Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 18 Jul 1928

Vol. 25 No. 6

IN COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - GAS REGULATION BILL, 1928—FROM THE SEANAD.

The Dáil went into Committee.

Three amendments have been sent from the Seanad in connection with this Bill, and I am recommending the Committee to agree with all three. The first amendment is a new section which should appear before Section 7:—

New section. Before Section 7 a new section inserted as follows:—

"7.—(1) A buyer of gas supplied by means of a meter installed on premises in an area in which the jurisdiction conferred by the Act of 1859 is for the time being not exercisable may, unless such meter has been stamped by a special inspector of meters under Section 6 (which relates to the stamping of meters in areas in which the Act of 1859 is not in force) of this Act, by notice in writing require the person by whom such gas is so supplied to remove such meter from such premises and procure the same to be tested by an inspector of meters appointed by a local authority under the Act of 1859 and if found correct to be stamped under that Act as amended by this Act accordingly.

(2) If on the testing of a meter pursuant to a requisition under this section such meter is found to be correct the expenses of the removal, testing and stamping of such meter pursuant to such requisition shall be borne by the buyer by whom such requisition was made and in every other case such expenses shall be borne by the person on whom such requisition was made."

This point, as a matter of fact, was raised in the Dáil, and it amounts to this: In the areas where the Act of 1859 is exercisable a consumer under that Act was always entitled to demand an inspection or re-verification of the meters. If it turned out that the meter was correct the consumer paid, and, if wrong, the company paid. The point here was whether areas not under the 1859 Act would have the same right. I pointed out that the consumers in those areas had the same right as in the areas where the Act was exercisable. It seems to be not entirely free from doubt, although I am advised that the matter is quite clear. The Seanad, however, decided to insert this amendment, putting the matter beyond all doubt that the consumers in those particular areas have the same rights with regard to verification of meters. I move that we accept this amendment.

Agreed.

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 2:—

Section 10, sub-section (2). Two new sub-sections inserted before the sub-section as follows:—

"(2) An order under sub-section (1) of this section shall not be made by the Minister unless and until he is satisfied that the undertaker in respect of whom such order is proposed to be made is able to comply with the obligations imposed by Section 2 of the Act of 1920 on an undertaker in respect of whom an order has been made under the Act of 1920.

(3) An order under sub-section (1) of this section may be revoked at any time by the Minister by order made under this sub-section, and thereupon any order made under Section 1 of the Act of 1920 consequential upon an order under the said sub-section (1) shall be deemed to be revoked also."

The difficulty was first raised here and it was met to a certain extent, but the Seanad felt that it should be met to a further point. Deputies who recollect the original section will remember that objection was taken to power being given to the Minister to impose a certain way of charging and supplying on a company.

The company might have certain obligations imposed on them, and a local authority might refuse to allow the company to take up the streets for the purpose of laying mains. An order could be made in that case. To meet that objection I brought in an amendment under which I may by order declare certain things to be done, and such order would have to come before the Dáil. In the Seanad they thought that that did not go far enough. Two points were made, namely, first that an order might be made and laid on the table of the Dáil, and a local authority might express itself as being willing to the company getting the powers, but after the order was made it might turn recalcitrant and refuse to allow the company to take up the mains. To meet that these two amendments were brought in. It is really for the purpose of meeting reasonable fears, and I think these amendments should be accepted.

Question: "That the Committee agree with the Seanad in the amendment," put and agreed to.

I move:—

"That the Dáil agree with the Seanad in the following amendment":

Section 10, sub-section (2). After the word "under" in line 59 the words and figure "sub-section (1) of" inserted.

That is a drafting point.

That sub-section provides that an Order issued under sub-section (1) of Section 10 shall be laid before the Dáil, and the Dáil can disagree with it within 21 days. The new sub-section provides that the Minister may revoke his original Order. It is possible that some consumers may object to the Order being revoked by which the company agreed to supply gas of a particular value or strength. This provides that the Order revoking the original Order shall be laid before the Dáil to give it an opportunity of investigating the matter and, if necessary, disagreeing with the Order.

Then you need not pass the amendment. I am not sure that there is not some point in that. There may be difficulties, inasmuch as the Order having been passed and the Minister, having found that the local authority would not allow the company to carry out the duties imposed on it, would have to wait 21 days before the revocation order would come into force. There might be annoying and expensive delay. I assume that under that there would be power in the Minister to refrain from carrying out the Order. That would mean disagreeing with the Seanad in this amendment.

Question put and negatived.

The Dáil agrees with the Seanad in amendments 1 and 2 and disagrees with amendment 3. A Message will be sent to the Seanad accordingly.

Barr
Roinn