There are a few amendments put down in Deputy Thrift's name and in my name, and there are further amendments in the names of Deputy Thrift and other Deputies, all of which merely indicate the correction of errors which crept into the text of the Bill. Would it be well for me to give an indication of those now in order to clear up that type of error?
ORDERS OF THE DAY. - ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) BILL, 1927—THIRD STAGE.
Not unless it is important to deal with them now.
It might help to make clearer the text of the Bill.
If there is any value attached to them it would be well to mention them.
I do not know if it is necessary to correct the first few pages where there are errors in the headings?
On page 8, Section 6 (4), line 25—this is actually put down as an amendment in Deputy Thrift's name—the words used, "are as," should be "as are." On page 9, the fifth word in the third line is "of" and it should be "if." On page 11, line 41, "until the said is paid," should be "until the same is paid." On page 14, line 45, "December" is spelled with the "e" omitted. On page 27, line 29, the word "made" should be "make." On page 43, line 31, the word "made" occurring there should be "may"—"may by order." In the same line the word should be "Minister" instead of "Ministers."
SECTION I.
The expression "the Shannon works" means and includes all works of whatsoever nature and wheresoever situate constructed under the Shannon Electricity Act, 1925 (No. 26 of 1925) for the production and generation of electricity by means of hydraulic power derived from the waters of the River Shannon and the distribution and supply of the electricity so produced:
The expression "the transmission system of the Shannon works" means the portion of the Shannon works used or intended to be used for the distribution and supply of the electricity produced in the Shannon works;
The expression "transmission system" means and includes the electric lines, poles, pillars, transformers, and other electrical apparatus used in connection with the transmission of electricity from a generating station to a distribution system:
The expression "supply in bulk" means a supply of electricity to be used for resale to consumers;
The word "street" includes any square, court, alley, highway, lane, road, thoroughfare, or public passage or place;
I beg to move amendment 1:—
In page 5, line 37, to delete the word "distribution" and to substitute therefor the word "transmission" and to insert after the word "supply" the words "in bulk."
This is an amendment to the definition section which, when amended, would read—"and the transmission and supply in bulk of the electricity so produced." It is connected with the definition of the expression "the Shannon works."
Amendment agreed to.
I beg to move amendment 2:—
In page 5, line 37, after the word "produced" to insert the words "and also the lands and premises acquired by the Minister in pursuance of the powers in that behalf conferred on him by the Act aforesaid."
In the matter of the transferring of the Shannon works, it was discovered the expression as first defined did not include lands and premises acquired by the Minister in pursuance of the powers conferred by the first Electricity Act, and it is necessary to have the lands and premises included in the definition as well as "all works of whatsoever nature, and wheresoever situate, constructed under."
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment 3 agreed to.
In page 5, line 40, to delete the word "distribution" and to substitute therefor the word "transmission" and to insert after the word "supply" the words "in bulk."
I beg to move amendment 4:—
In page 6, line 41, after the word "system" to insert the words "and the premises used in connection with such apparatus."
This is again an obvious amendment to the definition, as the transmission system has to include not merely lines, poles, pillars, etc., but also the premises used in connection with such apparatus. Otherwise a transformer building, the place in which the transformer was housed, could not be included in the definition.
Amendment agreed to.
I think amendment 5 explains itself:—
In page 6, immediately before line 42, to insert the words "the expression ‘generating station' means a station for the generation of electricity."
Amendment agreed to.
Will the Minister define the word "place" in line 45, page 6?
I could not undertake that now.
Does the word "public" govern it—"public passage or place"?
Does the Deputy desire to have "public place" or to have it "place" without the word "public"?
"Public place." My reasons are that a man might be generating electricity for his own use and the place where he generates electricity might not be a "public place." You do not propose to interfere with private generators.
I think the word "street" has reference only to obtaining power to break up streets, and obviously ground which would be owned by a man himself would not come under the interpretation.
Would you say then that the word "public" governs "place" as well as "passage"?
I think it should.
Beyond yea or nay?
I think so. I will get that point looked into.
Section 1, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 2.
(3) 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.
(4) The members of the Board shall be appointed by the Executive Council and every person so appointed to be a member of the Board shall hold office for such period not exceeding five years as shall be fixed by the Executive Council when appointing him and every such person shall on the expiration of his term of office be eligible for re-appointment.
I beg to move the following amendment:—
To insert before sub-section (4), a new sub-section as follows:
"Three of the members of the Board at least shall be selected for their practical knowledge of electrical supply and shall have been engaged in electricity supply undertakings. The additional members (if any) shall be selected persons of practical experience in the administration of commercial concerns."
This amendment deals with the constitution of the Board that is proposed to be set up. When the Minister was making a statement on Second Reading he did not seem to be very clear or emphatic as to the constitution of the Board. I think the Minister will admit that the Board is a very important factor, and its constitution will be a matter of considerable importance for the Dáil to consider. The Minister does not define in the Bill the qualifications that should be possessed by members of the Board. In putting forward this amendment I am endeavouring to concentrate your minds on the Board as it is going to be formed.
If the Bill passes in anything like its present form, the Board is going to be an all-powerful factor in connection with the whole management and control, not only of the generating end of the scheme, but of the distribution end; it will have practically the entire control of the industry. I have endeavoured, in this amendment, to suggest to the Minister that various qualifications are necessary. Such qualifications, at all events for a section of the Board, will include a knowledge of the generating and distributing end of electricity, but more particularly a knowledge of all the factors which will go to make the scheme a success. I do not wish to labour the amendment at this stage.
I do not wish to labour this amendment at the present stage, but I would like the House to understand that the Minister has not given us much insight into his mind on this subject. It is. I think, a suitable opportunity to ask him to unburden himself on this matter. I would like to hear his criticism of the constitution of the Board, as suggested in this amendment, and when I have heard what he has to say, I may have something further to add.
I could describe this amendment concisely as being a very liberal one, very liberal to Deputy Hewat and those whom he is supposed to represent here. There is to be a Board consisting of a Chairman with a number of members not less than two or more than six. At the maximum, there is to be a Board of seven, consisting of a Chairman and six others and Deputy Hewat coolly proposes that three of these at least, "shall be selected for their practical knowledge of electrical supply and shall have been engaged in electricity supply undertakings. The additional members (if any) shall be selected persons of practical experience in the administration of commercial concerns." That is to say, excepting the Chairman, they are all to be in this grand circle of what is known as business men, either specialised electricity business men, or general business men. I do not know that there is very much more clarification contained in this amendment than in sub-section 3 of Section 2 of the Bill. That sub-section is, at least, fair in this, that I do not want to have imposed on me any hindrance with regard to the conditions of appointment of these men, that I was to be free to decide in the circumstances that faced me. When I come to appoint the Board, in the first instance or afterwards, Deputy Hewat wants me to appoint "three selected persons of practical experience in the administration of commercial concerns." We will have to go further surely and define what is a commercial concern. I would like to be in opposition on this point and query Deputy Hewat as to what he means by "practical experience" and how much "practical experience in the administration of commercial concerns."
Deputy Heffernan raised a question on Second Reading as to whether there would be on the Board anyone who would be able to talk to farmers. I do not know whether the "selected persons of practical experience" believe themselves capable of talking to farmers. That, at any rate, was a requirement put to me by Deputy Heffernan. I do not think that there is any half-way house between leaving the section as it is and deciding on the qualifications of each individual member of the Board. If the Dáil starts to decide who are likely to be the people appointed and to decide on their qualifications, as well as the priority to be given to certain qualifications, we are going to have an unending discussion. I believe that there will have to be on the Board one person who would have a knowledge of accounting matters. It will be most desirable to have on the Board also a man who would have a proper outlook in regard to the handling of public money. I think there will have to be someone who has the agricultural interests of the country clearly and throughly before him. I could go through a list of people whom I would desire to see on the Board, but in the end, owing to the small number of members required, there would have to be an elimination on special qualifications residing in particular individuals. One would have to look for an all-round man with special knowledge. Essentially a man who should be on the Board, when the plant is fully working, would be the engineer in charge of the station. Also, I think, the engineer in charge of transmission would eventually have to be on it. There will, undoubtedly, have to be someone, possibly he will have to be the chairman, with a knowledge of salesmanship as applied to electricity concerns.
I do not see any half-way house between leaving the situation as it is so that the best men will be got hold of without any impediment such as there would be by saying that the members "shall be selected persons of practical experience in the administration of commercial concerns." I do not know whether a qualified accountant, running an accountant's business, and running it properly, could be considered as a person with "practical experience in the administration of commercial concerns." Most accountants have that experience, but it is mostly obtained when they are brought in from outside to wind up commercial concerns. I do not know that that would be considered the experience required in this case. If we get into the question of qualifications, segregate certain individuals, and impose certain tests on each of them, there is the other point that arises, namely, that the Board immediately on formation would simply become a Board consisting of the representatives of interests which are, more or less, in hostility to each other.
You do not want a relatively small Board, managing a huge undertaking, right from the beginning split into representations of different interests. One does not want to see, for instance, a farmers' representative lining up against a business representative, and the farmers' representative trying to get hold of the accountant, with the business representative trying to get hold of some other person, while the two engineers try to get the station running and the load properly looked after. As there is to be a certain amount of trust with regard to appointments generally, there should be the fullest trust here. The best way to get the Board to work efficiently and harmoniously—and harmony is, probably, more to be sought for than efficiency—is to leave the selection of the Board without qualifications stated. There will, of course, be qualifications looked to, but the matter should be left to the good judgment of those who will have to appoint the Board, so that they will appoint the proper men to deal with the situation in the best way.
I have not extracted much from the Minister. I think he is a bit of an oyster to-night. Let us examine the position a little. The Minister seems to think that my amendment dictates as regards the persons whom he should appoint. It does not. It tries to get a recognition for representatives of existing undertakings in connection with which this Board is going to be constituted on the basis of the Bill. The Minister, in effect, says that we had better leave this an open question. The open question, of course, reacts on the discussion during Second Reading in this way, namely, the Minister did not like the reference to the fact that there was political significance in connection with the whole linking up of the scheme with the Minister for Industry and Commerce. It is to relieve that position that we propose the amendment. It is not that the Minister has not ideas on the subject, at all events, he is not going to disclose them, but he wishes it to be left an open question as to the person to be appointed.
I agree it is difficult to lay down qualifications in connection with the formation of a Board of this sort, but here we have organisations whose interests are dealt with in the Bill. The Bill as it stands contains very confiscatory proposals. I hope the Minister will concede at least some of the points I have indicated. I would like to have had from the Minister a recognition that as regards the undertakings that have been built up in the State it is right and proper they should have representatives on the Board. I put forward that claim. They would be valuable representatives, would have a knowledge of what they are talking about, as far as electricity is concerned, and a more intimate knowledge of the surrounding circumstances on which the success of the whole scheme depends. The Minister says "leave it an open question." To-morrow or the next day we are going to appoint the Board, and the Minister says "Leave it in the air." I think the time has come when he ought to be in the position to submit to the House something in a practical way regarding the Board.
I think the House would desire some clarification as to what Deputy Hewat means. This Bill is described as confiscatory. I deny that. There is no confiscation in it. Deputy Hewat ran along with that idea in his mind, and he proposed that three members should get representation who would look after the existing electricity undertakings. Once you get into that it is a matter of getting on the Board three other members who will balance the vested interests which these people will have before them when appointed on the Board. That is clearing the air about this hitherto innocent-looking proposal. People who are afraid of something described as "confiscation" in this measure are going to be given representation on that Board to the extent of three, so that they may see to it that the proposals in the Bill with regard to the Board's powers are not to be used after the House has done its best, on the plea of Deputy Hewat, to whittle down whatever powers may be attributed to the Board. I protest stronger than ever against Deputy Hewat's proposal that we are to put three people on the Board representing vested interests, for if that is the case we will have to look to it that another three who will have the opposition view are appointed. Then we get to the position that we have the Chairman, a single individual, who is to be the arbitrator with regard to everything that falls for consideration by the Board. There is likely to be a place for people who can show that they have experience in the efficient running of an electricity supply business, but that place is not on the Board. There is going to be a supply department under the control of the Board, and there is going to be a special sales department.
I think the Minister is wrong in his statement that it was intended to give representation to vested interests. My idea regarding the amendment was to select people with a practical knowledge of electrical supply, and who have been engaged in electricity supply undertakings. There should have been added to that "at some period." I do not think it was in our mind, in the way the Minister put it, that these men should be selected, shall we say, by the Electricity Supply Association of Ireland, to represent the interests of their members, but it was to give a feeling of security where so much money is at stake that the men on that Board should be men with practical experience of the job they are going to take on, and that job is a similar one, on a large scale, to those on which they have been engaged. I think the Minister should not have taken the line he did with regard to Deputy Hewat's argument. I quite agree with the Minister that it would be very fatal to have fights going on and the Board divided into two sections. That would be creating an impossible situation. I think it was not the intention of those who put down the amendment to give vested interests representation. The intention was rather that the Minister would have the opportunity of stating the class of men he would put on the Board. The Minister invited amendments, and we have put forward an amendment which is really a valuable suggestion as to the type of men who ought to be on the Board.
In view of what Deputy Major Myles has said, is he in a position to explain the note circulated to Deputies by the Electricity Supply Association stating: "This amendment is to secure representation for the undertakers"? Does not that show that it is their intention to secure representation for the undertakers?
I did not see that.
Mr. O'CONNELL
We have all got a copy of it.
I think it is desirable we should have some qualification attached to membership of this Board. As the proposal stands, no qualifications whatever are attached to these appointments, and we are proceeding to legislate for a Board that will have continuous existence. Let me point out what may happen under a future Ministry. None of us expects that the present Ministers will always continue in office, desirable as that may be, and much as we would like to see some of them here for a further period. We must always bear in mind, in legislation, that Ministers are changeable, and we may have in the future on the Ministerial benches the good-looking Deputies who occupy the Opposition benches at present. We may not be inclined to say about them, until we have had experience of their administration, the things we say of the Ministers of whom we have had some experience. But may I point out that these members of this Board are to occupy office for five years?
Or less.
Yes, or possibly more, but that they are to occupy office for five years. Now we have had recently brought in legislation to this House that extends the life of the Government to five years. I do not know whether that is just an accident but it may be open to a very much wider reading of this kind, that each Government, as it comes into office, will look upon this as one of the very desirable opportunities for rewarding the services of some of those who have helped them. Deputy O'Connell smiles. Whether that smile is the smile of assent or dissent I do not know at the moment. Possibly, it opens vistas to him that he had not seen before——
Mr. O'CONNELL
As a way of pensioning ex-Ministers.
That is a thing which we should consider—as to whether we should not have some protection in this Bill that would prevent the appointments to this Board being political appointments. Now I do not think any member of this House wants, and certainly no member of the Government wants, this Board to provide simply an opportunity for the Government administration to put in persons who will have served them well. I do not think any section of the House will accept that. Is it not desirable—I go further and say is it not necessary— that there should be protection in this Bill that will prevent that? If the qualifications put forward by Deputy Hewat and others supporting him are not desirable, then let us put into the section qualifications that will stop this Board from degenerating into political jobbery. I think all the Deputies will agree that that is very desirable. As I say, we may be prepared to leave this matter to the present Government to make a selection, relying on them that they will appoint men who are fully qualified to discharge the duties of this important office, but I would urge we are legislating now for posterity— we are legislating for all time for a Board that will be in continuous existence and while it may be possible to leave that appointment untrammelled in any way to this Government, I do not think it wise to leave it to any future Ministry to put in persons, as I said, who have served them and to make political appointments. If we are going to do it in that way, I am afraid that we are going to strike at the confidence which should attach to this Board. Some of us have heard, I am afraid with alarm, of the powers that it is proposed to give to this Board. It has been pointed out by the Minister, in view of the functions they have to discharge, that these wide powers may be desirable, but if we are going to give to that Board all these wide powers, surely it is essential in the discharge of that duty that we should ensure for the future that the Board who will possess those wide powers will be composed of men who will understand the duties and have qualifications fitting them to discharge those duties. If we are going to appoint men who have not got qualifications, I see nothing in the future but alarm for what we have done.
None of us would attempt, in our ordinary business, to appoint men to positions involving wide responsibilities such as these men would be called upon to discharge if we were not satisfied that they had the qualifications. It is the very first thing we would satisfy ourselves on, that these men had the qualifications. On that matter, this amendment proposes that nobody should be appointed to these positions in the future who has not got the qualifications to discharge the duties that will devolve on him. I say it is absolutely essential that we should tie up this clause in some way. If the proposal put forward by Deputy Hewat is not acceptable, then let us see how we can ensure for the future that these men put into this position will be qualified to discharge the duties attaching to the office. I think that that is the thing to do.
As far as I can understand this amendment, it is to make sure that the members of this Board should have some qualifications. According to the Minister, he wants a blank cheque from the Dáil. He says: "Leave it to me, everything will be all right"——
Or leave it to Deputy Redmond.
That may be so. I am not suggesting that it may not turn out as he suggests it will, but at the same time are we here in this House to allow this Bill to go through, which will provide for the appointment of gentlemen on it, at the pleasure of the Minister or his successor, on no basis whatsoever? He has not even definitely laid down upon what basis all his appointments shall rest. If he were to go so far as to tell the Dáil what qualifications he would consider it desirable or necessary, and that he would act on those, there might be something for giving to him this free hand. But he has not gone even as far as that. He says: "Leave it to me, everything will be all right." I do not think that that is the way to treat seriously a measure such as this, or a Board which shall have such duties and powers to put these duties into force.
On the Second Reading I took the opportunity of suggesting that it was the opinion of the Experts who made their report on the Shannon scheme that this Board should consist of those who had certain qualifications, and I submitted that there was ground for that suggestion. On page 91 of the report the Experts, in dealing with the constitution of this Board, which they called in this regard "the new organisation," say:
"Because of the fact that this new organisation will not itself carry out the construction work, but mainly supervise it, the layman may easily underestimate its duties. The Experts, therefore, emphasise that each individual part of the work, the civil engineering part, the mechanical part, the electrical part, the sale of current, the handling of the landowners, requires a specialist who, in his turn needs, according to circumstances, a smaller or greater number of assistants."
Well, I say that certainly it is not an extravagant construction to place upon that carefully considered paragraph of the Experts' report, that what they meant to convey was that this Board should not consist of very estimable gentlemen who might be useful in every other walk of life; who might have the best and most honest intentions, but who were not particularly conversant with the class of business which their duty on this Board would call upon them to perform.
I suggest that that portion of the Experts' report positively lays it down that this Board should consist of individuals who would be able by their knowledge to supervise both the engineering and mechanical part as well as the electrical part of their work, and also the sale of current and the handling of landowners. On the other hand, the Experts, in making that suggestion, had the very position, in which we find ourselves now, in view. They came to the conclusion that the Minister to-day or to-morrow might possibly appoint a Board, consisting, as I say, of very estimable people in the realms of industry and commerce who would have no previous knowledge or experience of the technical subjects with which they would be asked to deal in a very important and serious manner, in the conduct of a concern so great as this, and involving such huge financial sums as well as involving such serious consequences to the whole community.
I would, therefore, strongly urge the Minister not only in the interests of the proper working of this scheme, not only from the point of view that this Board should be above board and also that it should be appointed upon some reasonable basis beyond the lines which the Minister has chosen to give us, which are practically nil, but that it should be appointed strictly in accordance with the well-considered and thought-out advice of the Experts themselves.
I would, therefore, urge the Minister, in the interests of the proper working of the scheme, that he should take the Experts' advice in this matter, and, that though he need not necessarily adopt the actual wording of Deputy Hewat's amendment— which the Deputy, I do not think, went so far as to suggest—that he should give an assurance and that he should go further than giving an assurance, that he should embody that assurance in some way in this Bill before it leaves this House—that the people who are to be appointed shall not be merely good all-round business men, but that they shall be people who in the particular respect mentioned in the Experts' report shall have a particular and technical knowledge of the great work which their duties will necessitate their undertaking.
There is one phrase that has been used in the Dáil that seems to have gone to people's heads. The phrase is that we are legislating for all time. People have set out with that idea, apparently, believing that no Dáil after this one is going to be sovereign. The idea is that no Dáil is going to have the power to change legislation that this Dáil makes.
I never said that.
There are other Deputies besides Deputy Redmond who have spoken, and surely I am entitled to allude to them, although not so important as he in his estimation. Deputy Good said, and it is to him I am referring, that we are legislating for all time. We are not doing anything of the sort. We are legislating in a way that we hope will last, but we are not precluding anyone from amending this later, and if amendment is required later on and qualifications put in by the Government succeeding the one which has abused the wide powers now given under this Bill, then I am sure that amendment can be moved. Apparently it has not penetrated certain people's heads that if you have a Government with a majority behind it that wants to do certain things, the mere putting in of certain stipulations in the piece of legislation that we are passing now is not going to prevent the Government doing the thing it desires. If Deputy Good, sitting here later, wanted to do the most unreasonable thing——
That would be exceedingly unlikely.
Quite unlikely, and for that reason I named the Deputy. But if one's imagination could stretch to the belief that Deputy Good would do anything unreasonable: that he sat here and wanted to do it and had a party behind him, merely having certain qualifications in the Bill would not prevent him from doing it. But if Deputy Good did stand here he could not really want anything more from the strictly party point of view than what he is now seeking to obtain. He is asking under this amendment that the Board shall consist of three business men with a practical knowledge of electrical supply, and three general business men. These gentlemen are to compose the Board of six, and after that you are to have a Chairman. Let us imagine Deputy Good with the idea of the capacity and importance of the business community strong in him standing here and dealing with a Bill of this sort. Could he, I ask him, put in a better Board from the business party point of view than the Board that would be set up under this? At least he would give himself permission to put in a business Board. On the other hand, if Deputy Good wanted to turn away from his business instincts and wanted to put in a completely unsound Board, he could still do it if this amendment of Deputy Hewat's were carried. Look at the qualifications that are required—three men with a practical knowledge of electrical supply who shall have been engaged in electricity supply undertakings, and three persons of practical experience in the administration of commercial concerns.
Does anybody deny that if I set out to get a completely hopeless Board that I could not get it within the terms of this amendment? I could get a Board under it that would make every electric bulb in this State turn pale and grow dim with alarm. There would be nothing to prevent me picking out six of the most undesirable people that I could get, except that I am strictly limited to two classes of people. I think it is the negative arguments that one has to attend to here. There is to be no one on the Board, as Deputy Heffernan said, who will be competent to talk to farmers; there is to be no accountant, no engineers unless the engineers are people who have been engaged in electricity supply undertakings. As to the man in charge of the Shannon power house, or the man in charge of the whole Shannon network, neither of these could go on unless they previously had experience in electricity supply undertakings. Deputy Redmond then came to the aid of Deputy Hewat. I am not clear whether or not Deputy Redmond is really supporting Deputy Hewat's amendment. I gather that he is not.
I am not supporting it in its present form.
Deputy Redmond argued that there should be a Board consisting of an expert in civil engineering work, in mechanical engineering, in electrical engineering, and that there should be a sales current specialist, and a specialist in the handling of land owners. I do not know whether this latter would be the man that Deputy Heffernan would regard as competent to talk to farmers. I wonder is that the Board which Deputy Redmond thinks is the Board we are talking of at this moment and the Board that the Experts have, in fact, given me advice on? If the Deputy thinks that, then all I can say is that he has misread the document. He can contradict me if I am not estimating his thoughts correctly, but I take it that he does believe that the Board referred to by the Experts and the Board that we are now dealing with are one and the same, and that therefore this Board should consist of the particular people I have mentioned. I rather gathered on the last day, when Deputy Redmond interrupted me and when he seemed to have a difficulty in finding the place in the Experts' report in which this question of organisation is dealt with, that he had not read or thought a great deal about what the Experts said. What he said to-night justifies me in that belief. The Deputy read out certain words in the preamble, but he has not adverted apparently to their special application. He did not refer to the fact that the organisation will not itself carry out the construction work but will mainly supervise it. The Experts, when dealing with the Board, were dealing with that section of the Board's activities which had to do with the construction of the Shannon works, and not the Board that we are talking of now. If the Deputy still believes that, then it is open to him to bring in an amendment asking me to appoint this Board of electrical engineers, mechanical engineers, civil engineers, a specialist in the sale of current, and a specialist in the handling of landowners. By doing so he would certainly not be backing up this amendment of Deputy Hewat's which would preclude every one of these people except one from going on to this present Board. I think that Deputy Redmond ought to read the Experts' report, or at least the three pages of it which deal with organisation. If he were to do that, I think he would review his opinion of the Board.
Deputy Redmond also says that I have not given any idea of the type of men who would go on the Board. I went through a series of people here. I took two types of engineers that may not go on the Board immediately. One cannot go on immediately, because there will be nobody in charge of the transmission system until the system is built out. But that engineer would undoubtedly have the right to be considered for a place on the Board eventually. So would the engineer in charge of the Ardnacrusha station. I spoke of a variety of people, such as accountants, men with a proper conscientious point of view about the handling of public money, a sales specialist, and a man who would be capable of dealing with landowners. I could go through a variety of other people. My difficulty is to get them all narrowed down to fit into a Board of six—the number of specialists I should like to see on the Board. But I am not going to get any help from this amendment. If I were going to be so completely unsound as to pick a Board hopeless for this purpose, I could do it under the terms of the amendment. The only thing the amendment will prevent my doing is picking effective or ineffective people, say, from those interested in farming or farming interests, from those who are interested in accountancy and accounting practice and experience and various other types. Eventually it may be found there is a necessity to put a lawyer on the Board and I would be prohibited from putting him on if the amendment were carried. The amendment means nothing except in a negative way. It says that there are a considerable number of people whom you shall not consider, and as to what you can consider, really, if I or any Minister is likely to put hopeless or ineffective people on the Board he can do it under the terms of the amendment, which is useless.
I am not a believer in such restrictions as are sought to be imposed by the amendment. I agree with the Minister that if he or the Government wished they could drive a coach-and-four through any such amendment. I gather from what has been said that the proposers of the amendment are not very keen on putting it forward in this form, and I rise to make a suggestion. I think the idea at the back of their minds would be met possibly by the inserting of some such words as these in sub-section (4) —I do not press the suggestion strongly for the reason I have mentioned, but I think it is worthy of consideration by the Minister:—
"The members of the Board shall be appointed by the Executive Council, having due regard to their expert knowledge, engineering qualifications, or practical experience."
If some such words were put in, I think they would be a help to the Minister, as I do not envy him his job of selecting this Board. I do not think the words give any great strength to the sub-section, but I do not think they are open to objection, and I think they would, to a certain extent, meet the idea at the back of the minds of the proposers of the amendment.
As far as I can gather, Section 18 shows what are the general duties of the Board. Among those duties will be to produce and generate electricity; to control manage and maintain in good repair and condition and working order every part of the Shannon works; to distribute, utilise and sell electricity; to control, co-ordinate, and improve it, and generally to perform and exercise the duties and powers which are imposed on the Board by this Act. I presume that this Board which is now being set up is the Board of Directors referred to by the Experts in their report.
Quite wrong.
In that report the Experts say, on page 90: "The administration of the electricity supply of the Free State involves two different problems; the direction of the constructional works during the building period, and the permanent administration of the plant and the power supply." I suggest that this Board we are now setting up involves both those duties, both the constructional work during the building period and the permanent administration of the plant.
The Deputy appears to have forgotten the previous Shannon Bill for which he voted.
If the Minister says that this Board is not the Board referred to by the Experts in their report, then I cannot say any more, but the advice of the Experts on that does not do away with the grounds of the amendment. That does not mean that the actual wording of the amendment would be acceptable. That there shall be some qualification, other than ordinary general business qualification, for members of the Board, I take it is the general purport of the amendment, and if the Minister would signify his willingness to consider that, I do not know what attitude Deputy Hewat would adopt.
Let me be quite clear about this Board. The Experts talked of a Board to consider two different problems; the direction of the constructional works during the building period and the permanent administration of the plant and power supply, including successive extensions. I came before the House in 1925 with a Bill which allowed me to set up an organisation within my own Department to construct the Shannon works, and Deputy Redmond voted for it. If there was anything made quite clear then it was that the House was determined that in no way would there slip into that construction Bill anything dealing with supply. Deputy Thrift moved a long amendment, and I think Deputy Cooper supported him, which I finally met him on. I think Deputy Johnson also supported him on that point. Eventually one section was reconstructed so that nothing in the way of supply was dealt with under the first Bill. But quite clearly there was dealt with in the first Bill the whole idea of construction, and the words Deputy Redmond quoted from page 91 had reference to the construction activities of the Board, which the Experts had thought might be one and the same Board.
Does the Minister say that there is no reference to supply? What about the words "the sale of current"?
The Deputy again has not understood. Will the Deputy take this from me—that the Experts have clearly stated that they saw two different problems, and they thought that from the very beginning one and the same organisation might be given charge of both those duties. Having said that, they went on to point out certain things with regard to the Board thus organised for the two different duties, and they say that having regard to the fact that the organisation will not itself carry out the construction work (thus emphasising that side of it) but mainly supervise it, the layman may easily underestimate its duties. Then they laid down certain things. Will the Deputy try to make out that the engineering part, the mechanical part, and the electrical part have reference mainly to construction, and will the Deputy also remember that this House assisted me unanimously—there was a division on one section of the Bill, only on a small point—in the main principle of the Bill, to set up a Board to deal with construction and to deal with it as it has dealt with it for the last couple of years. We are now only dealing with the supply side, and nothing contained in Section 18 has in any way countered what I said.
Deputy Thrift has made a suggestion that we might insert a provision to have regard to certain qualifications that he stated. I do not mind that being put in as long as the points to which the Executive Council are to have regard are set out in a long series. It is not that the Deputy has forgotten it, as he did not pretend to exhaust it, but he did not deal with the item that I think is most essential. I might take many Deputies here, but I will take Deputy Johnson as an example, because he happens to be absent. If I could get someone with Deputy Johnson's particular outlook on the handling of public money—if he was not so useful a man to have here—I would put him as the first man on the Board, simply by reason of the fact that he has a particular outlook and a conscientious point of view as to how public money should be handled. There are many other members that I might mention, but I take Deputy Johnson simply because he happens to be absent. That is one of the points that Deputy Thrift has not put in. One will have to have regard to that particular kind of thing. I am afraid that when Deputy Thrift sits down to determine the number of things to which regard may be had in appointing this Board, he will find in the end that they are so numerous that it really does not amount to anything. If he can have such a list prepared, I will consider it.
I choose the words "expert knowledge" because they are pretty wide and refer to a great many more spheres than engineering—refer to the financial point which the Minister made.
There are engineering, finance, law and agricultural interests. These are the important things that come to one's mind immediately with regard to what people will have to look to in connection with what the Board has to deal with. If Deputy Thrift put himself to produce a series of things to which regard is to be had, we could consider it favourably, but it will have to be very extensive, or else rather widely phrased. In the end, I think it will be discovered that there is really very little meaning in it.
I think the Minister has dealt very exhaustively with his subject and presented his difficulties, which we all recognise. When these difficulties are boiled down they disclose an unsatisfactory state of affairs. Whether at a later stage the suggestion of Deputy Thrift can be embodied in an amendment and accepted by the Minister remains to be seen. At all events, I do not think it is satisfactory to anybody to have a Bill of this importance going through the House which is indefinite even as regards an expression of opinion by the Minister as to who is to be appointed to the Board. I put forward the amendment in the honest belief that the Board should have on it a certain number of men with certain definite experience. I have a hesitation of course, in the matter, recognising as I do that the Minister is an eminently capable man, and that the House might look with the greatest confidence to the appointments he would make. But the Minister is only dragging a red herring across the track when he analyses the qualifications I have put down in my amendment. He does not get over the difficulty by brushing away my suggestion, because he has no suggestion of his own to meet the case. I ask the House to recognise that in appointing the Board there should be some general outlook as to what class of people are to constitute it. I think it has been manifested in this House on various occasions and you, sir, even have said it on one occasion, that if the Government is strong enough they can do anything they like. I think you, sir, at one time said that even if they were out of order they could over-rule the Ceann Comhairle. I would not like that sort of spirit to grow up in this House. It might be a dangerous spirit in view of the coming elections and the general outlook for the future. Of course, there would be no use in pressing my amendment after the discussion that has taken place, but I would ask the Minister on some stage of the Bill to give us the inner working of his mind. I can hardly believe that the Minister has not formulated some ideas as to this Board. At all events, if he has not done so up to the present, I hope it will be done before the Bill leaves this House.
I think what I said in connection with the matter mentioned by Deputy Hewat is that provision could not be made in Standing Orders to protect a minority against an utterly unscrupulous majority—that they could go any length, including the election of a Ceann Comhairle after their own heart.
I was going to suggest that the Minister might bring in on Report Stage a proposal on the lines he has just mentioned. For my own part, I was not very enthusiastic about this. I hope I am not saying anything that would in any way detract from Deputy Thrift's well-known ability, but the Minister has around him those who prepare Bills, and they know the proper place to insert such clauses and the language in which to put them. It occurs to me that if the Minister could bring in on the Report Stage some such amendment as he has suggested, it might be the most satisfactory way of dealing with this.
If Deputy Thrift would put down in any form he likes to have it the suggestion he made and passes that along to me, I will get it put in such form that we can have it brought before the House for discussion, and, possibly, rejection.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment 7 seeks to prevent a member of the Oireachtas from being eligible for membership of the Board. Amendment 8 goes further, because it seeks to prevent a member of the Oireachtas from being either a member of the Board or an officer or servant of the Board. Amendment 8, therefore, is the wider amendment. We can take amendment 7, therefore, and then delete the reference to members of the Board in amendment 8.
I take it that there will be agreement as to amendment 7.
If amendment 7 is rejected, will all amendment 8, except "officers and servants of the Board," be out of order?
If amendment 7 is rejected, amendment 8 will have to be altered to read: "No officer or servant of the Board," etc., deleting "a member of the Board" in line 4.
As Deputy Cooper's amendment is more comprehensive, I withdraw mine in favour of it.
Unless it is agreed to.
Except that the phraseology will have to be looked into, the idea is definitely agreed to. Does the Deputy insist on the words "shall not be eligible to be a member of the Board"? In other words, could a Deputy, while being a Deputy, not put himself forward for consideration as a member of the Board, having in view resignation if he were accepted?
Amendment 8 does not say that. It says: "No member of the Board or officer or servant of the Board shall be eligible for election to either House of the Oireachtas, and in the event of any member of either House of the Oireachtas being appointed a member of the Board or an officer or servant of the Board, he shall be held to have vacated his seat. ..."
I think amendment 8 is preferable to amendment 7. As to amendment 8, I presume the Deputy will allow me to have it looked into and fitted into the general scheme in the Bill?
If the general principle is accepted.
Yes. I agree to the general principle of it.
Amendment 7 not moved.
Question—"That Section 2 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
Will the Minister give us any information with regard to the salaries attaching to those appointments? Will they be fixed salaries?
That is a point which was under discussion, and so far as one can say there has been a decision in a matter so fluid as this is, the decision was rather in favour of having fixed salaries. There was an idea of having, say, for the member of the Board who would be in charge of sales, payment by a bonus on sales rising year by year, but the difficulty there would be to determine on what line one would start at the beginning, it being essential that a very big increase in consumption is necessary in order to make the scheme remunerative. In the end there was no decision at all in the direction of paying fixed salaries. As to the amount of the salaries, obviously that cannot be determined until one has made a prior determination as to the number to go on the Board, because if there are going to be, say, three fulltime members these will have to be paid at a higher rate, seeing the responsibility that will be imposed on them, than if there was a Board of seven. Also you might have certain full-time and certain part-time members. It will really be determined by the consideration of the personnel. But I think that has to be left rather fluid. I am afraid I am not in a position to give that information to the Deputy at this point.
Will there be any opportunity of discussing this at a later stage? It is rather an important matter because, though the Minister found fault with me for saying that we were setting up a Board for all time, I think we ought not to overlook the point in Section 2: "The Board shall be a body corporate having perpetual succession." That looks very much as if we are setting up a Board for all time. In view of the fact that we are setting up a Board that will, at all events, have existence for a considerable number of years, it is desirable that the question of the salaries attaching to the members of that Board should be discussed at some stage. If the Minister has not crystallised his views in order to give us any information at this stage, I think it should be done at a later stage. seeing that whatever is fixed by the Minister will probably have to continue for an indefinite period.
Is that on a later stage of the Bill?
If the Minister can see his way, on some of the later stages of the Bill, to give us some information on that point, I think it would be very desirable that we should have a discussion. They are more than temporary appointments.
I do not know when the opportunity will occur.
The Deputy can raise this point, of course, on the motion that has to be made on the Fourth Stage. But whether the Minister would be able to do anything more for him then than he can do now is another question.
Obviously I cannot proceed even to think of individuals for the Board until such time as this section shall pass the Committee Stage in the Seanad. That is a good way off. There would be no question of trying to decide as between two and seven, that is, the minimum and the maximum that may be appointed, until then. One might say that the smaller the Board the better paid they should be. But it will depend on the particular persons we decide on in connection with the Board. And when one has thought of names and has decided that three or four, say, can handle this particular matter successfully, then the salaries will have to be fixed accordingly. If there were six and the duties divided relative to each of them, necessarily the salaries would be smaller. Also one will have to take into consideration definite individuals, the kind of posts they are in at the moment, and what you will be asking them to give up for a five years post of this kind, from which they will be liable to be thrown out after a year or two, on a motion made in this House. All these things will have to be taken into consideration, and they will be under consideration actually until at least this section has passed the Seanad.
What I wanted to be sure of was that the matter would be discussed on some stage. We will not be appointing a temporary Board, but a Board that will have a permanent existence, and we will be establishing a precedent that will have to be followed by our successors in making appointments. Therefore, it is desirable that we should discuss this precedent. Of course, the Minister is quite right in what he says with regard to the difficulty of fixing salaries at the moment. There is a way in which the difficulty which is present to his mind is met in other cases, which he may be aware of. In the case of a Board of Directors, sometimes a sum paid to the Board as a whole is fixed, and the individual division of it is left to the Board itself. Even in that way we could in some manner fix the salaries in this case, and in fixing them, of course, we could discuss it.
The members of the Board will not be paid out of public funds directly, but out of funds at the disposal of the Board. Therefore the salaries will not appear on the Estimates, and the only way in which the matter will arise when this Bill has been passed into law, is when the Executive Council has made the appointments and has fixed the salaries. The question might then arise, by way of criticism of an act of the Executive Council, but the appointments will then have been made and the salaries fixed. If Deputy Good is seeking for an opportunity to discuss the salaries before they have been fixed I do not see how that would arise under normal circumstances.
Could the Deputy not, for instance, give an indication as to what, in his view, should be the sum that should be put at the disposal of the Board out of their own revenue for division amongst the two, four or six members?
Yes.
I would, indeed, be very glad to get an expression of opinion as to what he would consider the maximum salary should be.
I would rather probe the Minister's mind. He has before his mind the duties and responsibilities, and he probably has a much better picture of them than I have. Therefore, he is more capable of answering the question than I am. But it would be very desirable that this matter should be discussed, and if I have an opportunity I will certainly put a question on a later stage.
There is no doubt that a question can be put on a later stage.
But I do not want to rush the Minister.
I do not think you will.
I have no sympathy with the Minister.
There was another point on Section 2 about which we had a discussion on Second Reading, and about which I do not think the Minister was then very strong. I certainly was not. I have been thinking a good deal about it in the interval, but I came to the conclusion that I would not put down an amendment. It is with reference to whether the appointment was to be for five years or was to be permanent. As the Minister said, there is a great deal to be said for either point of view. I would like to know if he has crystallised his point of view, or if he is still somewhat uncertain. It occurred to me that the best alternative would, perhaps, be seven years, with power of reappointment. Five years would be, perhaps, too short. I am inclined to think that a temporary appointment, with power of reappointment, is the best solution, and therefore I did not put down an amendment.
I think Deputy Thrift is not following the Minister's suggestion. I think the Minister would be very glad to get suggestions as to the right course to adopt, so that he could reject or accept them as he likes.
There is a difficulty about setting down any term at all. The difficulty is this, that this Board is likely to be appointed in June of this year if the measure passes. That would mean that its five years' period would end in 1932, which is the year in which the scheme should begin to pay its way. The difficulty then would be that the Board, which would have done all the hard work and must have done it successfully, might be left to go out at a very critical period and might be succeeded by others. There was an idea at one time of setting the term of the first Board at least two years beyond the date at which the scheme should become remunerative; in other words, not merely to give them the spade work of the difficult years but to give them two years beyond that. But on the whole we decided that it was best to have five years, with the right of reappointment after five years, and, obviously, any Government facing a change of personnel on the question of reappointment, will have to take into consideration the tremendous difficulties that will have confronted the first Board. If an amendment were set down on the next stage so that we could have a discussion and have different periods of appointment criticised, I would not mind. I think that there should be a longer term for the first Board, which will have peculiar and special circumstances to deal with and that thereafter they should be for five years, subject to the right of reappointment. There is something to be said for giving this Board a longer term than five years, because that period happens to coincide with the end of the period in which it is agreed that the Shannon will not be remunerative.
Section 2 put and agreed to.
Is the proposed new section before Section 3 being moved or withdrawn?
If Deputy O'Connell wishes to raise a point on it I shall formally move it. The section reads:—
8. Before Section 3 to insert a new section as follows:—
"No member of the Board, or officer or servant of the Board, shall be eligible for election to either House of the Oireachtas, and in the event of any member of either House of the Oireachtas being appointed a member of the Board or an officer or servant of the Board, he shall be held to have vacated his seat, which shall be filled in the manner prescribed by law."
Mr. O'CONNELL
I wanted to know what the Minister's attitude was. I take it he accepts the amendment in principle?
Yes.
Mr. O'CONNELL
That is, it extends not only to members of the Board but to servants of the Board.
Yes.
Mr. O'CONNELL
It is an extremely wide provision. It will exclude a large number of people from membership of the Oireachtas. Is any ordinary workman engaged in the service of the Board excluded from membership of the Oireachtas because he happens to be in such service? If so it seems an extraordinarily wide disqualification and will cover a very large number of persons. There does not seem to be to my mind the same necessity for this extension as in the case of civil servants or the case of servants of local authorities because the Board is more or less in the position of a railway company. One might as well propose to exclude railwaymen as to exclude all the servants of the Board no matter what grade they are. I agree to members of the Board being excluded but to go to the extent of disqualifying all servants of the Board is to go too far with it.
I agree with Deputy O'Connell on the necessity for some definition. I anticipated that he would raise this objection because it raised itself in my own mind when I was drafting the amendment. I think there is general agreement in all quarters of the House that this Board should be kept out of politics. When I came to look at it, there did not seem to be very much difference between the position of a member of the Board and say the general manager or chief engineer. It would be equally impossible to keep the Board out of politics if the general manager or the chief engineer had a seat in the Dáil and I found it impossible to frame a definition that would exclude the general manager or the chief engineer and at the same time not exclude the more humble employees of the Board. I am inclined to agree with Deputy O'Connell that there is no objection in principle to any servant of the Board who is going about for the Board canvassing people to take electric light, or a man who is working as a linesman from becoming a member of the Dáil. If it is possible to frame a definition I should be happy to do it but I do not think there is any specific distinction between an officer and a servant. I, for one, should shrink from the invidious task of attempting to do so.
If the Minister adopts, as he has undertaken, this section in principle, I would not oppose the introduction of a differentiation if he is able to make it, that would enable the more humble employees of the Board to be eligible for membership of the Oireachtas. I would point out, however, that even if we take this provision as it now stands in my amendment, there is nobody in the employment of the Board at present, and everybody who undertakes this employment does so with his eyes open, knowing the disqualification which attaches to it. If he wishes to stand for election he can always resign his employment if he thinks he has a sufficient chance of getting in and if he has sufficient faith in its prospect. However, I am not stressing that point.
I will endeavour to get an amendment accepting the principle as far as it applies to members of the Board and limiting it as far as the servants are concerned to the higher officials. I am not by any means saying when that amendment is framed that it will be accepted, because I would like Deputy O'Connell to consider what would be the position of the general manager of the Board if he had to discuss the question of wages with a T.D, who was a servant of the Board.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question—"That Section 3 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
Section 4 put and agreed to.
There is an amendment in my name to Section 5, but I really do not wish to move it. I was rather under a misapprehension when I put it down, and perhaps I am under one still. I take it the Chairman is a necessary member of the Board necessarily present, and the "two" referred to would be two other members. While not moving the amendment, I would really urge the Minister to consider whether the Chairman and two should not be a quorum. This Board has exceedingly important work to do, and I think that three should really be the minimum of a complete Board. The Minister himself referred to a Board of six. It may be a Board of seven, but when I put down the amendment I thought it was a Board of six, and, therefore, I could not understand all the verbosity of sub-section (2).
What will happen if there is a Board of four?
When I put down the amendment I was trying to put in half a dozen words what the sub-section says in five lines. I would like the Minister to consider the question of having the actual quorum, the Chairman and two members.
With a Board of four, the quorum will be two, on the definition.
Will that include the Chairman?
It says one-third of the members, and as there cannot be one-third of a man there must be a second man. A quorum of a Board of four would be two.
And of a Board of five?
It would be two. In the case of a Board of six, it would be two also. In the case of a Board of seven, it would be three. That is why Deputy Thrift's amendment is not acceptable. If there is a Board of seven you would have a quorum not of two but of three.
The Minister has not touched my point. If you have a Board of seven, six, or five members you should at least have three, the Chairman and two others, I suggest, as a quorum.
Surely it would be out of place in an Act of Parliament which provides that the Board is going to be independent of this Dáil, to dictate to them as to how many is going to form a quorum.
I would not mind leaving it to the Board to appoint its own quorum.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 5 put and agreed to.
Ordered: That progress be reported.
The Dáil went out of Committee.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again to-morrow.
The Dáil adjourned at 8.30, until 3 p.m. on Thursday, 31st March.