Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 15 Nov 1972

Vol. 73 No. 10

Private Business. - Electricity (Supply) (Amendment) Bill, 1972: Committee and Final Stages.

Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill."

Has the Parliamentary Secretary any figures as to how much, in terms of pounds and pence, the contribution will be on average?

I have not, frankly, because it would relate over a wide range of employment. I cannot give the Senator that information but on a rough calculation on the basis of a salary of £20 it would be about £30 for the three years. Something in excess of that figure would be a reasonable average in the circumstances.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Question proposed: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill."

Could the Parliamentary Secretary say what security the board have offered to foreign investors, for example, the 1975-84 and later loans from the German banks.

Under previous legislation they are guaranteed by the Minister for Finance. That is regarded as being fairly acceptable security.

What is the reason for the amendment?

As I indicated in my opening remarks it is to place these borrowings on an equal footing with the borrowings from the Central Fund. In the event of any further security being required, it seemed only reasonable that the same charge would apply to these borrowings as would apply to borrowings from the Central Fund. It is to amend a legal technicality when this legislation was introduced that that particular provision was added. It is not expected to have any effective significance.

At the present stage of the rural electrification post development scheme there seems to be a 100 per cent acceptance of the scheme. Those people who refused to have electricity in the past are now most anxious to get it. For this reason, I should like to know if there are sufficient funds in the board's resources to meet the increased demand. Would it be possible for the board to lay underground cables——

Under section 4?

I am speaking about loans.

I understand that the board are quite satisfied they have sufficient funds at their disposal under these borrowing powers to finance the continued programme for rural electrification.

This is the final programme?

Yes, the present programme is the final one.

I am sure it is quite simple if one knows enough about the ESB and the borrowings raised under the various Acts. What we are doing in section 4 is cancelling or removing any charges which have been made by the board on their property under any of the Acts from 1927 to 1954. We are going further than that by not giving to the Electricity Supply Board in future the authority to create or authorise the creation of charges on the property of the board. Any power they have in that connection will be repealed when this Act is passed.

The Parliamentary Secretary, in the course of his introductory statement, pointed out that, in so far as the 1954 Act was concerned, the board had not created any charges on its property for moneys borrowed but that under the 1927 Act, where the borrowing was from the Central Fund, there was a general floating charge on all the property and assets of the board. Is it envisaged that the floating charge, or charges which arose as a result of borrowings under the 1927 Act, will be cancelled out by section 4? If this is the case, is it because they have been repaid and therefore there is nothing outstanding on foot of them? If that is the position then it is perfectly understandable; but if there is a residue of loan interest still due under 1927 Act borrowings from the Central Fund, there should be an explanation as to why it is being cancelled.

The Senator put his finger on it when he said the effect of section 4 would be to cancel out these charges and to give them the benefit of the guarantee from the Minister. There is a very practical reason for this, in so far as the charges would have related to assets then in existence which, in the course of time would not be as effective security now as they were previously. For example, the old generating station. Effectively, it ensures that charges raised prior to that would also have the guarantee from the Minister.

I should like to inquire about the sources of some of the loans on the list—for example, the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. In what particular country is that organisation based? Is it one of the European banking institutions which have provided the £6,200,000 loan? I am referring to Table 8 in the latest annual report of the ESB, which covers the period up to 31st March last. It would make things easier for people like myself if they gave a little more information in their annual report such as the exact countries from which those moneys were made available.

I presume Senators will have received a copy of the annual report of the board although I can understand that they, like myself, may not have had an opportunity of looking into it in detail. The funds to which the Senator has referred are referred to on page 3. I quote from page 3:

The board had two very successful stock issues during the year. These were a £15 million European unity of account issue in May, 1971, and a £12 million issue on the home market in March, 1972. The unit of account issue was the first public offering on the board's behalf on the international market and was very well received.

It was, in fact, a public offering on the international market and it was very well received.

I wonder if I would be in order, under this section, in asking the Parliamentary Secretary to use his influence with the Minister to allow the ESB to borrow a little more in order to eliminate the special charge?

That would not arise under this section nor, indeed, under this Bill. Methods of borrowing do arise but the matters on which the money needs to be spent do not arise.

I have made my point.

Question put and agreed to.
Section 5 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment, received for final consideration and passed.
The Seanad adjourned at 3.35 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 22nd November, 1972.
Barr
Roinn