In Committee on Finance. - Electricity (Supply) (Amendment) Bill, 1931—Money Resolution. – Dáil Éireann (6th Dáil) – Wednesday, 15 Jul 1931

In Committee on Finance. - Electricity (Supply) (Amendment) Bill, 1931—Money Resolution.

The Dáil went into Committee on Finance.

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. McGilligan)

Before moving the Money Resolution I would like to have a ruling on points of procedure. The Money Resolution reads:—

That for the purpose of any Act of the present Session to amend the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1927 to 1930, it is expedient to authorise the advance out of the Central Fund or the growing produce thereof of such sums, not exceeding in the aggregate Two Million Pounds, as the Minister for Industry and Commerce shall from time to time certify to be reasonably and properly required by the Electricity Supply Board for any purpose arising in the performance of its functions under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1927 to 1930.

To that an amendment is being moved which first of all cuts down the sum of money and takes out the phrase "as the Minister for Industry and Commerce shall from time to time certify to be reasonably and properly required by the Electricity Supply Board for any purpose arising in the performance of its functions under the Electricity Supply Acts, 1927 to 1930," and makes a change the effect of which I do not yet know. Are these three points to be discussed on the Money Resolution or is it the procedure that I formally move the Money Resolution and debate the amendment when it has been moved?

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister is in the position that he may either formally move the Money Resolution, hear the amendment proposed and speak on the amendment or speak first on the Money Resolution and subsequently on the points raised on the amendment which he did not deal with before. I think it is a matter entirely for the Minister whether he deals with the matter first or deals with the matter when he hears the case. Perhaps it would be better for the Minister to move the motion and then hear the amendment moved.

Mr. McGilligan

I move the Resolution formally.

Mr. Lemass

And proceed with the discussion on the Money Resolution, the other three points mentioned in the amendment, and such other matters as may be relevant.

An Ceann Comhairle

Yes. I have had some contacts privately with the Deputies who have amendments down. It seems to me that the whole matter can be debated on the Money Resolution and on this amendment of Deputy Lemass's and that questions to obtain decisions can be put. I think that having discussed the matter as Deputy Lemass says of the three points raised in the amendment and such other matters as may be relevant on the Money Resolution, it would be undesirable and it would probably be agreed that it is not necessary, that we should again discuss these matters in Committee on the Bill. Deputy Lemass's amendment raises at least two points, one with regard to the sum of Money to be granted and the other whether the money should be granted on the certificate of the Minister for Industry and Commerce. If it is so desired it would be possible to put questions which would give separate decisions on these points. Where it is proposed to delete the words "two million pounds" and substitute "one million one hundred thousand pounds" the question would be that the words "two million pounds" stand; the second question would be that the words "as the Minister for Industry and Commerce shall from time to time certify" stand. That would give a decision first as to the amount of money, and secondly, as to whether the Minister's certificate would remain in.

Mr. O'Connell

I take it that if the words "two million pounds" stand it would decide my amendment.

An Ceann Comhairle

Technically, from the point of view of order it would not necessarily, but I take it the Deputy would accept that decision for Committee purposes.

Mr. Lemass

I move:—

"To delete all words from and including the words `Two Million Pounds' to the figures `1930' and substitute the words `one million, one hundred thousand pounds, as may be required by the Electricity Supply Board for any purpose arising in the performance of its functions under Section 12 (3) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1927.' "

The Bill which is before the Dáil is one the main purpose of which is to provide a sum of two million pounds which may be advanced to the Electricity Supply Board for any purpose arising in the performance of its functions under the Electricity Supply Acts, 1927 to 1930, on a certificate from the Minister for Industry and Commerce that such money is reasonably and properly required by the Board for that purpose. When the Bill was before the Dáil on its Second Reading, Deputies will remember that the Minister did not attempt to give any explanation whatever as to the purposes for which this two million pounds was required. He gave us no information as to the basis on which it was calculated, he expressed his inability to give us any information as to the purposes it was required for. He expressed the view that he thought it would prove to be more than was likely to be required. He made it quite clear, however, that the figure was arrived at by a process of guesswork, that it was put into the Bill without any serious grounds for assuming that it was required or was necessary for the Board in the proper performance of its duties. We think it preposterous that any Minister should come to the Dáil and ask the Dáil to sanction the expenditure of such a large sum on such grounds. A House presumably serious about its work and anxious to carry its responsibilities properly, which would sanction the expenditure of two million pounds upon the information which the Minister has given would be, I think, open to the charge that it had seriously neglected its obligations and had jeopardised the welfare of the people to whom the House was responsible. A House which would sanction two million pounds in that way would sanction anything. I do not think that there is any other Parliament in the world in which any Minister ever came with such a proposal as that which the Minister for Industry and Commerce has put to this House. He wants this two million pounds to be expended on a purpose which he cannot explain, which he says may not be required, two million pounds concerning which he can give the Dáil no information whatsoever. It is to be given to him in whatever manner and for whatever purposes he likes, and no section in the Bill provides that any check is to be given to the Dáil on that expenditure or that the Minister is to be responsible in any way for a proper accounting of it. We do not propose to agree to the giving of that money in that manner. We propose to ask the Dáil definitely to limit the amount which is to be made available for expenditure by the Board on the certificate of the Minister in the manner proposed in the Bill. We propose to limit that amount to £500,000 and to provide in addition a sum of £600,000 which will be available for the Board as and when required by the Board, for the express purpose of repaying the capital liabilities acquired by the Board when it took over the electricity undertakings of local authorities.

In order to satisfy the House that the proposals which we are making to-day are reasonable, it is necessary to review briefly the present financial position of the Board as explained by the Minister in his speeches here on Wednesday and Thursday of last week. Deputies will remember that when the 1927 Act was passed, a sum of £2,500,000 was provided for the Board to finance all its activities, to meet its requirements in all respects except in regard to the maintenance, operation and repair of the Shannon works. Briefly, this £2,500,000 was to finance the distribution activities of the Board as distinct from its activities in the generation or transmission of electric current. The Minister told us here on Wednesday, for the first time, and to the astonishment of the Dáil and people generally, that the Board had overspent that sum by £600,000, and that, in addition, they had entered into commitments involving the expenditure of another quarter of a million pounds. In other words, that the total expenditure and liabilities of the Board to date amounted to £3,350,000. He explained that of that sum £600,000 represented capital liabilities of municipal and electrical undertakings acquired by the Board, and in respect of which the Board was required by the 1927 Act to keep those local authorities indemnified. If we deduct that sum of £600,000 from the total of £3,350,000, to which I have referred, we get the figure of £2,750,000. The Board has received to date from the Central Fund under Section 12 (3) of the 1927 Act, in respect of its distribution activities, a sum of £1,950,000; £200,000 went to repay some of these acquired capital liabilities, but that is the total which the Board has received and which we can deduct from the other figure of £2,750,000 to which I have referred. That leaves us a figure of £800,000. We have got to provide for the Board that £800,000, and, in addition, to give them a sum of money which will enable them to carry on their activities pending whatever inquiry or whatever reorganisation scheme the Dáil may decide upon. There is to the credit of the Board with the Minister for Finance a sum of £550,000. The Dáil in 1927 provided £2,500,000 to finance these activities of the Board. Of that sum only £1,950,000 has been drawn. There is still available or withheld from the Board a sum of £550,000. If the Dáil accepts our proposals concerning the capital liabilities of the municipal electrical undertakings that sum becomes released to finance the Board's activities, and we propose to add to it a sum of a half a million pounds. That will enable the Board to pay off the existing liabilities, to provide for the commitments into which it has entered, amounting to a quarter of a million pounds, and will leave them with another quarter of a million pounds with which to engage in activities for the period during which the inquiry or reorganisation scheme will take place. That, in brief, is the nature of our proposal.

We propose that the Board should be given sufficient to pay off those liabilities to date and to carry on for a strictly limited period. We are particularly concerned that the Dáil should not agree to give carte blanche to the Minister or to provide a sufficient sum of money to enable the Board's activities to proceed for a long period without having some assurances, some definite and positive assurances other than the words of the Minister, that a situation will not arise in the future similar to that which has arisen, and which has necessitated these demands on the Dáil. We want a full inquiry into the present position and the future possibilities of the Shannon scheme. We want to be satisfied that the scheme is likely to prove remunerative when saddled with additional two million pounds capital liability which this Bill proposes. We want to be satisfied also that a proper reorganisation of the Board is likely to take place. The Minister has said that such a reorganisation is in contemplation. He has informed us that he has reappointed to the Board three part-time members for the purpose of discussing with them some manner in which a Board can be constituted which will have none of the defects of the old Board, but which will at the same time permit of the existence of business members on it.

The Minister came to the Dáil in 1929 with a Bill to provide additional money for the construction works. That £5,200,000 was increased on that occasion by £600,000. When the Minister was asking for that additional £600,000 to meet the increased costs he assured us positively that there was to be no increase in the distribution costs of £2,500,000. In June, 1930, he told the Dáil that he had no reason to believe that that figure was likely to be exceeded. He has now come to ask us for an additional two million presumably for distribution purposes, but of that we cannot be sure. We must remember that each addition to the cost of the scheme must mean an addition to the revenue of the Board in some form or another. The Board is required by its charter, the Act of 1927, to so arrange its charges for electricity that the revenue will meet all outgoings in respect of interest, sinking fund, capital charges, working expenses and the like.

If we are going to increase the cost of the Shannon scheme by two million pounds then in some way the revenue of the Shannon Board must also be increased by the amount necessary to pay the charges on those two million pounds. The Minister has given us no information as to how that is to be done. Is it to be done by increasing the price of electricity? If so what is the average increase per unit likely to be? I think the Dáil should be very slow to provide any sum whatever for the purpose mentioned in this Bill until it knows what the exact consequences of the additional expenditure are likely to be. Will the whole or any part of this money prove remunerative? Will this expenditure increase the revenue? Will that revenue be sufficient to pay the charges upon this money without an increase in the cost of electricity? Have the Shannon Board up to date been selling electricity at a price which will enable it to meet these outgoings when the appointed day arrives?

Deputies will note upon the sheet that has been circulated to them that there are three separate amendments in my name and I would like to deal now with the points raised by them because they are all affected by this amendment of mine to the Money Resolution. The Minister explained here on Wednesday last that the dispute between the Executive Council and the Shannon Board arose out of the question whether under the Act of 1927 the Board were entitled to the whole of the £2,500,000 provided by Section 12 (3) of that Act to finance its activities or whether the Board was only entitled to such part of that sum as remains after the capital liabilities acquired with municipally owned undertakings have been deducted from it. Apparently the drafting of the Act left the legal position different from what the Minister had intended. I take it that it was the Minister's intention that that £2,500,000 should be provided for the purpose of meeting all the financial requirements of the Board, its distribution costs as well as its acquired capital liabilities, but that through defective drafting the actual result of the Act was different from what he had intended. I presume anyway that if it were quite clear under the Act that his interpretation of it was the proper one, he would not have found it necessary to say to the Board in 1929 that he would introduce a section into that Act to amend the original Act and make the position as clear as he intended.

The legal position, whatever it was, is not changed by this Bill. This Bill does not propose to rectify or remove any doubts that may exist in that respect. If these £2,000,000 are provided, they may, or may not, be used for the purpose of discharging these acquired capital liabilities. If the Board were entitled to maintain heretofore that the moneys provided by sub-section (3) of Section 12, need not be used for the purpose of discharging these liabilities, then no part of this sum of £2,000,000 need be used for that purpose. We are proposing to take these capital liabilities out of the arena and we are proposing that, of the sum which we provide for the Board, £600,000—that is the aggregate, roughly, of these liabilities—should be earmarked and made available to the Board for the purpose, and only for the purpose, of repaying these acquired capital liabilities if and when it is proposed to repay them. There is, of course, no obligation to repay them. Certain sinking fund arrangements existed in respect of these liabilities. The Board is required by the original Act to pay whatever charges arise in that connection and to pay the interest charges out of its revenue. We are not proposing to take that responsibility from the Board. We think it is most unlikely that any part of this £600,000 will be called upon, but the Minister thinks it necessary that a sum should be available so that the indemnification clause of the 1927 Act should be complied with. As I have already explained, if a special provision dealing with these acquired capital liabilities is made, the £550,000 of the original 2½ million pounds which the Minister has withheld from the Board will become available to the Board to finance its ordinary activities and to discharge the liabilities which have been mounting up during the past nine or ten months in consequence of the Minister's withholding of the money. The amount of these trade liabilities, together with the total of the financial commitments into which the Board has entered but which have not yet matured, we are informed by the Minister, amounts to £850,000. We will be providing a sum—these figures are only approximate—of from a quarter of a million to £300,000, to enable the Board to proceed with whatever development programme it believes to be necessary in order to reap the benefit during the next few months of its past expenditure. I do not know to what exactly that £250,000 for commitments to which the Minister referred relates. We take it that it means the cost of the Board's development programme in the immediate future.

Now, we come up against the question whether this half-million pounds should be provided by the Board in the same manner as the original £2½ million was provided, or whether it should be only made available if and when the Minister for Industry and Commerce certifies it to be reasonably and properly required by the Board under Section 3 of this Bill. We dislike the section of the Bill which requires this certificate from the Minister for Industry and Commerce, and we had to consider very carefully whether we would propose to the Dáil to delete the words which dealt with it, or whether we would leave them as they are. This is our position: We wish to see the Board independent of control by the Executive Council or any member of it. We think the original plan of an independent Board the best one, and we hope it will be found possible in a very short time to return to it. But we have there a Board which has, according to the Minister, not done its job properly. We are not putting any responsibility upon that Board. The Minister is responsible to this House for everything that has happened. He selected the members; he appointed them, and he reappointed some of them when they resigned, or for certain reasons they vacated their jobs. They are there. The Minister is answerable to this House for his selection. There are on that Board at present, I understand, two whole-time and three part-time members. The three part-time members may be disregarded. They are not active. I have heard it stated that they are not even being summoned to meetings of the Board at present. The other two members of the Board were members when the greater part of this excess expenditure was entered into. The Minister told us, for example, that in the middle of last year he asked this Board for certain statistical information, and that he had not got it yet. He told us about the delay in furnishing the accounts, that a firm of auditors has been working there for a long time, and has not yet succeeded in straightening them out. I do not think that any member of the Dáil would say that he would willingly give to that Board, as described by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, unlimited control over this sum of half a million pounds or two million, or whatever sum we provide for the purposes of the Board in the future. A reorganisation is in contemplation. We propose that until that reorganisation takes place this requirement of certification by the Minister for Industry and Commerce should remain.

The other amendment in my name provides that the money can only be expended by the Board for the purpose mentioned in sub-section (3) of Section 3. The wording of the amendment to the Financial Resolution on this point is unsatisfactory, but the amendment to the Bill makes the idea clear. As I explained to the Dáil, Section 12 of the 1927 Act provides for the financing of the Board's activities. Sub-section (2) of that section provides the money which is to be expended upon the maintenance, operation and repair of the Shannon works. Sub-section (3) provides the amount which is to be spent by the Board on all purposes other than the maintenance, operation and repair of the Shannon works. The Minister has led the Dáil to understand that the £2,000,000 mentioned in the Bill is required to discharge liabilities entered into by the Board in its distribution activities, and to finance future development upon the distribution side. We want it to be clearly understood that no part of this money can be utilised for additional developments on the generating side without the Minister being under an obligation to come to the Dáil and explain his proposals. We want it to be clear that no part of this money can be used to pay increased cost of construction, if such an increased cost has arisen. References have appeared in the Press, for example, to a claim which Messrs. Siemens Schuckert are making against the Board in connection with construction work done. If any part of this sum is being ear-marked, or is required for the purpose of meeting any such claim, that should be clearly stated. The Dáil should not be asked to provide money without knowing exactly what it is to be used for.

Mr. McGilligan

In the statement presented no profit and loss account appeared. I dare say the Minister will now take up the attitude that he adopted on the Second Stage when he tried to convince the Dáil that he was unable to give to us the information we requested because he himself was not given it. I contend that the Minister had no right to circulate the balance sheet he did circulate, with the signature of his auditors appended, without giving us the very definite information laid down in the Act. The Minister is not prepared to give us the information we require in regard to former moneys handed over. We are now, apparently, precluded from discussing whatever portion of the two and a half millions was handed over. The Minister has violated the Act because he has given us a balance sheet which I will prove, if I am permitted, does not reflect the true position of the undertaking. In those circumstances we should consider very seriously before we give any more money. We should at least wait until we have some definite statement as to what has happened in the past and what is going to happen in the future.

We should be very careful before we sanction any further payments to the Minister. We find that the Minister and his colleague, the Minister for Finance, are jointly and individually responsible for what happened in the past. The Minister may talk about the difficulties he had to contend with, but can he argue that under Section 7 of the 1927 Act he had not at all times the right to examine and have placed before him in any way he liked the accounts of the Board, or does he contend that he should not be kept au fait at all times with what was happening there? I am almost tempted to say that Section 7 puts the two Ministers in the position of being ex officio members of the Board and therefore, in regard to anything that has happened as regards finance, the Ministers, as far as we are concerned, are responsible to us; they cannot throw their responsibility on the shoulders of other people. It might be well for the Dáil to refresh its memory with regard to Section 7:

The Board shall keep in such form as shall be approved by the Minister after consultation with the Minister for Finance all proper and usual accounts of all moneys received or expended by them, including a capital account, revenue account, profit and loss account, and a balance sheet, and in particular shall keep in such form as aforesaid all such special accounts as the Minister on his motion or at the request of the Minister for Finance shall from time to time direct.

How any Minister with that power can say cold-bloodedly here: "I know nothing about the finances of these people. I do not know how they keep their accounts. All I know is that the accounts are in a mess and I have had to have my auditors in there for a considerable time trying to get things straightened out," I really do not know.

I have addressed a question to the Minister asking if he is prepared to say what is the nature of the report he received from his own expert, Mr. Fay, with regard to the business of the Board, during the period when he acted as liaison officer. I have also asked the Minister if he is prepared to produce his own expert's report to the House which has a special reference to the financial position and the financial future of the Board. I shall probably have an answer to that question to-morrow.

I am satisfied that when the present Chairman of the Board was appointed he must have been given special instructions by the Minister. As far as I understand, it was the present Chairman who asked that auditors be sent to try to straighten out things. Is it not fair to assume, in view of the manner in which the first and second balance sheets were presented, that a lot of the present work deals with the periods with which those balance sheets were concerned? I maintain that the accounts were not presented in the manner directed by the Dáil. It may be argued that we should now only give such moneys as are sufficient to meet requirements and to permit the carrying on of all the operations of the Board, so that we will not be adding extra cost to the scheme in the shape, for instance, of solicitors' fees for serving civil bills, a great number of which are in the possession of the Board. They would not be there if the Minister had given the Board money when they were in need of it.

The Deputy really wants the Ceann Comhairle to rule him out completely, and the Ceann Comhairle does not want to do it. The Ceann Comhairle does not want to make any sweeping statement that will hamper the Deputy in the making of any points he wants to make, but if he will keep to the amendment the Ceann Comhairle will be very nice to him.

Mr. Briscoe

Deputy Lemass gave the Minister an indication as to the reasons for his first amendment and the Minister, I believe, has given an assurance, which amounts practically to an acceptance of the amendment, that no moneys will be used for any purpose other than described in sub-section (3) of the Act. As regards the £2,000,000 which the Minister wants, and the third amendment in the name of Deputy Lemass, which states that the Minister should have £500,000, I do not know whether the Minister is prepared to say that his figure will cover all the immediate requirements of the Board. I presume this £500,000 will be in addition to the unexpended balance that the Minister has at his disposal for the Board out of the original £2,500,000. I think the House is entitled to know at the earliest possible moment what is the true position as to the affairs of the Board, and the House should be given an opportunity of setting up an inquiry to find out who is to blame for the situation that arose. I want to make this point, that the Minister will be held responsible for any loss that the Board has suffered, due if you like, on the one hand, to being held up in the normal working of the undertaking on account of not having the funds in hands which the Minister withheld, and for the extra costs which have been piled on to the Board in meeting legal expenses arising out of the position adopted by the Minister. I hope the Minister will, on an early occasion, take an opportunity of giving to the House a detailed statement of the exact amount he has cost the Board by his peculiar action and by his attitude during the last four or five months anyway.

I want to know what attitude he will take when he gets this money. Is he going to take up the attitude again of keeping from the Dáil the information they require from time to time or is he going as he indicated the last day to give an opportunity at the earliest possible moment to have a debate on the published accounts as circulated, or will he again, once more that he has got sufficient money to carry on the scheme for a certain period, close up and leave the Dáil and the country ignorant of what is going on and what has transpired? I do not know whether the Minister when he replies on this amendment is going to give any indication as to how the capital situation of the undertaking stands and will stand from the extra money he is getting in relation to the charges for electricity that will be consumed by the users. He knows whether there are certain contracts existing between the Board and certain traction undertakings to supply current at a certain price. Is the Minister in a position to assure the House that the extra capital that he is now going to get and which is going to be added to the cost, that the whole of the additional charges will not fall upon the ordinary users of electricity but that there will be some means of recouping it from some of the undertakings that have had special consideration.

I must say it is almost impossible to deal with this matter in the manner in which it should be dealt with. The Minister is not responsible for the rulings of the Chair although he is responsible for an awful lot outside of that, but the Minister is not responsible for that.

An Ceann Comhairle

This is a subtle form of disorderly criticism of the Chair.

Mr. Briscoe

No, I must bow to your ruling. The Chair is ruling out of order all reference to the accounts. I must accept it.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy will not find that ruling in the Official Reports.

Mr. Briscoe

I presume I can go on then.

Mr. Flinn

Do we understand that the Official Reports will not contain your ruling?

An Ceann Comhairle

The Official Reports will not contain that ruling, because no such ruling was given.

Mr. Briscoe

Mr. Briscoe

The Minister states that none of this money can be used for that purpose. What other purpose can it be used for? I say the Minister has not a leg to stand upon in refusing to accept that particular amendment.

Mr. de Valera

I think on the Second Reading we made our attitude on this situation fairly clear. It is not necessary to go back on the general points that we raised further than to the distance necessary to enable Deputies to understand the purpose of these proposals. On the last occasion it was pointed out that the three main points on which difficulties between the Minister and the Board arose were the accounts, the question of a certain agreement, and what were referred to as matters of major policy. With regard to the accounts, we were inclined to accept the Minister's position that there was a delay which could scarcely be explained. Some Deputies, I think, said that the accounts were in a mess. Thinking over that since, I am not at all so satisfied that we were right in coming to a hasty judgment on that matter. I recollect that the Dáil accounts, the full accounts for each year, are very late in appearing and when you take into account that this was a new enterprise on which a great deal of new work was being done, that a completely uncharted road had to be travelled, I begin to ask myself whether I was fair in coming, on the Minister's statement, to a judgment of these accounts. As I have said, there was the precedent of the Dáil where at least for some years past we have had a very well defined system—things have been got into a definite routine order —and if it takes the Dáil a year or so before it presents its final accounts, we should not be too hard on an enterprise such as the Board if its accounts are delayed somewhat longer. Even the Post Office accounts are delayed here for a year and a half sometimes. Therefore, our position on the accounts was at first somewhat to side with the Minister and I think it is only fair that we should realise—and I want to confess it as far as I am concerned—that our judgment was rather hasty. I am afraid also, that when I thought of the accounts being in a mess, I did not fully realise that it was entering up, so to speak, transactions, that the materials were there, that they could be gone through, and that really what was at fault was there was delay in following up the mass of material that was available and putting it in the order which would satisfy the auditors. However, we pass away from the accounts.

On the matter of the agreement, our position was that we here were not in a position to pronounce upon the merits of that dispute on partial statements, the ex-parte statements that were before us. It would be unfair for us on these ex parte statements to come to any final conclusion. We ask, and I think we are entitled to ask, that all the relative material, the material relevant to that particular agreement, should be laid before us so that we would take that into account and know what was all the correspondence relating to it.

The third matter was the question of major policy. There again it was not easy to find out exactly what were the differences between the Minister and the Board. The Minister told us that there was no such thing as a budgeting system. They were going blindly ahead, spending money without any idea whether it was going to be remunerative or not. I find it very difficult to agree that any people who had any business experience whatever were likely to proceed in that reckless and wild manner. I am inclined to think notwithstanding the statement made by the Minister that there must have been a system of budgeting in the Board. I find it very difficult to think that the Minister did not at an early stage indicate to the Board the form in which he required the accounts kept, and indicate that he would like to have some information on this particular head. As I say, I find it very difficult to believe that if the Minister was doing his work at all, that if he was interested as we have every reason to expect he would be interested in that enterprise, he did not at an early stage get from the Board material which would enable him to give some opinion as to whether the Board were proceeding in this wild, reckless manner or not.

Finally, we are not here in a position in which we would be able to judge whether the policy the Minister stands for or is going to stand for, or the policy of the Board is the better one. On that head, we said that there was a case for an examination into the whole present position by people who would be competent to judge on it—not by members of the Dáil—a point on which apparently there was some misunderstanding on the last occasion. My view is that the whole of the present position should be submitted to experts for examination and to present their report on the present condition of the enterprise. It is due to the enterprise and to us that such a report should be presented. Having stated that, as our general attitude towards these three questions, the question of giving the Minister further money to meet the wants that have to be relieved arises. The Minister found fault with the Board for not living within two and a half million pounds including what they themselves felt did not come under that head at all—that is to make provision for some capital to meet the capital liabilities of the acquired undertakings. He comes to the House now and asks to get two millions more. In face of that it seems very strange that he should want the Board to live within two and a half millions when he comes here and confesses that he was so far out in his estimate that he proposes to give himself two millions in addition. That seems very strange to us and therefore we are not prepared to give to the Minister two million pounds, practically to do as he pleases, at least to hold it for the Board and use it as a means to compel the Board to work as he wants them—not as they themselves think, in accordance with their own views, is best to be done.

As far as we are concerned we do not propose to give the Minister the two million pounds to be at his discretion to use in any particular way. We do not think it would be wise for the House even if it did feel confidence in the Minister, to give him that money in the present circumstances. We feel that what the present circumstances demand is that the Board should get just that sum which would enable it to meet its present liabilities and to enable it to carry on any work it has in hand for such time as will enable the necessary information which the Dáil ought to have to be prepared. I think six months or so should be sufficient for that. I believe that if experts were to enquire into the present condition of the Board, men who know what the business of electricity supply is, they would be able to supply us with a report which would enable us to take action within a period of three months. Assuming that three months would not be too short a time, I think that we ought to vote supply for the Board for no longer period than six months and that we should not give the Minister supply for a longer period. That should be sufficient time to enable him to make whatever adjustments are necessary to meet the circumstances and to meet the immediate liabilities of the Board —to give them such a sum as would cover their commitments for a period of six months.

We are likely to be at cross-purposes as to the amount that is actually required. That is a difficulty, I admit. When we asked the Minister he said he could not tell us what sum is required. He has given certain indications on which we have based the figure we have put down here. He has said the Board has overspent to the amount of £600,000. I am taking it that therefore the Board on the head of that expenditure requires a sum of £600,000. I would like to know from the Minister whether or not I am correct in that. Did the Minister mean us to understand when he mentioned a sum of £600,000, that they were debts, so to speak, due by the Board which they had to meet to the extent of £600,000? That is, their immediate debts, bills, so to speak, that have to be paid, require a sum of £600,000 at the present time to meet them. I think the Minister, before debating this at any length, as we may be talking at cross-purposes, should inform us on these essential points and should tell us definitely whether he means that that £600,000 is overspent, that there were immediate debts due by the Board which they had to meet and that this sum was required to meet them. I am going on that assumption at any rate. It is for the Minister to point out in what respect I may be wrong, if I am wrong.

The Minister also indicated that the Board had to meet some commitments to the extent of £250,000. I want to know whether when he spoke of commitments to the extent of £250,000, he estimated that the sum of £250,000 in addition to the £600,000 was required by the Board in order to keep them going for the immediate present —I take it for a period of six months. Assuming that the Minister meant that, we calculate that a sum of £850,000 is required to cover the immediate requirements. To meet that there is a sum of £550,000, which the Minister has, of the Board's money. We believe the law was that the Board should get that. We believe that that is due to the Board, and, therefore, in this proposal our attitude is that that sum should be made available to meet this total sum of £850,000 which they require. We propose then to add to that a further half million. That will give the Board a sum of one million pounds available to meet liabilities which the Minister had estimated at £850,000.

I take it that our proposal to give another half million pounds to the Board is generous to the extent of providing £150,000 more than the sum which we understand the Minister says is necessary to meet debts that have been incurred, and to meet the immediate liabilities for, say, the next six months. In fact we say that the sum we have suggested should be sufficient to give the Board the money required to enable it to operate for a year, if necessary. The sum is not niggardly, but is generous. As regards the other sum, which is the subject of dispute, and which is referred to in the agreement we have heard of, namely, £600,000, which remains of what are called the capital liabilities of the acquired undertakings, we propose to take that matter out of dispute altogether, and to deal with it this way: The Board, by its Charter under the Act, is bound to indemnify and to keep indemnified local authorities from whom these undertakings have been taken over in regard to the capital debts of those bodies. We propose that that sum should be put at the disposal of the Minister for Finance to enable him to meet any demand that may be made by the Board on the basis of keeping them indemnified with respect to the clearing off of any capital debts. In order to know the exact situation in respect to all the undertakings, we would have to have details of the nature of the capital borrowings of the local authorities concerned, and to know whether they are redeemable at a certain time or not. If there were not certain periods in which this capital sum was to be redeemed, we do not understand why the Minister wanted the £600,000 at all. Clearly, the Board was responsible for meeting sinking fund and interest on the loans, and if they are going to be paid off in the usual way, by sinking fund and interest annually, then the Board was responsible for meeting the annual payments and meeting them out of revenue. Lest there should be some undertakings where some extraordinary arrangements were made, which we do not know of, for the repayment of the loans, we propose to give the Minister for Finance authority to pay over to the Board as and when required, any sum that may be necessary in accordance with the conditions of the original borrowing, to meet the capital liability. Therefore, the position would be as regards these liabilities, that the Board would meet from year to year the annual payments, the interest and sinking fund necessary, and if there were some conditions in the original borrowings which demanded that the capital sums be paid, then those capital sums would be available to the Board on requisition to the Minister for Finance. I hope Deputies understand what we are trying to do. We want to take the question of the capital liabilities of the acquired undertakings away altogether from the sums being voted to the Board. We want to get them aside, only to be used if it should be necessary for the Board to make application for them. The ordinary liabilities from year to year to meet sinking fund and interest, should be met by the Board out of revenue. I think that was the position the Board took up. We do not want to alter it. Once we have taken away the question of the capital liabilities of these acquired undertakings, and set them apart to be dealt with on a special basis of their own, we have provided for the Board a sum of money necessary to cover immediate debts and immediate working needs for the period just ahead.

We think then that our proposal from the point of view of finance is in no way niggardly at all, that it is on that basis generous and we think that the Dáil, in order to preserve its own rights to interfere if there is any other proposal which the Minister may have in mind and which he has not revealed here, ought not to put him in a position in which he can go off on his own to agree with the Board to do things that have not come before the Dáil for sanction. There were, for instance, certain debts mentioned. The Minister pointed out that these debts could not be met by that sum. But there may be other things. These were ones that occur to us at first sight. They appeared immediately. There may be other things the Minister may want to do with this lump sum for which he has not given any detailed budget. We do not propose to give him that lump sum. We believe that the sum proposed here, £500,000 in addition to the £560,000 which is due to the Board, which together comes to over a million, would cover the £850,000, and as regards the other question of the capital liabilities, that that should be dealt with in a separate way, and that if there are any payments due on that particular score that the Minister for Finance should be empowered to deal with them.

That covers our proposals. As I say I want if we can to have here before us, before there are any further commitments in this particular matter, what we have not got at the present time, full information. We are anxious that this enterprise should not suffer by reason of anything that has happened between the Minister and Board. We believe that the best interests of the Shannon scheme will be served by getting experts' statements on the position which will be authoritative. Any statement by the Minister or by some accountant or auditors who would be incapable of presenting the scheme as a whole would not be enough. We want to get from the experts in this particular business a statement as to what, in the present position, are the prospects of the Board and some estimate as to what sums of money would be required for the best development for the future.

Mr. McGilligan

That is exactly the point.

Mr. Lemass

Was this lump sum remuneration paid before he took up the period of office or at the conclusion of it?

Deputy Briscoe I hope will take a lesson from that. I can leave this matter of the accounts aside without much more ado. The Deputy thinks that because I have power to prescribe accounts under Section 7 I have power to appoint myself almost an official of the Board. I can prescribe accounts and see that they are asked for, but that does not say that I will get them. I have prescribed a form of accounts and asked for information repeatedly, pressed about them and wrote letters about them. Deputy de Valera said the material was there but that unfortunately it could not be put together for the auditors. I have evidence that records were not there. The material was not there, and what these outsiders have been doing, and I am informed now that the number has gone up from 7 to 17, is not putting the material together but doing what the accounts side of that particular organisation should have been doing for about two years, collecting information that should have been in hands. Deputy de Valera is in a peculiar position over this. The other day he was inclined to pass what he thinks now would have been a harsh judgment upon the Board, because he thought the accounts might be in the arrear, "in a mess"—somebody used that phrase. He thinks it is unfortunate. He thinks we should not be too harsh on this new business. As far as the accounts are concerned he keeps in his usual state of philosophic doubt. At any rate, he is not going to pass judgment on the Board in the matter of the accounts. The Board is out of it as far as one of the three charges I made against it are concerned. He says that he understands the material is there and that it is only a matter of putting the material in order for the auditors. That I can assure him is not the case. People have been engaged on remaking records, getting receipts, looking for invoices, and so on. The whole system of records was disorganised. There was no material for the auditors, but the Deputy has his own view upon that. He says the Board is all right. At any rate, he will not pass judgment upon the Board.

There however is the situation. Yet the Deputy will not allow this Board to get money. The Deputy, as a matter of fact, is talking not really what he believes when he said what I have repeated. In fact he has a feeling in his heart that there is something wrong and he is quite right in refusing the money but he cannot refuse the money on the ground he has stated. The Deputy says I have found fault with the Board for not living within this two and a half million pounds. I do not know if that charge comes from any words of mine. I never said it. I said that when the Board guaranteed not to spend more than two and a half millions of money they should not have spent more. If they found that they could not keep within that sum it was their job to come to me and make the case for more money, so that I could make the case to this House. Even after I got word from them that they could not keep within the guarantee I wrote and said, "give me your view of a reasonable programme on which I can make a case to the Dáil, and guarantee the reasonableness of that programme." I never got satisfaction on that. That is the reason why there should be hesitation in this House in voting this money to-day, until something approaching a reasonable case is made and until a realisation is had of the circumstances in which we find ourselves. At that time I asked the Board to realise its circumstances and mine, and try and meet the conditions that ordinarily would attach to the granting of the money.

The Deputy said that I want this money for the indirect purpose of being able to insist on the Board working as I desire it should work and not as the Board desires. That raises the general question—we should know where we stand about this Board. Deputy Briscoe's implication on the question as to what I have cost the country by my attitude towards the Board is exactly the same as Deputy Lemass's explicit statement. Deputy Lemass explicitly stated that I am to be held responsible for all that has happened, on this special ground, apart from anything else, that I appointed the members of the Board. We have this position then with regard to an independent board, that if the Minister or the Executive Council appoints an independent board, and leaves them clearly to act as an independent board, they are nevertheless responsible at the end of the time for what that independent board has done. They are responsible in so far as they have appointed the men.

Mr. Lemass

And re-appointed them.

Mr. McGilligan

That is a reservation which the Deputy can make later. The statement to which he nodded assent was that merely by appointing, the people appointing took responsibility for what happened. If that is to be the case, where shall we ever get an independent board? If that is going to be the situation, I want clearly and definitely to be put into the position of guardian, so that I shall be aware of my responsibility. If you are going to have an independent board, you cannot say that you are going to indict with everything that happens thereafter the people who appointed, simply because they did appoint. I do not see how the House is going to get out of that dilemma. It is Deputy de Valera's dilemma and Deputy Lemass'.

At the moment the position is that I am in the new Bill as the phrase is there about certifying reasonable expenditure, but without that phrase, it appears that as the person who appoints, I am going to be landed with the full responsibility for everything that happens. I wonder where is the great scheme of the independent board that everybody praised here the other night—an experiment so useful that "it might be applied to other matters affecting the economic life of the country." In any event, somebody must appoint unless we are to leave the appointment to the Dáil generally, which would be merely shirking responsibility. The Government by the mere fact of appointing is going to be held responsible afterwards for everything that happens. Under this present Bill, I must certify that moneys are reasonably and properly required before they are granted. If I am to be held responsible for everything done merely because I appoint, I am going to take very good care that I shall supervise every act the Board does. I do not think that the situation here is the proper situation. It is not the one I want to see hereafter, but there are circumstances at this moment which require a better guardianship than there has been. But I disclaim all responsibility for things the Board has done since the date of its appointment until this particular Bill is passed.

Deputy Lemass has several amendments down to this Bill. He wants to insert "for the purposes mentioned in sub-section (3)" in Section 3. He has made clear in his speech that he wants to prevent two things. In the first place, he wants to ensure that none of this money will be expended in meeting, say, extra charges made upon me in respect of the construction works. That is not possible under the Bill. He says, further, that he wants to prevent extra money being advanced for the provision of additional generation. I said that, under the Bill, I did not think that that was possible. I made a reservation on that. But the Deputy's amendment does not save the position at all, because anything that was possible in the way of additional generation work would occur under the particular sub-section to which he attaches his amendment. What that power is under that sub-section I do not clearly know, but I want to refer to one matter to show the doubts that may arise. Section 28 gives the Board power to "conduct such investigations, experiments and trials as the Board thinks fit for the improvement of the methods of transmission, distribution and supply of electricity or of the utilisation of fuel, water power or other means of generating electricity and may establish and maintain a testing laboratory for the testing and standardisation of electrical instruments." The Board may also "take such measures as in the opinion of the Board are calculated to advance the exploitation of water power in Saorstát Eireann." The section then goes on to deal with a special point about hydrometric survey work. There is one other section that has general provisions of that type. My intention is that if there was any proposition really for additional generating plant, that ought to come before the House on a clearly-stated proposal. But there may be some proposal which provides extra generation power incidentally. You can almost make a distinction by value. It is quite clear that nothing could be done by way of experiment or investigation or trial that would really amount to a considerable sum of money —say, £100,000. It is quite possible that the Board under that section might do certain things which, in fact, would give extra power — provide an extra peak load. That would be possible under the Act and it would be possible under the Deputy's amendment. My general proposition is this: So far as extra Shannon works on any scale are concerned, they are not in the Bill and they cannot be in the Bill. So far as money for extra generation is concerned, it is the State's business to look after the provision of extra generation. If there was any proposal for that, it would have to come before the House upon a particular scheme. But there may be things the Board will do by way of stand-by provision in particular places to which that would not apply. They might so increase stand-by provision as to allow, for instance, three turbines at Ardnacrusha to be used for ordinary purposes instead of two. That would be within the Board's powers under the Act and under the Bill, and it would be within the Deputy's amendment. I think it is quite right that that should be within their power. These being the two points, and making that reservation to which I referred, I think the Bill and the amendment are much on the same footing. But the amendment might prevent the money being used for other things which it is clearly right it should be used for.

Outside those points, there are two points to which I desire now to refer. One point which was raised dealt with the amount of money to be paid and the other point dealt with control by the Minister. Deputy Lemass advanced two proposals. One proposal was that we should set aside a sum of £600,000 for the undischarged liabilities of acquired undertakings. Nobody need bother now about undischarged liabilities. They are there and we know what is happening to them. They are being carried on in the way which we always intended they should be. We always intended that the two and a half million pounds should represent both new capital payments and the capitalised value of the liabilities that we took over. But nobody has ever advanced any absurd proposition as to paying off these liabilities at once.

Mr. de Valera

Why did you want £600,000 docked off the Board's two and a half million pounds?

The accounts for the year ending the 31st March, 1931, must then be taken up. They will later have to go to the auditor. His report will have to be sent to me. Eventually, with whatever reports are considered necessary the accounts will be laid before the House. The earliest date, I think, at which the House can have these later accounts is February or March of next year, and if any real consideration is to be given to such readjustments as may be considered necessary arising out of them it may well be that they will not be available before Easter, 1932. Then there is the possibility that most people envisage, that there will have to be legislation brought in to deal with the readjustment of the Board. Take that as one thing. When is that legislation going to be drafted and ready for introduction? During all that time the Board must carry on. I do not see all that being done before, at the very earliest, this time next year.

I am asked what moneys will be required. I gave a certain figure as representing the debts that the Board had already incurred. I took the sum representing the accrued liabilities as being somewhere between £600,000 and £700,000. The latest figure that I have got dates back to the end of June. At that date the Board's accrued liabilities amounted to about £720,000. That means that if they had £720,000 in hands at the end of June they would not have had as much as one shilling on the 2nd or 3rd of July. That is the position with regard to the £720,000. It could have been paid out immediately; it could have been demanded at once.

They will require a certain amount of money for working capital. It is a very hard figure to judge. There is a very bad period in the Board's financial year when moneys are not coming in and when certain expenditure has to be made. That occurs about the end of July, or in August and September. Supposing you say that there would be a sum of not less than £53,000 or £54,000 required for that period. In my opinion it is not enough, but those figures have been put to me. I talked earlier of the Board's commitments. I talked of what I called their inextricable commitments at one time. I tried to get the figure of a quarter of a million then mentioned split up, one item estimated on the basis of work already engaged upon, material ordered, contracts placed, and a second amount referring to work of which it cannot be said that all those things have been actually done. For networks and substations being erected by outside firms of contractors; for networks and substations being erected by the Board's staff where the material was ordered by the staff, and for the reconstruction of networks, there is a sum of £115,000. That is a deduction, and a very big deduction, from the money I previously set against commitments. That is money that must be spent. When I go on to refer to what I am bulking as future requirements an amount of this second item is very nearly in the position of actual commitments. The amount actually committed will be nearly a quarter of a million, but I have sub-divided it into the £115,000 referred to and what I now go on to discuss.

I have here a statement with regard to certain sub-heads of expenditure, and I want to preface my remarks on these sub-heads by saying that these are not being put forward to the House in the same way as sub-heads in an ordinary estimate would be put forward. The statement is put forward with the definite understanding that any part of the money not spent on a particular sub-head can be removed and spent on some other sub-head. The thing is very provisional. It is the best that could be given in a very limited period of time, and it has to be taken subject to the reservation that the Board do not admit themselves as committed to the expenditure of all or any of the money under the sub-heads. They might spend more on some sub-heads than on others, or than is actually estimated. The Board say that the expenditure that is absolutely necessary to safeguard supply in Dublin, including Rathmines and Pembroke; in Cork and in Limerick, providing for the normal growth in load, would amount to £133,500.

Mr. Flinn

Over what period?

Mr. McGilligan

I am going to speak about the period in a moment. This is the first statement giving block figures. The expenditure necessary to safeguard supply in all other areas in the country at present supplied, providing for the normal growth in load, is £77,300. The reconstruction and connection to the Shannon system of five named towns—named to me, but I do not propose to name them here— where economies will be effected by closing down fuel stations at present operated by the Board, will cost £45,000. Provision for a supply to completely new areas—this, to my mind, is a very small estimate— amounts to £37,000. For the cost of acquisition, reconstruction and connection to the Shannon system of towns which have existing undertakings there is a sum of £270,400. Provision for connecting new individual consumers to the Shannon system, including the cost of meters comes to £224,000. Public lighting, that is, the erection of both lamps and cables for public lighting, £27,000. The sum of about £133,000 is roughly divided up between alterations to the main transmission system, to improve supply, and to maintain the present supply in a satisfactory way; improvements at the Pigeon House for stand-by purposes; improvements at Fleet Street and elsewhere to safeguard supply, and improvements at the Pigeon House and Fleet Street to meet an increased load. For all those items there is a sum of from £133,000 to £135,000. There is a sum for contingencies amounting to about £100,000.

Mr. Briscoe

Are those figures which the Minister has read an addition to the first three items?

Mr. McGilligan

Deputy Lemass gives me an opportunity to refer to a previous quotation of his in a debate in 1929. The Deputy gave me a quotation the purpose of which, he will admit, was to show that I said the original estimate of £5,200,000 was fixed and binding. I denied that. He gave me a quotation earlier and purported to read it to-day. I asked him did he see any difference in the two quotations. He has not answered that. What he did in 1929 was to take two sentences of mine. He quoted the second sentence first, then he quoted the first sentence and stopped at the comma and left out half of it. Yet he does not realise the object apparently of the part omitted.

Mr. Lemass

The meaning is the same in any case.

Mr. McGilligan

Has the Deputy read and compared the quotation with the original? Here is the point the Deputy left out. He read a broken sentence: "...but the only scheme that is under consideration at the moment is the scheme entailing a cost of £5,200,000. Nobody can question that is the amount which we are considering, because for that we have binding estimates, if we care to accept tenders here and now...." Full stop in the Deputy's quotation, but in the actual quotation, a comma, and then it continued, "with the exception of the item referred to by Deputy Thrift on page 80, limited to civil constructional costs." (Official Debates, Vol. 10, cols. 2019-2020).

Mr. Lemass

Why does the Minister stop there?

Mr. McGilligan

I am going on: "The prices are absolutely fixed and binding. They are maximum prices from Siemens Schuckerts' point of view. They are not the minimum from our point of view. We have checks and controls," and so on. Does the Deputy still say that he thinks that that means that the £5,200,000 is binding? What does the Deputy think is in the phrase, "with the exception of the item referred to by Deputy Thrift, on page 80, limited to civil constructional costs"?

I read the whole sentence to-day.

Mr. McGilligan

I put it to the Dáil with a sense of responsibility only, and not from any sense of liking power, that I would like to have for a particular period, two Ministers associated with the expenditure of this money, and that period will certainly, in my mind, not be less than this time next year. While these two Ministers have control two millions should be at their disposal for the Board along the lines stated. I am making this statement to the Dáil, that while I have responsibility, I am going to make it a condition that they will show the probability or certainty of remunerating any new money to be spent. For the debts I take no responsibility. For any less sum than two millions I will have to consider my position and to ask the Minister for Finance to consider whether he or I will take any responsibility for the action of the Board in the next twelve months.

Mr. T.J. O'Connell

I have an amendment on the paper and I would like to have an opportunity of explaining it. When I spoke on the Second Reading of the Bill I think I made it clear that I was much more concerned about what was likely to happen in the future than with what had happened in the past. I complained that in his opening statement the Minister had not told us what steps were being taken to set right the state of affairs that had existed up to that time. I also indicated my unwillingness to sign what amounts to a blank cheque for two millions. I am quite ready to admit that in his closing speech on the Second Reading the Minister removed a good many of my doubts, especially in appointing a firm of auditors to examine the affairs of the Board over a period of six or seven months, and when he stated that steps were being taken to bring order into the affairs of the Board. That went a considerable distance to ease my objection in that respect. I will admit again that in making the case for the two millions in the speech which he has just delivered, the Minister has gone a certain distance to remove my objections, but he has not gone the whole way. The sum I have set out in my amendment taken in connection with the sum the Minister has in hands, approximately half a million, would be, I believe, quite sufficient to meet any demands that are likely to be made even within the period which the Minister says would be a reasonable period— twelve months. He has pointed out that the sums required in all would approximate to a little over two millions. He pointed out that in several instances the sums he mentioned are not likely to be expended within twelve months. The Minister has also pointed out that by bringing the Minister for Finance into the matter with himself it undoubtedly will mean a slowing up of the operations of the Board. I think the Minister would be the last to suggest that as between now and this time twelve months the sum of two millions would be expended.

In view of the statements that have been made that the Dáil would have an early opportunity for reviewing the whole situation, if the Minister comes back in twelve months time and gives a satisfactory account of what has taken place by bringing order into the affairs of the Board, and explaining the manner in which the money voted by the House has been spent, I would have no hesitation in voting another sum to be expended for the purposes of the Board. I think we should take care that within a reasonable time the Minister would come back to the House. It is clear that we have no guarantee that we can have the kind of discussion that we thought in 1927 we would have on the working of the Board and of its accounts. If the Minister had to come back here in twelve months time it would ensure discussion such as we have had during the present week of the affairs of the Board. I think we are entitled to have such a discussion from the Minister. Even taking into account what the Minister has stated the sum mentioned in my amendment would place at his disposal one million in addition to the £500,000 already available. I think that would be quite adequate to carry him on for twelve months, at least, even taking into account what the Minister said.

With regard to the control and the independence of the Board as I mentioned when the Bill was going through the Dáil in 1927, we had our doubts as to the wisdom of giving that complete measure of independence which the Minister was then so anxious to stress. I think our doubts have now become certainties. While I do not take the view-point of Deputy Lemass in this matter, I believe there ought to be responsibility in this House in some form and in a greater form than was given in 1927. I look at the matter in this way: The Minister says that he had power to reappoint and power to dismiss. The power of dismissal invested him with the right to make certain inquiries as to whether or not the Board set up was effectively discharging the duties for which it was set up by the Government. When the Minister proceeded to do that he found operating against him the position he took up when the Act was going through. Time and again he stressed the complete and absolute independence of the Board, independence of the Minister, independence of the Government and independence of the Executive Council. The Board was not long set up when it was realised that it was necessary for somebody to have some control over a body which had got a very large sum of public money, and to look to some extent into its operations. The Minister then found himself up against his own statements. I am quite sure the Board was not slow to quote very frequently the statements he made in 1927, so far as the independence of the Board was concerned.

I can quite understand a body being set up and having a very large measure of independence but certainly not so much as was claimed for this Board. I would hesitate very much indeed before ever giving a vote which would mean that we would revert in a year or two years' time to the position which was occupied by the Board since it was set up originally. Experience has shown that it cannot be successfully operated in that way. It is not the same as appointing a judge. When you appoint a judge he is absolutely independent to administer and interpret laws, but a board of this kind is not at all of that nature. It is getting very large sums of the taxpayers' money, and there must be a connecting link between the taxpayer and the Board. It would be intolerable simply to set up a body of men, five, six, or eight men, hand them over two and a half millions and simply say that there is no control of any kind over their activities or over the line they strike out for themselves and that until they have done something that is obviously wrong they cannot be interfered with and then all you can do is to dismiss them. I think that is an impossible position to take up. The Executive Council is elected by the House and the Minister is elected by the House. No matter what we think of them we must admit that they are elected by the members of the House who are representatives of the people. We would be very slow indeed to give the Executive Council or any Minister the measure of independence that is claimed by this Board or that is suggested for this Board. I do not see what great virtue there is in a board made up of individuals selected, no matter how carefully selected, that we should give them absolute independence. I think that there should be as I say a connecting link and I think the Minister should be responsible to the House, not again let me emphasise for small matters of detail or whether a particular person should be appointed to a particular post but for major questions of policy.

The Minister himself seems to visualise getting back to the present position, and it seems a rather strange position, that sometime he would claim, as he does claim and, I think, rightly claim, to intervene, to some extent at any rate, in the affairs of the Board and then shed himself of responsibility altogether to this House. That he would claim a certain amount of responsibility to interfere to a limited extent in the affairs of the Board, and that, on the other hand, he would say to the Dáil, "You have no right to question me as far as my interference is concerned." I think that is the position that cannot be maintained. As I say, I not only approve of the provision in this measure which gives the Minister certain rights to say whether or not the money should be available— to be satisfied at least that the expenditure is necessary in the national interests and that the money should be available—but also of the suggestion that it should be a permanent feature of legislation in that regard. That need not mean that questions would have to be answered continually upon small matters of administration.

Mr. Good

How do you draw the line?

Mr. O'Connell

I think that is very well provided for. We have not been able to draw the line even now. We have not been able to draw the line in regard to our independent Board. The Minister has had to come in in spite of all his own protestations and his action has been approved by the House. Coming back to the amount of money again, I believe that by fixing on this sum of one million pounds, it will be the most effective way of affording us in this House an opportunity of having a full statement from the Minister as to what has been done in regard to the particular position that exists at the present time, and an opportunity of explaining the plans and the programme which he has in view for the future. For that reason I think the sum which I have set out is a reasonable sum to give the Minister on this occasion.

Mr. Flinn

I am sorry to speak in the absence of the Minister, but I suppose that cannot be helped. The Minister started by telling us in what sum you could estimate the cost to the community of his interference with the Board. He went on to tell you his estimate of his value to the country. The two statements rest upon exactly the same authority as the indictment which he has made of absent men who are in the position—unless this Dáil does the honest and straight thing, to provide them with a fair trial by competent men—of not being able to answer that charge. The idea that this Dáil under the Party Whips and under the threat that the action of the Dáil will be regarded as a vote of censure on two Ministers, that it will involve the resignation of their normal functions by two Minister—the suggestion that it is a trial to which these people who are indicted in their absence can safely appeal for justice, is a ludicrous and dishonest proposal. I certainly had thought that the more intimate relations which had existed between the Front Bench and those concerned in this indictment would at least have left them with a claim to justice in their trial. What we are asked to do to-day is to accept the Minister's estimate of himself and his own value—yes, the Minister's estimate of his own infallibility, and we are asked to accept that under the test of the Party Whip.

The Minister went on to make certain allusions to myself. He said that on certain occasions—I only want to get these little things out of the way before we come to the larger matters with which we will have to deal—I had made certain statements at cross-roads which I had been asked here to justify. I have no recollection of any such occasion, except an occasion when absent and when I read in the paper that the Minister had said that I had with my usual discretion absented myself from a discussion on the Drumm Battery, on which I had made a vicious and vindictive attack in the country.

I answered that in another place and the Minister is perfectly well aware of it. At no time and under no circumstances, neither here nor elsewhere, had I ever made any attack, vindictive or otherwise, upon the Drumm Battery. That was purely a gratuituous falsehood. Why the Minister should drag that in here to-night I do not know, nor do I know of any other case in which that can be applied.

I have to clear up one other point. The other night I described Mr. J.C. Foley as being ex-chairman of the Incorporated Chamber of Commerce and Shipping of Cork. That was a mistake. Mr. Foley is ex-chairman of the Cork Chamber of Commerce and both Chambers concerned are entitled to that explanation.

The Minister said that he asked for information from this Board, this Board to which he will not give a trial before competent and impartial people, and he had been refused that information or he had failed to get any intelligible information. Mr. Browne was appointed to that Board in February, 1930. I am not saying one word against Mr. Browne. It was to Mr. Browne those inquiries went, and I ask the House whether they believe that over the whole intervening period Mr. Browne did not attempt, and did not, in fact, give very considerable and very useful information. It may not have been, and presumably was not, information right down to the last trouser button. They did not account in the way in which an auditor would probably account for absolute details but I have not personally the shadowiest doubt that Mr. Browne did give information which the Businessmen and the Independents on the Minister's own benches would, if it were given to them, say was useful information and was a useful basis of calculation. If that is not so then we ask that the whole of the correspondence which passed between the Minister and the Chairman of the Board, and the material which the Chairman of the Board sent to the Minister and which the Minister said is inadequate, shall be laid before us or before some other tribunal, some tribunal more impartial, so that such a tribunal will be in a position to decide as to whether the general impression gathered from the speeches of the Minister is correct and whether the indictment he has made can be founded upon those facts and the facts in these documents. Again we ask for a discovery of documents upon which this charge has been made. Again we say it is not fair nor right that one man who has possession of documents and who has this Dáil as his pulpit and the Press as his sounding board should be allowed to get out an ex parte statement on one side while the other people are not in the position to divulge any single document. Is Mr. Browne in the position to divulge a document at the present moment? Assuming that every statement made in the Dáil is false, is Mr. Browne in the position to produce documentary evidence assuming that documentary evidence exists? Is any one of them in a position to produce that evidence? Surely the Minister knows they are not. There is utter unrestraint in the misuse, in the misquotation, in the selective misquotation of documents because they know they are secured by the fact that the other people are in a fiduciary position in so far as they are in possession of documents and cannot produce them.

I do not agree that the Minister, merely because he appoints the personnel of a board, so long as he does it in good faith after proper examination of their qualifications, can be held responsible, except in so far as it can be shown that he is responsible for what they do within the function that is delegated to them by the Dáil. But what is the history in cases of this kind? You have one member of that Board, a man who was in a very responsible position in this State, a man very well thought of by the President, a man very well thought of by all responsible people in the City of Dublin, you have such a man as Chairman of that Board. Now he ceased to be Chairman of the Board by enforced resignation, by a resignation which, according to the statement of the Minister, if it had not been tendered would have been substituted by dismissal. He was the man who was told by the Minister that he had no grasp whatever of finance, and that he must be substituted by someone who had a competent knowledge and responsible function in relation to figures and finance. He was the man that the Minister told us here was, in his opinion, responsible for the sort of mess that was brought about, and yet he was being retained in that position in order that he might be held as possible evidence in relation to his mess. That man was reappointed to the Board as a part-time member. He was reappointed to the Board not merely at the salary of an ordinary part-time member, but he was reappointed with a bonus of £1,250 a year. That was the man whose resignation was being forced, whose resignation if it had not been given would have been substituted by dismissal, the man who had been declared by the Minister to be responsible for the mess. He has been declared in this House to be incompetent. Why was he given a bonus of £1,250 on reappointment, when the purpose of his reappointment was to hold him there responsible for the mess which he had created? He was reappointed for five years. Why was he reappointed for five years if that is correctly his record according to the Minister for Industry and Commerce?

The Minister went on to tell us of the merits of particular men on the Board, how some of them were satisfactory and how some of them were not, why he was going to reappoint some, and under what conditions he was prepared to reappoint others. The Minister specifically dealt with what he euphemistically called part-timers. I hope the Chambers of Commerce who have appointed these men like that method of describing their representatives. What about the part-timers? What about the ex-President of the Associated Chambers of Commerce of the Irish Free State, Mr. J.C. Foley? What about the ex-member of the Dáil and I think the ex-Parliamentary Secretary of the Cumann na nGaedheal Government, Mr. Patrick Egan, of Tullamore? What about Dr. Kennedy, Secretary to the I.A.O.S., appointed to look after the industry in which the Government puts most money, the creamery industry? What is the Minister's responsibility for them and for their acts and what is their responsibility as declared by themselves for anything in the nature of a mess which may in fact exist? These gentlemen were appointed for two years. They did act independently. I will go into the history of that to the same degree to which the Minister went into it. They were appointed for two years. At the end of that time they became ticket-of-leave men, reappointed from month to month and kept on in that state from month to month by month to month appointments, in which they were told, as they are now told, that it really was not necessary for them to attend until there was an agitation by the same Chambers of Commerce whose reputation is involved in their success. The Chambers of Commerce of Cork and Dublin and the Associated Chambers of the Free State demanded that they should be put permanently on the Board. They were put permanently upon the Board. They were appointed again I think for a period of a year, and at the end of that time they again became wandering luminaries and it was only when those same Chambers of Commerce again interfered to demand that there should be that representation of outside interests that these men were reappointed. What do those three men whom the Minister says should be reappointed say to this?

Mr. Connolly

Where did you get all that stuff?

Mr. Flinn

I know. Will the Deputy allow a Deputy upon this side of the House to make his own speech? Mind, I do not care a whole lot about any interruptions, but I would advise the Deputy not to interrupt. I can look after myself without the protection of the Chair. What is the record? What do those men whom the Minister says he would reappoint if he had the opportunity say to the mess which the Minister says exists? What do they say of this bad policy which the Minister says has caused £5,100,000 to be necessary for something which he previously estimated at £2,500,000? What they have said quite clearly and openly is this: That every question of major policy which was dealt with by that Board was submitted to us for examination. Every single act of policy of that Board was approved by us. We are, severally and collectively, responsible for everything that was done. There are men in this House—Deputy Connolly wants to know how I know. I know because they have told me— there are men upon the Front Bench of Cumann na nGaedheal who know that, because they told them.

Mr. Connolly

That will not do.

Mr. Flinn

Three men who declared themselves to be severally and collectively responsible, who say they will publicly take responsibility for the support they put behind the policy which they advocated in that Board, are reappointed in spite of the fact that the Minister says there has been a horrible mess made.

Again I say the Minister is not responsible if after consideration and proper examination he appoints men to do their function within the Act, but he is responsible if, knowing and believing they were not performing their functions within the Act, that they were unfit and unqualified, he reappoints them and leaves them there to do the job. It is all very well for the Minister in his usual way to say did you do this? Are you in favour of that? How did you get out of that? There is the oldest of all question of that kind. I will put it to Deputy Connolly: "Have you given up beating your wife?" Have you? Yes or no? Call the issue and at once. That is the method of the Minister. Give an answer at once. Yes or no? Have you or have you not? It is not any answer to say, I did not dare do it. It is not any answer to say I never did it. It is not any answer to say that only in circumstances of extraordinary provocation would I do it. Questions which the Minister throws over here in hundreds are expected to be met at once.

I move to report progress.

The Dáil went out of Committee. Progress reported.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht - Wednesday, 15 Jul 1931

In Committee on Finance. - Electricity (Supply) (Amendment) Bill, 1931—Money Resolution.

Mr. O'Connell

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 15 Jul 1931