Electricity (Supply) (Amendment) Bill, 1931—Committee Stage.

The Seanad went into Committee.

Section 1 and 2 agreed to.

SECTION 3.

(1) In addition to the sums which the Minister for Finance is required by section 12 of the Principal Act to advance to the Board, the said Minister may (subject to the limitation imposed by this section) advance out of the Central Fund or the growing produce thereof to the Board, as and when requested so to do by the Board, all such sums as the Minister for Industry and Commerce shall from time to time certify to be reasonably and properly required by the Board for any purpose arising in the performance of its functions under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1927 to 1930.

(2) The total amount of the sums advanced to the Board under this section shall not exceed the sum of two million pounds.

Mr. Connolly

I move amendment 1:

Section 3, sub-section (1). To delete in lines 22-23 the words "the Minister for Industry and Commerce shall from time to time certify to be reasonably and properly" and to substitute therefor the words "are from time to time."

When we were dealing with this Bill last week the Minister for Industry and Commerce referred to the disagreeable nature of his duties in dealing with this measure. I think the sense of disagreeableness is equally felt by those of us who have interested ourselves in this Bill and by the Seanad generally. I think the one outstanding feeling is that we are not much further on than we were prior to the Minister's analysis and statement last week. In other words we really do not know where we are. We have not yet got down to the facts of the trouble or the cure for the trouble or the position as to the future of the Electricity Supply Board.

The form that the amendment has taken may be interpreted as a sort of vote of censure on the Minister. Last week we dealt with the Bill in what I think the Minister called a very lenient manner, and we do not propose to deal with it to-day other than in the spirit of trying to find out what are the facts, what can be done about the position and also of trying to ensure that the future of the Electricity Supply Board and the Shannon electrical undertaking shall be safeguarded. On that occasion we suggested to the Minister that his attitude was a one-sided attitude, that the people whom he criticised and more or less condemned had no opportunity of making their case, and that the Seanad therefore was not in the position to judge as between him and the Electricity Supply Board or the members of the Board. I think that is still the position.

The Minister will, I hope, realise that we are only interested in one thing, and that is to find out what is the real truth. I think that in the interests of the House, and in the interests of the Minister and the E.S.B., a committee such as I suggested last week, representative of both Houses and of all sections in them, should have been appointed, to give us the truth and to let us know exactly what the differences were and what steps we ought to take to put matters right. The Minister does not, apparently, agree with the suggestion that such a joint committee could do anything. He does not agree that at this stage experts could be of any help. Still we are satisfied that a committee could sift the real position, find out what the real facts were, what it is that has caused the trouble and, moreover, find out what experts, if any, are needed to ensure the stabilisation of the whole scheme and put it upon an economic basis. Last week I referred to the position, and pointed out that the Minister, in this House, had given a reassuring statement with regard to the whole Electricity Supply Board in July, 1929, while at the same time, in July, 1929, the Minister was having a very serious conflict indeed with the Board and was threatening at the time to introduce two amendments to a Bill in order to have his point of view carried and clarified in the Dáil itself. All through the debates in this House and the other House, the Minister has stressed that he was left without information, that he could not get the facts, that he really did not know where he was in the matter and could get no documents. He qualified that, to some extent, by stating that he got certain documents later. He mentioned the times that he got them, but said that the documents were not in such form that he could use them, that they were inaccurate. I want to bring home to the Seanad that if the Minister was without information he ought to be able to explain to us why he was without information, because we find that, in spite of the complete independence of the Board, the Executive was represented on the Electricity Supply Board from, practically, September, 1929. Mr. Leyden, of the Department of Finance, joined the Board in September, 1929, and remained a member until 1930. We find that he was given for his services a gratuity of £125 out of the Vote for the Department of Finance. Incidentally, though I do not want to make any debating point about it, the law was that all the members of the Electricity Supply Board were to be paid out of the Board's funds.

Will the Minister tell us why Mr. Leyden was appointed? Will he tell us if he was put on the Board as an expert in anything but finance? It is to be assumed that he had no electrical experience and that he was not wanted on the constructional side. It is, therefore, reasonable to suggest that he was put on the Board to look after financial matters — to examine the balance sheets and the monthly or weekly reports that would come before the Board. I want to know from the Minister if Mr. Leyden carried out the functions which he was sent to discharge. Would it be reasonable to assume that part of his duties would be to see that the work of the Board was carried out, particularly in regard to statements of accounts and the furnishing of such information as the Executive, represented by the Minister, ought to get through their representatives on the Board?

We find that Mr. Fay was appointed to the Board at the same time. The Minister intimated in the course of the Dáil debate that prior to September, 1929, Mr. Fay was liasion officer between the Shannon Board and the Electricity Supply Board. In other words, he was liaison officer between the two Boards prior to September, 1929, and in September, 1929, he was appointed a member of the Electricity Supply Board, an office which he has held since. I want the Seanad to remember that from September, 1929, two members of the Board were appointed by the Executive or by the Minister. Mr. Browne came on the Board in February, 1930. I take it that Mr. Leyden was retiring at that time. At all events, Mr. Browne, of the Revenue Department, then became a member of the Board and is there still. I mentioned these dates specifically in order to bring home to the Seanad that if the Minister were not informed, he was neglectful of his duties, or his representatives, or the representatives of the Executive on the Board were neglectful of their duties. Either that, or they did not know what their duties were.

It is customary at the Board meetings of any company—I presume the same thing applied in the case of the Electricity Supply Board — to submit a statement of accounts showing the financial position of the company. Will the Minister tell us specifically and definitely that during the period he mentions as not having got information Mr. Leyden, Mr. Fay, and Mr. Browne — two of whom were selected because of their competence in financial matters — did not furnish him with returns on the financial position of the Board? Did he allow these people to continue for from a year and a half to two years sitting at the monthly, fortnightly, or weekly meetings without asking for financial reports and analyses of the various activities of the Board?

One of two things must emerge from that. Either these people were incompetent and not fit to represent the Minister or the Minister did not know what he should get from his representatives on the Board. Does he say seriously to intelligent men in this House that up to this time he could not get figures or facts? I for one cannot swallow that. I cannot believe it. I do not think any reasonable man should be asked to believe it. Two of these representatives were specialists in finance or, at any rate, were sent there because of their experience in finance, and the Minister in July, 1931, tells us that he knew nothing about the finances of the Board at that time. I think that is incredible. One of my reasons for suggesting a Committee such as I suggested last week was that without having to drag all these matters into the open and use the names of civil servants and other people, a responsible Committee, representative of both Houses and possessing the full confidence of the people, could go into the question and deal with these matters — matters that it is absolutely repugnant to have to deal with openly in the House and before the Press. The Minister has taken the line that he will not have a Committee and we have no alternative but to face up to the position. Moreover, an inquiry will have to take place in spite of the Minister and of the Executive, because the truth we must have and we are not getting any help to obtain it here.

I now come to Mr. Browne's appointment. Mr. Browne was appointed in February, 1930. That is sixteen months ago. I know nothing about Mr. Browne. I would not know him if I met him in this House. I know nothing of his qualifications, but I am perfectly sure he is a fully competent and reliable man. Is it reasonable to think that the Chairman of the Board since 1930 allowed things to drift and did nothing about them — that he did not, above all, inform the Minister as regards the position? I have said that I did not accept the statement that the Minister did not know and was not informed of the position. I want now definitely to ask the Minister whether financial statements were presented at the Board's meetings. That is a very definite question. I want to ask him the further question—did his representatives examine those papers; did these people who were put on the Board following the initial trouble with Mr. Murphy — Mr. Leyden, Mr. Fay, and Mr. Browne — examine these reports and were they satisfied? Did they report any dissatisfaction to the Minister? Remember that Mr. Browne has been Chairman of the Board since February, 1930, and we are in July, 1931. The Minister discovered in March or April of this year that everything was wrong.

What was Mr. Browne doing? Did the Minister hear from any of these three gentlemen any reports which would induce him or encourage him to intervene himself and find out what the position was on the Board? Did he examine the balance sheets of the Board or analyses or returns such as are ordinarily presented at Board meetings? I think we should be definitely informed on these facts because these are the cardinal facts which will guide us as to who has fallen, whether that person is the Minister, Mr. Browne, or the other members of the Board. We have got to know and we will readily know when we have got an answer to the questions I have asked. I regret to have to mention these gentlemen's names. I am passing no criticism on them. I am quite satisfied in my own mind that these gentlemen fulfilled all the functions expected of them as members of the Board. I am also satisfied that Mr. Browne and Mr. Leydon particularly would have the interest of seeing the financial statements. I do not know about Mr. Fay, as I understand he is more on the engineering side, but, at all events, Mr. Browne and Mr. Leydon, being men connected with Finance, would I am satisfied have got all this information. What I want to know now is this: If they got it, how it is that the Minister is in such a state of completely innocent ignorance as he represented to us last week here?

The Minister stated that he had been pressing the Electricity Supply Board for revenue estimates, capital charges, etc., and that he could not get them. Dr. MacLaughlin in the Press makes a statement quite contrary to that. This is the statement of Dr. MacLaughlin:—

It has been suggested that there is no material to put before such experts. Very full and complete technical records are available, as is also the financial information necessary for experts to form a definite and prompt judgment.

I want to know is that true. I raised that issue by way of intervention last week and the Minister said that he would not say that it was untrue, but that he would say it was inaccurate.

Well what does inaccuracy mean? An estimate for £2,000,000, wrong by 11d., would be inaccurate. I submit that we ought to know what that estimate was and that we should form an opinion before condemning people as to whether that was a reasonable estimate in all the circumstances.

I want to know first of all if the Minister admits getting that estimate. It has been specifically stated in the public Press that that financial information is available. If we knew what that financial information was, it would not only let us know whether it was reasonable in all the circumstances, but it would give us an idea as to the solvency of the future of the Shannon scheme itself and the operations of the Electricity Supply Board. I suggest that we cannot and we ought not condemn the Board on the word of a Minister when a statement like that is made in the public Press, pointing out that the financial information is there while it is not shown to the House. I think ordinary Christianity, ordinary justice demands that it be produced.

The Minister in the other House — I am not sure whether he said it here or not—made a statement that he could not table the documents or the correspondence because it would not be in the public interest. Could the Minister or any of us conceive anything worse in the public interest than what has happened? An atmosphere has been created by the very mention of the sum of two million pounds — that somehow or other the Electricity Supply Board has gone wrong to the extent of two million pounds. I tried to deal with that last week. I tried to point out that loose thinking and loose talk were common in this and in other countries. I say that, in the public interest and the interest of the Electricity Supply Board, it is absolutely imperative that all the truth be known. The Minister, perhaps, does not realise, as those who travel through the country realise, the terrible upset this has been in the minds of the people who had felt and who had thought that the whole scheme was a success. I am satisfied that even if it takes this two million pounds which the Minister wants, or even with another two millions, the scheme is quite sound and that it can be made pay. It is generally rumoured through the city that in a very short time the income from the Shannon scheme — I do not know what the justification is for the rumour as the Minister refuses to supply us with information — will in a couple of years be upwards of one and a quarter million. If that is the case we have a reasonable proposition, a proposition that will pay what the Minister has implicated us in up to the present and more. But we do want to face up to the position and we do want to know what is the truth. I suggest that nothing could be less in the public interest — no matter how damaging the papers are, whether against the Minister or the Board — nothing could be more damaging than this hush-hush policy adopted by the Minister, the little that has been said and the reticence about all the rest.

In the course of the discussion the Minister analysed the various amounts for constructional purposes. These worked out at about £1,300,000. Constructional work will of course be necessary, but we do not know what that constructional work will be. I would like to ask the Minister a question which is rather important — over what period does he expect that constructional work will extend? Will it be twelve months, two, three, four or five years? I think that is important because we might be assuming that this two millions, out of which £1,200,000 will be wanted for constructional purposes, will all be wanted this year. I think we want some information on that point to guide us, because it would have a considerable bearing on any analysis we are trying to make as regards the economy of the scheme and the working of the Board generally. These are the only points that I propose to make. I made a reasonable, quiet and guarded speech last week. The Minister felt, I think, that it was lenient. We do not want anything but leniency. We want to know what the truth is. I submit in view of the atmosphere that has been created, in view of the cross-firing in the Press and the public debates, the time has come when all the cards should be put on the table if the confidence of the country is to be restored. I stressed this matter of the members of the Board and the time they went on to the Board merely because I think they ought to have something to say about the activities of the Board since September, 1929. When we remember that these gentlemen have been there since 1929, it seems extraordinary that the Minister is so short of information, and that he cannot give us satisfactory information here when he states that he has no analysis that he could look upon as accurate. I submit, in view of Dr. MacLaughlin's letters in the newspapers and everything else, that somebody has got to decide other than the Minister, because after all the Minister is one party in this thing and the Electricity Supply Board is the other party. It has been argued that there is not any need for any public inquiry and that there is not any need for investigation. It has also been stated that the material is not ready for tabling. I think the matter is one of urgency. I think all the information the Minister has and all the Board has ought to be put before someone who would be able to deal with it and adjudicate upon it.

One rather disturbing thing has been mentioned. I do not know whether it is a fact or not. I would be interested to know what the Minister has got to say on it. One of the leading trade journals contains an article by an eminent Irish engineer. I refer to the "Electrical Review." This statement which he made is rather alarming. It is:—

"The Electricity Supply Board now has no electrical engineer amongst its five members. Three of them are business men who have been explicitly absolved by the Minister from blame in the present muddle because they were not expected to do much more than is done by ‘guinea pig' directors; the Chairman is a Civil Servant in grain, and Mr. Fay, the only member of the Board now that Mr. Murphy and Dr. MacLaughlin have gone, was Secretary to the Shannon Development Board."

That is a very serious state of affairs if we have an Electricity Supply Board without one electrical engineer. I suggest that has got to be met, not only by the statement that it is true or that it is false, but we have got to have the qualifications of the electrical engineer, if any, that is on it.

I would appeal to the Seanad to express themselves on this amendment and that they do not, until the Minister gives us some reason to think that an investigation will be made possible for this House and the other House, show him confidence by retaining him within that Bill. I submit that the situation has been ill-handled, that the situation is one of urgency and that above all things it is up to the Seanad to see that fair play is given to the Board as such. If condemnation is to come from the Seanad then let it come on evidence and fact and not on the one-sided statement of the Minister.

Mr. O'Doherty

I rise to support the amendment proposed by Senator Connolly. I think it is the only logical attitude to take up in view of the fact that I supported his original suggestion regarding the setting up of a judicial committee to inquire into this conflict between the Minister and the Electricity Supply Board. I am not going to detain the House very long, but it seems to me that the case in a nutshell is this: there is a dispute between two parties regarding the interpretation of the original Act and secondly the administration of the Act. One party is the Minister and the other is the Electricity Supply Board.

The Minister has indicted the Electricity Supply Board and it seems to me that this section in this Bill asks us to agree to that indictment and to give the Minister a clean bill of health without hearing what the Electricity Supply Board has got to say in the matter. I think the House should not do such a thing. If the Electricity Supply Board is to be kept out the Minister also should be kept out of the dispute, at least so far as certifying accounts are concerned, until the full facts are placed before the Oireachtas.

Mr. Bagwell

I wish to speak on the amendment before the House and strictly on the amendment. Examining the amendment on its merits and apart from all contingent considerations and personalities, I cannot see that the position which is, admittedly, in certain respects not a satisfactory one, would be improved. The Board have to do the business of electricity supply, but the taxpayers' money is involved and that is what we have got to consider. How can it improve the position to cut out the safeguard of the certification of the Minister for Industry and Commerce? That is what the amendment does. It cuts that out altogether. It leaves the Board direct to deal with the Minister for Finance. It would simply authorise the Minister for Finance to advance to the Board whatever money they asked him for, if and when it is required. I cannot see that that is going to improve the position, and therefore considering the amendment strictly on its own merits the effect that it is going to have on the position is one that I cannot vote for.

Miss Browne

I regard this to be, as Senator Connolly intends it to be, a vote of censure on the Minister, and I hope the Seanad will reject it. The feelings of the country are feelings of gratitude towards the Minister for having stepped in at the time he did. Of course there is a certain amount of confusion and all kinds of worry, but from what I have heard and can find out that is the feeling, and this amendment will certainly not help matters in the least. I hope it will be rejected.

Mr. Johnson

I am inclined to the view which Senator Bagwell has expressed regarding the merits of the amendment. The effect would be to pass a vote of confidence, if questions of confidence are arising, in the Minister for Finance while declining to give a vote of confidence to the Minister for Industry and Commerce.

Mrs. Costello

That is what it was meant to do.

Mr. Johnson

I am surprised to know that Senator Connolly is so full of gratitude to and confidence in the Minister for Finance. It is a new view of Senator Connolly so far as I can see. It really touches a more vital question, and on this vital question of principle I part company with the Senator at once. I do not think it is a good thing to give to the Board the powers to spend another two million pounds, or even another million pounds as is proposed in a later amendment, simply by making requisitions to the Minister for Finance without giving the Minister for Finance some kind of technical warrant that the money ought to be spent, especially in view of the criticism that is implied if not deliberately directed against the composition of the present Board. You have to bear in mind that the Board at present consists in fact of two persons, with three advisers who are, from all accounts, not in regular attendance and not in regular active work in connection with the Board itself. So that the Board who are going to make the requisition would be the present Chairman, who is a civil servant, and Mr. Fay, whom we are told is not an electrical engineer. If they are to make a requisition to the Minister for Finance, he then may advance a million pounds. It seems to me that confidence is being expressed in the Board and in the Minister for Finance which is denied to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. I do not think that this Board or any future Board of the kind ought to be as independent as the Minister, as this House and the Dáil said in 1927 that they ought to be, and as even the Opposition in the Dáil in this year, 1931, said they ought to be. I do not think that a Board that is going to spend two and a half millions and two millions in addition of public money ought to be as independent as the 1927 Act said they ought to be. The deduction that one can draw from Senator Connolly's amendment is that he would desire even that the new Board, with its present composition, ought to be in that practically independent position. I would much rather that the Board should be subject to the check of the Minister for Industry and Commerce in respect of the expenditure that it is proposed should be made out of this two million pounds.

Simply as a matter of procedure, of which, of course, the Senator who moved the amendment is as good a judge as I am, it seems to me that all he has said in regard to this particular amendment would be much more appropriate on the amendment to reduce the sum from two to one million pounds. Quite apart from that, and touching the general question which he raised, I am of opinion, having heard the Minister make his speeches last week, that there is still a necessity for satisfying the public and this House of the merits of the dispute between the Minister and the late Board. It is not quite satisfactory to think of the Board simply as a private body set up by the Minister and dismissible by the Minister in consequence of a sudden disputation or of differences of policy, major or minor. They had been raised to a certain level in the estimation of the public as being a semi-public body who had been given extraordinary powers. One has to assume that the Ministry, in appointing that Board, had regard to special qualifications. They had a certain prestige given to them, and even right up to very recent months that prestige had been enhanced by the testimonies to their success that had been publicly represented by the Minister. Having raised their prestige in that way, it seems to me to be reasonable and fair that an opportunity should be provided for that Board to make its defence in regard to the charges that have been levelled against it by the responsible Minister. Differences quite openly have occurred between the Minister on the one hand and the Board on the other. The Minister has had the fullest opportunity to make his case. He has gone into great detail, and one would think he has made a convincing case in his attack upon and criticism of the activities of the Board and the failure of the Board in certain respects in carrying out the duties which the Seanad and the Dáil placed upon them. One member of the Board has to some extent come into the public Press, but I do not think that is satisfactory. There is undoubtedly an issue raised between the Board as it was up to a few months ago and the Ministry, and, whether we like it or not, this Bill is taken to be a method of adjudicating as to the merits of the dispute between the two parties. It is not in fact so, but that is more or less how it is viewed in the public mind, and I still feel, notwithstanding what has been said about the undesirability and the inopportuneness of an inquiry at the present time, that what is required is not an expert inquiry as to the future policy of the Board, or even the past policy of the Board, so much as an opportunity for the Board to present the House with the facts, to confirm the statements of fact made by the Minister or to refute them, so that there can be some adjudication on the charges that have been made against the Board.

If only for this reason it may be that the Government in this country in the near future or the distant future may want to use the services of men whom the present Ministry thought at one time were exceptionally competent. It seems to me reasonable and right that the public should be able to have the facts, the merits or the demerits of the case made against the Board, adjudicated upon in something like a fair manner. As to the amendment that is before the House, I shall certainly vote against it, because I would desire to see the check that this section implies placed upon the Board in respect of this further two million expenditure, just as I would like to have seen in the 1927 Act a check placed upon the Board in the spending of two and a half million pounds given to them to spend by this House and the Dáil.

Mr. Dowdall

Senator Johnson has said that the Ministry has made a convincing case in connection with the Board. Of course, we practically heard only one side of the story. Senator Johnson outlined some sort of scheme by which members of the Board can put up their case. A very nice position it will put the members of the Board in. The members of the Board were selected, I presume, by the Minister. From his speeches in the Dáil and here, anybody would come to the conclusion that he had picked a lot of commercial imbeciles. I know all the members of the original Electricity Board, three of them very casually and two of them intimately. I have been in constant and intimate commercial association with two members of that Board, Mr. Murphy and Mr. J.C. Foley. Both of these gentlemen are extremely competent, careful and able business men, and I cannot, from my knowledge, accept the view that the Minister's speeches would lead one to take. Truth is the child of time. I do hope that when all the details are published — perhaps publication may now injure this great scheme, though I have no misgiving at all as to its success — the public will see where the convincing case lies.

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. McGilligan)

The Seanad has been asked to decide only two questions—whether they will give me a certain number of millions for the purposes of the Electricity Supply Board and whether they will give me £2,000 for Dr. MacLaughlin. The Seanad is not being asked to condemn anybody or to pass judgment on anybody except to this limited extent that, in so far as they give me £2,000 for Dr. MacLaughlin they will be passing something in the nature of favourable judgment thereby on him. There is no question of a dispute as between me and the Electricity Supply Board. Two members of that Board resigned. I accepted their resignations and I have already stated why I did so. I did so in answer to a public demand as to what was the difficulty about the Board. I gave the reasons, mainly contained in quotations from the Board's own letters. All that is within the memory of the Seanad.

There is a Bill here the main clause of which asks that two millions should be placed at the disposal of the Board, subject to two limitations—(1) that the Minister for Finance "may" give it, and (2) that he may give it only if the Minister for Industry and Commerce certifies that the sums are reasonably and properly required. The amendment seeks to leave in the Minister for Finance and to take me out. Through loose thought, but not, I think, by intention, it seeks to keep in the Minister for Finance leaving him only empowered to give, but not obliged to give. It seeks to leave me out and, if I am right in interpreting the real purpose of the proposer of the amendment, it seeks to give to a Board, of which obviously Senator Connolly has not very much regard, two millions as and when they require it. The Board in question is not the old Board, but the present Board. As Senator Johnson pointed out, by the amendment as phrased the Minister for Finance would be empowered to grant, but not obliged to grant. I am glad to see that in this House the contention is dropped that it was the Minister for Finance and his officials who tried to interfere; that they were the hidden hand and that I was merely acting as the Ministry's agent. That apparently will now have to go by the board, because it is I who am to be taken out.

I hope that Senators admire the cogency of the arguments of Senator Connolly with regard to taking out the Minister for Industry and Commerce. There has been a one-sided account of the dispute, declares the Senator, and therefore he seeks to take out the Minister for Industry and Commerce and leave in the Minister for Finance. There has been no information given to the House, he says, and therefore — I do not know why the argument should flow but apparently it does, according to Senator Connolly's logic — the Minister for Industry and Commerce should be removed and the Minister for Finance left in. There has been a refusal to set up a committee — it was described by Senator Connolly as a committee of both Houses, and by Senator O'Doherty as a judicial committee, and there is a big difference between the two — and therefore the Senator says that the Minister for Industry and Commerce should be removed, leaving the Board to demand and the Minister for Finance still there to refuse. The logic is rather peculiar but, nevertheless, that is the argument. There was a dispute in 1929 and, the Senator declares: I came here in July of that year, and made a statement which engendered confidence in the Board.

The Senator is not quite accurate in his facts. There was no dispute at that date. There had been one, but it was finished. Because I made some statement in 1929 which the Senator does not precisely appreciate, and the relationship of which to this amendment is to me very remote, he says: "Remove the Minister for Industry and Commerce, but leave the Board to demand and the Minister for Finance to give if he likes."

It has been mentioned that I said I had no information. The fact is that even yet I cannot give the information I feel I ought to give to the House. The Senator asked what were the duties of Mr. Fay, Mr. Leydon and Mr. Browne on the Board. There were two of them on the Board since September, 1929, and Mr. Browne was there since February, 1930. The Senator placed them in this dilemma, that they either did not know what they should look for or that they were inefficient in the gathering of what they should have sought. There is another situation. It is clear from the Board's own letters that, no matter how those officials tried, they could not get the information they required. In regard to Mr. Browne, he has done this much: he has revealed very quickly, and he has got the Board to agree to his revelation, that there was a very bad state of things with regard to the accounts, with regard to a financial plan, with regard to the system, or rather lack of system, upon which the tariffs of the Board were based. I consider that that was very good work. The Senator cannot understand the failure to secure the information regarded as essential. He presumes that the Board had weekly or monthly financial statements before it. That is a criterion by which one might judge the Board. Judged by that, the Board fails. So far as I am informed, there may have been financial statements occasionally put before the Board, but they were afterwards found to be inaccurate. A well-known example has already been placed before the House. The Board entered on the purchase of the Cork undertaking in the belief that it could be completed with the sum of two and a half millions. They told us in February and April of this year that at that date they realised that that purchase drove them over the edge. If they had realised it in time they said this year they would have approached the Executive Council, so that the situation might then have been remedied. They entered on the purchase of half a million pounds' worth of property believing that they could keep within a certain sum, and they discovered about a year later that their action had driven them completely beyond the limits imposed upon them. If the financial statement on which the purchase of Cork was based is the sort of financial statement that was ordinarily made to the Board, or that was called for by the Board from its servants, it will indicate the value of the type of information upon which they were relying. I take a second example. They wrote to me this year to say that the agreement made in August, 1929 was broken in December, 1929, or at the latest in January, 1930. They admit in a series of statements that they spent half a million in the year 1930. In March of this year they said to me that they were not precisely able to ascertain with even approximate accuracy what the real position in respect of capital commitments was. That was to excuse an excess expenditure of £270,000 prior to June, 1930. Their excuse for the expenditure after June, 1930 was that it was consequential on the money previously spent in excess but in ignorance of their position. You have a Board capitalised to the extent of two and a half millions on this side of their work, and in the year 1930 they did not know to the nearest quarter of a million what their capital commitments were. Notwithstanding this, the Senator still thinks that, being a good Board, they must have had a financial statement before them at each fortnightly or monthly meeting. They did not get such a statement on their own showing, and that is the reason why I am in my present position. I have referred to the fact that five, seven, and later seventeen members of an outside staff of auditors are endeavouring to remake records that should have been there — records absolutely essential if proper accounts were to be presented to anybody, even to the members of the Board. If I am asked why Mr. Browne has not done more since he was appointed, I say in reply that five members of an outside staff of auditors were employed in June last; there were seven employed since September, and there were seventeen from some other period of this year, and they have not been able to get the matter right yet. Let me refer to the sort of information I got after the event.

I heard towards the end of last year that the position of the Board was one of chaos; that every department needed reorganisation — that the accounts side, the contracts side, the house-wiring side, the collection and other departments were disorganised, that invoices were thousands in arrears, that the costings department could not produce costings and that there was no co-ordination between the different branches. I got a letter towards the end of last year referring to specific dates by which promises had been made to give me accounts. This letter said that owing to the arrears which it was necessary to undertake these particulars could not be furnished until certain later dates which were set out. I was told in February of this year that in June, 1930 the Board approved the suggestion that the auditors should supply their staff in bringing the accounts up to date; that since then five, and later seven, had been engaged on the work. I was told later in February of this year that the position was that the purchase side was disorganised, that invoices were in arrear, having been overlooked, mislaid or destroyed, that the whole business had to be reorganised. I was told the contracts and wiring sides, and stores, owing to loose and incomplete recording, had to be subject to a complete overhaul. I was told that stock had not been taken at any proper date and that most of the recording work was in arrear and would soon reach a dangerous position. I was told, again, that an outside auditors' staff had been engaged to clear up the arrears and had since June, 1930 been continuously engaged on this, so that in February, 1931 arrears had been cleared to a degree which caused much less anxiety.

Mr. O'Doherty

Who made this statement?

Mr. McGilligan

It is in a letter from the Board.

Mr. O'Doherty

All of them?

Mr. McGilligan

Except the statement I first referred to to-day, which was an interview with the Chairman of the Board. In March the Board wrote expressing regret that they had broken the agreement made with the Executive Council and pointing out in extenuation that information was not available, owing to imperfections in the Board's organisation, to enable the Board to ascertain, with even approximate accuracy, what the real position was. The recording system had fallen so much into arrears that figures could not be produced. Later in that letter they said that the agreement made in August, 1929 was broken in December of that year, because up to June, 1930 the Board was not in a position to know what the capital expenditure incurred was. The records were in arrear, figures were incomplete and unreliable. They added — all this, remember, in March, 1931 — that when they wrote in June, 1930 they expected that they would be released from the agreement as soon as reliable information was forthcoming. They go on to state — still it is their letter of March, 1931 to which I refer:—"The arrears have turned out to be more serious than it was thought, and it is not therefore possible to produce the accounts up to 31st March, 1930." I wrote to the Board myself in March of this year, following the receipt of that letter, saying that my position in regard to that was this: That while they were sanctioning huge sums that they had not provided themselves with machinery to ascertain even approximately what their commitments were, and would not be able to state that with any precision for months.

This, I said, seemed to me to be an admitted fault in elementary finance and in prudence. I added that I concluded from their letter that their accounting departments were in chaos, and pointed out that the Board had, by June, 1930, been in existence for two and a half years; yet the records were not out of chaos in March 1931, after nearly three and a half years had elapsed since the Board had been founded.

In April, still in the year 1931, the Board returned again to say that the agreement was rendered impossible by the acquisition of Cork, which was entered upon in the belief that it would be kept within that agreement. Otherwise there would have been an approach to the Excutive Council to secure release from the agreement. They had hoped to be able to give the detailed information required by me to entertain the idea of release from the agreement, but their hopes had been frustrated by the delay in preparing final accounts.

That is the Board's record from their own letters. Senator Connolly, despite all this, and despite what has been already said, after a preamble about loose talk and a preamble about loose thinking in the country, goes on to say that he is satisfied that the scheme is sound, and can be made pay, even if this £2,000,000 and another £2,000,000 have to be added to it.

I would like to get writing a series of letters to the Senator, in order to find out on what he bases that hope. I asked the Board two or three years ago if they were optimistic as to certain important points, and if they could supply me with figures upon which they based their optimism. I now ask the Senator a similar question, as I do not want futile optimism in any part of this. The Senator at any rate is satisfied about the matter, and one of the reasons for his satisfaction is that there is a rumour about the town that the income of the Electricity Supply Board will soon be a million and a quarter. If that income is released, everything, he concludes, is going to be right. He is satisfied with his conclusion, and satisfied with this rumour, even after the preamble about loose talk and loose thinking. I wonder does the rumour detail what capital expenditure there has to be to earn one and a quarter million, and what system of charges must there be in order to bring in a revenue of one and a quarter million. It is only when we get answers to question like that that we will know where we are. But to return to the Bill and the amendment, apparently the Senator's optimism and his preamble about loose talk and loose thinking are the reasons which induced him to put down the amendment to remove the Minister for Industry and Commerce, and to hand over two and a half million pounds to the Board, with or without the control of the Minister for Finance.

There are only two other points to which I wish to refer. Senator Johnson said that I have had the fullest opportunity to make my case. I have already said I had not. If I had had to dismiss people, and was put in the position of coming here to tell the House why I had dismissed them, I could make my real case. The case has not yet been fully made. It may be made much more fully yet. Senator Dowdall says that only one side has been heard. I deny that. Referring to two people who spoke in the Dáil, I said that one of the two speeches had been made in the Dáil on information supplied by the Managing Director.

I said so at the time, and it was not denied. I pointed out then that, apart from other remarks, one phrase had been used in that speech which clearly indicated peculiar jealousy towards my liaison officer, and said that, to me, that clearly demonstrated that the speech had been made on the information supplied by the Managing Director. I pointed out that another Deputy's speech contained all the thought of the Managing Director, and I know that that Deputy had been in close association with the Managing Director nights before that speech was made. Therefore I submit that what is called the other side has been heard as well.

Senator Dowdall referred to commercial imbeciles. I hope the House will accept it that I never used that phrase. That phrase is of the Senator's own coining. I have read letters from the Board, but I have not passed such a judgment in regard to them. I am now asking this House for £2,000,000. I ask that there ought to be two checks: (1) the Minister for Finance, and (2) the certificate of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, that certain things are reasonably and properly required. Finally, I would ask this House, when deciding on this matter, not to act on this point as the Dáil did, but to have a division on the point. The point, and the point raised by the amendment, is who wants this Board left to carry on without check or control.

Mr. Connolly

I had better explain my difficulty with regard to putting down an amendment to this Bill at all. There was very little, if anything, that one could amend in it except the amount of the Vote, and even that would not be meeting exactly what I wanted to convey, namely, a vote of no confidence in the Minister. That is frankly what I wanted. What I would have preferred, if I had an opportunity, was to make certain recommendations, or to ask the House to accept certain recommendations, to have this Committee established and to define what it was going to do. My idea is that that Committee should, first of all, go into the question of the rights and wrongs of this regrettable and miserable conflict of opinion and then to find out what experts, if any, were needed and report to the House anything that the House and the Dáil might want to know. My amendment does not mean anything except what was said — a vote of no confidence in the Minister. I do not think that we have heard anything which will restore our confidence in the Minister. Senator Johnson put his finger on one of the big issues, and that is the great necessity that still exists for satisfying the public. There is only one thing that will satisfy the public, and that is a full statement of all that has occurred. The Minister has, on numerous occasions, read extracts from letters and reports from the Board. I frankly am not satisfied. If letters and statements are to be quoted we ought to get the full letters and the full statements and not extracts from them.

The Minister, of course, has no use for the logic that we use in making our case. I have no particular reason for asking that the Minister for Finance should be the sole Minister responsible, except the reason that I have given. I think it is not unreasonable that one should feel uncomfortable about the position in the future — that the Minister will still be handling the Board — particularly when one realises what work the Board did up to a certain point. Senators have to realise how enamoured the Minister was of the Board at one time, then his sudden change of front, and now his condemnation, particularly of the engineer that was on the Board. I am still dissatisfied. The Minister had representatives on the Electricity Supply Board since September, 1929. When making my case. I asked very definitely and specifically what information or details these people had given him. The Minister did not reply to that. I asked if they had made complaints and if they had presented reports to him, and if not, why not? I asked, as the Minister was responsible to this House and to the other House, why he was not informed by the representatives he had on the Board, and if informed why he did not take these steps at an earlier date? The Minister said that Messrs. Fay, Browne or Leyden could not get any information. Does anyone think that a man will sit on a Board for a year or a year and a half if he cannot get information, and particularly if he is there representing the Executive or a Department? Is it reasonable to assume that he will sit on a Board from September, 1929, to March or April, 1931, if he cannot get information? I do not want to be too severe about this, but I cannot conceive any ordinary individual, not to speak of a man who is supposed to be competent, remaining on a Board if he cannot get information, and particularly when that information relates to financial matters.

The Minister referred to the Cork purchase and to the fact that an agreement was broken. We know how it was broken. We know that the Board at no time admitted the practicability of the agreement. Under cross-examination last week, the Minister admitted that it was because of his threat to bring two amendments to the Dáil that the Board yielded. That sort of agreement is no good to anyone. It is simply holding a pistol at the head of a man or a Board and saying: "You have got to do this according to what I think or I will bring in two amendments which will deal with you." The Minister admitted that it was a threat. I suggest that a technical blunder was made and that the Minister did not face up to it when it was realised that possibly more money was going to be needed. I am not condoning or excusing the accounts or the absence of accounts or documents, or the chaotic condition into which these have got. There is one fact that I want to point out, that on the financial side the Minister had representation from a certain date, and that he should have been able to take action earlier than he did.

As a result of this financial chaos, it seems to me that we run the risk of losing the most brilliant engineer that Ireland has got. I do not know the gentleman, but his work stands. I have spoken to people from different parts of the world who, looking on the Shannon scheme, say that it is a wonderful job: one of the most wonderful jobs that has ever been done. We cannot get away from the fact that one of the things that is happening now is that we are losing the founder and the inspiration of the Shannon scheme. What I am protesting against — I want to have this on the records — is that we are losing him without trial, without giving him an opportunity of being heard, apart from the statements published over his own name in the newspapers, and from these it is quite obvious that he has not let himself go!

We have had read for us certain extracts from letters and from reports. Why are we not given the whole story? Why not have all the cards put on the table so that we may see where we are? I do not presume for a moment that the Minister has anything to be afraid of. I do not presume that any member of the Board has anything to be afraid of. If that be the position, why not put all the cards on the table and let us know where we are? There is one other factor to be considered. I discussed this matter with a friend who is in the electrical business — the question of increased expenditure for capital purposes. He said to me: "There is one thing you have always got to remember with regard to electricity supply, and that is that if you are going to get a customer for electricity you are going to have to pay a capital charge on every new customer you get." I confess that is an aspect of the question that I had not adverted to before, but it is obviously so. The question, therefore, is: Was the Board trying to get consumption for an enormous quantity of electric current so as to make the scheme ultimately economic; and, if so, did that entail capital expenditure beyond even what had been estimated? All these things, I feel, might be ironed out and straightened out, and the pessimism that has been created, mainly by the Minister's attitude, can be dispelled perhaps very quickly.

The Minister asks me, in a loose way, why I conclude that the Shannon Scheme can be made economic? I so conclude for one reason. Last week I raised a question with regard to the sinking fund and interest. I did not get any information on that any more than I got information on the various points that I raised to-day. For instance, I asked was it true that we had not an electrical engineer on the Board? I have got no answer to that. There was another question that I asked last week on which I got no information. With the two millions now being voted, I stated that the amount of money that will have been sunk in the Shannon Scheme is ten and one-third million pounds. At 5 per cent. I figure it out that the interest on that will be £517,800. If, as I have been informed, the total revenue coming in from the sale of electric current will in a year or so amount to £1,250,000, I feel that we are on a reasonable basis even within our present capital, or even with another million or two millions. But that is beside the point. The point is, is confidence going to be restored in the country? The House may do what it likes with this amendment — it may turn it down or it may pass it — but the point is, unless all the facts are made public, we are not going to restore confidence. It is a matter for the House to consider what it will do. Other people may be, and perhaps are, more interested than we are. I put the amendment down for the deliberate purpose of moving a vote of no confidence in the Minister. It was the only way in which I could convey what I felt. I still have no confidence, but in view of the position I am anxious to withdraw the amendment, as it has served the purpose that I wanted it to serve.

Mr. Fanning

I submit that the request of the Minister for a division on this matter ought to be given effect to. I accordingly call for a division.

Mr. Connolly

I have no objection.

Mr. MacEllin

We will have great pleasure in voting against the Minister.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 7; Níl, 28.

Tá

Caitlín Bean Uí Chléirigl.
Michael Comyn, K.C.
Joseph Connolly.
J.C. Dowdall.
Seán E. MacEllin.
Joseph O'Doherty.
Séumas Robinson.

Níl

John Bagwell.
William Barrington.
Sir Edward Coey Bigger.
Miss Kathleen Browne.
R.A. Butler.
Right Hon. Alfred Byrne.
Mrs. Costello.
John C. Counihan.
The Countess of Desart.
Michael Fanning.
Thomas Farren.
Dr. O. St.J. Gogarty.
Henry S. Guinness.
P.J. Hooper.
Thomas Johnson.
Cornelius Kennedy.
Thomas Linehan.
The McGillycuddy of the Reeks.
James MacKean.
William John Molloy.
James Moran.
Sir Walter Nugent.
M.F. O'Hanlon.
L. O'Neill.
Bernard O'Rourke.
Siobhán Bean an Phaoraigh.
Thomas Toal.
Richard Wilson.

Tellers: Tá, Senators Connolly and O'Doherty; Níl, Senators MacKean and Johnson.

Amendment declared lost.

Mr. Comyn

I move: "Section 3, Sub-section (2). To delete in line 27 the word ‘two' and to substitute therefor the word ‘one.'" The meaning of the amendment is to reduce from two millions to one million the total amount of money which may be advanced under this Bill. I am sure Senators must have felt, as a result of the discussions which have taken place in regard to the Shannon Scheme, and in regard to the operations of the Board, that there has been created in the public mind a feeling of uneasiness, a feeling that two million pounds of the money of the public has been lost or has strayed — I will not say stolen, but I will use the phrase of the old advertisement, "lost, stolen or strayed." The people of the country have an idea that £2,000,000 is gone wrong. I do not think any person listening to these debates will come to that conclusion, but I think that any Senator who has followed the statements of the Minister will be satisfied that the Minister does not require £2,000,000 at present. He himself says that £850,000 would be sufficient to meet existing liabilities. Of course, there would be capital charges in respect of each new customer and perhaps £250,000 more would be required. The total sum which, even on his own showing, he requires at present would be less than £1,000,000. It would ease the public mind very much if he could accept this amendment and say that in the existing conditions of the country he would be able to get along with £1,000,000. In the times which are before us it seems to me that £1,000,000 would be of great consequence in the coming autumn, and particularly in the coming winter, and that the people of the country are not at all satisfied to spend £2,000,000 on an undertaking which, in one sense at least, is a luxury undertaking. If the Minister has £1,000,000 to spare, I think he and the Cabinet will find in the next winter that it would be advisable for them to spend that money in ways which will give direct employment to working men. This £2,000,000 is not intended to give direct employment. It will probably be expended on machinery and appliances of various kinds which will be imported.

Listening to the Minister to-day, and to some of those who spoke in favour of his point of view, it must be obvious to everybody that there has been a thoroughfare of chaos in connection with this Board. Accounting, invoices, orders, books, the engineering section, the administrative section, all in arrears, all wrong, all uncoordinated. What surprises me is this, that the Minister, finding that the very able men whom he appointed to the Board some twelve or eighteen months ago have been unable to set the accounts right in that period, has not come to the Oireachtas for further powers to enable him to collect the money. He has a revenue man on that Board. A fool can see that a lot of the goods have gone wrong; that goods have been supplied to people and that there is no record of them; that services have been rendered and that there are no records of them. The obvious thing to do is to come here for legislation and to compel every user of electricity to make a statutory return, just as people are required to make statutory returns for income tax. I am sure that although a large sum of money is outstanding a lot of goods have not yet been paid for and that if vigour and energy and skill are even now applied to the conduct of this Shannon Scheme almost every penny of that money will be recovered and that there is no necessity for a further panicky application for £2,000,000.

In 1927 the Minister applied for £2,500,000 to provide for the expenses of distribution of electricity. He was asked to give some sort of budget, some sort of particulars. At that time, of course, they were all on the high horse; they were all great men with a great scheme and nothing before them but rosy prospects of success. No particulars were to be given. Four years afterwards we ask for particulars of how that £2,500,000 has been spent, or £2,000,000 of it, and we can get no particulars. That is the position in which we are. Of that £2,500,000 which has been voted, in respect of which £2,000,000 has been spent in the last four years, we have no account whatever of how it has been spent. The Minister comes forward now, having stated then that £2,500,000 was enough, and he asks in this bad year for £2,000,000 and he will not tell you what he wants it for. You have no particulars, no estimates, no accounts; you are simply asked for £2,000,000 on your allegiance to the Party machine.

I really did feel humiliated for our country when I heard some of the statements made by the Minister in reference to transactions carried on by this Board. Accounts wrong, invoices wrong, everything wrong. I felt that the young supermen were, after all, common clay like ourselves, and I felt the most intense regret that men were not selected for practical commercial and scientific knowledge and wide business experience, including that of electricity supply. These are the qualifications required by an older Government than ours from the members of an Electricity Board. If these qualifications had been insisted upon in 1927, probably the 2½ millions would have been sufficient, probably it would never be necessary for the Minister to do what he will have to do, namely, pass a law requiring every person who has any electrical machinery or who has got any current to make a declaration under penalty. He will have to do that in the end, because, of course, this country cannot stand over public property, public goods and public services going wrong in the way which has been admitted here. Why did not the Minister do that? I do not know why he did not do it. I think he ought to be much more modest in his demands to-day. He has made no case for any sum of money exceeding £850,000. I am willing to concede him another £250,000 to give him elbow room to carry on. But he has very little appreciation of the anger of the people of the country when he asks, without any reason whatever, for an additional £1,000,000. I wish somebody had said something to allay the annoyance and alarm which people feel.

The Cork enterprise has been mentioned. That was purchased for £500,000. There were unlooked-for further expenses. Why did not the Minister or somebody tell us the reason for this increased expenditure? It was perfectly obvious it was due to the necessity for machinery, resulting from the change-over from direct current to alternating current. I believe that is the case. Of course probably the Board ought to have seen to that, but, whether they should or not, that expenditure has been incurred, and I think that money has been paid. Now I am very curious to know what the Minister requires this additional million for. Does he require it for constructional work? Does he want to put up new plant for power? Because if he does I think he is unwise at the present time.

No doubt the Shannon in its present state of construction is capable of running three turbines of 30,000 horsepower each on a full flood. It is also well known to people who reside in the West that in some years the waters of the Shannon run low and may not be able to supply power for more than one turbine. In that state of affairs there must be, of course, auxiliary power. The Minister has already sufficient auxiliary power. He has it at the Pigeon House, Dublin; he has it in Cork, he has it in Limerick, and he has it in Dundalk. He has auxiliary power at four different stations. And unless he has the most urgent reason for requiring this extra million I think he ought to be satisfied with one million.

He told us on Second Reading that this was a Committee point, and that he would give us some idea in the Committee Stage of the purposes for which he required this second million. He has not done so yet. I hope he will do so before he requires you, upon your allegiance to the Party, and upon his own good looks, to give him the other extra million of money which this country cannot afford.

Mr. Dowdall

I cannot support this amendment. The Minister all through has made it definitely clear that the sum of £2,500,000, which was the estimated figure granted to the Board in the first instance, was not a fixed maximum. Very frankly he told us that and gave some details on which the figure was founded, and the Board seemed to agree. But nevertheless it was quite clear that that was not a maximum figure in all the eventualities that might arise. He told us in his speech the day he introduced this matter that in this current year the number of units of electricity which he estimated would be sold, in the first instance at 83 of a penny per unit of supply, and subsequently changed to 9 of a penny per unit, would give such a revenue as would meet all the charges — expenses, sinking fund and interest. It seems to me when this entanglement of the Electricity Board is worked out that then it is quite possible that if the Board is at fault it is because they developed more rapidly and sold current more rapidly than they had budgeted for. If that is the case, any limitation of the money asked for now might thwart them rather than help to forward the scheme. In addition to that, we have decided that there shall be two checks upon the disbursement of the money. And whether we vote two millions or twenty millions, by the time it has passed through the net of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, and gets his fiat and certificate, and is then subsequently dealt with by the Minister for Finance, we may feel sure that no expenditure will be allowed to get through that is not amply justified by the merits of the expenditure itself. In these circumstances the moneys expended will not be lost, and I think it is safer not in any way to limit the rapid development of the scheme by limiting the money to one million.

Sir Walter Nugent

After listening to this debate and other debates on this subject, I ask myself what have we accomplished or what do we expect to accomplish by the debate we are prolonging here to-day. Senator Comyn, I know, always wants to accomplish something. He told us that the country is angered and alarmed at what has been occurring. But what is it that is creating anger and alarm in the country? Is it not debates like this? If every amendment which has been moved here were accepted, what would be accomplished? What does Senator Comyn think would be accomplished if the Minister told us that he could get on with one million when he knew he could not get on with less than two millions? Would it lead to anger and alarm in the country? Why, of course not.

We are creating an amount of suspicion and doubt all over the country, about the greatest enterprise that was ever carried through in any country. Everybody who was called in to see the Shannon Scheme was proud of its success, and we all glory in its success. Experts from all parts of the world who examined the scheme bore testimony to the work done, and to the way in which it had been done. It is quite true, as the Minister said, that when it came to the secondary stage dealing with the supply of electricity, things did not turn out as was expected. There has been talk of a vote of censure, and complaints that explanations asked for were not given. The Minister gave as much explanation as he could at present, and he has promised that later on he will give fuller explanations. Surely if anyone wants to move a vote of censure, that would be the proper time to do it, and not on this occasion. I appeal to the Seanad to bring this discussion to a close. I know Senator Comyn does not attach much importance to this amendment. I know that he realises and other Senators realise that when he says the Minister could do with one million, he knows he could not. The Senator is doing what he has a perfect right to do, and that is to give us his views, which are always welcome. I think we have had a fair expression of views from Senators, and I appeal to them now that it is time to bring this debate to a close. I appeal to Senator Comyn to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Farren

In my remarks on the Second Reading, I referred to the question of the second million. The Minister on that occasion explained that it was a committee point with which he had already dealt in the Dáil. I have since taken pains to read up the discussion in the Dáil, and I am perfectly satisfied that the Minister has made a case for this second million. The Minister gave the figures in the Dáil with regard to the second million. The first million, it is understood, is to be provided for the purpose of making up the deficiency in the Board's accounts at the present moment, and the bulk of the figures constituting the second million were given in the Dáil. I am perfectly satisfied that if Senator Comyn had read the discussion in the Dáil, and the Minister's statement, he would not have moved the amendment to-day because the Minister certainly did give the figures there. Any person who desires that this great national undertaking shall be made a success certainly would not refuse to grant this money, because if the second million is not granted it means that you are going to starve the Board of money that is actually required to enable it to carry on, and to make this great national undertaking the success it should be. Looking up the figures, I see that a sum of £150,000 is required for the reconstruction of networks and a sum of £133,000 for safeguarding the supplies of Dublin and Rathmines, and, I think, of Limerick and Cork. I have gone into the various items as they appear in the Official Report of the Minister's speech and I am satisfied that if we agree to give one million we must agree to give two millions. If we agree that the Board should get £1,000,000 to make up the deficiency in its accounts, we must agree to give the second million for the purpose of completing the work that has been taken in hand to make this great national undertaking a success.

Mr. McGilligan

I wish to refer to two or three statements that have been made. Senator Comyn brought into his Second Reading speech on this Bill the same point which he laboured to-day on this matter of the amount of money which is being asked — that a better use might be made of that money in the peculiar circumstances likely to attend upon the coming autumn or winter than will be made of it if voted for this special purpose. Two things ought to be kept separate. If it is shown that the people of this country want electricity to replace other forms of heat or illumination, and if the sum of £3,000,000 or £5,000,000 were required for this purpose, it would be easy to get that money if it could be shown that it would be remunerated. It should be easier, on the basis on which we started, to get that money than to get money for the telephone system, because the telephone system admits certain deficiencies, whereas we set out originally with the aim that the scheme was not going to cost the taxpayer anything, and we still have that aim. I often put it to the Board that there was that analogy with capital required for telephone extension, and if they wanted more money, so long as I had a case to put before the Dáil and Seanad, I had no doubt about getting the money. But I had to be able to show that it would be remunerated. If there is money wanted for other capital developments, or developments of a business type, there is no doubt that our credit is so high that we can get any amount of money. That, however, is entirely different from money for relief works or charity money. I am not asking for this money on the supposition that there are, say, £3,000,000 in the Exchequer, of which £1,000,000 or £2,000,000 were to be devoted to charity, leaving only £1,000,000 for business development. We can get any amount of money for capital development so long as we can show a business case for it and, particularly, we can get it for water power, since the first stage development of the Shannon scheme proper and the long distance transmission side has been so successful.

The Senator has asked me why I did not put on the Board men who — I took down this portion of the phrase—"had wide practical experience and commercial experience and some experience of electrical undertakings."

I should like to have that foot-rule run over the five or six or seven people who were on that Board from time to time and find how many would have been precluded by that test, if adopted as part of the legislation. None. But within the terms stated by the Senator I could get as complete a set of duds as I might get under a Bill that allowed me to appoint men without qualifications precisely stated. The Senator also said that we find now that "the young supermen have feet of common clay." If that is by way of reference to a certain group — the Executive Council—I pass it over for the moment. If it is supposed to have reference to the people who engineered this scheme, I object vigorously to the use of such a phrase. I join that phrase with another used by the Senator—that this scheme has excited universal admiration. If it has excited admiration, that admiration has been excited mainly in quarters where there used to be apprehension, and in respect of the side about which there was the greatest measure of anxiety — the constructional side. Many people warned me when we were entering upon the £5,200,000 expenditure that the cost of that side of the work was going to run to double that figure — not an increase arising from extra generation, but simply that the cost would mount up roughly to £11,000,000 instead of £5,000,000. That part of the scheme has been carried out successfully, and, as Senator Farren pointed out, in conjunction with two Government Departments and without any great touch with the commercial side of life in this country. The work of the people who did carry out that scheme, the engineers — I am not going to apply the phrase "supermen" to them — and the administrative people who went with them — the work of these people, professional engineers, civil servants, and everybody else connected with that section of the scheme, must be properly commended and acknowledged at some time. Some time or other it will be possible to disengage the names and apportion praise, as praise should be apportioned, to the people concerned with that part of the work. Any laudatory return which this country makes them will be richly deserved — and all this without talking of supermen.

So far as the other side of the scheme is concerned, I have not yet said anything derogatory to the capacity of the numerous people engaged on that side. Certain things were allowed to get into a particular state by those whose duty it was to direct, and excuses are made even for that. One thing I have objected to — that any attempt should be made to put blame upon the staff. That has been done, and done very unfairly. Some of the staff employed on that particular work were the staff employed on the constructional work when that was going on, and I have no doubt that such of the staff are as good as ever they were. The other people got in on the Board's work are as good, I have equally no doubt, as the people who preceded them on the constructional side, but there was, I think, a lack of direction. I have even said, with regard to individuals in this direction whose names have been mentioned here, that they, if they pursued a policy which was wrong and mistaken — and to my mind it was wrong and mistaken — they pursued it honestly.

Reference has been made to new plant for development of extra power. There is no money being looked for in this Bill precisely for new power, but I explained in the Dáil that we may get extra power by making such adjustments in the stations retained by way of stand-by that these will enable us to run, not two turbines at Ardnacrusha, but three. The ordinary process would be to keep one turbine as stand-by. With the adjustments that. I have referred to, we may be able to run the whole three. The Senator expressed doubt that we would get sufficient water to run three turbines, and said the people along the Shannon banks say the levels vary. They do, of course, but the plant was built out for the driest year over the series of years for which we have records, and those extended over a period of forty years. We may, therefore, get extra power. I look to getting extra power, but not by way of going on with a second Shannon scheme and so enlarging the Shannon works. Under a provision of the Electricity Supply legislation, the Board have power to make certain experiments, trial borings, and so on. That work may result in providing extra power, but we do not aim at a development of Shannon power by additional works. If there is any additional power secured it will be by reason of the stand-by arrangements to which I have referred. A certain portion of this money is required for improvements in the stand-by stations, and that, we hope, will enable us to throw in a third turbine at Ardnacrusha and to keep it pretty constantly in use. That is the plan. How far it will be pursued remains to be seen.

Senator Dowdall referred to the estimates of .83d. and to .9d. I said the difference between those figures corresponds to the difference in the estimate of £5,200,000 and the second and better estimate of £5,700,000, plus the sum of £156,0000 for certain deficiencies. I said that that larger sum of money will be remunerated by the sale at the end of the long distance transmission lines of 148,000,000 units at .9d. But I must stress that this has nothing to do with the distribution system—the local distribution networks for which the Board were granted two and a half million pounds as necessary or likely expenditure on a certain plan, for their purposes. The Senator says that I gave an account of how this calculation of two and a half million pounds was arrived at and he made the remark incidently "with which calculation the Board seemed to agree." The Board did not agree with that calculation. The Board never had that calculation before them. The managing director had. It was the managing director's calculation given to me before the Board was established. Lest anybody should think, if I allowed the observation to pass, that the Board had details of this calculation before them and agreed with it, I wish to say that that is not the case. The Board had not details of that calculation before them but the managing director had.

The Senator went on to say: "It may be, however, that the Board has sold current more rapidly than they budgeted for." I must complain of one word in that statement. No word like "budgeting" could be applied to any part of the Board's operations, as I know them. What I read to-day about their accounts shows that. How could anybody say that they budgeted when they did not know at certain stages how their accounts stood? They went on to sell a certain amount of current. They had very little information—the correspondence reveals this—as to what it was costing them to produce that current. How they arrived at their charges, I do not know.

Senator Farren has pointed out that I gave the figures as regards the sum now sought in the Dáil. I did. They are contained in the report of the 15th July from column 2130 onwards for three columns. They are there given in as much detail as I could give them at present. I gave them subject to a number of reservations. One was that I do not know over what period this money will fall to be expended. A second is that I do not bind myself to them as precisely as a Minister does in his Departmental estimates, in which he gives heads and sub-heads. I take this money subject to the right to change from one heading to another. I may say that we are probably dealing with a fairly prolonged period. The necessary accounts—the accounts for the year ended last March—will not be in my possession until the beginning of next year. They cannot come before this House with the necessary reports until, I think, round about Easter of next year. Certain legislation may have to be passed arising out of that. People may say: "Tie down to that." I do not think you can. Works which will have to be operating in the summer or autumn of 1932 must have orders placed for them by the end of this year, possibly. I do take this limitation upon myself. I am keeping more or less clearly before me work which has to be started by the summer or autumn of 1932. I put also the check upon that, that the money will not be spent unless it is going to be remunerated—the main part of it. There are two checks, as Senator Dowdall stated—that the money is necessary and is likely to be remuneratively spent. There is one part for which I take no responsibility—not £1,000,000, but about £750,000, representing debts accrued. For that I take no responsibility. As regards these debts, we will see that the money goes to the proper persons. Outside these debts I take responsibility until I come to the House and get myself relieved of it. The knowledge that I am so far responsible is the stimulus to me to come to the House as soon as possible to get relieved of it.

Mr. Johnson

The section states that two millions shall be advanced in addition to the sums already authorised, making four and a half millions in all. Is the Minister in his estimate deducting from the four and a half millions anything for the balance of the undischarged liabilities taken over from municipal bodies?

Mr. McGilligan

The sums I have in my consideration are the new two millions plus the two and a half millions of the 1927 Act, but less the undischarged liabilities of the municipal undertakings in so far as those have not been paid off. In other words, I am taking it that the two and a half millions of the 1927 Act have been exhausted by advances already made to the Board to an amount of £1,900,000. In fact there may have been over-advances, but I am not asking for two millions additional to the original two and a half millions discharged of the undertaking. I am still counting that the undertaking is in force.

Mr. Guinness

I would like to ask the Minister an important question. Is the capital account of the Shannon scheme to be regarded as closed? Has the account in respect of the original scheme put up by Siemens-Schuckert been closed? Is the money which we are now voting entirely for supply purposes or will some of it be supplied, if necessary, for the further extension of the Shannon scheme as a scheme, because we have not yet completed what was in the mind of the Government when the Shannon development scheme was started—extensions round Lough Derg? There has been talk of bringing in other places which, I take it, would mean capital expenditure. We do not know whether any of the money which we are now voting will be available for capital expenditure.

Mr. McGilligan

None of this money is intended to be available for capital expenditure direct on extra generation. But I have explained that we will apply some of the money to the Pigeon House. By applying it to the Pigeon House we may release another turbine at Ardnacrusha and get extra power generated there. In that sense it may be said we are getting extra power from this money. There is no new work, however, going to be done along the Shannon except in so far as the Board may have power under the legislation already passed to make experiments, trial borings, and other minor works along the upper loughs. If I want new power I will make a definite approach to the House.

Mr. Guinness

A new Bill?

Mr. McGilligan

Yes.

Mr. Comyn

The members of the Seanad seem to be willing to vote this money, but I would like to make one observation in reference to the statement of Senator Dowdall. He said that there are to be two checks on this money. There is to be the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Minister for Finance; therefore it is all right. If reasoning of that kind had any weight in a legislative assembly I would be very much surprised, because, if it is true, there is no necessity for a legislative assembly at all. I wish to say that people having associations with the country are not at all enamoured of any further expenditure on luxury undertakings. Ten million pounds have been spent, or will be spent, on the Shannon scheme. That is enough for the present. I think it will be many a long day before a Board such as this is given money and a free hand. It will be many a long day before that happens in this country again. I think now, having got our lesson, that we ought to give no money to any Board or any organisation except that Board or organisation is under the control of a Minister responsible to Parliament.

Mr. McGilligan

Although you voted against that principle on the last amendment.

Mr. Comyn

I did not vote against it.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Sections 3, 4, 5 and the Title ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill ordered to be reported without amendment.

The Seanad went out of Committee.

Seanad Éireann debate - Wednesday, 29 Jul 1931

Electricity (Supply) (Amendment) Bill, 1931—Committee Stage.

Tá

Níl

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 29 Jul 1931