A number of amendments to this Bill were only circulated five minutes ago, and Senators have not had an opportunity of considering them. I suggest that the Report Stage of this Bill be not taken this evening.
ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) BILL, 1927—REPORT.
CATHAOIRLEACH
That is a matter that I must leave entirely to the House to decide. At the same time, I must say that I do think the House has a distinct grievance in regard to these amendments to this Bill. There may be an explanation with regard to them, but I do not think it is at all reasonable, in view of the efforts that we have made to facilitate the Government in connection with this Bill, that we should be called upon now to discuss a number of amendments that we had not an opportunity of seeing until ten minutes ago. I do not think that is reasonable. I cannot interfere, but it is a matter entirely for the House to decide.
I suggest that the Report Stage of the Bill be postponed to another day.
CATHAOIRLEACH
If that is the wish of the House, I would like to remind Senators of the position that we are in. While I feel that the House has not got the consideration that it is entitled to in the matter of these amendments, especially in view of the facilities that we have extended to the Government, still it is for the House to say whether it is going to take any action in connection with this Bill which would have the effect of postponing it perhaps for nine months, or until after the elections.
I do not think it is necessary to postpone it until after the elections, but I do think it is desirable that we should postpone the consideration of the list of amendments handed around ten or fifteen minutes ago until to-morrow at least, so that Senators may have an opportunity of examining them to-night.
CATHAOIRLEACH
Do I take it that it is the wish of the House to take up consideration of the amendments already circulated and to postpone until to-morrow the list of amendments circulated within the last ten or fifteen minutes?
Perhaps I might explain with regard to the amendments handed in this afternoon. They are all Government amendments, and the delay, to a great extent, was caused by the fact that at a late hour last night I had to meet two Senators with regard to Section 104, which was debated for a considerable time on the Committee Stage of the Bill. The amendments were being kept back until I could have them all put together and issued finally. If there were any amendments of substance which were only being put forward now for the first time, I think there might be some cause for complaint, but I put it to Senators that if they look at the list they will see that is not the position. There are five amendments dealing with the position of the Grand Canal Company, and although my amendments were not previously discussed by the Seanad, amendments were put forward by Senator Brown on which I said I was ready to meet him. These amendments show how far I have been able to meet him. Everything else, I think, with two small exceptions, was, in fact, promised by me. The wording of the proposed amendments was definitely indicated.
There are three small amendments proposing to make some clerical changes. These amendments do not deal with any matter of substance. They merely substitute words in the plural for a word in the singular. It may be said that these are amendments of substance to Section 59, but although I did not give the wording of these amendments on the Committee Stage. I did indicate what it was my intention to bring forward. With the exception of the three amendments proposing to make clerical changes, the substance of all the other amendments has been expressed to the Seanad. Although they were not formally before the Seanad, I indicated what I intended to bring forward. I offer my apologies to the Seanad for my inability to get those amendments in the form in which they could be put in their hands earlier. The delay was due to pressure of other business.
The Minister has not mentioned anything in connection with the amendment dealing with rates. There was some apprehension felt about this rates question. I have no doubt that since the Committee Stage there has been some probing as to whether the Act was water-tight. We have now got a specific amendment exempting certain works from rates. This is an amendment that requires to be very carefully examined. At the present time I am not quite clear myself as to the works which it is proposed to exempt from rates. I do not think we should be asked to consider these amendments when we have not had an opportunity of examining them.
When that question was raised on the Committee Stage as to whether certain works were, in fact, exempted from the paying of rates, I gave a certain answer, and the amendment is in accordance with that answer.
The Minister gave on that occasion a rather tortuous reply, and said that if I wanted to achieve what I was advocating then I should put down an amendment.
Because I said the other position was in the Bill.
CATHAOIRLEACH
I take it the best solution would be to discuss the amendments of which we have already got notice, and to leave over, until to-morrow, the amendments which have only been circulated now.
Then we will have to be going back on the Bill again.
CATHAOIRLEACH
Can we avoid that?
Yes, by adjourning the Report Stage until to-morrow.
CATHAOIRLEACH
Or we could avoid it by postponing it for a year.
Nobody suggests a year.
CATHAOIRLEACH
The difficulty about it is: if we postpone the Report Stage until to-morrow can we finish within the time that is suggested? You may recollect that on the Committee Stage we took three days to this Bill. So far as there are amendments that do not conflict with any of the additional amendments handed in, it would be possible for us—I am not asking the House to do it—to discuss those amendments now.
I move that we take the Report Stage to-morrow.
I second.
I move that we take the Report Stage now.
Mr. O'CONNOR
I second that. I think that we should get as far as possible with the Bill to-night.
CATHAOIRLEACH
You are opposing the adjournment of the Report Stage until to-morrow?
Mr. O'CONNOR
Yes.
CATHAOIRLEACH
I will put the motion that the Report Stage be adjourned until to-morrow.
Motion put and declared lost on a show of hands, by twelve votes to sixteen.
Does that decision mean that we will take amendments only of which we have got notice?
CATHAOIRLEACH
That would be an alternative. As I understand, Senator McLoughlin—I did not put his motion because it was really a negative —wishes the House to take the whole of the Report Stage now. The House has now got to decide if they are prepared to take the Report Stage in the ordinary way, or to confine consideration this afternoon to the amendments of which we have got notice. If Senator O'Farrell wishes to move that motion I shall take it.
I move that we consider only the amendments on the Order Paper of which we have got notice. I would ask those Senators who do not take any interest in the details of the Bill, and who do not put down amendments, to give some consideration to other Senators who do take an intelligent interest in amendments and desire to have sufficient notice to enable them to do so.
Might I intervene, to ask how many amendments are on the paper of which notice has been given which are in conflict with some amendments that were afterwards put in?
It is impossible for us to say, because we have not had time to compare them.
CATHAOIRLEACH
It will require considerable care, because a good many amendments of which the Government has given notice this afternoon, are alternatives to the amendments which have been already circulated.
I move amendment No. 1:—
Section 7, sub-section (2). To delete the sub-section and to substitute the following new sub-section therefor:—
(2) The accounts of the Board shall be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor-General, and the cost of such audit shall be paid by the Board.
It will be necessary for me to explain why I put down the amendment exactly in the same terms in which it was rejected on the Committee Stage.
CATHAOIRLEACH
Will you, at the same time, take notice of the fact that a Government amendment since handed in deals with this alternative?
It deals with the question of audit. Since I moved this amendment on the Committee Stage a new matter was brought to my notice in reference to Article 62 of the Constitution, which reads as follows:—
Dáil Eireann shall appoint a Comptroller and Auditor-General to act on behalf of the Irish Free State (Saorstát Eireann). He shall control all disbursements and shall audit all accounts of moneys administered by or under the authority of the Oireachtas and shall report to Dáil Eireann at stated periods to be determined by law.
I think the Government are aware of that Article, and I have no doubt that they have taken legal advice. I may be told that their action is not an infringement of that Article of the Constitution, and that further, even if it is an infringement of the Constitution, it is not a matter for this House, that they can pass legislation in conflict to the Constitution, and that it is a matter for the courts to determine I would ask the House, however, to have regard for the spirit of the Act, and not for legal technicalities. The whole thing is determined by the spirit of the Act. Presumably this Article of the Constitution was inserted with a good purpose. It was inserted to ensure that there shall be independence, and that the control of Dáil Eireann itself, which is the sovereign body in matters of finance, shall be brought to bear upon all expenditure of public money. On that principle, I submit the whole issue should be determined. If it is necessary for expenditure sanctioned in detail by Dáil Eireann to be audited in this manner— expenditure which is appropriated to a fixed purpose under heads and subheads, which cannot be diverted except by the authority of Parliament itself, and the fact of which diversion would come to the notice of the auditor—if that is necessary how much more is it necessary that expenditure in bulk, which is merely given on the authority of the Executive Council, and of which the Dáil and the public have little or no knowledge, ought to be subject to the same precautions in regard to audits? That is the whole principle. If this Article of the Constitution has any meaning whatever, it surely should mean that this money, which is removed further than usual from the control of Parliament, should be audited by a person independent of the Executive, and responsible solely to the supreme authority of the State, which is Dáil Eireann. I ask the House to consider these facts of a broad and vital principle, and to accept this amendment.
I always understood that Senator Sir John Keane was an authority on finance, but his interpretation of that Article of the Constitution, as given here to-night, must for all time dissipate the belief that he has any authoritative point of view with regard to finance. The Senator has read an Article of the Constitution. Does he think that it does not apply? Does he think that the Auditor-General will, in fact, not say whether or not these moneys have been handed out for the purposes for which the law stands, and that he will not be asked to report on whether the issues have, in fact, reached their destination? If he does, he has no knowledge of how the finances of the State are run. He wants to go further. He wants to have an examination under that Article of the Constitution of how moneys handed over to the Board are, in fact, expended, and he urges as an argument that if there is a detailed examination of moneys directly voted in the Estimates for ordinary supply services, then there should be all the more examination if the money is handed over in bulk, the fact being that moneys are handed over in bulk for the very purpose of removing them from that supervision. If the Senator's argument were pushed to its logical conclusion the Auditor-General should report on how each individual judge spends his salary. He would have to go into his domestic arrangements, would have his ordinary household expenditure submitted to examination, put under different headings and would make a report on it. The very purpose of voting the judges' salaries on the Central Fund is to avoid such criticism and examination. All the Auditor-General does is to report that the money has been paid out and has reached its destination. The Auditor-General would be bound to report with regard to the finances of the Board, that the moneys voted by the Dáil through the Central Fund had, in fact, been paid and had reached their destination. That is where the Auditor-General comes in and must come in with regard to this Board.
In connection with the amendment suggested by the Minister, will such a report reach the Oireachtas?
Yes.
How is it arranged?
CATHAOIRLEACH
Provision has been made for that.
The Senator should look at amendment 11a.
With regard to the Minister's analogy, that does not apply exactly. In one case the expenditure is private. When sums are voted by the Dáil the Board has a duty in the expenditure. The Board must devote it to specific purposes, and only to those purposes. It is not private expenditure on the part of the Board, the same as it is in the case of the judge. I think that Senator Sir John Keane's idea is to follow the expenditure to its ultimate destination. The Comptroller and Auditor-General, under the provisions of the Constitution, is the responsible authority to the Oireachtas. When certain sums are handed over to the Board his responsibility arises as to the disposal of those sums.
CATHAOIRLEACH
I think, if you examine the Bill, you will find that there is nothing in it which, expressly, at any rate, interferes with the functions of the Auditor-General. What follows from that is that the Auditor-General has got those duties imposed on him by the Constitution, and I think we may safely trust him to carry them out. We cannot dictate to him what he is to do in the course of those duties. He knows his own duties. They are not interfered with, as far as I understand, in this Bill. It is quite true that the Bill says there is to be an audit by someone else, but, by express legislation, it does not interfere or take away the duties or the powers conferred upon the Auditor-General by the Constitution, and it will be for that official to discharge them according to his conscience and according to his authority.
I think the Minister might amend his interpretation of the duties of the Auditor-General. He indicated that the duty of the Auditor-General was to see that money voted for certain purposes reached its destination.
Central Fund money.
And other moneys?
I was only dealing with Central Fund money.
In connection with money going to pensions, his duty, according to the present contention, is to see that the money is handed over to the Pensions Department; he is under no duty to see that it is spent in accordance with the law, notwithstanding the damaging reports he has made to the Public Accounts Committee.
The fact that reports have been made dealing with more than the issue of the money reaching its destination shows that the vote is not of the type I am speaking of. There are two types of money votes— ordinary supply services, which are examined in detail on the Estimates, and in respect of which the Auditor-General has the right to pry into every detail. On the other hand, there are certain things put deliberately on the Central Fund to prevent examination. The judges' salaries constitute one item. All the Auditor-General has to see is that the money voted to a particular judge reaches its destination. How it is spent does not matter. Take another example. There was a grant made to the Royal Dublin Society in consideration of giving up these premises. That was voted in a particular way. The only thing the Auditor-General had to vouch for was that the money reached the Royal Dublin Society. How the Royal Dublin Society spent it was no matter for him.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move:—
Section 7, sub-section (2). To delete the sub-section and to substitute the following new sub-section therefor:—
(2) The accounts of the Board shall be audited annually by the Comptroller and Auditor-General in association with a duly qualified auditor appointed by the Minister with the consent of the Minister for Finance. The Minister for Finance shall prescribe the scope of the work and the division of duties of these auditors.
There are certain statutory obligations imposed on the Board with regard to the sinking fund and redemption. I do not see how the Dáil can get a satisfactory assurance that this is done except the Auditor-General is at least associated with the scheme. The object of this is to ensure the association of the auditor. There seems no fundamental difficulty in having two sets of auditors; it is frequently done.
Would the Senator indicate what the obligations are with regard to the sinking fund?
There have to be repayments to the Minister for Finance.
Could I have the section quoted?
It is provided in Section 12 that the sums advanced are to be repaid during the period of five years.
That is specially dealt with, if the Senator will look at Section 13.
I hold that in order to satisfy ourselves that these obligations are carried out, Parliament should require that its own officer should have cognisance of these accounts. My amendment seeks to ensure that that should be so. The expert can be brought in with regard to allowance for depreciation and the matters the Minister referred to. I see no difficulty in carrying this out, and I do not see that it is going to jeopardise the obscurantist spirit in which the Board is evidently to operate.
There was no seconder for the amendment.
The next amendment is as follows:—
Section 7, sub-section (2). After the word "appointed" in line 14 to insert the word "annually."
This is included in the new amendments of the Minister, and I shall not move it.
I move:—
Section 8, sub-section (2). To delete the sub-section and to substitute the following new sub-section therefor:—
"(2) The wages and conditions of labour of persons employed by the Board shall not be less favourable than those which would be observed if the employment were in the execution of a contract between the Minister and the Board embodying a fair wages clause in accordance with the recognised practice of Government departments, and all contracts made by the Board shall embody a fair wages clause containing the same stipulations."
I think this amendment is a reasonable one. It simply means to embody in this Bill conditions that are applied to every Government contract. The Government, when they are issuing contracts, and local authorities have a similar clause to this inserted, known as the Fair Wages Clause. It is embodied in all important contracts to ensure that the people who are competing for those contracts shall be on level terms and, in the second place, it ensures that what is to be performed on behalf of the Government or local authority shall be performed under fair conditions of employment. I think there should be no difficulty in the Minister accepting this amendment. In the Beet Sugar Act there is a provision almost similar to this. I do not think there is any need for me to stress it, as the Seanad understands what it means. It is not asking for any epecial condition, but merely asking that the persons employed shall be treated the same as others employed on Government or public board contracts.
I second the amendment.
I must raise a definite objection to this amendment. The Senator referred to Government contracts. That analogy, I hold, is not a suitable one. I have said all along that I do not want this Board to operate on the basis "the Government pays." I want this Board to run its business in the way of an ordinary commercial concern and not to have any terms or conditions imposed upon it other than would be imposed on any commercial concern. Government contracts by the Purchasing Committee are on an entirely different footing.
I do not think the consideration the Senator spoke of was the primary consideration, or was the consideration present to the minds of the people responsible in that case. The idea rather was that the Government, being the payer, could afford the extra moneys— that the moneys would not have to be pared down in the same way as would happen in the case of a commercial concern up against competition. It will be the duty of this Board to give its services at the lowest possible cost. This amendment hides the details of what is described as the Fair Wages Clause. The Fair Wages Clause would mean that in any particular item of the Board's work there must be paid the same wages and there must be the same conditions as are applicable in the district affected, or, if there is no analogy in the district, such wages and conditions as a good employer would give. I want to give one example of what that would mean. It would mean, definitely, that in the region adjacent to Dublin, in the first instance, there would spread out, even to clerical workers under the Board, the wages which the municipal employees at present enjoy. That is not a standard that, without further examination, I should like to see spread. At the moment electricians are paid a certain rate of wages for work in Dublin, and a country rate, plus country money, for work in the country—which is really an attempt to get the country up to the Dublin standard. Without further examination, I cannot say that that is reasonable. So far as I have been able to examine it up to the present, I think it is pretty unreasonable. There is a very big conflict going on at present with regard to the wages of electricians. The basis on which these wages were built up was that a particular rate was recognised as being necessary in certain towns, and that rate was not considered necessary for certain country districts and not necessary even for other towns. This amendment would more or less stereotype the standard. There will be 135 new areas, and in those new areas there will be no standard on which the Board might fix its terms. You would then have recourse to the terms or conditions of the nearest area. You would take the nearest town and have that wage stereotyped and the result would be that you would have an outflow of the Dublin conditions until Dublin conditions would apply all over the country. That, without examination of all the details, should not be accepted too readily. The trade unions will be concerned in this matter. There will then be the increased number of men who will be brought into the trade unions. The unions have been able, in some cases, to impose their own conditions. I suggest that it ought to be left to the play as between the employer, which will be the Board, and the employees and their trade unions, to decide what rates of wages will be stabilised.
I am sorry to find the Minister adopting the attitude that he has adopted from the inception of this scheme as regards conditions of labour. He is objecting here to a clause which is inserted in all Government contracts and in contracts by local authorities. The insuperable difficulties which he alleges are present here are overcome in the case of Government contractors and contractors to local authorities. The Minister speaks of this undertaking being a commercial concern. That is not correct. It is primarily a State concern. It has been undertaken by State moneys, and it is guaranteed against loss until 1932, or such other time as the Minister determines. It has a complete monopoly of electric lighting and power, and, to that extent, it has also a guarantee against loss. It is not a commercial concern. And even if it were a commercial concern, surely this would be a commercial proposition. The Shannon Board will have to pay commercial prices for everything it buys. All that is asked here is that it should pay commercial prices for the labour it employs. There is to be consideration in the scheme for every element except the human element. The Minister was unable to impose the grossly harsh terms that he imposed on the Irish workers on the German workers who were brought here. They are being paid their trade union rate of wages, and so are other foreigners who have been brought in. They only came here on the condition that they would be paid the trade union rate of wages. It is only the Irish element the Minister seeks to exploit. This scheme has been besmirched and disgraced by the manner in which the natives have been treated.
It is a deplorable state of affairs that the Minister should seek to set up a debased standard of living such as he seeks to establish in connection with this scheme. Everybody knows that he, having the nomination of the Board, will undoubtedly inspire and influence it in regard to the conditions it is going to offer. He has thrown down the gauntlet to the trade unions, and says that unless by their own efforts they are able to enforce Christian conditions of employment under this scheme, they are not going to get them. It is a bad thing to make that challenge, because, owing to the lack of organisation on the part of the poor wretches whom he was able to round up in the initial stage of the scheme, it was not practicable to force an upheaval, but that condition of affairs is not going to obtain throughout. He will not be able to exploit the electricians as he exploited the poor tramps and peasants' sons around the Shannon area. He is once again throwing down the challenge to Labour, and says: "Unless you work on the basis which I set out, namely, 32/- a week, you will have to fight for anything more you are to get." He compensates all and sundry except the people without whose labour the scheme would be impossible. All the difficulties he puts up are mere eye-wash. These difficulties are present to all Government contracts and contractors. This fair wages clause is instituted in connection with them. This is the biggest contract in connection with Government schemes that has been established in this country for generations, and the Minister seeks to perpetuate the conditions which obtained at the inauguration of the scheme. I do not know if the House is going to pass this amendment, but I trust that Senators will, at all events, show to the Irish workers the same conception of humanity as has been shown to the German workers, that they will not show to the public and, above all, to the Labour elements, that on all occasions, where Labour is concerned, they are found to be against them.
I feel that I shall have to support the amendment, partly in the interests of the Electricity Board themselves. The work they are going to undertake will, I understand, be spread all over the country. They will have their own employees travelling from place to place like an ordinary Government contractor. As I do not see how there could possibly be a fluctuation of rates according to each district, I think it would be a wise policy on the part of the Minister to accept the amendment.
Senator O'Farrell has talked in a picturesque phrase about the wages paid to poor wretches rounded up, in comparison with the wages paid to Germans. If I am allowed to establish German wage rates in this country and join them up with the German output, I will save 50 per cent. on wages.
German conditions? Housing conditions?
Everything. I would save 50 per cent. in wages if I were allowed to do that.
Is the Minister speaking with authority or is he making a wild statement?
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
Senator O'Farrell's statements were listened to without interruption, and he should allow the Minister to proceed.
I am speaking at least with the same authority as Senator O'Farrell, though that is a level to which I would not like to be sealed down in this particular matter. As to how this is going to work and whether it is possible to have it worked, it will be impossible, if it is going to have the effect which the Senator desires. If one views the varied operations of the Board, and if there is going to be set up, through the medium of the Board, a standard of wages which will eventually be that of Dublin, it will work out that way. If people step in and say that in every matter with which the Board is concerned there is to be a fair wages clause, it will mean that in all labour discussions hereafter that standard will be taken as a basis throughout the country. We are told that this is a matter that should be specially granted, and we are told by the Senator that the Board need not pay its way up to 1932, or any further date that may be determined. That is to say, that as there is plenty of Government money behind the scheme you can pay anything you like in the way of wages. You can put up any claim you like and the Government will pay. That is the very idea that I want to counter. I have tried to avoid using the phrase "this is a commercial concern." It ought to be run as a commercial concern, and not simply as if it were to get eternal subventions from Government sources.
I referred to the fact that it was not a commercial concern. I simply wanted to correct the Minister as to his constant emphasis about this being a commercial concern. What I ask is that it be treated as a commercial concern in dealing with the Irish workers on the scheme.
I intended to move this amendment on the Committee Stage. I handed it to the Minister in the hope that he would see his way to accept it. I say frankly that the amendment represents the minimum we ought to demand. I put down that amendment in the terms it contains in the hope it would receive favourable consideration and be accepted. Although I am only an ordinary humble individual, I am as much interested in the Shannon scheme as the Minister. From my earliest childhood I have been reading about the water power of Ireland and how it could be used for industrial purposes. It is with a view to making the Shannon scheme a success that I put down the amendment in the form in which it appears. It simply asks the Government to have it stated in the Bill that the wages and conditions of employees under the Board shall be in accordance with the practice of Government Departments in the making of contracts. The Minister ought not to mislead the House by saying that the acceptance of the amendment would mean that the Dublin conditions would prevail through the country, for he knows that is not a true statement of the position. In Government contracts in the country Dublin wages and conditions are not applied. The Minister's statement regarding that is incorrect and dishonest.
The Minister has said that because this is a Government undertaking we are endeavouring to squeeze the Government to get from them all we can. I state frankly and honestly, and with regret, that our experience of the Government since they came into power has been that they grind down the unfortunate workers. On every occasion the Government have used their influence with public boards and contractors, and everybody, to reduce the standard of living of the lowest paid workers. It is in order to prevent that exploitation and grinding down of the most unfortunate and poorest class of workers that I introduced the amendment. The intention of the amendment is not to squeeze the Government, but it is an effort to compel the people in control to apply to the workers under the Board the same conditions that would apply to contracts entered into by local authorities. I hope for the honour of the House that this amendment will be passed. The majority of the Senators have everything the world could give. I ask that the unfortunate men who will be engaged in doing the work under this scheme will be given sufficient to enable them to keep body and soul together, and to provide for their wives and families that amount of comfort they are entitled to receive as human beings in a Christian and civilised country.
Amendment put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 15; Níl, 18.
Tá
- T. Westropp Bennett.
- John Bagwell.
- Sir Edward Coey Bigger.
- P.J. Brady.
- William Cummins.
- James Dillon.
- Michael Duffy.
- Thomas Farren.
- Thomas Foran.
- Sir John Purser Griffith.
- The Marquess of Headfort.
- Major-General Sir William Hickie.
- Sir John Keane.
- Joseph O'Connor.
- John T. O'Farrell.
Níl
- William Barrington.
- Samuel L. Brown, K.C.
- Mrs. Costello.
- John C. Counihan.
- The Dowager Countess of Desart.
- Sir Nugent Everard.
- Dr. O. St. J. Gogarty.
- James P. Goodbody.
- Henry S. Guinness.
- Benjamin Haughton.
- Right Hon. Andrew Jameson.
- Patrick W. Kenny.
- The Earl of Kerry.
- James MacKean.
- John MacLoughlin.
- Bernard O'Rourke.
- Dr. William O'Sullivan.
- The Earl of Wicklow.
Amendment declared lost.
I move:—
Section 10. After the word "contract" in line 3, to insert the words "or any interest in such contract."
I am prepared to accept that.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Before you proceed to the next amendment, by leave of the House might I make a few remarks on Section 11?
CATHAOIRLEACH
Do you wish to move an amendment?
I wish to suggest to the Minister that Section 11 is exceedingly drastic. In the Committee Stage, I asked a question as to whether the holder of certain shares in a Calcutta bank would thereby be precluded from being a member of the Board, and the Minister's answer was "Yes." Since then my attention has been drawn to the debate in the Dáil regarding the Currency Bill, in connection with which a similar position arose. An amendment was moved by Mr. Blythe that the Chairman and other members of the Board should not hold shares in banks operating in the Saorstát, and he went on to say that it was not proposed to prevent them from holding shares in banks outside the Saorstát. Under Section 11 of the Electricity Bill a member of the Board is prohibited from holding an interest in any electrical undertaking in any part of the world. I hold that is unnecessarily drastic, and that the rules that apply to the Currency Commission in this connection might equally apply to the Electricity Board, so that the members of it might hold shares in an electricity undertaking in any other part of the world.
CATHAOIRLEACH
Are you moving an amendment?
I feel it difficult at the moment. This was only circulated this morning, and it was only this morning I had the opportunity of seeing Mr. Blythe's remarks.
CATHAOIRLEACH
The Currency Bill does not seem to have much application to this Bill. The operations of the Electricity Board will be confined to Ireland.
It can hardly extend to Japan and India.
CATHAOIRLEACH
You cannot tell. I do not know. All I want is that you hand in a concrete amendment and I will put it before the House.
I think that what Senator Guinness is saying ought certainly appeal to the Minister, whether we are to put it in the form of an amendment or not. Take my own individual case. Suppose the Minister was to ask me to go on the Board and I was to accept. I happen to have a few shares in the Westminster Electrical Undertaking in London as an ordinary shareholder. There must be a number of people in this country who have shares in electrical undertakings in England. But because one has shares in the Westminster Electrical Undertaking as an ordinary part of his investments he will have to sell his shares if he accepts a seat on this Board. A good many people who hold these shares would rather, perhaps, refuse the appointment than have to sell out their shares.
CATHAOIRLEACH
The proper way to deal with this is by amendment.
I propose here and now to delete the section.
CATHAOIRLEACH
You must not take me so sharply as that. I am trying to preserve some form of order. If once we allow Senators to cut in and talk about amendments without handing in any amendment——
Must we put in an amendment for to-morrow morning?
CATHAOIRLEACH
That is what I was suggesting. But I got the threat of here and now. Better leave it until to-morrow, and if you are to move an amendment hand it in.
I move:—
In Section 12, sub-section (1). To delete in line 34 the words "appointed day" (substituted in Committee for the words and figures "31st day of December, 1932") and to substitute therefor the words and figures "31st day of December, 1934."
The House will realise that if this amendment is carried it will embody a principle which will necessitate a number of consequential amendments which would be easily drawn. I am only arguing the principle. The House may probably recollect that when the proposal was put forward in the Dáil to extend the date by which the rates will have to be economic from 1932 to 1942, the Minister said: "No; it would never do for the Government to accept that. The public would say the cat was out of the bag." What happened subsequently I do not know—I can only surmise, but when an amendment like that was introduced here there was no longer a question of the cat in the bag. The Minister made a slight gesture of protest, and in accepting the amendment he said he would in due course recommend it to the Dáil. You now have the date of maturity of this scheme indefinite.
There is one point that has not been made yet in connection with this definition. The date of its maturity is clearly a probationary date and an experiment with regard to the rates. We have heard it said, "You cannot alter your fiscal policy, because you set up vested interests. People come in behind the tariff barrier on the understanding that they will be sheltered," and they have embarked accordingly on enterprises. It appears to me that the same argument will apply to these rates. People will say they have been induced to come in and substitute, perhaps, electricity for steam plant on the basis of favoured rates. But when it comes that these rates will have to be made economic, if ever it does come that these rates have to be economic, there will be just the same outcry, and there will be charges of breach of faith put up. These are the difficulties and the inhibitions of State enterprises. The debates we have had all along have arisen out of the inconsistencies and anachronisms of State enterprises. That is the position with regard to this amendment. It is at least to make the date definite, and not leave it to the Board to feel that they can go on drifting, but to leave it to the Minister himself.
Now the Minister said, when I spoke on the Committee Stage, that I was wrongly quoting the experts; that 1932 was the date for the maturity. If I said 1934 he will correct me. He said 1932 was the date. You cannot blow hot and cold with these experts. You must take them one way or another. I do not think that is his policy. The Minister does not take what does not suit him. If it does not suit him to follow the experts he exercises his own free will. I ask the House to fix a definite date. If the House rejects 1932 then they should fix it at 1934, and not leave it on the long finger, with all the bad influences of lethargy that must inevitably follow from a policy of that kind.
I second the amendment.
I have been wrongly quoted again. I do not think that I said that if I accepted an amendment of this sort that the cat was out of the bag. What I did say was that if I brought forward such an amendment as that there would be a Press clamour that the cat was out of the bag. I am prepared to stand by what the experts said. The experts said five years after the completion of the scheme.
Will you accept the amendment?
I have no voice in the matter in this House. I am quite prepared to accept it, and if the House passes it I will recommend it to the Dáil. It was because the point was made to me by two or three business men that I put in 1932. A number of people said that although the scheme could be made remunerative in 1932, it was not good business to say that it must be made remunerative in 1932. We have other considerations that were put up by Senator Sir John Griffith. I am quite indifferent to the fate of this amendment.
That being so, I ask the House to accept it. It now resolves itself into a matter of what is the best thing to do. I think it is much better for the Board to have the date made definite.
I do not like to let this amendment pass, because it would undo what we did in Committee and negative the work we did on the last day. My own view has been so fully expressed already that I do not intend to delay the Seanad any great length of time in connection with it. I am perfectly certain that what we settled as to the date on the Committee Stage was a perfectly wise thing. It leaves the Minister free to press on for 1932 as the date when it should be economic. I do not think it would be good for the Bill to alter it now. As it stands, it expresses my views.
CATHAOIRLEACH
Was that amendment of yours passed, Senator Griffith?
Yes.
CATHAOIRLEACH
And the Bill stands now in the shape in which you wish to have it?
Yes.
CATHAOIRLEACH
So that Senator Sir John Keane is seeking to reverse what the House has agreed to?
No, but to modify it. Senator Griffith's amendment left the date indefinite.
No, it does not.
Senator Griffith's amendment does not extend the time indefinitely. It leaves the year 1932 as it was originally in the Bill, but it gives power to the Minister to extend the period. I strongly urge on Senators not to go back on what they did in Committee.
Amendment put and negatived.
I move amendment 7:—
Section 12, sub-section (3). Before sub-section (3) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
(3) Any sum advanced under either the Shannon Electricity Act, 1925, or this Act to meet a liability for arrears and arrears of interest that may remain unspent shall be surrendered to the Minister for Finance and shall not be appropriated for any other purpose.
This is an amendment which the Minister gave me to understand he might accept. I said to the Minister that under the section it might be possible that a sum voted specifically to meet interest or arrears of interest would remain unspent and might be diverted to other purposes. He said he thought it was possible, but would that be very terrible and would it be a wrong thing? I said that certainly it would be a very wrong thing. I now put down this amendment and the Seanad will have an opportunity of deciding whether or not it would be a wrong thing.
The Minister has admitted that under the Bill if the money is not spent for a specific purpose it could be used for capital expenditure, the wiring of houses, or compensating undertakers. Any money voted for a particular purpose must be either spent or surrendered to the Minister for Finance. If we do anything else we will be practically abrogating the whole of our parliamentary responsibility, and we will be giving a blank cheque to the Government to do what they wish with the money. We cannot allow things of that sort to be carried on.
I beg to second the amendment.
I said in answer to the Senator in Committee that it was difficult to reply to a question raised off-hand. The Senator now brings in an amendment which deals specifically with moneys advanced under the Shannon Electricity Act, 1925, or this Act, to meet liability for arrears and arrears of interest. No moneys can be advanced under this Bill for those purposes. Arrears of interest may be forgiven or postponed, but no special advance can be made to meet liability for arrears and arrears of interest.
I thought the Minister said so. The whole basis of one sub-section is to ensure that if the Board takes over a certain interest during the non-productive period, the Board can pay it.
That is a carry forward from the 1925 Act. We have a section referring to a £600,000 item specially spoken of in the 1925 Act, but, leaving that sum out of the question, there can be no money advanced for the purposes specified here. In so far as there is that particular amount of money, it is really a harking back to the £600,000 mentioned in connection with the 1925 Act. The moneys there are to be advanced for the special purpose of meeting interest charges; they cannot be advanced for any other purpose. I do not know as between the two measures—the carry forward from the Shannon Electricity Act, 1925, and what is here—that the point the Senator has mentioned can really arise. I have my doubts as to how far this might apply. I have grave doubts whether there are any sums of money with which the amendment will deal.
Are there not sums voted for the payment of interest? There is a sum of £600,000 under the Shannon Electricity Act, 1925, and a similar sum under this Bill.
It is the same sum.
The sums are both voted by statute. My point is they are both to be drawn upon for one and the same purpose. I want to avoid the danger of the money being drawn upon twice and possibly diverted for other purposes. My difficulty is clear enough, but it is hard to explain how it is met under the Bill.
There is a sum of £600,000 referred to in sub-section (2). I was asked in the Dáil if this was an additional sum—something in addition to the £5,200,000. I said it was not, and it was not meant to be. We had £4,600,000 for construction work and £600,000 to meet interest charges and losses during unremunerative years. I then explained to the Dáil that the sum, or the residue of it, had to be carried forward because this situation is bound to arise. Before I hand over to the Board I shall have expended a certain amount of the £600,000 meeting interest charges, and possibly losses during unremunerative years. There has to be some portion handed over to the Board for those purposes.
The Senator's point is this: Can the Board be handed over from the electricity fund established under the 1925 Act moneys not used for the purposes of meeting interest charges or losses during unremunerative years? I think the Senator, if he reads the 1925 Act, will see the purpose for which the money is voted. The Comptroller and Auditor-General will be careful to see if the moneys reach their destination and are spent in a particular way. In so far as the Senator's point deals with sums advanced under this Bill to meet liabilities for arrears and arrears of interest, there are no sums advanced under this Bill for those purposes. I have stated clearly that under this Bill there is a carry over of the original £600,000, but it is ear-marked by the 1925 Act.
I will not pursue it. I am not quite clear, although the Minister assures me.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move:—
Section 12, sub-section (9). To delete in sub-section (9) (inserted in Committee) the words "five millions, two hundred and ten thousand pounds."
This is, again, an appropriation of money. In the Shannon Electricity Act the sum of £5,210,000 is made payable for a definite purpose, the construction of the Shannon works and to pay interest during the non-productive period. Under an amendment, which was carried in Committee, the Minister will have power to increase that sum. I would ask the House to take the view that this £5,210,000 advanced under the Shannon Electricity Act is advanced for a definite purpose. It is advanced for the purpose of constructing the Shannon works, and it should not be increased merely because the scheme does not fructify within a certain date. It is a capital expenditure, altogether apart from the operations of the Board. The Board will operate in a variety of vaguely enunciated ways, in wiring, in compensation, and in extensions to existing undertakings. But there is nothing vague at all about the sum of £5,210,000 under the Shannon Electricity Act; it is for a definite purpose, and there should be no increase in the sum without proper statutory authority. If the sum is not sufficient, if the estimates are not realised, it should be the duty of the Minister for Finance or the Government to go to the Dáil and say: "We want more money for the purposes of the Shannon Electricity Act," not to do it in the way which is proposed now, practically to obtain more money by order, an order which will be tabled and which can be annulled. It is quite possible that under this Bill the money might be spent. I do not say that Governments are out to take advantage of these technicalities, but it is possible that there might be a very big contract under the Shannon Electricity Act and everything might be in readiness whereby the order would be made, but before the order could be made the thing would be done. My point is that that £5,210,000 is in a totally different category from the floating sum that the Board will have for an undefined purpose, and I will ask the House to have some regard to the rules that govern expenditure of money and to assert its authority in the matter.
I am moving to delete, not merely these words, but the whole sub-section, because it has been impressed on me that the increase of these sums by order is not a legitimate way of transacting this business and that it will be necessary to have legislation. I agree, further, with what the Senator said, not with regard to the £5,210,000, but to the £4,600,000 for construction purposes. If that is to be increased, a statement ought to be made as to why an increase is required, and there should also be special legislation passed with regard to it.
I did not know that the Minister had such an amendment down. That is the difficulty about amendments coming up at the last moment.
The Seanad adjourned at 7.5 p.m., until 3 p.m. on Thursday, 19th May, 1927.