ORDUITHE AN LAE. - ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) BILL, 1927—REPORT STAGE. – Dáil Éireann (4th Dáil) – Wednesday, 20 Apr 1927

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

Ordered: That the amendments be considered in Committee.

The Dáil went into Committee.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I move amendment 1—

In page 5, section 1, line 40, after the word "aforesaid" to insert the words "not including any lands acquired by the Minister under the said Act and determined by him under section 12 of the said Act to be surplus lands, and not including any lands acquired by the Minister for a special purpose under the said Act as amended by this Act."

This is a necessary addition to the definition of the Shannon Works. It means that when one comes later on to handing over various things to the Board it is necessary to ensure that there is not handed over with the Shannon Works such things as are here described.

Amendment agreed to.

The following amendments stood on the Order Paper in the name of Deputy Johnson:—

In page 6, Section 1, to insert after the line 57, the words:—

"Wherever this Act provides that the Board may make an Order it shall be construed as meaning that the Minister may on the application of the Board make an Order."

In page 17, line 14, Section 32, to delete the word "Board" and substitute therefor the word "Minister" and in line 17, to delete the word "it" and substitute therefor the word "he" and to delete paragraphs (a) and (b), lines 19 to 22.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The next amendment to the definition section seeks to alter, in a particular way, the character of the Board to be set up under the Bill. I think this amendment and the consequential amendment No. 17 are out of order.

Mr. JOHNSON

Does the second part of the ruling imply that this question of the character of the Board may not be discussed at this stage, together with the power of the Board with respect to issuing orders? It was because this power runs right through the Bill that I simply sought an opportunity to raise that question, inasmuch as it did not seem to be raised on the Committee Stage.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

It could not be raised by way of amendment, but on the motion that the Bill be received for final consideration the contents of the Bill, which include the powers of the Board, will be open to discussion.

Major MYLES

I beg to move amendment No. 3 standing in Deputy Hewat's name. It reads:—

In page 7, Section 2, 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."

The Minister promised at the last Stage that he would look further into this matter. He has not done so.

Major MYLES

I do not think it is the business of Deputies to put down amendments for the Minister. The Minister certainly gave me the impression that he would look into this matter, in view of the suggestions made by Deputy Thrift. Why should Deputies be asked to make the Bill and make suggestions? If the Minister admits there is anything in the point and promises to look into it, why does he not draft the amendments himself? The reason that I go back on this at this stage is, that the constitution of the Board is going either to make or mar the whole scheme. We are all interested and we are all anxious that the Shannon scheme, now that it is coming into being, should be a success. We are also anxious to know on what basis we are going to give a blank cheque to the Board to carry on. We are going to give them an absolutely free hand to deal as they like with people's property, and with the property of municipal undertakings. In every part of the country people will be found whose interests are affected in some way or another. I think the Dáil should not give a free hand, particularly when there is not a word in the Bill defining the constitution of the Board. I thought we had gone into this question very fully on the last day, and that the Minister would now have come to the assistance of the House. He has not seen fit to do so. I feel that it is necessary that the matter should be brought to the notice of the House again. It should be asked not to give a free hand and pass a Bill of this nature before it knows into whose hands the enormous sum of money involved is going to be put.

Mr. GOOD

I might point out that sub-section (4) of Section 2 states:—

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.

What this amendment purports to do is to ensure that at least three of these members shall have a knowledge of the particular work they are appointed to discharge. To me that seems to be an almost primary qualification, and almost unnecessary to embody in an amendment. One would have expected to find that to be almost one of the first provisions in the Bill, in connection with these appointments, as these individuals are given very wide control, with the object of developing a very large electricity undertaking. In the ordinary business way it would be thought that these men would have some knowledge of the particular duties they are going to discharge; in other words, that they would have some knowledge of the many ramifications of electricity undertakings. There are no such provisions in the Bill. These men are to be appointed to discharge these exceedingly wide duties without qualifications of any kind. On the face of it that appears to me to be an exceedingly unbusiness-like proposal.

When this amendment appeared I thought the Minister would have readily accepted it. The very fact that the Minister does not appear to attach any importance to the amendment adds another element of alarm to the many alarms felt in connection with this Bill. I would suggest, in order to get some security that the work which is performed by this Board shall be done efficiently, that the whole policy should be based on experience of work of a similar character. If business men were making such an appointment, the first question that would be put to an applicant would be: "What is your special knowledge, and what qualifications have you to discharge these duties?" If the man's reply was that he had no such qualifications they would be very slow about appointing him. As far as I know, the object of the amendment is to endeavour to secure that the people who form this Board shall have some knowledge of the duties, and some experience of the work to enable them to act successfully. If I were drafting this Bill that is a condition I would like to see in it, and even at this late stage I hope the Minister will see his way to incorporate it.

I do not think there need be any fear with regard to it. I put it to the Dáil, for their judgment on this matter, that there need be no fear with regard to incompetents being appointed on this Board. There is far too much at stake, and I believe—I said it on the Second Reading and I repeat it—that if any party in this or any other Dáil had to seek for places to fit in people in order to get rid of political obligations that might have been incurred to those people, the last place to which they would seek to appoint them would be this Board. This Board is going to be no easy task for anyone, and a man appointed to it is going to risk any reputation he has acquired up to date. He has a short term of office. He has no pension rights; he is asked to make a big sacrifice, gamble more or less, and do heavier work than any Electricity Board has had to do. He has to get the first five years' spade work of this Board done, and it will be a matter of getting men competent, irrespective of politics or anything else. If there is any fear of the Government misusing powers, it will not arise in connection with this Board. The task is almost an impossible one to get people to take on under any conditions. They are up against the particularly bad atmosphere created with regard to this Board in the last fortnight.

Mr. JOHNSON

I think the Deputy who has put down this amendment is making a mistake. Deputy Good, in proposing it, enlightened me as to how one of the businessmen looks upon the practice of limited companies appointing mere financiers as directors of public Boards, companies and institutions. Apparently the Deputy thinks that in this case, at any rate, the Board should be composed of men of a certain type of experience.

Mr. GOOD

I only mentioned that one was anxious to secure, on this Board, men who will have some knowledge of the duties they will have to perform.

Mr. JOHNSON

I was coming to that. I think if the Deputy really desired to give an instruction to the Minister as to the type of person that would be suitable for the work that is cut out for him and the powers given him under this Bill, he should have suggested a person or persons who had experience as military governor on some island in the South Seas or let us say, Ireland. General Macready, when he was here, had powers very like the powers in this Bill. If that is the kind of experience that is needed, a man with absolute authority and a large experience of governing a country without responsibility except the fear that some day he may be recalled, the Deputy should have produced an amendment more in keeping with the requirements of the case. The proposition that three, if only three are to be appointed, should be persons engaged in electricity supply undertakings seems to me to be quite faulty, because part of the work that will be required on this Board will certainly not be mainly knowledge of electricity and electrical supply. The experts who will be appointed and will have equal authority with the Board, provided the Board decides to hand over that authority, will do all that, and the Board itself should really be somebody who will organise and act as a publicity agent. It does not seem to me, except from the point of view of choosing their immediate advisers, that this Board need have any expert knowledge at all, and I seriously think that the Deputy is quite unwise in making a proposition of this kind. After all, if the Board is eventually to be granted the powers that are expressed in this Bill it is far better that the Minister responsible who is going to have the first appointment should have the whole of the responsibility for choosing those men. Let him make his own choice as to the knowledge and experience suitable. I hope there will be opportunities to consider the powers that are to be granted to this Board, whoever they may comprise, but I think that the Minister should have the liberty without limitation of this kind, as to the selection of the persons who will form the Board. If you impose on him this kind of limitation he will be able to throw back upon the Dáil certain responsibilities for failure—he was limited in his choice of a Board and therefore he could not appoint the men he thought best qualified and suitable—in granting those utterly excessive powers to an irresponsible person.

Major COOPER

On the Committee Stage, the Minister told us, in discussing a somewhat similar amendment, that under those powers he could appoint the most incompetent Board which could possibly be appointed. I want to make myself clear. I fear the Minister has been misjudging me as a result of certain reports in the Press, because those reports are necessarily abbreviated. I have never failed to do justice to the enthusiasm of the Minister for this scheme and to his desire to make it a success. All I have suggested is that such enthusiasm is sometimes dangerous, that it sometimes oversteps the bounds of prudence, and that, therefore, some control should be exerted on it. The Minister in Committee made certain qualifications, which he said were necessary, as to membership of this Board. He said, as he said to-day, that the engineers in charge of the power station and of the distribution should be all members of the Board. The amendment we are discussing provides for that. They can become members of the Board under that amendment. He went on and he said "someone with a proper view of the handling of public money," and he instanced Deputy Johnson, though he hastened to qualify that conditional offer by the statement that Deputy Johnson was too valuable in the Dáil to remove him. I think if he offered that to Deputy Johnson I know what the answer would be. Then he went on and gave another instance which he did not repeat to-day. He said it might be necessary to have a lawyer and somebody who could talk to farmers. Has the interval between the adjournment and the resumption of the Dáil proved that it is more difficult to talk to farmers than the Minister anticipated? I do not know how you could define anybody who could talk to farmers. Even I sometimes talk to farmers, but if you define it as talking effectively to farmers I suppose Deputy Baxter fulfils the qualification suggested by the Minister. The Minister has outlined very clearly and consistently the lines on which he proposes to appoint a Board.

Why should he not seek the sanction of the Dáil for it? Are we to be asked to give these enormous powers, this tremendous control of public money to a body of whom we know nothing? I admit that the Minister will try to appoint the best men, but I do not know that he will be able to appoint these men before the general election, and who is to say who will be the Minister for Industry and Commerce after the general election? It might be a very dangerous and disastrous power to give him. Deputy Johnson talks—and I welcome his statement as I welcome his reappearance in our debates—about getting somebody who had experience of governing a country without responsibility. We are going to give in this Bill the power of electrifying a country without responsibility, and surely we ought to know something of the qualifications of the men who are to do it. This amendment may not be ideal. I had been hoping for a better amendment from the Minister. He seems to be allowing the opposition of four Deputies here to frame his Bill for him. Four Deputies and 47 amendments! These Deputies need not feel ashamed of themselves. He has indicated his qualifications in his speech, he will not indicate them within the four lines of the Bill, and the four lines of the Bill are the only things that bind and the only things that influence people.

I do again suggest that these are almost Napoleonic powers, by which the country will have to stand or fall, by which the country will have to lose an enormous amount of money, and will have to suffer in prestige if the scheme is a failure. I do not want it to be a failure, and the Minister knows I have done my best to make it a success since the original Shannon Bill came along. Once it was removed from the avenue of contention I and Deputies on these benches did our best to make it a success. We are only asking that there should be some definite qualification for the persons who are to administer this enormous power. The Minister has given us no alternative, and therefore I must support the amendment.

Mr. HEWAT

I have to apologise for not being present to move the amendment standing in my name. It will be within the recollection of the House that this is a repetition of the amendment which appeared on the former stage of the Bill. In the discussion on that amendment and on an amendment put down by Deputy Thrift, I think the Minister indicated that he wished time to consider whether any portion of this or any other amendment could be embodied that would meet with his approval. In the meantime, of course, I had been hoping and expecting that the Minister would take the onus off my shoulders and come forward with a proposition of his own. He has not done so, and I have to move the amendment. I admitted quite frankly on the Committee Stage that the amendment was put down with a general idea of attaching some qualifications to the post of members of the Board. I think I made it clear on that stage that the terms of the amendment, as far as individual qualifications were concerned, were not hard and fast by any means. We have now arrived at a point on the Report Stage when the amendment before us is the only amendment that deals with the matter. I would like the House to appreciate that the Board is the important factor that is going to control the issue of the Shannon scheme and the results to flow from it. If we might for a moment consider the commercial aspect of the case and assume that there was a proposal in which the public were invited to subscribe under the Companies Act for a large or a small amount of money, as the case might be, one of the very first things indicated in the prospectus issued would be the names and standing of the persons who would control the issue—the directors. I say to the Minister that it would add enormously to the confidence and the general appreciation of the position of the Board if he would, even at this stage, indicate if in the same way the appointment of this Board is an important issue in connection with the Bill.

This Board is going to come into being very shortly, I presume, after the passing of the Bill. The whole foundation of the provisions of the Bill is based on this. During the two years that have elapsed since the original Shannon Bill was passed, there have been ample opportunities for the Minister and those concerned in the scheme to review the whole position. We have arrived at a stage when the Minister should have very clearly in his mind the personnel of the Board that is to be appointed. If he has not it at this stage he must have, in the very near future, that matter in his mind when he comes to appoint the Board. I invite the Minister, if he is not prepared to say what the personnel of the Board is to be, to say what the qualifications of the members he is going to appoint are to be. That would get rid of all doubt in the matter if there is any doubt. I think it would be a tremendous asset to him in so far as it would carry the House and the country with him in approval of the Board that he is going to set up.

If he is not prepared to do that, and if there is any wording other than that in the amendment which would indicate the direction in which he is going to move in connection with the appointment of the Board, that would be also helpful, but I think it is too much to ask the House at this stage to agree that no qualification should be specified and that nothing is to be done at this eleventh hour. There is no Deputy here who would have greater confidence in leaving the selection of a Board in the hands of the Minister than I would. At the same time I think it is unreasonable, having arrived at this point, that something substantial should not be put in the Bill governing the appointment of a Board.

Mr. BAXTER

On the Second Reading I raised the question of the constitution of the Board from the point of view of the advisability of having on the Board a member or members who would be conversant with the agricultural industry and its requirements, and the possibilities of applying electricity to that industry. The mover of the amendment has not specified in the amendment that a member of the Board should have a knowledge of agriculture. The Minister gave an indication on Second Reading that he was prepared to consider that point of view, and that he felt it necessary and essential that there should be someone on the Board who would understand the requirements of farmers and meet them. I believe it is absolutely essential to have a Board composed of people some of whom will have such qualifications. If it was put to me to define the qualifications of such an individual I confess I would have difficulty. There are many types of men who would be competent to talk to, and do business with farmers. On the other hand, the type of man capable of doing business with farmers must at the same time, if he is to be a member of this Board, be competent to explain the value of supplies from the Shannon scheme to them. I suppose we are to presume that the Board is coming into existence immediately after the passing of this Bill. If the Bill is passed before the dissolution of the present Dáil we are to have the Board in existence before the dissolution.

I quarrel with the Minister on a good many things, but I do not think he has so little commonsense as to nominate men to act on this Board whom he cannot stand over. If he does that and sends them down the country that will be the worst day's work he did for his Government since he came into office. I question myself whether it would be advisable to write down here that three members of the Board must have practical knowledge of electrical supply, and must be connected with electricity undertakings. We could get, perhaps, a hundred men in the country coming within that category. The competency of these men to serve on the Board would be another matter. He would be a very foolish Minister indeed if he did not have a member or members on the Board who would come within that category. It would be very bad business from the beginning, because certainly at least one man or more should have technical knowledge of the business in order to give information to the Board on matters that otherwise they would not be competent to pass judgment upon. What I feel about this matter is this: The difficulty of saying exactly in the Bill what the qualifications of the members of the Board are to be is so great that if we had written them into the Bill and if we were asked to select men who would answer to those qualifications, we would have difficulty in doing so. The demand that three shall have a knowledge of electricity is, in my view, asking that too many members of the Board shall have technical knowledge of one side of the business. The Board might be lopsided in that case, and other aspects of the management—generating, distribution, supply, and financial administration—might be rather put at a disadvantage because of what is in the amendment. It might be desirable that we should make up our minds and state specifically what it is we want, but I confess I do not see that that is possible. If not, all we can hope for is that the Minister will not be so foolish as to put on incompetent people. If he acts like that the country will give an answer and pass its judgment upon his foolishness.

Amendment put.

The Committee divided—Tá, 12; Níl, 45.

Tá

Earnán Altún.
Bryan R. Cooper.
Sir James Craig.
John Good.
William Hewat.
Connor Hogan.
Patrick Leonard.
Séamus Mac Cosgair.
Maolmhuire Mac Eochadha.
James Sproule Myles.
Ailfrid O Broin.
Liam Thrift.

Níl

Pádraig Baxter.
Thomas Bolger.
Seoirse de Bhulbh.
Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean
Uí Dhrisceóil.
James Dwyer.
Séamus Eabhróid.
Michael Egan.
Thomas Hennessy.
Seosamh Mac a' Bhrighde.
Liam Mac Cosgair.
Tomás Mac Eoin.
Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
Patrick McGilligan.
Eoin Mac Néill.
Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
Pádraig Mag Ualghairg.
Martin M. Nally.
Tomás de Nógla.
William Norton.
Peadar O hAodha.
Seán O Bruadair.
Parthalán O Conchubhair.
Máirtín O Conalláin.
Séamus O Cruadhlaoich.
Aodh O Cúlacháin.
Liam O Daimhín.
Séamus O Dóláin.
Tadhg O Donnabháin.
Eamon O Dubhghaill.
Mícheál O Dubhghaill.
Peadar O Dubhghaill.
Pádraig O Dubhthaigh.
Eamon O Dúgáin.
Donnchadh O Guaire.
Mícheál O hIfearnáin.
Risteárd O Maolchatha.
Domhnall O Mocháin.
Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
Séamus O Murchadha.
Pádraig O hOgáin (Luimneach).
Seán O Raghallaigh.
Máirtín O Rodaigh.
Seán O Súilleabháin.
Mícheál O Tighearnaigh.
Patrick W. Shaw.

Tellers.—Tá: Deputies Myles and Good; Níl: Deputies Dolan and P. Doyle.

Amendment declared lost.

Mr. HEWAT

I beg to move amendment No. 4:—

In page 7, Section 2, to insert before sub-section (4) a new sub-section as follows:—

The names of the members of the Board so appointed by the Executive Council shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas forthwith, and if either House shall within the next subsequent twenty-one days on which that House has sat after such appointments have been submitted pass a resolution disapproving of such appointments, the said appointments shall be annulled. No member of the Board shall act until after the expiration of said period of twenty-one days.

The object of the amendment is to retain control by the Dáil and the Oireachtas generally of appointments made to the Board. I think it is very necessary, in view of the amount of public money that is to be administered by this Board, that the House should have a say in connection with the appointments. They should have a say to the extent that, when it is proposed to appoint a member of the Board, they shall have an opportunity of querying the appointment as far as qualifications or any other matters are concerned, or as to the advisability of the appointment. I think the Minister, in his explanation of the Bill, laid it down as his idea that the Board and its work should be kept as far as possible outside the range of the criticism of this House. On the other hand, I think the members of this House would be taking rather a light view of the matter under discussion if they did not recognise that this House must, at all times, have a sense of responsibility, irrespective of what may be done by the management, for the general results of the scheme. This amendment gives the House an opportunity, if it so desires, of raising the question of the appointment of any particular person to the Board. I think the amendment is a reasonable one and might be accepted by the Minister.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I could not possibly agree with the description of this amendment as "a reasonable amendment." It introduces a completely new principle into the scheme of things. According to the amendment, the House is hereafter going to have responsibility for the Board. Presumably, it will have responsibility for the administration of the Board if it has responsibility for the appointments. Apart from that, this is a most extraordinary innovation to make by way of a second amendment—an amendment which was to have been proposed if the first amendment down in Deputy Hewat's name were defeated. I wonder does the Deputy or the House realise the extra difficulties that would be encountered, if this amendment were accepted, even in securing suitable applicants. Imagine, if Deputy Hewat's name were considered for the Board, the twenty-one days' tension he would suffer while his name lay here for the House to make any comment that it liked to pass, the matter being raised day by day, the qualifications being looked into and all the different parties having a particular reaction to the name.

I looked upon the amendment at first as a rather derisive amendment. I was surprised to hear the Deputy speaking seriously to it. If it is being proposed seriously, I must take up a serious attitude, definitely and clearly, against it. Anybody who has any conception at all of the immediate difficulties before the Executive Council in trying to get seven people—if seven people are to be got—able to form this new Board, will appreciate the difficulty that would ensue from adoption of this amendment. One must consider what these men are asked to do, what burden they are going to take up, how their whole reputation is at stake, what very thin security they have, how their whole position has been, as I say, prejudiced by absurd comments in the last fortnight. If to all that, you add that every individual who is approached as a suitable member for the Board, hereafter, will have to consider, before he even submits to having his name put forward, that his name will remain here for twenty-one days during which either House is to meet, and that any consideration any member or any Party in either House may bring forward will be discussed, that his reputation is going to be first of all subjected to examination and debate in either House and, if he survives that, that he is going to have all the trouble that will fall upon him if he does take up the duties—if you consider all these things you will understand the difficult situation that would be brought about by adoption of this amendment.

Major COOPER

This Board is a somewhat anomalous body. At times, particularly when under discussion here, it is an absolutely independent body but, when the Minister speaks of it elsewhere, he describes it as "my" board—"my advice to the Board will be," and so-on. I think, in view of the extraordinarily diverse complexity that exists in various aspects of the Board, it is not only wise but constitutional that the Dáil and Seanad should be acquainted with the membership of the Board, and should have a power of expressing disapproval. The Minister says that it will be difficult to constitute such a Board. Surely that is an argument against the Bill. If it is to be so difficult, the task should not have been undertaken, or it should have been undertaken with more consideration for the interests involved, more previous consultation, and not in a manner that makes it necessary for the Minister to bring in twenty-five amendments on the Committee Stage and forty-seven amendments on Report Stage. The problem is so very serious and intricate it should not have been rushed like a bull at a gate. We are now in the position that the Minister says that no suitable member of the Board will allow his name to be under consideration for twenty-one sitting days.

He makes that plea to a Dáil within six weeks of its dissolution. Shall we not to have our names under consideration for twenty-one days? Shall we not all have to be criticised and have imputations made about us? Shall we not have to endure the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune for much less reward, for an almost equal volume of work? I do not believe that men engaged in public life, serious and responsible men such as the Minister proposes to appoint, are so easily deterred. If I may say so without offence, I think that the Minister attaches too much importance to the newspapers. It seems to me that there is a distinct constitutional principle at stake, and, while I have never denied the Minister's responsibility, and have never suggested that he would fail to fulfil his responsibility to appoint the best possible men, I recognise that we in the Dáil, as the custodians of public funds, have also our responsibility, and we must see that that responsibility is not removed from us. By an arbitrary act we should not confer on the Minister power of appointing individuals to a great public trust without knowing who they are, or without the faintest possibility of even suggesting their unsuitability for that trust. This Government, no doubt, has been described by many names, but I think the most appropriate epithet that you could attach to it is "the blank-cheque Government." It always comes and asks for a blank cheque. In many instances that cheque has been filled up to the benefit of the State. I admit that clearly, but the principle is not sound, and is one against which we should guard. Therefore, I support the amendment, and hope that it will receive the support of the Dáil.

Mr. JOHNSON

Again, I think this amendment, while it seeks to do something which is admirable, is proceeding in the wrong way. I would much prefer to endeavour to alter the Bill in such a way as to make the Minister responsible. From my reading of the Bill and from the Minister's statement, it is quite clear that the Minister is seeking to hand over his responsibility to the Board. I do not think that we, as a Dáil, ought to take upon ourselves this administrative function. I think that a great mistake is often made in treating the Dáil as though it were an administrative authority. It is not, and this proposal, in effect, is to leave to the Dáil the responsibility of making these personal appointments. I see clearly that the temptation to support the amendment is great. The Board is one which, I think, ought not to be appointed at all. I disagree utterly with much of the agitation that has gone on during the last week or two, and I think that, unfortunately, the criticism has been in the wrong direction.

If there had been much more criticism directed against the powers of the Board and the non-responsible character of the Minister in respect of this Bill, we might have had more success in making the Bill acceptable, but to lay down in the Bill that the Minister is to make nominations and that the Dáil is to have the responsibility of accepting, or rejecting these persons is quite a wrong function for the Dáil, and we ought not agree to it. I say that the temptation to support the amendment is great for one who thinks that the Bill has so many major defects in regard to the particular powers of the Board and the non-responsibility of the Minister. The temptation to me lies in this, namely, if this amendment were passed, it would give an opportunity to the new Dáil to amend the Bill in that particular. Taking the amendment on its merits, I think it ought not to be passed, and I shall oppose it.

Mr. HEWAT

Deputy Johnson has taken up the attitude that the amendment is wrong because it takes away responsibility for appointments from the Minister. I entirely disagree. We have had experience of the names of Extern Ministers and other persons being submitted to, and accepted by, the Dáil, and I have, so far, had no reason to think that the Dáil will make use of the opportunity afforded to discuss the merits and qualifications of individuals.

Mr. JOHNSON

Are they responsible to the Dáil?

Mr. HEWAT

They are responsible to the Dáil, but the question arises of eliminating responsibility to the Dáil with regard to appointments on the Board. I do not see that by laying the names on the Table of the House there is any likelihood of any of the persons named being criticised here. The amendment proposes to give a safeguard, and I would have expected to get Deputy Johnson's support, because in delegating the powers as proposed in this Bill to the Board and taking them out of the ordinary criticism by members of this House, we are proceeding on a road which may lead us very far. I would have expected that the one man in the House who would support the authority of the Dáil to the moderate extent proposed in this amendment would be the leader of the Labour Party. There is no doubt that the principle involved here is a very difficult one to support; that is to say, that an autocratic body is to be set up under the Minister and not be accountable to this House in the ordinary way. When it has gone so far as to do away with the very important Constitutional principle of examination and report by the Comptroller and Auditor-General of the affairs of the Board is it unreasonable for me as a member of this House to ask the acceptance of the principle that when you put men into that extraordinary responsible position each member of the Dáil will have the right, if he considers it wise to exercise it, to criticise the appointments? I cannot see that there is any real solid foundation for the objection raised in the matter, and I hope the House will accept the amendment.

Mr. BAXTER

It is difficult at first to grasp the significance of an amendment such as this and say yes or no to it. Recognising the point of view put forward by Deputy Hewat as to the great responsibility this Board will have, and the responsibility of the Dáil that has approved of the Shannon scheme, and that has a responsibility in the matter of its success, we should make sure that all possible safeguards as far as lies in our power are inserted in the Bill so as to ensure the success of the scheme. Viewing it from that point of view, and weighing up the pros and cons of Deputy Hewat's amendment, I have come to the conclusion there is nothing in the amendment which would ensure that a better type of man would be put on the Board than would otherwise be the case. No matter what Board can be got together the members of it will not be the unanimous choice of the country. They may be, from the Minister's point of view, the best Board he could get, but even this Dáil would not be unanimous in approving of the very best possible Board to do the work. Supposing what Deputy Hewat wanted were done, what would be the position of Deputies in this House? There are in the country men with ambition and self-confidence who would imagine that they are the proper persons to be appointed on this Board to manage the Shannon scheme. Those men might not be able to get on the Board, and they might not be thought by others to be the best men to be appointed. If the amendment were accepted it will be found that the men who think they are qualified to get on the Board, but who do not get appointed would see all the faults of the men who have got on the Board, and they would approach Deputies and want to get their complaints rehearsed in this House.

I do not know that there would be greater possibilities for the better management of the Shannon scheme, and that the status of the Board and the prestige of the House would be raised by giving us this power, and, in fact, making it mandatory on us to discuss the qualifications, and so on, of the men who would be so fortunate or unfortunate as to be put on this Board. I think it would certainly happen that men would be unhappy because they were not chosen, and the problem would have to be faced in this House of discussing the constitution of the Board and why, perhaps, certain men were not put on it. That, I think, would not be of any benefit to the men in public life who did not succeed in getting on the Board.

If I could see that in Deputy Hewat's amendment there are possibilities of this House keeping watch and control in a manner that would be beneficial to the State as regards the management of the scheme, without having any counteracting influence on the prestige of the House itself, then I might have something to say in support of the amendment. As it stands I think Deputy Hewat would be ill-advised to press it. If it were accepted he would have the most disagreeable task that could be set to any member of the House of coming here and saying that a certain person for certain reasons was not elegible and should not be put on the Board. I do not think the Deputy should make it possible for anyone to be put in the position of doing that.

Mr. GOOD

I think if we take these two amendments together we would get not only a certain amount of enlightenment but of guidance. The previous amendment we were considering was that the members of this Board should have certain qualifications to enable them to discharge the duties imposed upon them. That amendment was not acceptable to this House, and the Minister, or his successor, is left in the position of appointing persons to that Board who, in the opinion of many of us, may have no qualifications whatever to discharge those particular duties. It has been said here that the duties devolving on this Board will be exceedingly onerous and responsible, and that very fact surely carries with it the obligation that the men appointed are capable of discharging those particular duties. You cannot have it both ways. If we are not to have in the Bill a qualification which will give some guarantee that this Board will be composed of men capable of discharging the duties and responsibilities attaching to the position I think it lies upon us as the elected representatives of the people to have the opportunity of discussing, if we like to avail of it in the Dáil, the constitution of the Board and the names of the persons who form that Board.

If the other amendment had been passed, I certainly would not have taken up the strong attitude I have on this particular one. But, in the absence, as I say, of the other amendment, one is forced to the conclusion that in the interests of the country this power should rest with the House. I cannot understand why we should have all this secrecy. The proposal of the amendment is that the Minister should disclose the names of the Board to the Dáil. We are all satisfied that the Minister is giving very serious consideration to the constitution of this Board. If he would unburden himself and tell us the names of this Board, then I am quite sure there would not be any further discussion about it. But this secrecy is very undesirable. This whole scheme has been evolved in undesirable secrecy. I do not know what position other Deputies are in, but I have never seen either a figure or a plan in connection with this scheme. I went down to Limerick at the invitation of the Minister to see the works, but I saw no plan there. That is the position of Deputies with regard to the scheme, Now we are called upon, in continuation of that policy, to give the Minister a blank cheque in connection with the appointment of the Board.

Mr. EVERETT

Has he not already appointed it?

Mr. GOOD

If he has, let him tell us who they are. So far as I am concerned, if the men, in my opinion, are capable of discharging the duties, my criticism will end. Let the Minister be more frank with us. Let us know more about what we are doing. Would any of us in our private capacity attempt to cast on others the responsibility cast upon us under this Bill—that is to say, as the representatives of the people to see that these different appointments are properly made? If we are to pass a Bill of this character, we are simply passing on the responsibility that we are bound to discharge in connection with the trust put in us at our election. I, for one, must protest against this continuous policy of secrecy in connection with this whole scheme. Deputy Johnson mentioned that we might have been more successful in our opposition to this scheme if instead of concentrating on certain points we had concentrated on others. Whatever Party can be proud of its attitude—if any Party can be proud of its attitude in connection with this Bill —I do not think the Party that Deputy Johnson is at the head of has very much to be proud of.

Mr. HEWAT

I understood at all events that we left it in the atmosphere in which the Minister was to give the matter consideration before the Report Stage was taken. I only refer to that to clear the air. Irrespective of what happened on the Committee Stage, I still hold that the Bill as it stands is unsatisfactory.

If the House is willing to say that the Bill as it stands is satisfactory and not capable of further improvement, well and good. Deputy Baxter and Deputy Johnson, I think, visualised the laying on the Table of the House of the names of the members of the proposed Board and the names of individual members when vacancies occurred as creating a situation which would raise controversial discussions in this House. Has that been our experience, or is it likely to be our experience? Is it likely that any body of men in this House are going to get up and criticise the recommendations of the Minister unless they feel that they have good cause for doing so? There is no use in saying, in the competition for membership of this Board, that because one man may be recommended by the Minister, some outside person who felt that he had a better right to the position would move Deputies to have the matter raised in the House. Let us visualise that position for a moment. Under those circumstances what sort of reception would that outside man get from Deputies Baxter or Johnson? Would either of them get up and say that the appointment of the Minister was wrong simply because somebody else had approached them who felt that he had a better claim to the position than the man who had obtained it? Why, the thing is unthinkable. I say that the only safeguard is that the Minister, or whoever has the making of the appointment, would have clearly before him the criticism that might be incurred in connection with the appointment. As far as criticism is concerned, if there is to be any proper criticism to be made or likely to be made, I say it would be a great deal better that it should be made in this House than outside of it. In connection with these matters one must always recognise that a great many hares might be started and statements made outside of this House which certainly would never be made in it. As far as clarifying the position is concerned, I maintain that is done under the amendment. A motion brought forward for the appointment of any person recommended by the Minister would be absolutely safe from criticism by any member of the House, unless there was something seriously to be criticised in connection with that particular appointment.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. GOREY

If the spirit of Depute Johnson's argument is accepted it will upset a good deal of the legislation already enacted, perhaps some of the legislation enacted before our time. With reference to County Councils or County Committees of Agriculture, many people leave themselves open to disqualification. Few men can occupy the position of county councillor without leaving themselves open to disqualification.

Mr. JOHNSON

By law?

Mr. GOREY

If a man keeps even a premium bull that disqualifies him from membership of a county council. A county council employee deriving any benefit would also be disqualified. The whole trend of your legislation is in that direction. If you are going to do as Deputy Johnson now suggests, you had better go back on the whole system of disqualification in connection with other Acts, some of which I know to be very disagreeable, vexatious and unnecessary. If you are going to make a departure now you will have to consider the whole question and go back on all the other Acts under which this sort of disqualification exists.

Mr. JOHNSON

No.

Mr. GOREY

I am open to correction, of course, but I think it would be necessary to do as I say.

So that the proposition is that the Board, which otherwise has full power to make the terms and conditions under which it will engage its employees, shall be obliged to dismiss an employee who happens to be nominated as a member of the Dáil or Seanad. That is the only condition of employment that you are prepared to put into the Bill. Deputy Cooper challenged me on the question of whether my criticism applied equally to membership of the Board. The Board is appointed by a Minister, and undoubtedly I think members of the Board should be prohibited from being members of either the Dáil or Seanad. But the officers and servants of the Board are appointed by the Board and paid by the Board, and no responsibility of any kind lies on the Minister. He has fashioned this Bill in such a way as to relieve himself of all responsibility, and in view of the general character and scheme of the Bill, to ask the House to make one condition in respect of those who are employed by this independent Board, that its employees, the men who wire your house, shall not be eligible for nomination or election, or to sit as a member of the Dáil or Seanad, is surely asking too much.

Amendment put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 49; Níl, 7.

Tá

Earnán Altún.
Pádraig Baxter.
Thomas Bolger.
Séamus Breathnach.
Seoirse de Bhulbh.
Próinsias Bulfin.
John J. Cole.
Bryan R. Cooper.
Sir James Craig.
Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean
Uí Dhrisceóil.
James Dwyer.
Michael Egan.
Desmond Fitzgerald.
John Good.
Thomas Hennessy
Seán O Bruadair.
Parthalán O Conchubhair.
Máirtín O Conalláin.
Séamus O Cruadhlaoich.
Mícheál O Dubhghaill.
Peadar O Dubhghaill.
Pádraig O Dubhthaigh.
Eamon O Dúgáin.
Donnchadh O Guaire.
Connor Hogan.
Patrick Leonard.
Seosamh Mac a' Bhrighde.
Liam Mac Cosgair.
Séamus Mac Cosgair.
Maolmhuire Mac Eochadha.
Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
Patrick McGilligan.
Eoin Mac Néill.
Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
Pádraig Mag Ualghairg.
James Sproule Myles.
Martin M. Nally.
John T. Nolan.
Peadar O hAodha.
Ailfrid O Broin.
Mícheál O hIfearnáin.
Domhnall O Mocháin.
Séamus O Murchadha.
Pádraig O hOgáin (Luimneach).
Máirtín O Rodaigh.
Seán O Súilleabháin.
Mícheál O Tighearnaigh.
Caoimhghín O hUigín.
Liam Thrift.

Níl

Séamus Eabhróid.
Tomás Mac Eoin.
Tomás de Nógla.
William Norton.
Aodh O Cúlacháin.
Liam O Daimhín.
Eamon O Dubhghaill.

Tellers.—Tá: Deputies Tierney and Nicholls; Níl: Deputies Norton and Nagle.

Amendment declared carried.

Sitting suspended at 6.25 p.m. and resumed at 7.20,

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

in the Chair.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I move:—

6. In page 8, line 6, Section 6 (1), after the word "them" to insert the words "including a capital account, revenue account, profit and loss account and a balance sheet."

This is again to carry out an undertaking which was given, I think, to Deputy Thrift. I have taken exactly the phrases the Deputy drew out in his suggestion: "capital account, revenue account, profit and loss account, and a balance sheet." I do not know if he wants further discussion.

Professor THRIFT

No. I am satisfied.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Mr. JOHNSON

I move:—

7. In page 8, Section 6, to delete sub-section (2), lines 9 to 12, and substitute therefor the words: "The accounts of the Board shall be audited by an auditor appointed by a resolution of Dáil Eireann, who shall act on behalf of Saorstát Eireann. The cost of such audit shall be paid by the Board."

This amendment is intended to provide the second best alternative to the audit by the Comptroller and Auditor-General. The proposal of Deputy Cooper on the last consideration of this question was that the Auditor-General should have the responsibility and authority to audit the accounts. That was defeated. I would much prefer that that should be inserted in the Bill before it passes into law, and I am moving this amendment as something second best to the Auditor-General. It is a great improvement on the proposition in the Bill as it stands. I say second best, but I think that the position we are being faced with, if this Bill passes either in its present form or even as amended by my proposal, would still leave the question of the Comptroller and Auditor-General a little difficult. The spirit of the Comptroller and Auditor-General Act and of the Constitution in my opinion requires that the Comptroller and Auditor-General should audit the accounts of this particular undertaking inasmuch as the money has been provided by the State and it is run under the authority of the State. That is a matter on which there may be differences of opinion.

I draw the attention of the House to this important fact that, the Comptroller and Auditor-General Act, Section 7, sub-section (2), provides that by resolution of Dáil Eireann at any time the accounts of this undertaking may be audited by that official, and notwithstanding that the Oireachtas may decide to remove them from the purview of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, any future Dáil, by simple resolution, may require that the accounts shall be reported upon by that official. Therefore we may be laying up for ourselves unnecessary difficulties. We may be providing what the Minister thinks is desirable, that the finances of this particular undertaking shall not be brought under public criticism, and yet a resolution of the Dáil at any time may still bring the accounts and those finances under the Comptroller and Auditor-General. Therefore there will be two audits, and he will be required to report, not in the normal way, but as additional and abnormal procedure. I think the fact that that is possible by such a simple process makes the proposals of the Minister unwise because it is requiring a kind of super-auditor over the auditor that the Minister himself proposes to appoint. It would be much simpler to have the normal process that these accounts would be audited by the auditor who acts on behalf of Saorstát Eireann.

However, I am dealing now with the second best proposition, as far as I can see, that is, that the auditor who is to be appointed to audit the accounts shall be one "appointed by a resolution of Dáil Eireann who shall act on behalf of Saorstát Eireann." That is the phrasing of the Comptroller and Auditor-General Act. I think the line taken by the Minister in regard to this proposition is misdirected and mainly based upon either a misapprehension as to the position of the Comptroller and Auditor-General or a very serious fault in his mentality regarding the public finances. The case made by the Minister seems to have been that it is undesirable that a public auditor acting on behalf of the State should have any say in the control or the check of the expenditure of this particular board, and his reason is that he does not want to drag the affairs of this particular undertaking into the public gaze. I can understand quite well a case made that one does not want to interfere with the details of administration by discussion in this or any other public assembly before the act or immediately after the act of administration, but the work of the auditor is the work of looking over the financial affairs a considerable time after the event. It is no interference with the administrative activities of the Board. His business is to make sure that the finances of the undertaking have been carefully looked after and that spending has been according to order and regulation. I think that the people who are to provide the money are the people to make the appointment.

Some references were made to public companies. It is the shareholders at the annual meeting of an ordinary public company who appoint the auditor, and it is to the shareholders the auditor reports. The proposal in the measure is that the Minister, who is the spending authority under our constitutional arrangement, shall appoint the auditor, and that the auditor shall report to him—entirely wrong from a financial point of view. The people who provide the money are to have no say in the matter. The auditors may report on the proceedings. They may put in their report exactly what they like and omit what they like. They are not reporting on the finances. They are making a report to the Minister, the spending Department, and the people who provide the money are to have no say in that most important of all affairs. The Bill provides for the keeping of accounts according to an arrangement which shall be made by the Minister after consultation with the Minister for Finance. He will consult with the Minister for Finance and then proceed to make his own arrangements as to the form of accounts, but I think more than that is required in regard to any financial administration. There is something more required than the mere audit of the accounts and the presenting of the annual report. "The accounts of the Board shall be audited annually." I believe in this matter, as in all public expenditure, it is desirable that there should be a running audit and that that audit should be conducted by a public official.

Let us consider for a moment what power is given to this Board. They are to be handed over five and a half million pounds' worth of supplies, power and material for producing power, plus two and a half millions of money that is now being embodied in this Bill, plus another one or two millions which they may take over from the municipal authorities, plus anything else that may accrue in the course of time. It is a trust the money for which is being provided by the State, and the Board has absolute power in respect of administration. It may spend as it likes. Its only responsibility, as far as I can see, is to ensure that the expenditure and the income will be more or less balanced and that the scheme shall eventually pay for itself, but the manner of expenditure the Board itself has to determine. We have the right to assume that they will be men of the highest integrity and capacity, with the utmost wisdom in regard to accounting, but they are going to hand over their powers to officers. These officers, too, might be assumed to be men of the highest integrity and capacity, but they will be largely dependent on the action of subordinates, and we know that subordinates can very often spend wrongfully, waste public money.

It is necessary that we, at least, should have some say in the checking of this scheme and the system, so that, as far as we can bring it about, opportunities for mis-spending those public moneys should be reduced to a minimum. That is not provided for by the scheme in the Bill. The Minister intends that should be provided for by the appointment of an auditor who shall be qualified, and it is proposed that these accounts should be audited annually. That may mean anything. You may have an internal audit which has to be ultimately overlooked by the annual audit, a continuous internal audit which has to be overlooked by the outside auditor. We are getting no assurance whatever that the public side of this expenditure is going to be safeguarded. The Minister resents what he calls the interference of the auditor, but I think that is a very dangerous state of mind for the Minister to be in. He resents the interference in financial matters of the Auditor-General. He expressed the determination that, so far as he could ensure it, the accounts of this Board would not be brought into discussion in the Dáil. On the second part of Deputy Cooper's amendment, the Minister objected to "bringing back the whole of the accounts of the Board from year to year for discussion in the Dáil, in view of the political reactions that were bound to follow from that"; he was "not prepared to have every action of the Board criticised from the political point of view in the House"; he was "not prepared to have every account of the Board dragged back again into this House through the supervision of the Comptroller and Auditor-General." I say it is a deplorable and lamentable state of mind for a Minister to be in when he can give expression to such views as that about public expenditure.

There are a number of members of this House who have been, during the last four years, from time to time, members of the Public Accounts Committee. I have the names marked on a division list of Deputy Wolfe, Deputy Patrick J. Egan, Deputy Wilson, Deputy Michael Hennessy and Deputy Martin Roddy as Deputies who voted against the proposal that the accounts should be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor-General. They, no doubt, heard the statement of the Minister in regard to bringing before this House the report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, the "dragging into this House" of the accounts as audited by the Comptroller and Auditor-General as representing the Saorstát and discussing them from a political point of view. I challenge any of these members to say whether, at any time, in the Public Accounts Committee, there has been any discussion of the accounts from a political point of view. Has there ever been any discussion in this House of these accounts from a political point of view?

Some of his officials have had plenty of experience.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I doubt if any of them had experience, so far as life under the auspices of the Dáil is concerned, in auditing accounts of a commercial firm—none whatever. Let us take the second best amendment. We are going to have an auditor, appointed by resolution of the Dáil, who shall act on behalf of Saorstát Eireann and the cost of such audits is to be paid by the Board. We may take as an appendage to that that the accounts are to be presented. I take it that this amendment is to sub-section (3), instead of sub-section (4). Apparently, the report is to be sent to the Clerk of the Dáil, instead of to the Minister, along with the various matters set out in the sub-section. What is the difference? On the one hand, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, as the Bill stands, but, if this amendment be accepted, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, is to appoint a qualified auditor, or auditors, and the reports are to be submitted to the Minister. These, I hold, are afterwards to come before the Dáil, and can be made to come before the Dáil.

The Minister is described as the head of a spending department. After all the talk there has been, and all the discussions that we have had with regard to the control of public expenditure, I wonder is there any doubt in anybody's mind in this House as to who really is the main check on expenditure as far as the Dáil is concerned. There are the Comptroller and Auditor-General, the Committee of Public Accounts, and this House in its discussion of the Estimates. Is it not mainly— as regards nine-tenths of the work— done by the Minister for Finance who is the real check? As far as the State is concerned the real check to extravagance in spending departments, if there be any attempt at extravagance, is the Minister for Finance and his Department. The auditor is to be appointed under the Bill, plus the amendment put forward for discussion, by the Minister for Industry and Commerce with the consent of the Minister for Finance, and the accounts are to be presented to the House and to come up for discussion. On the other hand, we have Deputy Johnson's point of view: "Let us have a resolution of the House, and the report thereafter sent to the Clerk of the Dáil." I do not know the significance of sending the report to the Clerk of the Dáil, except that he is the official who should receive the accounts from the auditor appointed by resolution of this House.

Deputy Baxter referred in an earlier amendment to the amount of canvassing and the beleaguering of the doors of the Dáil with regard to the appointment of members of the Board. If Deputy Hewat's last amendment, that the names were to remain on the Table for 21 days and be subject to criticism during all that period, had been accepted, would we not have the same beleaguering of the doors and canvassing with regard to the appointment of an auditor by a resolution of this House? If that is regarded as probable or possible, is it a proper thing to have happening, and what extra safeguard is there after you have all this machinery set in motion? The touch as between this House and anybody outside the House appointed for the business of the House should be in the biggest majority of cases through the Executive Council of the day. It is quite a strange procedure to have the Dáil dealing direct with somebody to be appointed from outside as an official of the Dáil for the time being—quite as new a procedure as was the procedure outlined in Deputy Hewat's amendment with regard to the appointment of members of the Board on the nomination of the Minister and the censoring or rejection by the House. The touch of the House with anybody outside brought in for a particular purpose to be the servant of the House should be through the Executive Council, through the people appointed to carry out that sort of duty for the House during their period of office. This is quite as illogical as Deputy Hewat's amendment with regard to the appointment of members of the Board. It gives no extra safeguard. It brings nothing under the control of the Dáil that is not already under its control, and it introduces that very disturbing feature to the ordinary Deputy's life here in the hectoring and beleaguering that would go on with regard to an appointment of this kind if made by a resolution of this House.

Major COOPER

I know where the President was the day before yesterday, as I saw his picture in the paper. I do not know if he met any masters of foxhounds, and if he did whether they asked him if he could find a man who would run a drag. If they had asked him I know he would have recommended the Minister for Industry and Commerce. There is no one who swings a red herring across the trail with so much dexterity as the Minister. He has devoted his speech in part to one of Deputy Hewat's amendments which had been already rejected by the House, and he has not devoted more than five minutes to the actual proposal Deputy Johnson has made. That is a strong proposition and requires a stronger case to refute and rebut it than the Minister has made in the course of his somewhat discursive speech. The Minister says: "I hold that the auditor's report must be submitted to the Dáil." When did he begin to hold that theory? I think it was on the Committee Stage. It was not stated in the original Bill or during the Second Reading debate. It has come into the Bill on Report as a result of an argument by Deputy Thrift, and I am not absolutely satisfied it has come in, even now. Again the Minister says: "The Comptroller and Auditor-General is not in a position to audit accounts as well as outside firms are." Has he inquired and has he satisfied himself that there are no members of the Comptroller and Auditor-General's staff who have experience of auditing the accounts of a commercial firm? If my information is correct, there are members on the Comptroller and Auditor-General's staff who have the ordinary qualifications of chartered accountants, and who, before they became members of that staff, were occupied in the precise kind of work the Minister now says they are unable to undertake.

However, that is beside the point, for Deputy Johnson's amendment does not say the Comptroller and Auditor-General. It merely says that the Dáil shall prescribe the auditor and not the Minister. The Minister has discovered that the one real check on the expenditure of money is the Minister for Finance, and he has a subsequent amendment requiring the assent of the Minister for Finance to the appointment of the auditor. That check never occurred to him until I suggested it on the Committee Stage. The more we discuss this Bill the better it becomes, and, therefore, the longer we go on discussing it the better we shall get the Minister from his present mood. I remember when the President said that his motto was "sursum corda," and it is a motto I have tried to adopt.

The Minister for Industry and Commerce has a different motto. Whenever we try to question anything in his Bill it is not "sursum corda" but "pax vobiscum." I would like this Bill to be an agreed measure. It is rather a big issue to gamble on. I would like if the Minister had more consultation before he introduced the Bill, and given more weight to his opponents' views, and I think he should remove the atmosphere of suspicion and distrust that exists at present by assenting to Deputy Johnson's amendment. I do not believe that the finances of the Bill and of the Board cannot stand examination. I believe they can, but I believe that Deputies, as a general body, and the public, as a whole, will not be convinced of that unless there is an entirely independent audit. The Minister is two people rolled into one. At one moment he is an independent Minister, and at another he talks about "my Board," and "the advice I will give to the Board." When he adopts that attitude one cannot be satisfied with regard to the appointment of the auditor. It will be "my auditor." Therefore, I suggest that Deputy Johnson's amendment is a reasonable, sound and modest one. I am sorry if, to use, perhaps, an unparliamentary expression, I have queered his pitch. I was conscious when moving my previous amendment that I was only a clumsy Ajax. I now rejoice that Achilles has emerged from his tent and is taking up the burden of battle. I hope that he will take up not only the burden of battle, but the laurels of victory on this amendment.

Mr. JOHNSON

The Minister, I am afraid, has not given consideration to the importance of form and procedure in respect to finance. I do not know whether he has consulted the Minister for Finance, or the President, who has had experience of the office of Minister for Finance, but I ask Ministers to give some weight to the consideration that the Comptroller and Auditor-General is a very important official, and that to imply that the value of his duties is only one-tenth as compared with nine-tenths for the Finance Department, suggests that Ministers are belittling the importance of the function of an auditor. We all know that the Department of Finance, to protect the general interests of course, but, theoretically, at any rate, to protect the spending departments from outstepping their authority and spending more than they have been authorised to spend, acts as a check upon the spending departments. But the Department of Finance is acting on behalf of Ministers to whom the money is granted. The Comptroller and Auditor-General, on the other hand, acts on behalf of the State, on behalf of the Dáil as representing the public. There is a very great and a very important distinction which is set out very clearly in the Constitution, that the Comptroller and Auditor-General is acting on behalf of Saorstát Eireann, appointed by the Dáil as the finance authority, and that his power in regard to accounts is practically supreme. If we are to say that the Finance Department is all that is necessary—and that is more or less implied by the Minister's statement—then we should amend the Constitution and save a few thousands per year in expenses. But it is not sufficient. It may be said that the whole financial system that we have adopted is all wrong. On behalf of the Executive Council it may be said that this finance system should be scrapped, that it is utterly wrong, or even partially wrong, and should be amended. But let them come and do that boldly and formally, and do not let the alteration come by these insidious side methods. I would remind the Minister that in the Act he has quoted there is more than one section. He said that the Comptroller and Auditor-General's Department is not fitted, and was never intended, to audit such accounts as the trading accounts of a board such as this, and he quoted the section which suited his argument regarding the control of expenditure and the check over disbursements. I refer him to Section 7 of that Act, sub-section (3), which refers to certain other Acts:—

"III.... the Comptroller and Auditor-General shall have and exercise all such powers and perform all such duties as are prescribed by this Act or are conferred or imposed on him by any Act of the Parliament of the late United Kingdom having the force of law in Saorstát Eireann and adapted to the circumstances of Saorstát Eireann by or under the Adaptation of Enactments Act, 1922 (Number 2 of 1922), and particularly by the Exchequer and Audit Departments Acts, 1886 and 1921 ..."

Those Acts that the Minister forgot to note do give authority and quite clearly prescribe that the British Comptroller and Auditor-General whose system we have taken over, shall audit trading accounts. I have here a report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General upon the accounts of the income and expenditure of certain manufacturing, trading and commercial services for the year ending 31st March, 1925. The scheme of the Comptroller and Auditor-General fits in precisely with the proposal that he should have the responsibility of auditing the accounts of such a concern. It is wrong, I maintain, to argue that the audit by the Comptroller and Auditor-General, or by an auditor appointed by the Dáil, is going to militate against the efficiency of the business, unless the efficiency is purchased at the cost of bad financial administration. He comes in after the decisions regarding expenditure have been made; he seeks the authority for expenditure, and he will have perhaps a clearer recognition of the responsibility to the authority providing the money than an auditor appointed by the person who has the spending of the money, which in effect is the proposal in the Bill.

There is another aspect of this that may appeal to certain Deputies. Has there been any estimate of the cost of the audit by a firm of outside auditors? Has the Minister given any consideration to that side of the question? There is going to be a continuously increasing responsibility upon the firm of auditors that will be appointed. In the early stages it will be much smaller than when the Board has taken over the distribution side. When the electricity undertakings of Dublin, Rathmines and Pembroke have been absorbed, when the regular distribution of electricity the sale of apparatus, and perhaps the manufacture of apparatus, are brought under the authority of the Board, the-outside auditor who is to do this work efficiently is going to charge a pretty considerable fee, a very much greater fee than would be the cost of the audit under a State Department—possibly £20,000, £30,000 or £40,000 per annum, according to the extent of the consumption of electricity and the number of consumers. That is a matter that, to my mind, is very small as compared with the principle involved. The Minister tries to make play with the suggestion that the appointment of an auditor under my proposition by a resolution of the House would mean the canvassing of members. There is no proposition here, that the Minister shall make a nomination, and that it shall lie in abeyance for 21 days. The proposition here is that there shall be done exactly what the Ministers did when they appointed the present Comptroller and Auditor-General. The nomination would be made by the Minister, and the House would accept or reject it.

The Minister may know what the practice has been in regard to such appointments. I do not know. At least I would be rather surprised if such appointments as that have been very generally preceded by widespread canvassing of Ministers. They certainly have not been preceded by widespread canvassing of members of the Dáil. I say we are bound, if we are looking after the public interests, to ensure that the auditor, whoever he may be, shall be appointed by the money-providing authority, and that he shall report to that authority. That is not done by the Bill, and I seek to do it by the amendment. I ask the House to support the proposition in the amendment.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE resumed the Chair.

MINISTER for JUSTICE (Mr. O'Higgins)

Mr. O'HIGGINS

Does the Deputy envisage it as a possibility that particular firms or particular individuals might be unwilling to accept nomination by the Minister on those terms? If there could be here absolutely unrestricted criticism—not necessarily fair criticism and not necessarily impartial criticism; but that people influenced by business rivals would come here to the Dáil and make allegations under the privileges of Parliament—I could well imagine a firm of standing and repute refusing to accept the Minister's nomination, refusing to allow their names to figure in any such resolution on that basis. Now, there is nothing in it in fact. An auditor appointed as a result of a resolution tabled by the Minister and carried by supporters of the Government in the Dáil is not less independent than an auditor appointed direct by the Minister.

On the question of the accessibility of his report to Deputies, there is nothing in it either, because the Minister has stated his complete willingness, if Section 31 (3) does not cover the point, to insert an amendment that will quite definitely cover it so that the auditor's report shall be available to the Dáil. Therefore, on these two grounds there is nothing of substance and nothing of reality as between the Deputy's amendment and the provision of the Bill. But the Deputy's amendment opens up an entirely undesirable possibility in the nature of criticism here in the Dáil as to the respective merits of business firms. I suggest to Deputies that they would do well to abide by the provision in the Bill rather than pass the amendment.

The first of them were. The Minister's points of order were not as well heard. I quite agree it was an impartial hearing. If the Minister's knowledge of the Bill and his knowledge of all the discussions relating to the Bill had been deeper, he would not have lent his advocacy to the opposition of this particular section.

Mr. JOHNSON

The Minister for Justice has made the point that the capacity, the qualifications, the character and all the rest of it of the auditor who is to be appointed by the House are to be discussed, and there might be half a dozen rival nominations, and the rival claims are to be canvassed. It so happens that the Minister who made that remark was responsible for introducing into the Provisional Parliament the Constitution which contained certain provisions regarding the appointment of the Comptroller and Auditor-General. I think he was responsible—if it was not he it was one of his colleagues—for the drafting of the Comptroller and Auditor-General Act and the procedure set forth in that Act for the appointment of the Auditor-General was exactly the procedure that was proposed in this amendment of mine for the appointment of an auditor for these accounts. As a matter of fact, the amendment is taken exactly from the Minister's own Act. "It shall be lawful for Dáil Eireann from time to time by resolution carried by a majority of the members present and voting to appoint a Comptroller and Auditor-General." A Minister, the President, I think, proposed the name of an individual. It was within the option of any other Deputy to have proposed another name, and the rival merits might just as well have been canvassed. There might be a half a dozen names by a half dozen Deputies, and the undesirable things that the Minister suggests might have happened if my amendment were operative might have happened under his own Comptroller and Auditor-General Act.

But they did not happen. The result of this Act was that an independent auditor, who knew that his appointment was in the hands of the Dáil, reported to the Dáil, acted with that knowledge and does his audit with that knowledge. I say, without any hesitation, that the person who appoints the auditor and to whom the report has to be made has an effect on and may govern the procedure of that auditor in his audit of accounts. It makes a great deal of difference to an auditor who it is who appointed him and to whom he is to report. I dare say if the Minister for Finance were here he would tell you of auditors' reports that have come before his notice directly or indirectly, regarding, shall I say, income tax returns. He has the auditors' reports signed and certified in accordance with the figures that were placed before them, and stating "this is the result." I am sure the Minister for Finance could confirm that. That is the kind of return that you may get under the provisions of this section in the Bill; but it is not the kind of report that the public would require in respect of the expenditure of public money. A check by an auditor who we know feels his independence of the person who is responsible for the spending will give much more confidence in respect of the legitimacy of that expenditure than the auditor appointed in the form devised in this Bill. I repeat what I said earlier—and the Minister seemed to think that it was a light comment—that it is cutting at the very essence of the financial system, and it is extremely important in respect of this Bill as to who is to control expenditure, who is to check if and be responsible to the public in certifying that that expenditure has been properly conducted and that there is no misuse of public money.

I thought that the Minister would have been very glad to have the assurance that comes with the appointment of the auditor appointed by the Dáil as distinct from an auditor appointed by himself. Ministers have referred to the reports of that audit and the public criticism that may ensue. I would like to have a little enlightenment on this point. The report is going to be discussed. Who is going to answer for that expenditure? Is it the Minister? Is he accepting responsibility for the expenditure? Who is going to answer in this House for the Board? Anybody? Presumably, by all precedents, the Minister ought to. But he has disclaimed responsibility and that is particularly important when we are dealing with finance. Somebody at least should be responsible in this House, and somebody should give an answer to this House for expenditure. Under this scheme of things nobody is answerable, and we know that seven, eight, or ten millions of money will be in question and nobody is prepared to answer for it.

Mr. BAXTER

I have been listening to the debate trying to gather from many of the abstractions that we have heard what really is the practical thing to do under the conditions that we are facing up to. I think that the Minister for Justice said truly that in fact there is not very much difference between the amendment of Deputy Johnson and the proposal of the Minister for Industry and Commerce.

Mr. HEWAT

We do not agree with that.

To meet a very novel situation. But the appointment of an auditor is a very normal thing. The point that is in the Bill throws much more responsibility on the Minister and makes the Minister have much more to answer for than if it were to be done in the way suggested in the amendment. To people who think clearly on the matter there can be no doubt about that, and if there is any suspicion about this, it can best be cleared by leaving the responsibility with regard to the appointment on the Minister, a matter upon which he can be questioned afterwards and about which the whole doings of the Department may be dragged into discussion.

Mr. JOHNSON

I would like to disclaim any suspicion that in adopting the attitude I have adopted in this matter I am affected by any suspicion that there may be outside regarding this scheme. I personally have no such suspicion.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I was only speaking about this point.

Mr. JOHNSON

I want to make it quite clear that it is not due to suspicion in respect of any proceedings under this scheme that I was moved to take the line I have taken on this Bill. Deputy Professor MacNeill spoke of a precedent. I realise this is a precedent, and I say it is a very important precedent that we are establishing if the Bill passes as the Minister wishes, that we should provide £7,000,000 for a Board to spend, with innumerable other thousands following on, with a monopoly, with almost indefinite expansion as a possibility, and that we should not have the appointment of the auditor who will control that expenditure. It is a matter of principle, and it is a precedent. Having this as a precedent, and reading the Bill in the light of the Minister's arguments on the earlier stage about the undesirability of dragging into the Dáil a discussion of these public accounts, I think the precedent is all in my favour and against the proposal in the Bill.

Amendment put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 25; Níl, 42.

Tá

Earnán Altún.
Pádraig Baxter.
John J. Cole.
John Conlan.
Bryan R. Cooper.
Séamus Eabhróid.
Seán de Faoite.
John Good.
William Hewat.
Connor Hogan.
Séamus Mac Cosgair.
Maolmhuire Mac Eochadha.
Tomás Mac Eoin.
Pádraig Mac Fhlannchadha.
James Sproule Myles.
Tomás de Nógla.
William Norton.
Ailfrid O Broin.
Aodh O Cúlacháin.
Eamon O Dubhghaill.
Mícheál O Dubhghaill.
Seán O Duinnín.
Mícheál O hIfearnáin.
Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
Nicholas Wall.

Níl

Thomas Bolger.
Séamus Breathnach.
Seoirse de Bhulbh.
Próinsias Bulfin.
Séamus de Búrca.
Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean
Uí Dhrisceóil.
Michael Egan.
Desmond Fitzgerald.
Thomas Hennessy.
Donnchadh Mac Con Uladh.
Liam Mac Cosgair.
Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
Patrick McGilligan.
Patrick McKenna.
Eoin Mac Néill.
Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
Pádraig Mag Ualghairg.
Martin M. Nally.
John T. Nolan.
Michael K. Noonan.
Peadar O hAodha.
Seán O Bruadair.
Risteárd O Conaill.
Máirtín O Conalláin.
Séamus O Cruadhloich.
Séamus O Dóláin.
Tadhg O Donnabháin.
Peadar O Dubhghaill.
Pádraig O Dubhthaigh.
Eamon O Dúgáin.
Donnchadh O Guaire.
Risteárd O Maolchatha.
Domhnall O Mocháin.
Séamus O Murchadha.
Pádraig O hOgáin (Gaillimh)
Máirtín O Rodaigh.
Seán O Súilleabháin.
Andrew O'Shaughnessy.
Mícheál O Tighearnaigh.
Caoimhghín O hUigín.
Patrick W. Shaw.
Liam Thrift.

Tellers.—Tá: Deputies Morrissey and Nagle; Níl: Deputies P.S. Doyle and Tierney.

Amendment declared lost.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I move:—

In page 8, line 10, Section 6 (2), before the word "auditors" to insert the words "duly qualified."

The amendment is moved to carry out a guarantee that was given on the Committee Stage when it was pointed out that I might appoint one of my own or one of the Government auditors.

Mr. JOHNSON

Will the Minister give any justification for this amendment? What is meant by "duly qualified"? Does the Minister propose to insert in the definition what constitutes the qualifications?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

No, I was not asked.

Mr. JOHNSON

It seems to me that the Minister has introduced an amendment which has no value of any kind.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I do not press it on the House. I was asked to bring it forward and I did so.

Amendment put and declared carried.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I move amendment 9:—

In page 8, line 10, Section 6 (2), after the word "Minister" to insert the words "with the consent of the Minister for Finance."

This is also due to a promise on the Committee Stage. It was considered desirable that the Minister for Finance should appoint the auditor, and this is more or less the form in which these things run.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Amendment 10 not moved.

Mr. JOHNSON

I move amendment 11:—

In page 8, Section 7, to delete sub-section (2), lines 33 to 35, and substitute therefor the following subsections:—

"(2) The rates of remuneration, hours of duty and other conditions of service of officers and servants of the Board, other than such superior officers as the Minister may determine should be excluded from the operation of this sub-section, shall be regulated in accordance with agreements made or to be from time to time made between the trade unions representative of such officers and servants of the one part and the Board of the other part; provided that:—

(i) the minimum wage of an adult male employee shall in no case be less than is sufficient to maintain a well-conducted employee of average health, strength, and competence, and his wife and a family of three children in a fair and average standard of comfort, having regard to the conditions of living prevailing among employees in the calling in respect of which such wage is fixed, and provided that in fixing such minimum wage the earnings of the children or wife of such employee shall not be taken into account;

(ii) the minimum wage of an adult female employee shall not be less than is sufficient to enable her to support herself in a fair and average standard of comfort, having regard to the nature of her duties and to the conditions of living prevailing among female employees in the calling in respect of which such minimum wage is fixed.

(3) The original or a counterpart, or a copy, certified in such manner as the Minister shall direct to be a true copy, of every such agreement as is mentioned in the next preceding sub-section shall be deposited with the Minister within one month after the making of such agreement.

(4) The remuneration and allowances of officers and servants of the Board shall be paid by the Board out of the funds at its disposal under this Act."

There is a slight error in punctuation here. The comma after "determine" in line 5 of the amendment should be deleted. This amendment is a very important one from several points of view. I would point out, for the reassurance of timid Deputies, that it is not novel and is not creating a precedent. At least, it is not the original creator of a precedent. The first part of the amendment is taken out of the Railways Act, for which the Minister was responsible, and the second part is taken out of an Australian Act. I hope that the Minister will make himself responsible for the acceptance of this and establish a really satisfactory minimum wage clause in respect to any agreement with servants of this new Board. It is of the utmost importance that there should be such a clause as this inserted in the Bill. We have to remember that the powers of the Board are very widespread. There may be men and women engaged by this Board for all sorts and conditions of employment not merely electrical employment. The Board has power to engage in publicity work, even the distribution of handbills, explaining to householders how important and how valuable it is that they should use electric power. By the way, Deputies by a recent vote decided that the distributor of a handbill, if employed by the Board, should not be eligible for membership of the Dáil. The Board has extensive powers for engaging in an infinite variety of occupations, and unless there is a provision of this kind we may have the precedent followed of the original power scheme, when starvation wages were prescribed and paid by the Shannon authorities and, unfortunately, supported by the majority of this House. I think it is necessary that we should make provision in this Bill to prevent a repetition of that, and we should fix a minimum which shall be as determined by organised employers and organised workmen where possible, and if there is not any such machinery of organised workmen and employers then the family minimum wage should be established as a minimum.

I cannot imagine any Deputy who thinks seriously upon his obligations to oppose this principle. The Railway Bill did, as I have already said, impose a duty upon the railway companies of fixing rates of remuneration, hours of duty and other conditions of service on lines similar to that prescribed in the first part of the amendment, but I am aware of the fact that in the innumerable variety of occupations and in the various parts of the country where such occupations will be affected there are many men and women who will not be organised in any trade union and therefore will not be able to make terms by collective bargaining with their employers. In such a case it is proposed that a certain standard should be fixed Under the original Shannon Scheme Bill we had assurances that there was inserted in the contract, as in every contract entered into by Ministers, a fair wages clause. That was the assurance given in this House by the Minister's predecessor, that the fair wages clause enteredinto was inserted in every public contract made by the Government, and I assume—I have no reason to think otherwise—that the fair wages clause was inserted in the Shannon contract. It is pointed out that the terms of the clause were such as would allow the 32/- starvation minimum to be paid to navvies and labourers, adult men on that particular work. Consequently, notwithstanding the provisions of the fair wages clause, as has been for years inserted in public contracts, it was possible for the Minister to evade the spirit of that clause by allowing Shannon contractors to pay this unfortunate starvation wage. This particular section is not merely a desire to insert that hitherto fairly satisfactory fair wages clause, but attempts to be somewhat more water-tight, because we know the mentality of the Minister in this matter, and it is necessary that we should be a little more strict in the conditions which we allow him to give the Board instructions about. The Board itself may be composed of people who have been, shall I say, familiar with the terms of the Shannon power contract. Certain people connected with it may be quite naturally associated with this Board, and unless they are directed by the Act which empowers them to proceed with their business they are likely to follow that bad precedent.

The second portion of this proposal, which deals with the case of the unorganised, and incidentally may also cover the case of the organised, fixes a definite family wage minimum. At this stage I think it would be rather an audacious act on the part of any Deputy to say that the people employed by a Board of this kind, adult male employees, should receive less as a weekly wage than would enable them to keep a family according to the standard required by the life they live. It would be difficult, I say, for Deputies to go out frankly and say they are against a minimum of that kind, but I would like that it be something more than a fear of stating publicly that they are against such a minimum. I desire that they should positively instruct that this Board shall not pay any workman a less sum than would keep that man and his wife and three children in decency.

That has all to be explained by the mover of the amendment, but certainly the legislation from which it is taken has ways and means for determining these things. If the Deputy had moved an amendment to have the fair wages clause inserted we might have a discussion on that and see how far it might be made applicable to the working of the Board, but to bring forward a resolution which is a composite proposal made up partly of a provision of the Railways Act, having no relation whatever to the conditions that have to do with the Board and no application whatever to them, and partly of an excerpt from Australian legislation, leaving out any provision for any sort of arbitrator or umpire or any court to decide the vague things set out in (i) and (ii), does not seem to me to be a true attempt to meet the case at all. It is only an attempt to get the old question of the wages on the constructional portion of the Shannon scheme raised again.

Mr. MORRISSEY

I find it very hard to understand why the Minister would not accept this amendment. I take it that the Minister and his colleagues will agree that it is necessary that the people of this country should be put in the position that they can live a decent life and that they should be paid wages which will enable them to have a fair standard of comfort. The Minister's attitude to this amendment would seem to suggest that that is not so and that we are to take it from what he said now, that the idea of the standard of comfort of the workers of this country is based on the Shannon scheme wage. I take it that the Government's view is that a worker should not have greater comfort in this country than can be purchased for 32/- a week or less. The Minister asks who is to determine the standard of comfort.

Might I ask who determined the standard of comfort or discomfort on the Shannon scheme itself? If the Minister and the Government were in the frame of mind to accept this amendment they would find little difficulty if they desired to do it to establish a standard of reasonable comfort. The Minister suggested that this was raised merely in order to provide an opportunity for talking about the conditions under the Shannon scheme. There is not very much necessity to talk about the conditions of the Shannon scheme. Many people in the country are conversant with the present and past conditions on the Shannon scheme—more so than the Minister may think. The real question in this amendment is whether the House believes that the workers in the country should receive a wage that will enable them to bring up their families in decency and comfort. It is a straight issue and a straight vote upon the matter will be taken. It is a vote between a decent standard of comfort for the people and giving them just enough to keep the life in them, just enough to enable them to exist, and just enough to prevent something happening similar to what happened in the South a couple of weeks ago. That is the issue on this amendment.

If the Minister had any desire to meet the principle involved he would find very little difficulty in determining the standard of comfort. He has been able to determine many questions much more difficult than this in other Bills. He is quite well aware of that. I suggest to the House that they ought to give a direction to the Government in this matter that they are to see that the people to be employed on this great national scheme will be paid a wage that will enable them to live decently. If the view of the Government is that this scheme can only be made successful by reducing and lowering the standard of living in this country it would be better that we never had the scheme. If the scheme meant anything at all it was that it was going to improve the conditions for all the people; if it is going to be used, instead, for lowering the standard of living and setting a headline to private employers throughout the country then, I say, it would be better we never had the scheme. We have at all times, from the beginning, backed the scheme itself because we were believers in it. We criticised it and had reason to criticise the conditions that obtained, and that obtain to-day, and we certainly are going to see, as far as we can, that the conditions that shall obtain in the working out and spreading of the scheme throughout the country shall be somewhat better than at the moment. I put it to any reasonably-minded member of this House who is not satisfied merely to be assured that the people are going to get barely enough to live upon, I put it to any Deputy who approaches the matter in a Christian spirit that this amendment is reasonable; that it is a feasible amendment, and that, if accepted, the Minister could easily find ways of determining what the standard of comfort is to be.

Mr. NORTON

I think the Minister has made a very poor case indeed against the acceptance of the amendment. In connection with the first part of it, the Minister said the situation in connection with the Shannon scheme is not at all analogous to that of railways. He suggested, in the case of the Shannon scheme that you will not have definite and recognised groups of workers organised by trade unions, and consequently you have difficulty in entering into negotiation.

I do not think that is the position at all. You will have tradesmen employed on the Shannon scheme belonging to definite trade unions, and these people surely provide a medium for discussing matters of hours, wages and conditions of labour. There may be people employed in isolated and rural areas not members of any trade union organisation, but in fixing their standard of wages, as Deputy Johnson said, the essential minimum condition of comfort ought to be taken into consideration. That is not an unreasonable suggestion. A couple of years ago the Shannon scheme came into operation on the constructional side under somewhat gloomy circumstances. We had then an attempt, and it was a successful attempt, to inflict a thirty-two-shilling-a-week-wage upon that scheme. The only case made for that wage was the fact that people could be got to work for it. Of course a certain type of poverty-stricken people could be got to work for that wage. People who can only get one meal a day were quite willing to work for that wage. Advantage was taken of the condition of the labour market to enforce a wage of 32/- on that scheme for men with wives and families, and it was justified because a number of men were willing to work for it. Photographs were published in the daily papers of piles of letters, several feet high, from people looking for jobs, and that is the justification for the un-Christian wage paid. The whole argument in connection with this matter bears a very definite relation to what is fairly well recognised by people with any Christian outlook as the pagan law of supply and demand. In other words, when there is a glut of people on the market, pay the least possible wage: pay only just sufficient to get their labour. When there is scarcity of people wages must go up accordingly. In other words, the same argument that can be applied to soap, boots, cabbages and that sort of thing is to be applied to human beings with definite responsibilities as citizens. It is to get away from the idea and mentality that labour should be bought as cheaply as possible that this amendment is moved. It claims broadly that the workers employed upon this big State engineering scheme, with its far-reaching possibilities, which may affect a considerable number of workers when in complete operation, shall be ensured a standard of living that will be reasonable and that will bear relationship to their responsibilities and to the standard of life that they are expected to maintain. The Minister resists this amendment on one ground. Who, he asks, is going to determine this question? I agree at once that the amendment does not suggest the machinery necessary.

I suggest, as well, that it is not impossible for the Minister, or even difficult for him, to set up machinery to determine the question or to ascertain, by inquiry, what is a minimum or a reasonable standard of living or what wage ought to be paid to people engaged in working for the community as a whole—what responsibility as regards a decent standard of living the community has to those workers. One thing this House ought to get away from—it is regrettable that a State in its infancy, as this State is, has not already got away from it—is that people employed by the State and serving the community as a whole should be taken advantage of by paying the minimum possible price for their labour. The Minister may say that I ask the State to subscribe to a policy or doctrine to which private employers do not subscribe. But that is no argument. Nobody claims that everything a private employer does is perfect. Nobody claims that it is even 5 per cent. perfect. Some employers pay better wages and afford better conditions to their workers than others. But nobody in his senses would defend everything that private employers do or regard their conduct to their employees as an example to be followed by the State. I suggest to the Minister that notwithstanding that there is no machinery in the amendment for determining what is a reasonable standard of living, it is not at all impossible to ascertain that. If the Minister would meet this amendment to the extent of paying 90 per cent. of what is regarded as a reasonable standard of living, it would be a good deal better than and a considerable advance on the outlook that was adopted and the wages that were paid in connection with the original constructional work on the Shannon. This amendment definitely suggests that people employed on the Shannon scheme should have a certain rate of wages in order to obtain a minimum standard of comfort. I hope that, by similar amendments, or perhaps by general legislation, the same principle will apply to all other industries. For the time being, it can only apply to this Bill. I suggest to the Minister that this amendment ought not to be rejected, that serious consideration ought to be given to it, and that a mere technical defence should not be put up to override the big and fundamental principles embodied in it.

Mr. JOHNSON

The Minister has made the point that there is no machinery for determining what is a fair and average standard of comfort. I confess to the Minister that in the first draft of the amendment I had suggested a tribunal which would determine what standard of life should be maintained by an employee and his family—such a tribunal as might be nominated by the Archbishop of Dublin, the President of the College of Physicians, or some ether medical authority, with, perhaps, a nominee of the Minister from the Statistical Branch. My desire was to have established some standard whereby the prices of commodities would have to be taken into account—the cost of feeding and clothing a family and the standard which a tribunal such as I hinted at might decide as a minimum. Such an authority would be, if you like, a Board of Arbitration. I concluded that that might give rise to doubts, and that the machinery might not be satisfactory; that it would be better establish the principle, that the minimum wage should be sufficient to maintain the family in a certain fair and average standard of comfort, and, if that was agreed upon by the House, that we might look into the question of machinery for determining what was that fair and average standard of comfort. Even in the absence of machinery and in the absence of an arbitration or determining authority, if you put that into the Bill the Board will know exactly what their direction is, and they can determine an average standard of comfort very much more closely related to the needs of the case than has been determined hitherto in respect to the existing Shannon Power Scheme. Is the House prepared to agree to the proposition that no person shall be employed under this Board at a wage insufficient to maintain a family in the standard of comfort which prevails amongst workers in the callings in respect of which such wage is paid? If the Minister merely opposes this amendment because there is no machinery, then, I think, we can, with good-will, devise machinery without very much difficulty. I want to lay special emphasis on the importance of some such provision in the Bill. It is set out that the Board may manufacture, as well as provide and sell, electrical lines, fittings, apparatus, and appliances for lighting, heating, motive power, or any other purpose for which electricity can or may be used. They may connect, repair, maintain or remove any lines, fittings, apparatus or appliances. They may establish shops and establishments for the hire and sale of these fittings. They are required to establish some publicity schemes which may involve, as I said earlier, an immense variety of occupations in all parts of the country. With the powers that are given in this Bill, there is no protection to the workman against a downward trend on the part of the Board. There are certain prohibitions in regard to strikes in this Bill which are only justifiable if you have established a certain minimum—if they are justifiable at all.

You are empowered to undertake all these operations; to go into, let us say, Rathmines or Pembroke, and employ either the same men who are at present employed or other men to take their places on a wage which the Board itself may determine. No statutory standard is fixed, and there is prohibition against collective action, which sometimes enables men to resist the downward trend of employers who are required to make income meet expenditure. Section 4 of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act which relates to breaches of contract in regard to persons employed on gas and water undertakings, is to extend to persons employed by the Board or any authorised undertaker or permitted undertaker. I think that section is going to prevent ordinary combination to protect standards which trade unions have found, more or less, effective and certainly necessary to make an attempt to do so. You are prohibiting combination, you are prohibiting the employees under that section from doing the necessary protective work for their standards, and there is nothing to ensure that the necessary minimum shall be maintained.

Apart from that, it will be possible under this Bill for local branches of this undertaking to establish works, of one kind or another, in any part of the country. You have certain standards set up in Dublin, Rathmines, Pembroke or Dun Laoghaire, but you may do the work in Kerry, Cork, Galway, or Donegal; you may go where there is cheap labour and the powers of the Board will enable them to do the necessary work in the cheap labour districts and displace the men in the dearer labour districts for the benefit of the Board but for the deprivation of the regular employees. You are establishing, or you may establish, in this measure, without any protection of this kind, standards very much below those at present prevailing, and it is necessary that there should be some protection for the workmen who may be employed by this Board. Bear in mind, there is no alternative employment. Men cannot play one employer against another. Men cannot play one town against another. Here you have a monopoly and no responsibility to the public, except to produce power and sell it at a price which will not yield a profit.

The Deputy said it would be an audacious act on our part to vote against this amendment and that we should have due regard to our obligations. My obligation is to the average man in the country, to the whole people and not a section of them, and for that reason I will vote against this amendment.

Mr. MORRISSEY

And for a starvation wage.

Mr. GOREY

Deputies can call it that. I am prepared to admit that starvation is the position of the agricultural labourers and farmers at present. A claim is made here on behalf of a pampered few and I will not stand for that. If I cast a vote here it will not be on behalf of 20 per cent. of the population, but for the whole 100 per cent. I will stand for the lot or for none.

I submit to the House that there is a principle in this: whether a decent standard of living for the workers engaged in the industry should be established in this country. All the side issues that have been brought into play by the Minister and Deputy Gorey have nothing to do with the principle embodied in the amendment. The Minister talked about the difficulties of giving effect to the amendment if it were inserted in the Bill. I do not think the Minister would have any difficulty whatever in doing that, and I am quite sure he would be quite capable of giving full effect to the amendment if the House insisted on its insertion. I want to try and clear away all the side issues that have been raised. The principle involved in the amendment is whether or not the people engaged in the industry are to get a living wage.

Mr. A. BYRNE

I desire to support the amendment. When the Shannon Bill was under discussion, I asked the Minister if he could state on what wage basis the Shannon scheme was estimated. The Minister replied to me: "I do not think that at the present moment it would be advisable to state the wage basis. Full allowance has been made in the detailed costings." Then the Minister went on to say: "The estimate of wages is based on information supplied by my own Department." What I am afraid of is that that very same idea may still be in the mind of the Minister and that he or his Department may supply information to the Shannon Board as to conditions, etc., that would encourage the Board, or at least suggest to them, to pay a wage that would be even somewhat worse than what we are hearing about to-day. I would like to know if it is the intention of the Minister or his Department to suggest to the Board what wages they should pay and whether he has anything like that in his mind at the moment? If he has, it would be well that he should say so to the House now so that we may know whether the wage that he is contemplating will be a living wage or a fair wage—a wage that we would wish to see paid to every citizen of the State. I am informed that rather a large number of the men at present engaged in generating stations will lose their employment and get small gratuities. These men at the present time are being paid a fair wage in the generating stations in which they are employed. When they are displaced those who take their positions will probably get only half the wages that they are drawing at the moment. If that is to be the position we ought to know whether the Minister's Department intends to supply to the Board information as to the rate of wages to be paid. The Minister, I think, should state now how the rates to be paid in the future will compare with the rates paid to the men who may lose their employment. Personally I am satisfied and believe that the Department will supply such information to the Board, information that will be based on the number of unemployed men that we have in the country districts. I greatly fear that the Board may do what happened in days gone by, namely, take advantage of the fact that you will have five or six men looking for every one man's job, and that they will only pay a wage that will not be sufficient to keep a man and his family.

Progress ordered to be reported.

The Dáil went out of Committee.

Progress reported; the Committee to sit again on Tuesday, 26th April, 1927.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m., to Thursday, 21st April, at 3 p.m.

Dáil Éireann debate - Wednesday, 20 Apr 1927

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

Tá

Níl

Tá

Níl

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 20 Apr 1927