Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Friday, 1 Apr 1927

Vol. 19 No. 8

ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) BILL, 1927—THIRD STAGE (RESUMED). - (SECTION 37, AMENDMENT 47.)

The Dáil went into Committee.

When we adjourned last night we were considering the point of view put forward by the Minister that rates should not be subsidised out of electricity undertakings. In the course of the discussion on that particular question the Minister pointed out — in fact he read evidence to us — the injustice — I think the word he used was "immorality"—of using such moneys for the purpose of subsidising rates. I am afraid that the Minister has not, like the President, had much experience of local authorities. It might, therefore, be interesting to give him some information as to the inception of these different electrical undertakings and the liability which was incurred by the ratepayers on the ratepayers' security.

The local authority that I happen to be connected with embarked on an electricity undertaking some twenty odd years ago, and the money for that undertaking, with its plant and equipment, was raised on the security of the rates. For some eight years after that undertaking started working there was a loss each year. That loss had to be borne by the rates. After the undertaking had been some eight or nine years in existence and all these financial responsibilities had been undertaken on behalf of the ratepayers and on their security, the undertaking became a paying concern. In the following decade it succeeded in paying off the liabilities that had been incurred on its behalf. Having discharged those liabilities, it then yielded what the Minister refuses to call a profit; he says it should be called a surplus. On the point of what it should be called it does not affect me, provided either the surplus or the profit is there.

That undertaking has, for some years, been yielding an increasing profit. It is immoral, the Minister says, to use that profit for the purpose of subsidising rates. There is nothing at all about the immorality of using the ratepayers' security — the ratepayers' money — for the first ten years of that undertaking in order to make it a success. Incur all the liability you like; put all the liability you wish on the ratepayers. That is not immoral. But to give the ratepayers any advantage that might accrue from their enterprise is immoral. That is a reasoning — I hope the Minister will not accuse me of being offensive if I say it — that one might listen to in a university.

I am sorry if that hurts anybody's feelings.

The Deputy is perhaps being offensive to more than the Minister.

The Deputy is not offensive because such reasoning could never be used in a university.

Well, it is the place where one would expect to find an argument of that kind.

One would not expect to find Deputy Good there.

It is there one would expect to find that kind of argument and not in a practical House like the Dáil.

The Deputy may be creating a coalition against himself that might be very serious.

Let me consider another aspect of this question. It is immoral to subsidise the rates from such an undertaking. Supposing that instead of that undertaking having turned the corner after ten years it continued to make a loss year by year, the ratepayers would have to bear that loss. The Minister says it is not immoral if it continued to be worked at a loss with nobody else but the ratepayers to subsidise that loss; but yet when an undertaking is made a success and is making a profit it is immoral to take any profit from that undertaking. That is an argument I, for one, could not give support to.

What has been the practice in connection with these undertakings is that in view of the liability incurred in the early years on behalf of all these undertakings — because the early history of them all is pretty much alike — and in view of the responsibilities that the ratepayers incurred, they naturally came to the conclusion that when in process of time the undertakings got into a more healthy financial conditions they would derive some benefit. Now we find that that is not approved; according to the Minister that is illegal, and it should not be permitted. What happens?

Under this amendment it is proposed in the Bill that this Board should absorb these undertakings, paying nothing at all for them. It is proposed under this particular clause to which the amendment has been put down that the Board shall take over these undertakings and pay nothing for them. Notwithstanding the views that have been put forward by the Minister that it is immoral to take money from an undertaking of this kind to subsidise the rates, I think the view that the Dáil would take and that we would all take, from a commercial point of view, is that the local authority is justified in expecting that after incurring those liabilities on behalf of these undertakings in process of time these undertakings should subscribe to the subsidising of the rates. All these local authorities are doing that at the moment. As soon as this Bill becomes operative we will lose that subsidy. The Minister says it is immoral to get it. We have put these undertakings in the way of making money and we lose all the advantage that has accrued. If these undertakings were not paying concerns the Minister, doubtless, would have taken them over under this Bill, but he would have to take them over with a liability. That brings me to another point in connection with the functions of this Bill that I strongly object to. Under the section that it is proposed to delete, it is only outstanding capital liability that is to be taken over by the Board. Let us understand this. Take a station something like the Dublin station. That is a typical station, and what is true of that is true of the others. The Dublin station I understand originally incurred a capital liability of something like one and a half millions. Of that sum over one million pounds has been paid off. There is an outstanding liability of something in the region of £400,000. The Board will take over that undertaking that cost the ratepayers one and a half millions of money. And the only liability that they undertake under the Bill is for that £400,000. Everything else that is paid by the ratepayers goes into the hands of this Board.

Was it paid by the ratepayers?

Well now the Minister can put up his own case as to who paid it. It may be paid by the electric light consumers, who are the majority of the ratepayers. I do not mind whether you compensate the electric light consumers or the ratepayers, so long as either the electric light consumers or the ratepayers are compensated. But under the Bill you propose to compensate nobody. Let us examine this question of finance a little bit further. When you come to the finance of a station like one of those electric light stations you can do that in one of two ways. You can either pay for your extensions out of revenue, as has been very largely done in these cases; or you can pay for these extensions out of capital. I need not tell the Deputies that to pay for these extensions out of revenue is a very much sounder policy financially. That method has been adopted in many of the best stations. Out of the profits they have paid for the extension. What is the proposal under this Bill? As they have paid for these extensions out of profits they have kept down the capital liability — kept it down at their own expense. Take a station that is not so wisely financed. It makes extension out of capital. It increases its capital account. When this Board comes along to a station that has only a small capital outstanding, in other words when it comes to a station that has financed its extensions wisely, and kept down its capital expenditure, there is only a small deficit on the capital account. The other station that has not financed itself so wisely, and that has paid everything out of capital, and kept adding capital, has a large deficit on its capital account. Under this proposal the Board comes along, and it takes a station with only a small liability on capital account. So you have the position that the station that has been wisely financed, and that has kept down its capital account, comes out of the Bill worst. Is that fair? That is the proposal in Section 6. The only thing that the Board takes over is the deficit on capital accounts. I do not want to delay the Dáil unduly, but one might argue on this point at great length. This method is financially and morally unsound — let us be quite clear about that. It is confiscation of the ratepayers' property. I do not care whether you call it ratepayers' property or electric light subscribers' property. It is the property of one or other which is being confiscated. It is sought to be confiscated under this Bill, and I hope that we, on these Benches, will not allow it to be so confiscated.

Deputy Good has raised a point which is of material weight, and we on these Benches who are supposed to be the protectors of property are naturally very much inclined to agree with him. I am afraid Deputy Good, when he speaks collectively of the ratepayers paying for a station, forgets that really that station has been paid for by the consumers of electricity. Where extensions have been made out of revenue and the capital of the undertaking by such means, kept very low that has been done by the users of the electricity, and not by the ratepayers generally. The Minister, when he compensates for outstanding capital and that alone, in the assessment of the price of electricity afterwards, will be able to give the users of electricity the benefit if there is a small capital cost to be settled.

Is Deputy Wilson inspired?

Inspired by common sense. I am making the statement on what I get in the Bill.

Show it to me?

We endeavoured to establish the principle last evening of having debate and not cross-examination.

I am taking Deputy Good's statement, and I want to show that that statement is not exactly correct. Where a small capital liability is outstanding under the terms of this Bill, the Minister will pay that, and by doing so he will provide electricity for users at a small price. If he has to pay the whole capital which has been already paid by the users, he will be making the users pay for it again. Deputy Hewat can contradict that if he likes.

I wish to contradict it, but the Ceann Comhairle will not allow me.

Let us be clear about it. An electricity undertaking is started. There is a loss annually for a period and non-users have to subsidise the undertaking until it begins to pay. The users of electricity are bound in equity to pay back to the ratepayers the amount they subscribed to the undertaking. We stand by that principle. But that is all that they are entitled to. There should be a subsidy towards the rates from the profits until the original liability is wiped out. If the Minister agrees to that we will vote for this section. I hope I have put a different complexion on this section. If the Minister agrees to what I have enunciated, that in so far as non-users have in the past subsidised the users of electricity, the latter will contribute to the rates a sum equal to the amount of the subsidy, we will vote for that.

I wonder was it an oversight or a deliberate confession that was responsible for the opening statement of Deputy Wilson. He said: "We who sit on those Benches."

I beg your pardon. I said: "We who sit on these Benches."

The Deputy was probably speaking rhetorically in anticipation of his future step. He was living the future in the present. Deputy Wilson appeals to common sense. How much business would he run on principles of untutored common sense? Common sense, in a technical matter, would find itself, if it had control of an undertaking, in the Bankruptcy Court. Has the Deputy any conception of municipal trading — what it is or what it is for? When the Dublin Corporation undertook thirty years ago to provide electricity for the citizens, they undertook a very great task, and in the opening years they imposed a huge burden upon the citizens. They might, in the alternative, have accepted electric current from the Tramways Company or allowed the citizens to be provided with electric current by some statutory company. They undertook it as municipal trading. Supposing a company had been invested with powers for supplying electricity in the city under the provisions of this Act, the Minister would have to compensate them. But because the men in charge at that time were enlightened enough and courageous enough to undertake it as a municipal business the whole concern is to be penalised. The arguments that are used by the common sense of Deputy Wilson is that of the £1,300,000 concerned, the £900,000 repaid or re-invested belongs to the consumers. Let us apply that to a business like Switzer's or any other distributive shop. The profits belong, when the company is being bought over or taken over by another concern, to the purchasers. Is that the doctrine of the farmers? Are these the principles of business animating the leaders of the farming community? Suppose the Corporation instead of putting money into the electric light undertaking had reduced the rates with it, where would Deputy Wilson's argument find any solid ground on which to stand? Because the moneys are applied to the relief of the electricity undertaking, then this extraordinary new doctrine is to be invoked whereby what was made a profitable thing at the cost of the ratepayers, what was allowed to exist because it had the security of the city rates, is to be confiscated in the interests not of cheap electricity merely for the citizens of Dublin, but for the entire Saorstát. If the case were that through the supply in bulk from the Shannon of power to the municipality the citizens were about to be provided with cheaper electricity, and that consequently they were getting a good quid pro quo, I should hold that to be a valid argument. But that is not the situation. It is by taking over the municipal undertaking merely subject to the equities that everyone who is a consumer of electricity subsequently is to benefit. It amounts to a declaration that wherever private or quasi-private undertakings are successful and that the State enterprise supplants them, then, in the interests of the whole State, confiscation is legitimate. I wonder is the Government prepared to stand over that doctrine. They opposed nationalisation when it came from the Labour Benches. But is the nationalisation of supply in bulk of electricity current to justify the confiscation of the property of particular municipalities? To justify that they must reconstruct the entire document of municipal trading and private property, for that matter.

We have been treated to a five minutes' speech from Deputy Magennis really because Deputy Wilson talked of certain Benches. Deputy Magennis has not indicated where his Benches are. I suppose that omission may be taken proleptically to mean either of two things — that he does not know yet where he is going to set his wandering feet or that he fears that he may have no Benches.

On the topic proper, I want to correct one thing before proceeding to deal with the arguments of Deputy Good. I am told that yesterday I stated, in the course of debate, that generating plants, if closed down, would be compensated for. If I made that statement, it is wrong, and I want to correct it. The question of generating stations is dealt with in another section and I think the Bill is clear as to that question. In so far as we are dealing with municipal undertakings under statutory control, the generating plant and net work are on the same basis. They are dealt with in Section 6 as that section lays down. So far as I remember the context in which I am reported to have said a particular thing, my meaning was this: that if Dublin station was to be taken over and used as a stand-by, the cost of the stand-by would not be laid against Dublin but against the whole country for which the station would be a stand-by. To that extent, there would be compensation to the citizens for the cost of keeping the station going.

Deputy Good's argument has strengthened what was developing in my mind yesterday. I stated, at one time, that I thought the Board could not possibly have anything to do with the Dublin undertaking for a period of years after the Board's inception. I am beginning to see that it will be necessary for the Board immediately to acquire the Dublin undertaking, because we have it clearly stated by Deputy Byrne, and reiterated by Deputy Good, that the policy for the future is going to be, that the electricity consumer is to pay something towards the reduction of the general rates. That is the settled policy as laid down here — that the electricity consumer is going, to some extent, to pay for something more than the service he is going to be given; he is going to pay for the easing of the general ratepayer. Deputy O'Connell asked me, on Second Reading, was this idea of profits going to be allowed to continue under the auspices of the Board; if, for instance, an undertaking was allowed to carry on, was there going to be any allowance made for profit. The Deputy indicated that he hoped there would be nothing of that sort. I want Deputy O'Connell and his Party to appreciate the definite, clear statements made here yesterday and to-day by Deputy Byrne and by Deputy Good — that, for the future, if a municipal undertaking is allowed to carry on, the policy is going to be changed from what it was in the past — that there are going to be extra charges put upon the electricity consumer.

I did not state that.

That was the whole tendency of and it is the implication in what Deputies Byrne and Good stated.

That is not correct.

There are going to be profits made from electricity, and these profits are going to be placed to the benefit of the general ratepayer; that is what we are faced with, and in the interests of the electricity consumer, I think it is necessary that the Board should almost be instructed to take over the bigger stations immediately and stop that policy developing. We have heard from Deputy Good as to the amount of money that the general ratepayer has had carried to his credit from electricity charges. I should like to know how much money has been so carried in Dublin or in Rathmines. I think there was a second statement by Deputy Good which rather countered the first, because he gave us to understand that there were still outstanding liabilities, in the sense that there had been subventions from the general rates to electricity undertakings, and that these subventions had not been cleared off.

I said they had been cleared off and that the station was now yielding a profit.

The station could yield a profit without having the liabilities cleared off.

It all depends on what method of book-keeping the Minister has in mind.

The situation I have hinted at is the situation in Dublin at the moment. There is revenue being derived and a profit being made, but there is still a liability to the general ratepayer.

Is the Minister referring to the revenue or capital account?

The revenue. Deputy Good's final statement was that the undertaking for which he was speaking had all liabilities cleared off.

On revenue account.

The Deputy may explain later. If such liabilities as existed towards the general ratepayer have been cleared off, then the general ratepayer has no claim whatever for making extra charges on the electricity consumer in order to ease his own position. That type of procedure was described, not by me, but by the Town Clerk — who laid down sound doctrine on this municipal trading idea — as "an immoral proceeding." I took his words.

It was unfortunate.

Deputy Good has stated that a lot of undertakings could have raised money by loan, but that they met certain charges out of revenue. He described that as the better finance policy and he said it had, in fact, been followed by the majority of stations. It had been followed under order from the Board of Trade. What was the consideration for asking them to meet certain expenditure out of revenue instead of going for a loan? It was that during the war period there had been allowed to undertakings an increase in the maximum prices to be charged. Every undertaking took advantage of that, so that the situation we had developed was maximum charges, as originally fixed, increased under the stress of war conditions, the reaction from that being that the Board of Trade advised that for the future any expenditure by way of renewals or extensions of plant should be met out of revenue. That is the situation. The war charges are still continuing. If the Board is now going to come into possession in a particular area and the liability is not so great as it might otherwise have been, it must be due to the fact that the consumers in that area have paid the larger charges and have suffered for a period of years for that particular item.

What compensation are they going to get?

Compensation! I cannot understand this idea of compensation in regard to people who put money in in order to get a service. They are going to get the service.

How does Deputy Good propose to compensate them?

Deputy Wilson has phrased this item of compensation in the most concise way that it has yet been put — these people have already paid for a certain thing, and they are going to be asked to pay a second time. Dublin Corporation have a plant which was stated yesterday to be value for one and a half million pounds. That figure to-day has gone down to £1,300,000. But let us take the figure at one and a half million. That money has been paid over with the exception, I think, of a sum of between £20,000 and £23,000. The special point Deputy Wilson was developing I will deal with in a moment. With that small exception that money has all been paid out of charges to electricity consumers. I am asked to pay a million-and-a-half on behalf of the Board to this undertaking. If I do so, who is to get the money? I do not care who gets it. That is a point to be decided later, but the money will have to be raised from the same consumers whose money was put into the plant. That is the situation. If it is not, I would like to have it explained what the situation is. I would like to know where the million-and-a-half is to go and who is to get the benefit. Is it the general ratepayers? They will have the burden eased by spreading out this million-and-a-half over a period all the time that we are collecting through the Board that sum in electricity charges. The plant was built up by the charges put on these consumers.

Subsidised by the rates.

If it was subsidised it is to the extent of £46,000 of which 60 per cent. is paid off and the small outstanding portion will also be paid off.

And you agree with that?

Where are the ratepayers of seventeen years ago?

This is supposed to be a question of confiscation. That word is completely misapplied to an undertaking of this sort. It was not a question of confiscation when the Dublin Commissioners took over the service from the Dublin Corporation. And it would be no greater confiscation if the Greater Dublin Board takes over from the Commissioners than it would be if the Electricity Board comes in and takes over from the whole lot. The benefit derived can always be segregated against a particular town. We may as well put this on a new footing. We have been talking all the time about undertakers, and about people putting money into things and also about compensation. Now, as regards statutory undertakings and unauthorised undertakings, it must be remembered that any money the Dáil likes to vote for the purpose of compensation can be handed out, but it is going to be recovered from the consumers of a particular area. You will have the cost made up in a particular way. The cost in every case will be the generating and transmission cost. The cost of the current as a unit to the consumers is going to be the liability incurred in either taking over the network, where such network exists, or in building a new network, and each town will be faced with its own liabilities. If I am asked to go down the country to an authorised, or unauthorised, undertaking and pay a certain sum of money, so far as the Board is concerned, it hardly matters who would pay, but the people who will have to pay in the long run are the consumers in that particular area.

People here are so well disposed towards authorised or unauthorised undertakings they must remember that there is another side of the case. There is a big body of people to be considered — the people who in the long run have to pay are the consumers. Allowing generosity to run away with one or getting soft-hearted about a particular thing only means that in the end there will a tremendous burden imposed on the consumers of a particular area. There is a definite policy clearly stated with regard to municipal undertakings of the future. Up to now they have not, in fact, carried forward profits to the easement of the general ratepayers. They now show that they are repenting of that and that in future they will charge the consumer something more than the service warrants, and the surplus will be carried over to ease the general ratepayer. That policy, as now announced, was previously described by two persons before the Liffey Bill Committee as an immoral procedure and contrary to municipal trading. As an announced policy it must be countered and the best counter to that is contained here and in the instructions that shall be issued to the Board that its first task should be the taking over of the particular undertaking on whose behalf this plea is made.

The Minister has made, even clearer than he did last night, two points, certainly one, namely, that the capital liabilities to be taken over in connection with municipal undertakings in particular districts will include the capitalised liability, arising from previous subventions by the ratepayers not already paid off. The second point is that compensation will, in fact, accrue to future users in that district by the fact that part of the charge of the current to them will arise from local distribution costs in their own districts. That is to say, the cost to the user will be made up of, at least, two parts, one calculated from the general cost of generation and transmission, and the other calculated from the cost arising, owing to local conditions and local distribution, and partly arising in that respect from capital charges still uncleared. If the Minister will do what he mentioned in his statement and will bring forward on Report amendments making these two points clear, I think he will have gone a very long way to meet the arguments brought forward.

Professor Thrift has cleared the air considerably in connection with this matter. The Minister has also done so in so far as he has indicated, for the first time, that something not expressed in the Bill is going to operate in future. He has, therefore, helped to bring down the matter at issue before us.

It is not before us in the amendment.

It is, in substance. The Minister has got his gibe and his red herring always ready. The question we are now asked is whether a municipal undertaking which has built up a business by its own enterprise, is to be wiped away in connection with a large national scheme and is not to be given any compensation whatever. Compensation does not necessarily mean paying cash. The Minister said that he is willing to take the capital sum involved in that station, in so far as it relieves the bigger undertaking of the cost of distribution in that area. He is ready to take that as being of value to the big concern which is taking it over, and give the people, where they as ratepayers have paid as consumers, the recognised value of that station. In other words, that the people, for instance, of Dublin will not be deprived of the value of the station which has been created by their enterprise and energy and by contributions from the rates in certain cases, without getting recognition of the fact that the new undertaking is benefiting by having this organisation there to be taken over. I would like to put before the House another aspect of the case. The municipal undertaking has been a matter of concern and interest to the people of the locality.

The new Board which is to operate the whole of the electricity in the Saorstát will displace any control of local undertakings which has been exercised by the local people. That control will be exercised by a central authority, and the local bodies will have nothing to say to the organisations they have built up. That local control according to the ipse dixit of the Minister is to cease. He says that in five years he hopes to take over all these stations, thus creating a revolution in the whole system that has hitherto operated. Local bodies are gradually disappearing so far as their functions are concerned. This further step of taking out of the hands of local people the running of their own concerns if carried to a logical conclusion as a policy of the Government means that local authorities are to cease to exist altogether, and that the whole government of the country is to be carried out by a centralised Board. In Dublin we have Commissioners at present working. If we had a Dublin Corporation elected by the people of the city to manage the affairs of the city — I do not say whether that is good, bad or otherwise, could that body of representatives sit down and accept the principle that the station which has been built up by local enterprise was to go out of their control absolutely, and according to the Bill no compensation whatever be given? The Minister would seem to indicate that under force of circumstances he would recognise that principle in the cost of the unit as supplied to the customer. If that is so it disposes of the question of confiscation — I do not want to use that word, but it is the only word I find suitable in discussing this matter. If he is willing to adopt Deputy Thrift's suggestion and recognise the value of the concern as taken over by the Board, and that the people of Dublin should get the value so far as the transmission lines and the power stations are concerned, that would be giving some recognition to the work done in the past. That, however, is not in the Bill, nor is it in any way indicated that it was ever considered on those lines.

Speaking last night on the question of profits on the working of municipal undertakings the Minister sought to establish a new and undesirable principle. No public or private interest would be safe if such a principle were established. The provisions of the Electric Lighting Act and of the Dublin Act are quite clear. It is an admitted principle in these Acts that the citizens who pledged their credit and raised money to start electricity supply undertakings are entitled to devote to municipal improvements from their electricity supply a modest proportion of the surplus which has accrued from their courage and enterprise. There are thousands of tenement dwellers who can never hope to get any other benefit from the electricity undertaking if it is successful, although if it be a non-paying concern they as ratepayers must pay their share of the loss. The slum dweller is entitled to have a small share of the surplus from electricity supply devoted to such purposes as would improve the miserable conditions under which the tenement dwellers exist, or portion of the surplus could be devoted to provide open spaces in which the children from the tenements can get a breath of fresh air. Incidentally the electricity consumers, as ratepayers, benefit by this money being devoted to civic purposes.

The electricity consumers benefit on the double. They get the benefits of the civic improvements as ratepayers, and as electricity consumers they get light and power which they could not get as cheaply by any other means. Electricity must be sold in competition with gas, oil, steam and coal. The electricity consumer takes it only because it is better and cheaper than anything else he can get. The Dublin railways, mills and shops do not take electricity from a sense of civic spirit, or for any love or affection for Mr. Kettle or the Town Clerk, or the Corporation, but because they are getting good value. The Minister has made great play with the statements of the City of Dublin Electrical Engineer and the Town Clerk. These are no doubt very capable men, but they are not behind the Minister in this confiscation policy, and if they were I would not be guided by them. Every large municipality in Great Britain with a successful electricity concern has adopted the principles I have outlined. The City Electrical Engineer, it is true, has always resisted, from his narrower viewpoint as regards the rates, raids by the Town Clerk on his exchequer. What Mr. Kettle or Mr. Murphy said in 1924 has as much to do with this question of confiscation as what Mr. Gladstone said in 1878. I stand for the rights of the Dublin citizen, always admitted and confirmed by Act of Parliament. The Dublin citizen and not the electricity consumer started the electricity works and financed them for 23 years, and he is now to have the fruit of this enterprise filched by the Minister by a stroke of the pen. I am opposed to the confiscation of any rights, public or private, and I will challenge any policy of confiscation, especially the looting of the Dublin purse.

I will press this amendment to a division, and I will see who stands for and who is against confiscation, fair dealing and justice. With regard to the Minister's statement that it is immoral and unwise for a municipal undertaking to work for profit, I have here the "Electrical Times." According to it, out of 200 concerns in England, 190 show profit. We have Derby showing £24,000; Dublin £67,000; Glasgow £77,000; Hull £68,000; Liverpool £135,000; and so on. It is only fair to mention that Dundalk shows a profit of £258. If I only got one vote for my amendment I am glad I put it down, because it has succeeded in drawing from the Minister an entirely different reading to what anyone would take from the terms of the Bill. Deputy Wilson and Deputy Good drew from the Minister certain statements as to what is intended, and which are not contained in any portion of the Bill. The citizens of Dublin 38 years ago started the electricity concern, pledged their credit for many years and subsidised the electricity undertaking and now when, as a result of their energy and enterprise, they have made the undertaking a success, I hold that it should be used for their benefit and not for the purpose of making extensions that should be borne by the national purse. Again I say I am one of those who hope that the Shannon scheme will be successful, but I hope it will not be successful at the expense of Dublin city.

I am as jealous of the interests of local authorities as anybody who has spoken in favour of this amendment, but I must say I cannot see anything at all so drastic in the Bill as that suggested by Deputy Good, Deputy Hewat, or Deputy Byrne. To my mind the Minister is endeavouring to supply cheap electricity to anyone who wants it, to encourage the use of electricity, and if the suggestions put forward by the three Deputies whom I have named are accepted by the House it will mean that people will not get electricity as cheaply as the Minister desires to give it to them. Deputy Good has cited the case of Pembroke, and said that for the first ten years it did not pay. We have heard a lot of talk here about municipal undertakings. I do not think that any public body takes on an undertaking of this kind to make money. I do not think it is the function of a public body to take on a scheme of this kind in order to make money. It is taken on, or should be taken on, as an essential service in the interests of the people, and we have only to look at it as such. I take it that the people who paid for this in its initial stages through the medium of rates did so because they were asked to do so by the particular authority concerned, and because of the novelty of electric light at that particular period, without any consideration at all as to whether the scheme was going to pay or not. They wanted electric light at that period, and they were prepared to pay anything for it.

A DEPUTY

No.

I think that is perfectly clear to everybody. All through the debate Dublin has been mentioned. One would think there was no other part of the country but Dublin. Some of the people who are to-day supporting this amendment are people who have, from the beginning, objected to the Shannon scheme as such. I will vote against this amendment, and I will do so because I am satisfied the Minister is doing the right thing. If Dublin and Rathmines are paying, there may be many other undertakings which have huge liabilities, and this particular section of the Bill will be in their interests. To my mind it will enable the Minister to supply cheap electricity, and to encourage people who have never used it to do so.

At the expense of Dublin.

I do not represent Dublin.

I have taken up a certain attitude so far as regards compensation for undertakings, but I had in mind principally undertakings which were in possession of individuals, which were in existence for the purposes of profit, and that really represented enterprise on the part of, say, one man or half a dozen men. I believe that if the coming into existence of the Shannon scheme means that certain property belonging to a few individuals is to be lessened in value or taken over, these few individuals must get full consideration. I put that in a different category altogether from the position we are discussing with regard to Dublin, and I am going to vote against Deputy Byrne's amendment. To me it seems that a municipal electricity plant exists here because in the name of the community of the city a body of men were nominated to give them a certain service which they required. That service has to be continued.

I would like if Deputy Byrne kept more closely to the point he made, but, as I gathered, the point is that if that plant is to be taken over, or if it is to be supplanted by another, compensation should be paid to the municipality of Dublin. That would be all right for Dublin if the compensation was to be paid by outsiders, but to me it seems, from the conclusions we have to draw from what the Minister says, it will be all wrong for Dublin if the compensation to be paid to Dublin citizens has to be collected from Dublin citizens. I cannot see any point whatever in making that case, but looking at it from the other side, if the Dublin citizens put a value of one million three hundred thousand pounds on their plant and expect the rest of the country, by way of borrowing money to repay it in the price that consumers of electricity all over the country will have to pay it, it would be a grand thing for Dublin, but that is the very thing that the consumers of electricity down the country will not stand for.

Inasmuch as the Bill determines that where compensation has to be paid the consumers in the area where the service is given will have to bear the compensation, I see no point whatever in the advocacy of the Dublin representatives, and if it comes to the other point, that we are going to expect that an additional one million nine hundred thousand pounds has to be found somewhere to indemnify the citizens of Dublin so that their service of electricity may be continued, and that that is to be found amongst the potential users of electricity up and down the country, amongst farmers and others. I must vote against it.

Deputy Corish thinks it an argument in favour of this extraordinary Section 37 that some of those who oppose it opposed the Shannon scheme. I think it is in the recollection of most Deputies that I did not oppose the Shannon scheme; it will be in their recollection that the President read from his official diary, in answer to Deputy Figgis, that I brought the Shannon scheme to him, and he turned it down. Therefore, whatever merit might be found in his argument against the opposition to the section, it does not affect any argument that I may put forward. Now, we have the whole case, naked and unashamed, confessed by the last speaker. He says that if the municipality of Dublin were to be compensated it would impose a charge upon the rest of Ireland, and he asked was the rest of Ireland to be called upon to compensate Dublin. Why, an argument of that type would justify confiscation of any sort in regard to any business whatsoever. It is the old doctrine of the end justifying the means. Does Deputy Baxter not see that the plain answer to his question is "Do not confiscate and the question will not arise"? One of the very strong points in favour of the Shannon scheme was the report of the four Continental experts, a most convincing case for having a central national station for the production and distribution of electricity. What was their view of the future of the Shannon scheme in regard to the municipalities that had machinery requisite for the purpose of distribution to their areas? "The larger and medium-sized towns will, of course, themselves arrange for their power distribution and will be wholesale consumers from the point of view of the State supply." That view of the matter has been departed from radically, and as a natural consequence you have this Section 37. There is no reason why the Shannon scheme should not be promotive of all the benefits that will accrue, and that we foresee as accruing, by providing electricity in bulk to the municipality without confiscating the municipality's property. If, on the other hand, we decided that the monopoly for the Board should be complete and absolute, then equity requires that the citizens of Dublin should not be mulcted.

The specious argument is put up — it seems good enough for Deputy Wilson — that the citizens of Dublin are to pay twice over. That is all founded on the gross and rank assumption that municipal trading only is in contemplation.

On a point of explanation, I said the users of electricity in the City of Dublin, not the ratepayers of the City of Dublin.

What is the difference?

Who is talking metaphysics now, distinguishing between the citizen qua citizen and the citizen as user of electricity?

They are not the same at all.

What about the citizen who uses gas?

If I were to go into these minutiae, instead of having to say "men" I should have to say "375,438 men," and so on. The Minister quotes, as if an infallible authority, a remark of the Town Clerk's. I yield to no one in my admiration of the Town Clerk. On a previous occasion here I had the pleasure of declaring him to my mind the ablest man in Ireland. But am I to accept every deliverance of his that it suits the Minister to cite? Everybody knows that the primary purpose of municipal trading is to supply a particular service for the community. But that is not the total purpose. The theorists would say that all the profits should be put back to repay the cost of installations and developments. No doubt that is requisite, but municipal trading can also be embarked upon for the purpose of reducing the rates, is quite legitimate and is not immoral. The important fact to remember is that thirty years ago, and in the ten or twelve years ensuing, the credit of the City of Dublin was chargeable for this enterprise, and had it failed it would have been the city estate upon which the cost would have fallen. Now, because it has been a success, it is to be taken over for the benefit of Deputy Wilson, to be taken over merely as subject to certain equities. That is not reasonable or fair, and there is no word to apply to it except the plain, ordinary word "confiscation."

If I could be advised as to what amendment we are dealing with——

We are dealing with the subject matter of amendments 47, 48 and 50. The question will be put on amendment 47, and the decision will embrace 48 and 50.

I asked that because Deputy Hewat is apparently under the misapprehension that his amendment, or some amendment that he is fathering, will bring about certain things. The whole effect of the amendments that are under discussion, if we take 48 as followed by an addition in 50, consequential upon it, is not to relieve anybody from anything, but to put extra charges upon certain people. That is an amendment I am opposing, and opposing very strongly.

Dissatisfaction with the section is what we are dealing with.

And what is the amendment on which Deputy Byrne is going to lead people? He is the leader of a section.

That is a misrepresentation.

Deputy Byrne does not like to be classed as a leader. I wanted to get the point of view of the people who are to be his followers. However, we are dealing with an amendment which would have a certain effect, that of increasing a burden upon people, and the only effect of the amendment would be to increase the burden. There is no relief anywhere in it. Let nobody imagine that this amendment has anything to do with all that I have been talking about. The question that Deputy Wilson raised of repaying money in the case of subventions from rates is a different matter. I can attend to that on Report. The matter that Deputy Thrift dealt with on Second Reading is more difficult to phrase, because it is more or less for the determination of the Board, and it may be difficult to get words for it. The furthest length that one could go to, I think, is that Dublin must at least be secured the benefit of the small liabilities that are to be taken over. But remember there are certain new areas which will necessarily have to be developed, not merely from Dublin, but from all the electrical areas. Rural electrification has not paid at the start in any country. But whether Dublin should get the fullest possible benefit that may be derived from cheaper generating, from economies in distribution and from the sale of appliances, is a different matter. Allowance is made for setting aside all the money for extensions, and that will have to be spread over everybody. But certainly one can say that Dublin will be getting the benefit of the small liability that will be taken over from it, to this extent, that the distribution costs will not be greater than the distribution costs would be on the present system, working for the same result.

In fact, you might put it this way: Supposing the new concern was going to take over a debt of a million pounds arising in Dublin, and a debt of £100,000 arising, we will say, in Pembroke, the Pembroke consumers would not be paying for the debt of a million pounds that was taken over from Dublin? I put it that way purely hypothetically.

Yes, that broadly explains it.

Can the Minister give any guarantee that under the Board the Dublin consumers will benefit? Can he guarantee that the price will be lower than it is to-day and will remain lower?

I am to guarantee !

It has been stated that the Dublin consumers are going to pay off any compensation that is awarded to the ratepayers in Dublin, but all that depends on whether the price is materially lower under the Board than it has been under the Dublin Corporation. That is what the whole question will turn on. If the Board takes over the Dublin supply and has to work on all those outstanding charges, can the Minister give any guarantee that the conditions will be improved for the Dublin consumers with the liabilities he proposes to take over?

I cannot see any danger of the charges being raised, or even kept at their present point. I think the whole tendency is that the charges will certainly go down. How much they will go down depends upon just what compensation charges have to be met arising out of each locality, and if, say, the outstanding £22,000 or £23,000 has to be paid for, remember that will stand as a liability on the Dublin electricity consumers.

Only the interest and sinking fund.

It will be some way approximated to ordinary capital charges and paid off, but not in a lump sum. I cannot give any undertaking or guarantee, and I doubt even if all the guarantees I could give would have any effect upon Deputy Myles. We are on an amendment which, if it is carried, I say is going to have the effect of increasing charges. I am going to decrease charges. The effect of the amendment, as Deputy Wilson has phrased it, is that people are going to be made pay a second time, for what they have already paid, and as to where the money paid is going to go, we are still in the dark. It should not be understood that Deputy Hewat or Deputy Good or Deputy Byrne has sought to do anything to relieve anybody, except people who should not get relief. Deputy Byrne has been very eloquent about the slum-dweller and what he was entitled to get. The peculiar thing is, if he was entitled to get it, that from 1911 down to the present there have been profits made on the Dublin undertaking, and the slum-dweller got no benefit.

I say I always fought for it, but was defeated by those who wanted to make improvements out of revenue, which the Minister is now taking the benefit of.

We have somebody talking as if it were the practice. We have the other phrase used by Deputy Magennis about the theory with regard to profits going back into the undertaking. It is not merely theory but the practice all over the country, that there have not in fact been carried to the easing of the general ratepayer moneys derived from electricity undertakings; but we have the intention stated in this House for the first time that that undoubtedly is going to be the policy in the future, if the undertakings are allowed to carry on as they are.

I do not think any Deputy indicated any such thing.

We are definitely going to follow the very good theory and practice of the past in the future that the electricity consumer will pay merely for his own service. Deputy Byrne also said that the two gentlemen whom I have quoted are not behind me in my confiscation proposals. If they are not, they are certainly not behind Deputy Byrne in his idea of what the slum dweller is entitled to.

They always opposed me with the aid of one of your advisers.

The Deputy will be always a solitary figure in opposition, I suppose. I wonder how many people are going to follow him in this that there should be money paid for what has already been bought and paid for. That money is to be recouped eventually from the electric light undertaking. Deputy Baxter made one small point about profit and the question of the individual owner of an undertaking. That is just the kind of point that I would like Deputy Baxter to think of between now and the Report Stage in the matter of these companies and the other people we spoke of yesterday. The peculiar basis that seems likely to be accepted by this House is that the greater the profits a man made in the past ten years the greater compensation is going to be in the future, irrespective of whether he was giving good service or whether he was giving a bad service and charging an exorbitant rate. If I were to accept the amendment with regard to the unauthorised undertakers and the people we are talking of now, it would put them in the position that the greater the profit made in the past the greater the compensation would be. I think that would be quite unfair.

Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 11; Níl, 45.

  • Daniel Breen.
  • John J. Cole.
  • Bryan R. Cooper.
  • John Good.
  • William Hewat.
  • Connor Hogan.
  • Séamus Mac Cosgair.
  • Maolmhuire Mac Eochadha.
  • Liam Mag Aonghusa.
  • James Sproule Myles.
  • Ailfrid O Broin.

Níl

  • Earnán Altun.
  • Pádraig Baxter.
  • Earnán de Blaghd.
  • Séamus Breathnach.
  • Seoirse de Bhulbh.
  • Próinsias Bulfin.
  • John Conlan.
  • Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean
  • Uí Dhrisceóil.
  • Séamus Eabhróid.
  • Michael Egan.
  • Patrick J. Egan.
  • Desmond Fitzgerald.
  • David Hall.
  • John Hennigan.
  • Liam Mac Cosgair.
  • Séan Mac Curtain.
  • Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
  • Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
  • Patrick McGilligán.
  • Risteárd Mac Liam.
  • Liam Mac Sioghaird.
  • Tomás de Nógla.
  • John T. Nolan.
  • Peadar O hAodha.
  • Mícheál O hAonghusa.
  • Scán O Bruadair.
  • Tomás O Conaill.
  • Parthalán O Conchubhair.
  • Aodh O Cúlacháin.
  • Séamus O Dóláin.
  • Eamon O Dubhghaill.
  • Mícheál O Dubhghaill.
  • Peadar O Dubhghaill.
  • Seán O Duinnín.
  • Donnchadh O Guaire.
  • Mícheál O hIfearnáin.
  • Fionán O Loingsigh.
  • Risteárd O Maolchatha.
  • Pádraig O hOgáin (Gaillimh).
  • Seán O Raghallaigh.
  • Máirtín O Rodaigh.
  • Seán O Súilleabháin.
  • Caoimhghín O hUigin.
  • Liam Thrift.
  • Nicholas Wall.
Tellers: Tá. Deputies A. Byrne and Myles. Níl, Deputies Dolan and Sears.
Amendment declared lost.
AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE took the Chair.
Amendment 48 not moved.

I think it would expedite the business if we were to agree to withdraw the other amendments dealing with this question of municipal compensation until we see the section to be brought forward by the Minister on the Report Stage. It will only mean talking on a thing twice over if we do not agree to that.

I am agreeable to the suggestion made by Deputy Thrift.

Amendment 49 not moved.

Is the Minister willing to adopt the course suggested by Deputy Thrift?

I have already said so.

Will the Minister agree to have the Bill re-committed on Report?

Amendment 50 not moved.

I move amendment 51 —"In sub-section (7) to delete the word ‘Minister,' line 1, page 21, and substitute therefor the words. ‘Chief Justice of Saorstát Eireann.'"

There was some discussion on this matter on the Second Reading of the Bill. The Board to be set up is to be constituted by the Executive Council, and in various sections of the Bill provision is made for the appointment of an arbitrator. Where an arbitrator is to be appointed provision is made that the appointment should be made by the Minister for Industry and Commerce. This matter of the appointment of an arbitrator in connection with many questions that will arise for arbitration will be a very important one. The fact that the arbitrator is to be appointed by the Minister for Industry and Commerce means that he will have to interfere personally in the matter, though he has expressed himself already as being desirous of getting clear of all questions that arise as between the Board and the various bodies concerned. In fact, he has indicated that if the Board is to be a satisfactory one it must be free of all interference. Therefore, I cannot visualise the appointment of an arbitrator by the Minister as a proper course to adopt in the circumstances. It may be said that the appointment of the arbitrator by the Chief Justice is not very much better. The Minister has said already that he thought that the Minister in his capacity as a Minister would have more responsibility in the matter than an outside person. We think that the appointment of this arbitrator should be free of contact with the Department altogether, and that the fact of doing so would strengthen the arbitrator in dealing with the matters before him. I ask the Minister to accept the suggestion contained in the amendment, not as a perfect suggestion, because I do not think it is, but as preferable to what is in the Bill. This amendment would cover all cases under the Bill where the appointment of an arbitrator by the Minister is specified. At all events I would like the Minister to accept the principle contained in the amendment in regard to most of the sections where there is reference to the appointment of an arbitrator by the Minister. I would like that to be done particularly in cases where the arbitrator will be dealing between an individual undertaking and the Board.

I would prefer to deal with this amendment only in connection with this section, because whatever could be said about this section, there is a section later on dealing with the lopping of trees, as to which an arbitrator may be appointed. It would be like erecting a steam hammer to crack a nut to get the Chief Justice to appoint an arbitrator for that. I would rather keep to this section.

The objection to me, as the appointer of the arbitrator, is, apparently, that I am too much in touch with the new Board and, apparently, I am accepted as being too much against the existing undertakers. On the principle that I have that sort of failing, Deputies have to go further, and if I get an arbitrator they will expect his arbitration not to do justice, but really to weigh things in my favour. That is the fear that is at the back of this, and I doubt if there is going to be any capable or reputable arbitrator who could be relied on who can be even asked to carry on in that way.

We are asked to substitute instead of the Minister the Chief Justice, and we are asked to do it in this section, where the whole matter is one of fair value as a going concern. If it were a matter where there were points of law at issue, and supposing it was necessary, as I think in some cases it is, that the arbitrator should be a barrister, a legal man, then I would not have much hesitation in accepting the Chief Justice or the President of the High Court. But here the matter to be determined is fair value. It is not a matter in which there is going to be a question of legality involved: there will be hardly any question of legality. If one were seeking a proper appointer of the arbitrator, one would want to get a Board of Chartered Accountants to select the best man for the purpose.

There are two things mainly concerned, the efficiency and the impartiality of the arbitrator. In so far as it is a question of efficiency, the Chief Justice, who has contact mainly with legal people, is less well situated than I personally am from the point of view of getting an efficient arbitrator. With regard to impartiality, I cannot, I suppose, get Deputies' minds disabused of the idea that I am going to go out of my way to do an unfair thing. There is still the suspicion that any Minister would seek an arbitrator who would be specially ordered to lean heavily on the Board's side, or lean against the undertaker. I do not think there has been any case made for the selection of an arbitrator by the Chief Justice in substitution for the Minister.

I am sorry I cannot agree with the Minister's statement on that point. Nobody wants to accuse a Minister of such tricks as he has practically accused himself of. I think everybody is entitled to be satisfied that the position is such that there should be absolutely no question in the minds of any of the parties as to the impartiality of the arbitrator. I do not, for a moment, assume that the Minister will give any such reference to an arbitrator, but remember that human nature is human nature, and the arbitrator the Minister will appoint is working for the Minister. What are to be the conditions of the termination of his employment? If he does not please the Minister will he continue to be employed? If he pleases the Minister, and to my mind the only way he can please him is by cutting it off the other party, the position, no doubt, may be different. The only solution is that the arbitrator shall be absolutely independent of any party connected with the issue. The only person who has been laid down by law already passed by the Oireachtas — under the Acquisition of Lands Act — to do the job is the Chief Justice.

It is not the Chief Justice in that Act.

In the amending Act it is the Chief Justice.

I think there is a Reference Committee of three.

I speak subject to correction. In the 1919 British Act, as amended by our Act in 1922, the Chief Justice is selected to call the panel.

It seems to me that the Bill is in one respect better than it might have been, for it might have read: "that the fair value be fixed by the Minister." Then it would have been necessary to move an amendment to introduce an arbitrator. The advantage, to my mind, in making the appointment — unless it is by agreement between the parties — one by the Minister is this, that it is an administrative act and is, therefore, as such subject to the criticism of this House. If any bias or unfairness betrayed itself in the appointment it would be open to a member of the Dáil to impeach the transaction. I do not think that would be the situation if the Chief Justice were the appointer of the arbitrator.

I agree with a great deal the last speaker said. It does not seem quite equitable, where a Board that is so intimately connected with the Minister's Department is operating, that the arbitrator should be appointed by the Minister. At the same time, I think that is a better arrangement than if the Minister were the arbitrator or even if the arbitrator were appointed by the Chief Justice. I suggest, if it would be accepted, that the arbitrator should be agreed upon between the Department and the other party to the transaction.

Between the undertaker and the Board.

And in default of agreement, would the Deputy leave it as it is?

I would accept that.

That is exactly what the Bill says.

It mentions in default of agreement.

In default of agreement as to price; but Deputy Magennis goes further and indicates that in default of agreement the arbitrator be appointed by the Minister. I certainly would accept that.

This does not settle the question that I submitted to the House. The amendment proposes the substitution of the Chief Justice for the Minister. What is the Minister's objection to that? Of course we could agree that the Minister is going to appoint an excellent arbitrator who is not going to be biassed in any way, and he is not going to use authority on the arbitrator — at least we hope not. My opinion is that of the two the Chief Justice is the more free of any action that may be arbitrated upon. I agree that as we see things at the moment the issue is not a very serious one. We suggest, however, that the appointment of the arbitrator by the Chief Justice is the better way.

The Minister mentioned that the arbitrator he will appoint will be very excellent, and we do not dispute that in the least; but we would rather have the alternative. There may be only a sentimental reason for accepting the proposal that the appointment be made by the Chief Justice, but at all events there is a reason for suggesting it. The Minister puts forward no reason why the change should not be made.

I have not heard any reason put forward in favour of the appointment being made by the Chief Justice. I believe that I would be in a better position to choose the special type of arbitrator than the Chief Justice. It is not a matter of law. If it were, I would give in at once.

It is a matter of independence.

I mentioned that impartiality and efficiency were the two main things. I thought the Deputy was agreed on the point of impartiality. I am sure the Chief Justice will be overwhelmed when he sees what is implied in the Deputy's statement. On the other hand, there is the question of efficiency. I believe the circumstances that I find myself in put me in a better position to choose the arbitrator than the Chief Justice, and I am of the opinion that I would get a more efficient arbitrator.

Does Deputy Hewat overlook the important consideration that an act of the Chief Justice cannot be reviewed in this House?

I do not wish to press the matter, and I do not place so much importance on the change as to weary the House with any further arguments in its favour. We have put forward reasons why there should be a change. If the Minister is not agreeable to accept the amendment, I will withdraw it.

I am quite agreeable — and I think it would be an improvement, because it would save this appointment if the parties can agree — to insert what has been suggested — an arbitrator agreed on between the parties, but in default of agreement the appointment to be made by the Minister.

Very well.

Amendment 51. by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment 52: —

In sub-section (7), page 21, in line 4, after the word "discharge" to insert the words "so far as such moneys are sufficient for that purpose" and in line 6, after the word "residue" to insert in brackets the words "(if any)."

It might happen there would not be sufficient moneys for the discharge of the obligations. The amendment simply means there will be a pro rata payment setting the assets against the liabilities.

Amendment agreed to.

I propose to insert this amendment: —

To add at the end of sub-section (7) the following paragraph: —

"In fixing for the purpose of this sub-section the fair value of an undertaking the arbitrator shall not include any sum or allowance on account of any accretion of value arising directly or indirectly from the operation of the Shannon works."

I think it is a matter of justice. What it means is, that if you have an undertaking running for four or five years and getting electricity cheaper through the Shannon scheme than the price at which it previously generated it, the arbitrator should take into consideration the undertaking as it originally was worked, that is deprived of the extra profit it derived from the Shannon scheme.

Amendment agreed to.

I move: —

To add at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows: —

"In the event of any dispute arising between the Board and any person in the employment of a former undertaking as to the rights of such person under sub-sections (8) and (9) of this section, the matter in dispute shall be referred to the decision of the Minister for Local Government and Public Health whose decision shall be final and conclusive."

The rights of local government officers are established by statute and, in all disputes concerning such rights, the final decision is vested in the Minister for Local Government and Public Health. As to superannuation and compensation rights, minimum and maximum amounts are fixed by statute, and the amount awarded in each case is determined by the local authority with the consent of the Minister for Local Government and Public Health an increase upon the minimum being granted in certain circumstances such as long and efficient service, abolition of office through no fault of the officer, disease or injury contracted as an actual result of the nature of the officer's employment; positions requiring highly technical qualifications for which it was not possible to obtain suitably experienced officers at ages sufficiently youthful to enable them to qualify eventually for full two-thirds superannuation. It is not clear from the terms of the present Bill that the Minister for Local Government and Public Health will continue to exercise this function in respect of officers taken over by the Board. No court of appeal is provided for such officers. To deprive them of a court of appeal will be an infringement of their existing rights. The Minister for Local Government and Public Health would appear to be the authority most competent to decide in questions as to the rights of such officers. I recommend this amendment for the favourable consideration of the Minister.

I support Deputy Doyle's amendment. I think questions are bound to arise where there will be disagreement between the Board and the particular officers to be taken over and it is necessary that there should be some court of appeal to decide. The court that is suggested here seems to be as competent and fair as any other court that could be set up. I support the amendment.

I would say on this amendment that I would like to see some expression of opinion forthcoming from the Minister on this matter. That would be welcomed by those employed in the various electricity undertakings. I would like if it would be stated, as it was stated on a previous occasion by the Minister, that employment is likely to be better and that the chances of procuring employment are likely to be bettered than worsened under this Bill. There is a fear that people may lose their employment as a result of the passing of this measure. I think the amendment proposed is a very wise one, and I wish to support it. I would like if the Minister would give some indication that employment in electricity undertakings will not be worse than it is to-day. While on this amendment I would like to draw attention to sub-section (9) of Section 37 of the Bill, and which has relation to the same matter. That sub-section says "so employed on or after the 1st March, 1927." That is putting the date backwards for dealing with employees that are considered permanent employees or employees likely to get compensation. Fixing the date backwards instead of going forward, is wrong and unfair. Attention has already been called to it at least in two cases. Where the man finds fault with the date it knocks him out of consideration by a couple of weeks. I think in view of the previous Acts where we nearly always put the date forward and not backward, that the present fixing of the date is wrong. It is not wise to select a date before the passing of the Act to consider claims for gratuities or compensation. In that matter I was considering the question of putting in an amendment making the period three years. I think it is quite reasonable if the date could be changed to read: "on the passing of this Act." That would give consideration to those who may lose their employment.

The position in regard to the general question asked by Deputy A. Byrne is that the chances of employment are very much bettered. One has merely to consider that the sale of electricity is to be increased from a certain number of million units — 53,000,000 units to 110,000,000 units. In a large number of towns an enormous number of premises will be wired. One can only throw that out and let the people judge for themselves what employment there will be. With regard to persons who are at present in employment the situation that the Bill has to achieve is this, that all those who were in employment would be taken over by the Board, would come under the employment of the Board and would have the rights they had in their former employment — that the Board would step into the shoes of the original undertakers, and whatever rights they had against the former undertaking would accrue to them under the Board.

I do not know that anything could be fairer than that. I do not understand this amendment, because it refers to sub-sections 8 and 9. Sub-sections 8 and 9 are not confined in their reference to local authorities. Consequently, bringing in the Minister for Local Government would seem to me to be putting him in a rather peculiar position. Again, I have not been able to discover what point the Minister for Local Government is to be called in to decide, even if this amendment be confined to municipal undertakings, the position being that the Board takes over. There is to be an apportionment of staff. Certain people are not employed on the electricity side; certain people are. Those who are employed on the electricity side with their rights — pensions and everything else — come over to the Board. The Board has to discharge the obligations to them in full. As regards the other point spoken of by Deputy Byrne as to the date, we could not possibly do as he suggests. We might have the pay roll increased by 100 per cent. The only way to take the situation is as it was round about the date of the introduction of the Bill — that has been the practice followed with regard to measures already passed. The Railway Act stipulates the date of the introduction of the Bill. That is the course followed. If there is any point in this amendment, I would like to get it explained more fully either now or, if it is a technical point, I should like to get it explained in discussion and interviews outside. If there is any injustice done, I am prepared to meet the injustice, but if the Minister for Local Government is being brought in, the amendment must be confined to local authorities. Otherwise, it is merely a question of putting in any Minister except the Minister for Industry and Commerce. On Report Stage, I should not be surprised to find an amendment providing that in the definition clause "Minister" may mean any Minister except the Minister for Industry and Commerce.

Is there not a flaw in the amendment in this respect — that it is so wide? The Board is to be a body corporate, which can sue and be sued. If this amendment were to pass, it would take away, conceivably, the right of persons with grievances to sue the Board in the law courts. Under the guise of giving a privilege or advantage of some sort, the Deputy would take away another which might in certain eventualities be much more valuable. He says: "In the event of any dispute arising, then the decision of the Minister for Local Government shall be final and conclusive."

I am taking it as definite that the intention is to deal with certain officials — Local Government officials — who may be taken over. The intention is, I presume, to continue the authority which the Minister for Local Government has with regard to certain items. If I can get this matter defined in an amendment between this and Report Stage, I am prepared to meet it, if it seems likely that any injustice will occur. As phrased, I was disposed to negative the amendment on other grounds. As Deputy Magennis has pointed out, it may work equal injustice by taking away from other people some other final court of appeal than the Minister for Local Government, and the other people might desire to have that other court of appeal.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed —"That Section 37. as amended, stand part of the Bill."

May I draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that a number of men now working in generating stations may lose their employment——

In generating stations?

They are dealt with differently. The Schedule applies to them.

I refer to general employment. A man may lose his employment and get a small gratuity. He had the chance of getting permanent employment if he had been allowed to remain on. That man ought to get priority in any new employment being given by the Board. My attention was drawn to this question under the Railways Act. Men employed in one workshop were transferred to another. Some men lost their employment and new men were brought in. The older hands got no work. The same thing may happen in connection with this matter. New men may be called in and men with five or six years' service in other departments may be passed over. I would ask the Minister to suggest to those who will be in charge that men who had been in employment should get priority. I object very strongly to having men dismissed with a small gratuity and new men brought in.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 38.
(1) The Board may by order take control at any time of the undertaking of an authorised undertaker.
(2) The following provisions shall apply to every order (in this Act called a control order) by which the Board takes control of an undertaking under this section or under any other section of this Act, that is to say:—
(a) the Board may in the control order state the date (not being prior to nor more than three months subsequent to the date of the control order) on and from which it thereby takes control of the undertaking, and if no such date is so stated the Board shall be deemed to take such control on and from the date of the order,
(b) the Board may in the control order state the period for which it thereby takes control of the undertaking, but such period shall not be less than the minimum period (if any) applicable under this Act nor more in any case than five years,
(c) if no such period is stated in the control order the Board shall be deemed thereby to take control of the undertaking for the period of five years or until the Board sooner relinquishes such control, and in such case the Board may by order at any time, but where such minimum period as aforesaid is applicable, not before the expiration of such minimum period, relinquish such control.
(3) Whenever the Board takes control under this Act of the undertaking of an authorised undertaker the following provision shall apply, that is to say: —
(a) so long as such control continues the Board shall maintain, work, and manage the undertaking and shall for that purpose have full possession, control, use, and occupation of all the property and assets of the authorised undertaker and the right to use the name of the authorised undertaker.
(b) upon the commencement of the control all persons in the employment of the authorised undertaker and employed by him in relation to the undertaking shall become servants of the Board upon the same terms as they were, immediately before such commencement, employed by the authorised undertaker and with the same (if any) rights against the Board to pension and superannuation allowance as they had against the authorised undertaker immediately before such commencement and for the purpose of such pension and superannuation allowance the period of service of any such person with the authorised undertaker before such commencement and his period of service under the Board during the control shall be reckoned as continuous service under the Board,
(c) the Board may during the control employ such and so many persons (whether previously employed or not employed by the authorised undertaker) in relation to the undertaking as he thinks fit,
(d) the Board shall have all the benefits and perform all the obligations of the authorised undertaker under any contract subsisting immediately before the commencement of the control but so far only as such contract is to be performed during the control, and the Board shall during the control be entitled to sue and be liable to be sued in relation to any such contract in the name of the authorised undertaker.
(e) all profits earned by the undertaking during the control shall, at the discretion of the Board, either be paid into a reserve fund or a renewals fund or other like fund belonging to or for the benefit of the undertaking or be paid to the authorised undertaker and applied by him according to law as profits earned by him from the undertaking.
(f) all losses incurred by the undertaking during the control shall be paid by the Board, but may if the Board so thinks fit be recouped to the Board out of the reserve or other funds (if any) of the authorised undertaker.
(g) at the expiration by effluxion of time of the period of control the Board shall do by order one or other as the Board thinks fit of the following things, that is to say, either acquire the undertaking or relinquish control of the undertaking.
(4) When the Board relinquishes control of an undertaking the following provisions shall have effect, that is to say: —
(a) the rights of the Board under the control order in respect of the undertaking and the property and assets of the authorised undertaker and of his name shall cease,
(b) all property and assets acquired by the Board during the control out of money derived from the undertaking and held by the Board at the expiration of the control shall become the property of the authorised undertaker.
(c) all persons who are at the expiration of the control employed by the Board in relation to the undertaking shall become servants of the authorised undertaker upon the same terms as they were, immediately before such expiration, employed by the Board and with the same (if any) rights against the authorised undertaker to pension and superannuation allowance as they had against the Board immediately before such expiration, and for the purpose of such pension and superannuation allowances the period of service of any such person under the Board shall be reckoned as service with the authorised undertaker.
(d) the authorised undertaker may, not later than one month after the relinquishment by the Board of the control of the undertaking of such authorised undertaker, give to any person (not being a person who was at the date of the commencement of the control employed by such authorised undertaker) who is at the expiration of the control employed by the Board in relation to such undertaking and becomes a servant of such authorised undertaker notice in writing of the termination of his employment as a servant of such authorised undertaker and every such notice shall be expressed and operate to terminate the employment as such servant of such person at the expiration of one month from the date thereof or, in the case of a person whose contract of service with the Board provided for the termination of such service upon notice of a less period than one month, at the expiration of such less period.

I move —

To add at the end of sub-section (1) the following proviso:

"Provided always that the power conferred by this section shall not be exercised unless and until it shall have been ascertained at a public inquiry held by a person agreed upon between the Board and the undertaker and in default of agreement by a person nominated by the Chief Justice of Saorstát Eireann that such undertaking is not working in an efficient manner."

The section makes provision for the Board taking over control of various authorised undertakings. The amendment was put down at a time when my views on the Bill had not been considerably enlarged, owing to what was said by the Minister. The amendment would prevent interference when the station is run efficiently; in other words interference would not be justified except where the station was being run inefficiently. The Minister declared recently that he hopes and expects that within five years all authorised undertakings and unauthorised undertakings will be absorbed by the Board, not as controlling the output of current generated by the Shannon, but the distributive end of the business. If that is the Minister's considered judgment the Bill must undergo very considerable change. The various clauses would seem to indicate that these people in their own areas would be reserved the right they had in the past for supplying those areas with electricity. In the past the station was there to generate and distribute electricity, but the erection of the Shannon works means that they will merely become distributors. What the Minister is going to put in their place I do not know. The statement he made — if it can be relied on — was that within five years all the local bodies and all the authorised undertakers would cease to distribute. I wonder is that right? I find it difficult to understand that aspect of the case. If what the Minister states is correct it opens up a position that I did not foresee when reading the Bill.

It is a case of control. Why should the Board take control? What is the object? Suppose the undertaking was going to be left in existence, it would be under the management of the Board, and if the distributive end was not managed properly the Board has power to take it over. This clause gives the Board various powers for taking control. Taking the view that these people are only carrying on temporarily, until the Board has developed sufficiently to take them over and wipe them out of existence, what conceivable circumstances can justify taking control of the concern? All the concerns can do is mismanage affairs for a short time. That expedites the action of the Board in taking them over. Whether I am right in interpreting what the Minister said or not I maintain that if the authorised undertaker is not going to be supplanted there is no justification in taking over control, as long as the undertaking is efficiently managed. The concern should be handed back on the same principle as is followed in the case of Local Government Commissioners. That is something like what is going on in Dublin. The Commissioners are in control for a time and they are to hand back control. I would be glad of a considered statement from the Minister on this matter, so that I might be clearer as to what are the intentions. I said from the start that I was anxious to get information about the objects of the Bill. The Minister has given a good deal of information from time to time. I think it is impossible to deal with this Bill without knowing the intentions underlying the various clauses. The Bill wants a lot of working out. I tried to grope for the intentions, but up to the present I do not understand them.

So far as my study of the Bill would reveal anything to me I take it that the intention of this clause is to protect the Shannon scheme, which is a great national undertaking. We may say, without exaggeration, that the credit of the State is involved in its success or failure. The testing time for the working of that scheme will be in the first five years. It is necessary, therefore, that its chances should not be lessened by any competitor in any interest. Rightly or wrongly, I believe that is the intention that has dictated this clause. If it is, I am in hearty agreement with the idea. It seems to me that too much power is accorded this Board; more than is necessary for that protective purpose. I am perfectly well aware that powers are sometimes taken under an Act which are never intended to be exercised but are there as a precautionary measure. Yet it is possible that under this scheme a statutory undertaker would be forced to accept current at a price less than that at which he could generate it and distribute it. Under the fear of threatened control he would have to take the current at the price fixed. Supposing he comes under control the maximum time of notice is only three months. The maximum control to which he could be subjected is five years. That, so far, does not strike me as unreasonable, but, when we come to (e) of Section 38 one cannot but be struck with the very drastic powers to be conferred on the Board.

"All profits earned by the undertaking during the control shall, at the discretion of the Board, either be paid into a reserve fund or a renewals fund or other like fund belonging to or for the benefit of the undertaking or be paid to the authorised undertaker and applied by him according to law as profits earned by him from the undertaking."

That is beneficent but it is immediately followed by paragraph (f) which says: —

all losses incurred by the undertaking during the control shall be paid by the Board but may if the Board so thinks fit be recouped to the Board out of the reserve or other funds (if any) of the authorised undertaker.

I am quite sure the Minister will reply in some such fashion as this: "We cannot have it both ways. If I recognise (e) is beneficent I cannot recognise (f) as maleficent." Without attributing, however, any malignant purpose to the Board it is not out of the bounds of possibility — though I pray it is — that failure should result from the Board's working of a particular authority's installation, and then that undertaking would be obliged to recoup the loss out of its own resources, so that at the end of the control period of five years, like a sucked orange or an empty oyster shell, it is handed back to its original owner. I think that the power in that respect is quite too wide. There is not sufficient control of the controller. I attempted to quote the famous quis custodiet custodes, who is to control our controller. The Board may operate disastrously in the working of an undertaking whereupon the entire loss falls upon the undertaker. It is no counter-blast to that to say but if a profit be made the profit goes to the undertaker because that is only reasonable and equitable in view of the fact that the undertaking has been transferred to the control of the Board set up under this Bill. There should be a guarantee against loss in the undertaking if it could be shown to an arbitrator or to some adjudicator reasonably that the loss has accrued because of the working of the Board; that would afford the requisite protection.

We really have got to discussing amendments 56 and 57 as well as 55, and I think it is more suitable that should be done, because Deputy Magennis has really dealt with what Deputy Myles and Deputy Hewat were aiming at in amendment 56 on this matter of the losses. We come to Deputy Hewat's amendment first. Deputy Hewat's idea is that control should not intervene, no matter what the circumstances are. It should not be exercised until there is proof that the undertaking is not working in an efficient manner. The Deputy has asked me to give my intentions with regard to control, and why it is put into the Bill at all. It is really put in as a half-way house between working as they are at the moment and acquisition by the Board, and it was thought to be a desirable thing from the point of view of the undertaker. You might have an undertaker not in any way that could be described as inefficient, but certainly not getting the greatest efficiency out of his concern. It was thought that the Board, having, as it will, at its disposal the most experienced engineers and the most experienced distributing people that can be got might easily so improve an undertaking that it might then be left in the control of the former undertaker and afterwards handed back to him under new conditions. Of course, it is open to the objection put up that the Board might go in and either malignantly or through some other means destroy the undertaking and hand it back in a weakened condition. If this whole idea of control is really so repugnant to undertakers at the moment as one might judge from the Press itself, I do not see that there is any great value in the section or that I should keep it, but before it is jettisoned I would like people to take a view of the other side. It might be that an undertaking could be so improved that when handed back in that improved condition it might be left to continue as a separate undertaking under the control of the Board, as it will be in other sections with regard to these rates and charges.

I might also point out that there are undertakings at the moment working upon which the Shannon scheme will have no effect for years. There are undertakings in the north, west and south-west of the country towards which the transmission lines of the Shannon may not be transferred for years to come, and they ordinarily would not come within the purview of the Board, at least in the early years of the operations of the Board. It might be, in the case of one of those undertakings working in a part where the necessity to change over set about early, a year or two hence, in order to get the full benefit of the Shannon current, necessary to have control of it for the purpose of so changing it that the Shannon current would produce the greatest benefit economically. It seems to me that if this section be regarded, as I am inclined to regard it, it would always be at the option of the undertaker to say "instead of controlling, acquire." That may not be a tremendous lot, and Deputy Hewat may not regard it as anything. All those who fear the operations of a Board working with malice against them, coming in and destroying the undertaking so that later on it could be bought over at a small price, can at least avoid that. The assumption about control is the whole time that an undertaking may be brought to a better state of efficiency under the controlled period of two or three years and handed back in such a way that it can be allowed to continue as a recognised undertaking working under the control of the Board.

Are you confining that to undertakers outside the scope of the then extended Shannon Board?

No. I refer to this as a special instance, but it can also apply to any undertaking. As to the point about the losses, I think that items (e) and (f) of sub-section (3) of this clause must be taken together and some balance struck between them. I do not think a perfect balance has been attained, but certainly if the Board has to meet all the losses the Board should be allowed to take all the profits made during the year of control, or a balance might be struck in some way along these lines that any losses incurred by the Board greater than the losses incurred for a year or two prior to the undertaking being taken over should be met by the Board, and the Board might have for those losses the profits taken after the undertaking was acquired. We can get a balance between those two clauses which are not in any way approaching a perfect balance as they are. I think the two sub-clauses will have to be read together, and the Board cannot be put in a position to meet all losses and have nothing to do with the profits made during the period of control. If that could be agreed to I would like to consider the question of control generally, and to see if the admitted gap can be dealt with in some way. I thought it would leave a halfway house between carrying on as the undertaking was at the moment of acquisition, and possibly stopping acquisition if it were found that the undertaking could be run in a way that was not going to be harmful to the whole Shannon undertaking, and was going to give good service in a cheap way to consumers in the area. Again, I could have the general idea of the section so amended that control could be turned into acquisition at any time at the request of the undertaker. We must get away from the idea that the Board might come in to smash the undertaking so that the compensation to be paid would be a small thing.

The Minister referred to paragraphs (e) and (f). If these remain in the section the likelihood is that the Dublin undertaking will lose all the benefits which they have had under existing Acts. This paragraph (e) says: "All profits earned by the undertaking during the control shall, at the discretion of the Board, either be paid into a reserve fund or a renewal fund or other like fund belonging to or for the benefit of the undertaking." I would like to know what does that mean. Does the word "undertaking" mean the local undertaking or the great Shannon scheme? Does it not mean that the reserve of the Dublin city undertaking shall be devoted to the benefit of the greater undertaking and not for the benefit of the Dublin electricity undertaking? The meaning is very vague here. The Board is to have complete control, and the revenues of the undertaking are to be used at the discretion of the Board. The Dublin undertaking, by special regulations under their own Acts, have contributed, when they thought fit, to the relief of the rates or to other municipal improvements. This section takes all that away, and I protest against it. I do not like paragraph (f), which goes on to say: "All losses incurred by the undertaking during the control shall be paid by the Board but may, if the Board so thinks fit, be recouped to the Board out of the reserve of other funds, if any, of the authorised undertaker." That means that it is quite possible that, for some test or experiment, the Board could use a big station, and if their experiments proved to be a failure they could take the cost of their failure from the reserve fund of that undertaking. I think you are giving the Board too much power under this section. In fact, I think the whole Bill gives too much power to the Board over authorised electrical undertakings. I should like to know from the Minister if the words in the fourth line of paragraph (e), "belonging to or for the benefit of the undertaking," mean the national electrical undertaking or the undertaking which they draw the reserve from. I also think it is unfair for the Board to step in and say to the undertaker: "We will manage this concern, which has already been giving good value and satisfaction."

The undertaking has no reference to the Board. The Board is never defined as an undertaking for this purpose. The Board is talked of as one thing, and the undertaking is talked of specially as another thing.

That is not the point.

The undertaker refers to the various undertakers.

Mr. BYRNE

That is, to the Shannon scheme.

Not at all. The Shannon scheme is never called the authorised undertaking.

I do not know whether we are going to take my amendment, because it is suggested that the three amendments are involved in this one, but in reality practically the whole section is involved. I do not wish to take the matter piecemeal, but I suggest to the Minister that he might take this whole clause and reconsider it in the light, first of all, of its real bearings upon the whole question of the undertaking and the conditions that are sought to be laid down in the Bill. Then, if there is any purpose in reviving the clause — the Minister seemed to signify approval of some considerable alterations — I suggest that the Bill could be re-committed with the purpose of dealing with this new section in a new form.

My intention, as I understand amendments 55, 56 and 57, is that I propose to bring in with regard to this clause an extra power to the authorised undertaking threatened with control or no control to have, at its option, control substituted for acquisition. I am prepared to have items (e) and (f), sub-section (3), recast in some way so that the losses will be defined as all losses incurred during the control over and above the ordinary normal loss of the undertaking, and the Board would pay anything over and beyond this but might in the first instance draw to pay themselves profits which it might have made on the undertaking during control, but not more. That is to say, the Board might in a losing undertaking make profits for a year and when there was a considerable loss the Board would be entitled to draw upon the profits of the first year and thereafter have to pay out of its resources. I shall recast the section to that extent. But I am not accepting the idea that control should be operative unless after inquiry there is a profit on the undertaking.

I understand the Minister's objection about inefficiency. I am not so concerned about that. I am really much concerned about the trend of the Bill as given in the Minister's recent statement. It practically amounts to this, although it could not be conceived on the Second Reading of the Bill, that the intentions were so far-reaching, nor could it be inferred from the Bill itself that the Minister agrees to consider it and that disposes of the matter for the moment.

Amendment 55, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments 56 and 57 not moved.
Question —"That Section 38 stand part of the Bill"— put and agreed to.
SECTION 39.
(1) Whenever the undertaking of an authorised undertaker is carried on by him in conjunction with or as part of another business owned by him, the Board may, for the purpose of the acquisition or the taking control of such undertaking by it under this Act or for any other purpose arising under this Act, require such authorised undertaker to furnish to the Board within the time (not being less than one month) appointed by it in that behalf a segregation statement within the meaning of this section in relation to such undertaking.
(2) Whenever an authorised undertaker, on being required under this section to furnish to the Board a segregation statement in relation to his undertaking refuses or neglects so to do within the time appointed by the Board in that behalf, the Board may itself prepare such segregation statement.
(3) For the purposes of this section a segregation statement in relation to the undertaking of an authorised undertaker is a statement, in such form as is directed by the Board, showing —
(a) how much or which part of the capital liability of the authorised undertaker represents moneys expended solely on such undertaking, and
(b) how much or which of the debts and liabilities of the authorised undertaker were incurred solely on account of such undertaking, and
(c) how much or which of the book debts and other moneys owing to the authorised undertaker are so owing solely in respect or on account of such undertaking, and
(d) what part or which of the lands, buildings, plant, machinery, chattels, and other property (not being money or security for money) belonging to the authorised undertaker is used exclusively for the purposes of such undertaking, and
(e) how much or which of the moneys in hand and of the investments and other securities for money belonging to the authorised undertaker are attributable to such undertaking, and
(f) which of the persons employed by the authorised undertaker are so employed solely in or for the purposes of such undertaking.
(4) Whenever a segregation statement is furnished by an authorised undertaker or is prepared by the Board under this section in relation to an undertaking, such undertaking shall for the purpose of the acquisition or taking control thereof by the Board under this Act or for any other purpose arising under this Act be deemed to consist and may be treated by the Board as consisting only of such capital liability, debts and liabilities, book debts and other moneys, property, moneys in hand and securities for money, and persons as are stated in such segregation statement to represent moneys expended, to have been incurred, to be owing, to be used, to be attributable, or to be employed (as the case may be) solely on, or on account of, or in respect of, or to, or for the purposes of such undertaking.

I move amendment 58: —

In sub-section (2), page 23, line 40, after the word "behalf" to insert the words "or furnishes within such time to the Board a segregation statement which, in the opinion of the Board, is unsatisfactory."

The idea here is that where you have a conjoint business there is to be a segregation of title, and a segregation statement, and that is intended to close a certain gap which amounts to a very important point in sub-section (1) of Section 39. Where there is a joint business the Board may require such undertaking to furnish a segregation statement within the meaning of sub-section (2). "Whenever an authorised undertaker, on being required to furnish a segregation statement, refuses or neglects to do so the Board may itself prepare such segregation statement." Take the other case. I introduce an amendment not where the undertaker refuses or neglects to furnish a segregation statement, but has furnished one which, in the opinion of the Board, is unsatisfactory, then the Board may, itself, furnish a segregation statement. But that amendment must be read with the next one: —

"(3) If any question or dispute arises between an authorised undertaker and the Board upon any segregation statement prepared by the Board under this section such question or dispute shall be determined by an arbitrator appointed by the Minister on the application of such authorised undertaker or the Board (as the case may be) and such arbitrator shall have power to amend such segregation statement and such segregation statement as so amended shall for the purposes of this section be deemed to be a segregation statement prepared by the Board under this section."

The two amendments must be read together. We have already, in sub-section (2), provided for the point of not furnishing a statement, and we are providing now against an unsatisfactory statement, so that there is something to go on.

Amendment put and agreed to.

I move: —

In sub-section (3) to delete the word "solely" in lines 47, 49, 52 and 64 respectively.

In sub-section (3) (d), line 57, to delete the word "exclusively."

In sub-section (4), page 24, line 12, to delete the word "solely."

These three amendments really go together. As Deputies will see, if they read the items as they are set down in the paragraphs, (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f), the thing was tied too tightly, too rigidly, and we are moving to delete the words "solely" and "exclusively" where they occur. It would have leaned entirely too heavily against the non-electricity side of the conjoint business, and it will be much looser with these words left out.

Amendments put and agreed to.
SECTION 40, SUB-SECTION (6).
The Board shall not alter the area of supply of an authorised undertaker (other than the Board itself) under this section without previously giving such authorised undertaker an opportunity to be heard in respect of such alteration.

I move: —

To add at the end of sub-section (6) the following words: "at a public inquiry held by a person agreed on by the Board and by the authorised undertaker."

This is the section dealing with varying or altering the area of supply, and my amendment is intended to provide for a public inquiry when it is proposed to vary the area of supply of any authorised undertaker. The Minister may raise the objection that under the amendment as it stands the authorised undertaker, by refusing to agree on a person to conduct the inquiry, might prevent the inquiry from being held. If that is so I am quite prepared to meet the Minister, if he will accept the general principle that there should be consultation between the authorised undertaker and the Board before such an inquiry takes place, and only if that consultation proves abortive shall the Minister — I suppose it will be the Minister and not the Chief Justice — appoint a person to hold the inquiry. But I do consider that if an area of supply is to be changed there ought to be a public inquiry at which the authorised undertaker can make his case, not only to the Board but to the general public. I am moving this at the request of the Rathmines Urban Council, who are authorised undertakers, and who consider that there should be a certain safeguard against the arbitrary alteration of their area of supply.

I cannot understand what the public have to do with such an item. It would surely be a matter between the undertaker and the Board. It is not an item in which the public would really have any concern whatever. Take the question of an increase in the area. An authorised undertaker has, at the moment, a particular area marked out for him. The Board says that there are other people adjoining who shall be supplied with electricity, and they say to the authorised undertaker: "We will increase your area of supply." Of course, they have power afterwards to give assistance by lending money for capital expenditure on throwing out the network, and all the rest of it. The alternative for the Board would be, of course, to acquire the undertaking and operate it itself, or else run a further network of its own around the area that is prescribed for the undertaker. The section is again a safeguard against acquisition to a certain extent. It is an attempt merely to find out if the undertaker would agree to enlarge his area, or, take the alternative case, where a portion of the area is proposed to be taken away. That would only be done in the interests of some portion of the area at a particular time within the prescribed area of the authorised undertaker which seems to be an area that would be better joined to a new one. It would only be a matter of shifting. The parties concerned are, obviously, the persons carrying on the undertaking in its original form and the Board, and why there should be any necessity for a public inquiry I cannot see. It would add to the trouble of the whole thing.

I think the public are very greatly concerned. Take a case where there are two undertakers competing against one another, say, for instance the district of Tallaght. The authorised undertaking in the City of Dublin might apply to extend its right to provide power and light to the village of Tallaght, and Tallaght might say: "Rathmines is nearer and we prefer to get our light and power from Rathmines," but under this section the only people concerned would be the authorised undertaker who wishes to increase his area of supply, and the Board itself, and the Board could make an order varying the area of supply of the City of Dublin to include Tallaght without the inhabitants of Tallaght knowing anything about it.

Take sub-section (4).

Sub-section (4) does not meet the case at all.

Sub-section (4) has reference only to an authorised undertaking quarrelling over the area of another undertaking.

I am taking an area where there is at present no undertaking at all. The city of Dublin could be given it, even though the inhabitants might wish to be supplied from Rathmines. I am not talking of part of Rathmines being taken away. I am talking of an area which is not yet reached, and which might have imposed on it some expensive form of electricity without any opportunity of making a case against it, without being officially cognisant of the fact that it was going to be done. I suggested that there is some need for a public inquiry and for consideration of the public, if there is to be any extension at all of authorised undertakings.

I want to point out one flaw in the amendment. After the public inquiry the Board would still determine.

But the Board would have an opportunity of hearing evidence from the public. Obviously the Board determines, but it should, at any rate, have an opportunity of hearing every side, and every side should have an opportunity of placing their views before the inquiry.

The idea that has been impressed on my mind makes me suggest to Deputy Cooper that in this matter the Rathmines Council will have absolutely ceased to have any interest in their own concern. I do not think that Rathmines, or any other authorised undertaking, can do more than sit down and wait until they are taken over if this idea is accepted. Authorised undertakers will only continue to exist until such time as the Board takes them over, the deliberate intention, according to the Minister, being that the Board will have no intervening people at all, but will deal directly with the consumer. Therefore, as I said before, we have been talking for the last two days with the idea that the generating stations are going to continue, when one statement by the Minister makes all our talk futile.

That was made also on Second Reading.

So the Minister told me, but either I did not hear him or I did not take it in. Why was it not put into the Bill? Why all this paraphernalia about authorised undertakers rights when they will have no rights at all? Under this Bill the Board is going to be supreme over all and sundry, and we can boil all the talk about authorised undertakings, statutory undertakings, and unauthorised undertakings down to the fact that the Government will pay compensation to a certain number of private statutory undertakings on a certain basis, a basis that will be arranged by the arbitrator, but that they will not pay anything to the municipal undertakings. We have had a long discussion about this matter, but in so far as any interest any municipality may have in its undertakings, the moment the Board operates it is practically nil. They cease to have any interest in it.

Section 40 must, of course, be read in connection with Section 38, and when a statutory undertaking is under the control of the Board the Board may, at its own discretion, alter the area of supply. That might conceivably bring about the unfortunate result we deprecated in connection with paragraph F, sub-section 3, of Section 38. It might be a ruinous extension. It might be an unprofitable addition to an area. The only provision that is made in protection of the undertaking whose area is to be altered is that it has a right to be heard, but to be heard by whom? To be heard by the Board which is taking over control or heard by the Minister and his Departments. That has not been defined.

I take it on the face of the words the intention is that the Board is to be the tribunal before which the plea of the controlled undertaking is to be heard. That being so, it is really, after all, in the arbitrary discretion of the Board to alter an area of supply. I submit in connection with Section 38 that is hardly an arrangement to meet the requirement of equity. The inquiry should be of a more formal type than is contemplated by the phrase "to be heard." Evidence should be taken and calculations presented with a view to showing whether or not the extension of the area would prejudice the future of the undertaking after the control period. Unless the idea in the section is that that is the type of inquiry, the formula is really illusory.

Section 41 has application. I am speaking on the point that during control an extravagant and ruinous extension might be made. Section 31 states "that whenever the Board by an alteration, made under this Act, of the area of supply extends such area, the following provisions shall have effect, that is to say, if the extent of the area so added to such area of supply exceeds one-tenth." On application the Board shall do either of two things. There is a certain safeguard there, and again I feel I could patch up that control section further and leave it so that any question of extending the area during the control period would be specially dealt with. Leaving that I cannot understand the necessity for the amendment even yet. It is quite obvious, as Deputy Hewat has said, if the Board likes it could take over the undertaking. It is simply a matter of saying that it should not be left to the undertaker to be extended, or that it is not to the benefit of the undertaker or to the benefit of the consumers in the area, but the consumers in the area, although they are the people concerned in the end, really have nothing to say at the inquiry. They are not the people to decide, and they will not have the information on which to decide. It seems to me it is going to add enormous trouble. In fact, it will mean that there will be no alteration of areas at all unless that could be achieved by agreement, that there will be simply acquisition. The idea of a public inquiry, presided over by some individual who has to be agreed upon between the parties concerned, or in default of agreement by somebody else, would not work. I do not think that is intended, and is so material that anybody would require it.

I am quite satisfied with the undertaking of the Minister so far as it meets my point.

Amendment put and negatived.

Question —"That Section 40 stand part of the Bill,"— put and agreed to.
Section 41 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

took the chair.

SECTION 42.

Whenever the Board, by an alteration made under this Act of the area of supply of an authorised undertaker, reduces such area (whether the Board does or does not at the same or any other time in other respects extend such area) the following provisions shall have effect, that is to say: —

(a) all wires, transformers, poles and other fixed machinery and apparatus for the transmission or distribution of electricity which at the date of the coming into operation of the order effecting the alteration of the area of supply are the property of such authorised undertaker and situate in the area (hereinafter called the severed area) taken from such area of supply by such order and all meters, stoves, lamps, wires, connections, and other electrical apparatus which on the said date are the property of such authorised undertaker and are hired to or fixed on the premises of consumers in the severed area shall on the said date vest in and become the property of the Board,

(b) the Board shall within three months after the said date pay to such authorised undertaker the fair value as on the said date of all property of such authorised undertaker which under the foregoing paragraph becomes the property of the Board, such value, in default of agreement, to be fixed by an arbitrator appointed by the Minister,

(c) if the Board becomes itself the authorised undertaker in the severed area, the Board may utilise all such property as aforesaid in such way as it thinks proper,

(d) if some person other than the Board becomes within three months after the said date the authorised undertaker in the severed area, such person shall purchase all such property as aforesaid from the Board for the fair value thereof on the said date and such value shall, so far as not fixed already by an arbitrator under this Act, be fixed, in default of agreement, by an arbitrator appointed by the Minister.

(e) the defrayal of expenses necessarily and properly incurred by such authorised undertaker in providing for the maintenance of the supply of electricity in the part of his area of supply which remains after the severance therefrom of the severed area shall be a purpose for which such authorised undertaker may borrow under this Act.

SECTION 42.

I move: —

In paragraphs (b) and (d), lines 25 and 36, to delete the word "Minister" and substitute therefor in each case the words "Chief Justice of Saorstát Eireann."

Amendment 64 appears to be on the same lines as 51.

I think the same conditions apply to it. It is really the question of value over again, and I think the same considerations in respect of value would apply as in Section 37.

Of course I took the standpoint that the Chief Justice is the person to make that appointment. I cannot depart from that.

Amendment put and negatived.

Sections 42, 43, 44, and 45 put and agreed to.

Amendment No. 65 is really an alternative in one sense to Section 47, is it not?

As a matter of fact it is not quite in the form in which I put it. I put it to delete Sections 47 and 48 and to insert this as a section. It really would replace both 47 and 48.

For that reason would not a motion that Section 47 stand allow this matter to be debated, and the decision on the question that Section 47 should stand would control this amendment?

Yes, if I am allowed to move the amendment.

To debate the section without moving it and take a decision on the section?

That would meet it.

We will have to take the other amendments to Section 47 first.

SECTION 47, SUB-SECTION 1.

The Board may manufacture and the Board and also any authorised undertaker with the consent of the Board may provide, sell, or let on hire any electric lines, fittings, apparatus, and appliances for lighting, heating, motive power or any other purpose for which electricity can or may be used and may connect, repair, maintain, and remove any lines, fittings, apparatus, and appliances so provided, sold, or let on hire, and may in respect of such lines, fittings, apparatus, and appliances demand and take such remuneration or rents and charges and made such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon.

Amendment No. 66 not moved.

I move: —

In sub-section (1), line 29, to delete the word "made" and to substitute therefor the word "make."

Amendment put and agreed to.

I move: —

Before sub-section (2) to insert a new sub-section as follows: —

"(2) In the exercise of its powers under the preceding sub-section the Board shall have regard to the desirability of, and so far as is practicable in all the circumstances shall take measures to ensure the establishment and extension of the manufacture in Saorstát Eireann of electric lines, fittings, apparatus and appliances."

I think that every endeavour should be made to utilise the opportunity afforded by the introduction of this Bill to establish local industries. The output of these industries would be required in the construction of the different works in connection with the Shannon scheme. There are numerous articles which are in constant demand in the electrical industry, and which could be manufactured in the Saorstát. As the Shannon scheme develops and as the electric power reaches many of the towns to be supplied there will be an increasing demand for various electrical requirements. I believe that the insertion of this amendment will stimulate and encourage enterprise and lead to the opening of many new industries, thereby giving much needed employment. We are looking forward to great things from the Shannon scheme which, we trust, will provide a way for putting into operation a good deal of industrial effort, and I think it would be well to take advantage of this opportunity by having as many as possible of the requirements needed manufactured in this country.

There ought not, in my opinion, be any necessity for an amendment of this kind to be moved, as it ought to be the interest of the State itself to see that native industry should be able to cater for the scheme to be established in our midst. I take it that the Minister will agree that there are factories all over the country which, with a little technical knowledge and training on the part of the staffs, would be able to deal with the situation in a short time. I hope the Minister will not lose sight of that fact, and will do his best to get into touch with people who may be in a position to manufacture these articles. The principal articles which we have in mind at present are wires and bulbs. There are no factories in the Free State at present which manufacture these articles, but I think the Minister will agree a great many of the castings which are at present being imported should be made in this country. We are confronted with a huge army of unemployed, and we have many foundries capable of turning out a large number of castings used in the erection of transmission lines and which, no doubt, will also be used later on when the current reaches the various towns. I do not think that it is too much to ask the Minister and his department to concentrate on having these articles manufactured in the country.

I do not think that the amendment as it stands could be accepted, in so far as it says "and so far as is practicable in all the circumstances shall take measures to ensure the establishment and extension of the manufacture in Saorstát Eireann of electric lines, fittings, apparatus and appliances." The first portion of the amendment might be acceptable, but it will require to be redrafted.

If the Minister will put in something which will be a kind of direction to the Board to endeavour to get all the stuff manufactured in the country I would be satisfied.

Quite irrespective of cost?

I do not want any board to pay too much, but I think there should be a preference for Irish manufacture. I am prepared to withdraw the amendment if the Minister undertakes to do what I suggest.

Is the Minister's objection merely that, as the amendment is phrased, this is only a pious opinion and is, therefore, out of place in a statute? Does he accept the principle that when the Board, which is an Irish Board, takes power to manufacture and supply the apparatus necessary it shall lose no time in bringing into existence a factory for the manufacture of such apparatus, appliances, and accessories as are feasible in the country? I recollect during our inquiry into broadcasting that a great deal of the evidence brought out on a collateral issue showed that there had been an opportunity in the Saorstát to set up an industry for the manufacture of electric bulbs, at the same time as the making of valves for receiving apparatus. It is quite possible to establish, even in a small way at first, industries in respect of particular items of electric apparatus or accessories. It seems to me that a great deal of the national value of the Shannon scheme would be lost unless, on the occasion of the setting up of the Board and the granting to it of such powers as are granted in this section, advantage was taken to set Irish electrical industries going from the very start.

Quite a number of the ordinary electrical appliances are protected by patent. Under the Patent Bill at present in the Seanad there is, of course, a clause that unless these articles are manufactured on a commercial scale within the three years period a licence to manufacture them may be given. That gives power to get a certain number of articles, which are protected by patent, manufactured here. At the present moment there does not appear to be any hope of having them manufactured here for some time to come. The Board's principal duty up to the year 1932 will be to get the sale of the current brought to a certain point, so that the scheme will become remunerative. I would rather not have that duty impeded in any way, so that the Board could make an excuse and hide its deficiency, if it were not successful, by saying that the sales might have been brought up to a remunerative point had it been allowed to purchase certain articles instead of manufacturing them. I will, however, endeavour to meet the principle laid down in the amendment, and will bring the matter up on Report.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move: —

To insert before Section 47 a new section as follows:—

"(1) Subject to the provisions of this section the Board may and any local authority which is an authorised undertaker may, with the consent of the Board, sell electric lines, fittings, apparatus and appliances for lighting, heating, and motive power, and for all other purposes for which electricity can or may be used (in this section called ‘electric fittings'), and may instal, connect, repair, maintain, and remove the same, and with respect thereto may demand and take such remuneration or rents and charges, and may make such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon.

(2) The exercise of the powers of this section shall be subject to the following restrictions: —

(a) the Board and any local authority which is an authorised undertaker shall not manufacture electric fittings unless expressly authorised to do so by special Act or Order;

(b) the Board and any local authority which is an authorised undertaker shall not sell electric fittings except —

(i) to a consumer or a person who intends to be a consumer of electricity supplied by them; or

(ii) to a contractor who requiries such fittings to enable him to supply them to a person who is, or intends to be, a consumer of electricity supplied by the Board or authorised authority.

(c) the prices charged by the Board and any local authority which is an authorised undertaker for the sale of any electric fittings shall not be less than the recognised retail prices, unless the sale is to a contractor, in which case the prices shall not be less than the recognised trade prices, and if any question shall arise as to what are the recognised retail or trade prices of any electric fittings, that question shall be determined by the Committee appointed as hereinafter provided;

(d) every such board or local authority which is an authorised undertaker shall so adjust the charges to be made by them under this section as to meet any expenditure incurred by them in the exercise of the powers of this section (including interest upon and sinking fund charges in respect of money borrowed for the purposes of this section);

(e) the total sums received and expended by the Board and any local authority which is an authorised undertaker under this section in each year, including interest upon, and sinking fund charges in respect of money advances for the purposes of this section, shall be shown separately in the published accounts of the Board or authorised undertaker.

(3) The Minister for Industry and Commerce shall appoint a Committee comprising representatives of the Board, local authorities who are authorised undertakers, contractors, and citizens engaged in the business of making, and citizens engaged in the business of selling electric fittings, such Committee shall determine any question which may be raised under this section as to the recognised retail or trade prices of any electric fittings, and shall advise and assist the persons concerned as to the method of giving effect to the provisions of this section.

(4) The purposes of this section shall be deemed to be purposes for which a local authority which is an authorised undertaker may borrow money.

(5) In this section the expression ‘contractor' means a person engaged in the business of selling and installing electric fittings."

This amendment is put down on behalf of electrical contractors who are a numerous section and who number about 300 firms. They have been doing exceedingly good work, in so far as facilities have up to the present been provided for obtaining electric current for various works. I do not know to what extent the Minister wishes me to argue the question but the amendment I put forward is practically the same as that arrived at in connection with the British Bill last year, after long discussion between those concerned with the Bill and the electrical contractors across the water. I think it embodies very moderate provisions which would ensure that competition between electrical contractors and the new Government Department should be carried out on fair lines. Without such provision that competition would be most unfair. You would have the Government Department with every advantage, immediate access to consumers, and not subject to tax. You would have as an inevitable result practically the killing of the present firms of contractors which would entail serious consequences. I believe that this matter has been brought before the Minister by the firms and I understand that he recognises to a certain extent the reasonableness of their case.

Without in any way intending to be discourteous to the Deputy I must say that this amendment is most objectionable from my point of view. The amendment is that fittings should be sold at the recognised retail prices. We are here for the first time asked to set up price-fixing by statute. Prices are to be fixed by the retailers and if the Board enters upon the sale of appliances we will have these appliances sold at a certain price. They may be at a certain price to-day but, if retailers increase their price by one hundred per cent to-morrow, the Board would have to follow suit. They are to have statutory authority to fix prices.

By a Committee.

No; various things are to be considered by the Committee, but they are not to consider whether the retail prices are equitable. They are simply to determine what is the retail price. It may be 10/- to-day and it may be raised to-morrow to £1. All that the Committee has to decide is whether it is to be £1 or 10/-, and not as to whether either figure is fair. There is the question of the sale of appliances and of wiring houses. How can any contracting firm say it is going to be done out of business, in view of what I have said that in the next three, four or five years 135 towns and 150,000 premises will be wired? If it is thought that the Government is going to take on such a staff as to do all that wiring to the exclusion of the persons who have the staffs there to do the work, then people have a bigger idea of the Board than I imagined. As to the question of price, I think it is right and desirable if the Board, by placing orders in bulk, had a better standardised type, and sold cheaper, that the consumers should get the benefit therefrom. The ordinary undertaker who is selling appliances will have a bigger field for his activities in the future in providing a better class customer with the better-class article the customer requires. We are opening up a bigger field of activity to these contractors than they ever had before as regards wiring appliances. Notwithstanding that, I think the Board should be allowed to take from the contractor the cheaper standardised appliances. I do not think there will be any hardship to the ordinary electrical contractor as the result of the operations of this section. There are not many of these contractors. If anything, it will be found that they are unequal to the wiring task to be put on them. In fact, I do not know that the whole resources of the country will be equal to the wiring that will have to be done.

With reference to the wiring, does the Minister not see that the very fact he has urged will prevent him from getting the demand for current that he is anxious to secure? If it is, as we believe, the case that the Government will be able to wire places at a less rate than the ordinary contractor will be able to do it under the stress of competition, then everybody who is going to have his place wired will wait until the Government is able to undertake the work, and the very thing the Minister wants to secure, namely, expeditious wiring, will be prevented by the operation of this section, if there is not some restriction. I put down the amendment in order to show what restrictions were adopted after long discussion and debate across the water.

I do not see any handicap. This Board ought to be in operation about June next, and the only obstacle there is likely to be is in the months of April or May. If people are going to hold up the wiring of houses because the Government may do it cheaper, that will operate only for three months.

The Minister pointed out that he wanted 135 towns wired, that it would be absolutely impossible for a Government Department to undertake that, and that contractors could, with the Government's help and co-operation, do it better than the Government could do it by themselves.

Why is this necessary? The Board, when set up, will have as its immediate task the question of wiring places not already provided for. The Board will be able to indicate what it thinks to be a fail price for a particular standard network for a small town. The Board will have to fall back on the contractors to a great extent. If the contractor proves unreasonable, then, according to the extent of his being unreasonable the Board will have to take steps of its own. If the contractors are reasonable the Board will have the power to carry on with the existing contractors, the networks being standardised and the prices kept as low as possible.

I think there is a bigger question underlying this matter than whether the Board has to do all or part of the wiring. It is a question of whether it is desirable for the Board to enter the retail trade at all. This and the following section, which should be read with it, contemplate a retail trade. Wherever the State is engaged in retail trade, that trade has been a failure. I had the opportunity of studying the question in Queensland, where State trading is carried further than anywhere else. The Government there set up butchers' and fishmongers' shops. When I came to study it, the Labour Premier admitted that the experiment had been a failure, and that they were closing down the shops. That has been the only big experiment by a Government in retail trade. The Minister may say this Board is not the State. The Board is the creation and the creature of the State, and it has not to trade like an ordinary trader for profit. There is one example of what the State does in the supply of electrical apparatus, and that is in what the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, who, I am glad to see, is in his place, prescribes for telephone subscribers. A person subscribing to the telephone is not allowed to use any other type of telephone, and that particular type is an old-fashioned type which has gone out of use rather more than ten years ago.

I am not blaming the Minister for that, for I know he inherited a large number of these obsolete and inconvenient instruments.

It is not correct to say that the type of telephone at present installed is obsolete. The telephones in use are the most modern available. We are introducing into Limerick instruments which have not yet been introduced into many European countries.

I am speaking of instruments that the Minister has installed in the Oireachtas which are of an obsolete and inconvenient type, where you have to wind the handle with one hand and take the end off the hook with the other, instead of making an automatic call by taking off the receiver, putting it to the ear, and speaking into the 'phone. These were introduced into Government departments in London ten years ago. The tendency of the State when it enters into the provision of electrical apparatus, as it has been in the past, would be to standardise and buy on a large scale. The result will be that the Board will not offer the private consumers as great a variety of electrical apparatus as the contractor does.

Then the contractor will do good business.

I hope so. I am not approaching this matter from the point of view of the contractor, but from that of the convenience of the community. The result will be that the Board will probably make a bad bargain, and it will be a bad investment for the State and the Board to take up this private trade, because, as the Minister says, they will be handicapped in competition with the private contractor by the rigidity which necessarily prevails in any undertaking that is launched by the Government, and has to render an account to the Government. I do think the State or the Board entering into retail trade is a mistake. Their function should be the big thing — the supplying of power. They should leave the wiring of houses and the supplying of apparatus to private contractors.

To a great extent I agree with the Minister in this matter, but there are aspects of the problem that are exceedingly serious. Unfortunately, the number of what I might call wiremen available in the electrical industry is not very large. We have not the unlimited supply that the Minister seems to anticipate. May I say, in passing, that no attempt whatever has been made by his Department or, as far as I know, by any other Department, to anticipate the increased employment that will result from the Shannon scheme, and the only way of meeting that increased employment will, I am afraid, be through the medium of recruiting from other countries. That is exceedingly unfortunate. The Minister possibly is aware of the fact that steps which should have been taken have not been taken. The point I want to come at is that under the Minister's proposals he enters into competition with the local people. There are only a limited number of these skilled employees to call upon, and you will have the two parties in competition for them, with the result that there will be keen rivalry as to who will get these employees. The Board will be in a position to offer continuous employment and the contractors, by reason of the ordinary difficulties of trade, will not be able to offer equally attractive conditions.

The result will be that the Board will absorb all the available labour which, I agree, will be wholly insufficient if the scheme develops as we hope it will. What will happen then is that the ordinary contractor will be wiped out of business altogether. That is a very serious factor, if that is going to be the result of the Board coming into competition with the ordinary contractor. From that point of view I agree that the subject will have to be seriously considered. Many aspects of the question, such as that raised by Deputy Cooper as to the wisdom of the State trading at all, will have to be discussed. I think that in the ordinary way the State should wait before entering into this to see if the ordinary spheres of supply were sufficient. In the event of the ordinary sources of supply proving insufficient the Government could take powers to step in and meet that emergency. In the first instance, the ordinary contractor should get the opportunity to pursue his means of livelihood and should not be put out of trade. These are some of the many problems that arise under this and that will have to be carefully considered. On the one hand you will have a certain section who think that the Government should not enter into competition at all. The Government may reply to that: "I suppose in the event of your proved incapacity should not the Government get the opportunity when you have failed to meet it." I say that they can meet that by emergency clauses. They could step in in the event of the present sources of supply proving inadequate. The ordinary trader should in the first instance get the opportunity of carrying out the ordinary work of his calling before the Government comes into competition with him. If the Minister would accept some view of that kind then we would know exactly where we were on this amendment. While I stand out as much as anybody else for the purpose of keeping the Government out of trade I agree that circumstances may arise in which it may be desirable to give them powers. Therefore I would not be wholly opposed to the introduction of this section in the Bill. Some proviso could be put in to this effect, that in the event of those circumstances arising power would be given to the Government to enter into trade but that should not take place until the ordinary business firms had proved themselves incapable of discharging the duties. Up to that stage, I do not think the Government ought to interfere.

I move to report progress.

The Dáil went out of Committee.
Progress reported; the Committee to sit again on Tuesday, 5th April.
The Dáil adjourned at 4 p.m. until Tuesday, 5th April, at 3 p.m.
Barr
Roinn