I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. This is a Bill just simply to bring into existence a Minister of Transport. Under certain electricity agreements a Minister of Transport has been named as the person to appoint an arbitrator in any disputes that might arise between public bodies and electricity companies. I am only asking the House to agree that that person will be brought into existence, as, owing to the transfer from the British Government, at present a Minister of Transport does not exist.
Private Deputies' Business. - Electricity Agreements (Adaptation) Bill, 1929—Second Stage.
There are certain agreements in different municipalities in Ireland of which only one is immediately within my personal knowledge, and in that a Minister of Transport is named to perform a certain function. The Cork electric supply, for instance, was originally given to Cork Corporation, and the Corporation, by an agreement dated, I think, 1920, handed that over to the Electricity Supply Company. In this agreement there is one particular clause which is concerned with this Bill. That clause says that if the Corporation of Cork are dissatisfied with the price of electricity in that area they can apply to the Electricity Supply Company to have that price reduced, and if the Corporation and the Company cannot agree as to the price that ought to be charged, the price which is described as the minimum in all existing circumstances, then the Minister of Transport is authorised to decide what the price of electricity will be. Due, I understand, to an omission in the Adaptation of Enactments Act, nobody was named as Minister of Transport, and therefore there is nobody in the Free State at present to perform the particular function which is laid down in that clause of the agreement. That has completely prevented that particular clause being made operative. We suggest in the Bill that the Minister for Local Government and Public Health be named in such agreement in lieu of the Minister of Transport. We have only put in that name because it was necessary to put in the name of a particular Minister. Owing to the fact that the Minister for Industry and Commerce was responsible for, and is to some considerable extent still responsible for the electrification of the Saorstát, it was thought that possibly he may not like to act in that particular capacity. If the Ministry do desire, or if the Minister for Industry and Commerce does desire, that the Minister for Industry and Commerce shall act in that capacity, we are perfectly satisfied. The choice was out of regard for the particular position of the Minister, and was not intended to be in any way an exclusion of him.
I may say that this Bill has been introduced by Deputy Seán French, Lord Mayor of Cork, for the Corporation of Cork, supported by Deputies Richard Anthony, Barry M. Egan and myself, so that it covers the whole—if I may say so—of the political differences in Cork. The only reason why the President's name was omitted from that, or why the President himself was not asked to back that Bill, was because we recognised that, as President of the Executive Council, he has possibly another function to perform in the matter and that it would not be fair to involve him at this stage by using his name. Therefore the absence of his name from the Bill is not to be taken as having any significance, positive or negative.
This measure is designed to find a way out of a difficulty that has arisen, as described by Deputies French and Flinn. This appears to be a very fair method of finding a solution. The only possible objection that I think could be urged against this measure would be one which might be made by the other party to the agreement mentioned. The two parties to the agreement arrived at the conclusion that a particular person should appoint an arbitrator. In this case, the only possible objection that I could foresee which could be made to this is that there has not been agreement between the two parties as to the naming of the person who is to appoint the arbitrator. I should like to ask Deputy French whether, if between this and the Report Stage representations were made to him by the other party to the agreement as to an alternative method, he would be prepared to consider that. I cannot see any other possible objection that could be made, and I think, if Deputy French were agreeable to that course, that no possible objection could be made to this measure. If representations be made, and if an alternative method of finding an arbitrator be arrived at, then we effect the same purpose as the passage of the measure.
The Cork Corporation in considering this matter were simply influenced by the fact that at present there was no individual who could be styled the Minister of Transport. We simply named the Minister for Local Government, as explained by Deputy Flinn, as the individual who should act as Minister for Transport. I am perfectly certain that the Corporation of Cork would accept an individual as arbitrator, provided that he took the responsibility imposed upon the Minister of Transport by the 1920 agreement.
If I may put the point in this way, it is not a question of the individual at all. The position was that a Minister of Transport was contemplated to be in existence.
Yes.
And in the ordinary way some Minister of the Executive Council would have been named to take that position. Due to an oversight, I think, that was not done. Therefore the authority to decide who is Minister of Transport does not seem to be a matter in any way of agreement between those two parties. It seems to me to be a thing that is outside of the two of them. I do not think either of the two parties appointed the Minister of Transport in the sense possibly that the President envisages him as chosen arbitrator. Because the Minister of Transport under the old Bill might have been "A" to-day, "B" to-morrow, and "C" the next day, depending upon the change of Ministries.
I do not think that Deputy Flinn quite gets my point. An agreement was arrived at between two bodies in 1920 as to the appointment of the Minister. That agreement could be carried into effect in 1922, 1923, 1924 or 1925, but the conditions have altered since. It may be that the other party to the agreement would prefer—and perhaps the Corporation would agree to —a person nominated, say, by the President of the High Court or the Chief Justice, and all I am asking is that if representation is made that that would be more agreeable to one of the parties that the Corporation shall be prepared to entertain that and consider it before finally deciding on this. The circumstances, as Deputy Flinn will agree, are somewhat different now to what they were at the time when the agreement was made.
If I might put it this way: it is that a Minister of Transport which exists in the agreement does not happen to exist as an individual. So far as the Dáil is concerned, it is not concerned in any way with the individual in that agreement. It is merely concerned with implementing or putting some reality into that agreement by repairing an omission of the Dáil. It is not a question of appointing an arbitrator. The arbitrator is there in name. All this Dáil has got to do is to repair the omission not providing anybody of that name in order to do the job.
Deputy French has not answered my question: Is he prepared, in the event of representations being made to him that an alternative agreement might be arrived at between the parties, to consider that representation?
An alternative agreement?
Yes.
The position is peculiar and it is very hard to understand. A definite agreement was come to with the Corporation. What we want the House to decide is that somebody should be appointed as Minister of Transport to act as arbitrator.
I do not think that that quite answers the point I put. This is a selection, or rather a method of appointing some person in lieu of some person not in existence by one of the parties to the agreement. It may be that another accommodation could be arrived at. If such representations are made to Deputy French before the Report Stage—I know nothing of them, and no such request has been made to me either directly or indirectly—but if such representations are made between this and the Report Stage, is Deputy French prepared to consider them?
Provided the Corporation of Cork is willing to agree?
Certainly; that is what I say.
It is not a personal matter at all.
Question—"That the Bill be now read a Second Time"—put and agreed to.
Ordered: "That the Electricity Agreements (Adaptation) Bill, 1929, be referred to a Special Committee consisting of eleven Deputies to be nominated by the Committee of Selection; that the first meeting of the Special Committee be held on Wednesday, November 20th, 1929, and that the quorum of the Committee be five."—(Mr. French.)