I move: "That the Dáil do now adjourn until Wednesday, 16th December."
In Committee on Finance. - Business of Dáil.
Could we have a statement with regard to the amendments to the Town Tenants Bill?
If the Deputy wishes I shall see him about that matter after the Dáil adjourns and also anybody else interested in it. I have already seen a representative of one Party in the House about it.
I think the President said to-day that he would give some indication about 6 o'clock of the business which will be taken next week.
We shall not take No. 8 (Shannon Fisheries Bill), No. 9 (Dublin and Blessington Steam Tramways (Abandonment) Bill, No. 10 (Intoxicating Liquor Bill), or No. 11 (Town Planning and Rural Amenities Bill), but we propose to complete all the other business on the Order Paper. There will, also, be a statement from the Minister for Industry and Commerce in connection with electricity prices.
That does not mean that there will be a discussion on the statement of the Minister, merely a statement.
Yes.
There will be no discussion on the Electricity Supply Board situation?
I do not see how discussion can arise out of it. That is not for me.
How will the statement arise?
The Minister is to be asked in connection with the increase in prices. If there is any objection of course it cannot be made.
We are very anxious to have a discussion on the whole policy of the Minister in relation to the Shannon Scheme.
The matter can be arranged but I am not clear how the Minister could make a statement on the Electricity Supply Board simpliciter. I do not see how that can be done.
Is there any Parliamentary procedure whereby a Minister can make a statement without any reply?
There is a common procedure by which a Minister can make a statement on the motion for the adjournment, or a Minister may get permission to make a statement after Questions. The question as to whether a statement is one for discussion or not, is a matter for arrangement, but the particular type of statement is a matter, of course, upon which the Ceann Comhairle must be first satisfied, apart from the question of when it might be made.
I take it no statement would be in order upon which a discussion would not be in order? I take it that no statement could be made if it were not in order to have a discussion upon it if agreement was come to about it?
I am always disinclined to lay down general principles, but it seems to me that there is something in what Deputy de Valera has said, that if it is in order to make a statement it must be in order to have other statements of a similar character on the same topic. As to how that can be done is a matter for arrangement. I have given consideration to it, and I can see very great difficulty in the way of a Ministerial statement on matters over which the Electricity Supply Board would seem to have complete power. The question is one that cannot be very well settled in the House, but, from the point of view of the Chair and the House, the position of independent boards, such as the Electricity Supply Board and the Agricultural Credit Corporation, is of great importance, and we must establish our precedents in the expectation that that kind of board will remain in existence. Consequently, we must have some scheme for discussion in the House which will not impinge on the independence, or upon any of the functions of the Board. It is difficult to find a half-way house between making a Minister completely responsible and making a board completely responsible. There is the difficulty. Possibly it can be solved.
We are anxious to have an opportunity afforded to the Dáil of discussing the position of the Electricity Supply Board and, in so far as that position can be regarded as unsatisfactory, we think that a large part of the responsibility rests on the shoulders of the Minister. It is on the responsibility of the Minister for that position we think an opportunity for discussion should be given.
If the affairs of the Electricity Supply Board are to be discussed at all, then we have to determine how they may be discussed. It seems clear that they must be discussed on a motion and not in a casual fashion. I cannot conceive a worse procedure than a casual discussion on any aspect of the work of a board like the Electricity Supply Board. That would, it seems to me, create a very bad precedent. I think we must have a motion, but I am unable to see how we can have a motion which does not have reference to the Minister. I have not seen any motion and I have not tried to frame one myself.
It would be easy to get a motion.
It would be easy to get a motion but it would be difficult to get a motion which would allow a Deputy to get the precise kind of discussion he desires. The main power of the Executive Council in this connection is the power to dismiss the Board.
I take it any statement made by the Minister will be a statement in relation to his own functions in respect to the Electricity Supply Board.
That would be a very short statement.
I have heard nothing previously of this question of a statement from the Minister. I have not seen the statement nor heard anything about its nature, and I am not prepared to allow the Minister to make a statement, or to allow a Deputy to make any statement on the matter unless I have the fullest possible notice because I feel that the question is of very great importance, and concerns not alone the Electricity Supply Board, but that type of board which seems to have, so to speak, come to stay in modern Governmental machinery. It is a very important question both in general and in the particular case.
May we take it that if the Minister proposes to make a statement he will make it upon a motion put down by himself?
No, I think the Deputy cannot take that.
It would be a vote of censure on himself.
He may possibly, undeserving as it is, propose to congratulate himself. We know the vanity of the Minister.
I should like to see the terms of a motion. Any Deputy or any Minister who puts down a motion should I think satisfy himself before he allows the motion to go on the Order Paper that the kind of discussion he desires to have is possible on the motion, and he can only satisfy himself upon that matter by consulting the Ceann Comhairle.
It seems to me that if there is a simple motion of censure on the Minister the effect of his policy on the Board will be quite relevant and that the actions of the Board which seem to arise from his action will be relevant. Am I right in that?
I think a simple motion of censure such as "This House disapproves of the policy of the Minister for Industry and Commerce" would not enable us in a relevant way to discuss the affairs of the Electricity Supply Board.
Even if we were prepared to show that the Board's policy was directly influenced by him or compelled by him?
I think the motion will have to make some reference to the Board if it is to bring in a discussion of the Board's policy. A motion of censure upon a Minister should be directed towards a particular matter for which he is responsible. In any event a discussion in the House on matters of this kind never really leads up to a solution. I am only stating the view of the Chair, which is that the Chair views with concern the creating of any precedent with regard to the discussion of the affairs of a Board set up by Statute and entrusted with certain functions by Statute. Deputies can see for themselves where that leads to. There may be a way of discussing the affairs of the Board, but I should like to have that way put to me. I should like anyone who wants a discussion on the affairs of the Board to be quite sure before he puts down a motion as to what the scope of the motion is and what the scope of the debate on the motion will be.
Two months ago, when a Bill in connection with the Board was before the House, a good deal of stress was laid on the importance of getting, at the earliest possible date, a discussion as to the position revealed by the Board's accounts, as soon as the accounts were available. It was, I think, agreed to by the Minister that in so far as he was concerned he would attempt to give that opportunity for a discussion on these accounts. The position has altered since then to this extent, that the accounts for one year have been published. It seems to me to be a matter of importance, as was suggested by the Minister, that the Dáil should be in a position to discuss the position as revealed to them by these accounts in so far as they have been published. That discussion does not necessarily mean any criticism of the Minister. It is a position of importance to the country because it shows how we stand when the accounts reveal, as they have done, a certain state of affairs. I suggest that it should be quite possible on a matter of such importance to have a general discussion on the position from the country's point of view and that the easiest way to bring that about is for the Minister to tell us how he understands the position at present in so far as he has information from these accounts.
I do not think it would be in order for the Minister to tell us what the position is, in his opinion, at present in a discussion on the accounts for the year 1929-30.
The accounts to which Deputy Thrift alluded are the accounts for 1929-30.
Which have only just appeared.
Yes. It would appear to me that there is actually a particular provision in the Act. I have not the Act by me as I did not think this matter was coming up. I have, however, been consulting the Electricity Supply Act and there is a provision in it which makes it incumbent upon the Minister to lay the accounts of the Board before the Dáil. It would seem to be a reasonable deduction from that that some motion might be taken in the Dáil, but it should be put down in connection with the accounts for 1929-30. Surely the debate can only refer to the affairs of the year with which the accounts deal. It might be a motion similar to the motion put down with regard to the Report of the Committee on Public Accounts "That the Report be now considered." It would need to be discussed in a particular way and would in the nature of things not be pressed to a division. That is one kind of discussion on the accounts. It may be argued that not only would it be in order, but that that was clearly intended by the Oireachtas when passing the Statute.
That is the point I want to make. It must be in order to have a discussion on the accounts. I grant that they will not tell us how things stand to-day, but they will tell us what was the trend of the position when the accounts were published.
The only way in which these matters are really ever settled is by private consultation, and if that course had been taken the advice of the Chair in the matter would have been readily given. If a procedure is laid down now it must be a correct procedure, because it concerns not only this Board, but a great many other Boards now and, apparently as far as one can see, for the future. That is my concern in the matter.
Will the matter not be finally decided on all the Fianna Fáil platforms in the country?
A Deputy
That is a sensible contribution.
I see the importance of the matter and I would like very much that some agreement should be come to as to how matters of this kind should be dealt with. Could the Ceann Comhairle suggest any means by which it could be brought to a head? It depends very largely on the Chair.
The Ceann Comhairle cannot make a suggestion because the Ceann Comhairle does not know exactly what people want to do. If a member of the House states that he desires to do a particular thing the Chair is prepared to tell him whether his way is the right way and if it is not the right one, to suggest, if possible, another way of doing it. I can make no suggestion myself, except to lay down the principles as I have done just now. If Deputies would table a motion or explain what they really want to do, then we might be able to come to a conclusion, but I do not think that we are going to come to a conclusion as it is now. That is not possible.
The point about which people are concerned and which we want to have discussed is the recent increase in the price of electricity. We want in particular to hear from the Minister for Industry and Commerce an explanation for the increases and an opportunity of discussing that explanation.
Is that the Minister's responsibility? That is the first point.
The whole policy of the Ministry and their attitude towards the scheme are involved.
We will have to get that matter discussed otherwise. It can be pushed in the end to a ruling in the House, and in the interval we may have some kind of consultation about it. I just want to suggest that if the Minister can be made responsible for one thing he can be made responsible for anything that the Board does.
Would the President state what the Minister's desire is or could not the Minister be sent for?
In regard to the question of discussing the recent increase in prices in the House, the Minister has a certain responsibility under Sections 12, 13, 14 and 15 of the Act in so far as he fixes the contribution which must be made in order to amortise the capital expenditure of the Board. If it is fixed at a figure which is thought to be excessive and in consequence an increase in price is necessitated, then I think the Minister is responsible for the increase in price and his responsibility is brought in.
rose.
I do not propose to have a discussion now on the Electricity Supply Board. If we are going to discuss this matter, we must discuss it on a motion. I would like to see that motion, and I would like to know from the Deputy who frames the motion, what he wants to have discussed, lest he might be disappointed subsequently.