Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 17 Jul 1931

Vol. 39 No. 18

Financial Resolution. - Shannon Electricity Board—Motion to Set Up Commission.

I move:

That in the opinion of the Dáil there should be set up at the earliest possible date, but in any event at a date not later than the 1st day of September, 1931, a commission with power to send for persons, papers and documents, and consisting of three persons, of whom one should be an accountant of international reputation as an expert in the economics of state electricity supply undertakings, one an electrical engineer of international reputation as an expert in the organisation and administration of large scale electricity supply undertakings, and one a person actively engaged in a manufacturing enterprise owned, controlled, and operated in Saorstát Eireann, to inquire into and report upon the following:—

(1) The actual present position of the Electricity Supply Board in relation to assets, liabilities, expenditure, income, and capital expenditure;

(2) as to whether the present rates charged by the Board for electricity are economic having regard to the present and prospective market for electricity in the Free State;

(3) the existing staff and organisation of the Board, and whether same or what staff is most conducive to economic administration;

(4) the probable future income, expenditure and capital requirements of the Board in relation to the present and all further possible developments of the Shannon Electricity Undertaking;

(5) the most suitable policy for the future development and organisation of that undertaking particularly in relation to plant and finance;

(6) whether the policy pursued by the Electricity Supply Board over the period from its inception to the 14th May, 1931, was sound in the following regards—

(a) In the specific use of its capital;

(b) in the prices charged for electricity to different classes of consumers;

(c) in forming a monopoly in generation and in distribution;

(d) in not selling in bulk to pre-existing undertakers;

(e) in engaging in wiring and installation business:

(f) in engaging in wholesale and retail trade in appliances;

(g) any other matters relative to the present position and future development of electricity supply in Saorstát Eireann that may be useful to the Oireachtas.

As the time available for the discussion of this motion is short, I will be compelled to deal in a rather summary manner with the points involved. Fortunately, the resolution is a rather lengthy one and, to a certain extent, is self-explanatory. The resolution, in general terms, is that a Commission of Inquiry should be set up almost immediately, and should consist of three persons: one an accountant of international reputation as an expert in the economics of State electricity supply undertakings; one an electrical engineer, similarly of international reputation as an expert in the organisation and administration of large-scale electricity supply undertakings, and one a person actively engaged in a manufacturing enterprise owned, controlled, and operated in Saorstát Eireann, to inquire and report upon the following matters, which I shall deal with one by one. As regards the composition of the Commission, our view is that the best constitution would be that we should have two experts dealing with the two technical sides, namely, the accountancy side and the engineering side, and that they should be people who would be accepted as acknowledged authorities upon the two sides of the expert work, namely, an accountant and an engineer.

The need for an inquiry like this has been stressed so much in the debate that I wonder whether it is necessary to go back on it again. We feel, at any rate, that it is necessary merely as an act of justice. Here are men whose reputations are at stake. We have been told that they so mismanaged a great enterprise, and left things in such a mess that the Minister for Industry and Commerce professes to be very aggrieved at the situation that has arisen, inasmuch as it is in conflict with all the plans he had for the control and development of this great undertaking. We want to know the facts of the situation. The House by a majority has given the Minister authority to dole out the money and, therefore, to control the new Board. He has changed his position absolutely and completely. Those of us on this side of the House regret that there should have to be a departure from the original scheme. I shall deal with the merits of that later on, but we think that before a judgment of the kind that is involved should be passed upon men like that they should, at least, get a trial.

We have had one side of the case presented to us here by the Minister. The people who have the facts are not here to confront him and to point out wherein he erred, if he erred, and where he made misstatements, if he made misstatements. We have no check on the statements of the Minister except a certain public statement. I say that as an act of justice we ought not to allow ourselves to be put into the position in which we have to pass judgment and destroy, as far as we can destroy, the reputations of people who came in to serve—I admit they got a salary for it—the interests of the country. We ought to be very careful when people come into an undertaking of this kind, take their part in a scheme that is laid out for the general interests of the country, before we pass hasty judgments upon them and keep men of that sort from being prepared in future to enter into the public service in undertakings of this kind.

Ministers have very often been ready to complain of our attitude as one which would deprive the State of the services of individual citizens of special ability, which it would be in the interests of the State to exploit. I never have denied that if there was anything that would really tend to that it should be discouraged. But here is the Minister himself going to do something which does definitely tend to prevent the State from getting the services of citizens who are in an independent position, as business men and so on, to serve the State. We have had the complaint about Parliamentary representation, that we cannot get the best of our citizens to come forward and to take their part in representative institutions because they are not prepared to face up to the rough and tumble, so to speak, of Parliamentary and public life. It is a fact that very good men are prevented from giving service to the public interests because they do not want to get into that. They feel that they are much happier at their business. There is enough of selfishness in most of us to get along without having to battle very often on matters that we consider insignificant. Let us admit that. Here is a case in which certain businessmen, some of them anyhow, are in a position in which they need not have given this service at all. They are prepared to give their abilities to the national service in this undertaking and here are we, by an act of ours, on one-sided evidence, going to destroy the reputation of these men, and certainly we are going to do something which will make it more difficult in future to get men of ability to come in and help us in an undertaking of this sort. I say, therefore, as an act of justice and of wisdom, that if we do want to get the best men in the country to help us in business undertakings we ought not to allow the situation to remain where it is now. We ought to see that they get an opportunity of vindicating themselves, vindicating their ability, possibly proving that they were right and the Minister wrong. That is the first point.

Now let us come to it even more narrowly from the business point of view. It is our duty, in my opinion, to set up this inquiry as we would if we were managing a private enterprise. I put it to anybody here that if they had a business which was being managed by some committee or group, and if they found that the accounts were late, and that a statement from somebody in a position in relation to the group like the Minister revealed that there was something wrong on the part of the persons who were in charge, or about the business itself, if they were inclined to give any credence to the information supplied to them by the person in a position like the Minister they would immediately, as an act of ordinary business prudence, see that the matter was investigated home. They would not leave it in the situation in which it is now. They would not offer their money to the Minister and tell him: "Fling that good money after bad." They would try to assure themselves that the situation was one which would justify the expenditure of further money, and they would say to themselves: "We must take this opportunity which has been presented to examine the whole affair anew and to chart the road that we wish to travel in future."

At the beginning of this enterprise a great deal was in the air; it had to be. There were estimates about things and the development was altogether in the future. But the scheme has been in operation now for a certain period, and the fact that it has been in operation for a certain period gives a new set of facts and figures that we can go back upon. It gives an opportunity of taking stock of the situation at its present point of development. Accordingly I say we here, who are the people's representatives and guardians of the people's interests in this particular undertaking, ought to do what an ordinary businessman would do in relation to his own business affairs. He would say there is a conflict of opinion here between my two sets of advisers, and I want to get this examined home. I will try to get outside, impartial investigation. We have often heard of auditors coming in, and so on. The idea of bringing in auditors is to get some outside, thorough investigation. Why does not the Minister agree that in this case, in the national interest, something should be done; not auditors, however, because they would not be sufficient to do the work. We want in this case men whose knowledge of the matters concerned is such that they can pass something like an authoritative judgment upon them. I say that is necessary for us, if we are not to convict ourselves of plunging ahead wildly into further expenditure without knowing where we are.

There is another matter. There is no doubt anybody who attended carefully to the statement of the Minister will admit that he passed on to us a doubt that must be in his own mind, or else he would not have passed it on, namely a doubt as to the economic soundness of the whole enterprise. It is a very big enterprise, and there are very large sums of national money involved in it. Surely before we expend further money without knowing where we are going to, we ought to get the question of the economic soundness of this enterprise put beyond yea or nay. We ought to know exactly where it is. For that we will have to depend largely upon the judgment of men competent to give judgment upon it. I said during the last debate that if it lay between the Minister and his view whether this undertaking was or was not economically sound, and the views of the men on the Board, such as the chairman and the managing director, one of whom had experience of accountancy and general control of money, and the other who was an expert in this particular work, anyhow as compared with the Minister I would be bound to take the side and accept the judgment of the managing director rather than of the Minister. I say that, but I do not want the Minister to interpret it as expressing more than what at one time he spoke of as a state of philosophic doubt. I do not think any one of us is justified in going beyond the state in which we suspend judgment. It is obviously a case in which we must suspend judgment if we are to be fair and just, because we have not the facts to enable us to come to definite judgment. But we have enough, I contend, to determine us upon a certain line of action, and that line of action is to have this whole position investigated by a body as impartial and as competent as we can get. I think therefore that any reasonable man approaching this situation with an open mind would agree with us that that inquiry should be set up. There is another matter if we are dealing with the justice and merits of the case. One side is prepared to face an inquiry. The managing director in a public statement in the interests of the enterprise, and not less, I am sure, in his own interests as an individual, asks that this inquiry should be set up. He asks for it as a man whose credit is at stake, and as a man interested in the success of this enterprise because he was the man who, to a certain extent, conceived and pressed it upon the Minister.

Not this distribution scheme.

I am talking of the success of the whole scheme.

I want to get the Deputy clear. He said the managing director pressed this upon the Minister. I make a division. The generation of electricity, and its transmission certainly, but the distribution side, no. The Electricity Supply Act represents my scheme in antagonism to his on distribution.

Leave that aside. I am talking of the success of the enterprise as a whole. Obviously this man has an interest in seeing this lasting monument to himself is kept standing and not broken into pieces. He is prepared to face an inquiry and the Minister apparently is not.

So are the other directors.

And so are the other directors but the Minister is not. The Minister is a man who is always talking about submitting to international tribunals questions in dispute and all the rest of it. That seems to be his policy in external affairs, but here in internal affairs where he is one of the parties he does not want an inquiry because he fears the judgment of the inquiry might not coincide with the judgment he is able to pass in the House where he has a majority on his side.

I take it that the Minister is genuinely anxious to have the merits of the dispute examined, and—in fairness to himself unless he fears he has a very bad case—will acquiesce in the setting up of this inquiry. If he is right he is going to be justified. Has he not sufficient confidence in his own position in the matter to believe that if an impartial inquiry is made he will come well out of the investigation? If he has a case why not have an inquiry? The only evidence of his mind in the matter that has been given to us in the debate is that the materials that will enable a commission to come to a sound judgment are not available. Yet they were available for him to come to a sound judgment. He can form a judgment where experts cannot! If the materials are not available for the experts the materials are not available for him. If they are available for him let them be put before the experts who will be better able to appreciate, in our opinion, the facts of the situation and their implications than the Minister can.

We have only a very short time at our disposal and I do not want unduly to occupy the time of the House in going into details in the matter, but lest some Deputy should not have read the terms of reference, as Deputy Flinn called them, which he suggested yesterday in his speech, I will go through them as rapidly as I can in detail as they appear on the Paper.

I would like to stress one point which may not be apparent, that in the constitution of the expert commission we have suggested, in addition to the two experts, a third, who should be a person "actively engaged in a manufacturing enterprise, owned, controlled and operating in Saorstát Eireann." I think it is very important that on that commission there should be a representative, so to speak, of the Irish public, and particularly of that section of the Irish public which would be naturally interested in the development of this enterprise. We believe that an Irish business man or a manufacturer, as outlined in the motion, would be a most valuable member of that Board. He would be there with these experts to hear the case they put forward and to look at it from what I might call the Irish domestic national point of view, and therefore to add a valuable side to the whole investigation. That is as far as the constitution of the commission goes. The next question is what are they supposed to inquire into? The first item would be the actual position of the Electricity Supply Board in relation to the assets, liabilities, expenditure, income and capital expenditure. That would be what I might call a general stocktaking, to find out what was the actual position in relation to these various items. I think it is not necessary to elaborate upon each of them, because the meaning is clear and Deputies with the Order Paper before them will be able to appreciate their full significance.

The next point is, "as to whether the present rates charged by the Board for electricity are economic, having regard to the present and the prospective market for electricity in the Free State." That is a question upon which there has been expressed a variety of different opinions. There is certainly a definite conflict of opinion. On that question depends the whole economic soundness of the scheme, and if the money sunk in it is ultimately to be remunerative.

The next point deals with the existing staff and organisation of the Board. I take it that that, for instance, would mean that the composition of the Board would be taken into account. Some of us are not satisfied that the Board, as it exists, and as envisaged by the Minister, is the best type of Board that could be got for the conduct of this undertaking. It is largely dominated by men who were civil servants. I do not want to be taken as implying any criticism of these civil servants as such. I know they are estimable men who do their work very well, but for this particular kind of enterprise there is no doubt in my mind that you want experts, someone who has had some experience on the question of electricity supply, the organisation of the Board, the staff, the whole question of organisation, with a view to the work that has to be done. "The probable future income, expenditure and capital requirements of the Board in relation to the present and all further possible development of the Shannon electricity undertaking." We know that various developments are contemplated. We want to have these foreseen as far as possible and something corresponding to an estimate made as to their cost and as to the ultimate income from them.

The next item is: "The most suitable policy for the future development and organisation of that undertaking, particularly in relation to plant and finance." I think it would be rather difficult to get any other words which would make what is there contained clearer than it is. Then we come to the question of the inquiry, the real matter which would enable us to come to a decision as to whether the policy that has been adopted by the Board has in fact been a sound one or not. For instance, whether its policy has been sound in the specific use of its capital, whether it has used the capital wisely and in the best possible way, whether, for instance, it would be wise, as the Minister tried to compel the Board to do, to keep the £850,000 aside, as something that could not be touched but that otherwise would be at their disposal; to cut off that part of their resources and say that they must stand it in order to meet the capital liabilities of the acquired undertakings. The next question is the price charged for electricity to different classes of customers. We have heard a good deal of complaint about that, for instance, whether it was wise to sell electricity at the rate it was sold to the Tramways Company and, I think, similarly in the case of Cork, and so on.

Who mentioned that?

It was mentioned in the debate.

I did not do so, at any rate.

I think Deputy Flinn or some other Deputy did so.

I wonder where he got the idea?

I do not know.

What idea does the Minister mean?

That these charges had been questioned.

The point is whether these charges are too high or too low in view of the capital cost of the undertaking.

It would be better if Deputy de Valera were allowed to make his speech himself.

There were a number of questions raised, whether the electricity should be sold in bulk, etc., but all these associated questions are questions of policy. I have no doubt the Board did examine this question very carefully, and whether we may differ from the point of view taken by Deputy Briscoe and with the wisdom of the Board for instance in dealing with Pembroke supply, I have no doubt whatever that the Board examined them and decided to do what they did only when they had satisfied themselves that it was the right thing to do. These are matters of policy. The Minister comes in and proposes to pass judgment upon these matters, upon information which has been conveyed to him, not on something that he was able to get first hand knowledge of directly, but on something for which he had to rely upon other people, less competent probably to advise than the men on whose shoulders the responsibility actually devolved, namely, the Board. We want to know these things because they are being talked about and questioned. Let us know the facts about them. Let us know the basis of the decisions which were made by the Board. Let these things be examined by people who are competent to judge whether the Board was right or wrong. We will then have some material to go on.

Ministers were very careful when setting up the Tariff Commission. The members of that Commission spent a long time considering questions. They are people who will not do anything without very careful examination. Even where things are almost obvious they have to be submitted for examination over a protracted period. Here they burk examination. They will not allow us to get the services of experts to examine these highly technical matters, and to come to judgment upon them when they have the facts before them, the facts as revealed by the Board's activities and as examined by a body competent to examine and pass appropriate comments on their actions. The other question is with reference to the wiring and installation business. There we are coming, I take it, to one of the matters on which a big difference of opinion arises.

Between whom?

The Minister made a reference to further possible developments, transmission and distribution.

[An Ceann Comhairle resumed the Chair.]

If the Deputy is referring to item (e) of the motion he did not get my point. However, I will explain it myself later.

The next point is whether the Board was wise in engaging in wholesale and retail trade in appliances. It might well be said that they had enough to do in other matters and should have let that look after itself. It might well be asked why they should have gone into that side line. I might have seen without examination the considerations which sent them in that direction just as I can see without examination why they were anxious to get in where power plant was in danger of being put in and where they would say "we will supply that power." I had an instance myself where there was a question of putting in Diesel engines and where there was a possibility that unless we could have been given power by the Electricity Supply Board at a rate something comparable to the rate at which we could supply power ourselves, we were not going to take their supply. That was a big matter for them to consider. I have no doubt in all these matters they considered it from the point of view of business and the ultimate aims they had in mind.

The next item in the motion is "any other matters relative to the present position and future development of electricity supply in Saorstát Eireann that may be useful to the Oireachtas." That is an omnibus clause to try to make the terms of reference sufficiently wide to enable the Commission which we propose should be set up to take cognisance of all facts relative to the situation which should be before us before we pass judgment on the Board as a business Board or plunge wildly into the further expenditure which has now reached a considerable sum, as the Minister has admitted. One of the anomalies about the whole situation is that the Minister should want now two millions extra without taking into account at all, apparently, the necessity for liquidating any of the capital obligations of the undertaking, that he should require two millions of extra capital and that he should complain that the Board did not keep within two and a half millions. He is taking four and a half millions to do what he was trying to compel the Board to do under two millions. That seems to me extraordinary, and the whole of the situation is such that, in the national interests as well as the interests of the undertaking, if we are not going to convict ourselves as hopeless incompetents, we ought to set up an inquiry of this sort. I might say for myself that I am not at all happy in seeing the Minister having two million pounds to play with, two million pounds to help him to squeeze these men on the Board into following whatever policy he cares to dictate. He has now got the power of the purse.

We assented to the Second Reading of the Bill because he indicated that he was prepared to reduce that sum. He was prepared to be knocked out of the Bill. He was prepared to do anything. We passed the Second Reading because we believed on that occasion that when he came to the Committee Stage, after reasonable arguments were put forward in a reasonable way, he would be prepared to modify the measure, and ask only for such sum as would enable him to carry on during the period that would have to elapse until we got an experts' report which would put us in a position to form a sound judgment and enable us to look to the future with some security. We ask members of the House, by their votes, to compel an inquiry of this sort. We believe that if they do not they are not playing their part as custodians of the public interests.

There is also, undoubtedly, the big question of control, the ultimate fate of the whole undertaking—in fact, whether a scheme conceived like this can be successful or not. If unsuccessful it would be the severest blow it would be possible to imagine almost which could be delivered to the ideals which the Minister had when he introduced this proposal for the Shannon scheme originally. He referred to it in his Second Reading speech as an experiment of great sociological value. We believe it is. Such a scheme, in the manner in which it was laid out by the Minister originally, seemed to us fairly sound. In fact, looking back over it, and I have tried to think of some way which would give the necessary security and at the same time secure that there would not be undue interference with the conduct of the business side by the Board, I did not see any scheme which would improve upon that unless this present situation would suggest that before there was any removal from office in future there should be an opportunity given to the people concerned to have an inquiry. I do not say that there might not be considerations which would make such a scheme inadvisable as part of the machinery.

Is this debate to end at 2 o'clock? There are other speakers, I take it, as well as myself.

I shall soon conclude. As I say, I intended—I need not now— to go fully into what is involved in this experiment. We do not want to see it a failure unless it can be proved that it has failed. We believe that if things remain in their present situation the natural judgment of the people upon it will be that it has failed. We are thrown into this position, that there is a danger to the enterprise as managed by the Minister, and practically by a bureaucracy subject to him, by some board of civil servants who will ultimately be responsible to him and who will feel, every one of them, that they are not free to take independent action, because they will look back and see the fate of those who did dare to take independent action.

I formally second the motion.

There is a motion before the House——

I desire to say a few words before the Minister speaks. I will only take two minutes.

Will the Deputy take his two minutes after I have spoken? I shall leave him plenty of time.

We may assume that the question of the adjournment has been decided to-day?

We have not time to discuss it.

There is obviously inadequate time to discuss the motion.

I will take the Minister now. I understand the debate is to conclude at 2 o'clock.

There has been agreement to that effect. It is regrettable.

There is a long motion on the Paper which I am not going to read in detail, as the Deputy has done so. It comes to this: it asks the assent of the Dáil to the setting up of a commission consisting of three persons of a particular type, with power to send for persons, papers and documents, to report upon certain things. The Deputy has made his whole case upon this, that we must have certain facts and figures, and have an inquiry before judgment is passed. There has been criticism, express and implied, of me for passing judgment in this case. What judgment have I passed on anyone? That I should accept two resignations, and that I should accept these two resignations for what I thought were good and sufficient reasons, which I detailed to this House. What were they? That there was an undertaking admitted to have been given and admitted to have been broken; that there was not in the Board's keeping proper material in the way of records on which any decent accounts could be kept. That was admitted. Thirdly, by implication from the admission of these two items, and also, indeed, clearly admitted that there was no budgetary system in the whole performance of the Electricity Supply Board. At a point, these things being admitted, I was faced with a proposal from the people who allowed this situation to develop, and admitted that it had so developed, to give them more money. In these circumstances, two resignations came to my hand and I accepted them. That is the judgment which has been passed. Two resignations were put into my hand and I accepted them for certain reasons. It may be said that the people of the country and of the Dáil are not clear about these reasons. They are going to be clear about them. There is not a document which I read which I will not have put before this House when public policy allows me to put them before the House—and that should be very soon. It will certainly be as soon as I shall have got the accounts and finance situation of that Board cleared up and some attempt made to readjust matters so as to put the whole thing on an even keel again. That is the present situation, and in that situation we are asked to send for experts to report on the matters detailed in this motion.

I could query every one of the items in the motion if I wanted to go through them in detail—for instance, the question of the soundness of the Board's policy in certain respects. It would seem from this motion as if the Board had unlimited capital at its disposal and that the Oireachtas had given no direction as to the use of that capital. I should like to ask experts hereafter as to what should be done in the situation that will be revealed in the winter of this year or the spring of next year. Then will be the time for experts, but only when the House has passed judgment—passed judgment on every document which I have quoted and on these items. Was there an agreement made and was there any quibble ever made until we got to the newspaper stage of the controversy as to what that agreement meant? Was there an admission that that agreement was broken? Was there a definite admission that the Board did not know what its capital liabilities were at any time? Was there a definite admission that the records were in an absolutely chaotic condition, invoices by thousands in arrear and so on, so that no accounts could be kept? And was there a definite admission, arising out of the whole thing, that there never was a budgetary system in the whole course of the Electricity Board's operations? The House will pass judgment on that, and it is the proper tribunal to pass judgment on it. Experts may say later on, after we have got this affair out of the atmosphere of this House, that these people in the circumstances did certain things right and certain things wrong, but all that will be after this House has considered it decided if certain people, by their actions, forfeited the confidence of this House with regard to (a) the exercise of elementary financial prudence in running a financial undertaking, and (b) the keeping of an honourable undertaking. If you are going to have a Board set up as an independent Board, you must require the utmost punctiliousness in the observance of every agreement. That is for the House to consider. At some time or other—and very soon, I hope— the House will have before it the audited accounts for the year ended 31st March, 1930. At the moment, there is an independent firm of auditors operating on the Board's premises in two capacities. I said that there were certain staff on the spot—five or six men—I now understand that the figure lately jumped to seventeen and will likely jump to twenty. This staff is engaged in trying to remake records, in trying to get what should have been in the Board's keeping and was not there, the only information on which any accounts can ever be based. The audit staff was called in to help to get together those records, to write to firms in respect of whom there was some indication that an order had been placed, to find out what the order was and to remake all that sort of elementary documenting which is absolutely necessary for account-rendering.

Then, these independent auditors, when the records have been made, when accounts on foot of these records in some way have been produced are going to be asked to audit these accounts. When they have audited them, the audited accounts will come to me. I can ask for a special report if I like and all the information will come to the House. That will be up to the 31st March, 1930. After that, this independent firm of auditors in whom this House must have confidence— it has no reason to lose confidence in them—will get to the accounts of the year ended 31st March last and report on those. I can call on them for a special report as to the causes of delay about all these accounts, if those causes are known to them, and I can ask their view of the present financial position of the Board, its capital and general commitments, and how it has used its finances, in the sense of how much it has expended and on what. They are not the people to decide whether it was wise or unwise, good or bad expenditure. That report will come before this House with all the correspondence and then it will be for somebody—I hold that the first people to intervene at that point should be the Executive Council —to make proposals with regard to the readjustment of the finance lay-out of the whole Board and to pass judgment upon any readjustment with regard to tariffs, if that is suggested, to make up deficiencies, if deficiencies are revealed. The House, on getting that, can send for independent experts, if they like, to decide on the readjustments made, whether the life assigned to certain articles is the proper life or whether it is too short or too long. As regards sending for outsiders, to ask them whether the Board's policy was right or wrong in the specific use of its capital, who has the right to decide that but the people who gave the capital, who understood the circumstances and who will have the letters and admissions before them?

The people who passed the law.

Inside the law.

"Inside the law" includes honourable agreements.

Inside the law as passed. There was no right to go outside the law.

The Deputy exhausted himself yesterday——

I will exhaust you.

At one time he posed as an electrical expert when Europe required him in another capacity——

You are getting personal now. Anything but the facts.

And the British Government said: "We have heard that yarn before" and took him by the back of the neck and put him into uniform. That drove him to literature, to the writing of pathetic letters——

Let us get back to the Shannon.

—winding up with this wail about himself, "Here I am, Lieutenant Flinn, First Lieutenant at 40, listed as C1, which means not fit even for garrison duty abroad. That was the Deputy's description of his own inefficiency. Deputy de Valera asked us not to fling good money after bad. That was a peculiar phrase for him to use. He is not at all certain that the money spent has been badly spent.

If the Minister would have it, I would be inclined—

Do not put phrases into my mouth which I did not use. I want quotations for anything I am supposed to have said. The Deputy says we ought not to fling good money after bad. Let us leave out the past. He means that the money which is now being passed over to me is not going to be usefully expended. I am not going to take the point of view— I refuse to accept it completely—that there was only one expert with regard to electrical administration and that he has resigned now, and that therefore future expenditure is certain to be bad. I do not accept that point of view at all. The Deputy has said that, as between myself and the late managing director, the late managing director had certain electrical experience. He had very limited experience. He had very little practical experience.

What about the expert you are relying on?

The managing director had, in fact, no special experience in electrical administration, but had undoubtedly done a great amount of reading. He had certainly worked hard to make up a particular line of country, but when we were selecting the first Board there was a clear recognition by us that there were certain things in his make-up which, unbalanced and on their own, were not going to make for successful operation of the Board. A team was got together in the hope that the team balance would get the good points out and prevent the defects coming to the top. It failed to get out the good points and to keep the bad points under control. I do not accept at all the statement that there is only one electrical expert and that because he has resigned there is nobody else to govern this scheme. There are many requirements for success in this connection—a balanced mind in this should include a sound knowledge of electrical accounts, a conscientious appreciation of what the control of public money involves, and electrical talent. I consider either of the two men now on the Board in a full-time capacity the superior of the late managing director in having such a balance.. If they had not helped to govern the late managing director the situation would be much worse than it now is.

The Deputy says that there is conflict of opinion between two sets of advisers. What conflict of opinion is there? There have been two resignations. I have stated certain things, and one letter has been written which, so far as I can learn has only served to confirm amongst the public what I stated. There is no conflict of opinion. There are admissions on a variety of things. Two resignations came in and we accepted them for the reasons I gave. There may be a conflict of opinion hereafter on expert matters as to what is the proper way to expend the money that the Board receives, and as to what is the proper remuneration to look for on the money being used. At that point we can call in experts, but at this point it gives a completely distorted view of the situation to say that there is a conflict of opinion between two sets of advisers, unless I am to take it to mean that the Electricity Supply Board had a policy, that they were working on that policy although they knew it was not the policy adumbrated in the 1927 Act, and that they believed, notwithstanding what the Oireachtas said in its ignorance of electrical matters, that the Board could go on and do what they pleased. That is a matter that I will bring before the House. It will be decided on by this House and by the people who set up the Board, not by technical experts but by the people who set up the Board and knew what they were setting it up for.

The Deputy also said that I have passed on certain doubts as to the economic soundness of the whole scheme. I wonder how far have I passed on certain doubts? I was horrified to see in the Press reports the other day that I was supposed to have given satisfaction to the House by answering a very limited question which Deputy O'Kelly addressed to me. I answered that question inside the framework of the limitation that the Deputy put down, and the reply had clear reference to this, that the prospects of the Board, now that certain people have gone, are much better than if those two people had remained. As to the economic soundness of the scheme, I have no material at the moment to pass final judgment and have never passed final judgment on it. I have before me certain disturbing facts on certain things regarding the finance lay-out of the scheme, but these may not be sufficient to warrant anything very much in the way of the raising of charges. These facts I have still before me for examination.

The Deputy said that the managing director pressed this scheme on me. I made a distinction and again make it. As to the Shannon scheme proper, the £5,200,000 scheme which made provision for generation, long distance transmission, and so on I have always given the managing director credit for that whenever I have spoken on it. On the Second Reading of this Bill I gave him credit for all he did on that, but I want to be clear on this that this scheme of the Electricity Supply Board was not the managing director's. It was mine, and mine in conflict with the managing director's point of view. I talked here the other day of a document that was sent forward by a Continental group, the Heinemann group for whom the managing director was acting in this country as an agent. They urged the taking over of all the electricity supply in this country by an outside firm. He, also, favoured that scheme, at that time and at a later date. I would not have that. In so far as there is a distribution system under an independent Board that is my scheme and not the managing director's.

The Deputy wants to know why, if I have confidence in my case, why I will not have an inquiry. I will have the inquiry, and I will split up that inquiry. An inquiry and a judgment of the House is required on certain aspects of the situation. I am going to ask the House to pass that judgment as soon as there is material available for the House to pass judgment on it. After that two items may stand out: One is a proper system of electrical accounts and a proper costing system for all the operations of the Board. We can call in outsiders to decide upon that. There is the second thing, what I would call the readjustments of the finance layout of the whole scheme. That, to my mind, ought to come forward first to this House and should come forward as a proposition from the Government of the day. If, when the proposition is brought forward people have anything to say on it, if there is anything to query in it, then let us get in these electrical economists whoever they may be, let us have their judgment on that. But it is for the House to pass judgment on what has happened up to date. In my opinion it will be in a position to pass that judgment in the winter of this year or early next year.

The Deputy said that civil servants predominate on the Board. There is one civil servant on the Board. He talked about removal from office. I am not faced with anything in the nature of removal from office. I have two resignations.

That is technical.

I would like to get talking about this whole matter on the other assumption, because then I could reveal quite an amount of matter that I am not now revealing. The Deputy says that I complained of the Board saying that £2,500,000 was not enough. I never complained of the Board saying that. I complained that when they made a promise to scale down their expenditure to £2,500,000 they did not do so. Their only excuse for not doing so was, (a) that they had spent in ignorance to the extent of a quarter of a million, and (b) that when their ignorance was dispelled and they discovered that they had overspent to the extent of a quarter of a million they spent another £225,000 because it was consequential on the amount spent in ignorance.

In March of this year I wrote a letter to the Board stating that it should regard itself as being now in the position of having exhausted its available machinery and requiring to borrow, that it should give me such a statement of its present position and future prospects as any lender would require when considering a loan, such a statement as the Oireachtas would require if called upon to finance the Board's further operations.

I could give many quotations from letters to show that the line I took was: "You have broken your undertaking, you have given me certain excuses for that. To my mind your excuses only show that you had maladministration in your affairs up to date. Nevertheless, let me have some idea from you as to what you want. Make a reasonable case for it and I will see if I can get the money." I never said that they should be put in a straight waistcoat and kept at two and a half million pounds.

The Deputy said that I made the statement on this Bill that if the House gave me a Second Reading of it, that when it came to the Committee Stage I would consider reducing the sum asked for and take myself out of the Bill. I do not remember ever saying that I would consider reducing the sum. I said that I would give details to the House on which Deputies could form a judgment about the sum. I gave details with certain limitations. I would have been quite willing to get out of the Bill. But if there was one thing made clear in the debate yesterday, it was that nobody would let the two Ministers out of the Bill. There was no division pressed on that. All that we had was a very faint "No."

The main thing that we wanted was to see that the necessary sum of money was provided to keep the scheme afloat.

Then the question of the Ministers being in or out of the Bill was a secondary matter. After the Money Resolution had been passed, the Deputies opposite did not feel strong enough to press for a division on the point with regard to the two Ministers. The two Ministers are in the Bill now.

I say that this motion is absurd. If time permitted, I could point out flaws in every item of it. As regards Deputy de Valera, Deputy Flinn and Deputy MacEntee, it is abhorrent to them to suggest that they have been in touch with anybody outside on all this. Yet I assert that Deputy de Valera's speech on the first day ran clearly along the lines of the managing director's thought, even to the small point of jealousy with regard to my liaison officer. The Deputy may not have been in immediate contact with him—that would be too simple—but his speech was the managing director's thought. Deputy Flinn's oration, setting aside the peculiar vulgarity of it which is essential to himself, was also the thought of the managing director. These terms of reference are the managing director's terms of reference, and I ask the House to reject the motion.

This motion came into our hands this morning. It is quite impossible to form a proper judgment on all the details of it. On the Second Reading of the Bill I indicated that I was in favour of an inquiry into the affairs of the Board, but not for the purpose, as I think I made clear, of passing judgment on anyone or of attempting to apportion blame for what had taken place. It was more for the purpose of easing the minds of the public, of removing any uneasiness that the disclosures made would have created. I am convinced that there is no need for uneasiness with regard to the success of the whole scheme. What I had in mind was that we should get some help or suggestions as to the line of policy for the future, and as to what our action should be in regard to the whole scheme. I am still in favour of the principle of having an inquiry held, but I am not prepared to commit myself to many of the things that have been said. Personally, I do not believe that you can have an inquiry until the affairs of the Board are fixed up in regard to the accounts. I think that if experts were to be called in at the present time they would be faced with the position of having to do what the auditors are now doing. At all events, until that work is done, experts will not be in a position to come to any useful conclusions.

I would not on such notice and without very much further consideration be prepared to tie myself or commit myself to these terms of reference here or to the constitution of the Board either in its numbers or in the nature or kind of people that are supposed to be appointed. I think that while, as I say, I am still in favour of the Board and of an inquiry, I do not think that it would be wise to commit ourselves at this stage in any case to the proceedings of a specific inquiry along certain stated specific lines. There are many things on which I would like to have information, namely the working of the Board and its relation to the labour people, the wages question and that kind of thing, but I do not think that we could at this stage commit ourselves to an elaborate claim of this kind, such as the motion that has been handed in this morning.

I would like to remind the House of the point made by Deputy de Valera in his opening statement, that by the action which it has taken in permitting the Electricity Supply (Amendment) Bill to go through its Second and Third Readings, this House has already passed judgment upon five men, the former Town Clerk of Dublin; the late Managing Director of the E.S.B. and three part-time members of the Board who have been associated with these two whole-time members in the policy which the Minister has condemned and which he has asked the House to condemn. In putting his case before the House the Minister had access to documents which he denied to the House.

The Minister has stated that we on this side here are in touch with the members of the Board. We are not. We are here in discharge of our duty as a Parliamentary Opposition, to put before the House and to put before the public the other side of the case. In doing that we have been fettered by the fact that documents which may or may not sustain the Minister and which may or may not vindicate the Board, have been kept from the House and the public. These documents have been kept from the House and the public on the plea of public policy. Now the insincerity of the Minister in this matter and his bona fides can be tested on the very plea he raises. These documents passed between the Executive Council on the one hand and an administrative body set up by them on the other hand. The only third party that can be affected by these agreements is the Irish public. The agreement could not have involved us in any sort of further obligation with contractors or other outside parties. In a dispute of this nature we have a right to have these documents made public.

At this vital moment, when this issue is being tried we are refused the documents, but afterwards when the Coroner's inquest is to be summoned to sit upon the bodies of the victims we are to have them, and to find that they were duly executed according to law—at this vital moment when these men's reputations may yet be saved or vindicated the the Minister refuses to divulge these documents to the public.

The motion before the House shows that the whole question of the investigation which must be made is a very complicated and a very technical one. The Minister, who when the original scheme was being put before the country called in experts of international reputation to report upon it, now says that, in so far as the future development of the scheme is concerned, the matter will not be referred to men who will be competent to judge it but that it is to be brought forward to this House, and decided in this House by the votes of Deputy MacEntee—I am placing the names in the order of ascending competency—by the votes of Deputy MacEntee, Deputy Carey, Deputy Gorey, Deputy Sheehy and the votes of every single one of us who know absolutely nothing, comparatively speaking, about the issues that will be involved.

The Minister is going to ask the House to decide in future something which it is obviously incompetent to decide. He asks this House upon his own statement, without giving us an opportunity of hearing the accused, to determine that the late managing director was a man of limited experience, a man of incompetence, a man of little knowledge, and a man who was, in short, wholly incapable and wholly unfit from the very beginning to hold the position into which the Minister put him. Before deciding these issues we have only heard the prosecutor and the prosecutor asks us to give our verdict on the issues without evidence. The managing director held the position into which the Minister put him. He was not fit to do so. That is the statement which the Minister has made. I do not know whether it is true or not. I am leaving it there to the House. The Minister is asking the House by a majority vote to say that what he has alleged against the late managing director of the Electricity Supply Board, his own nominee, is true, and that that man, having served the State for four years with enthusiasm, with all the energy of which he is capable according to the Minister, should now go through life for ever bearing the brand, the stigma, which the Minister himself, on his own unsubstantiated word, has laid upon him.

The Minister did not say he was incompetent.

Is that fair or just? If any one of us here were branded in any way, would we feel that we would be treated fairly or justly by the legislature? Would we consider it fair treatment if we were not given an opportunity in public and open trial, under a searching investigation, to vindicate ourselves? That is the issue we are asking the House to vote with us against the Minister upon. The Minister is not allowing the House to exercise a free vote. Yesterday he threatened, if our amendment on the money resolution was carried, that he would be prepared to resign. The trial given in this issue that has arisen between the Minister and the members of the Electricity Supply Board has been an unfair trial. It has been a trial by a packed jury, because the Minister, with his threat of resignation before the House, has secured the result. He knew well that the Party machine, the majority, would back him, and that these men would be condemned, not on the justice of the case, but because the Party exigencies required it.

We have tried to keep the partisan element out of this discussion. We have endeavoured to make a case for the Board because we have considered it is our national duty, to the House and to the men who are involved and also to the scheme, to examine as closely as we could the statements of the Minister. Those statements have been self-contradictory and have been inconsistent. The whole case has been based upon an agreement which the present chairman of the Board and Mr. Fay, the Minister's representative on the Board from September, 1929, now admit was an agreement which, under no circumstances, could have been observed without deferring the financial success of the scheme. If that is the position, upon whom does the responsibility lie for the present mess? Upon whom could it lie except upon those who forced this agreement upon the Board, upon those who were insistent that the Board should keep it? That is the inevitable, logical conclusion of the letter which the Board sent to the Minister for Industry and Commerce in April of this year, a letter which was signed by the present chairman of the Board and which was sent on behalf of every member of the Board, a letter stating that the agreement was one which in no circumstances could have been observed without deferring the financial success of the scheme. If that is true, then the responsibility for the present mess rests, not with the men who have resigned, but with those who forced the agreement upon them.

In view of the huge sum involved—and the money will not be got upon the bushes—is the Minister still of the opinion that experts are not essential at the moment?

Not at the moment. There is nothing for experts to work upon.

Question put.
The Dáil divide d: Tá, 42; Níl, 74.

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Allen, Denis.
  • Blaney, Neal.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Boland, Patrick.
  • Bourke, Daniel.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Buckley, Daniel.
  • Carty, Frank.
  • Clery, Michael.
  • Coburn, James.
  • Colbert, James.
  • Corkery, Dan.
  • Corry, Martin John.
  • Crowley, Tadhg.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • De Valera, Eamon.
  • Fahy, Frank.
  • Flinn, Hugo.
  • Fogarty, Andrew.
  • Geoghegan, James.
  • Gorry, Patrick J.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Hayes, Seán.
  • Houlihan, Patrick.
  • Jordan, Stephen.
  • Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
  • Kilroy, Michael.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Little, Patrick John.
  • Maguire, Ben.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • Moóre, Séamus.
  • O'Dowd, Patrick Joseph.
  • O'Kelly, Seán T.
  • O'Reilly, Thomas.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Sheehy, Timothy (Tipp.).
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Tubridy, John.
  • Walsh, Richard.

Níl

  • Aird, William P.
  • Alton, Ernest Henry.
  • Anthony, Richard.
  • Beckett, James Walter.
  • Bennett, George Cecil.
  • Blythe, Ernest.
  • Bourke, Séamus A.
  • Brennan, Michael.
  • Brodrick, Seán.
  • Byrne, John Joseph.
  • Carey, Edmund.
  • Cassidy, Archie J.
  • Clancy, Patrick.
  • Cole, John James.
  • Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
  • Conlon, Martin.
  • Connolly, Michael P.
  • Cosgrave, William T.
  • Daly, John.
  • Davis, Michael.
  • Doherty, Eugene.
  • Dolan, James N.
  • Doyle, Edward.
  • Doyle, Peadar Seán.
  • Duggan, Edmund John.
  • Dwyer, James.
  • Egan, Barry M.
  • Esmonde, Osmond Thos. Grattan.
  • Everett, James.
  • Finlay, Thomas A.
  • Fitzgerald, Desmond.
  • Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
  • Gorey, Denis J.
  • Haslett, Alexander.
  • Hassett, John J.
  • Heffernan, Michael R.
  • Hennigan, John.
  • Henry, Mark.
  • Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
  • Holohan, Richard.
  • Jordan, Michael.
  • Keogh, Myles.
  • Law, Hugh Alexander.
  • Leonard, Patrick.
  • Lynch, Finian.
  • Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
  • McDonogh, Martin.
  • McFadden, Michael Og.
  • McGilligan, Patrick.
  • Mongan, Joseph W.
  • Morrissey, Daniel.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Murphy, Joseph Xavier.
  • Myles, James Sproule.
  • Nally, Martin Michael.
  • Nolan, John Thomas.
  • O'Connell, Richard.
  • O'Connell, Thomas J.
  • O'Connor, Bartholomew.
  • O'Leary, Daniel.
  • O'Mahony, The.
  • O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
  • O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
  • Redmond, William Archer.
  • Reynolds, Patrick.
  • Rice, Vincent.
  • Roddy, Martin.
  • Shaw, Patrick W.
  • Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
  • Thrift, William Edward.
  • Tierney, Michael.
  • White, John.
  • White, Vincent Joseph.
  • Wolfe, George.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies G. Boland and Allen: Níl. Deputies Duggan and P.S. Doyle.
Question declared lost.
The Dáil adjourned at 2.10 p.m. until Wednesday, 14th October, 1931.
Top
Share