I would like to call attention to a typographical error in the Bill and to two other points. On page 22 of the new Bill, in sub-section 9 of Section 39, line 48 reads: "making up the vesting orders (unless such person elects with the)." The word was always "order" and not "orders." An "s" has been added to the word in the new Bill. There are, then, two other matters to which I wish to direct attention. Amendment 57, which was before the Dáil yesterday, was phrased as follows: "In page 32, lines 58 and 59, Section 62 (2) after the word "may" to insert in each case the words "after consultation with an authorised undertaker," and in lines 59 and 61 to delete the word "an" and substitute therefor in each case the word "such." That amendment was passed without any change. The word "an" appeared three times in these two lines. In the amended Bill, it was only changed twice. The intention was to change "an" in each case in which it occurred. That was not specifically mentioned. It does not make a great deal of difference even if the Bill is left, as it is, with one "an."
ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) BILL, 1927—FIFTH STAGE.
Where does it appear in the new Bill?
On page 34, line 67.
The word "an" there is to be changed to "such," the word "such" having been substituted for the word "an" in the other places where the change was required.
On page 40, there is a verbal amendment required. In Section 84, sub-section (1), line 24, the words are: "wire, transformer or other machinery for in relation to the." The word "or" should be inserted after "for," so that it would read:"...for or in relation to the..."
In Section 39, line 48, the word "orders" is printed where the word should be "order." There is authority to change that, because the word in the amendment as carried was, in fact, "order." The error is, therefore, a printing or clerical error. No amendment is required for that.
On page 34, line 67, there was some ambiguity about the amendment, and, apparently, the word "an" was only changed in two places. I think we would need an amendment to alter that, but it would be a purely verbal amendment.
On page 40, line 24, the word "or" is to be inserted after the word "for." An amendment will be required to make that change, because the words as they are have appeared in the Bill all the time. Those two amendments are. I think, both verbal.
Would the Minister refer to page 17, Section 32? There appears to be a distinct omission somewhere. There are two lines in parenthesis which I do not understand—"(together with a copy of such of the accounts of the Board furnished to him under this Act) as in his opinion are necessary..." The parenthesis does not stand alone, and, therefore, it should not be a parenthesis.
If the brackets were removed, it would meet the case. It would also serve to insert the words "as are" before "furnished."
The following amendments were agreed to:—
Page 17, lines 20 and 21, to delete the brackets.
Page 34, line 67, to delete the word "an" and insert in lieu thereof the word "such."
Page 40, line 24, after the word "for" to insert the word "or."
I do not think the Bill ought to be allowed to pass without the Dáil being made aware, if it is possible to make it aware, of what is being done by the measure. I propose to make a slight attempt to point out two or three of the characteristics of the Bill which, in my opinion, merit its rejection. First of all, I want to point out that in this Bill we have refused to impose any conditions on the Board in respect to its employees. We have refused to impose upon the Board a responsibility for paying them wages or giving them conditions of service which are in conformity with any public service standards and we have deliberately and, shall I say, of malice, imposed upon the future employees of this Board whether new employees or employees of existing undertakings to use their powers of combination to fight the Board when any case of dispute arises. We are putting no obligation upon the Board and we are making no legal limitations on any downward trend in respect to wages, salaries, or conditions of service which the Board itself may desire to impose. That is a very grave fault in the Bill as it is passing out from the Dáil.
A further fault in the Bill lies here. We have declined to consider any of the servants of the Board as civil servants and the only obligation in respect to the conditions of service in the Bill is one which is a prohibition of ordinary civic rights. A citizen employed by any other public undertaking is not debarred by law from being nominated or being elected a member of either House of the Oireachtas, and it is with regret and surprise I notice that both of these propositions had the support of one whom I always endeavoured to class as one of the Disraelian Tory democrats, but who shows himself in this matter as having been more of a Cobdenite, anti-statist than I had ever thought before.
There is a further grave defect that I call attention to, and that is, we are passing this Bill which may become law in 270 days in the form in which it leaves this House without any prohibition against a member of the Board being an agent for commission of a supply contractor. He may not be a shareholder. He may not have an interest in the shares of, say, the British Thomson Houston or Siemens or any of the other big manufacturing concerns of world-wide fame, but he may be in the position of an agent for such a firm. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent him, and the Minister has no right in the Bill to interfere.
Now, on the matter of what I consider the fundamental defect, and the one which leads me to oppose the Bill strenuously, that there is no parliamentary check, the Minister has defended his position because he said he has provided for publicity and the power of the Executive Council to dismiss the Board. That, he considered, is the effective control that the public has over the workings of this wonderful and extraordinary Board. The publicity is to be secured by the section which provides for the keeping of the usual accounts and such accounts as may be called for by the Minister which are to be published and laid upon the Table, and certain reports in such form as the Minister may prescribe are to be made to the Minister and laid upon the Table of the Dáil and the Seanad. On the strength of that amount of publicity we are supposed to have sufficient control over the administration of this electricity monopoly to the Board. Deputies will realise the amount of public criticism that is likely to be available.
I draw attention to the position of the Great Southern Railways, and I ask Deputies to make a comparison between the position of the railway monopoly and the electricity monopoly. The railway monopoly is required to publish statistics which are to be laid upon the Table of the House, and to make returns in the form required by the Minister. Deputies receive periodically railway statistics regarding passenger and freight traffic. They are laid upon the Table, and here in this volume is the "Annual Returns of the Railway Company" containing the accounts of capital and revenue and receipts and expenditure, persons employed, and the general report of their operations. These are laid upon the Table. That is to say, the returns for 1925 are laid upon the Table in February, 1927, and public criticism of the policy of the Railways Company is to be based upon the returns submitted in this manner. We may endeavour to raise a question in this House as to the policy of the Railways Company in respect to certain matters, but the Minister will tell us that he can only ask questions of the Railways Company, and inform the House of the reply he receives, if they deign to reply. No criticism is possible in this House except a criticism based upon a vote of no confidence in the Ministry as a whole, which, if passed, would entail the resignation of the Ministry. I think it is a reversal of Parliamentary practice, as we have known it, that we should, of necessity, endeavour to upset the Ministry and, consequently, the whole governmental scheme for the time being. All the departments of industry are to be affected because we want to draw attention to a particular item of administration. That is the resource that the Minister offers to us in this Bill as an exchange for parliamentary responsibility, but the Railways Company, which provides, by statute, the returns equivalent to those required under the Bill in respect to electricity, is in a position of very much less independence than this Board will be.
The Railways Company, before it raises its scale of charges, must get the permission of a Railway Tribunal. It is not free to do these things which the Electricity Board is free to do, and I would like Deputies, in the leisure hours between now and the elections, to examine this Bill, and wherever the word "Board" appears to read "directors of the Railways Company." They will then begin to understand the kind of power that they are handing over to the Board. For instance, take the section to which I referred last night, Section 33 in the new Bill—"The directors of the Company may by order make such general regulations as they think proper relating to all or any of the following matters or things: that is to say, the making of special orders by the Board and the application to the Board for such orders." It may make orders relating to the making of orders by the Board. This board of directors of the Railways Company, if we were applying this scheme to the railway service, may make orders for the protection and safety of the Shannon works or of all transmission or distribution systems, including the imposition of penalties for the breach of such regulations and the recovery of such penalties by summary proceedings. This railway directorate may make orders for the protection of the public safety, including penalties for the breach of such regulations and the recovery of such penalties by summary proceedings. The Minister has nothing to do with these orders; no responsible person, responsible in the sense that I have used the word, has anything to do with these orders. The orders that have been made by this board of directors are to be laid on the Table and may be, as is admitted, revoked by a vote of each House, but anything done in the meantime by that board of directors, by this Company, by this trust, under the powers given here, shall be valid.
I lay stress upon the fact that the Minister cannot defend, from the point of view of the Board, these orders, no matter what criticism may be applied. Under this scheme he is in the position exactly of the individual member of the House and may discuss the purport of the regulations of this directorate. But he has no power to go to these directors and ask them to explain why and wherefore; he has no power to investigate and to require them to report to him as to the reasons why they should do this, that, and the other. In practice they may defer to his authority for fear that he may use his power of dismissal, but that is not enough. It is entirely unsatisfactory. If Deputies will look through the Railways Amalgamation Act. they will see how the Railways Company has been bound to have regard to the public interest in many respects. It is not possible for the directors to extend the Company's operations in new directions without at least giving an opportunity to the public to object. It is possible for this Board to extend its powers and authority anywhere and in any direction, without seeking the support or the assent of the public. There is no public inquiry, and there is no reference to a Minister as representing the public; the Board may do these things without any direct responsibility.
There is another example which, by way of illustration, would help Deputies to realise the position of this Board. The Minister referred to the Post Office, and to his intention to prevent the affairs of this Board from being the subject of discussion and criticism in this House. I think if the Minister would inquire he would find that, so far as the Post Office, or any trading or semi-trading department of State, whether in this country or in Great Britain, has fretted under the restriction of initiative, under the Governmental system, as distinct from the business system, as it is called, it is a fretting under the control of the Minister for Finance. I do not think there has ever been an objection by any public-spirited spokesman for the Post Office service to criticism and discussion of the affairs of the Department. There has been, I know, not only in the Post Office but in other Departments' administration of business affairs, a fretting against the trend of the restriction of initiative which has been imposed by constant and necessary, as has been thought, reference to the Minister for Finance for sanction. If we were dealing with a small thing as compared with a great, dealing with the position, let us say, of the Minister for Posts, treating him as having the powers and non-responsibility of this Board, and consider his policy in respect of broadcasting, let us say; if the Minister for Posts were to decide that the broadcasting scheme under his control was to be confined to crystal users, that he would not allow a valve set to be operated in Ireland and that his object in confining the receipt of broadcasting messages to crystal users was to ensure that nothing but the Gaelic language would be heard over the radio, what a cry there would be. There is a matter of decision on policy, policy in respect of broadcasting. There may be public criticism but it will have no effect. All that he is required to do is produce a balance sheet at the end of the year to show that income has met expenditure. Policy is in the hands of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs under these new conditions. But, of course, the Executive Council might dismiss him. This is the control that the House has in such a matter. The House might dismiss the Executive Council for refusing to dismiss him. The House, after weighing up the balance of advantage, may say: "We had better maintain the Executive Council as a collective body, because we want to see a certain agricultural policy, a certain defence policy, or a certain policy in respect to trade and commerce put into effect, and we cannot afford to break up the Executive Council because of these things; therefore we are prepared to abide by this decision of policy of the Minister in respect to broadcasting." That is the analogy.
Let us take it a little further. The House may say: "Taking it as a whole, the Executive Council should be maintained; while very critical of a particular policy of a particular department, we will suffer that for the sake of the greater advantage, so we will refrain from dismissing the Executive Council." I emphasise the point that we have no power under the scheme to discuss the policy of the Board except on a motion which, if accepted, means the defeat of the Executive Council. The Executive is being put in the same position in regard to the Board of this new undertaking. The Board is a collective body having collective responsibility, and though the Ministry may think the Board is not doing exactly as it would like it to do, though it may not be running the business to their entire satisfaction from the public policy standpoint, the Ministers cannot say to one member of the Board, who, perhaps, has been deputed to look after one particular section of the work, that they will dismiss him, because the other members of the Board would stand by him—they are going to stand or fall together.
Let us consider this question. The Board at the beginning is being presented with this charter. The government of the realm of electricity in Ireland is being handed to the Board. They are, let us say, experts in different departments, and they will allocate to themselves certain sections of the work. They are only guaranteed a tenure of five years. There is no assurance of pension rights, no assurance of continued employment. The Minister has almost specifically debarred himself from transferring the redundant civil servants that can be found to work under this Board, or become members of it. So that the Board, having this charter, begins to make itself indispensable
They retain the strings in their hands, and they say: "We stand or fall together." At the end of five years the option is put to the Minister to continue them as a collective body, or to dismiss them as a collective body. As I say, they have the strings in their hands, and to dismiss them holus bolus means the risk of upsetting the whole scheme of the undertaking. Ministers will hesitate long—they will do exactly as the Dáil does—before dismissing the whole of the Board for the fault of one, because the other four, if there are five, may be quite serviceable members and would desire to do the work in a fashion that the Ministers of the time might think would be the most serviceable for the State.
May I interrupt Deputy Johnson to move: "That if the Electricity (Supply) Bill be not disposed of at 4.30, the Dáil sit later, and that the motion for adjournment be taken not later than 7.30."
We have had no notice that this proposal would be made.
It only deals with this Order alone.
Tá
- Earnán de Blaghd.
- Thomas Bolger.
- Séamus Breathnach.
- Seoirse de Bhuibh.
- Próinsias Bulfin.
- Desmond Fitzgerald.
- John Hennigan.
- Patrick Leonard.
- Liam Mac Cosgair.
- Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
- Patrick McGilligan.
- Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
- Liam Mac Sioghaird.
- Martin M. Nally.
- John T. Nolan.
- Michael K. Noonan.
- Peadar O hAodha.
- Parthalán O Conchubhair.
- Conchubhar O Conghaile.
- Eoghan O Dochartaigh.
- Peadar O Dubhghaill.
- Pádraig O Dubhthaigh.
- Fionán O Loingsigh.
- Seán O Raghallaigh.
- Máirtín O Rodaigh.
- Caoimhghín O hUigín.
Níl
- John J. Cole.
- John Conlan.
- Bryan R. Cooper.
- Séamus Eabhróid.
- John Good.
- David Hall.
- William Hewat.
- Connor Hogan.
- Séamus Mac Cosgair.
- Tomás Mac Eoin.
- Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
- Pádraig Mac Fhlannchadha.
- Risteárd Mac Liam.
- Tomás de Nógla.
- William Norton.
- Ailfrid O Broin.
- Aodh O Cúlacháin.
- Eamon O Dubhghaill.
- Mícheál O Dubhghaill.
- Seán O Duinnín.
- Mícheál O hIfearnáin.
- William A. Redmond.
I think I was on the point of explaining the probable result of handing to a Board of unnamed persons this charter of government in the realm of electricity. I was pointing out that the position of four or five men who will constitute the Board would be such as would tempt them "to dig themselves in," to retain, in their own hands, the strings and, in fact, to make themselves indispensable, so that when the five years are expired it would be too delicate, and too risky, an undertaking for the Ministry of the time to exercise the power, under Section 5, to remove the Board. It may be said, "We are just now at the critical point when we may make, or mar, the success of the undertaking if we make any change at this stage, and as this Board will stand or fall together, we cannot find five other men who will immediately take their places; they have been canny enough not to delegate their powers, and not to allow the officials to do the work that they are able to do while acting as the Board." The Minister may say that this is mere imagination and the result of a suspicious mind. It is not. It is one of the possible results of this scheme of organisation which dissociates the Minister and the Dáil from any responsibility for the undertaking, except responsibility to make income and expenditure balance.
I want to repeat what I touched upon last night regarding the control of policy. There is no determining influence to be brought upon the Board as to what its policy in regard to electrical development shall be, except the fear that they may be dismissed by the Executive Council, if the Executive Council is satisfied that it is necessary in the interests of the effective and economic performance of the functions of the Board. In the first place, the economic performance of the functions of the Board will be to ensure the consumption of the total potential production of the Shannon works. If it can do that, and get an income that will cover charges, then, from the point of view of this Bill, the economic requirements are satisfied. And the policy of this Board may be directed towards extending the number of householders who are using electricity, or it may be used towards extending the consumption of electricity for industrial purposes.
I can see no provision in the Bill which will prevent the Board giving special consideration to one particular industry in one particular area. It may be a very desirable thing that such an industry should be encouraged in a particular area, but that should not be a decision of the Board. It is not the Board that should have that decision in respect of electrical policy. But under this Bill it is the Board that has the determining voice in the matter. I very recently had the privilege of seeing a miracle performed. I saw two separate powders, white and brown, in large quantities mixed together and by the application of electric current I saw these two powders turned into a block of what appeared to be silver, but what was in reality aluminium. I can conceive of the Board determining that the advantage to the enterprise might be best served by diverting the consumption of electricity into such channels as that, to the detriment perhaps of an extension of a lighting policy in a town.
There may be many directions, perhaps, in which this Board will exercise its authority. The members may be very wise and discreet in their determination of what that policy should be. But is it sure that the Board, which shall consist of, say, four or five people, some of whom will be experts in their particular line, will be necessarily qualified to determine what will be best in the economic and social interests of the country? It is not by any means right or sensible that such a Board shall have the final say in what should be the electrical policy of the country. Yet this Bill hands over that power to the Board and denies to the House, and denies the Minister the power to change that policy except at the price of dismissal.
In addition to that, I come back to what I consider the unsatisfactory provisions respecting the audit, having in mind particularly the powers of the Board, the authority over the employees of the Board, the relation between the employees of the Board and the Board. I consider that the obligation respecting accounts and the audit of accounts does not conserve the public interest in a satisfactory manner. I cannot help but relate the Minister's attitude on this discussion respecting audit to his attitude in other matters respecting the position of the Comptroller and Auditor-General.
I fear, and I am very sorry to say it, that the attitude of the Ministry as a whole in respect to financial control and financial check is not in keeping with the traditions of the public service as has been bequeathed to this State. I think the Ministry as a whole, as is evidenced by matters that have been made public and as is evidenced by their attitude in respect of this section regarding the audit, is disquieting and should make us more rigid in the conditions we impose than would otherwise be necessary. Taken as a whole, therefore, notwithstanding my support of the purpose and intentions of this Bill, and notwithstanding my support of the general scheme of the Bill in respect of the objects sought, and the means by which the Board is empowered to achieve the end of a widespread supply at a cheap rate of electrical power, I think that the scheme of administration giving this Board these autocratic powers in respect of the making of orders—in effect the issuing of decrees—and in respect to the audit of accounts, makes the Bill quite unacceptable, and I hope it will not be passed into law in its present form. I hope, too, if by chance it does pass into law in its present form, that an early opportunity will be taken to alter the foundations of the scheme and to make the Board, or whoever administers it, responsible to a Minister who shall be responsible to the Dáil.
Some things have been said about socialism and nationalisation. Well, the most effective argument, to my mind, that has ever been used against socialism or nationalisation lies in the case made against bureaucracy, the denial of public rights, the power to interfere unduly with the liberties of the individual and of the public, and against powers being placed in the hands of people who are not responsible. That is what is done in this Bill. They are great powers, powers that might justly be handed over to a responsible authority, but they are powers which should never be handed over to a Viceroy or a military governor, or an electrical supply board. I shall, therefore, ask the House to support me in opposing the last stage of the Bill.
I have exhausted practically all the arguments I could put up against this Bill. My arguments were mainly devoted against the Government interfering with the property of the citizens of Dublin. No doubt, I will have no further opportunity of doing so after to-day, and therefore I desire now to enter my most emphatic protest against the action of the Government in interfering and taking from the citizens of Dublin their right to control the great electricity station, which is their property, at Pigeonhouse Road. They have been asked to exchange that great undertaking, which has been so successful, for something the success of which we have no assurance about.
After to-day, under the terms of this Bill, the citizens of Dublin will have no right whatsoever to have any say in the management of their own undertaking. It will be transferred to a Board which will not be accountable to any public representative for its actions. It takes from the citizens of Dublin what it took very many years to secure, and in regard to which many Acts of Parliament were passed that safeguarded the interests of the citizens and protected their property. By this measure all those Acts of Parliament are being blotted out. Under the vesting clauses of this Bill the Board may take over the undertaking, all its assets and all its funds, to manage as they think proper. I hope—I can express the belief—that it will be managed well.
In my criticism of this measure I do not wish to be taken as being in any way hostile to the Shannon scheme. I hope it will be a success. I thought from the beginning that all that was intended by the Shannon scheme was to obtain power to supply electricity in bulk and that we would use our waterways and our water-power in order to save big undertakings purchasing coal, and thereby keep the money at home. That is a proposal that I am still prepared to support. But to prevent others from making electricity or to put aside anyone who may be your opponent in the generation of electricity is not, in my opinion, reasonable. It might be said that the Corporation electricity plant could generate and supply to the public at a cheaper rate than what you propose to charge under the Shannon scheme. We have no guarantee that you will supply at a cheaper rate, or give as adequate a supply as the citizens of Dublin have to-day.
I am tempted to repeat my case because of what I know occurred during the discussions on the Railways Act, and as a result of that Act. Very many employees of municipal undertakings and other authorised undertakings who are engaged in generating electricity will be affected by this measure. Power is given to dismiss them, to terminate their appointments on payment of probably very small gratuities, in some cases gratuities that will not be sufficient to cover their passage money to America. Having got rid of these men who are at present engaged generating electricity, and are receiving fair wages, you will then, perhaps, take in new hands. I can well imagine, knowing the conditions of unemployment in the country, and knowing how our labour exchanges are registering men in their thousands for employment, that a wage will be offered bearing some proportion to the number of men idle, and that wage will not be anything like the present wage paid for generating electricity. By that means you may secure some form of reduction.
I suggested to the Minister that he ought to make a recommendation to the Board. He says he has no power and he will not interfere, but I think the Minister ought to make a recommendation that where men are being dismissed they ought to have priority of employment if there is similar work going under the Shannon Board. That would obviate something similar happening to what happened on the railways. In that case, when one workshop attached to the railways closed down, men with reasonably long service were dismissed and their work was transferred to other departments. They lost their employment, and some of them complained that new men were taken in afterwards to do their work. I think that is a matter that ought to get attention, and that any man who is disemployed as a result of this proposal ought to get some offer of employment from the new Board. Again, I do not like the idea that your electricity stock should have priority over the Dublin Corporation stock, which has always been looked on as a good investment because of the value of the rates and of the property which the Corporation owns. You are taking from it its electricity supply. I also desire to state that I am satisfied, as a result of the profits made by the Dublin electricity undertaking for the last two years, a very substantial reduction in the price of electricity should have taken place, or should take place immediately, so that when prices are being fixed in the near future citizens cannot be told that the charges are being based on those that were being paid on 29th April, when the Bill was passed.
I am informed that this year the profits, instead of being, as they were last year, £64,000, are now something nearer to £100,000. The ratepayers of Dublin are entitled to that money by way of cheaper electricity. It ought not be withheld from them any longer. It is their money. I see, according to one section, that you have power to use all the assets of an undertaking that you control. I do not like to suggest that this £100,000 will be put in reserve for other purposes. I think it belongs to the citizens, and they are entitled to get it back.
I wish to express the general admiration of the country for this great scheme, and I would like, also, to say that that admiration is not confined to the provinces. It is shared very wholeheartedly by the citizens of Dublin and by the townships. The citizens of Dublin are very sensible people, and they know very well that the great Shannon scheme, by which power is to be developed from water, has all the probability, if not the certainty, of supplying cheaper current than that hitherto available. The proposition, as it presents itself to the citizens of Dublin and to the residents in the townships, may be put in this way, "Are you willing to get your current in future with the rest of Ireland from water-developed electricity, knowing that you would, at least, get it cheaper, and probably much cheaper, or would you prefer a more restricted supply developed from imported coal?" Dublin people would be willing to cooperate with their fellow-countrymen in the rest of Ireland, even if it meant a small sacrifice for the good of the State.
Having examined the proposition, and knowing that it would be a good thing for Dublin, Rathmines and Pembroke to participate in this scheme, they are willing to do so. If it were proposed to leave Rathmines and Pembroke out of this great scheme you would not have one meeting of protest in Rathmines and Pembroke, but you would have several such meetings night after night, demanding the reason why the citizens were omitted from this great scheme. Undoubtedly, the one million pounds' worth of coal now imported annually need not be imported in future because of this scheme. We need not weep over that. Deputy A. Byrne said that there could be reductions made in the price. Every element that makes for reduction will still remain. The present scheme will take none of those elements away. The users of electricity in Dublin have no dread of the Shannon scheme. They have no aversion to cheaper current. They have no tremendous faith in the people who are making mythical profits, but, if there were such profits, why was not the sum of £22,000 owing to the ratepayers paid back? How could any objection to the scheme be built up on the question of staff? Every man in the Pigeonhouse fort is to be taken over. Is that a grievance? Under this big scheme hundreds of towns that have no light will be lighted. There is to be wiring in every town, and there will be hundreds of men employed who are now idle.
The Dublin artisan knows these facts, and he is not deluded by any false representation. He knows that the bigger the scheme the greater employment there will be, and the user of electric light knows that where there is such a tremendous supply the price will be cheaper, and accordingly, he has no objection to the scheme. Above all, the citizens of Dublin and the residents of Pembroke and Rathmines realise what this scheme signifies. They see that they are going to benefit by it, and that the nation is also going to benefit. They are not deluded by the word "confiscation." If ever there was a word misapplied, if ever a word was used in a more indefensible, more unwarranted, more unjust, more shameful, and more hypocritical way than that word "confiscation" in connection with this scheme, I have never heard it. Whose rights are confiscated? Not the rights of the users of electricity, not the rights of the workmen, certainly not the rights of the nation. There has been a considerable amount of humbug and hypocrisy spoken about this Bill, but the people are not deluded by it. They see that this scheme makes for the building up of the nation, and they are ready to support it. If there is any scheme more than another which has given courage to the country it is this scheme. Only men who have faith in the country could have framed it, and the people, as a whole, pay no attention to the dishonest attacks upon it and to the attempts made to belittle it.
It is so unusual to hear a voice from the Government back benches uplifted in support of this Bill, or in fact of any Bill, I welcome the intervention of Deputy Sears. He spoke, apparently, not so much as a Deputy from Mayo, but as a ratepayer in Rathmines. I think when he takes upon himself the task of talking for my constituents he should, at least, tell all the facts. Instead of inveighing against humbug and hypocrisy he should have put forward his facts at a meeting of ratepayers in Rathmines where he was at liberty——
And elsewhere.
Yes.
He was at liberty to attend and speak?
He was. He could have made a statement.
I think the Deputy was proceeding to say "to attend and speak."
He was entitled to be heard.
After the motion was put?
That is possible. I was not dealing with the motion which was carried. The one which was carried was not adopted at my suggestion, but it is a fact that people who were never found in agreement on anything before were there and spoke in condemnation of the Bill, and they were all elected popularly by the ratepayers of Rathmines. When Deputy Sears assumes the function of speaking for the ratepayers of Rathmines he assumes a function that does not belong to him, and he is contradicted by the facts. We will leave it at that.
If Deputy Sears gives us his own opinion we will value it and accept it as his personal opinion, but the facts I have stated are correct. I should not have intervened in this debate, I should have been satisfied with a great deal of Deputy Johnson's statement and some of the statements by Deputy Byrne, were it not for the fact that I gather the Minister has a grievance in that I have spoken elsewhere and not given him an opportunity to reply. I have examined my conscience as to any statement that might cause the Minister a moment's uneasiness. I propose to repeat now the statements I made, and give the Minister the opportunity of having the last word upon them. I could not make a fairer proposition. The first statement he may have objected to was that when he informed the meeting he had an amendment in his pocket that he thought would dispose of all opposition but could not read it, for the draughtsman had not seen it. I advised the meeting not to buy a pig in a poke.
Is the Deputy pretending to quote what I said to the meeting about an amendment in my pocket?
I am not quoting literally.
I said: "I have here an amendment," and I waived it in this way, "but it is not in its final form." No one asked me to read it.
I agree. That might be the Minister's grievance, that I did not ask him to read it. What use was there in reading an amendment to people, most of whom did not possess a copy of the Bill, and were not familiar with parliamentary procedure? I saw at the meeting Deputy Good, Deputy McCullough and Deputy Leonard, but I do not think that meeting was in a proper position to judge the amendment. I suggested that it should wait until it had received its final form, and was tabled and discussed in the Dáil, to see whether it met the views of those who object to certain provisions of the Bill. The Minister's second grievance was founded on my statement that his speech contained certain omissions. Really, I think every speech I ever heard might have that criticism made against it, except possibly some of the speeches of Deputy Magennis. It is a self-evident fact that there are omissions, and when I made that remark with reference to the Minister's speech I immediately followed it up. The Minister brushed the ratepayers aside. He said: "I am not concerned with the ratepayers. I am only concerned with the electricity consumers." Surely someone should be concerned with the ratepayers as distinct from the electricity consumers? Sometimes they are identical, but there are cases where they are not. It is the small ratepayer, the man living in a small house who cannot afford wiring for current, who is extremely glad to get relief in rates.
I suppose the natural guardian of the ratepayers in this House is the Minister for Local Government and Public Health. It is significant that though the Minister for Public Health voted that the Bill be received for final consideration he did not vote on any crucial amendment affecting the ratepayers. He is an extern Minister and shares no collective responsibility for the Bill, and I cannot help regretting that we had not his opinion on the subject of using an electricity undertaking for the relief of the rates. The Minister made great play with the number of houses in Dublin—I think he said 60 per cent.—that were not consuming electric light. Where are they? Are they in Grafton Street, Fitzwilliam Square or Merrion Square, or are they in the poorer districts on the Northern side? The Minister knows as well as I do that they are in the poorer districts. The Minister may believe that by reducing the price of current and allowing the Board to do the wiring and supply lamps he might bring it within the reach of these people. Many of these people are living from hand to mouth, and they cannot afford any other light but that of a candle. They do not want current so much as help towards the rates, a help that will keep them going.
That is an angle of the Bill that has not been sufficiently considered. It will be very beneficial to the man with a big shop who wants to keep light day and night as an advertisement, and a great advantage to the proprietors of hotels and restaurants, and in places where a constant glitter of light is necessary as an attraction to the public, but I do not believe the gain of cheaper current would benefit the man who lives in a four-roomed house by more than a few pounds a year, and if he was asked he would rather have the benefit of these few pounds in reduced rates rather than reduced light. I am not now going into the power question. The Minister could make a stronger case on that. If by cheap power we can establish industries, no one would be more pleased than I. I would like, in conclusion, to assure Deputy Sears that there is no hostility to this Shannon scheme. It does not mean hostility to the Shannon scheme, which we cordially desire to be a success, when we question some of the methods employed by the Minister in this Bill which we think will not tend to increase confidence in the Shannon scheme.
I hope I will be able to get an answer from Deputy Byrne on two questions. What priority of charge was he referring to in his speech? Where is the priority with regard to the charges for electricity, or anything else? Does the Deputy know?
I did not refer to the priority of charge. I said there was a section in the Bill giving your stock priority over the Corporation's.
Will the Deputy show it to me? I think he means the old section, 71?
It was in one of the former Bills.
Exactly. The Deputy does not know yet what amendments were passed, but he casually stands up on the Fifth Stage of the Bill and delivers himself on a matter which was rectified by amendment.
Is not that a justification for the charge of rushing the Bill?
I do not think so. It might be justification for Deputy Byrne's constituents asking him why he was not in his place in the House at certain times. He asked a further question about £100,000 being withheld from the electricity consumer. I certainly join with Deputy Byrne and ask him, where is this £100,000? If there is the sum of £100,000 and it can be given in relief to the electricity consumers, why should it not be and why is it not given at once? I am glad to be in an alliance with Deputy Byrne on one point, that the consumer is entitled, if there has been a surplus, on the very good statements made by the Chief Electrical Engineer and by Mr. Murphy, the Town Clerk, to have it given back to him, and if it is not being given back to the electricity consumer he is being defrauded of his just rights.
Does the Minister stick by the word "defrauded?"
If the word seems to be too strong, I do not mean to insist on it. I say that there has been withheld from the electricity consumers something which, in equity, they are entitled to.
If the £100,000 is there, is it likely that the present rates for electricity in the city will stand as they are? If the £100,000 is there, will it ultimately be possible to lower the rates? Taking the flat rate to-day, can we assume that it is a higher rate than we can anticipate in the future?
I do not know what all that means. Deputy Byrne says that there is the sum of £100,000. If that surplus is there, then it is being withheld by someone. I agree that it should not be held but that it should go back in cheapening the rate of electricity to the consumer. If there is any idea that I am in any way trying to hold the money up so that the Board can come along later and find a nest egg of £100,000, I say it is not wanted. The Dublin consumer ought to get the benefits of the moneys derived here. If there is a surplus in any one year it should go back in the succeeding year.
I have a grievance against Deputy Cooper. Deputy Cooper was present at two meetings at which this matter was discussed. I was present at one, and now he says, with regard to Deputy Sears, that Deputy Sears could have attended and spoken. I interjected and said that he could have, after the resolution was passed. Deputy Cooper says he is not responsible for that procedure. I do not say that he is, but I did not hear any objection from him to that procedure on any occasion, nor did I hear any objection from him to the point of view that seemed to be in the minds of the Dublin Chamber of Commerce, that they should pass a resolution without hearing the Minister responsible for the measure speaking on it.
The Minister was not present at the meeting and could not, therefore, have heard what I said. I stated explicitly at the meeting that I thought the Minister ought to be heard before the resolution was passed. There were other Deputies present— Deputy Leonard.
I am glad to hear that, and I apologise to the Deputy.
I said it would weaken the effect of the resolution if the Minister were not heard.
That is somewhat different.
I stand by it. I said that unless there was a full and a frank discussion, and that the Minister was heard, the resolution would have no weight.
I think that is quite sound, and, relating that back to the Rathmines resolution, it has no weight. At any rate, there was a certain procedure adopted, and I was present at the particular meeting. I said that speeches had been made the day before in my absence, and that I thought the best procedure to follow would be along either of two lines, (1) that I should take every statement made, go through it and make my comments on it; or (2) deal with the general points, and leave the things which seemed to me to be minor, but which might seem important to the people who made them, to be raised when it came to the questioning afterwards. I then dealt at some length with what I might call the general matters. I remained for a certain amount of questioning. In fact, I remained as long as the meeting remained. The meeting resumed on the next day, and the first thing I saw in the papers was that Deputy Cooper said my speech was remarkable for its omissions. Now, if it was remarkable for its omissions, surely the Deputy had time enough to call my attention to the omissions. I now hear the omissions referred to—that I said something about ratepayers. As the Deputy is quoted in the papers, "I had no care for the ratepayers."
"I am not concerned with the ratepayers; I am only concerned with the electrical consumers."
But surely I had prefaced that by this: that I had gone along a certain line of argument, that once the bond holders were paid off whatever money was outstanding that I was finished with the bond holders; that once the moneys that were given to the electricity undertaking as a subvention from the rates were paid back that I was done with the ratepayers. That was the line of my argument, and that is the argument that I put forward here and that has been accepted here as a sound position to take up with regard to the ratepayers. With regard to the amendment, I spoke to an amendment which, by the way, is described in the papers as Deputy Thrift's amendment—Deputy Thrift's amendment put into his hands by me with the definite request from me that he should put it down so that I might be enabled to put down another amendment with a slightly different note, and so that the matter could be looked at in the relation of one to the other. I invited the terms of it to be read out, and nobody thought it important. Deputy Cooper now says that no one could relate it to the Bill. There were quite a number of people at this meeting who could not have related very much to the Bill, because quite a number of them had not read the Bill. All they had read were the newspaper editorials on the Bill, and had their minds formed by these.
The Deputy made another remark that I wish to comment upon. He said that I had not told the whole truth. Now if I had been guilty of telling half-truths or these definite omissions which amount to the same thing surely there was time enough to hold me up on that. There was only one Deputy of the House who interrupted me and that was Deputy Hewat, and I sent a statement to him verifying what I had said. I have not yet heard whether Deputy Hewat accepts that verification or not, or whether he still believes in his own contradiction. There was a very deliberate contradiction made, in answer to which I submitted clear and definite proof as to the accuracy of my own statement. I do not know what happened with regard to that, but that is the type of proceeding that was adopted.
Deputy Cooper has made a statement as to Deputy Sears intervening in this debate, and said how welcome it was to hear any views from the Government benches in support of this measure or any other. Even though he did not agree with it, the Deputy welcomed the intervention. That is one thing that possibly may have to be looked after better in the future. There has been considerable comment as to the absence of views from the Government benches on any measure. With regard to the procedure here we are now on the Fifth Stage of this Bill. I do not know how much time has been spent on it, but I should say that at least 50 per cent. of the time has been occupied by Deputy Johnson. If we were to take, over the whole course of the debates in this House, the amount of time that Deputy Johnson takes to himself for comments on the different measures and the time occupied by members of other opposition parties to whom it has been thought desirable to give as much freedom as possible for the discussion of measures here, one might be able to get some indication as to what the length of the debates would be if Government Deputies were to intervene. I have the feeling, and I have held it from the time when for a short period I was a back bencher in support of the Government, that there was very little opportunity given to members of the Government Party not on the Ministerial benches to speak.
What prevents them?
The time could not be given because there is the ordinary recognised normal period in which a debate should be taken, and time has been wasted.
Where is that normal recognised period stated? The normal recognised period is the period occupied by the House in the discussion of measures, and if Deputies on the Government benches decline to occupy the period which is free to them to occupy, they cannot be defended on the ground that other people occupy their time.
This interruption is an obvious example of waste of time. Deputy Johnson gets up to make a statement and he makes a sort of abbreviated speech on that statement. There is the ordinary amount of time that would be considered normal in any Parliament in the world for the discussion of certain Bills. If that time were divided up, and if Deputies on the Government benches were allowed their say in the same diffuse way as other members address the House, we would have been sitting here for years before legislation could have been passed.
You would not have got 200 Bills through, I admit.
The 200 Bills were necessary for the country, but all the talk on the 200 Bills was not necessary for the country.
What about the many amending Bills that were necessary?
Does the Minister remember when Deputy D'Alton on the Government benches gave a resumé of the history of Ireland, spoke for twenty minutes, and never once uttered a word in reference to the amendment under discussion?
I do, and I considered it a waste of time. This is a matter that should be considered in the future. There has been a definite procedure with regard to allowing the fullest freedom of discussion possible, and there is a certain amount of time that people would say ought to be the normal period for any discussion required. The Government Party has not got a proper proportion of that time.
It has not taken it.
It has not taken it. Why?
Because it discusses all these measures in private session at Party meetings.
Which no other Party does?
This is the place— Parliament and not the Committee Room.
Exactly. Even though Deputy Johnson may inflict himself on his own Party, this does not debar him from inflicting himself at length on this House, nor other members of the Party from joining in, so that the Government Party is deprived of its proper proportion of time.
Who ever stops them?
Who stops them? They are stopped because there has to be some consideration on this side of the House as to when measures should be allowed through, and what is the proper time for their discussion. I will ask anybody to go back over the volumes of debates in this House, and to see the amount of time taken up by four or five people in this House, and see whether all the time these people have used in discussing measures has been profitable to the discussion of the measure. There will be then some indication or some appreciation of why people like Deputy Sears cannot speak oftener, and why there cannot be any comments from this side of the House as well as from others on this or any other Bill. I am not going to follow Deputy Johnson in all he went through. He went through all we got from him yesterday, with about two new points, and the two new points were incorrect. One point was about "interest"—could a member of the Board become a commission agent for the British firm of Thompson, Houston and Co., or some other firm? Definitely I set out to prevent that. If the Deputy was not satisfied he would have moved to amend it. He did put down an amendment, but it was so badly drawn that he withdrew it. Is that my fault? Despite the fact that it was withdrawn, I still hold that, in the provision at the end of Section 10, the word "interest" covers that point. There was another point with regard to minor matters that was stressed at great length in Deputy Johnson's long oration to-day, but there has been sufficient argument on these points, and I am not going into them again.
"Interest" refers to shares. That is my point.
The interest does not refer to shares. We are told that the expression "shares in any electrical undertaking" means and includes... "any share or interest in any unincorporated undertaking similarly engaged." They are not identical. If they were identical the two words would not be there—"interest and share." Where is the Deputy's point?
The Minister will see it some day.
Tá
- Earnán de Blaghd.
- Thomas Bolger.
- Séamus Breathnach.
- Seoirse de Bhulbh.
- Próinsias Bulfin.
- John Conlan.
- Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean Uí Dhrisceóil.
- Osmond Grattan Esmonde.
- Desmond Fitzgerald.
- John Hennigan.
- Patrick Leonard.
- Liam Mac Cosgair.
- Patrick McGilligan.
- Risteárd Mac Liam.
- Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
- Liam Mac Sioghaird.
- Martin M. Nally.
- Michael K. Noonan.
- Peadar O hAodha.
- Parthalán O Conchubhair.
- Conchubhar O Conghaile.
- Máirtín O Conalláin.
- Eoghan O Dochartaigh.
- Séamus O Dóláin.
- Mícheál O Dubhghaill. Peadar O Dubhghaill.
- Pádraig O Dubhthaigh.
- Seán O Duinnín.
- Mícheál O hIfearnáin.
- Fionán O Loingsigh.
- Pádraig O hOgáin (Gaillimh).
- Seán O Raghallaigh.
- Máirtín O Rodaigh.
- Andrew O'Shaughnessy.
- Liam Thrift.
- Nichlas Wall.
Níl
- Earnán Altún.
- Bryan R. Cooper.
- Séamus Eabhróid.
- Séamus Mac Cosgair.
- Tomás Mac Eoin.
- Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
- Pádraig Mac Fhlannchadha.
- Tomás de Nógla.
- William Norton.
- John Good.
- David Hall.
- Wiliam Hewat.
- Ailfrid O Broin.
- Criostóir O Broin.
- Aodh O Cúlacháin.
- Eamon O Dubhghaill.
- William A. Redmond.