. McLaughlin originated this new inquiry into the potentialities of the Shannon, and I am ready to infer that he did so out of his enthusiasm for the development of this country. Dr. McLaughlin is a careful and eminent scientific man who represents this firm in this country, and represents this firm well, and if any one of us were in charge of any firm we could not ask for any person who would more ably and consistently prosecute the interests of that firm than Dr. McLaughlin. I am not, therefore, to be interpreted as saying anything in regard to him when I say that on July 21st, 1923. Dr. McLaughlin came to Grafton Street to see the Anna Liffey Power Development Company, desired to get for Messrs. Siemens the Liffey Scheme, and left a paper which had been written to show how that scheme might be developed to the advantage of the country surrounding Dublin. When he was informed that no contract could be considered at that stage, that we had come to the principle that the fullest possible competition would be required in regard to contracts if the Liffey Bill secured the sanction of Parliament—and soon after that Bill procured the sanction of Parliament— Dr. McLaughlin, having failed to do what he had a right to do and should have done, to have attended to the interests of the firm in getting the utmost amount of contracts for that firm, then turned to the Shannon scheme and went to the Government to see if he could not get another contract. He has succeeded in getting it. He has been an exceedingly able man, but let that not be the test here. I would not have touched upon this matter but that the question of disinterestedness has been mentioned. Certain persons have put forward a scheme and offered it to the Government, proposed to incur expenditure for which no reinbursement would be required. That was the proposal by Sir John Griffith. They are to be charged with not being disinterested, whereas Dr. McLaughlin is held up as an example of disinterested scientific patriotism, when the facts are that he first sought one contract and, when he failed to get that one contract, he then went in for this contract on the Shannon, as he was quite right in doing, for his firm.

I think if there be interestedness and disinterestedness the facts I have related—and I am sorry to have gone into them in such detail—will show exactly how the matter stands. I do make the claim to stand here and speak in respect to the Shannon and the Liffey as disinterestedly as any person can, and certainly very considerably disinterested so far as finance is concerned. I have on the Government's guarantee embarked on two years' work in the Liffey, and put certain moneys that represented hard savings into it. I say good-bye to that without any reluctance and without any tears if this scheme is proved to be a right and proper scheme for the country to adopt. It would not cause me a vast amount of disappointment, it will not bring to me any irretrievable disasters. I have survived other things, and I would survive that. But I am now claiming that we ought to have a more careful and fuller investigation of the Shannon than we have had, and I will show the Dáil why I say that and on what I base that opinion.

Take the two documents the Dáil has received. Since I first became interested in 1919, when I was first charged by the Government of Dáil Eireann of that time with inquiries into the industrial resources of this country, I have read a good many different reports and works dealing with the water powers of this country. I read this book of Messrs. Siemens-Schuckert; I also read the experts' report. For the experts' report, upon which I intend to base the majority of my criticism, I express a good deal of admiration and respect. I am sorry that that is not available in the same unmeasured way for the Siemens scheme. I do not know, of course, what the original book was that was put before the Minister, but I do know that the book we have got before us contains a great deal that is quite unnecessary; pictures of steamboats and rivers; pictures—I was going to say—of fire extinguishers; long tables of statistics and calculations that might quite well have been sent over and dismissed to schedules and appendices, but which are put into the body of the text, I suspect, but with one intention, and that is, so that any person not having the necessary technical knowledge, but having quite sufficient power to grasp the scheme if it were put forward in clear and simple terms—such terms as the Minister has employed in the Dáil——

The PRESIDENT

Is there more than one picture of a steamboat?—I only saw one.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

I only said there was one. I think while they were about it they might have given one or two more.

The PRESIDENT

It was perfectly justified in that case, because it was underneath one of those large poles where the wires go across the river.

Mr. GOREY

Is that all that is wrong with the report?

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

There are pages of statistics and calculations here that do not belong to this scheme. If the scheme were reduced to its simple proportions and set forth in simple terms, as could be done, I think that the essential weaknesses of it would be far more easily discovered by the Deputy. The Experts' Report, which the Minister himself has said is the essential matter upon which he bases his speech and bases his advocacy in the Dáil, is quite another matter. But there are matters in both that we ought to have. There ought to be those binding estimates. I suppose the Minister has got them, but I fail to find those binding estimates.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

They are not in the Deputy's hands. They are presented to the Government.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

They are not put where they could be checked by others. That is the point I am making.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Or employed by others.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

They would not be easily employed until they had first been checked. I wish to emphasise the first stage of the proceedings. We have no maps and no plans. I put down a question with regard to plans the other day and the Minister dealt with the matter very briefly and summarily. Why are these matters required for Private Bill legislation if not that the Parliament and the persons affected in the area should have the fullest information at their disposal? We have not got the fullest information at our disposal. I suggest that the information in both these is very considerably inadequate. The Minister starting here to-day—I do not know whether the intention was to have drafted the resolution in that form or not—said that he drew attention to certain parts of the wording of the resolution. He emphasised the words, "the partial development scheme." He stated that he did not consider that the full development scheme was the matter before the Dáil for its present discussion. I am at a loss to understand the Minister's procedure in this matter. I tell the Dáil that, if it limits its discussion to that range and passes the partial development scheme, we shall have the Minister in after years saying: "Was it not obvious that if you passed the partial development scheme you were committed, nationally speaking, to the entire Shannon scheme, to the exclusion of all other schemes?"

What has been the procedure from the beginning in this matter? The White Paper was sent round to Deputies. Some of us waited to know what the Government was going to do in regard to the White Paper. Nothing was done. A year after the Minister stood up in the Dáil and said that "because nobody objected to it it is now, therefore, a binding contract; because no steps were taken to repudiate it it is now a matter to which we are pledged as a Government." But it was for the Government itself to have taken action at the time and not to have allowed the Dáil to have become committed, simply because of its inaction at a particular moment, when the Dáil legitimately and rightly expected that the Government would take the action that was required if they felt that action had been required. We are coming to the same thing again.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Am I supposed to have said that the White Paper was a binding contract?

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

The Dáil will suffer me if I just touch upon this matter in parenthesis. The Minister, last December, said that he summoned the Liffey parties before him and put them certain proposals. I traversed the interpretation that the Minister gave on that occasion. I hold in my hand a minute made of that meeting in which certain words appear that were taken down verbatim from the Minister's own words. These were his words:—"The parties (he said) were aware that the Government has interested itself in the Shannon scheme, being promoted by Messrs. Siemens. They were aware, also (now I come to the actual quotation of his own words) of the White Paper which formed the contract between the Government and Siemens." Will the Minister say he repudiates these words, and that it is not a contract?

The PRESIDENT

£5,000.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I must entirely repudiate any draft that Deputy Figgis brings before the Dáil on his sole authority as representing what I said at any meeting.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

That is why I asked if the Minister repudiates these words and says they are inaccurate.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I refer the Deputy to what I said when questioned publicly on the same subject by Deputy Johnson on the 19th December.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

At least the Minister will not deny this, that after the White Paper was circulated to Deputies Government commitments were made, without the White Paper being followed, as I suggest the White Paper should have been followed, by a tabled resolution in the Dáil, by which the Dáil would know exactly what was going to be done in regard to that White Paper, and without inferences to be drawn by anyone that action might or might not be taken unless they intervened.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

The Deputy can assume what he likes. I say the White Paper was not a contract.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

Very well, we have the same thing here again. We are told that it is only partial development we are now to consider, and that the full development must come on later. I propose to consider the proposal before the Dáil now, and that is, not only what we will do immediately or what we will not do immediately, but what will be involved subsequently, finally and ultimately in the act we now take. That is the decision the Dáil is to take. It is not correct to suggest that we are only binding the country by our decision to partial development. I say if we go in for partial development now the country will be pledged to full development and the subsequent stages of the development of the Shannon as they may require to be taken.

The PRESIDENT

No, not without the full development being a business proposition. In other words, if there is only demand for the partial development as it stands that ends the matter.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

That is precisely what I said. If at a later stage more power is required, this country will be pledged by the present act to take that further amount of power from the Shannon.

The PRESIDENT

No.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

We come to a difference of interpretation. I suggest to the Dáil that the act it is now taking is practically committing this State to the Shannon for all subsequent stages, and not merely the immediately partial stage. The Minister dealt with the question of drainage. If I may suggest to the Minister there are certain aspects of that drainage that need to be considered in a different way. If drainage is going to be undertaken it is not going to be only undertaken on the lower reaches of the Shannon basin, but will have to be undertaken in the higher reaches of the Shannon basin. It will have to be undertaken as a full development scheme. If drainage be done in that way the entire run-off calculations on which this scheme is based will be immediately affected.

The most remarkable part of the proposal now before the Dáil refers to the embankments. In the Shannon scheme —not merely the partial development, but the other parts of development of the Shannon—the essential idea on which the whole thing is based is that Lough Derg will be surrounded by an embankment. In other words, the lough will be extended down as far as O'Brien's Bridge. Not only will it be extended as far as O'Brien's Bridge, but the present rocky foundation underneath the river at Killaloe will be dredged away so that the entire weight of the water in Lough Derg will be available to press down upon the water going straight into the power house for manufacture into electricity. In other words, the lough will be extended down to O'Brien's Bridge for five miles on either side. There will be ten miles of embankments, besides embankments that at a subsequent stage will become necessary to surround the entire lake. It is suggested in the Experts' Report that embankments of this kind will be subject to percolation amounting to ten per cent.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Do you say "will be"?

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

I said "may." That assumed a manner of building these embankments in a certain way. I refer the House to page 20 of the Experts' Report.

The dammed-up section of the Shannon from Killaloe to O'Brien's Bridge because of the necessary high embankment on the river, 11.0 alternatively 8.5 metres over the subsoil, and because of the material necessary to construct them. The borings which come into question here are Numbers 1, 2, 41 and 42, and they show strata of clay, sand and gravel. The materials referred to are capable of resisting the pressure of the embankments. For the embankments the sand seems to be somewhat too fine. Care must be taken that an intimate mixture of sand and clay is used for the embankments, so that no whole portion of embankments will consist of fine sand.

Is it not obvious from the words I have quoted that a very great deal of care will be necessary in the making of the embankments?

The Minister has referred both here and on a previous occasion in the Seanad to expert evidence that was given in respect of the Liffey Bill before the Private Bill Committee. On that occasion a Swiss expert appeared. He said he did not believe the reservoir at Poulaphouca ought to be raised above a certain level, 606 ordnance data, because above that level appeared certain forms of land known as Bishop's Land stretching for miles, consisting of sand and clay, that was deposited in glacial times, because he believed that that particular tract of country would admit of very serious percolation of the reservoir, although the passage of thousands of years would have consolidated that mixture, and one would have thought enabled it to resist any pressure. Here is the report made by the expert. An expert of calibre no less than those who report on this matter said in public evidence, and bore cross-examination, which is another matter of considerable importance, that land of the nature of these embankments would suffer serious percolation. I am not going to say that there will or will not be serious percolation, but I would point out to the Dáil that you have here a conflict of testimony between two experts. Take another matter. A gentleman who is one of the riparian owners whose interests will be affected in this matter, referred to certain conditions prevalent in the locality which those who are farming in that locality will be familiar with. If I go wrong in any particulars, I hope they will bear with me and correct me. I am told there are certain lands down there called callows, low-lying meadow lands. Those farmers informed me that after heavy rains water collects in those callows. The sun evaporates some of it, but a certain amount always remains in the cups. Checks and measurements were made, and it was discovered that the height of the water in the cups was the height of the river which was one of the tributaries of the Shannon, the Little Brosna, I think they called it. The height of the water lying in this land was the same as the river's height, some considerable distance away. It appears that the waterworks authorities undertook some works in connection with this river. They proved futile owing to the fact that because of the subsoil formation the water in the river percolated through the land. The farmers informed me that one of the reasons why they have sought to have the plans for which, at their request, I asked, was they wanted to know exactly where those embankments were to be placed, because they say land of that subsoil formation is to be found round Lough Derg. They maintain and hold if there be such land—and experts were only here for three months and took no borings on that part—that even if the embankments be strong enough to hold the water against percolation, there will be percolation underneath the embankments to such an extent as to swamp the pumps and stop the working of the whole scheme. I do not say that is so or that it is not so, but these are matters that require some fuller investigation than they have yet received. The Minister said that the criticism had been made, that the charge for the pumps was not to be found. I think he misinterpreted the criticism that was made if I understood it aright. It is an essential part of the calculation, and it should have been stated, how much power those pumps are going to use, and plans should be available and maps should be available showing exactly where those pumps are to be placed. Surely those are matters on which we ought to have fuller information than has yet been provided. There is another matter that has not been entered into. I have failed to discover it, and if the Minister shows me where it is, I will be much obliged to him. I have searched through those documents by myself and with others, and I have failed to find out where the charge is for the maintenance of those embankments. They are going to require maintenance, but where is the charge and how much is it? I had this matter put to me by an engineer who for some years has been engaged on the damming of the Nile in Egypt. He tells me the flow and the fall of that river is much the same as it is in the case of the Shannon, and he says where embankments have been made on the Nile, as much as £60 per mile per annum has had to be incurred for their maintenance. I am not saying that is a charge which would be incurred here. I am not saying any charge will be incurred. All I am saying is that that is another matter on which we ought to have fuller inquiry.

Another matter has been suggested. The Minister made a great deal of play in the Seanad over a letter written by an engineer, a colleague of mine, in regard to what he describes as a single spade cut. I propose to deal with that. You have down at O'Brien's Bridge embankments that rise to 35 feet in height. The experts themselves, in the passage I read, quite fairly recognise that here is a matter in regard to which the utmost amount of safeguard should be taken. They referred to the necessarily high embankments on the river, 11.0, alternatively 8½ metres over the subsoil, or 35 feet. All the water in Lough Derg, both in the early stage of development and the later stage of development, running down from Killaloe to O'Brien's Bridge for five miles will be held in by those embankments. This engineer wrote and suggested that a single spade cut would let that water down upon Limerick, and the Minister got great pleasure over this huge task of the single spade cut. I think I am correct in saying that I have heard the expression very frequently in the country, and Deputies in this Dáil, even those who are not farmers, will not be unfamiliar with the fact that a cut of a certain shape is called a spade cut. It does not mean that across ten feet at the top, one spade cut is going to do it, as if some huge giant was at the work, or as if Finn Mac Cumhaill had come to life again. The fact remains that there is only three feet of freeboard between the top of the bank and the height of the water; all that is to be cut is one single cut sufficient to let the water flow out.

The PRESIDENT

What depth?

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

Down to the depth at which water will be got.

The PRESIDENT

How far?

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

The freeboard of three feet.

The PRESIDENT

Then you get six inches of water.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

The water will flow out and do the rest.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Four engineers looked at this.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

I did not hear what the Minister said. I am glad of his interruption, as the Minister is always very courteous.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

My interruption was that four engineers approved of this dam and at this particular height.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

Of course four engineers approved. It was a matter within their competence to approve. What they had to decide was whether such and such a dam was sufficient to hold back such and such an amount of water. The question that is out of the competence of the engineers to decide is whether there were persons so mischievously disposed in the country to make this cut. I will give the Minister and the Dáil an example of what I am referring to, dealing precisely with the case which he himself raised. About ten years before the European war—I do not bind myself to that date, but I remember the circumstances—a scheme was furnished in England for the supply of water to London. The water was to be stored in the Welsh hills. The scheme was worked out by the best engineers that could be found. It may be known to the Minister—I believe it is well known to Deputies—that the City of London is a quite wealthy municipality, and its people can afford the best of engineering devices. The scheme was worked out, was engineeringly sound, and was passed and approved by the engineers. When the matter came before Parliament some one, not an engineer, said: "This is going to make six millions of the population of London dependent on half a dozen persons who might be mischievously enough disposed to destroy the connections." On that single argument alone although the scheme was engineeringly sound, the British Parliament threw out the Bill. They are now continuing the uneconomic system of water supply, because they think that an uneconomic system of water supply is better than one that would leave them at the mercy of civil disorder. That the decision that was then taken was a sound and right decision—

Professor MAGENNIS

What about Vartry?

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

I do not appreciate the significance of the Deputy's question, but no doubt we will hear him in due course elaborating it. Look at the position of England during the European war. If London had then been dependent upon the scheme to which I have referred, which was engineeringly sound in all its details, what would be the position? It is an incontrovertible fact—it is so self-evident that the Minister himself cannot challenge it—that no matter what the engineers may say as to the embankment being sufficient, while it stands intact and complete, directly a spade-cut has been made and water has started to flow, nothing can stop the rest of the water.

Mr. GOREY

Would not the same thing occur anywhere else?

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

No. The Minister referred to this matter in the Seanad, and he touched upon an aspect of it that raises a very interesting question. He retorted that the engineer who raised that particular argument had put forward a form of dam system for Poulaphouca reservoir, in the Liffey scheme, that had been criticised by an expert engineer. A Senator corrected him as to that particular matter. I am glad that the argument was raised, for this reason: the evidence to which he referred was put forward by Herr Buchi, a man of integrity and great experience and knowledge, an engineer in Switzerland, and a man of at least equal eminence to any of those who have reported upon this scheme. Herr Buchi said that a certain dam, known as an arch dam, was not suitable in certain circumstances, and that it was not safe. A photograph was handed to him of an exactly similar dam in his own country—perhaps the most famous dam in his country—and it was obvious to any Deputies who were present on that occasion how disconcerted he was when he saw that. It was perfectly clear to everybody, and had subsequently to be tacitly admitted by Herr Buchi, that here was an element that he had left out of consideration.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

"Tacitly admitted"—were those the words the Deputy used?

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

Yes.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

There is no admission recorded on the Minutes of the Private Bill Committee.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

If the Minister will refer to the Minutes again he will find the tacit admission to which I have referred. He first said the dam was unsafe and then he said that he believed that was not applicable. He withdrew the words he used and substituted for them "not applicable." If that is not a tacit admission, I do not know what a tacit admission is. Here is a matter to which I would direct the Minister's attention: the following morning another photograph was handed in to the Private Bill Committee, showing what had happened a dam of the sort recommended by Herr Buchi. Part of it had been carried away. Where was Herr Buchi when that matter was being raised? He was on his way back to Zurich. I am not going to make any suggestion as regards that. It was obvious that he had left on matters of business, but what I do say is that it is highly inconvenient, to put it at its mildest, that experts should put forward proposals, that other experts should endorse those proposals, and that neither the first nor the second experts should be available for cross-examination on certain material and important aspects of the proposals which they advanced.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

It seems obvious that the map was not produced until the expert had left.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

That is so.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

He could not give any evidence as to his idea of the matter, as the map was not produced.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

That is what I am saying. I am very much obliged to the Minister for being so careful to emphasise everything I say. I said he was not there and did not hear what was being said. He was not there, because he came from a city abroad, for which he had to leave on business.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

The map was withheld until he had left.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

No; the map had not turned up. That suggestion—I think the Minister will agree— is one that he should not make.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

It is equal to the other suggestion.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

I did not make any suggestion as regards the engineer leaving. What I do say is that it is undesirable to have experts who are not available on a specific occasion by Irish engineers to ascertain whether certain particulars of their scheme should be further approved, and whether they would continue their endorsement of the proposals after certain material considerations were brought to their attention. I urge and stress the necessity for having the various parties concerned in this matter brought before experts to whom reference has been made. Some procedure ought to be devised and outlined by the Government whereby these experts could be carefully examined as to the proposals they recommend the State to adopt, and recommendations made by any such persons should be accepted only after cross-examination.

The Minister has not put us in possession of the information necessary to form a judgment on this scheme. He said that the documents he had circulated were sufficient in themselves. He addressed a great many of his remarks this afternoon to the important question of consumption. The Minister must be aware that the experts, in their report, frequently refer to the basic prices. They endorse the basic prices in the Siemens-Schuckert report. Turn to Messrs. Siemens-Schuckert's report and where are the basic prices? I ask the Minister where are the basic prices to be found in Messrs. Siemens-Schuckert's report?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

They are in the report here.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

But they are not in the report circulated. Basic prices, which are the prices on which this scheme will be ultimately decided, as an economic proposition, are put forward in Messrs. Siemens-Schuckert's original report. The experts report upon that original report, and endorse those basic prices. They specifically refer to them, but the copy of Messrs. Siemens-Schuckert's report that we have put into our hands does not contain them. I suggest that these basic prices were a great deal more germane to the issue before the Dáil to-day than a good deal of the information that is given in Messrs. Siemens-Schuckert's report. They are the cardinal factor upon which the economics and finance of this scheme must be tested. Only in very few cases could an actual price be worked out in respect of any part of the country.

The Minister referred to the three stages of the partial development. He used these words to-day, very remarkable and astonishing words, "If it were discovered during the building-out period that the people would not take the current"—that is so far as my quotation runs, and so far as I can remember the actual words of the Minister and the rest of the sentence is my own paraphrase—then, he said, that the later stages of the development would not proceed.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

No. I did not.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

That the ten thousand volts——

Mr. McGILLIGAN

That the ten thousand and thirty-five thousand volt lines would not be built?

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

Yes. I take all the three stages of the partial development, the last of them being the ten thousand volts, and I say that that would not be undertaken, according to the Minister, if it were discovered during the building-out period that the people would not take the current. How can you tell whether people will or will not take the current until you have brought it to them? That is the whole issue. It is not, until you have actually brought it to the various centres set out in Siemens' map, that people will or will not take the power.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Simple nonsense.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

The Minister describes what I instance as simple nonsense. I suggest that the words used here by the Minister are simpler nonsense—"If it were discovered during the building-out period that people would not take the current." In other words, we may be actually deciding here to-day, according to the Minister, that the only part of the partial development that will be undertaken is that in respect of the cities of Dublin, Limerick and Cork, and that no more will be done until they get a binding contract from the people who will take it. Is that so?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Not binding. That is not so.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

Until they get the contracts. Of course, I can quite understand a contract not always being considered as a binding contract, as the Minister will understand from the documents I have read to-day. The Minister went on to quote from northern climes, from Norway to Switzerland, and from Denmark to sundry other places, but he forgets that the consumption in those places is high for three reasons, reasons that do not prevail in this country. The first reason is, that they must have an abnormal amount of power for heating, or, at least, fuel for heating; secondly, coal is not available except at very high prices; and, thirdly, in such countries there are very elaborate domestic installations which already have cost a considerable amount of money. The whole conditions in these northern countries are such that they must have electricity because there is no other form, except very cumbersome forms, used for lighting and heating. If Messrs. Siemens' report is studied it will be found that these conditions are quite present in the body of that report. Take the load curves worked out by Messrs. Siemens. These load curves show that electricity for heating purposes is to be supplied at a very low figure between 9 p.m. and 7 a.m. Why those hours? How many persons are there in Ireland who, between 9 p.m. and 7 a.m., are going to take current for heating purposes? What is the meaning of that load curve? Anybody who has been in those countries will know that they have large stoves installed into which the current is turned at a ridiculously low price at night when nobody else wants it, when it is used for heating through radiators, and when the energy for power purposes is conserved till the following day. How many people in Ireland will find the installation of such a system a necessary proposition? The whole consumption is based on conditions, and the experts' intimacy with conditions which do not apply to this country. I would ask the Dáil to refer to page 51 of the experts' report. The experts say: "The Irish works have a comparatively low load factor; the yearly output is low compared with the capacity in the power stations." Why this low load factor? It is admittedly low for all those purposes. The conditions do not exist in Ireland which could equalise the load over the twenty-four hours, while those conditions do prevail in countries with which the experts are familiar and because the conditions are different to the conditions which are found here. Take the whole question of price at which the power will be made available. I have said that the basic prices are not to be discovered in Messrs. Siemens' report as it comes to our hands. In Mallow the price will be 6.8d. per unit. I do not mean the town of Mallow. The Minister was right to make that correction the other day. It is not the town but the surrounding country. The surrounding country will not be able to get electricity under 6¾d. a unit. I ask the House to remember what that means. The farmers and other people who desire it in the district surrounding Mallow will, before they get electricity, have to pay for it at that high price, plus their own installation and their own connecting-up.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Every farmhouse near Mallow would get it at a less price than Dublin to-day.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

Be it so. I will give the Minister an instance which occurred a few nights ago when this matter was under discussion. I happened to be in a house in Upper Leeson Street the other night in which lives a man very well known in this country and known to every Deputy. That house would, I suppose, if offered on the market, fetch a price of about £1,500. Therefore, the man is living in circumstances of tolerable comfort and has a decent position.

The PRESIDENT

He is what is called a "decent man."

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

Yes, a substantial man. This is a matter on which, as the Minister for Industry and Commerce himself suggested, I could equally interpolate remarks like that, but I do not think it is fair to distract attention from a matter which is being argued and on a subject that is not easy to discuss. The President, rightly and satisfactorily, describes this man as a decent man, and he might have gone further and said a "dacent" man, because the two things are somewhat different.

He has gas in his house, though the electric mains run thirty yards distant from his front door, or a matter of a few yards outside his gate. I asked why it was he did not use electricity in his house; because, he said, the cost of installation would work out at round or about £35, and that he had better use for the £35 at the particular moment. That is a case here in Dublin, a person of means, a secure income, and a decent man. When the farmer is going to have a proposition put to him that he can have electricity brought to him at 6¾d. per unit, but that he will have to incur first the cost of installation and connecting it, I think the entire scheme will be found to have ultimately incurred an expenditure on annual charges which will not possibly be met out of the revenue of the undertaking, of the experts' report—they are report. These gentlemen are experts, and we treat them, therefore, with all the respect that experts should have. I ask the Dáil to turn to pages 54 and 55 of the experts' report. They are referred to in certain other pages in Siemens' report, but with that I will not trouble the House at present, as the Minister has based his case on the experts, and I will confine my attention to them—

"The experts assume that electrification will proceed slowly in agricultural districts. In the partial development only those places which are favourably situated, and which are thickly populated, or in which industries exist, such as mills and creameries, are to be supplied with electricity."

In the table at the foot of that paragraph it is shown exactly how many units k.w.h. will be consumed by those creameries. Now, it is obvious that creameries are not going to use electricity to the extent suggested. Creameries require for certain parts of their processes steam, and when they produce the steam for which they require some form of fuel that will be the source from which they will get their power. Yet, here it is shown by both Siemens and the experts that some sources on which they depend for the taking of electricity are creameries. You get on page 55 a remarkably subtle sentence which has caused me much admiration. You will find it in the middle of the paragraph starting, "Regarding dairying it may be said," and it says:—

"Where electricity is availed of in the dairies in Norway now, practically everywhere, refrigerators are also used."

But it does not say to what extent electricity is availed of in the dairies in Norway. It says that where electricity is used refrigerators are also used, a very guarded statement.

The PRESIDENT

It said "practically everywhere."

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

The "practically everywhere" applies to the refrigerators, and not to the electricity.

The PRESIDENT

No. There are two little commas there.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

I put it to the Deputies that here is an exercise in the construction of English. The sentence starts "where electricity is used." If my interpretation is challenged I say that at least my interpretation bears investigation, but I will not press the matter. Nevertheless, the fact remains, as has been pointed out, that in the city of Zurich during certain critical years of development extending, if my memory serves me correctly, over nine years, when industries were thriving rapidly, because the period of the war occurred and Germany was depending very largely on Swiss industrial centres for her commodities, the consumption in that city increased two-fold in nine years. The Minister suggests, and the experts suggest, that the consumption in Ireland is going to increase three-fold in ten years. Well, I venture to say that a proposition of that kind, if it be fair, if it be true, is a proposition that could and might be floated as an ordinary commercial proposition, but it is because nobody believes that it is true, it is because that Siemens themselves would not put their money in it that it is now being pressed forward as a State project at a time when it will impose burdens on the Exchequer, when relief of these burdens is a pressing necessity.

The PRESIDENT

Examine Dublin as a case in point over ten years.

Mr. GOREY

He has examined enough. Let him sit down now.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

Now I come to a point on the question of finance. Under this scheme we are asked to embark upon, a liability is to be incurred of £5,200,000. The calculations of the return of the charges on that money have been worked out at 5½ per cent. They will have also to reckon on amortisation being taken in. I take it that on the £5,000,000 the State will be asked to incur an annual charge of something amounting to £350,000 for the consumption of 110,000,000 units.

The consumption in Ireland to-day— I use this figure deliberately—does not, I believe, exceed 40,000,000 units. The production of power does; the production of power extends to about 48,000,000 or 49,000,000 units, but the actual consumption does not exceed 40,000,000 units. Therefore Ireland has to increase her consumption threefold before the revenue would be sufficient to cover the debt charges, and while the revenue is less than the debt charges, the balance will have to be made good out of taxation. That is a proposition that is fairly obvious, and it leads to this question: Is the country to-day being impeded or suffering most from the high cost of power, or is it being impeded and suffering most from the high cost of taxation? Here we are embarking upon a scheme the inevitable result of which must be to increase taxation, either absolutely or relatively, to the extent that it will frustrate the lowering of taxation. The proposition is being put forward through the country as though a benefit was going to be conferred in the sense that the people of the country were going to receive something for nothing. We are all looking for exactly the kind of proposition by which we can get something for nothing——

The PRESIDENT

Not all.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

And it is difficult to discover. But, what is the actual fact? The actual fact is, that if a household receives cheap electricity from the scheme, if the scheme be sound, they will have to pay for it by dearer sugar, dearer tea, or higher income tax. The only question to decide is, which of the two is the better advantage for the country. In any case these considerations are at least worthy of more careful examination. I am assuming now as if it had been decided to go forward with the Shannon scheme. Very well, let that decision be the decision that this nation will take, but let it only be done after we have had an opportunity, by some public process, of taking the elaborators of the scheme and the experts who have reported on the scheme and putting them through a cross-examination. The Minister has suggested that Irish engineers are not sufficiently qualified to pronounce on a scheme of this kind. That may or may not be.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I do not think that I referred to Irish engineers generally. I confined myself to those who have already spoken on the matter.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

The Minister makes that distinction and I welcome it, because if Irish engineers, any or all of them, are competent to pronounce upon the scheme, we at least ought to give them an opportunity of putting questions and of cross-examining the experts in regard to matters within their own special knowledge as people who have lived in this country, people who will have to continue to live in this country and are not merely travellers through the country.

Sitting suspended at 6.55 and resumed at 7.45,AN CEANN COMHAIRLE in the Chair.

Mr. JOHNSON

I suppose when the Chairman of the Kitchen Committee makes his report he will say that the peak load in the supply department was between 7 and 7.30 on the night of April the second, as we are twenty minutes late. I want to say right in the beginning that I propose to vote for the motion, and that what I am voting for is the following:—

That steps should be taken forthwith to give effect to the proposal recommended in the experts' report, and that it is expedient that the necessary legislation be introduced at the earliest possible date.

I understand by that, that while I am prepared to support the general policy outlined in the experts' report, there is still reserved a right to reject the legislative proposals if they are not satisfactory after going through the examination that is necessary. That examination may involve the production of such counter-expert evidence and checks upon the experts' report the Oireachtas may desire. We are not precluded from that by voting for this motion. I am prepared to give the general idea—the general proposals in the experts' report and in the White Paper—support to that extent, the reservation being that whatever may be involved in the legislative proposals, when they come forward, is subject to close consideration and inquiry, and if they do not stand all the tests—rejection. I think I am not over-stating the case when I say that that is the proposal in the Minister's motion.

The Minister, in his speech, dealt with many of the technical questions, and Deputy Figgis dealt with many of the technical questions. I am not competent at all to deal with these questions. I read the experts' report as carefully as I could, and tried to understand it. I do not pretend for the moment that I am in a position to check, to find fault with, or to point out the errors of the experts. I can only feel about it that I am in the position of every other layman who has to decide a question of this kind, that is to bring one's common-sense to bear upon the proposals that are being brought forward and on any criticism that might arise, and then to take the responsibility of my vote. I have read all the criticisms that have appeared in the public Press. I have heard the criticisms made both here and in the Seanad, and I have not yet been impressed sufficiently by any of them to warrant my distrust of the experts' report.

I would like the Minister to have dealt with one point that was raised by Sir John Griffith and repeated in another form by Deputy Figgis, and which, I have no doubt, can be very clearly and easily made right. That is the question of the strength of the embankment on the canal. It is calculated, I think, to try to arouse distrust and doubt in the minds of people when an engineer of Sir John Griffith's eminence speaks of the risks. When he speaks, in his capacity as an engineer, we cannot as laymen bring anything forward which would counteract his statement. I, therefore, think that it is desirable, in the interests of public confidence in the matter, that that query should be dealt with and the public mind set right. I have no doubt, at all, that it is a practical engineering proposition to make these embankments as safe as anything in the country.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

Would the Deputy forgive me if I interrupt for a moment? He has not quite correctly stated the point of view made by me. It was not that the embankments would normally be unsafe, but that the embankments themselves, were of a character that were unsafe inasmuch as they laid themselves open specially to attack.

Mr. JOHNSON

Yes, I understand that, and I am coming to that. I have no doubt, whatever, that the embankments can be made as safe as anything that may be required. It then becomes a question as to whether the particular plans outlined in these reports are the right ones to make these embankments perfectly safe. If they are not to be trusted, as perfectly safe, then bring forward other proposals that will make them perfectly safe. It may involve, if these possibilities have to be met, larger capital charges. I do not know, but the point should be met, and I think could be met quite clearly. It was not quite satisfactory to have the quotation made by Deputy Figgis from the experts' report and for him to emphasise the phrase that "for the embankments the sand seems to be somewhat too fine." The previous sentence, which he also read, but did not emphasise, was to this effect: "The materials referred to are capable of resisting the pressure of the embankment."

Now, I take it that when the experts took the trouble to write that sentence and that paragraph, they had, as a matter of fact, examined the materials, and the proposed dimensions of the embankments, and they, at least, are prepared to say the materials are satisfactory, and they are prepared to pass the scheme with the embankments as indicated. Nevertheless, as I said, I think it would be well for the Government to produce and make accessible the information supplied by other engineers as to whether they are, in fact, perfectly safe, and if not, then to produce other propositions, as to how to make them perfectly safe.

But when we come to the question as to the possibility of the destruction of these embankments, I think every Deputy is in quite as good a position to judge the merits of that question as any engineer, no matter how eminent he may be. The "fat boy" attitude, to make the flesh creep, is not quite satisfactory, and to suggest that a big scheme of this kind must not be gone on with, because of the risks people would undergo, the damage that might be incurred if some ill-disposed citizen were to destroy the works— well, that is one of the risks of civilisation. Every highly organised body, every complex organism undertakes increasing risks by every increase in its complexity, and if we are going to be afraid to develop the country's organisation because of risks that might be incurred, owing to the presence, or possible presence, of enemies, from within or without, then there will be no development at all.

There were other questions raised by Deputy Figgis, some of which I will deal with, most of which I will leave for others to answer. I think, for instance, it is not the right way to approach this question, to treat it purely as a commercial project. I think it is not the right way to deal with it to assume that it is on a par with Private Bill legislation. With regard to the latter, I am prepared to approach this whole question as I would approach a question dealing with the public service.

If we are proposing, for instance, to start a telegraph service we would do it very much on the same lines as is proposed in this scheme. We would not ask for the production of all the details, of all the specifications, of all the plans and maps that may be required by the experts. As a legislative chamber we would say: "Give us the general outline of our scheme, let us understand what you propose to do, what it is going to cost, what will be the effect of it on the public," and having decided that the scheme was generally sound we would leave the details to the experts. Private Bill legislation is in a different category. There is a proposal, of course, to deal with private interests in a Private Bill. The definition in the Standing Orders meets my point: "Every Bill promoted for the particular interest or benefit of any person or that interferes with the private property of any person otherwise than in the interests of the public generally, or as a measure of public policy, will be treated as a Private Bill." As I say, I am treating this as a public matter dealing with the public service and that thought will colour everything that I have to say on the matter.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

Would not the Dundalk Harbour project be the same thing?

Mr. JOHNSON

No. The Dundalk Harbour project, unfortunately, in my view, is a private trust for private benefits very largely, subject to certain conditions. However, that is not of very great moment, except to illustrate my approach to this question. Taking that view, I suggest that the method of checking prices, the possible finances of this scheme, have to be considered in some new light. I think it was desirable and necessary that in the initiation and in the drawing up of the plans, Siemens-Schuckert and the experts should consider the project from the point of view of its commercial value, and in estimating their price they had a right to consider it in relation to the commercial value, shall I say, the profitability of the project. But if we consider rather as a public service the provision of what has come to be considered and what will be considered to a very much greater degree, a common necessity, then I think we may look for a different turn in respect of the price at which electric power, whether for lighting or industrial purposes, or heating, yet may be supplied throughout the country. For instance, the figure of 6.8 in Mallow and district has been referred to and it is suggested that 6.8, while admittedly lower than it could be locally provided, is too high for common consumption.

I anticipate that when the scheme gets much more forward, when it comes nearer to the point of distribution of power, we will find a demand which I for one will support and push forward as heartily as I can, that the small towns and villages shall be treated in the same way as the larger towns and cities and that power will be provided at the flat rate that is referred to or at a much lower flat rate, if it is possible; but certainly at a flat rate, just as we are dealing with the price of telegrams to-day. We do not charge a lower rate per word if a telegram is sent——

Mr. GOREY

Do you get any charge for delivery?

Mr. JOHNSON

We deliver it at the station at the same price whether we are sending it from Dublin to Howth or whether we are sending it from Dublin to Ballybunion. I suggest that if we treat this as a public service we will provide power at the station at the same price, whether it is sent forward on the 10 k.v. line, on the 35 k.v. line, or on the 100 k.v. line. By that means there will be certainly a reduction in the price to the consumer and a very definite inducement to increase consumption. From these stations the question of delivery will arise, but that arises in respect of any other kind of power or any other kind of lighting so that we need not touch it.

Deputy Figgis argued in such a way as made me think that he was opposing the development of electric power in this country in any circumstances. I was astonished at his argument. One would imagine that here was an opponent of all electricity schemes absolutely and inevitably, that you could not induce the people of Ireland to utilise electrical power.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

Having given that paraphrase of my speech, will the Deputy state what it is based on? What does he paraphrase?

Mr. JOHNSON

I am not paraphrasing; I am interpreting. I am telling the Deputy and the Dáil what I take from the arguments of the Deputy himself.

The PRESIDENT

That is right.

Mr. JOHNSON

I could not but ask myself at what price the Liffey Schemes were proposing to deliver power at Dolphin's Barn, and how that would compare with the prices which the Shannon scheme was going to deliver at Dolphin's Barn, or at any other place in the city or near it. Whatever may be said of developing the traffic in, or the consumption of electric power, if you can deliver it in Dublin at a price lower by one scheme than by the other, that scheme which can supply it lower will get the preference. I think that I am right in saying that none of the Liffey schemes had in mind the possibility of delivering power at a lower price than the Shannon scheme proposes to deliver power. I do not think, however, that this discussion ought to centre round the rival merits of the Shannon versus the Liffey. The Liffey proposes to deal with Dublin. In the very letter which was quoted by Deputy Figgis from Sir John Griffith to the President in March, 1923, I took down these words, "in the interests of the city and district of Dublin." If only the interests of the city and district of Dublin were to be in question, undoubtedly we would be considering the Liffey scheme to-night. Though I represent a Dublin district constituency, I feel myself bound to take into account the general interests of the country as a whole.

The PRESIDENT

Hear, hear.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

If each part of the country is to be considered it could be done just as well by local power.

Mr. JOHNSON

I consider myself bound to take into consideration the interests of the country as a whole at present and in the future.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

Hear, hear.

Mr. JOHNSON

From that point of view I think the case is made in favour of the development of power in such a quantity as would be capable of being used in all parts of the country. As I said, I am not thinking solely of the commercial value of the scheme. I think it is highly desirable that the country should be brightened; that there should be a development of a pleasanter life in the country districts. I believe that can be eminently well served by a large supply—the larger and cheaper the better—of electrical current. I think it is fairly satisfactorily shown that that can be more likely produced by the development of the water-power of the Shannon than by any other method that has yet been proposed.

I once went to Switzerland, and I arrived there at ten o'clock at night. It was in January. It was very bright, very crisp, and very clear. I do not think I ever shall forget the extraordinary impression that the brightness of the country that night had upon me. On inquiry I found that the explanation lay in the fact that electricity was universally used.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

Hear, hear.

Mr. JOHNSON

That is a point worth considering in dealing with this matter from the point of view of the future development of electrical power and its effect upon country life. But there is this commercial consideration: it is a kind of power that can be most easily and most readily used for the development of small industries associated with agriculture. It is the kind of power that will be most readily used to aid in the distribution of the amenities of life through the country and the distribution of the population through the country. It will tend to militate against the aggregation of large masses in cities. I speak again with the full consciousness that I am representing a Dublin constituency. I look forward to the time when there will be a redistribution of the population, and when we will not have a continuous accumulation of numbers of people in these two or three square miles constituting the City of Dublin. I think the development of a national power scheme, well distributed, will rapidly assist in that course.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

May I ask the Deputy if he is aware that in the country he has cited, Switzerland, it is a fixed principle in electrical development that the country should depend upon the development of local powers rather than on one, or a number of large centralised schemes? The achievement of electrification that he refers to is so brought about.

The PRESIDENT

Have they any proposition like the Shannon scheme there?

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

Have not they?

Mr. JOHNSON

If we had as many streams and rivers and mountain torrents in Ireland as they have available for the distribution of power in that country, then the Deputy's intervention might be of some moment. But we are dealing with factors that exist, and so far as I can understand all that has been written, all that has been sent to me to read, and all that I have had brought to my notice one way or another, I have arrived at the conclusion that this project of the utilisation of the water-power of the Shannon is the most economical, and is likely to be of the most general value to the country as a whole.

There have been two or three arguments used, not here, but outside, that are intended to appeal to the mass of the people for whom I am supposed to speak. They are something of this nature: that you ought not to spend or undertake the expenditure of £5,000,000 for the supply of electrical current when a housing problem is so urgent; that you could spend that sum of money with much better effect on the employment of people in building houses; that more people will be employed and taken out of the unemployment market by the utilisation of that money in other schemes. Well, of course, that is the kind of argument that may appeal to hungry people. It is intended to, and has a certain speciousness. But it is like saying to a carpenter: "Do not buy your tools. Buy a house. Buy bread, as bread is undoubtedly the first necessity." I think that to tell a man that he must not buy the tools of his trade, until he has satisfied himself in a manner more satisfactory to him with certain other necessary requirements, is like telling him that he must not continue to exist or he must not prepare for a livelihood for next year. I think it is a false antithesis. We should not put one against the other.

I do not think there would be any loss whatever in the ability to find money for houses by finding money for the Shannon water-power scheme. I think, as a matter of fact, it will be found in a very few years that the ability to solve the housing problem will be very much enhanced by the projection of this scheme and by its development. I am conscious now, as I have been for a long time, that the housing problem is not merely a temporary problem. It is one that is going to be with us for quite a long time yet.

As I say, I think the solution of that problem will be accelerated by the production of cheap and widely distributed power. I think the Minister did not emphasise sufficiently one point that he touched upon. That point is worth more emphasis than he gave it—that the based costs are upon the driest month of the driest year. I imagine that if there had been the same kind of publicity campaign for the measure as there has been against the measure, there would have been very much greater understanding of the strong points that the Minister has made this afternoon. Deputy Connor Hogan deprecated the persistence in this scheme because he said that industrially the country was at a very low ebb. He doubted whether the farmers would be likely to take advantage of cheap power if it were provided. I have an idea that there will be a moment in the life of the country, and I think it is perhaps near at hand, when there will be a wakening up to the value of cheap power and the value of brightness in the home, and a realisation of the fact that candles and oil lamps are not the most satisfactory means of illumination in country houses, and that the ability to turn a wheel by putting a peg in a hole adds very much to the ease with which the work in the farm buildings and farm operations generally can be carried on. I think that day will come and I think it may come quickly. As soon as the tide turns there will be an awakening to the value of cheap power, easily applied.

I would build a good deal upon the possibilities of the people in this country, in this new period of its history, taking advantage of modern scientific achievements. I think it is worth risking something to accelerate that time. If we have belief in the country's future, we can only believe in that future if we are willing to take advantage of scientific attainments. If we have any faith in that, then we have to take some risk as to the possibilities of people consuming the power that we are prepared to produce at a cheap rate. I said earlier that I would prefer to consider this whole scheme in the light of its being a public service rather than a mere commercial proposition. Time is not yet ripe for the consideration of the proposition, but I think we shall probably be wise to look to this by the time this scheme comes to completion—that we should as a matter of State policy place upon the State responsibility for capital charges in respect of this undertaking. Some people have contemplated that we should have to build warships. Well, one modern warship would eat into most of the five million pounds. I think if we were to consider how much more valuable a five million pounds power scheme would be to the country, and that the capital charges essential to such undertaking would not be greater than the capital charges essential to the building of a warship, we would decide that it was not at all an undesirable thing that we should pay capital charges out of taxation. I know that will frighten some Deputies, but I put it forward quite as a serious proposition, and I would remind the Deputies, on the Farmers' benches particularly, that when they are considering the price at which power will be delivered by the scheme that two-thirds of the cost, or thereabouts, are for capital charges, and that you may have power almost for nothing at the wholesale distribution place, if you charge against it merely the running costs.

I said at the beginning that in accepting this motion we are only binding ourselves to what is contained in the motion, that we are still at liberty to examine the legislative measures that are brought forward as critically, and as carefully as we wish, and that even then we may reject the measure without any feeling that we are breaking any contract or any bond. With that reservation—and I anticipate that the Minister will agree that it is quite within our powers even after passing this motion—I propose to support the Minister in his proposition, and I hope it will be carried by a considerable majority, and, that having once carried it, the Minister will do as much for the scheme as its opponents are doing against it.

Mr. GOREY

In dealing with this big problem I want in a very few words to try to express the mind of Deputies on these benches. Our attitude on this matter is based on a resolution that was passed at the Congress of our organisation:—

That the proposed Shannon scheme requires very careful examination to ascertain the amount of power available, the prospects of utilising electric current produced, its effect upon the drainage of the country, on navigation, fisheries, and existing bridges and roads, and we request the Government not to rush the scheme until such further examination is made.

I am perfectly satisfied from the report, and from the speech of the Minister, that some of these matters will be attended to. From reading the report I do not think that drainage will be neglected, and I have no fears on that head. Neither have I any fears on the question of navigation. Fisheries is another matter, and one on which nobody has attempted to give an opinion, but I believe it is the wish of everybody in Ireland of any responsibility, that as far as possible the fisheries of our rivers should be preserved. But I do not make the proposition that the development of the country should be sacrificed for fisheries alone. The matter of existing bridges and roads is a small one which, from the report, I am sure will be attended to. But there are other matters.

With regard to the question of a careful examination, the matter has had that from the experts; I am quite prepared to admit that. But how far that careful consideration goes is quite another matter. As Deputies have said, it has not had the same examination that other measures have had; it has not gone through the same procedure. There has been no cross-examination of the people who signed the report, and there has been no opportunity for the searching criticism that is given to Private Bill legislation. That is one of the things that we think might be very beneficially done, that these experts should be subjected to the same examination that applies in the case of Private Bill legislation. If there is a good case for this scheme—and I believe a good case can be made—it will only be made stronger by such an examination. That is a point on which we are not prepared to give way, certainly not without very strong arguments to convince us that we should.

The Minister talked about some method, unknown to me, whereby we could control the prices of the materials used in this scheme in accordance with world prices for the materials. That is the sense of what he said. I do not think it is possible for any Government to do that; I do not think it is possible for any business concern to risk their reputation by saying that they are able to do that. There is only one method of control in this question, and that is open competition by contract. I do not care what method is suggested; I do not believe that any Government would be able to put a sufficient check on the prices of materials to work out as it should.

I will not go into the question of consumption of power; that has been dealt with by other Deputies, and it is dealt with in the report. Like Deputy Johnson, I am not competent to utter an opinion on these technical matters. Deputy Figgis made a very strong point when he said that the price at which this would stand to the consumer was contained in the original report of Messrs. Siemens-Schuckert, and was commented on by the four experts, but that neither the terms of that portion of the report nor the comments have been submitted to the Dáil. I do not know how far that argument is true, but he certainly made that statement, and it will need explanation.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

That was the basic price; it has nothing to do with units.

Mr. GOREY

Deputy Figgis will answer for himself. What I say is, that if the point he made is right it must be answered.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

He never made that point.

Mr. GOREY

We understand that it is the intention of the Government to give this contract to this firm who made the report, without giving a chance to anybody else to compete. We know and we recognise that we are under a debt to this great engineering firm for the plans that they have put up. A sum of £10,000 has been mentioned. If we owe them £10,000 let us pay them, or £100,000 or £1,000,000, or anything you like in reason, so long as you preserve the honour of the nation. Let them by all means tender in competition with other firms, but let it be by tender and contract. There is another aspect, a technical one, that may not be of very much or of any importance to the general scheme. It is that portion, in paragraph 1 of page 20, referring to materials and borings, "The borings which come into question here are Nos. 1, 2, 41 and 42, and they show strata of clay, sand, and gravel." I challenge any engineer or expert to produce a sound embankment or foundation of an embankment where there is a strata of sand or gravel. Such a foundation, if it carried from the lake under the foundations of the embankment, will be a sieve through which water will naturally percolate. Everybody in the country knows that. In dry weather, 80 per cent. of the whole volume of water passing down the Shannon is water that has soaked directly into the Shannon through sand and gravel sub-soil. If the embankment is to be sound this sand or gravel sub-soil must be excavated, and the embankment must be laid on sound soil or rock.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

So it will.

Mr. GOREY

That is not what I understood from the report, or from anything that has been said.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

There is no indication in the report of the materials that will be used in the embankment. We will get engineers to construct the embankment for us and not laymen.

Mr. GOREY

Very well, I offer the advice to these engineers. Another aspect of this case has been enlarged upon by Deputy Figgis. That is what might happen to the embankments. The same argument would hold good of any scheme, anywhere, any time. The Liffey scheme could be blown up in a similar way. With ten men I will undertake to blow up any service in this country in twenty-four hours.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

Might I suggest to the Deputy that there is a difference between a matter of 50 or 60 yards across and 200 miles around?

Mr. GOREY

It makes no difference to the men who want to destroy a thing whether it is of clay, rock or concrete. It can be done and will be done if they want to do it. There is no use labouring the question. If we have to wait until the whole population is of a certain frame of mind this nation can never prosper or progress. I do not think that we are asking too much in this matter. We have gone on for thousands of years without this scheme, and we should be able to go on for four months more. In the meantime this scheme can be subjected to the ordinary procedure that takes place in connection with Private Bill legislation.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Did you apply that to the Land Act?

Mr. GOREY

We had very long debates on the Land Act, and on several Land Acts before the Minister was born. This argument about destroying the works does not appeal to me. I hope there will be as little of the element of nationalisation about this project as possible.

Mr. DAVIN

Why?

Mr. GOREY

Because, whatever nationalisation means elsewhere, in this country it means inefficiency, waste, going slow, everything undesirable. In a paper which has been put into my hands it is asked: "What about the islands on the Shannon?" One of them, it is said, has an area of 70 acres. It also asks: "What about the sedge that grows on another island?" That shows the class of individual we have in Ireland. I recognise that if we do not have a Shannon scheme we are going to have no hydroelectric scheme for this country. The Liffey scheme will be only for Dublin. No scheme of electrification here can get on in its infancy without Dublin as a consumer. If electric development is going to take place at all, I am in favour of a national scheme of development, instead of a local one for Dublin or elsewhere. Anybody who has studied the statistics of our imports and exports during the last few years must have been struck by the enormous balance on the wrong side. I believe that this scheme, if it is approached in the proper way, will help to right that position. It will help to right our national balance-sheet. If there is any hope of industrial development in this country, this scheme ought to bring it about. We ought to be able to produce cheap power, and cheap power ought to mean industrial development. It ought also to reduce our expenditure on coal—one of the principal items which puts the balance on the wrong side.

The Farmers' Union have not approached this matter in any hostile spirit. They approached it in a most sympathetic manner. The only thing they demand is that it should get fair consideration with regard to a few essentials, in the form suggested by Deputy Connor Hogan, which would enable these experts to be examined and cross-examined, and other experts to be examined and cross-examined, with regard to the merits of this scheme. If it is a sound scheme, it will improve on acquaintance. The rushing through which has been spoken of is not sound business, and is not going to create public confidence. I do not know whether that is the Government's intention. If the scheme is going to be rushed through at the rate I have heard of, I can only describe it as indecent haste. I hope that the national credit is going to be maintained, that this matter will be fully considered, and that there will be no rushing.

Mr. SHAW

As one of the representatives for Longford and Westmeath, I congratulate the Executive Council, and particularly the Minister for Industry and Commerce, on the introduction of this scheme. I believe its introduction will be the turning point in the prosperity of this country, and that the scheme is the beginning of the fulfilment of a prophecy made by St. Columbcille, that after seven hundred years we would be the happiest, most prosperous and most contented nation on the earth. It is not my intention to go into the merits or details of the scheme, and I just wish to express, on behalf of the people I represent, and on my own behalf, approval of the scheme. No other two counties in Ireland are more interested in it than these counties, because they border the Shannon. If any Deputy is foolish enough to challenge a division on this motion I shall have much pleasure in supporting it.

Mr. P. HOGAN (Clare)

I find myself in a rather difficult position in dealing with this matter. In the first place, the Minister has, with characteristic ability and clarity, put the scheme before the Dáil and made the case for it. I have listened attentively to the two principal antagonists of the scheme, and I fail to understand or appreciate the case made against it. The principal case, I understand, made by Deputy Connor Hogan was, that we should refer the scheme to another committee or commission. In that connection it may be interesting to see what consideration the water-power of the country, and of the Shannon, as one of the principal arteries, has received from previous commissions. Let us see how many commissions have investigated the water-power resources of Ireland. I am going to quote from a lecture delivered by one of Ireland's most eminent engineers. His ability as an engineer, and his integrity as a patriot will not, I think, be questioned. In a lecture delivered before the Royal Dublin Society on January 11th, 1922, he said:—

"I believe that in no part of the Empire have the water resources of a country received closer and more skilled investigation than in Ireland. The work of our committee was materially assisted by the investigations of previous commissions in the interests of drainage, navigation, and fisheries."

We had Commissions in 1809, 1814, 1833, 1880, 1886, 1905, 1906, 1911, and it is now suggested that we should refer this scheme back to another Commission, so that we might have another report to read, endeavour to understand, and postpone for perhaps another decade utilisation of the water power of this country. I think that is not a reasonable proposition. The only thing I am addressing myself to is to what may be called the common-sense proposition put forward in the scheme. I do not presume, and I submit with all respect that there are very few of any Committee that may be appointed capable of going into the details of the scheme. I have made careful inquiry, and I do not think there is an engineer available who has carried through a hydroelectric scheme. In order to test in a practical fashion a report on a hydroelectric scheme, surely the only man capable of dealing with it would be one who has had experience of hydroelectric schemes.

Speaking in general terms about the utilisation of water power, the eminent engineer that I have quoted, and whom I will further quote extensively, says: "Our principal industries are dependent on imported coal."

Mr. CONNOR HOGAN

I would like to ask the Deputy who is this eminent engineer?

Mr. P. HOGAN

Sir John Purser Griffith, M.A.I., past President of the Institution of Civil Engineers of Ireland. I believe that does not exhaust his list of honours.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

May I ask did not the Minister say that the scheme we are considering was originated by Messrs. Siemens, and does the Deputy really say that this scheme has been considered by all these Commissions?

Mr. P. HOGAN

I am quoting from a lecture in which it is stated:—

Our principal industries are dependent on imported coal, because it is our cheapest source of power. We have had during the last year a rude awakening to the fact that we are dependent for our coal on the industry and good will of England.

That is, I submit, a very important point in the development of this scheme. He continues:—

With cheap power we shall increase employment, provide power for labour-aiding appliances, increase output, ensure higher wages or earnings, cheapen food and clothing, turn out better work, add to the prosperity of small towns, improve farming and dairy operations, extend small factories and rural industries, and build up a contented and happy people.

These are some of the advantages that he suggests will be derived from the utilisation of water power, and therefore the utilisation of the Shannon as the main artery and source of water power in this country. He puts forward another argument very clearly. I am endeavouring to get the lecturer to make my speech, as I need not say he is a much better authority than I am on this matter.

In advocating the development of our water power resources I do not wish in any sense to depreciate the value of our native coal or our peat fuel. I believe peat will in the future play a very important part in the economic life of Ireland, and that there will be a market for our coal wherever it is cheaply won and handled. I do, however, want to impress the fact that both peat and coal are vanishing commodities. They are the accumulation of ages, and are not being renewed. Water-supply is perennial and will be available as long as there is solar heat to evaporate the water of the ocean, and winds to carry the moistureladen air across our country.

In an estimate of the water power of Ireland the lecturer goes on:—

Sir Robert Keane, in his classic work, "The Industrial Resources of Ireland," published about the year 1845, makes a very interesting estimate of the theoretical water horse-power from rainfall, distributed over the surface of Ireland. This he estimated at 3,237 water horse-power per foot of fall. He estimated that the average height of Ireland above sea level was 387 feet, and that, therefore, the rainfall that finds its way to the sea develops 1,248,849 continuous horse-power.

That therefore would give us about 3,000,000 continuous water horse-power. In the endeavour to make use of that 3,000,000 water horse-power and bring it into utilisation for all the other industries of the country, it is suggested as a practical proposition that we should refer this back to another commission for consideration and for another report. That could go on for ever. At that rate you could travel in a circle and never be finished. Comparisons have been made, and as the Minister has quoted extensively, I should like to quote a country that has been extensively referred to, Switzerland. Again I am going to quote the same engineer:—

From the point of view of hydroelectric development, a comparison between Ireland and Switzerland is useful, because in certain directions their conditions are similar; and yet, in many respects, Ireland has much to learn from Switzerland. In 1920 I spent a pleasant holiday at my favourite haunt, Pontresina, in the Upper Engadine. My previous visit had been in 1913, the year before the great war began. Switzerland, although a neutral State, had borne her share of suffering.

It was interesting to learn the effect the war had on this little Republic.... Nothing struck me more than the great development which had taken place since my last visit in hydro-electric installations and in electrical distribution and transmission. This was due to the war and the resulting difficulties in importing coal. It is to this development I wish to refer in order to encourage similar development in Ireland. Both countries are practically destitute of coal and limited in mineral wealth. Both countries are largely given over to agriculture, including the cultivation of fodder, vegetables, cattle-breeding and dairy farming. They both depend on imports from foreign countries for grain or bread stuffs. Switzerland has the disadvantage of being what has been called a "continental island" without access to the sea, except through some foreign country, while Ireland is an island surrounded by the sea and approachable on all sides by the shipping of the world. Switzerland is half the size of Ireland with a smaller, though somewhat denser, population.

These are the comparisons. We find that Switzerland utilised 675 units of electricity per head per annum, and we utilised something like 14 units. In face of that I do not see that there is any argument for referring this scheme back to a fresh committee which will not be competent, I submit, to deal with the details, and can only deal with the larger issue as to whether we ought or ought not at this stage develop the water-power resources of the country.

Mr. C. HOGAN

Does the Deputy mean to suggest that at any stage of the proceedings this Bill will not be referred to a Special Committee?

Mr. P. HOGAN

I am not referring to the Bill; I am referring to the scheme.

Mr. C. HOGAN

The scheme will be embodied in a Bill.

Mr. P. HOGAN

I take it that the Bill will go through the usual course and then we can discuss it. I will endeavour to point out some flaws in the scheme when it comes to be embodied in a Bill. I may refer to a few of these matters now if the Deputy will have patience. But we should not find fault with the Bill simply because the swing doors are on the banks of the Shannon and the postern at the Bull Wall. Perhaps some Deputies would like to reverse that, and have the swing doors at the Bull Wall and the postern at Portnacroise. That is not our way. We want to develop the country in the natural way and to utilise our resources to the best advantage. It is on the details that it has been suggested that the scheme be examined. Before submitting this scheme to any number of experts, we should know what are the qualifications of those experts, other than the qualifications of the experts who examined the report of the German scheme. If those experts that examined and reported on the scheme were not competent, why are we not told where they failed? Why are we not told that their qualifications were not sufficient, and why are we not informed wherein their qualifications were not sufficient?

Mr. GOREY

Were they cross-examined?

Mr. P. HOGAN

I would like to know what questions Deputy Gorey would put on the technicalities of this scheme that those experts failed to put in order to find out flaws?

Mr. GOREY

He has not claimed any qualifications to do so.

Mr. P. HOGAN

It is suggested that a Committee of this House be appointed to cross-examine these experts.

Mr. GOREY

I did not suggest anything of the sort.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

It has been suggested. Deputy Gorey is not accused.

Mr. GOREY

I said they should be examined before a Committee of the Oireachtas.

Mr. P. HOGAN

That is a distinction without a difference. I am sorry that I angered Deputy Gorey.

Mr. GOREY

You did not. You could not do that.

Mr. P. HOGAN

The only thing that is capable of angering the Deputy is the development of the water-power resources of Ireland.

Mr. GOREY

I am in more sympathy with the project than you are and for more disinterested motives.

Mr. P. HOGAN

I would not occupy the time of the Dáil so long if I were not so often interrupted. This scheme, which is an excellent one, may be referred to as a unit of development that will go on in a sort of geometrical progression and provide industries that will, in their turn, bring into being subsidiary industries. I think the Minister has indicated that there will be sufficient check to prevent electric power in this country passing out of the hands of those responsible to the people of the country. If a firm outside this country were to develop the power resources of the country to a certain pitch and the industries of the country were dependent upon the utilisation of the power controlled by those outside agencies, we would find ourselves in a very awkward position. If we were to endeavour to establish, for instance, the beet-root industry here, we might find that the beet-root industries of Southern Germany and Austria might be favoured by putting up the price of the electricity in this country, so as to cut out the Irish product.

There is also the objection that this scheme does not go far enough. Why stop at the small villages? Why not go the whole hog and give the rural areas the full benefit of the power you are generating? Denmark has been mentioned. I find in a report I have here that what I have alluded to is done in that country. As comparisons are being drawn, it might be well that comparisons be drawn to the benefit of the scheme. I confess that there is another argument that commends the scheme to me—that it may be regarded as the first step towards a real solution of the unemployment problem, which has not been approached in anything like a sensible fashion up to the present. I have endeavoured to secure figures as to the unemployment rampant in the counties of Clare and Limerick. I find that there are over 8,000 persons unemployed in those counties. Assuming that there are three or four persons dependent on them, that would give you a grand total of about 30,000. If we can, by the starting of the scheme, absorb some of the unemployed, and if, later, we can absorb more of the unemployed by the development of the scheme and the establishment of industries which will follow upon it, we will have done a good day's work. My friend and colleague from Clare will agree that there is need for relief of unemployment in those districts. I could quote a very able authority as to the necessity for relief of distress in Clare—a gentleman who said the other day at a meeting of an organization that he saw some people in Clare eating dry leaves. I do not know what class of leaves they were.

Mr. T.J. O'CONNELL

Tea leaves.

Mr. C. HOGAN

The gentleman the Deputy referred to made no such statement. He said that people had eaten "dead things"—a different thing from eating dry leaves. He based his information on what appeared in the Press of County Clare, and the Deputy is as well aware of that information as the gentleman who made reference to it.

Mr. P. HOGAN

I will take his word for it. But why not take advantage of this scheme to relieve distress in Clare? I do not, however, suggest that these things did take place. Unfortunately, we all eat "dead things."

In the small towns, the economic question arises as to the development of cheap power. That was stressed, as well as the utilisation of electricity for lighting purposes. In one town, you will pay one shilling per unit for electricity, while in another town, you will pay 17/- per 1,000 cubic feet for gas. I do not intend to say anything with regard to Deputy Figgis' meandering along the Liffey, in search of a solution for the Shannon problem. There has really been no argument put forward from that quarter. Now that the scheme has been initiated, I hope the Minister will give it as good a push forward as he has done in bringing it up here.

Mr. LYONS

I must first congratulate the Minister for Industry and Commerce, not alone on behalf of myself, but of the people I represent in this House, on the scheme he has put forward. I am wholly in favour of the scheme put forward by the Minister, and as Deputy Shaw congratulated him, I think I would not be doing justice to the people I represent if I did not congratulate the Minister and the Government. I would like to ask Deputy Hogan, who is bringing forward this amendment, whether he is voicing the opinion of his own Party. Some time ago a leading light of the Farmers' Union went as a representative of that Party to another country. When he returned he wrote to the public Press to the effect that Irishmen were lacking in intelligence, and that all farming in other countries was carried out electrically. That was Deputy Heffernan's opinion, and he, I maintain, is a leading light of the Farmers' Union. He is strong in his belief that electricity, from the farming point of view, is necessary both in dairying and in ordinary farm work. If he is right, that electricity is necessary to the farming community, I wonder why Deputy Hogan is trying to delay its coming. Last year, along the banks of the Shannon in the constituency I represent, no less than 170 families were left homeless. One hundred and seventy families had to leave their homes and seek shelter in the neighbouring towns. The Minister to-day in his speech, which— as far as I am personally concerned and as far as my party here in the Dáil are concerned——

Mr. O'CONNELL

Name them!

Mr. LYONS

is one which I appreciate, said the present scheme was not meant to prevent flooding in the district from Athlone to Limerick. I would point out that the end of 1924 and early in 1925 were the times in which the people suffered more in the district of Athlone than they did for the last thirty years. I am quite convinced that the Shannon scheme will relieve their suffering, will prevent flooding and give the farmers an opportunity of relieving the land of the water. It will further give employment to the people of that locality. Why do we put back the date that will relieve the suffering of our people? I at least recognise that the Government have, in introducing the Shannon scheme, introduced something that the people are really anxious for, and for which the majority of the people of the Free State are prepared to vote. I do not agree with Deputy Hogan when he seeks to have a Committee of the Oireachtas appointed to go into the scheme. I think that too much time is lost ("hear, hear"). The Deputies on my left say "hear, hear." I think they lose more time than Independent Deputies do in the interests of the people they are supposed to represent. There has been too much time lost when we consider the welfare of the people concerned. This measure is going to improve the condition of the people, and give employment. It will protect the land of the people, and surely the Dáil is not going to agree with the amendment of Deputy Hogan, particularly when Deputy Heffernan says that the people of the Saorstát would be far better able to work their farms by electricity than they are at the present moment. Consequently, I am quite prepared to support the suggestion that steps should be taken forthwith to give effect to the proposals and recommendations of the experts. I do not wish to give a silent vote on the matter. I maintain that this is the best measure introduced by the Saorstát Government and on account of it, the Minister for Industry and Commerce deserves the highest praise.

Mr. P.J. EGAN

Since I have had the honour of coming to this House, I do not believe I have listened to a debate with greater pleasure than the one this evening. I heartily congratulate the Minister for Industry and Commerce on the very excellent and lucid statement he made in introducing this important measure. I am one of those people who are strongly impressed with the necessity for industrial development and, consequently, I am glad when a measure of this sort is brought before us for our consideration, because I feel we are at last tackling some of the real problems of the country, some of the things that do matter.

Candidly I was rather surprised when I heard Deputies from the second largest farmers' party in the House proposing a motion which will have the effect of hanging up this scheme. I would have credited them for being a little more progressive. When a measure is introduced by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, which any thinking person will see is calculated to have great advantages for farmers in the development of their industry, one would expect that a party in this House calling itself the Farmers' Party, would receive it with a little more acclamation. However, I am glad to observe that we have had some supporters for the Shannon scheme amongst Deputies of the Farmers' Party. Really it is quite necessary that this country should not sink into a mere condition of commercial repose. We have got to be up and doing and have got to initiate something which would get the machinery of industry going. On those broad grounds I consider a scheme such as the Shannon scheme, which will provide power throughout the length and breadth of the country should have the support of everybody. I am not saying that it should not be examined closely and scrupulously. As far as I am concerned, I consider it is one of the excellent indications of an improvement in the times in which we are living, that there should be solid and serious criticism of a measure of this sort. I think it is an excellent thing from the moral point of view that the people of this country should be focussing their attention on matters which count, such as the Shannon scheme, than on the other matters which have been occupying their attention for a long time past. There are a good many criticisms of this scheme. Chiefly, I refer now to the criticisms outside the House. In so far as those criticisms are fair and reasonable, I welcome them, and I am sure the Minister for Industry and Commerce welcomes them even more because it gives him an opportunity of dealing with the difficulties that other people may discover, but there is one kind of criticism I deprecate, and that is criticism which is founded on false facts. As an instance of that, an engineering friend of my own quite recently very seriously criticised the proposed Shannon scheme one week before the details were published, that is, one week before they could have been reasonably criticised.

I do not think it is fair. The burden of this general criticism was that neither the experts nor the Government paid any attention whatever to the matter of drainage, whereas, as has been admitted by various people who spoke this evening, and also by anyone who has read the reports, it is perfectly clear that drainage forms an important part of the scheme. In the partial development scheme 9,000 acres will be rescued from being more or less under water, and in the final development, approximately 12,000 acres will be similarly rescued. The criticism has been made that this measure is being rushed, but, so far as I can see, the measure is receiving one additional day for debate as compared with any other measure which I have heard introduced here. Consequently, owing to that, I cannot see how the argument that the measure is being rushed is advanced. In addition to that, it must be remembered that it has been before the public, in some form, at any rate, for a considerable time and that the White Paper was issued a long time ago. Really the motion put down by the Minister for Industry and Commerce simply gives another opportunity for what I may describe as a Second Reading debate. I do not think that there will be any serious objection to that, as it gives opportunities to Deputies to deal with and criticise very fully. One of the most important things in connection with the scheme, to my mind at least, or a very important thing, is the drainage question, and, as I have mentioned, the experts have paid particular attention to the efforts to reclaim land. I have seen criticism to the effect that the riparian owners will have to pay something towards this. An examination of the scheme will show that that is not right. That is another type of unfair criticism to which I wish to refer. The Minister has dealt very fully and lucidly with the technical side of the scheme, more particularly with regard to the drainage, output, and the probable consumption of electricity, and I do not want to follow him or to elaborate his very lucid exposition of those sides of the scheme at any great length, except to say that I have studied the scheme as a business man. I consider, weighing up all the evidence which is produced, and to which a layman, such as I, must pay some attention, as the considered opinion of men of Continental reputation and world-wide repute, men who have very high engineering degrees—I say, weighing up what all these men have to say, and, in addition, taking into account the estimate which such an eminent engineer as Mr. Kettle has given of the future consumption of electricity in the country, I am convinced that within the stated period sufficient consumption will be got to make this a paying proposition.

Furthermore, I am impressed by the fact that the Minister has, if I may say so, quite a number of cards up his sleeve. For instance, if there is any doubt as regards the consumption of electricity for domestic purposes, he has still the resource of the electrification of the railways to come along. There is also the question of chemical development. All these are in reserve and will come afterwards to add to the total consumption should it be found that the estimates were not borne out. In that connection a good deal has been said about the 150,000,000 units which we have to get, and it was mentioned that that was treble the existing consumption of electricity. Deputy Figgis seemed to throw some doubt upon the existing units of electricity consumed in Ireland. When experts disagree, I suppose it is difficult for the ordinary layman to form a fixed opinion, but reading between the various opinions, so far as I can see, instead of having to provide a consumption three times that of the present consumption, I am satisfied that we will have to get only about twice the present consumption. With regard to the general finances of the scheme, it is difficult at this stage to examine them very fully, but one point that I would suggest to people who are dubious on matters of finance, is this: that we have not got to find all the money at once; in fact, in all probability there will be something under one million spent the first year, and, perhaps, a little bit more the next year, but doubtless the Minister for Finance will correct me on that. It is wrong to assume that the full £5,200,000 has to be found at once, and I have heard that criticism made. The Minister has, I think, just said that it will require only about half a million for the first year. One of the arguments that convinced me most of the possible utility of the Shannon scheme was the fact that a considerable amount of imported English coal will be replaced by our own water power which is going to waste in our rivers at present. That is a very considerable thing, that we are going to convert what is at present going to waste into a definitely valuable asset. In the partial development, even in a very dry year, it is estimated that we will save 335,000 tons of coal; that comes approximately to half a million pounds. In partial development in an average year, we will save nearly one million pounds worth of coal, and in full development, at a later stage, we will save about £950,000 worth of coal.

That, of course, will have a very considerable effect from the point of view of the balance of trade, that we are converting what is a waste product into a definitely valuable asset, and by doing that we at the same time save the sending out of the country of large sums of money to purchase coal which we do not produce here ourselves. As I have said, in the partial development we will save nearly £1,000,000 per annum on coal. Capitalised at 5½ per cent. that represents a total capital sum of £18,000,000, as against a capital of £5,200,000 which we are putting into the scheme. It seems to me that is a fairly good exchange. The difference between these two figures is so considerable that we can afford a little gamble on the possibility of not getting the full consumption of electricity on which we are building. The Minister has referred to the normal increase in electricity in Dublin, Pembroke and some other places, and one of the reasons why these particular figures appeal to me is that the people who were the engineers in charge of the Liffey scheme made similar calculations. Therefore, the calculation of the increase has been confirmed by them. Switzerland has been referred to. Like Deputy Johnson, I have visited Switzerland, and in the winter time, and I have been impressed very much by the plentifulness of the electric light. I remember on one occasion going into a man's house, and when we were passing from one room into another, I switched off the light as we do at home here. I was informed that it was unnecessary to do that, as they had the light so cheaply that they never bothered about switching it off.

The mere fact of the cheerful surroundings created by the presence of a cheap, clean light would in time be bound to have an effect on the character of the people. I think one of the most miserable things about rural life in Ireland is its dreariness. As you go along by night the dark roads you pass cottages lighted by candles, or bad smoky lamps. There is no proper light for reading, and the effect must be bad for the people's eyesight and health. That is an aspect that should be taken into account. There is one thing which, I have no doubt, will be referred to later by the Minister, probably in one of the Supplementary Bills, if this power is going to be on tap at a fairly cheap rate, but I think it will be necessary for the Minister to embody in one of the supplementary Bills some provision for making loans to farmers and people who have no capital for the wiring up and installation of electricity in their houses. I have some experience at any rate of electric lighting undertaking, and I know there is a good deal of expense, no matter how cheap you get the light, in the connecting up and putting in the lamps.

I hope the Minister will bear that suggestion in mind for future consideration, and that he will provide for a system of easy loans, at any rate in the initial stages, in order to encourage people to join up, and thereby induce a greater consumption of electricity. There is just one word I would like to say in reference to existing undertakings. I hope that the Minister will explain either at this stage in concluding the discussion, or when the debate comes up on the Bill, what precisely is going to be the relation of the Shannon scheme to existing undertakings; by those I mean the electrical undertakings which are now in full swing and are providing light. I happen to be associated with one of them, and, unfortunately, I have to admit that it is not a particular success—at least we have not yet arrived at the stage when we have sufficient consumption to make it a paying proposition. We have to charge the large sum of 1s. per unit for light. I am satisfied there must be a great many undertakings in that condition, but there may be many more fortunate who are able to make their concerns pay.

I would like that the Minister would explain what would be the procedure when the Shannon current is on tap. Will he sell the current at a certain price to existing concerns and allow them to be distributed? They own all the overhead mains, and so on. I can see that the towns that have no electrical installation at all will probably be better off, for they will be able to start a company when prices of electric light of all sorts will be much lower, and they will be able to buy current at a cheaper rate, and will not be burdened with the heavy capital charges some existing companies have to bear. It is possibly premature to go into these matters, but I trust the Minister will keep them in view. The only other matter I wish to refer to is the existing Liffey schemes. I had nothing to do with them, but I have heard it alleged that some of the promoters of these companies were encouraged in Government circles to spend their money and start their enterprises. Whether that is the case or not I do not know, but I consider if that allegation can be substantiated that the men who put their money into these activities ought to be considered. I think it would be very bad for the credit of the country if men who got encouragement to put their money into concerns were not considered when a State monopoly came along and put an end to their enterprises. After all, it may be necessary again for some of these people to put up money for other enterprises, and I think it is not asking too much from the Minister to give these people some sort of assurance, at any rate, the people who definitely entered into these commitments before the Shannon scheme came on at all. I sincerely hope that the Dáil will support the Minister for Industry and Commerce in the Bill which he has produced, and I heartily congratulate him on making a very definite step towards building up the industry of the country.

Mr. CONNOR HOGAN

There is just a question which I desire to put to the Deputy before he concludes. I want to know from him if he considers it unreasonable, as regards a scheme involving an expenditure of over £5,000,000, that it should receive the most exhaustive examination from the principals involved?

Mr. EGAN

I submit that it will receive the most exhaustive examination. The Bill dealing with it will have to go through the usual stages of a Bill, not only in the Dáil, but also in the Seanad, and hence the Deputy and other Deputies will have plenty of opportunity to air their views at further length on the matter.

Mr. GOOD

Will this resolution not bind us?

Professor O'SULLIVAN

I hope that the Dáil will not be misled by, shall I call it, the glittering, crystallised eloquence of the mover of this amendment. What precisely is the point in asking for another Commission at this particular stage? The people who ask for another examination by experts strike me as being more or less in the position of hypochondriacs, healthy enough, but never satisfied with the opinion of one expert, and who keep going around until they get a person to condemn them as unhealthy. Where are these Commissions going to stop? It has been alleged that this particular scheme has not got the examination that some other schemes have been subjected to. I say that this scheme has got an examination that no other scheme has been subjected to. Other schemes were examined by laymen and judgment will be pronounced upon them by laymen. It is true that some experts have appeared before these laymen, but even in that case the expert was an expert in favour of the scheme, and he argued in order to get the scheme accepted. That is not the position of the Government experts. They were not called in in order to give a report in favour of Messrs. Siemens-Schuckert's scheme. They are not in the position of the ordinary expert who is feed to give expert opinion before a Private Bill Committee in favour of certain schemes or against them. They were called in definitely for the purpose of giving a most careful examination to every detail of the scheme.

Mr. CONNOR HOGAN

Why were not the experts called in first?

Professor O'SULLIVAN

It is not usual to call in experts to examine a scheme that does not exist.

Mr. CONNOR HOGAN

To examine the possibilities of the Shannon.

Professor O'SULLIVAN

At least that is not the procedure of our Government. When other parties select Ministers to sit on these benches they may, of course, adopt a different procedure. Personally, if I may use an agricultural expression, I may say that we prefer that the horse should go before the car, and not vice versa. The experts whose opinions have been referred to here are not in the position of advocates: they are in the position of judges, and anybody who has read their report will see that these four experts right through have kept up that position, the position of examining very fully and very carefully, of criticising and of condemning—not simply there to bring forward arguments to show that such and such a scheme should be adopted. What they do is, they say here is a scheme that is sound, or it is a scheme that is unsound.

That is the difference between the two classes of experts. It is the business of one class of expert to see that a certain scheme is accepted owing to the natural failings of human nature that everyone is possessed of. Experts of that type are tempted, possibly, to put the costings too low or to undervalue the dangers. If you read through the report of these four experts, if you read it carefully and without any bias, you will find that the experts have proceeded in exactly the opposite way. They have on every occasion shown a tendency towards conservatism: to overestimate the costs, to underestimate anything that may tell in favour of the scheme and to insist on certain strengthenings right through it. That has been the whole direction of the verdict they have pronounced. It is not fair, therefore, to say that this Bill has not got the examination that other Bills have got. It has got a much more searching examination than would have been ever possible before a Private Bill Committee of the Oireachtas. If there is one criticism to be passed on this particular report of the experts, it is that, chary of a reputation that is a European reputation, they have, on the whole, been too conservative.

They have risked nothing, and there is not a single gamble in the whole thing right through. Take any of the various criticisms that have been brought forward against this scheme. Have these criticisms not been foreseen by the experts? Have they themselves not suggested them? Take drainage. It has been suggested that the banks will not keep back the flow. The experts in this particular scheme have insisted on the banks being twice the strength of what is the custom in Switzerland. It has been suggested that the nature of the sub-soil will not be sufficient to prevent percolation. The experts insist that special attention will have to be given to that. Remember this is simply not a proposal of the Government to hand the scheme over to Messrs. Siemens-Schuckert, and say, "carry out that scheme according to the report of the experts." That is not the procedure. The Government will have its engineers there to see that every piece of advice and everything the experts have insisted on is carried out to the last detail right up to the conclusion of the scheme. In view of the character of this particular report from the experts, a direct attack on the scheme, of course, was impossible or practically impossible. The integrity and the ability and, shall I say, the manner in which Deputies preserve a judicial poise—I understand that is the correct expression.

Professor MAGENNIS

Equipoise.

Professor O'SULLIVAN

Yes, that is the word, I knew there was something missing to make it complete. On none of these grounds has the scheme been attacked.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

Adipose.

Professor O'SULLIVAN

Deputy Figgis spoke for an hour and three-quarters. He has interrupted a number of Deputies with remarks that have nothing to do with the subject whatever. Most of the Deputies who have been interrupted have not been able to see the point, and I did not hear the Deputy's last interruption. Any number of side issues have therefore been raised that have nothing to do with the scheme. From the very moment that this scheme was mooted, before the White Paper was issued and after the White Paper was issued, there was no detail in the scheme that had not been condemned, and every possible method has been used in order to prejudice the minds of the people of this country against the scheme. Why should we now have a further delay when direct attack fails? I refer to the Party one of whose members is the mover of the amendment.

These are the men who condemn delay, who say the country is too slow. What do they propose? An amendment to keep the country a little slower. There are people who say this is an infant State, practically, severely handicapped. What is their proposition to meet that severe handicap of the State? To handicap it still further, or, at least, to see that the handicap is preserved.

Mr. CONNOR HOGAN

Would not the Deputy appreciate the fact that we should proceed on scientific lines?

Professor O'SULLIVAN

What must proceed on scientific lines?

Mr. CONNOR HOGAN

An examination of the whole question.

Professor O'SULLIVAN

If the four biggest men in Europe—the Minister, I know, went to great trouble to get the four biggest men in Europe; he went to every country except Germany, from which he was excluded because the contractors were a German firm—have not examined the scheme scientifically, I confess that I am not able to do it. Deputy Connor Hogan may be. The experts have taken most of these things into account. Take drainage. In all these matters you have the size and the strength of the embankments, and the foundations on which the embankments rest. I do not know, of course, whether it is necessary for me to go into the various ways in which the Deputy who moved this amendment has misrepresented both the reports of the experts on the scheme and the speech of the Minister. I do not think it is necessary for me to follow these glittering misrepresentations to their ultimate issue.

Mr. CONNOR HOGAN

Will the Deputy name the misrepresentations?

Professor O'SULLIVAN

The suggestion was made that the riparian owners would have to bear the cost of the scheme. It is made perfectly clear from the costings in the scheme itself, and it is made equally clear by the Minister that the power scheme will derive no income from the benefits conferred upon the riparian owners.

Mr. GOREY

Is the Deputy speaking of the partial scheme?

Professor O'SULLIVAN

I am speaking of the partial scheme and the partial scheme only. That is what we are going on with. If Deputy Gorey joins Deputy Figgis, I am simply glad to see that they are working in double harness, for Deputy Figgis was the only Deputy who raised that question.

Mr. GOREY

We should be happy to get the assurance that the partial scheme would involve no charge upon the riparian owners.

Professor O'SULLIVAN

Save in this connection. They had taken into account a criticism I never heard here. It is proposed, as you know, that they should keep the water at Lough Derg at high level for five months instead of one month. The suggestion was made, but it was from a purely technical point of view—I have not heard it in this debate—that if the flooding should come down when the water is at high level there is no provision sufficient to meet and deal with it. The experts have considered that matter, and they insist that there is sufficient means of letting off any surplus water that would come down and that there is sufficient means, even with one of the big sluices opened and the gate at O'Brien's Bridge kept closed. It is the same right through the scheme. In no place is there evidence of their overlooking any essential point. They called the attention of the Government to everything, so that they might give instructions to their engineers to meet any reasonable, or possible danger, I might say, that could arise.

This particular scheme has a mere heterogeneous set of opponents— people who are bound together—possibly the word bound is a little too strong—people who are whipped together in opposition to this scheme, and who have nothing else in common, no other cementing point binding them together except their opposition to this scheme. Remember that is perfectly true, that when any big scheme of reform is proposed, you often have every class of persons, without anything else in common, united together in opposition to it. Many people are misled by the misrepresentations that have dogged this scheme from the very moment it started. Many opponents who know nothing about the scheme, and who are honestly mistaken, as we believe, as to the facts of the scheme, oppose it. There are people who will shrink from any big step whatever, and that, I think, is the mental attitude represented by the mover of this amendment. Then, outside this House and outside the Oireachtas, there is the felt or unfelt influence of vested interests and opposing interests, and then there is what I call the English Colonial-mind influence, which is still in this country. Now I am not referring to men who were Unionists before the Treaty; I am referring to a large number of other people as well, who instinctively and not consciously, shrink from any new manifestation on our part of our independence, either political or economic. It is exactly the same spirit which makes a number of people object to the Ministry of External Affairs. It is exactly the same spirit that makes people who would be tariff reformers and protectionists in England fight against any protection at home, people who candidly believe that we are still merely a part of the United Kingdom, and a very minor part of the United Kingdom, and that as a minor part of the United Kingdom our interest should be subordinate, and always subordinate, to those of the United Kingdom.

Remember this is only one side of the question when we are dealing with this scheme. There is a counter part. There is a feeling on the other side of the Channel that this particular country is a preserve for the English manufacturer; that we have a perfect right to ask an English firm to come in and offer us English machinery, but that it is a crime, practically amounting to high treason against the present economic laws in this portion of Western Europe to call in people from the Continent and to ask them to supply us with their machinery. There are people in England, and it is no mere instinct on their part like it is on the part of some people in this country, who have very clearly grasped the conviction that just as they might mark off a portion of the dark continent for their commercial activity and exploitation, so they have marked off this country as their own, and it is "hands off" so far as the rest of the world is concerned. It is only natural, I think, that English papers of a certain type might attack this scheme, as they have done, and I suggest they might open their eyes a little to some of the influences that are used against this scheme, and influences that will be used against this scheme to the last, and one of the reasons why there should be a clear expression of opinion of this House upon this scheme as quickly as possible, is that this scheme, as seen by those people in England, means more independence for the people of this country and cheaper power for the manufacturers of this country and less consumption of English coal.

This scheme is not English, but that is a matter I have already dealt with, and I shall not refer to it any longer. All schemes of this kind that afford us power at practically nominal cost are the most useful forms of protection. This is a form of protection that we should be all able to agree about, whatever our views on questions of tariffs have been. I am aware that it is said, amongst other things, that one expert wrote in the papers saying that power means nothing. It is calculated—and this is not an estimate of the experts, and, therefore, possibly not conservative—that if this scheme is carried into effect there will be a saving of something like £1,000,000 a year on coal, and if power is given to our manufacturers at a purely nominal cost, am I to understand that that gift of practically £1,000,000 a year to our manufacturers is not to have any effect on manufacture?

This is not, after all, a question so much of expert engineering or of technical skill. It is a question for the ordinary man of common sense. I think this also is clear to anyone who reads the experts' report, that the whole economy of the scheme is built on a most conservative estimate. There is no chance of a gamble of any kind. The experts are determined on every occasion to be on the safe side. They are much more conservative than the ordinary business man would be about an ordinary business undertaking. People have spoken about the cost to the State. If there is no reliance to be placed on the figures of the experts and on the statement of the cost of the numbers here, backed up by the various other figures that he adduced, what is the cost to the State? The credit of the State will ultimately be pledged to the extent of £5,000,000, but the interest will not be met by the State. I am for the moment leaving out Deputy Johnson's proposals. Taking the Government's proposal as it stands, there is no cost to the State. Deputy Hogan protested against the credit of the State being pledged to this extent. I admit that comes well from a Deputy who, the other day, opposed the proposal for the guaranteeing of £30,000,000 of Land Stock. That is nothing; he will fall down before the £5,000,000, but the £30,000,000 he is prepared to give away.

Mr. CONNOR HOGAN

I never suggested to give away £30,000,000.

Professor O'SULLIVAN

Did the Deputy speak against the Land Bonds Guarantee or not?

Mr. HOGAN

Certainly I did, but I do not see the inference though.

Professor O'SULLIVAN

I should think not. Our complaint is that the full implications of this scheme are not seen. I am dealing with the criticisms that were made by the Deputy. I think those criticisms also represent views that are held outside the House. However much mistaken they may be, I will at least try as well as I can to answer them. I think everything leads us to accept at its face value a statement made on page 8 of this report:—"A smaller plant would already in a few years prove insufficient." That is, I think, a summing-up in one sentence of what I may call the economic side of this report. That is, the plant you propose to lay down in this partial development scheme is the smallest plant you dare start, if you do not want to ruin the future electrical development of this country. Is it a sound thing for a State to build up a plant that in a few years will prove insufficient? Is it sound for a State to stand by and see a plant built up that will prevent the better electrical development of this country for years, and perhaps for ever?

I thoroughly agree with Deputy Gorey, if I may sum up that portion of his speech in this way: "Start with the Liffey, and you stop there; you will never get further; you will simply provide an electrical station for Dublin, and no more." You cannot, once you start the Liffey, and once you supply Dublin from the Liffey, proceed to deal with the Shannon scheme. If there is anything in the pessimism that has met this particular scheme, I suggest it will apply with from 10 to 100 times as much force once you take the Dublin consumption away from the scheme. There is a free road from the Shannon to the Liffey, but there is no thoroughfare from the Liffey to the Shannon. That, so far as I am concerned, is one of the big differences between the two schemes. I do not think, in the future interests of this country, that you dare start with the Liffey. If you do, then there is no chance of electricity for the rest of the country.

There was one other argument put forward that I might mention. It has been dealt with, but it is an argument that has turned up, and you meet it time and again. As I have said, it has been dealt with by other Deputies. I refer to the danger of sabotage and unrest. As has been pointed out, you cannot conveniently apply that argument to the Shannon alone. You must apply it, for that matter, to our whole civilisation. I refuse to be impressed by an argument that compels us to give up, if we are logical, or if we adopt its full implications, our whole material civilisation. And we would have to give up a great deal of our spiritual civilisation as well. I do not suggest that we might not be much happier if we had not our state of civilisation. We might, for that matter, be much happier if we were back in the woods and back to the savage state; but I do not think any of us are fit to go back to that state.

Mr. GOREY

The Deputy would cut quite a respectable figure carrying a club.

Professor O'SULLIVAN

That is an argument that depends for its force upon many things. Such an argument would be just as fatal to the Vartry water supply for Dublin as the Shannon scheme. Why did we build Mallow Bridge after it was blown up? It can be blown up again once the soldiers are removed. Why should we have done anything in the nature of a scheme of that kind? For that matter, let each man limit himself to his own holding and keep others out if he can. Any kind of a joint undertaking is impossible if you accept any argument of the kind that has been put forward. I agree with the remarks of Deputies that schemes of this kind, which will do something for the prosperity and the brightness of the country, are amongst the best ways of forestalling anything in the nature of sabotage and unrest.

Mr. CONNOR HOGAN

I would like the Deputy to clear up an obscure point and to explain an anomaly—the independence of the nation and the introduction of this scheme.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

Is it a personal explanation?

Mr. CONNOR HOGAN

It is, sir, from the Deputy. He touched also on the British guarantee for the Land Bonds.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

The Deputy cannot make a second speech.

Mr. HEFFERNAN

As the seconder of the amendment put forward by Deputy Connor Hogan, I would like to add a few words to those which have been already said by my colleagues on those Benches. I am not altogether in agreement with the wording of Deputy Connor Hogan's amendment, but the Deputy has expressed his willingness to alter it, with the leave of the Dáil. My view is that it would not be any use in submitting this scheme again to the examination of a committee of experts. We have already had an examination by a committee of experts. All the examinations so far have been done by experts. The ordinary man, the members of the Dáil, or Irish engineers, who are men more or less expert on this matter of engineering, have never had a chance of expressing their opinion on the reports which have been made. It has been stated here that the Farmers' Party is in opposition to the Shannon electric scheme. It should be plain to anybody who heard the speeches from these Benches that we are not in opposition.

Personally, I have advocated, both by word of mouth and by letter, the advisability of the establishment of electric schemes in this country. In company with Deputy Johnson, Deputy Egan, and others, I had the advantage last year of seeing the great use that is made of electricity in Switzerland and other European countries. I must say it was a pleasure and a delight to see the hills of Switzerland lit up at night by electric light. I was told that practically 50 per cent. of the farms in Switzerland were lighted by electricity. I also know that in other countries farmers have taken advantage of electric schemes. They have done so in Canada, California, and other places of that kind.

My point, and I think it is the point of other members of this Party, is that sufficient consideration has not been given to this scheme. The matter has been dealt with by experts, but neither the members of the Dáil nor the average man in this country has been given any real opportunity to consider the matter in its full light. The reports that were placed in our hands are not full or complete. The Ministry have the complete reports at their disposal, but we have not. I may be underestimating the intelligence of the House, but I do not believe there are three Deputies who fully understand the report of the Siemens-Schuckert engineers. As far as I am concerned, it is very much beyond me. This matter intimately concerns Irishmen. If the scheme is not a success, the loss will have to be borne by Irishmen. I think it is only right that Irishmen should have a chance of considering, and giving their opinion on, the scheme before it is finally passed here.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

resumed the Chair.

Mr. HEFFERNAN

If we give our support to the resolution here to-day we are definitely committed to the Shannon scheme. I am not prepared to give a blind vote on the matter. I am not fully convinced that the scheme is sound from an economic and financial point of view. The probabilities are that the scheme is sound. My beliefs are in that direction, but I am not fully convinced, and until I am convinced that those schemes will be a financial and economic success, I am not prepared to vote in favour of them. I had some slight experience of electrical schemes when I sat on the Committee which is dealing with the Liffey schemes. I had some knowledge there of the evidence of experts. It made me very dubious about experts. There is a saying that there are three kinds of liars: liars, —— liars, and experts. I saw experts getting up there and in the most convincing fashion they made statements that were flatly contradicted in a very short time afterwards. When these statements were made I was fully convinced that they were perfectly correct. The next thing I was aware of was that the expert on the other side flatly contradicted them. It is possible that there may be one flaw in this scheme, which may spoil the whole scheme. Such flaws have already occurred in other schemes. We had a great deal of discussion, at the sitting of the Committee on the Liffey schemes, with regard to the capabilities of the Poulaphouca reservoir to hold water. The question of strata of gravel which led into Bishop's Land arose, and some of the experts were quite sure that it would hold water; other experts were not so sure. I do not know what the final decision of the Committee was, but on the experts' evidence it was impossible for anyone to say whether it would or would not hold water.

I had before me quite recently a very definite indication of where experts may go wrong, and that where the best possible expert advice is taken, serious loss results. Near one of the large towns of England a reservoir for the supply of water was constructed. Before making it, the closest possible examination was given to the question of whether a particular geological strata would hold water or not. The engineers and experts decided that it would, and the reservoir was made. There happened to be a conjunction of two different types of rock in that reservoir, limestone and sandstone, and it was found that owing to the action of the sand, heat and cold, those rocks expanded and contracted, with the result that there was a leakage in the reservoir. It became useless, and the art of man could not make that reservoir hold water.

I do not say that there are any reservoirs of that kind in this scheme, but there are many propositions put forward which may have flaws. There are questions of miles and miles of embankments. There are questions of dredging the river and the lakes all through the river, and if there should occur any serious flaw in the experts' report with regard to these matters, it is quite possible that the scheme may be worthless, or, if not worthless, it may involve such a large expenditure of money that electricity may not be supplied on an economical basis to the consumer. The whole value of the scheme depends on that—the supplying of electricity on an economical basis to the consumer. The margin, I might say, is comparatively low, because this scheme will not cheapen the distribution of electricity. All this or any other scheme of the kind will do is to manufacture electricity and place it in the hands of the distributors whoever they may be—the Dublin Corporation, the Tramways and people of that kind. The margin for extra expenditure and extra loss is comparatively low, because I think it will be found that electricity is manufactured in Dublin at the present time and being supplied something under 1/- per unit.

A DEPUTY

Quite wrong.

Mr. HEFFERNAN

I beg your pardon. It is manufactured and is being delivered to the distributors at about a penny per unit. If, by any chance, the cost of this scheme becomes increased, and the Government, or whoever is responsible for this scheme, cannot sell their electricity at a lower price than it is at present manufactured at, their whole scheme goes by the board, and the only alternative will be the scrapping of the scheme, or to carry it out at the expense of the taxpayer.

Estimates have been made of the possible or probable consumption of electricity in this country and the possible increase in the consumption. Comparisons have been made with other countries. It is my opinion that the comparisons are not in many cases sound. The conditions differ very much. You have Switzerland, for instance. In Switzerland, as most Deputies know, there are many small town and village industries. These industries were already there to take advantage of the power, as soon as it was placed at their disposal. In our case those industries do not exist. We have first to get the power, and then we have got to get the people trained so as to carry on these industries. The principal consumption of power in Ireland for a very considerable time will be the ordinary consumers, for lighting and heating in houses; and by those people who at present use it for industrial and manufacturing purposes. It will take a very considerable time before we can get the manufacturers going, so as to make use of the power placed at their disposal. We have, therefore, to look very carefully at those estimates of the increased demand for electricity. If this increased demand does not take place in accordance with the estimates submitted by the experts, we will find that we will have a large surplus of electricity at our disposal which we cannot make use of. There is another matter. It is stated in the report of the experts that it is quite probable that electricity will be used by the mills and creameries and other industries in substitution for their present power system. I am inclined to think that this substitution will be a very slow process. Most of these flour mills and factories of that kind have, at present, an installation of very elaborate and expensive machinery; and unless they can see their way to effect a very considerable saving, it will not be a paying proposition to scrap that machinery, and to substitute electricity in its place.

There is one other matter to which I would like to call the attention of the Minister, and it is this: If the scheme goes through, and apparently it is the full intention of the Minister to put it through, he should bear in mind the fact that in some parts of Ireland at the moment electricity schemes are being evolved for the lighting of the towns. I think it would be a great pity if these towns are allowed to go ahead and to carry out these schemes, which they will afterwards have to scrap, if the Government will be able to supply electricity at a lower price. With regard to the White Paper, I am altogether in sympathy with the statements made by the leader of my Party. I see no reason why the Siemens-Schuckert firm should get a preference. I think that if they have been paid for the work done by their engineers we have fulfilled our obligations to them, and if it comes to be a case of submitting figures and obtaining contracts they should only get the same rights, or privileges, as similar firms in any other country, who care to send in their tenders.

We have no ties or obligations with this firm so far as I know, or so far as the Oireachtas knows, and I do not see why we should be bound to them, or why any secret agreements or arrangements should exist, if there are such arrangements with this firm. When I make this statement I do not think I am in possession of the Colonial mind that was mentioned by Deputy Professor O'Sullivan. The fact that people want to see fair play, the fact that people want to see British or American firms, or any other firms, getting an equal chance with Siemens-Schuckert does not indicate that a man has any particular firm in mind. It simply indicates that he wishes to see common or garden fair play. Before I would vote for this resolution, or before I would vote for any Bills in connection with this, I would like to know, once and for all, if it is the intention of the Ministry to nationalise this scheme. I think it is not fair that the Minister should make an indefinite statement, and say that it will be completely or partially nationalised according as the Minister or the Government thinks fit. Personally I am opposed to nationalisation. I believe that nationalisation leads to waste and inefficiency and needless expense and I certainly will oppose this Bill at all the stages unless I know that full opportunity is given to private firms to contract, and to get an opportunity of carrying out the work they are prepared to do.

Reference has been made to the fact that the riparian owners will not have to pay anything for drainage under this scheme. I am very glad to hear that. But if I have read the report properly I understand that, with full development, the riparian owners will be responsible for £200,000. I am in company with Deputy Figgis with regard to full development. I believe if we sanction partial development we will commit ourselves to full development, and if we do that we commit ourselves to the payment of £200,000 by the riparian owners. I am not prepared to do that.

Mr. JOHNSON

You would scrap the country for £200,000.

Mr. HEFFERNAN

I would not sell my honour for £200,000. In conclusion, I would like to say that I am not prepared to support the motion of the Minister unless he accedes to our request to have some form of committee appointed. My idea of a committee would be one to which these experts could be summoned and, if necessary, counsel would cross-examine them to bring out every point on which they have reported, make them stand on it, and see that they did not fail on any portion of the report. I would like to express my appreciation of the manner in which the Minister has brought this matter forward, and to say that if the scheme succeeds, the Minister certainly deserves great thanks for his wonderful energy and the wonderful knowledge he has displayed in regard to it. But though we may appreciate the ability of the Minister, we must still recognise that he is not an expert and that he has had to take what has been placed before him by the experts. He cannot go beyond that. For these reasons I wish to support my colleague, Deputy Connor Hogan's amendment.

Professor TIERNEY

I move that the debate be adjourned until to-morrow.

The PRESIDENT

I move the adjournment until to-morrow at, I suggest, 11 o'clock. We will take the business on the Order Paper, the Housing Bill, the Treasonable and Seditious Offences Bill (Fifth Stage); the Dáil (Supreme Court) Pensions Bill (Fifth Stage), and then resume the debate on the Shannon Scheme. I will propose that we adjourn at 1.30 for luncheon, and sit afterwards until everybody is satisfied that the matter has been sufficiently discussed.

Mr. GOREY

I suggest that we finish this matter to-night, even if it takes another hour.

The PRESIDENT

I am in agreement with that.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

We have a very full House. I think if the Dáil is prepared to sit later, it could do so.

The PRESIDENT

I always like to meet the wishes of the House, but I feel that there are not many Deputies supporting the proposal that we should sit later. Objections have been raised occasionally about these late sittings unless notice has been given, and of course if there is an objection, I would not be prepared to sit later now.

Mr. JOHNSON

I object.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 11 a.m. on Friday, April 3rd.