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.