Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 16 Mar 1927

Vol. 18 No. 20

ORDUITHE AN LAE. - ELECTRICITY SUPPLY BILL, 1927—SECOND STAGE (RESUMED).

Question again proposed—"That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. T. O'CONNELL

This is an elaborate, comprehensive and complicated measure and I think I have reason to criticise the Minister for neglecting to furnish a memorandum along with it. It is eminently the type of Bill which should be accompanied by an explanatory memorandum. The main principle of it, of course, is pretty clear and definite, but there are many sections in it which require very close study. I think the Minister would have been well advised if he issued an explanatory memorandum with the Bill. I do not know why that practice is not followed more frequently by the Government, especially in connection with Bills of this type. It would be of great assistance to Deputies generally who have not expert help at their disposal to enable them to grasp quickly, readily and thoroughly the various features of a complicated measure.

I have no hesitation in saying that in my opinion the principle of the Bill is a sound one. We have here the expenditure of some five millions of money to exploit the natural resources of the country, and to convert these resources into a source of power readily distributable amongst the whole community. It would, in my opinion, be intolerable if private individuals or private companies were allowed to exploit the source of power for private gain. If such a plan were adopted, if the Minister had listened to any of the proposals made to him for the leasing of this service for private gain, such proposals would have met with the most vehement opposition from these Benches. I am glad the Minister turned down such proposals. From what he has stated I do not believe they ever received anything in the way of serious consideration from him.

As to the special type of machinery which is to be set up under this Bill, I think the Minister was wise in the line he has adopted. He proposes to set up a more or less independent board to control this service and he has taken this line rather than make the distribution of electricity the work of a mere Department of the Government. I think that is a principle to be approved. It is sometimes held that members on these Benches, in their suggestions as to nationalisation, stand for direct Government control. That is not so. What we do stand for is that the service should be made available for the benefit of the community as a whole rather than for the private gain of some individual or a number of individuals. So long as that principle is carried out—and it seems to be in this proposal—then we are satisfied.

I thought the Minister was overanxious to declare that this board would be almost absolutely independent. A certain amount of independence as to the way in which it should carry out its work is advisable, and may be necessary; but I do not think the board should be given the idea that it is entirely independent of criticism by this House. I think there are opportunities of discussing the general policy of the board; it has, for instance, to furnish a report which will be laid on the Table. I think the board should not, as might be implied or inferred from the Minister's statement yesterday, be given the impression that it will be absolutely free from criticism or interference. I think it is right that the members of the Oireachtas, which represents the nation, should have the opportunity afforded them, if and when necessary, of criticising the general policy of the board—not, of course, mere details of administration or matters of minor importance, but the general policy in so far as their operations affect the welfare of the community.

The Minister stated—and it is mentioned in the Bill—that the general policy of this board will be in the direction of distributing the service to the community on a non-profit-making basis. I am not quite clear, and I would like the Minister's assurance, that steps are taken in the Bill to see that not only the board itself adopts that policy, but that they will see, or that it will be included in the Bill, that bodies working under them will also distribute this service on a non-profit-making basis.

I cannot quite gather from the Bill whether bodies operating under the Bill must supply electricity to consumers on a non-profit-making basis. I thought that that was the case when I read Section 68, where reference is made to the allocation of surplus funds. It states there that an authorised undertaker, if he has in his hands at the end of the year any surplus funds arising from the authorised undertaking after discharge of all liabilities in relation to such undertakings, shall not allocate or apply such surplus funds to any purpose save a purpose approved in that behalf by the board. When I read that section I thought it was made secure in the Bill that such bodies would not make profits. Then I noticed that this refers only to an authorised undertaker. I would like the Minister to clear up this point, whether it includes a permitted undertaker. Section 35 generally authorises the board to give a permit to certain people to generate, distribute and supply electricity, and the permit may be so expressed that it confers on such an authority all the rights, powers, privileges and duties of an authorised distributor. Section 35, sub-section (4), would seem to leave a loop-hole, in that it does not follow, as a matter of course, that the bodies that get the permit would be bound by the same conditions as an authorised undertaker. That sub-section states:

"A permit granted under this section may be expressed and if so expressed shall operate to confer and impose on the person to whom it is granted all or any of the powers, functions, obligations and duties conferred or imposed on an authorised undertaker by this Act and regulations made thereunder and for the purpose of the application of this Act and such regulations to a permit so expressed and to the person to whom such permit is granted the expression ‘authorised undertaker' in this Act and such regulations shall include such person."

I mention this point and I relate it to Section 68. I ask the Minister to say if the permitted authority would in fact be bound by the provisions of Section 68 as regards the disposal of surplus funds. There is another sub-section in Section 38 that has reference to this point that I am making. It is Section 38 (3) (e). This section has reference to an undertaking taken over by the board and controlled by the board. It sets out various things which the board may do, and in sub-section (3) (e) it states:

"All profits earned by the undertaking during the control shall at the discretion of the board either be paid into a reserve fund," and so on, "or be paid to the authorised undertaker and applied by him according to law as profits earned by him from the undertaking."

The one point I want made clear by the Minister is that the general policy which I understand underlies the whole scheme of distribution of electricity— that it will be distributed as a non-profit-earning basis—will be carried right through the whole scheme— whether the electricity is distributed direct by the board itself or through bodies set up by or approved of by the board. If the Minister could give us an assurance on that it would be very important. From a rather casual reading of the Bill it would appear that there is at least ground for doubt as to whether that is the policy. Now, of course, the whole success of the scheme will depend on the policy of the board, and as to the policy of the board the Bill is indefinite and perhaps necessarily so. The Minister himself in his statement yesterday made it clear that he was not in a position to indicate except very indefinitely and vaguely what the policy would be. But the Minister could not say whether it would be the policy of the board to tap the virgin areas in the first place—he thought that that would be the natural policy— or whether they would take over the well-established undertakings.

The whole success of the scheme would depend on the policy adopted by the board. That of course is something that we must wait to see fully developed. There is one point, however, that the Minister might clear up, and it is whether it would be in the power of the board, in accordance with the terms of the Bill, to set up or give permits generally to private companies who would operate certainly under control, but not operate in the public interest—whether it might not be possible to set up a network through the country of such companies. If that were the case I think it would be detrimental to the general interest—that is, if it were possible under this Bill to adopt the policy of setting up more or less semi-independent private bodies and acquiring undertakings of statutory companies and give them over to private bodies. If it were, then these private bodies or companies will no doubt act under control, but would not be acting in the public interest or might not be acting in the public interest. It is essential that the whole scheme right through, from the top to the smallest distributing centre, should be actuated by a desire to act in the interests of the public as a whole. There are a few small points more or less of detail which I think it would be well to mention at this stage.

The Minister states it is his intention to appoint an all-Irish Board. I think it would be well if a provision of that nature were inserted in the Bill. No doubt the Minister has that view, but that may not be always the view of the Minister occupying his position, and I do not see any insuperable objection to including in the Bill a provision which will ensure that all appointments to this Board will be of Irishmen.

There is another feature of the Bill which I would like to commend. It is the provision whereby the Board will be entitled to wire houses. So far as my experience goes, the initial expenditure on this work was one of the real obstacles in the way of the general introduction of electricity, and I believe it would continue under any distribution scheme to be the main obstacle. I am glad, therefore, that power is given to the Board to defray this initial expenditure and have it repaid by suitable instalments.

I commend, too, the proposal in the Bill connected with propaganda. Undoubtedly, if this measure is to be a success, if we are to make the Shannon scheme a paying proposition, much education in the general uses of electricity will be necessary. I understand in other countries they go so far as to set up model houses in various parts of the country so that people will have an opportunity of visiting, examining and testing the various conveniences and labour-saving devices which are brought about by the installation of electricity. I think it is advisable that that should be done in this country, and I am glad power is given to the Board to engage in propaganda of that kind.

It is, of course, desirable that special provision should be made to bring the advantages of electricity to the notice of the rural community. This country probably differs from most other countries in which there are hydro-electric installations, in that the greater majority of our citizens live in scattered areas. Even in the five hundred and upwards communities many people will require much education before they thoroughly appreciate and understand the uses to which electricity might be put.

There are one or two other sections upon which I would like to comment. Provision is made whereby appointments under the Board would be referred to the Local Appointments Commission. I am at a loss to know what the object of that is. We have a Civil Service Commission to make appointments under the Government, and a Local Appointments Commission for appointments under local authorities, such as county councils.

But the whole argument in favour of referring the appointments to these Commissioners is that from their very nature representative bodies, such as a county council or a Parliament, are not in a position to shake themselves free from political pressure. This Board will be quite independent of political pressure, and rightly so, and it seems to me that there is no necessity whatever to put it to the trouble of consulting the Local Appointments Commission as to the appointments it has to make. Surely, it will be sufficiently independent and competent, and will know the qualifications which are needed as well as any selection board that could be set up by the Local Appointments Commission. It is quite unnecessary to have that provision in the Bill.

In the amendments to the Shannon Electricity Act the Minister takes certain powers with regard to lands and houses taken over for the purpose of the Shannon scheme. For instance, under Section 78 (4) he takes power, in the case of land on which labourers' cottages are erected, to acquire other land and to erect on it cottages somewhat similar to those taken over. That is quite a useful power, and I approve of it. But does he take similar powers in the case of private houses which may be taken over? It does not seem to me that he does, and I think it would be advisable that such power should be taken. There is one case present to my mind about which I am anxious. I understand that a school and residences are to be taken over, that they occupy a position right in the track of the tail race, and I am anxious to know what power the Minister has, or whether he can take power under the Bill, to erect a similar school and residences on adjoining ground in lieu of these. I think powers similar to those with regard to labourers' cottages should be taken for private houses and public institutions of the kind I mention.

MINISTER for INDUSTRY and COMMERCE (Mr. McGilligan)

I think there is only one school-house case, and there is only one labourer's cottage case. It was to meet these cases that the section was drafted.

Mr. T. O'CONNELL

Does this meet the schoolhouse case?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

If it does not we can amend it. When the Deputy speaks of private houses has he any particular case in mind?

Mr. T. O'CONNELL

No, I have not, but I do know that there is a school-house involved, and I would be anxious to have that case dealt with. I want to say, generally, that the scheme is worthy of support. The principle embodied in the scheme is a sound one, generally speaking, and will have the support of the Party on whose behalf I speak.

Major COOPER

Deputy O'Connell qualified his general approval of the Bill by a sort of suspicion that there were loopholes which might make it rather less Socialistic than he hoped it was. He need have no fear; this scheme is a thoroughly Socialistic one, but I will admit that it is comparatively moderate and sane Socialism. I do not like monopolies. I prefer, in general, to trust to private enterprise, but I think from the day we passed the Shannon Electricity Act it was obvious that this Electricity Supply Bill would be a monopolistic Bill. There was no alternative. The enormous amount of preparations that were made and of capital that was sunk in it, the fact that its success or failure would make enormous difference, not merely to the future of the Government—as to which I am comparatively indifferent—but to the future of the whole country, made it almost certain that a monopoly of its working would be claimed and that private enterprises would not be allowed to compete. But I would bespeak the consideration of the Minister for a moment for some of the small private undertakings which it is proposed to acquire. In many small towns in the West of Ireland there have been undertakings, generally mills, working by water power, under permit, illuminating small towns and villages. Now, the board will find, when they come to deal with those small towns, that they have been saved a great deal of pioneer work, that there will be no need for propaganda on electricity. The people there are converted to electricity altogether, and people in the neighbourhood, outside the area of supply, who have become used to seeing electricity in their neighbours' houses and who realise its convenience, will be only too anxious to come in and take electricity from the Shannon.

These small undertakings have done valuable work, and I feel, therefore, that in the terms on which they are bought out there should be some recognition of that fact, and that these terms should not be ungenerous to them. If this is to be a State enterprise, and if it is to be a monopoly—and I have reluctantly come to the conclusion it is inevitable that it must be—I much prefer the system of working by a board, and I am very glad to hear Deputy O'Connell say that too. He has fallen in line with the Socialism of Sweden and Belgium, the more moderate Continental Socialism, and has turned his back to the Soviets. I congratulate him. But I would like to put this: The Government cannot run it so economically. I do not know if I ought to state this in the absence of Deputy Norton and the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, but I think if they were starting the Post Office as a new thing it would be run by a board. I would ask the Minister to look into the question of whether this board should be entirely appointed by the State, without qualification. I believe that in Belgium, where a similar board has been formed to take over a considerable portion of the State railways, the majority of the members of the board are directly appointed by the State, without qualification, but there is a minority appointed from lists supplied, in part by the workers and in part by the users of the railways. In this case it would be the workers and the consumers. I would suggest that a board, consisting of a president and two members, directly appointed by the State, one member appointed by the State from a list submitted by the consumers, and one member appointed by the State from a list submitted by the workers, would give representation to people whose voices have a right to be heard. The State would still maintain a majority. It is probable that with a board of that size there would be very few divisions; it would be a matter for discussion and argument, and usually a compromise. I think the Minister would be well advised to consider that possibility.

There are two points I really want to make. It is inevitable, I think, in a Bill of this nature that we should have a discussion on points which could be as well made in committee. The first point I wish to deal with is the section which provides for an audit of the accounts of the Board, and which says that the Minister shall appoint an auditor. It lays down no qualifications of any kind for that auditor. I gathered from a discussion in the Seanad recently that it is a very difficult matter to define the qualifications for a chartered accountant, that there are various bodies giving permission to people to call themselves chartered accountants, but that their qualifications define varying degrees, so that is possibly why the Minister has found it necessary to insert a section which would enable him to appoint Deputy Lyons as auditor. But I venture to think that that could be got round in another way. There is an officer of the State called the Comptroller and Auditor-General. Why should he not audit these accounts? It would be an independent audit, and it would fulfil the object of Deputy O'Connell when he says that the Board should not be wholly independent. If these accounts are brought under periodical review by the State auditor, who would submit the accounts to the Oireachtas, it would make our control very much more effective than if an outside auditor, over whose appointment we would have no say, were to submit a report and a copy of the balance-sheet to the Minister. The Minister should give us an indication of what is in his mind on that.

The other point is this: I am not quite clear as to the position under the Bill of the individual who manufactures electricity solely for his own use and not under a permit. There are a number of houses all over the country the owners of which have installed oil or gas engines and dynamos and accumulators, with which they light their houses and, possibly, their stables and farms. Can they be compelled to take Shannon electricity? If so, I have no doubt whatever that if the Shannon electricity is sold at a reasonable rate they will be glad to take it, because the manufacture of electricity on a small scale is, as a rule, rather expensive. But I do not know whether the Minister's compulsory powers will apply to these individuals or not, and I hope he will give me an answer to that. Though I regard this as a further step in the direction of Socialism, I think on the whole that it is inevitable, and I do not think that I should annoy the Minister by calling for a division on it.

Mr. HEWAT

When I listened to the Minister making his statement yesterday my mind went back to the introduction of the original Shannon Bill, and I felt that history was repeating itself. We had on the occasion of the introduction of the Shannon Bill the attractive figure of the Minister propounding his ideas in a lucid and easily understood statement. The original Shannon Bill of course, was a nationalistic proposal as far as the generation of electricity was concerned. Yesterday I was glad to see the Minister also in good form and giving us a very lucid explanation, not only of the contents of the Bill, but of the operations of his mind in arriving at the conclusions that are embodied in the Bill. It was a very interesting statement, interesting not only from what he said, but equally interesting, from my point of view, for what he did not say. As far as I can gather the Minister has pretty well the support of the majority in the Dáil for the Bill. It would seem to me, therefore, to a certain extent, to be a waste of time to do more than acquiesce. On the other hand, my attitude in connection with the original Bill was not entirely in favour of the measure and I am prepared to stand to-day by anything I said originally on the Shannon Bill, after two years of whatever experience we may have had.

I think the present Bill does not come as any surprise because on the original Shannon Bill it was very clear, even at that stage, that the Minister's mind was working in the direction of the provisions which we find embodied in the Bill. That is to say, while he was claiming that generation should be under national control he also indicated, as well as I remember, that he might consider it necessary to extend that State control to distribution. In the Bill before us, we have nationalisation, which Deputy O'Connell and the Labour Party so appreciate, carried to the fullest and the most extreme extent possible, to the fullest extent of any measure that has ever been introduced in any country. Naturally I object to the idea of nationalisation. In this Bill, following the nationalisation of the generation of electricity we proceed to the nationalisation of the distribution of electricity and the complete elimination of private enterprise. We also find a principle laid down which I am afraid is growing in this country; that is the confiscation of property. In this particular case the confiscation of property applies not to the same extent, perhaps, as regards what is called private enterprise as to the property of municipal bodies who have erected generating stations.

It is proposed that no compensation whatever shall be given for any municipal undertaking that is taken over. Not only that, but in the event of their having reserves or other resources these are also confiscated or at least taken over under the Bill without any compensation. It is also the obvious intention to disregard any claim there may be in connection with the comparison of cost. There is no provision in the Bill whereby the board, in connection with the negotiations or in ordering the taking over of any particular station, shall have any regard whatever to whether that station could or could not generate at a cost which would be comparable. In other words, there is no effort made to show that the Shannon electricity scheme in its working will confine or limit the cost within any amount.

The proposals in the Bill are on lines that would justify the Minister acting as Minister for the whole country. They are on such lines that the burden of the unprofitable areas of distribution shall be borne by the more profitable ones, such as the cities. I presume that is the intention. Dublin, of course, is the biggest factor in the whole matter at present. If I am wrong, the Minister will correct me, but apparently the generation of electricity in Dublin as at present in operation will be disregarded, and the consumer in Dublin will be charged on the basis of the operations of the board in other areas. It seems to me that is somewhat unjust. Perhaps the Minister will disabuse my mind on that point. In that case I would be in a different position as far as that argument is concerned.

The Minister dwelt on the appointment of the board, and emphasised the need for having the board outside the region of politics and establishing it in an independent position. His words on that matter were very emphatic, but if one can form any opinion about the way a board of this sort will act, the inference that one would draw from the sections dealing with the appointment of the board would seem to make any remarks on that subject on the part of the Minister perfectly futile. The appointment of the board in the first instance is in the hands of the Executive Council. The Board is to consist of a full-time chairman and an indefinite number of others, who may be full-time or may be part-time. I should like to emphasise the fact that the appointment of the board lies with the Executive Council, and is terminable at any time, and at all events terminable at the end of five years. Have we arrived at such a condition of things in this country that we can visualise appointments of that sort being non-political?

MINISTER for JUSTICE (Mr. O'Higgins)

Yes.

Mr. HEWAT

I congratulate the Minister for Justice on the conclusion that he has arrived at, and I can only hope that it will be demonstrated to be true when the Bill comes into operation. Right through this Bill there is nothing between the Minister and the concerns to be dealt with, except this board which is to be appointed. I maintain that that board, constituted as it will be, cannot be independent. The Bill also is arbitrary to the last degree. The only appeal that anybody has is to an arbitrator in some cases, and that arbitrator even is to be appointed by the Minister. I do not say that the Minister would appoint anyone else but a competent and independent person, but the Minister's position is not a permanent one, and while we all hope that the present Minister will continue for an indefinite time to entertain the Dáil, and give us the benefit of his great experience, one cannot ignore the possibility of some other person occupying the position in whom we would not have the same confidence.

The Bill aims at setting up monopolistic control of the supply of electricity. The Minister told us that he had examined the various systems in the different countries before he came to the conclusion that this was the right one for the Free State. I should like to read to the House some opinions on that matter. In the first instance, I should like to take the Minister's own pet fancy in the matter—Sweden. There is no State monopoly in Sweden. There is a State power supply. The State power stations supply only about 35 per cent. of the total energy. The municipal authorities are free to compete independently, and the Stockholm municipal electricity works are entirely independent of the State. What is being done under this Bill? The Dublin municipal undertaking is to be taken over, or at all events controlled, and become part and parcel of the State monopoly. In Sweden the power plants and transmission lines belong to various owners, to the State and the municipal authorities, to power companies, industrial concerns, financial corporations, and private persons. There are a large number of quite small power stations which have been found efficient for local use, and which are able to compete with the larger concerns. Other small concerns are distributors only. The system of State management in the power field, in competition or co-operation with municipalities or individuals, which has been developed in Sweden involves obvious advantages, even so far as the State management is concerned, advantages for the consumers, the public and industry, through stimulating and regulating influences, and particularly through the control provoked by occasional conflicts. That is the system so far as Sweden is concerned, and if the Minister requires it I will give him the reference to those statements. As the Minister has placed so much reliance on Sweden, the relative comparison would be that the Shannon scheme should be made a centralised one, without eliminating all and sundry, including private concerns. I shall give the House another reference about Sweden. A Royal Electrification Committee which was appointed to investigate the possibilities of electrification, and amongst other things investigated the question as to whether the State should interfere with the smaller rural undertakings, came to the conclusion that far-reaching restrictive measures would do more harm than good, and that the intervention of the authorities should, as far as possible, be limited to an informative and advisory activity. They also recommended that a council should be appointed consisting of nine members—namely, a chairman, two representatives of certain central Government offices, three representatives of power supply interests, and three representatives of power consumers. This council was to concern itself, among other things, with the giving of concessions for electric installations. That reference is also available for the Minister if he wants it. The main fact is that Sweden has no State monopoly in connection with the supply of electricity; private enterprise is not only active, but is encouraged.

I would like to give an extract from a statement of a prominent citizen of the United States, the Hon. Herbert Hoover. He says:—

"It is the business of Government to provide an open road for the exercise of the individual initiative of its citizens, not to substitute its own activities for that initiative; to see that free opportunity is given for the economic production of wealth, not to produce wealth itself. That Government is the wisest which does not attempt to perform these functions which more localised agencies, Government or otherwise, can perform for themselves. It is the business of Government to regulate and control, not to manage or operate. The Government can best contribute through stimulation of, and cooperation with, voluntary forces in our national life; for we thus preserve the foundations upon which we have progressed so far—the initiative of our people."

What is the attitude of the Government in connection with this Bill as regards small undertakings? The small undertakers, up and down the country, though their services have been limited, have served their day and generation, doing the best they could for all parties in the districts in which they operate. They have spent time, energy and money in rearing up small undertakings, it may be, but none the less they are big to them. If those undertakers were asked to sell their concerns I think many of them would refuse to do so, even at a profit. This Bill comes along and tells them they have no right to exist, and that they must clear out.

In the first instance, what do they do? Many of these undertakers are not authorised; in other words, as the Minister explained yesterday, they hesitated to spend the large amount of money which would be involved in becoming authorised undertakers and conforming to the regulations which, amongst others, would enable everybody in a certain area to apply for, and demand, a continuous supply of electricity. The Minister stated that he made offers to bring all of those undertakers into his authorised undertakings, but that they were not willing. The Minister now says: "We cannot have this at all. These people must, within a certain time, get permits to carry on their business." As well as I remember—I cannot indicate the section at the moment—these permits are revokable at will, and the board can at any time tell them—notwithstanding the fact that they carried on their business as well as they could and in most cases very well—they must clear out altogether. It is not a case of any objection. Presumably the Government will compensate them, or they may possibly make them the authorised undertaking for the district for distribution. But I think that is rather small compensation for the very high-handed action, if I may put it in that language —perhaps it is a wrong word to use in connection with Government action— but it seems rather a drastic proposal, unless there is great need for it, and that will hardly be demonstrable in every case.

Now as regards the authorised and the unauthorised, the statutory or non-statutory companies, the verdict of the Bill is clear. It says to them to-day or to-morrow: "You must clear out. This whole thing is to be put on a national basis and is to be controlled in the present instance by a board." We are very fond of modelling our Acts upon legislation in Great Britain. This Act is largely modelled upon legislation in Great Britain. But in every Act modelled on a British Act there is some little difference. It is a peculiarity of ours. We cannot take things en bloc; we must make some change. What is the position in Great Britain? In Great Britain private enterprise is encouraged. You have an electrical board and commissioners in operation for some time. The object of the electrical commissioners was originally to co-ordinate the different power stations, as far as possible, and to eliminate some that could be better worked otherwise and to prevent promiscuous and unnecessary competition, but they always reserved, in any operations of that kind, an element of competition. Now when we were taking over the Act of 1919, the corresponding powers of the electricity commissioners in Great Britain became consolidated in the person of the Minister for Industry and Commerce.

He is well able for the burden, no doubt, but I do not think that that was the meaning of the Act as it originally started in Great Britain. The significance of that has been that, from the time the Minister became in his person the electricity commissioners, the whole control of the development of the industry rested in his hands. Of his own volition he has decided that nothing in the way of development since the introduction of the Shannon scheme should take place. That is quite right, because he has in his mind that not only would no encouragement be given to the erection of power stations and the development of the industry, but, with the knowledge of what he was proposing to do, he naturally had to prohibit and prevent any development, so that for the two, three, or five years period, or whatever the time was, everything has been pretty much at a standstill in the industry.

Under the recent Act in Great Britain, under the electricity commissioners, there has been a board of management, possibly somewhat similar to what the Minister proposes here, but with a great difference, that you have the electricity commissioners working as an independent board, to whom appeals can be made and who have the final decision, eliminating all political influence from the whole operations of the Act in Great Britain. That is possible in that sort of organisation, but that is not the kind of organisation which the Minister proposes to set up. He proposes to set up an organisation—and I put it to the judgment of the House—that cannot be a non-political body owing to its very constitution unless, as the Minister for Justice seems to think, we have got to such an ideal state that we can guarantee immunity from political influence in connection with our ordinary operations.

As regards the cost of electricity, I think it was indicated by the expert's report in connection with the Shannon scheme that at the end of five years the scheme would be self-supporting. At that time I do not think that the idea of nationalisation had gone quite so far as we find it to-day, but on that matter the Minister is very silent as to what took place in the two years, and as to whether anything has been done to find out what demand there would be for current when the scheme is completed. I wonder has he any indication regarding the demand there will be in the country, generally speaking, for the current when it is being generated on the Shannon, and whether he still holds that in the year 1932, the year, I think, he indicated in which the board would operate the whole scheme, the demand would reach the point at which 110,000,000 units would be used and the scheme would be on a paying basis.

Has he anything to tell us as to the progress in the interval as regards the demand, or is he still relying on the areas of Dublin, Cork, and Waterford for his main output of 110,000,000 units? If he is still relying on that and if he proposes at the initial stages to rope in all the biggest concerns, in other words, to act on what he told us yesterday was the super-power idea, will he tell us how soon he expects that demand to materialise from the country, and what is his idea of the price that could be guaranteed for supplying any areas which he is going to supply compulsorily with power from the Shannon scheme? I recognise, of course, that it is difficult for me to speak to what I might call a non-sympathetic audience, and I recognise that the audience to-day is just as unsympathetic as that to which I spoke in connection with the original Shannon Bill. I think I have laboured the question sufficiently to justify myself, at all events, if I do not require to justify anybody else. It is a great thing in this world to feel satisfied that, whatever happens, you have done your best.

Though probably no Deputy will agree with me, I maintain that the whole policy of the Government, working as it is on the lines of this proposal, is wrong. So far as monopoly can be justified, it can be justified by the Shannon scheme as a national unit, and may even be justified, so far as distributing the power from the Shannon is concerned, under certain circumstances, under a subsidy, just as in connection with the Post Office you are serving a large part of the country at a loss. That is a subsidy, but to base the whole development of the Shannon scheme on a monopoly by the Government, on the abolition of all private enterprise and forcing all municipal and other authorities into the scheme whether they like it or not, is only on a par, I agree, with the whole policy of the Government. That policy has a very far-reaching effect. Some Deputies will probably call it an ideal socialistic proposal.

If that is the direction in which the country is going to develop—it may be the right direction, but let the people know it. Private enterprise, in face of anything the Government proposes, is to be wiped out altogether and no consideration is to be given to the interests of people already engaged in industry. That policy may be the right one, and I make no comment on it beyond saying that I do not stand for it as being in the best interest of the country.

Mr. A. BYRNE

I have not been able to examine in detail all the provisions of this Bill. It is a Bill of fifty pages with 110 clauses and nearly as many sub-clauses, but I have gathered rather a good impression of it from the Minister's very clear statement. It is quite evident that some kind of national organisation has become necessary in connection with the Shannon scheme, but I suggest that certain important modifications are necessary in the Bill. In my opinion, the powers of the proposed board are far too sweeping. They tend, as Deputy Hewat has just said, to discourage private enterprise and initiative. Everyone will be forced back to the old line of blaming the Government and looking to it for everything, instead of developing sufficient energy and initiative of their own to tackle their own problems.

I have had a little experience in days gone by of a local undertaking, and I think that the terms in this Bill for taking over undertakings of local authorities appear to be very unfair to them. Everyone knows that an electrical undertaking cannot be expected to pay its way during the early years of its existence, and that it must be subsidised from the rates, in addition to charging comparatively high prices for electricity. When the business has been developed and part of the capital expenditure liquidated, a point is reached at which the concern will pay, and will be able to reduce the price of electricity as well as making repayments to the local rates. At least on one occasion within my recollection, the Dublin Corporation Electricity Supply Department did contribute to the local rates. Local ratepayers and consumers of electricity are entitled to these benefits which result from their own work and expenditure, and it is unfair to confiscate the fruits of their industry, as is suggested should be done by this Bill. It is provided that undertakings of local authorities can be merely taken over with their existing capital charges without paying anything to the local ratepayers for them as going concerns. That amounts to confiscation of local ratepayers' money and using their money for the benefit of the country at large, but the country at large, however, has no claim on this money, and if a local undertaking be taken over a fair price as a going concern should be paid to the ratepayers.

I notice that Section 68 refers to surplus funds, and says that they shall not be allocated to any purpose unless approved of by the board. That means the board might consider it necessary to expend further moneys on the Shannon scheme for development somewhere, and deprive the ratepayers of the city of Dublin of getting relief from the profits of the Dublin electricity undertaking. As regards the smaller privately-owned undertakings, particularly those owned by individuals, a very considerable hardship may be involved even under the fair price arrangement. We all know that most of these arbitrated fair price arrangements give far below the real value of the concerns to the proprietors. Many persons have expended many laborious years in building up an electricity supply business, and have been giving local satisfaction, even if they have not been working under statutory authority. Opportunity should be given to these persons to carry on with some kind of security and without a threat of confiscation hanging over them. Otherwise, even if allowed to carry on, they will have no encouragement to run their business in a proper way or to invest further money in the concerns. I am sure it is not the desire of the Government to create that state of affairs. The Government power scheme, if it prove as efficient as we hope, will gradually absorb all the supply business, giving bulk supplies to these small concerns and opening up new areas of supply, and it does not seem necessary to adopt any harsh measures in dealing with these smaller concerns. When the Minister said that in 1932 the scheme must be self-supporting, I was tempted to ask the question: If in 1932 the demand is not sufficient to make the scheme self-supporting, what is to happen then? Does it mean an increase in price to the consumers? I am satisfied that Dublin will be the largest consumer and will have to pay the biggest contribution towards making the Shannon scheme a success.

In the Bill power is taken to fix maximum and minimum prices—a very good provision—but why fix a minimum price? Is that to prevent anybody else who may be supplying electricity in a small way from giving it anything cheaper than the controlled concern? Under another section there is power to take over any concern. If that concern is properly managed and there is no fault to find with it, surely the board, or whoever suggests it is to be taken over, should give some reason. There should be some authority to say whether or not that concern was properly managed, and if it was properly managed that there was no necessity to interfere with it. According to the Bill, also, the board will have power to go in and manage, even without assigning any reason, any concern whatever, and if the management fails there is power to take from the reserve funds of the managed concern. That certainly seems to need some explanation from the Minister, and I am satisfied from his able statement that he will be able to give some reason for that. With Deputy Hewat, I also ask why it is that the Minister, who is representing probably one of the contracting parties, should have the right to appoint an arbitrator? I think that should be for a judicial authority, or for some other authority outside the Minister's Department. On the whole, I am satisfied that the measure is a good one and worthy of support. I hope when the time comes for the closing down of generating stations the position of the employees will be considered, and that the Minister, instead of giving them small gratuities or small pensions, and eventually employing other men who had never before been at the business, will, if possible, transfer the existing employees to the other concerns instead of dismissing them. I am confident that is a proposal that would get the whole-hearted support of the country.

Mr. BAXTER

Although this Bill is very lengthy and contains a huge amount of matter, and although we might complain that the Minister did not give us a very great opportunity to study its contents, I think we must recognise the fact that there is clearly one main principle embodied in the measure, and that is the setting up of a board of control. We are asked to support that principle, and if we are prepared to reject it what is the alternative? I agree that the Minister's case yesterday was very well made, and it enabled us clearly to understand why he arrived at the conclusion which determined him that this method of dealing with the generating and distributing and selling of power from the Shannon was the better way to deal with the problem.

When we consider what the alternative method would be we have to admit that, while exception might be taken to the setting up of the board it is proposed to establish, as well as the period for which it is to exist, withal we cannot see that any other method of generating, distributing and selling electric power from the Shannon would give more satisfaction to the users of power throughout the country. Even from the point of view of doing the work and carrying the concern on as a business enterprise, we cannot see that the work would be done better. We all agree that to give authority to outside interests to come in and exploit our resources would hold dangers for the State. Only when the people of this country are so bankrupt in thought, effort and initiative as to show that they are not competent or capable of setting up an institution to do the work themselves, would we be justified in leasing to others outside the country the right to manage this business.

While accepting that, under the circumstances, the Minister's proposal is the best, I think there is point in some remarks made by Deputy Hewat. I wonder whether the setting up of this board for a period of five years will be eminently satisfactory. We protested a few days ago against the policy of the Minister for Justice in setting up what were termed "temporary commissioners" to dispose of work that has been hanging over in the Higher Courts. I believe there were good reasons for objection to that policy. We must ask ourselves whether the setting up of a temporary board to manage a business concern like the Shannon electricity scheme is sound. We must also ask ourselves whether political considerations might enter into the selection of the members of the board, either now or at a future time. I am not suggesting that against the present Minister or Ministry but I am putting it up as, in my view, an undoubted danger to any business concern like this. We have to ask: Will it be good business to hand over such a concern to a board whose office is to terminate after a period of five years? I think that aspect of the matter should get consideration. While a case has undoubtedly to be met as regards dispensing with members of the board, on the other hand a real case might be made if that could be done because of political considerations.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

This is a question in which I am definitely interested, and I cannot say that my views are fixed. Is the Deputy arguing that appointment on the board should be for life, or is he merely arguing that the term should be extended? I can see the difficulty of life appointment— where a person might get entrenched and could not be removed except for grave incapacity or misconduct. Is the Deputy arguing for life appointment or for an extended term?

Mr. BAXTER

I am raising the point, as I think it demands careful consideration. We hope that all the ideals of the men who conceived a scheme like this will be realised, and that the country will reap the fruits expected from it by some. If that is so, its dimensions will grow to an extent that can hardly be realised now. Because of that fact, and because the management of this concern may grow into as big an affair as the management of the affairs of this State, we must recognise that we are placing in the hands of a few people the future of that concern. Under all the circumstances, we must ask if it is justifiable, if the Executive Council so willed, to turn these men out after a period of five years, or whether they have got a chance of justifying themselves, or whether the possibilities of political leverage for dispensing with the services of men would not be such as to endanger the effective working of the whole scheme. I recognise that to put men on such a board for life would be going very far, indeed. But if the scheme is to be managed as a business one, and if the consumers are to get fair play and the State justice, we would like to feel that the board would be in such a position that outside influences would not have such a reaction as to make its operations unsatisfactory both to the consumers and to the State. The only comparison really that one can make is with another institution in this country, the judiciary. It is a body whose term of office will not come to an end at the whim of a few individuals or a group of individuals. Between now and the Committee Stage, I think that this section will have to get careful consideration, to ascertain if a period of five years is not too short. On the other hand, it must be recognised that it is necessary to have safeguards so that an incapable official could be removed. These safeguards are in existence for dealing with the judiciary. As to the board, I think as it is going to do business with users of electricity in this country, it must understand the people and their problems.

While I do not suggest that the board should consist of men none of whom would have technical knowledge, at the same time I think you will require on the board men who, in addition to business ability, will be able to see our agricultural problems from the point of view of the agriculturist. I would point out to the Minister that if he is still acting when this board is being brought into existence to make electricity available for rural Ireland and to electrify the farms, at least to some extent, he should see that there will be on the board men who will have practical and technical knowledge of agricultural problems. If the use of electricity amongst the farming community is to be developed and if the scheme is to hold within itself the chances of success, you must have on that board at least one man, if not more, who understands agriculture and who understands it so well that when he meets groups of farmers they will understand that he understands.

With regard to the other points raised by Deputy Hewat as to the policy of the Minister regarding existing undertakings, I think the Minister would require to make the position a good deal clearer than it is at the moment. I confess to a great deal of sympathy with the view expressed by Deputy Hewat. With all the Minister's clarity, there are certain points still obscure and I should like if he would, when replying, trace as closely as he can what he thinks the probable policy is to be regarding existing undertakings—whether these be "authorised" or what may be technically termed "unauthorised." I confess that I cannot see why the Minister should think fit to treat unauthorised undertakings in any way differently from authorised undertakings. From superficial examination, it appears that, in one case, the undertaker had the sanction of the British Parliament to generate, distribute and sell electricity and, in the other case, the undertaker had the sanction of the local authority. I submit to the Minister that, morally at all events, the sanction of the local authority gave the undertaker as much right to exist as did the permit obtained from the British Parliament in the case of the other undertaker. The Minister would, I think, be acting unfairly in making this discrimination. The measure of success to be achieved by a measure like this depends, to a considerable extent, on the volume of dissatisfaction which grows up because of its passing. What exactly will happen to unauthorised undertakings we cannot say. Certainly I do not understand the position. If, after a certain period, these undertakings can only continue to distribute electricity by permission, will the board be likely in any case to refuse a permit? Ever afterwards, what is to be the position of an individual or a group of individuals in the co-operative sense or even a local authority? I know a couple of bodies of this kind, the members of which put their money into undertakings and have been supplying electricity for a number of years. In one case, the promoters are at present working on an overdraft, but they are confident that they will soon be able to do better business. Their undertaking is not "authorised" in the legal sense. What is to be the position of men like those? I agree with Deputy Hewat that action on the part of the State which has a disturbing effect on the minds of men who, at any time, are prepared to invest money in undertakings in this country is dangerous. It is probably correct to say that those people acted for personal gain. I do not know that men who urge people with capital to put money into boot factories or clothing factories rule out the possibility of those investors deriving personal gain. If the possibility of personal gain were ruled out, I doubt if there would be much encouragement for investing in any business concern in the State. Accordingly, it seems to me that it is necessary to be very careful in dealing with a position where men have invested money and where they feel that their investment is going to be lessened in value. For them the future is so obscure that they do not know where they stand. I think the Minister will have to be more clear and definite if he is to disabuse the minds of some hundreds of people in this State who have put money into electrical undertakings, particularly the smaller undertakings. It was, perhaps, natural that men should invest money in undertakings for the city of Dublin and some of the bigger towns where the area to be exploited was large, so that the greater credit is due, I think, to the few who in the poorer and more remote districts had enough speculative enterprise to put money into undertakings of this kind. If this measure, dealing with the future electrification of this State, is to meet with the support and the enthusiasm which is necessary to success, I urge that the Minister will have to be very careful in dealing with existing undertakings.

While Deputies have urged the necessity for dealing with the employees of existing undertakings, what plea can be made for compensation for a man who works in a business if there is not a much stronger plea made that consideration should be given to the owners of the business? I think that in the case of small undertakings down through the country, which are there with the sanction of local authorities, in this measure the Minister should accord to them the same treatment he proposes to give to the others. The success of the electrification of this country will depend to a considerable extent, I believe, on the ability of the Minister to remove dissatisfaction which will be created if, as a result of this Bill, certain people get treatment which seems harsh, unjust or unfair.

Major MYLES

With regard to the smaller undertakings, I would like to add a few words to what Deputy Baxter has said. I think we are entitled to get further particulars from the Minister regarding these concerns which have been run, financed and organised in some cases for nearly a quarter of a century by small local companies, by local men who put their own money, in some cases borrowing from the banks, into these enterprises. It was not so fashionable then as it is now to invest your money in your own country. Every Government department now advises the people to keep their money in the country, to work harder and do more. These people that I refer to have been described by the Minister as unauthorised. I would ask him, unauthorised by whom? In every single case of these undertakings they were authorised by the local authorities, first by the district councils and then by the county councils. Written agreements exist in every single case. I ask the Minister if he thinks that these people should be penalised because, among other reasons, they did not see fit to burden their undertakings with the enormous expense to be incurred in those days.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

What is the enormity of the expense? Let me take the last few years. You could get an unauthorised undertaker's authority at an average of £10.

Major MYLES

I will come to that in a moment. In the days that I speak of, when those undertakings were started, the cost of getting the statutory powers for even a small undertaking might run to £1,000, if there was some local crank who wished to put in an objection. Practically all that money would be sent out of the country. One had to go to London. I am sure that Deputies who have experience of our simplification of procedure in the Dáil are aware of the trouble and expense there is in connection with Private Bills. I believe all that was ten times worse when promoters had to go to London. The Minister speaks of a recent period when these people were asked if they would take out statutory powers locally. They were circularised and a number of them said "Yes" and some others said "No." Each man came to a decision on his own. I ask the Minister what happened to those who said "Yes." Are they in the same position as those who said "No?" The Minister took no steps to deal with those who said "Yes" and intimated they were willing to carry out a statutory undertaking. Not a single one as far as I know—I speak subject to correction— who answered that circular got the statutory powers.

The Minister spoke yesterday of propaganda. He said he did not think that the existing undertakings had done anything in the way of propaganda during all those years, and he mentioned that the new board would engage in propaganda. I contend that the undertakings all over the country, municipal, statutory and non-statutory, conducted their propaganda very efficiently and that in most of these places—I do not say all because you will always have exceptions—the industry is as far ahead as it could be in all the circumstances of the case. Several speakers have found fault with the Bill because it gives a monopoly and because under it there is no possible fear of competition. I believe that the Shannon scheme will be a success, but to my mind the success of the scheme will be entirely a matter of the personnel of the board. I believe that with proper men on the board the scheme holds great possibilities for this country, but the reverse—if the reverse should unhappily be. It will be then the greatest blow that the country has ever got. The Executive Council will have the appointing of these men. Their reputation will be at stake over the matter, and I hope they will see that the men they appoint are fit and proper persons for this enormous task.

There is another point that I want to bring before the Minister. It is that during the past two years a great amount of uncertainty has prevailed amongst all classes of undertakers in this country, and that uncertainty will be accentuated for a considerable time to come. The result has been to stop a great amount of development, because in every case the undertakers have been rather chary to open up any new lines. They did not know where they stood, and were afraid to spend money. They did not know what the Bill was going to bring forth, and now that the Bill has come they do not know where they stand or how long a lease of life they are going to have. Under the Bill, even those allowed to remain will, before we can spend a penny in the future, have to apply for permission to do so.

That position has stopped development to a great extent for the last couple of years, and those are years when development would have taken place at a much greater pace than in any of the preceding years. During the last few years electricity has gone ahead to a large extent. All possibility of competition is ruled out. I would like to point out that in very few countries, if any, is there absolute monopoly of the electricity supply, that is, of the character indicated in this Bill. The countries, even with such schemes, leave, in many cases, private enterprises to work independently. In New Zealand, for instance, there is a State power scheme which has not a monopoly; the same applies to Sweden. I am not in a position to say how the other countries stand, but I believe in the great majority of them there is always a certain amount of private competition, which tends to be an outlet for the energies of the people of a country. If everything is done for a people there would be nothing left for them to do. We should always put energy into everything we do. If the Government takes over control and there is a State monopoly from top to bottom, what is there for the ordinary man in his own country to do but fall in with the crowd?

With reference to the constitution of the Board, I would like to suggest to the Minister that he might, in this case, with advantage have followed the lines of the English Act. I think he might have got his board smaller and divided it into two parts, one to run the Shannon scheme and the other to deal with electricity generally throughout the country. One of them would have acted more or less as a buffer between the Shannon scheme and the consumers generally.

With reference to the arbitrator, I notice that one of our own Acts, called the Acquisition of Land (Reference Committee) Act, 1925, brings up to date a previous Act of 1919 and substitutes a Free State Reference Committee. In most of the previous Acts, in the Shannon Act of 1925, this Reference Committee is the authority to detail an arbitrator. In this the Minister simply takes the power himself. I agree that as long as we have our present Minister we would probably be quite satisfied, but we must look to the future in this matter. I do not see why, in this particular Bill alone, you leave out a system that all the other Acts have embodied. I hope the Minister, in reply, will deal with all the points that have been raised. In his introduction yesterday he glossed over details to a great extent; naturally we would like to hear those details explained.

Professor THRIFT

I should like to express my own views on this Bill, if it were only for the purpose of giving the Minister an opportunity of correcting them if he does not agree with them. I propose to get away from details, though perhaps the most important part of the discussion on the Bill is on details. I think we are principally concerned to-day with two leading features of the Bill. In the first place, there was to be faced by the Minister the question of how he was to get the Shannon scheme managed and controlled. My remarks on that principle will be very brief. He was faced on the one side with the question of leasing an undertaking to some private concern, and on the other side with making it what this scheme has been called, which I venture to say it is not, a real State undertaking. With most of the speakers who have gone before me, I would agree that the handing over of this scheme to a private concern for the exploiting of profit out of it would have been a thing very much to be deprecated. On the other hand, I would not have accepted at all the Labour proposition to make it really a State concern.

In choosing the via media between those two and choosing to put the control and working of the Shannon scheme under a separate board I think the Minister was right. I do not think it at all follows that a board appointed by the Executive Council will be a board that can be described as being under State control. In that connection I would rather side myself with what I take to be the views of the Minister, that he would endeavour as far as possible to keep this board from being under the influence of either State or politics. I think the matter is simply, as far as the development of the Shannon scheme is concerned, inevitable, but the development of the Shannon scheme must have raised in the mind of the Minister the question of how far that development affected existing undertakings. Taking it for granted that there was to be this board, the question immediately arose what were to be its powers, if any, in connection with other undertakings. Now, one's view as to the goodness or badness of the scheme adopted by the Minister will largely depend on the particular point of view with which he faces the probable actions of such a board. To my mind the board will find itself in this position. On the one hand it will have to do its best to secure custom, as it is necessary to make the scheme as great a commercial success as possible. On the other hand, it will have to view the interests of the public in every particular district either at present supplied with electricity or to be supplied at some future date.

It will help the farmers, and the people throughout the country, as far as possible, will be brought into closer touch with one another. I think the success of the board and the success of the supply of electricity to the citizens of this State in the future will very much depend upon the success with which this board is able to bring those two points of view into proper relationship one with another. If one views the proposed scheme from the point of view of how it will turn out, I think one would be obliged to say that it is possible it would work badly. But if one views it from the angle as to whether it is possible to make the scheme work well, I for my part would be obliged to say that I would be quite hopeful that it would work well, and that it would be possible not to make this a scheme which excluded competition. In this connection I would like the Minister to be as explicit as possible in replying. It does not seem to me that the principle that there is not going to be competition is involved in this Bill. I think it is better that competition should be set up with other schemes which might be possible in other districts.

It is conceivable that other districts might be able to supply electrical energy at cheaper rates than it could be supplied from the Shannon. To what extent that competition should be allowed to continue without a detrimental effect upon the general success of the Shannon scheme it is hard to say. It does not seem to me that this scheme necessarily means a monopoly. I do not think that anybody could say that in the future the ultimate demands of the country for electrical power for various purposes could, with certainty, be supplied from the Shannon scheme itself. Possibly, other schemes may have to be worked along with the Shannon scheme, and this is a matter that it is well to keep in mind, and it is well that the board should keep it in mind in all its proceedings.

The whole thing seems to me to be centred upon the policy of the board, as Deputy O'Connell put it, but, as I would prefer to put it, upon the personnel of the board. It will rest with those who appoint that board, in the first place, to see that the personnel of that board is chosen in the way most practical to make this a success, on the one hand, for the Shannon scheme and, on the other hand, for the interests of the public in all the districts concerned. With the Minister, I think, if I understood him aright, I have not yet arrived at any conclusion as to whether more good or harm is likely to be gained by making these appointments of such a short term as five years. I think a great deal is to be said on each side of that question. I think it is essential that those who are chosen should be left as free as possible to work out the scheme free from undue criticism, certainly from the political point of view, for a considerable period of time. On the other hand, the possibility must be faced that the first choice may not be the best choice, and that the scheme might be put in the hands of people who were not making the best out of it. And, therefore, in contingencies other than those which the Minister indicated it should be possible for a change to be made in the management.

But the real responsibility will rest in the first place upon the Executive Council when they come to make appointments, and, in the next, upon those who will be chosen to make the scheme a success. In that connection I would rather differ from Deputy O'Connell and agree with the Minister in not specifying that the board must be chosen from our own citizens. I think it is of the first importance that those who are most likely to prove to be the best managers under this system should be the ones selected—all the better if we can choose our own nationals, if the proper men are there. In the event of others being available, I think it would be necessary to keep open the possibility of making use of them. I was very glad to hear the Minister say that it was his intention to use our own men as far as possible on this board and to fill up the board from them. I hope he will go a step further and, so far as it lies in his power, see that our own get, so far as they are available, equal possibilities of being employed as technical experts or on the engineering staff. To my mind, as I have said, whether this scheme will be a success or not will entirely depend upon the success of the Executive Council in choosing the right men for the post.

I do not think that we gain anything by labelling the scheme as State nationalisation, monopolistic, socialistic, or anything of that kind. I do not attempt, in my own mind, the classification of it in one category or the other. I think it is quite easy to understand the position taken up by Deputy Hewat, because it is true that possibly the scheme may not work out as we would desire. But there are always such possibilities and one has only to look to what is most probable. I think if a proper board is chosen it is quite possible that they should be able to work out a scheme successfully without doing any undue injury to other schemes that are at work at present, or likely to be at work in the future. The Minister, in creating this board and giving it control over the Shannon scheme, had to consider how he could enable it to deal with other schemes which were not working, and I do not see how it is possible in the Bill to give the board the necessary powers in that respect without doing it in some such way as the Bill seeks. I would like the Minister to correct me on this point, if I am wrong. It by no means follows that the powers given to the board will be exercised; it by no means follows that all schemes must be brought within the range of the board. That unification, to a certain extent, is desirable, but the competitive element may be also desirable, and the possibility of working those two things together seems to me to remain with the scheme as outlined in the Bill. I do not think it is advisable, at this stage, to go into details at all, and, therefore, while there are some details of such a nature as to be almost important enough to raise to the rank of principles, I will reserve them to a later stage of the Bill.

Mr. NORTON

I want to ask the Minister some questions in connection with this Bill, in order to get some enlightenment on certain phases of the Bill on which I am not clear at the moment. It would appear to me that under the Bill local authorities still retain a local monopoly. But I do not see anything in the Bill which enables the area of supply to be altered in such a way as to allow the local authority to be a supplier outside its present area of supply. It would appear to me that a local authority which has a certain defined area of supply at present gets no facilities from this Bill for going outside that area of supply, and it is possible for a new company to be set up and given the standing of "authorised supplier," and, according to Section 67 of the Bill, I think a new authority, a private company, can get authority to supply electricity in that area so long as the Minister previously consults that local authority.

I think there should be some provision in the Bill for allowing a local authority to extend its area of supply —not making it obligatory on it to extend its area of supply, but giving it some facility for extending its area of supply if it so desires. That would reduce their overhead charges considerably and would enable the existing authorised supplier to supply electricity much cheaper, because of the reduction in overhead expenses, than a new authorised supplier could possibly supply it, especially in the early stages of its development. There is nothing in the Bill that enables a number of local authorities to combine for the purpose of supplying electricity. A number of local authorities adjoining each other might, with advantage I think, be given facilities for combining as a single electrical undertaking.

It would give them the flexibility of ordinary business management without that other objection to private enterprise—profit-making. I think some provision should be made in the Bill for allowing the local authorities to combine as a single electrical undertaking for the supply of electricity. As this Bill is now before us, and as the Shannon scheme has now been in the course of construction for a considerable time, I presume the Minister will be able to give some indication as to the charges for electricity. I would like to ask him if he has any information as to the cost of supplying electricity at, say, Mullingar, Castlebar, Donegal, Mallow, and Dublin. The scheme is fairly well under weigh now, and we ought to have some information as to the cost of supplying electricity for all these centres. The Minister, in a speech yesterday, talked of the need for taking the distribution end of the supply of current away from the board and giving it to private suppliers. I would like to ask the Minister whether it is intended during any period of 24 hours to supply current to private firms at less than the cost of generating? And if it is necessary to supply current at less than the cost of generating, is it the intention of the Minister that some preference should be given to Irish firms or Irish bodies who may be able to find a use for that energy, in preference to foreign syndicates who may utilise it for manufacturing purposes, such as the manufacture of fertilisers or something of that description? I want to ask the Minister, too, how much of this high tension net work will be erected when the power from the Shannon scheme is made available? How much of it will be available in the uneconomic areas of supply such as sparsely populated areas in the West and NorthWest of this country?

Under the first schedule of the Bill employees of authorised or statutory undertakings who may be displaced, or whose duties may be varied as a result of the operations of the board or the operations of this Bill when it becomes an Act, may lose their employment. I notice that no consideration whatever is apparently to be given to people who have less than five years' service. Now, under the Railways Act the Minister undertook to bring in people who have less than five years' service, and he gave them some consideration for the loss of their employment. If that facility is extended to the employees of railway companies I think it should also be extended to the employees of local authorities. The schedule, too, proposes as compensation for the loss of office, to give a person a maximum pension of two-thirds of his annual remuneration and emoluments to be calculated at the rate of one-sixtieth of the annual remuneration and emoluments for each completed year of his employment with the authorised undertakers. In the Railways Act a certain number of years were added as compensation for disturbance of the employee. I think here also a number of years should be added. In my view it is not adequate compensation for a man of ten years' service to be given ten-sixtieths of his annual salary and emoluments. Surely ten-sixtieths is very poor compensation for disturbance to that person. I think, just as in the case of the Railways Act, the Minister should give some years of added service in calculating the pension to which the displaced employee would be entitled. There is nothing in the Bill either which renders it obligatory upon the board to introduce a pension scheme for its employees. That was embodied in the Railways Act also.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Not obligatory.

Mr. NORTON

It was not quite obligatory, but there was an assurance that it would be given. This is a big State electrical scheme, and I think that the Minister should give some indication that the employees under this scheme, who, if they are satisfactory, will I presume be guaranteed continued employment, should get some consideration in the matter of pensions for satisfactory service. It is hard to visualise that a big scheme such as this would not make that provision for its employees. Private firms, quite apart from State or semi-State schemes, recognise the necessity for making some provision upon those lines, and I think the Minister should give some indication that he intends to introduce a pension scheme for persons who may be employed under the operations of this board.

Mr. M.J. HENNESSY

I wish to refer very briefly to Section 47. which states:—"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 so on. "And take such remuneration or rents and charges and make such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon." I raise this matter because I am not satisfied that the Dáil is making sufficient provision in this section for the manufacture of electrical goods which will be needed under this scheme. With the rapid progress the scheme is making, I hope that at a very early date there will be a distribution of cheap current through a very large area of the Saorstát. With the advent of the cheap current there will follow the need for electrical goods and fittings for heating and lighting and so on. I think in discussing this Bill we should make ample provision for the manufacture of as much as possible of goods of this description. We should make ample provision in this Bill to manufacture those goods in the Saorstát.

We are well aware that at the moment large sums of money are being exported annually for these goods. I do not think there is any manufacturer of electrical apparatus in this country, and if this scheme is going to be the great success which we all hope, a great national and commercial success, I think it is essential that with the distribution and the generation of current there should go, hand in hand, the manufacture of the necessary appliances, fittings and other articles that will be required, in connection with the consumption of electricity. At the moment, as the Dáil is aware, we have a number of vacant suitable sites where the manufacture of these articles could be carried on. I have one place in my mind where there is a very large range of sheds. I refer to Haulbowline dockyard, which has cost the State five millions of money. It has been lying idle for the last few years, and I think it is time we talked seriously about putting this place to work. It is costing the State a sum of about £15,000 annually. That money is largely unproductive, and I think when such a board is set up, we would be afforded some opportunities at all events of getting this place to work.

It is quite possible that there are other places of equal importance, but I think this is a very important place. Here is a place where we have had a very large number of skilled men idle for years. Some of them, with their families, emigrated. We have still however, a large number of these men left, and with this subsidy of £15,000 a year I think there should be no great difficulty in getting to work under the Control Board and manufacturing all these articles. We cannot expect, of course, that all our requirements will be manufactured there. That, of course, is impossible. I do not wish to put forward anything so unreasonable, but I think that the Dáil should insist that the Board should early undertake the manufacture of these goods, and we should not leave it as it is here in the Bill, a very indefinite statement, and leave it to the Board to decide whether it will or will not engage in the manufacture of these articles. The section states that the Board may decide, but I think the Dáil should now decide for the Board and insist that the Board will undertake at the very earliest date the manufacture of these goods. When the Minister is replying I would like to get his views on this matter.

Mr. CORISH

I have very little to say on this matter, and I would not have spoken at all were it not for the speech we have just heard delivered. Deputy Hennessy asked the Minister to provide a certain amount of money to enable a factory to be started in his area with a view to manufacturing materials and fittings which might be used in the transmission of current throughout the State. I am in a position to tell the Minister—and he knows it already—that Wexford is capable of manufacturing these articles without any subsidy. We have already brought that aspect of the situation before the Minister and I hope he is not going to lose sight of it. I was rather surprised to hear some of the criticisms levelled against this scheme. I was rather amused at the case made by Deputy Hewat. He spoke of England as a parallel case and suggested they were wrong in appointing a central board. I think England would be very pleased indeed if she were in the position to-day of the Free State. As far as I can see, the tendency all over the world is towards centralisation of electrical undertakings of this kind. Some of us, the Party to which I belong, supported the Shannon scheme from the beginning. We had reason for criticising the Government and the contractors, as far as the employment of workmen was concerned, but apart from that we are wholly behind the Government in this scheme.

Another matter on which I would like to be a little more certain is the question of the relations between this board and the different local authorities in the country. Deputy Hewat spoke of confiscation in connection with the taking over of municipal undertakings. Personally, I think that very few municipal undertakings, so far as electricity is concerned, are paying to-day, and as far as confiscation is concerned, it will be confiscation of liabilities and debts, more so than assets.

I would like to know whether this Board will deal directly with the local authorities as such in the beginning, in so far as the relations and the application of the Shannon scheme is concerned, in any particular area, because I know of certain places where gas companies have already approached the Government with a view to being recognised as authorised undertakers for the supply of electricity. I do think it would be a disaster if the offers or applications of gas companies were entertained as against the interests of the people, which are better preserved through the local authorities.

I do know also that some local authorities have borrowed practically up to their limit and that they might not be in a position to borrow the required money to enable them to take advantage of this scheme. The President, being conversant with Local Government matters, knows that the limitations of local authorities, in so far as their borrowing powers are concerned, have not been varied since the beginning of the war. That matter ought to be looked into in the near future, as the value of money now is entirely different from what it was pre-war. That fact alone might prevent local authorities from taking advantage of this scheme. Deputy Hewat talked to us about a gentleman named Hoover, and gave us the benefit of some of this gentleman's views. I am not convinced, and I do not think anybody else is convinced, by the views attributed to this gentleman. One would imagine that he was another Moses. I would like to know how the American Government came to take any notice of what I call this gentleman's ravings. Deputy Hewat also talked about monopoly, confiscation, and nationalisation, and said it is so much Socialism. I think it is rather amusing to think that the present Government is becoming Socialistic, but there are worse things than confiscation and nationalisation.

There are big monopolies in this country, and so far as I know Deputy Hewat himself is mixed up in some of these monopolies. Take the shipping industry in this country at the moment. There is a perfect ring in the shipping industry, with the result that it is impossible to get competitive rates, and I do think that if the Government could get control or do something in that direction on the lines they are following, so far as the transmission of electrical current is concerned, it would be a very good thing. I welcome the Bill. I think it is a forward step on the part of the Government, and I think before long even the opponents of the Bill will welcome it as a great measure.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Outside of a number of small points, the discussion has centred largely around two things—the question of the board, its powers and personnel, and the matter of the non-statutory undertakings. I would like to deal with the two bigger matters first. Deputy O'Connell wondered at my emphasising so much the fact that this board is to be independent to the degree that I stated, and he said that he would not like it to be understood that such a board would be independent of criticism by the House. I rather set out yesterday to give the negative side, to give the hindrances to criticism, but I also did emphasise the particular point upon which certainly a debate might be raised in the House annually in regard to the board. I did point out, and I would like to point out again, that if this Bill passes as it is at the moment, there will be no discussion on Estimates, there will be no matter of Parliamentary Questions in the House, not even that type of permitted Parliamentary Question which is sometimes indulged in in regard to the railways. Even that will be done away with.

Mr. DAVIN

And there will be no interference with the board by the Minister or from his Department?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

None whatever. A question to that effect might be answered, but that will be the only type of Parliamentary Question that will be answered. But there is to be presented annually a report of the proceedings of the board, with such statistics and other details as may be required. That report is to be presented to both Houses of the Oireachtas, and, presumably, on that a motion might be moved or a debate engineered. But what I wanted to emphasise yesterday, what I would like again to emphasise, and what I think it would be a desirable thing to have thoroughly understood before people commit themselves to a vote when we come to that detail, is that there will be no discussion such as ordinarily arises here, say, on the Post Office, and there will be no questions such as are ordinarily put to the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs relating to the work of his Department.

On this other matter of the personnel of the board, I was asked what exactly are to be the qualifications required for membership, and, particularly, is there to be the first big qualification required for any member of it, that he shall be a subject of this State. There was some thought of putting that into the Bill and making it one of the few points which would appear necessary before appointments were made under Section 6, but on the whole it was decided that it would be better to leave it out. It could be inserted; amendments can be put down, and we could have a discussion on the point, but it does not seem to be necessary so to define. If the first board is going to be composed wholly of Irishmen there is no reason whatever why all subsequent boards should not be composed of Irishmen. If there was any case for putting in foreigners it would arise on the appointment of the first board, and only for the appointment of that first board, and if you have declared the intention that the first board will be in so far as the present Government has any say in the matter, an Irish body, wholly and completely, there need be no worry about inserting any such provision with regard to any second or other board.

The matter of political influence with regard to this board has been mentioned by a great many speakers, but Deputy Cooper was the only one who made a positive suggestion. He alluded to the board of management which now operates the Belgium railway system. That is a board composed of twenty-one people, of whom eighteen are actually nominated by the Government, and three are nominated by the employees. But of those eighteen nominated by the King—as it is there—three have to be chosen from a list put up by different interests representing industry, commerce, labour and agriculture. But three alone out of the twenty-one have to be chosen from a list. It is not that the three names are definitely put to the Government by groups representing these various interests of which I have spoken, but that from a list put up by them the Government itself choses three out of a board of twenty-one.

Major COOPER

Is the Minister quite accurate? I think six of the eighteen are not nominated by the Government, but by the Commissioners of Public Debt, or some such body.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Five are nominated by the King and are supposed to represent the Sinking Fund. Three are nominated by the employees, and three are nominated by the Government, from a list representative of the interests I have spoken of. The rest are definitely and completely at the disposal of the Government, and can be described and, in fact, are described, I think, as being clearly political appointments, meant to represent the political party in power, and meant to carry out, with regard to transport in Belgium, the views of the party that happens to hold office at the moment. Deputy Cooper's suggestion was the only positive one that was made with regard to the Board. Anything else has been in the nature of a good deal of vague fear—could this Board be free from political prejudice or political pressure if appointed by an Executive Council? Nobody has made any suggestion as to how that is to be avoided. We come to the same point again in this matter of an arbitrator. Objection has been raised to one of the many arbitrators who may be appointed under this Bill being nominated by me in my capacity as a Minister, and the suggestion is that that person should be nominated by the court, or a suggestion made with regard to this Board from outside was that the members of the Board should be appointed by the Civil Service Commission. I never can understand the mentality that is behind that kind of thing. I, as one member of the Executive Council, am supposed to be sufficiently free from political prejudice to appoint judges who will administer the law without prejudice or favour, and then those people, who are, to a certain extent, my creatures, are supposed to be able to appoint arbitrators, although I myself would not be allowed to appoint an arbitrator in a particular instance. The same thing holds with regard to the Civil Service Commission.

Mr. HEWAT

Is there any analogy? A judge goes on the Central Fund and the others do not.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The Civil Service Commissioners do not go on any fund.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

The Civil Service Commission are appointed in a particular way, and the people who appointed them are not supposed to be fit to make junior appointments, although these people appointed in the first instance by them are supposed to be capable of doing that. I do not know where it comes in. I can see in the particular case to which Deputy Myles referred, the acquisition of land under the Shannon Act, where it would come in. There it would be, of course, totally wrong for the appointment of the arbitrator to lie in my hands at this particular time, because I am definitely and clearly an interested party there. But once this Board is set up I personally have nothing in the way of responsibility for it. I have no interest in it, and I wash my hands of it completely.

Mr. DAVIN

Is it not a fact that under Section 4 a case could be made in certain circumstances for the removal of a member of the Board for certain stated reasons? Could not reasons be brought about by political pressure from the Executive Council for the removal of a member?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Let me come to that. If it is suggested that an Executive Council wants to remove a member of the Board for political purposes and is going to do so, whether these political purposes be good, bad or indifferent, as long as it has a majority of the elected representatives in the House behind it I say that no Executive Council would want to do that. Deputy Davin thinks that if we ourselves amended this Bill to ensure that that sort of thing could not happen you would avoid political pressure. Let us imagine a Labour Government in power, and that we had tightened this clause before we left office, so that the kind of thing that Deputy Davin fears could not take place in so far as we could effect it. The Labour Government would have the majority of the House supporting it, and it could amend any clause which we put into the Bill in our endeavour to tie the hands of future Governments.

You are going to get more of a political storm over an amendment of the Bill than you are over what is here. An Executive Council at a future date, under the section as it stands, wants to remove a member of the board. Before removing him it must present to each House of the Oireachtas a statement in writing of the fact of the removal and the reasons for such removal. If those reasons are not good and sufficient, there could be such a storm raised here that that removal could be cancelled. Political pressure may, of course, operate. As long as people are human, nobody can say that you have for ever done away with the idea of political pressure in appointments, but you cannot do away with it by tying up that section any tighter than it is, because if the pressure be strong enough, the Party having a majority, if it seems good and sufficient, can tear that section to pieces by an amendment. It may seem to put further hindrances and obstacles in their way, but it is a question whether it really amounts to a whole lot.

I should like also to point out that there is a fear underlying certain remarks made about the board that in fact the appointments are going to be political appointments. It is loosely phrased:

The Board shall consist of a Chairman and such number (not being less than two nor more than six) of other members as the Executive Council shall from time to time determine.

I can imagine people rubbing their hands over this and saying: "Here it is at last; on the eve of going out of office five or six pals have to be placed somewhere. This is the first time we have had it openly come out that there are certain people who must be favoured, and now five or six people are to be favoured." I can imagine all sorts of places in which, if opportunities were less restricted than they are at present, people—I do not say the present Government—might want to instal friends, but I can hardly imagine anybody being foolish enough to put a friend into a position of such responsibility, where the individual's own reputation is going to be at stake and going to be tested in the very difficult period of the first five years' working of the scheme. There is far too much responsibility; far too much fear of loss of reputation.

Major MYLES

Nobody made the suggestion.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

The suggestion has not been made, but there has been a lot of fear about it. I was asked a question last night which amounted to this: Was I going to take care to appoint competent people? An effort was made to convey that the experts would have what I would describe as such impudence to say to a Government: "Take care to appoint competent people to this Board." I always assume when people use the word "jobbery," or anything of that sort, that they mean only one thing—that incompetent people are going to be put in to the detriment of other people with a better reputation and a better right to the post. I do not know whether it is going to be brought forward in the form of an amendment, but there was a suggestion made that it would be better to have stated qualifications in regard to the members of the Board. I am simply answering that by saying that it is, of course, an objection which will go by the board if, for instance, what Deputy Baxter said to-day should prove to be in line with the wishes of the House. If, for instance, you are going to make life appointments, or to extend the term of such appointments, then an incompetent person might think it worth while to take up a position, knowing that at the end of fifteen years he would come out with a battered reputation, but with enough in the way of provision made to live down any bad reputation he might have acquired. As long as the section is as it stands, with simply a five years' appointment, with such a person's reputation at stake, with the matter of removal from office for reasons stated being left there, I do not see that it is necessary to have any declaration as to either (a) capacity or expert qualifications, or (b) the interest that any member of the Board is supposed to represent.

I do not like to insist upon the five years' appointment. I might say that the five years' appointment, with the eligibility for re-appointment at the end, is only put down as a means of testing feeling in the House. But I felt it was better to start off with the idea of a short-term appointment at the very beginning, rather than a fifteen or twenty years appointment. I say at the beginning, and I say that specially, because the first five or six years of the scheme are going to be the hard years, the years in which people may be found to be incapable of working successfully what is given to them to work and there may have to be numerous changes in the first five years. I think if there is a new board being appointed about 1932, or a couple of years after, when the scheme would, on the experts' calculations, and on anybody else's calculations, have found its feet, then in order at least to put more and more into the background this idea of political pressure, and to get away from this rather dangerous idea of very short-term appointments, it might be better to say that the appointments shall be for ten years, and give a right to enlarge that term by an additional five or ten years, if it seemed good. But there will be no insistence on the five years. I should like to have thought out just what are the dangers of the short-term appointments and set against them the obvious dangers of long-term appointments, the very definite danger of giving a man a life appointment in such a business as this.

Professor THRIFT

Does the Minister think that he is sure to get good men who will undertake this for a short period?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

That will be the difficulty. I have very much more fear on that score than on the score of a tremendous number of people rolling up for the pensions that they think they have deserved for, say, political reasons. It will be very difficult to get men who are sufficiently expert to be thought worthy of appointment to this board to leave whatever they are at present engaged in, to take up a post which is so onerous and may have such a bad effect upon their reputation for the rest of their lives, and offer them merely five years with no pension rights or anything else arising out of that appointment—simply a five-year period to make good in the hardest years of this scheme, with dismissal as their only end if the scheme does not prove entirely successful.

Deputy Baxter also insisted upon the point with regard to interests being represented. I would agree with just what he said to-day if it is not pressed to the point of having a definite declaration in the Bill that there shall be interests clearly represented on the board. I think there is no doubt that, simply as an instruction, what Deputy Baxter has said might be accomplished—that it should be an instruction to the Executive Council that they should bear in mind that rural electrification is going to be a big thing and a very difficult thing to attain, and that it is necessary that there should be on the board people who understood the state of the country agriculturally and be able to talk to the farmers on that very problem. If that was to be taken as a sort of general indication of the intention of the Dáil I would willingly accept it—it would almost be my own idea. But I would object to having inserted in the section that of those members one shall be representative of one thing and a second shall be representative of another. I do not want to have a board which at its first meeting is going to line up along two sides of the table, three having combined as representing certain interests to fight against the two or three others on the board, and that from that time on we were going to get a definite cleavage on the board, interest opposing interest, and harmony being absent from the whole proceedings. There is going to be a very big task before this authority. It is going to be a task that will require the united efforts of the whole six or seven members, or as many as may be appointed, and any lack of harmony that may be caused by conflicting interests, by the representation of different interests on the board, should be avoided as much as possible.

I was asked by somebody why I have not kept to the English Act, and have two Boards, one to run the Shannon and another to look after the supply. I presume that means that there should be Electricity Commissioners over and above this Board, and that there should be, in the second place, a Board more or less to run or manage the Shannon scheme, to get rid of Shannon current. That idea was considered, but the difficulty here, to be quite plain about it, is one of personnel. First of all, one would require for that purpose three men, say, as Electricity Commissioners, and three, four or five as a Board. I do not think that you will get the work that this Board has got to do done by less than five or six people. If I was told I had to search and get not merely five or six people, but nine or ten people, three of them to be in a superior position to the Board, and more expert than the Board, my answer would be I cannot see the possibility of getting so many in this country. But I do not see any great virtue in having three Electricity Commissioners. These Commissioners are very valuable where you have electricity being more or less regulated by the State, and where the Commissioners' duty is to manage and see that the consumers are protected. What protection do the consumers need against this Board? If anything the Board will be running after the consumers; their object will be to get as many consumers as possible, and the only way they can do that is to please the public as much as they can, and there will be no real necessity, as in the case of Electricity Commissioners, for intervening between people operating for gain and the consuming public. There is no reason similar to that for this Board, whose only object is to make the scheme pay and to serve the consumers. They can only make it pay by getting a big number of consumers who will be served at a low rate. There is no reason for having those people governed by three or four electricity companies.

Now, as to the matter of non-statutory undertakers, the Bill, it is stated, is vague, and it is definitely vague, because it will require three or four or six months' examination before anyone can definitely say of the ninety —even to limit matter to the ninety undertakings of which I spoke yesterday—that of these ninety some should simply be not allowed to operate any more; some should be made authorised undertakings by the State and given a bigger area, with extra finances to run that area, and others should be bought out on the same terms as is proposed for the authorised undertakers. What is going to happen at the beginning is this: This is what I imagine will be the course of the Board. The Board, of course, can do what it pleases afterwards. Every authorised undertaker will be given a permit, and that permit will enable that authorised undertaker to carry on, as at present, until such time as the board is able to make an examination into the particular plant, into its net-work, if it has a net-work, of any type, into the employees, and into the finance and the moneys lodged, and such moneys as are being set against writing off, against maintenance and renewals; and also the profits, if any, that it has made over a period of years. It will take a lengthy examination by the board before such matters as that should be determined. Once they are determined, the tendency of the Bill is that the good unauthorised undertakers should be allowed to be authorised for a particular period and fall into the category of the authorised ones in regard to being bought out and taken over as going concerns; that others will not be allowed to carry on any further. There may be an apprehension of injustice in that, and it may be asked: Why should anybody, carrying on at the moment, not be allowed to carry on further? I am afraid the exact position of those non-authorised undertakers has not been fully understood. Any man can come into an area at the moment. He can pick the cream of the customers in that area and he can say to half a dozen of them: We will give you electricity at such and such a rate. He can go to another lot and say: We will give it to you at double that rate. He can say to another body of people there: We will give you a tremendous preference if you do certain things. And two years later, having quarrelled with the people to whom he gave preferential treatment, he may say to them: We are adding sixpence or ninepence per unit to your rate.

Major MYLES

Is that being done?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I am not saying it is done. It certainly has not been done to any great extent.

Major MYLES

May I also ask the Minister if it is not a fact that the great majority of these undertakings are run on the lines of authorised undertakings and as if they were working under statute with the same ideas before them?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I would not answer "yes" to that question, because the idea of authorised undertakers is that they get an area marked out, and in that area a monopoly, and to all consumers who require electricity they must give a supply. I cannot say at all, to take the area that ordinarily would be marked out, taking the location of most of the authorised undertakers, that anything like the full number of the consumers are being supplied. If those people came under authority I doubt, myself, if the fact that Deputy Myles spoke of, the fear of expense incurred in changing over from non-statutory and becoming statutory, was the deterrent in making them wait. I think it was this: that once they came under statutory control they were limited in various ways. Their rates would be under regulations, consumers had definite rights, and the obligation was imposed to supply all consumers in the area.

I asked Deputy Myles when he spoke on that other point had there not been a definite undertaking given that if the cost of the special order seemed to be the deterrent that £10 per undertaking would see them through, and the Deputy in reply asked me what about those who did guarantee to become statutory in such conditions. Of course, I was not giving the precise term of the offer made. The offer made was more or less to this effect. The expenditure would be met by £10 per undertaking if 40, out of the total of 90, came in together. But I do not know if the Deputy knows of the figure with regard to those who made any further offer. Out of 27 or so 23 made an additional offer to come in under the £10 rate, but when pressed a little further most of them disappeared, and we finally had seven remaining who were willing to pay the £10 expenditure and become statutory, and to put themselves under all the obligations that the statutory undertaker has to consumers.

Major MYLES

May I ask if there was not a Bill then looming in view?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

There was. That is only speaking of the last couple of years. Deputy Myles spoke of a period much further back, when the expenditure might run to £1,000, but in between there was a long term of years in which for less than £40 undertakers could have brought themselves under statutory control and did not do it.

Major MYLES

Where?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

How many did it?

Major MYLES

In this country?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Yes, there was a period obviously, since 1922, in which the expenses had gone down considerably. Let me confine myself to that period. How many people brought themselves under statutory control since 1922? Very few. It was not the cost of the special order that was the deterrent but it was because these people wanted to remain unregulated for purposes of their own.

Major MYLES

We had it before us, but those who saw private bills going through here and who noticed the number of lawyers at lunch here every day had some idea of what a private bill was going to cost. I think that was the deterrent.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

We might argue about that for a long time. Now, as to the position of a non-statutory undertaker. Such undertaker was wholly without regulation, and the position into which he is now going to be put is that for, at least a period, he is going to be allowed to carry on as before under a permit. That is necessary in order to prevent other people springing up in the night and putting themselves in line for compensation later. Non-statutory undertakers will be permitted to carry on until such time as the board is able to make an inquiry as to their plant and their financial standing, and it will then decide if they are suitable cases for compensation. When that decision is come to, it will be easy for them to become authorised and to fall under the conditions of the Bill with regard to authorised undertakers. I think it was Deputy Cooper who spoke on behalf of those people. It is recognised that they have done good work and that there is an area of supply open to the new board that would not otherwise be open under such easy conditions. I would like to say—this would apply to a minority of non-statutory undertakers—that the board would find themselves prejudiced in certain areas where there were inefficient undertakers before them, and where people, unless generous terms were given, would not be disposed to advance in regard to electricity until the old undertakers had disappeared. There is every intention to treat these people generously, but there is no intention to make the general body of consumers pay for the wiping out of people who are inefficient, people who, even by bringing the latest ideas to their job, by having modern plant and equipment and by using great enterprise, could not possibly be efficient owing to the circumstances under which they were set up, their area being limited and their business being hampered and harassed from the very start.

Mr. GOOD

Will the efficient be compensated?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

We can deal with them under the section, but I would point out the difficulty of trying to arrange, prior to an inquiry into the circumstances of individual undertakers, by a general clause in a general bill, what is going to happen to all non-statutory undertakers. This Bill gives the board power to treat them all fairly and generously, and the efficient non-statutory undertaker may be made by the board not merely a permitted but an authorised undertaker. That being so, if he comes to be wiped out, the clause in regard to compensation for authorised undertakers will operate. There is, at least, power given to the board to treat these people generously, and we can discuss any furtherance of that point in detail in Committee.

Professor THRIFT

Will they be permitted to continue meantime?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

That would still apply and they may be permitted to run for a long time.

Mr. GOOD

Only under the sanction of the board?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Yes, in that respect they will be put in the same position as that in which statutory undertakings will operate in future. There has been talk of dissatisfaction that might arise if these non-statutory bodies were treated badly. It is recognised that most of these undertakings have been started and built up by local capital. There is every intention of seeing that these people are satisfied as much as possible, but the main people to be satisfied are the general body of consumers whose rights are superior to those of anybody else. So long as their rights can be balanced against those of persons who have sunk money and who have not got a proper return, we will see that the fair thing is done, but the rights of the general body of consumers are superior.

Deputy Thrift raised a point with regard to monopoly. I would go with him to the extent of saying that it is not absolutely necessary, operating under the powers given to the Board, that the Board will become sole distributors or that there will be, in fact, a monopoly. I have, however, given to the Board every power, if it likes to use it, to make itself the sole distributor in a short period of years. From what I have seen and read in regard to other countries, I think that the sooner the Board gets to that stage the better for the general body of consumers, even if compensation has to be paid on a pretty good scale. The economies and benefits that would flow from having distribution under one Board or authority are so enormous I would like to see the day coming speedily.

Mr. GOOD

Does not the Minister hope that eventually the demand for power will be greater even than the Shannon scheme can supply?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Yes, and it is possible that there may be some other generating power-supply authority than the Board, but if such schemes come into being, and if there is supply from some other station than the Shannon, the Board has sufficient powers to step in and take them over.

Mr. HEWAT

Sub-section (4) of Section 33 shows it is obvious that they not only have power to prevent anybody generating electricity, but that anybody who dares to make a unit of electricity may be put in prison, just as if he were a poteen maker.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I am glad that phrase has been used, as the purpose of that section has been described to me as the prevention of electricity-shebeening. That is what it comes to. A few small points have been raised during the debate. Deputy O'Connell, I think, has read too much into my remarks concerning the ideas behind the Board. He asked whether the idea of operating on a basis of no profit or no loss would hold, not merely with regard to the Board but with regard to local authorities or private companies operating under it. The Bill does not go as far as Deputy O'Connell seems to think. Sub-section (2) of Section 20 states that all charges made by the Board on or before the 31st December, 1932, for electricity (whether derived from the Shannon works or otherwise) shall be fixed at such rate and on such scale that the revenue derived in any year by the Board will be sufficient, and only sufficient, to pay all salaries, working expenses, and other out-goings of the Board. That is confined to any revenue derived in any year by the Board. The Board might sell in bulk to a private company—there will be private companies, obviously from the fact that there are in areas where the Shannon scheme will not be supposed to reach for years to come undertakings which might be allowed to continue. If the Shannon scheme was available to such areas, and if it was found that an undertaking was efficient and had all the latest devices to induce an extra demand for electricity, the Board can sell in bulk, but that authority, buying electricity in bulk, can do what it pleases with its supply, subject to the further power of the Board to regulate charges. If the Board is going to permit any agent in the type of a private individual, or corporation, to carry on, there will have to be some allowance made for profits, as otherwise you cannot understand a private enterprise shouldering the responsibility of an undertaking taking electricity in bulk, paying the employees, and meeting other charges without any profit on the money invested. There is no intention of having that going to the root of things, except only when the Board became the sole distributor. In so far as the Board is the distributor in any area or number of areas, its operations have to be governed by the principle that its revenue shall be sufficient, and only sufficient, to meet all outgoings.

Mr. T.J. O'CONNELL

Would the Board have the right to set up a new body in an area not already opened up —would it have a right to allow to be set up in such an area a new company and allow them to make profit?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

As the Bill stands, the Board can authorise anybody to do so, provided it thinks fit. It may take one of those areas where there is no undertaker, and it might get a collection of people and say to them: "We cannot go into this area at the moment, and we want somebody to take it over." They might amalgamate a certain group and say: "We will, under this Act, supply you with power in bulk at such a rate, and will you guarantee to set up the local distribution network and supply so many customers? We will give you the monopoly for so many years and regulate your charges outside, but we will allow you to charge so that you will have a profit yourself."

Mr. O'CONNELL

Is there anything in the Bill which would prevent the Board adopting that as a general policy if they so thought fit?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

There is nothing definitely in any section of the Bill to prevent that. The Board is being set up for the purpose of amalgamating and consolidating all the distribution people and the small authorities, and they would be acting quite contrary to the whole spirit of the measure if they allowed that. It might be a suitable policy in a particular area, but the Board would certainly be acting quite contrary to the spirit of the whole intention of this measure if they adopted that as a general policy. The general policy should be that of amalgamation and consolidation and the wiping out of distributors.

Mr. O'CONNELL

Would it be possible to secure in the Bill that that would be their policy?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

You cannot secure a policy in a Bill. You can put it that they shall do this, that and the other, and you can give them permission to do other things, but you cannot indicate a tendency in a Bill. You give certain powers, and you say that the people who are given these powers shall act on particular lines. They will have their own judgment afterwards. If they find that the best policy would be that of authorising new people in new areas and acting through agents of that type, if they find that the burden of over-centralisation is too big, they can adopt any policy they please as the Bill stands.

Deputy Cooper has referred to the question of the auditors to be appointed by the Government and paid by the Board, and he suggested the Comptroller and Auditor-General. This board is not a State Department, and we do not want the accounts audited by the Comptroller and Auditor-General because that would be bringing the board within the scope and ambit of a Government Department. We do not want the board to have that appearance. There is a point, however, in what the Deputy said. I suppose it is possible that the Minister hereafter might appoint auditors who were not, perhaps, auditors in any sense of the term, and in that way you might not get a proper view of the operations of the Board. If it is possible to put in some phrase that would limit it to chartered accountants, or people who could be easily defined I would be willing to accept it. The difficulty is in definition.

Deputy Cooper also spoke of private people who have set up, say, an engine of their own, and are producing electricity for their own purposes. As far as Section 33 is concerned the board has no function with regard to these people whatever. The section says: "Any person who shall sell electricity or supply electricity for sale." If you have a person who has some sort of mill or factory that he is working for himself, and if he is supplying his own house from the plant, that individual would not come under it. Section 23 has some reference to this: "The board may require any person controlling or using electrical apparatus to give to the board, and every such person when so required shall give to the board such information relating only to the nature, control, and use of such electrical apparatus as the board thinks necessary." But there is no control. It is only a matter of being able to get information, statistics, and so on, from an individual.

Major COOPER

A person producing for his own purposes only would not come under the term a permitted undertaking?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

He is not selling or supplying for sale, and as long as that phrase does not operate he does not come within the scope of the board. Two Deputies have spoken on the question of the employees. I came into the House feeling that as far as employees were concerned there has been no Bill framed that would give such satisfaction as this. Take the employees employed in anything but a generating station; as the field for employment is going to be enlarged many times, very obviously there is going to be a much bigger chance for particular employees who may fail to get re-employment by an authority. A particular employee has a better chance of employment as far as distribution is concerned. When the board steps into the shoes of any authority it takes over its rights, and it is subject to all the rights which the employees had against their previous employer. The only people who are going to be damaged under this Bill are those connected with a generating station, and provision is made for them.

Deputy Norton on that raises three points; first, that a man can prove he is five years in employment; second, that the compensation limit is two-thirds, rising by one-sixtieth for every complete year of service. There are no added years as in the case of the Railways Act. This Bill and the Railways Act are different things. Five years is the suggestion in the Railway Act, and the three year people were brought in, I think, by an amendment in the Seanad, because special claims were made in regard to the railway people, that after three years they had something corresponding to a guarantee of employment. That was denied, and would always continue to be denied, but they had more expectation of employment than the expectation of employment by people engaged in a generating station. We can discuss that in the details on the Committee Stage.

If a case can be shown where there was an expectation of continued employment, and if that arose at an earlier period than the five years, we can modify this, but only after such circumstances are proved. The added years do not arise here. Taking it on a general balance, when under the clauses of the Railways Act there is going obviously to be an amalgamation and reduction of staff, it was put to me that men trained for a big number of years at railway work could not easily fit into another class of work. Take the generating stations. I wonder how many people are definitely and clearly attached only to generating stations. They must be few. I think it will be found in the case of small undertakings that the people engaged in the generating stations are also engaged part of the time in distribution, and will have knowledge of distribution that would enable them to fit into the employment that would be given under the Shannon scheme. I object to the added years being put in here, because there can be no such case made with regard to hardship as in the case of railway employees.

Deputy Norton raised another point with regard to pensions and superannuation. I think that if the Deputy will go back and read what is laid down as an obligation on the Railway Company with regard to superannuation and pensions, and then bring in an amendment of the same sort to this Bill, he might not find much difficulty in pressing it. But let him consider whether that is going to meet the case that he thinks has to be met. Superannuation is simply a matter of contribution from two sides—contribution in this case from the Board and contribution deducted from the employees' wages. It is a question how much the deductions will be. There has been no scheme satisfactorily thought out yet with regard to railway employees, simply because there can be no agreement on what deduction there must be in order to give, after a certain number of years, what is considered to be a reasonable sum by way of superannuation. There is also the further point that at the beginning I do not think it is right to introduce this question of pensions or superannuation, either to the Board or their employees. After five years there will be a much easier view of this whole matter. One will be able to see what the demand has risen to, see what profits the Board can make at particular rates, the rates being brought down even below what they are at the moment, and what profits can they make, say, on the sale of electrical appliances. One can see what field there is for money making—profits being put thereafter to reduction of rates—more clearly after five years, what the Board has before it, and after that the question of gratuities and pensions can be considered. Right at the beginning, I think it would be a bad thing to introduce this question. When there are factors of which there is no precise measurement and on which no accurate judgment can be formed at the moment, it would be a bad thing to hamper and burden this Board with the necessity of giving pensions or gratuities by way of a superannuation fund to the employees.

Mr. NORTON

Is the Minister prepared to consider favourably the formation of a pension scheme after, say, five years?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Certainly. Those are exactly the terms of the Railways Act. There is to be thought out between the employees and the Great Southern Railways Company a scheme providing for superannuation. That scheme has not yet been thought out. Deputy Norton asked me a great many questions with regard to supply and prices and with regard to local authorities and their local monopoly.

Again, I think Deputy Norton has a completely different idea of this Bill from the idea Deputy O'Connell has. Deputy Norton apparently believes that the local authority is going to be permitted to continue its local monopoly, that it will be simply given power in bulk and be allowed to make a reduction accordingly. That is not the intention of the Bill. The intention is that the local authority, as distributor, will disappear with the private company, sooner or later. In so far as it is decided in the board's discretion to let the local authority disappear in a particular area, then the Deputy asks is there any power with regard to the alteration of the area, or any power with regard to the amalgamation of local authorities for the purposes of supply. Both these powers are given. Section 40 deals with the question of alteration of the area of supply. Section 41 has certain consequential provisions on that. Section 66 is a section dealing with mutual assistance. That would enable two or three local authorities, if permitted to exist at all, to combine in the way the Deputy seems to desire. After that the Deputy asked: Could I state what would be the cost of supply at Athlone, Mullingar, Donegal, and two or three other places. I could not say anything about the charges. I do not know whether the Deputy meant to ask me could I say what would be the rate chargeable for electricity a couple of years hence at a transformer station— that is to say, for the bulk supply outside these towns. Again, I could not give that figure at this moment while the contract is proceeding. Until the last moneys have been paid under the contract, one could not arrive accurately at the charge to be made. There are many variants. The total costs have yet to be fixed. I could give within a month or two a very clear idea of the total cost from the civil engineering side. I could give in a year a pretty close estimate of the total cost on the electrical and mechanical side. After that has been discovered, one has to discover what number of units are going to be sold. On that estimate of these two things there could be an estimate made of the charge at the transformer station outside these towns, provided——

Mr. NORTON

Can the Minister say when the Shannon electricity will be conveyed over the high tension wires on the south-east—Dublin and Wexford?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

With Shannon power?

Mr. NORTON

Yes.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

February or March, 1929; but there will be power not derivable from the Shannon available over the south-eastern circuit this year or next year. The question of price, I hope the Deputy understands, is not one that I could answer. It is a matter on which the board will have to answer hereafter. There is to be an examination of the demand and there has to be set against that the final cost of the whole scheme. There has to be added, if the Deputy wants to know, the price to the consumer in a particular area, the cost of local distribution.

Whether it be a question of the first or the second price I cannot give any particulars at the moment. We are still in the position of being able to state that what the experts have estimated is not going to be exceeded. Further than that we are not able to go. A further point was: how much of the high tension net-work will be erected? As much as we want. That is about the only answer I could make. If the Deputy takes me back to the Shannon prospect, says there was a map showing a particular lay-out, and wants to know how much of that will be erected and available in 1929, I can say that all can be erected by February, 1929, if desired, but it will be only erected if there seems to be a demand in certain areas equal to meeting the charges incurred in the erection. That is again a question for the Board to answer. That is one of the points on which the Board will have to advise my Department, having made a survey of the demand, perhaps, in certain areas—as to whether certain lines should be brought to outlying areas. That is one of the questions that has to be held over for the Board.

Again, a question was raised with regard to the supply of power at less than the cost of generating. The Deputy asked me would preference be given to native firms in opposition to foreign firms. All that question, except the question of preferential treatment, is a matter for the Board hereafter to determine. The question as to whether any industry is to get a preference in the matter of cheap power is, I think, a question that ought to be reserved for this House. The Board will fix its charges in the ordinary way, and if it is thought desirable to give assistance to a certain industry by cheaper rates it should be for this House to vote to the Board the moneys that the Board will lose by reducing their rate to that particular consumer, so that the idea of tariff policy would remain with this House and not with the Board.

Mr. NORTON

If a hundred million units of electricity are generated and there is only demand for seventy million units, unless the thirty million units, which represent the difference, are sold, there is a loss in respect of those thirty million units. You cannot put them in a bottle and cork them up. On the other hand, anything the Board would get for those thirty million units would be a gain. If they only got a halfpenny per unit, it would be a gain, because otherwise they would be lost. What need will there be for a subsidy from this House if those surplus units are sold so that there will be no loss?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

That is a different thing. The Deputy asked would there be a preferential rate to native firms as distinguished from foreign firms. All the Deputy has stated here will have to be determined by the Board. If the Board finds that it can sell so many million units at a particular rate, that there are so many million units remaining that cannot be got rid of at the ordinary commercial rate, and that somebody wants a big block of power, the board will make whatever arrangement seems to it to be best and most business-like to dispose of that surplus power. Having arranged its scale or schedule of charges, if this House decided that a particular industry was to be favoured by a supply of cheap power, it would be for this House to vote from general taxation the moneys which it would be necessary to recoup the Board in respect of the lowering of their charges.

Deputy O'Connell quarrelled with one thing in the Bill which I should have thought would have met with his approval—sub-section (3) of Section 7. That sub-section gives the Board power to use the Local Appointments Commission if it wants to do so for certain types of appointment. That is all it does. I shall be glad to take that sub-section out if it is so desired. I approached this House feeling that it would be much more suspicious than it turned out to be. I felt that there would be an outcry if certain appointments of a clerical type were not to be made by some body such as the Local Appointments Commission. The Deputy may remember—Deputy Norton certainly will remember—the fight there was for a long time to get the banks and companies like the Great Northern Railway Company to have their clerical appointments made, not purely by the directors of the company but by some system of open examination or open examination plus certain conditions. I wanted to ensure that as far as the clerical side of the work was concrned the board would have power to use some State body like the Local Appointments Commission, if they wanted to do so, but only if they wanted to do so. I will not press that clause. I will take the sub-section out if it is thought more desirable to have it out. But, personally, I believe it might be a very good thing for the Board to have power to ask the Local Appointments Commissioners to make appointments of this kind for them. The section merely imposes on the Local Appointments Commissioners the necessity of making the appointments if the Board makes the demand.

The Deputy asked, with regard to another section at the end—an amendment of the Shannon scheme—as to whether the power I am taking now would enable me to deal with the question of the schoolhouse. I have not referred specially to that schoolhouse for this reason: We have found ourselves in the position, under the Shannon Act, that where we take and acquire lands for the purposes of the Act, we can pay compensation therefor. Where we take a private house we can also pay compensation. We can pay such compensation as will enable that person to rebuild. In the case of the schoolhouse —in the absence of the Minister for Education I do not like to say much about the matter—the building is an old one and there may be a quarrel between that Department and my own as to what the value of this schoolhouse is. At all events, we have power to pay the Minister for Education for that schoolhouse whatever moneys may be hereafter agreed upon or arbitrated upon. In the case of the labourer's cottage, to which frequent reference has been made by questions here, all we can pay is a certain sum based, more or less, upon the rental. To give a labourer who was in the enjoyment of a cottage, for which he was paying one shilling a week rent, simply thirteen or fourteen or fifteen weeks' rent in lieu of his occupation of the cottage, would be ludicrously inadequate. We had to take this extra power to deal with that case. We have the power to deal with private residences and with the schoolhouse.

Mr. O'CONNELL

Surely the Minister is aware that the schoolhouse is not the property of the Minister for Education.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

It is not his property, but the Minister for Education can fight us on that particular question. There is no hindrance in the Shannon Electricity (No. 1) Act regarding the payment of sufficient compensation for the erection of a new school.

Mr. O'CONNELL

That is a new point. If the Minister says the compensation will be such as will secure the erection of a new school, it is quite satisfactory, but if the compensation were only to be the market value of the building as it stands, it would be of very little use.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

There is sufficient power to pay that compensation, but whether the Minister will be paid sufficient to erect a new schoolhouse is another question. There is no necessity for any change in the law to give us power to pay compensation for the schoolhouse.

Deputy Hewat is rather annoyed with the tendency displayed by this Bill, despite what I thought would have been apparent to most people, that this is really not to be considered State control. The most that one can say of it is that this is a Board set up and operating on business lines a commercial concern, unfettered in its commercial capacity in any way and given a provision of Government money. That is about the beginning and the end of it, except that they are armed with certain powers as regards amalgamation and consolidation. It cannot be said that they are controlled by the State. There are facilities given by the State. There are powers given to the Board if the Board wishes to bring about a general amalgamation or consolidation of supply in this country.

I am rather amazed to hear, at this stage, all this talk about State enterprise and nationalisation. I hope this thing will not wear in on me, because I can see myself hereafter observing with critical eye the Dublin business men posting their correspondence, realising that the look of dismay on their faces is not on account of their fear that the letters will not reach their destination in time but that they are using the Post Office, which is a State Department.

Mr. HEWAT

It might be due to the former reason sometimes.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I can picture Deputy O'Connell in a telephone booth making weird gestures and stamping his feet. I will have to consider that he is not being annoyed at the service that is being given him, but that he is merely exhilarated at the thought that this is a nationalised service that he is using. You can get the good and the bad of a nationalised service. All I ask people to do is not to consider those catch-cries about private enterprise and State control. You will have to get a great deal of service from this board which Deputy Hewat has labelled a nationalised board, and I do not know that one can go any further in the matter of the independence or freedom of the board. The only alternative would be a further retreat—which is the word I prefer to use—towards the direction of a Government board, because I do not see how, by arming that board with all the powers which are being given it, you can go any further towards inducing all that is supposed to flow from private ownership. You could go further back and put them under more control. You could hamper them to a greater degree and then arrive at some of the inefficiency which is always supposed to lie around a Government department. But, as I said yesterday, you cannot have those catch words flying around a scheme of this sort. It is not a question of private enterprise versus public ownership. It is a question of how much private ownership and how much public control. I feel we have arrived at a fairly good solution—the wide powers given the board, the freedom from the minutiae and the whole method of responsibility, resting under a graduated series, from one man to another that operates in the Civil Service. That is very good for the matters that the Civil Service have to deal with, but it would be entirely wrong for the operations of a board like this. They are being given every freedom and they are armed with all the powers that are necessary. Most of the things that seem to operate against inefficiency are taken away, and if it seems that the giving of a longer period of existence in the earlier years to the board would add to efficiency then, of course, these powers will be given. What we have set out to do is to give these people a particular scheme to work—these unnamed people who have to be appointed in the future—and to give them all the powers necessary for adequate and efficient working, saying to them: "The basis of your operations is going to be this, ‘No profit and no loss.'" If the private enterprise man says that by cutting away the idea of profit you have taken away the spur towards efficiency, I deny that entirely.

I say as you have employees you can get them to work, because they believe merit will bring remuneration. The same thing is going to operate here. You are going to have people whose reputations will be at stake, and that is going to be a tremendous stimulus in the matter of getting the most efficient working. You are going to have employees who will be getting paid and whose merits will lead to promotion. That being so, I think that you have gone as far as one can reasonably go in bringing about conditions that are likely to ensure success. I would like that this Bill be considered on that basis, on the basis of efficiency, and that we get away from catch cries about Socialism, private enterprise or bureaucratic red tape, personal initiative and things like that, and simply get down to a discussion—are there any difficulties likely to arise in that project that have not been met? If there are any difficulties that seem to emerge in Committee, and any solutions put forward whereby difficulties may be removed and greater efficiency secured, I will be only too happy to consider the suggestions. I move the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. O'CONNELL

Section 57 gives the power to fix the scales to be charged by the authorised undertakers and the permitted undertakers. Lower down, when you come to the penal clauses whereby people are punished if they do not do this, it is only the authorised undertaker that is mentioned in the section. I would like to know whether that is deliberate or whether it is merely a fault in the drafting.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I think that would have to be related back to another section which talks about permitted undertakings being for the purposes of this Act, and regarding them as authorised undertakings. At any rate, I think it is meant that the Board will regulate the rates of the permitted and the unauthorised undertakers and that both would suffer penalties.

Mr. GOOD

With regard to the powers of the arbitrator, it has been pointed out that his powers may possibly be abused. Would there be any appeal from the decision of the arbitrator in such a case?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

There is none provided at the moment, but it is a matter that we can discuss. I presume that this is only raised on the question of compensation. Certainly there is no appeal provided at the moment, but if the Deputy thinks there should be, then we can discuss it on Committee. I am assuming that when Deputies are objecting to the appointment of an arbitrator by a named Minister that they are only objecting when there is reference to compensation.

Question—"That the Bill be read a second time"—put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 29th March.

Mr. CONNOR HOGAN

Would the Minister for Finance make a statement with regard to the finances of the Board?

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

That will arise on the Money Resolution before the Committee Stage of the Bill is taken.

Mr. BLYTHE

When the Money Resolution comes before the House I will have a statement to make.