I found it necessary to rule out certain amendments that were put down to this Bill. With regard to amendments 6, 7 and 8, they are out of order, being outside the scope of the Bill as read a second time.
Private Business. - Electricity (Supply) (Amendment) Bill, 1930—Committee Stage.
The Seanad went into Committee.
Cathaoirleach
Sections 1 to 9 agreed to.
SECTION 10.
(1) In order to remove doubts it is hereby declared and enacted as follows, that is to say:—
(a) for the purpose of determining the liability of the Board for the payment of any rate leviable by a local authority, the use or occupation by the Board of any hereditament, tenement, or premises otherwise rateable to such rate is not and never was in use or occupation by the State or a Department of State and does not and never did confer the exemptions arising by reason of use or occupation by the State; and
(b) the use or occupation of a hereditament, tenement or premises by the Board is not use or occupation of a public nature or for a public purpose within the meaning of Section 63 of the Poor Relief (Ireland) Act, 1838, or Section 16 of the Valuation (Ireland) Act, 1852, or Section 2 of the Valuation (Ireland) Act, 1854, or any other enactment (other than Section 96 of the Principal Act) conferring exemption from a rate leviable by local authorities generally or by any particular local authority or class of local authorities.
(2) Nothing in this section shall remove, prejudice, or affect the exemption from rates which is conferred on the Board by Section 96 of the Principal Act as amended by this Act.
I move:—Section 10, sub-section (1):—
"To delete the brackets and words ‘(other than Section 96 of the Principal Act),' in lines 51-52."
I have an amendment to delete Section 11. I put down the amendment with the object of trying to arrive at some understanding of the principle because, if I understand the position rightly, I think it is entirely wrong to have such a section in a Bill of this kind, The Board takes over certain property from a local authority and may, at some time in the future, cease to use that property, may even hand it over to another industrial concern. According to sub-section (2) it is intended that the local authority shall for ever pay rates on the property whether they are using it or not. I cannot think that that is just to the Board, and while I want to be just to the local authority, I do not think we should be unjust to the Electricity Supply Board.
That is not in Section 10 of the Bill as amended.
I have the Bill "as introduced," but I find now that it has been amended in Committee in the Dáil and the section numbers altered.
I would ask Senators to look at Section 10. It deals with the general liability of the Board for rates and provides that this undertaking shall not be treated as a public undertaking, so as to exempt it from rates, that it shall be treated as a commercial enterprise, which indeed it is. The part of the section which I want to have amended is this: "other than Section 96 of the Principal Act." Section 96 of the Principal Act is the most curious section that I have ever seen in any Act of Parliament. It is the section to the Principal Act, the Act of 1927, which provides that the Shannon works, which are situated in County Clare, shall be exempt from rates. The Minister has in this Bill declared that the Shannon works are an ordinary commercial undertaking. In the Act of 1927 by Section 96 he says that the works of this commercial undertaking shall be exempt from rates. My object is to delete that reference to Section 96 in Section 10 (1). I would urge upon this House that the Shannon works in County Clare, which are admitted by the Minister to be an ordinary industrial undertaking, shall be liable for rates just as a cobbler's shop in Ennis as an industrial place of business, or as the small farmer's house and farm are liable for rates.
I want to say that I do not believe that this injustice to County Clare is the invention of the Minister himself, because when he introduced his Bill in 1927 it passed through all stages in the Dáil without any reference to the exemption of rates. It went through its stages in the Seanad, but on the Report Stage Section 96 was introduced, which provides that the Shannon works shall be exempt from rates. I think that malicious idea is not the idea of the Minister. It must have been suggested to him, and it is the most impolitic, the most reactionary, and the most dishonest section that ever appeared in an Act of Parliament. I ask the House to consider what it is. The Shannon works, just like the gas works in Dublin, according to the ordinary rule of law would be liable for rates. The erection of the works has caused great expense to the local authorities in County Clare. We have produced figures showing that the actual expense in connection with hospital accommodation and other matters, leaving out of account altogether the wear and tear of roads, has cost the local authority £1,000.
We have it also that the land taken up in the County Clare, and exempted from rates by reason of the fact that it is now part of the Shannon works, was valued at, I think, £1,000. There is a loss of rates amounting to £500. We also know, and this is a figure that is not fully ascertained yet, that there are certain fishing rights on the Shannon which were rated to County Clare, and which were destroyed at Killaloe, or materially injured and in respect of which County Clare will suffer a loss of £200 or £300. Therefore, we have a loss on rated property of over £1,000.
We have incurred great expense in relation to the Shannon scheme. We had the right by law that these natural resources of the County Clare, in which works of a big enterprise have been put up, to have these works rated just as you in Dublin have the right to have big enterprises such as the gas works, and works of that kind, rated. That right has been taken away from us to our loss. Not alone are the Shannon works exempt, but the farmers and shopkeepers of County Clare are deeply wronged because of the expense they have been put to in consequence of the erection of the Shannon works, and the small farmers, the harassed farmers, of County Clare have had their rates and expenses increased in consequence of these works. I would like to know what answer the Minister has to that. Senator Johnson referred to Section 10 and also Section 11. Section 10 described the Shannon works as being a commercial undertaking, that is not public buildings. Now what is the meaning of Section 10? I suggest, and I charge here, that the object of putting in Section 10 is to prevent the County Clare now or hereafter from getting the relief from rates that it would get if the Shannon works were to be regarded as public works. You know that relief is sometimes given in respect of public works, but we are to get no relief from rates on the grounds that the Shannon works are public, national buildings. We are to get no relief from rates on the ground that they are ordinary commercial industrial buildings.
The ratepayers of Clare are hit in every way that malice could devise. I do not think this is the malice of the Minister. I think it is the malice of more experienced minds. Here is another consideration. The Minister in his rating proposals in this Bill says all new works erected for the purpose of electricity supply shall be exempt from rates. Of course, that is merely rounding off his theory. The place that suffers by that is County Clare. Then there is this curious provision in the Bill, that all old works, all works acquired, that is, converted stations and things like that, the Minister takes over are to continue to make a contribution to rates, but they will not pay. Here is the third extraordinary provision in this Bill, revolutionary I might say if it had not a precedent in the Act of 1898, that the buildings taken over are to be subject to a standard payment, which is not either to increase or to diminish. I know where the Minister's advisers got that standard payment. They got it from the Act of 1898, which was advantageous to the landlord. In that Act the rate was standardised at 2/6 in the pound, and the tenant is now obliged to pay 12/6.
The payment is not standardised.
Yes, it is to be a perpetual annuity.
No.
Let the Minister not say "no" to me, as he said to Deputy Hogan in the Dáil. We will come to that section later, and I do not want interruptions from the Minister in the course of my speech. That is what the Minister has done. He did it on the very last stage of his Bill in 1927. He did exempt these premises from rates, to the damage of County Clare. We have suffered loss to the amount of £700 or £800 a year by what he has done. We have incurred an expenditure to the extent of £1,000, and the local expenses of County Clare will be increased, as I charge and believe, by £3,000 or £4,000 a year in consequence of the erection of these works which will pay no rates. The Clare farmers will have to pay additional rates. This is an unheard-of measure. I challenge the Minister to say where he got the precedent for conduct of this kind. I have been endeavouring in my own mind to ascertain why it is that County Clare has been selected for this special severity. I have been asking myself whether it is because the poor ratepayers of Clare, poor now because of continued oppression, have never submitted to a foe, whether it is because the farmers of Clare have been the leaders in this country in the battle for religious equality and national freedom. Is it because the people of the county of Clare have for the past fourteen years supported Eamon de Valera with steady, unswerving loyalty? Is that the reason it is selected for the dishonest treatment to which the farmers of Clare have been subjected by the Minister or his advisers?
I will say this—perhaps for the day, perhaps for the year, we may have to endure, but we have never been defeated, we have never submitted, and this ridiculous, dishonest provision will not remain long on the statute book of this country. I do not wish to say anything that would be regarded as injurious to the Shannon scheme or to the national development of this country, but I say that if it is the intention that this injustice to the ratepayers of County Clare is to be continued, it is a bad omen for the Shannon scheme.
I wish to support the amendment. From the beginning the Minister in charge of this Bill was anxious to see that the scheme would succeed. In the beginning certain measures were taken, but it was afterwards seen that they were not sufficient to make the scheme pay, and on the Fourth Stage of a Bill in this House it occurred to the Minister that he might get another advantage for the Shannon scheme, and he, perhaps having been persuaded by his advisers, introduced this section exempting the Shannon works from rates. He has tried that in other parts of the country, where claims were made by the Electricity Board to have no rates paid on similar buildings. The Minister also gave the right to take over the electricity undertakings in Dublin, Rathmines and elsewhere, without any compensation, and for one of the most extraordinary reasons I have ever heard. He said the ratepayers of Dublin were robbing the people by putting the proceeds of the charge for electricity to relief of the rates.
I never said that.
I will not say the Minister said it. I am speaking from memory, and if the Minister says he did not say it I accept that, as his memory may be better than mine, but certainly it was my opinion that if he did not exactly say that he said something like it.
No. I gave a quotation from a statement by the ex-Town Clerk of Dublin to that effect.
That is not too bad on the part of the Minister, to quote somebody else as an authority for what he is doing. It is a very good plan. Then the Minister denies that he said it. All right, we will give him credit for that.
Subterfuge is absolutely necessary in the case of this Bill.
The Minister's mind is very subtle. That is the way the thing went on. Now he is going back of that by saying that the electricity scheme is a commercial undertaking, and that in other parts of the country it should be charged for rates. Why he should exempt poor Clare from that I do not know. I suppose I could guess his methods, that he will get up and point out the enormous advantage Clare has had in the way of labour for the electricity scheme. The Minister says that Clare having got all these advantages, they say they will not pay anything. The fact of the matter is that this big scheme of electricity was provided for the benefit of the whole of Ireland, and not for the benefit of Clare.
As a matter of fact, Dublin gets greater advantages in the matter of charges for electricity than Clare is getting or than Clare is likely to get. I do not think that the excuse he will put forward will bear much weight with me, and I hope it will not bear much weight generally in the Seanad. It is only fair that these buildings and other works that are put up in Clare should be treated in the same way as Dublin is treated in regard to the gas works.
When Senator Comyn was speaking, I thought it necessary to read the section he was dealing with, and I could not find in that section any reference at all to the rack, the thumb-screw or the stake in the treatment of Clare. Really I cannot see any evidence of malice. I am rather surprised that the Senator should make such a tremendous onslaught in respect of the very small grievances that Clare is provisionally suffering.
£40,000 a year.
I think it is just and reasonable that the Clare County Council should be reimbursed for the loss of the rates which they were unable to gather from the properties which had been taken over by the Shannon scheme. I do not think that it is just or reasonable that the national station for generating electricity which happens to have been built on the Clare side of the river should be liable to rates to the Clare County Council. The Minister has, in deference to what he considers to be good policy, endeavoured to make this whole scheme dissociated from direct State control. That is to say it is being run as a kind of private public utility corporation. I am not going to quarrel with that at present.
Notwithstanding the method that has been adopted for the administration of this great undertaking, we must assert that it is a national scheme and it is for the general public benefit. That being so, that part of the scheme which is devoted to the generation of power for the whole country has no special liability to the County Clare in respect of rates. Though there may be justification for proclaiming the liability of the Board in respect of these other hereditaments touching the transmission scheme of the system, I think there is no justification for any claim on the part of County Clare that the power station at Ardnacrusha is liable to rates in that county. I think if there is any justification for liability at all in the matter of rates it will have to be divided pro rata over the whole country and not confined to Clare alone. I think the Senator is entirely too strong for what is just in the claim he is making. I think there is justification for the assertion that where the county council has been deprived of certain rateable values they should be compensated for that deprivation. Otherwise I cannot follow the Senator at all.
I have not the honour to come from the Banner County, but I am going to vote for Senator Comyn's amendment. On the general principle, in the interests of the common or garden ratepayer I will vote for the amendment. I have a great objection to any Government being exempted from its liabilities towards local taxation, and I object very much to the extension of that principle. I think every Government should pay rates for its public buildings and for the buildings that it occupies or for the property that it owns. In so far as Senator Comyn's amendment is in support of the principle of the interests of the common or garden ratepayer, I certainly object to any extension of the Government's exemption from rates wherever it happens.
If I may I would like to reply to some observations which have been made by Senator Johnson. He says he read this Bill to see whether there was any justification, upon his construction of the statute, for the statement I have made. If he will read Section 10 (1) (a) he will find this:
(a) for the purpose of determining the liability of the Board for the payment of any rate leviable by a local authority, the use or occupation by the Board of any hereditament, tenement, or premises otherwise rateable to such rate is not and never was in use or occupation by the State or a Department of State and does not and never did confer the exemptions arising by reason of use or occupation by the State....
In face of that how can Senator Johnson say that this is a State enterprise or that this is a national enterprise when the Minister is careful to put a section into this Bill to the effect that it is not or never was any such thing? I ask why has the Minister put that in? Has he put it in for the purpose of depriving County Clare of the contribution to which Clare would be entitled in case the Shannon works were regarded as public buildings? The Minister will say to me, "No, Clare can get nothing in respect of public buildings; Clare is too disturbed; there are too many barracks there, there is too much already allowed to Clare in respect of the exemptions on public buildings." He has said it.
No.
My answer in anticipation of any case he makes here is, "Well, the times may improve; we may have fewer police barracks, and we would become entitled in the case of the Shannon buildings becoming public works to some contribution in lieu of rates." Senator Johnson said with great benignity, "Oh, give Clare £400 or £500." We will not take £400 or £500. We will have our rights or nothing. We are entitled to have these buildings rated at their full rateable value, and we say that these works at their full rateable value will bring in £40,000 a year and we claim it. That is what we claim. We will not have any little gifts or any little charitable donations from the benignity of Senator Johnson or even from the hand of the Minister himself. We must have our rights.
Or nothing!
Certainly we will have our rights or nothing. It may be possible for the Oireachtas to deprive us of our rights now, but we will persist in our claims and eventually we will get our rights as we have always got them. There is another matter to which Senator Johnson has referred. He said, "Oh, this is a great national scheme." Let every scheme be nationalised if this is to be nationalised; let him introduce socialism all over the country; let him nationalise the gas works; let him nationalise everything in the country and let the Minister himself be on tip-top ruling everything. Now the less that is said about nationalisation in relation to the Shannon works, the better, I think, at the present moment. We have made a claim in the Dáil; we have made a claim in the Seanad that this is a work used for commercial purposes, that under the laws in existence for the past 300 years, as long as rating laws have been in existence, that this is rateable property. We claim that we are entitled to have that property rated, and that we are entitled to be paid in ease of the ratepayers of the County Clare. I say this confidently that the Minister has no answer to that contention. He has no answer which anybody who understands the rating law would accept for one moment.
I am very much embarrassed in answering Senator Comyn in this matter to-day owing to the complimentary things which by implication he has said about me, about my benignity, and the absence of malice. I am more embarrassed, however, to find so well-known and old a revolutionary as Senator Comyn praising the laws in force in this country for the last 300 years.
I did not praise them. I said: "Give us the law."
Senator Comyn, revolutionary as he has been, praises the law in existence here for the last 300 years and says "Let us get that law."
The Minister was a revolutionary himself when it suited him.
The Senator says: "Let us get the benefit of those laws." Now as to the matter of loss and gain, what are the facts? The County Clare loses a hypothetical sum of £1,000 per annum. To get this amount the Senator singled out the number of people who were treated in the county homes and the damage to the roads. But the contractors remade all the roads round the area of the scheme about which anybody could say that damage was done through the operations of the Shannon scheme. In addition to that, where we diverted roads we had to build new roads, and in every case in which a new road was built it was built to a greater width with a better surface than the old road.
And they were built to last for ever! Who will pay for the upkeep of these roads?
They were built according to the desires of the local authorities in the areas concerned. They knew what was ahead of them. They decided it was better to get new roads laid down on a bigger size than the old roads which had been destroyed. On the question of roads, the County Clare, so far from having suffered anything, has actually gained. There is then the matter of the people who were injured or fell ill. Most of the people who were injured went to the Limerick County Home. The trouble that was being caused in consequence led to a certain agitation there. On the investigation by the Department of Local Government and Public Health through its medical inspectors, there were final arrangements made whereby the contractors paid what was regarded as the proper sum per day for the maintenance of anybody who was taken to the county home. I am not conscious that there is anything outstanding against me or against the contractors by reason of the people who were treated through illness or through accident in the county home.
The rates are not for the past but for the future.
The Senator made an incoherent kind of speech and I am trying to take it up and deal with it. I am trying to take it in detail. He definitely talked of the roads and I will first try to get this matter settled. He spoke about the county home.
I did not speak of the county homes.
I do not intend to follow the Senator's model in speech making.
The Minister could learn from it.
Cathaoirleach
The Senator must not interrupt.
If the Senator has not spoken about the patients treated in the county home I shall not deal with that matter. There is no such bill either for patients or for roads, as the Senator mentioned, and I challenge him to produce the details of such an account. On the question of the rates Senator Johnson said he could not see anything in this Bill which specifically segregated out the County Clare for ill-treatment. Nowhere in this or in any other Bill dealing with Shannon electricity is it established that County Clare is to suffer special damage or loss except to the extent that that county, in common with every county in the Free State, is not going to benefit by Shannon works becoming liable for rates. Every county suffers and Clare has not suffered different to the others in this respect. If there is a transformation station in any county, to the extent that that piece of ground on which it is built was heretofore rated as agricultural land, such land is treated similarly in all parts of the country. Wherever a transformer station is erected in any county that station is exempted from rates and in that way the whole country suffers as well as Clare. There is a definite pooling of resources as far as that is concerned. Three counties might be said to have suffered more than the rest—Limerick, Clare and Tip perary.
Senator Johnson is quite right in saying that there is no singling-out of Clare. What has Clare suffered? The Senator brings forward certain items—lands which used to be rated and are no longer rated, the land which used to be where the canal now is, and the land that is somewhere about the power house, whatever portion of that is in County Clare. There is a matter of some £408 lost to Clare County Council by reason of that—£408 per annum. The Senator puts in another claim of some hundreds of pounds in respect of losses to fisheries. Again I query these figures. I want to say in reference to the £200 which was mentioned in the Dáil and which has been put at £400 or £500 here to-day——
There is a loss of £1,800 in respect of the eel fisheries at Killaloe alone. These have been destroyed.
Who gets that?
You get it.
I am talking of the Clare County Council. We want to get figures in respect of these losses and a vague statement about £400 or £500 is not going to be accepted by us. We have it stated that there will be a loss of £408 per annum. What does the Senator claim for that? To delete Section 96. What is the effect of repealing Section 96? His own statement is that the Clare County Council will benefit to the extent of £40,000 per annum for the loss of that £408 per annum.
It is not in respect of the loss of £408 per annum that we are claiming. That is not a fair argument.
Cathaoirleach
The Minister must be allowed to continue his speech.
I said that these items were losses, but our rates depend on works erected in Clare which are rateable under the ordinary law.
A sum of £408 is the exact loss—something definitely subtracted from the rates which previously came into Clare Co. Council. That is a definite loss. In addition to that there is a loss suffered in common with the rest of the country in respect of rating on new works, things which might bring in rates if valuation were placed on them. £400 is the exact sum, now subtracted from the amount the Clare Co. Council was in the habit of getting, and the Senator wants to get for that £400 an annual sum of £40,000.
Not for that. I said we have lost that.
For that and other things.
I said we have lost that, and we have lost the expenses which will be charged in respect of the maintenance of county services for these new works.
Cathaoirleach
The Senator must not interrupt. He made specific mention of a sum of £40,000 in the course of his speech.
This amount would mean de-rating in Clare to the extent of about half the rates.
I do not think it is right that Clare should be deprived of that amount.
People ought to know what this means. The Senator said that he would not have any pettyfogging bargaining, and he does not want to accept £400 per annum. He said: "We will have the whole of our rights or nothing."
We will not sell our rights for £400.
The phrase has been used that this was a commercial scheme. This is one of the many phrases which people have attempted to put into my mouth. The first time it was stated in this House that I had said it, I denied that I had said it. What I did say was that it was a scheme run under a system of commercial management; in other words, that I was going to get away from Civil Service control and to get people to run it on business lines. Everybody's money went into the scheme. If it had not been for the backing of the scheme by the State as a national scheme, there would have been no scheme. If we had to wait until Clare developed its resources there would have been no Shannon scheme.
There would.
It is very definitely a national scheme, and if it had been kept as such and if the Government had retained any hold over it—and that was the original scheme —Clare would not get one penny from it. Again an attempt has been made to misrepresent me as saying in the other House that there was lawlessness in Clare. I said nothing of the kind. I said nothing about there being lawlessness in Co. Clare.
You did not, but you said that the Clare County Council should not be entitled to any more revenue in rates on account of the number of barracks there.
Cathaoirleach
I must ask the Senator not to intervene any more while the Minister is speaking.
What I did say was that there was so much Government property in Clare already that if the whole Shannon works were added and were dealt with as Government property, no special exemption being granted, the Clare local authorities would not get one penny piece extra. That is a statement I make again. On the ordinary system of rating Government property when the sum derived thereby exceeds a certain point no further rates are paid. If the whole of the Shannon property were treated as Government property and if we took away the specific exemption under Section 96, County Clare would not derive one penny extra in payment of rates.
The reason why this item was introduced so late in the 1927 legislation is that at a late stage in the Seanad a discussion took place on the matter of income tax. From that we came to realise that if we proceeded on the lines we had intended and handed over the scheme to the Electricity Supply Board the idea of Government property would no longer shield the scheme, though in regard to rates we always intended our construction to be a Government scheme. It was backed by the credit of the whole people of the State and we felt that a certain exception naturally flowed from that, and in the end we put in a specific exemption. That applies also to areas which have not been so loyal and true to Eamon de Valera as County Clare. The malice that is supposed to inspire this proposal seems not to exist even in the Senator's imagination. It does not even exist in his imagination, but he simply brings it forward for the purpose of rhetoric. It is not a sincere belief.
I intended to abide by your ruling, a Chathaoirligh, but the provocation is too great and——
Cathaoirleach
The Senator will abide by my ruling without any qualification whatever.
I stated in the Dáil, and I think it is right, that at some time, but not immediately, the losses which Clare is suffering by the subtraction of the £400, and anything else in the way of fishery losses, should be given back to it. Senator Comyn may vote against that when we bring it forward as it would be compromising his claim, but I think it should be done. I do not think it should be done at the moment. I said here in the Seanad on the Second Reading that I want the scheme left as it was handed over to the Electricity Supply Board— the Board facing up to a certain expenditure and knowing what it had to meet so as to enable it to apportion the charges for electricity. I said that we should leave it so for a year or two until it was fully paying its way. I do not think, again, that Clare suffers very much in this, because the canal stretch that has been taken for the purpose of the power-house and the power-house itself, under the ordinary local government law and local government policy, apart altogether from the fact of its being an electricity undertaking, would be exempt from the majority of its rates for a period of years. That is the local government policy at the moment with regard to new buildings, and I simply want that applied here.
Labourers' cottages!
It does not apply to labourers' cottages alone. It applies to most buildings erected in recent years. I want that applied here. It can be adjusted hereafter, but it can only be adjusted when all the other adjustments are made.
I understood that that particular exemption was on account of the passage of a motion through the Seanad exempting certain buildings that had been destroyed in O'Connell Street, Dublin. I do not know, although the Minister has said it, that it extends to buildings all over the country.
The Senator has not been fully aware of what has been going on all around him. Senator Comyn wants to delete this exemption under Section 96, but he does not want to delete Sections 10, 11 and 12. He does not want to disturb this scheme, which has been adopted at the moment as expedient. What would be the situation if Section 10 were amended as Senator Comyn wants it to be and the rest of the Bill left as it is? Here is the result. At the moment we are fixing on the Board under Section 11 a payment in perpetuity which amounts to about £50,000. We are actually fixing a valuation, and if rates remain as they are at present in certain areas, the payments which the Board will have to make will be round about £50,000 or £60,000. Take out the exemption granted by Section 96 and a sum of £130,000 will be put on the Board. Part of that addition will be the £50,000 which is imposed under Section 11.
If we are going to wipe out the exemption under Section 96, we should scrap Section 11. We should say to Dublin, "You are not going to get the £30,000 that you are at present getting," because if Senator Comyn's idea is right, and the property is to be valued according to the amount of property located in particular counties, and if Clare is going to get this £40,000, Dublin is going to lose some considerable part of its £30,000. I consider that an outrageous proposition. Hereafter, when this scheme comes to be rated, it should be rated completely on a new basis, and the only way is to take the scheme, not according to constructional value, but according to the revenue it secures, and divide the rate liability over areas according to the revenue they subscribe—not according to where the property is situated. The value arises from the revenue coming in and not from the areas where the property is situated. That will be putting on the Board a payment of a little more than is put on it at the moment. I ask the Seanad not to refuse to continue the exemption under Section 96, and so throw £130,000 on the Board, and then pass Section 11, which throws on the Board an additional fifty or sixty thousand pounds.
In the end the consumers of electricity are going to pay for it. Remember, the Board could, if it liked, decide to apportion the amount it must pay in rates against the consumers in the several rating areas. If County Clare was to get three-fifths of its rates they might have to pay so much for its electricity—that hereafter no industry depending on electricity for its power could be started in the County Clare because of the prices that would have to be charged for it. The proposition outlined in this amendment is indefensible. I ask the Seanad to abide by the decision it previously took: to regard this as a national scheme, and continue to hold that it should be exempt from rates. Senator Sir Thomas Esmonde spoke of the liability of the Government on property. The position with regard to Government property in County Clare is this, that while this is not to a certain extent a Government scheme— it has been handed over to a Board to operate it—it is still a national scheme, the idea being that electricity should be made available at cheap rates through this national development. Government property already brings in so much in rates to County Clare that no addition would be derived from the Shannon works if regarded as Government property. Senator Colonel Moore quoted a famous expression: "That it was immoral to derive profits from municipal undertakings." I want to say that is not my phrase. That phrase was used by the then Town Clerk of Dublin before the Private Bill Committee that considered the Liffey schemes. I quoted it, and said that it was a great phrase. I still think it is a great phrase, but it is not my phrase.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 10 agreed to.
SECTION 11.
I move amendment 3:—
To delete the section.
The section which I am seeking to have deleted provides that for the purposes of the assessment and the levying of any rate leviable by a local authority, the valuation of any hereditament or tenement rateable to such rate and becoming vested in the Board, shall, so long as it continues in the occupation of the Board, be deemed to be liable to certain rates based on the valuation at the time of the taking over. Sub-section (2) of the section provides that whenever any hereditament or tenement which becomes vested in the Board is taken over, so long as it ceases to be in the occupation of the Board, the Board shall continue to pay perpetually the rates which are leviable upon that hereditament. I cannot think it is just to the Board that in the case of premises taken over in the course of the undertaking and in the working out of the undertaking, no matter what may happen to those premises, whether they hand them over to some other business concern or whether they become decrepit and entirely unused, rates should continue perpetually to be paid upon them. I think it is an imposition on the Board and that it is not just. The section is more than generous to the local authority. I do not think that in any circumstances it can be justified. I think there ought to be a limit of time—I do not mind what the limit is, whether it be ten years or twenty years. This idea of a perpetual annuity on premises which in the ordinary course of events might not have been retained by the old authority or have gone out of use should not be imposed on the Board.
Let me for the purposes of analogy take this case. In the course of development we can visualise the possibility that a system of distribution of electricity from house to house might come through the invention of some sort of a transportable battery. It might be much more convenient to householders who are at present using gas. If that were so, gas undertakings would become of little value. The analogy would suggest that the organisation, whatever it may be, that is indicated in the production of this new method of electrical power transmission is to be liable for the rates that these gas undertakings had hitherto paid. I think that is unfair. I cannot understand why the local authority should seek to impose a charge perpetually upon the Electricity Supply Board. I think this ought to be justified before we pass it. I suggest there should be some limit of time put in sub-section (2), and that this should not be a perpetual charge, irrespective of what class of hereditament it might be or what the possibilities of any such building would have been if there never had been any Electricity Supply Board. I would like to hear some justification for this proposal. Unless the justification is very ample, I think the House should not pass this section as it stands.
I just wish to say that I would much prefer to see an amendment limiting the obligations of the Board to a period of time rather than have the matter considered on the deletion of the section in this way. Frankly, this section is a mere expedient. This section was suggested to us by the Department of Local Government, local authorities, and by other people directly interested. Under Section 12 the Board is free from liability to rates in regard to new buildings. When they read that section they might say to themselves: "We are now being involved in the payment of very heavy rates on, say, the Dublin station. It would pay us better to depart from these premises altogether and build new premises for ourselves, because in that case the new premises will be free from liability under the next section." In that way they would get out of the particular obligation that we are seeking to put on them. That is hardly likely to happen—especially as legislation will have to be introduced within the next three or four years to amend all this, but there is a danger. While Section 12 remains as it is, perhaps Senator Johnson might consider an amendment to it in some way to prevent the danger that I am alluding to coming about.
The case was put to us in connection principally with the Dublin and Cork stations. The Board might say that in comparison to the value they were getting from these stations it would pay them better to close them down and build new premises for the purpose of getting them free from rates. We do not want that to happen, and it is not likely to happen in the immediate future. The Senator might wish to put in some limit of time to Section 11, but I would like to have both sections considered together. As I explained before, this is an expedient. We want to secure certain local authorities in the matter of rates that they have been in the habit of getting from certain undertakings. At any rate, we want to secure that, before what they have been in the habit of getting is taken from them, certain notice will be given to them before the bringing in of new legislation, so that when preparing their annual budget they will know exactly what they can count upon. We secure that in this way, that we indicate that the Act will have to be amended in order to get a better adjustment of the conditions as between the electricity consumer, ratepayer and the taxpayer, but this is frankly an expedient.
I withdraw the amendment at this stage in the hope that by some means or another some form of amendment may be brought forward. It is a very technical subject, and it might be difficult for an amateur to draft an amendment to fit the case. But perhaps with some assistance an amendment to meet the case might be produced.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 11 and 12 agreed to.
SECTION 13.
I move amendment No. 4:—
New section. Before Section 13 to insert a new section as follows:
"13.—The exemptions from rates conferred by Section 96 of the Principal Act and by Section 11 of this Act, and the provisions of Section 12 of this Act, shall continue in force until the 31st day of March, 1932, and shall then cease to be operative."
The Minister when dealing with Senator Johnson's amendment said very frankly and truly that Section 11 is only an expedient, and he hoped it was only a temporary expedient and said he expected some measure would be introduced limiting the time during which it was to operate. I have in this amendment provided him with the necessary machinery for putting an end to that little expedient of his. The object of the amendment is to provide that when the Shannon works in Clare become a very prosperous business concern— a time which the Minister himself assumes will be less than two years— that they and transformer stations all over the country and the rateable hereditaments connected with the Shannon works shall become rateable. And also anomalies and provisions for permanent payment which Senator Johnson alluded to will come to an end. I do not want to weary the House by a repetition of the arguments, which the Minister described as rhetoric, which I used on the first occasion when this matter came before the House. I can assure Senators that my observations were not intended to be in any degree rhetorical; they were addressed to the House from the feeling which I entertain as a ratepayer in the County Clare and which is shared by other ratepayers in the County Clare, that we have not been treated fairly in the matter of the rating of the Shannon works.
The Minister said that when the scheme comes to full success he hopes to recast the entire rating with regard to the Shannon scheme. He estimates that the scheme will come to a complete success within two years, and my amendment is to this effect: Why not legislate now and let the people see exactly where they stand? Let the farmers of the County Clare understand that, although they may be rated now for the upkeep of the roads and for the various county charges that are thrown upon them by reason of the erection of the Shannon works, still that will come to an end at a certain stated time.
In this amendment I am simply putting in words what I learned to be the hope of the Minister, and what is my own hope, that at the end of two years the Shannon works will be a flourishing commercial undertaking, quite able to pay its own rates and able to relieve the farmers in Clare. I am claiming on the other amendment for the full rateable value of those premises, but the Minister said: "No. They will not have that full rateable value; that rateable value will be scattered all over the country." I am willing, and the Clare farmers are willing, that this rateability should be extended, and as far as possible. We want only what we are entitled to. But I take this opportunity to tell the Minister that under any fair scheme of rating under the existing law, apart from Section 96, we expect considerable relief and that we deserve that relief. We are entitled to it and we need it, and need it very badly, in the County Clare. I do not expect from the Minister any serious opposition to this amendment, because it is, if I may say so myself, lawyer-like. It is in the spirit of the law that when you are passing a Bill you ought to make it provide for the circumstances of the case so far as you can foresee them. That is all I have attempted to do in this amendment, and I hope the Seanad will accept it.
It must be a matter of enlightenment to lawyers to hear the Senator describe his amendment as lawyer-like. He feels that he wants to legislate more or less along the lines that I myself had suggested. What would he get if this amendment were carried? He gets whatever portion of the Shannon works is located in the County Clare valued and rated according to the present law. I stated that I did not want that. One reason why I would not accept the removal of exemption is that I hold that the rating and valuation laws with regard to hydro-electric undertakings should be changed. If the Shannon is to pay rates it should pay according to the revenue which is derived from the areas from which the revenue comes and not according to the location of the property. In addition, the Senator wants to have enforced until March, 1932, and then dropped the exemption from rates conferred by Section 11. The exemption of Section 11 only lasts until 1932, but wherever it imposes rates it goes on. That was what the Senator must have had in mind when he said his amendment was lawyer-like. That is what is there: "The exemption conferred by Section 11 of this Act."
The exemptions conferred by Section 96.
Leave that out for the moment. The amendment reads, "the exemptions conferred by Section 11 of this Act." But rates are imposed under Section 11 and that is a serious part of Section 11.
As a matter of explanation I think Section 11 here in my amendment should be Section 12, and Section 12 should be Section 11.
Cathaoirleach
I fancy the Paper was prepared according to instructions.
I am perfectly certain it was.
I am taking what is here on the Order Paper. I am afraid the Senator is not standing up to his amendment.
I am, and you are standing up for it now.
The Senator apapparently wants to insist on imposing a certain rate on the Board and in addition to take away any exemption there may be from rates.
All this scheme of rating will go out on 31st March, 1932, and the ordinary law would then apply.
The ordinary law would apply? But that is not the Senator's amendment. Let us take that general statement that the ordinary law would apply—that is to say, that the property of the Board in Clare would be marked out and valued in a certain way so that Clare would get derating to the extent of 50 per cent. of the entire rate at the moment. I do not want that. It would be quite unfair, and if I bring in legislation it will not be to achieve that situation. But in addition what does the Senator propose in his amendment? That the ordinary law should take its course, and that Dublin ought not to have guaranteed to it £30,000, and other local authorities throughout the country—Cork and other areas— ought not to have guaranteed to them what they are now guaranteed under Section 11. All these places would be deprived of certain things which they are now counting on, and they would have to be given to the County of Clare or a big proportion of them.
Senator Johnson objects to permanent annuities in respect of premises.
Senator Johnson objects to the Board being made to pay on buildings they take over if they make no further use of those buildings. But Senator Comyn's idea is that whether they use those buildings or not, under some new system of valuation that is to come into force rates will be struck on them. The actual effect of the amendment would be that Clare would get, I think, some £50,000, and that sum would have to be subtracted from the rest of the country. I think the whole thing should be left as it is, as it requires a great deal more than simply saying "take away these exemptions and let the ordinary law in."
On the Second Reading of the Bill I pointed out that the rating law, as it applies to hydro-electric undertakings, is quite unfair, and that it may have to be changed; secondly, that the operation of that law in so far as it is based on constructional value and location is wrong, and that the basis of future assessment ought to be the areas from which revenue is derived. The third point is that it will require time to get a better understanding of the Board's position. All these matters will require an amount of legislation. I ask the Seanad not to agree to this amendment. If the amendment were accepted the Board would have immediately to sit down and prepare its budget for the next couple of years on the basis of what is going to happen in 1932. In other words, they would have to look on themselves as liable for £50,000 or £60,000 in Dublin, Cork and other local areas, and the additional money that would be taken away from them if the exemptions under Section 96 were removed. Obviously they could not make charges now, knowing that two years later they were going to have thrown on them £120,000 in rates, plus the £60,000 that we are putting on them. They would have to make provision immediately to meet that. It would be deceiving the public to ask them to pay certain charges now, knowing that in two years they would have to face an additional charge of £120,000. That is a proposition that I say is as hopeless as ever was presented, and I want the Seanad to throw it out. It may be said that I am not bound to bring in legislation to meet the small injustices that I have more or less admitted Clare is suffering from, in addition to the counties of Limerick and Tipperary with regard to land seized for the purpose of the canal. I am bound to meet that if my hands are not tied. But in fact the circumstances do bind me. I am not going to bind myself as to the date when that legislation will be introduced, but I should say that it will be introduced within three years, and certainly within four years. I would not like to bind myself to any earlier period than that.
As the Minister has admitted the injustice, why must we wait?
Amendment put and declared lost.
On behalf of Senator Foran, I move:—
Section 13, sub-section (1). After the word "in" in line 62 to insert the words "or at."
Section 13 makes provision for compensating certain employees who lose their positions as a result of the closing of the generating station and of its being vested in the Board. The last line in the section refers to employees employed by the Board in such generating station. The proposal in the amendment is to cover a small number of people to which Senator Foran referred on the Second Reading debate. For instance, the Dublin generating station has five men employed inside as stokers attending the furnaces. They had four men engaged on the work of unloading steamers and removing the coal to the generating stations. The men inside are covered by the Bill but those outside are not covered because they were not employed in but outside or at the station. It is true that they were not whole-time permanent employees in the ordinary sense. They were what might be termed permanent-temporary men, such as one finds in the Civil Service. When the steamers arrive the same four men were always employed, and practically the whole of their time was engaged on the work. They lose their work as a direct result of the closing down of the Dublin generating station, and they lose it just as much because of the operation of the Shannon scheme as the men who were inside. This amendment is to ensure that they shall be covered by the Bill. The number is small as far as compensation is concerned. I do not know whether anybody would be affected at the Cork station. I hope the Minister will favourably consider the matter.
I would like to ask if the amendment only applies to the permanent employees or are temporary employees included?
The first schedule covers cases whether the men were permanent or temporary. This amendment does not deal with that particular part or alter the principle of the Bill as far as calculating means of service or matters of that kind go. It only brings in men employed outside or at the station.
I have had the four men that Senator Foran's amendment refers to under discussion with the Senator on several occasions. I do not see that this amendment meets their case. Compensation at the moment applies to certain people engaged in the generating stations. I do not think the insertion of these words "or at" covers the case of the special men that Senator Foran has in mind and it opens the door to others. I do not know what the words might cover. I have a number of cases under consideration. On the exact details given by Senator Foran I think the men about whom he is concerned have a pretty good chance—I cannot put it any higher—of securing compensation. But if they do not secure compensation it will not be because they are ruled out by the absence of the word "at." I do not think that putting in the word "at" would cover their case. The general condition of the compensation clause is: Are they considered to be in a particular type of employment? Is their work to be considered a type that ends with the closing down of the generating station? If so, they will get compensation; if not, they will not get compensation. I appeal to the Senator not to press the amendment as it will not do these people any good. If I find that the men were turned down by reason of a rigid definition of the wording of the section I will consider it my duty to come forward with legislation at least to give an opportunity of having this matter argued. I do not know where this would lead to, and I would prefer if it were dropped. In addition to the details of work, Senator Foran gave me communications from the men concerned, as well as their ages, and I have guaranteed to him that I will put it to the Electricity Supply Board, particularly in the case of the two senior men, that they should find employment for them and recognise that their employment has to a certain extent been diminished by the operations of the Act. In fact, I will make that case with regard to the four men. I can make it more vehemently in regard to the two senior men. I do not think the Senator's amendment will meet the case and it might lead to difficulties. I ask the Senator to reconsider the matter before pressing the amendment.
I am obliged to the Minister for the manner in which he has offered to deal with the matter, and in view of his statement I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 13 put and agreed to.
Question proposed—"That Section 14 stand part of the Bill."
On Section 14 I would like to ask the Minister if he is able to say anything with regard to the items proposed to be dealt with in the last amendment on the Order Paper which was ruled out of order. This section would cover certain people whose services were dispensed with—that is to say, in the Dublin tramways generating station. In the case of Cork the tramways company provided the city with electric light and electric power, and the traction portion of the service was really in later years, only a sort of side-line or by-product, and it is reported with a good deal of authority that the electricity contract for Cork City having been taken from them, the company do not intend to continue the tramways there, as a result of which a number of people will be thrown out of employment. I know this is an attempt to widen the scope of the Bill, as far as the provision of compensation is concerned, in order to bring employees of the traction section of the industry within the compensation provision, but it is undoubtedly as a direct result of the operation of the scheme that the Cork tramways will cease. I understand that representations have been made to the Government through the President, who is the senior representative of Cork City, and I think it was as a result —at least I was under that impression—that the amendment of Senator Foran was put down, which has now been ruled out of order. I would like to know from the Minister what is the position in relation to tramways of that kind. Can they close down without legislative permission? What is the length of notice that has to be given; what is the earliest date at which they could close, and whether in his opinion any protection can be included in any legislative order or other act that may be taken that would in any way protect the men who lose their employment as a result of the closing down of the tramway system?
Is this dealing with Section 14?
It arises out of the amendment put down to it.
Cathaoirleach
The amendment was obviously out of order. What is before the Seanad now is a motion that Section 14 should stand part of the Bill.
On that I might be permitted to answer Senator O'Farrell? I have had the position of the employees on the tramways side of the Cork Electricity Company brought under my notice. I would object very strenuously to any widening of the compensation terms so as to bring in that type of person. I think people engaged in generating or electrical distribution works have a right to be considered. However, the situation as I understand it in connection with the Cork tramways is this: At the time the agreement was entered into for the purchase of the electricity station representations were made that the tramways should at any rate be carried on for some period to enable the internal transport situation in Cork to be continued, and there was something approaching agreement made. I am not a party to that transaction and cannot speak with any authority. I understand something approaching an agreement was come to that the Cork tramways would be carried on for at least one year.
The Senator raises a point following that, if and when the Cork Tramway Company seek to abandon the tramway undertaking, can they do it by their own act or must they have legislative sanction? It is very doubtful if they can. There is great doubt as to what can be done by Order or how they could be permitted to get out of their obligations as an undertaking, and particularly how they can rid themselves of their obligations with regard to the streets, way-leaves and fixtures. I think it is more than likely that legislative action would have to be looked for before the abandonment of the tramways could be brought about. Then would be the time to raise the position of these men to see whether they could be dealt with. I hope I do not excite too much optimism in these people. I think that people who come hastily to the decision that a tramway undertaking anywhere, and particularly in the city of Cork, is bound to be closed down are jumping to conclusions. I think there are developments ahead that will rehabilitate the tramways and that they will be much better than they are at the moment.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 15 and the Title agreed to.
Can the Minister say that his experience of the Shannon scheme development so far would warrant him in believing that the number of units counted upon will be generated?
That is hardly relevant to the Bill. I am sure the Senator's question is prompted by rumours going around that are without foundation and that have been definitely inspired in certain quarters. I have heard of people who are anxious to sell machinery and plant and who would naturally be inclined to discount the Shannon scheme. These rumours came to me three or four months ago, and then and more recently still I made inquiries into the matter. There is not the slightest truth in any of these rumours. Certain rumours may have been started because the Board found they could not accede to requests from certain towns and villages which were placed outside the line of development as regards installation, but that did not arise from the fact that there is not current enough, but simply that in these cases there was not an economic proposition because of their situation. If anybody hears any rumours to the effect that the number of units we expected from the Shannon development are not forthcoming they should know that these rumours are without the slightest foundation.
Bill ordered to be reported.
The Seanad went out of Committee.
Bill reported without amendment.
Report Stage ordered for Wednesday, 2nd July.