Might I draw attention to the definition of the expression "general employee", in regard to which some difficulty has arisen? Reference is made to the fact that the employment is not of a casual nature. In connection with manual workers, a difficulty arose from the fact that certain workers were certified as being in constant employment and as a result they ceased to be contributors to the health and unemployment insurance schemes. Subsequently it was found that their employment was not constant and they were laid off and a very difficult situation arose which could not be corrected by anybody. Would the Minister look at the definition from the point of view of the difficulty that arose where employees were certified to be in constant employment and where it afterwards turned out that they had no such continuity of employment?
In Committee on Finance. - Electricity (Supply) (Amendment) Bill, 1948—Committee.
I shall look into that matter.
I move amendment No. 1:—
To delete paragraph (b) of sub-section (2).
Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 stand together. The amendment is, I think, somewhat more important than may appear. The Minister stated when introducing the Bill that a change in the manner of making regulations governing the matters dealt with in sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) of sub-section 1 is necessary, because it has been found that the provisions of the relevant sections of the Act of 1927 were defective in certain legal and other respects. That being so, a change is necessary, but clearly the change should be confined to making good whatever defects were discovered to have existed in the 1927 legislation. I do not want to initiate any wider discussion on this amendment than is necessary, but as one who thinks that it is probably inevitable that in the course of time the State's activity in various directions is likely to extend, I think it is important that we should not establish any wrong precedents governing the relationship between the Government and statutory organisations set up to discharge various functions, such as public utilities, industries or anything else. I have always felt that it was preferable to establish these organisations with a considerable amount of independence of the Executive rather than that they should be mere sub-sections of the Government Department responsible for them. That issue arises here.
Heretofore the board had power to make its own regulations and these regulations had, it was assumed, the force of law under the Act of 1927. Whatever doubt has arisen in that regard has to be rectified but the Minister is going much further than that. He is proposing to make this power of the board exercisable only subject to his concurrence and in fact to deprive the board of the power altogether. If the legal defect in the 1927 Act is due to the fact that the board made regulations enforceable against itself and that it is desirable that these regulations should become effective now only when they get the imprimatur of the Minister, why do more than that? I will raise on the next amendment the suggestion that the board's regulations are defective because the Act of 1927 contained no provision for publication, but here we are dealing only with the section suggesting that there is a legal reason that the regulations dealing with these matters should not be made by the board until they have been confirmed by an Order of the Minister. If that is all that is to be done, the sub-section paragraph which I am proposing to delete is unnecessary. The aim of that paragraph of the sub-section is not merely that the board may not make these regulations, but that the Minister may make whatever regulations he thinks fit whether they agree or not. Otherwise, why is it necessary to have this provision in the Bill at all? In this the board drafts regulations and submits them to the Minister. I agree that the Minister should have the right to say that he will not sanction them if a question of public policy is at issue, but the Minister is proposing that having got the regulations he can amend them as he thinks fit and the board must accept the amendments without any statutory right to make representations to the Minister. I think it is ample to deal with the specific point to give the Minister power to confirm or refuse to confirm the regulations made by the board. For over 20 years the Electricity Supply Board has operated, the board having power to make regulations without referring to the Minister and there has been no serious infringement of public rights.
There may have been some public discontent with regard to other activities of the board, but as far as the changes which are contemplated here are concerned, if it is necessary to make a change as the Minister said in introducing the Bill, we should not go further. It seems to me that the Minister is infringing on the liberty of the board and by provisions of this section going far further in that direction than is intended if there is no principle behind it. If the Minister agrees that statutory organisations like the Electricity Supply Board should, as far as is practicable in the public interest, be independent of the Executive, then I would urge upon him to accept this amendment—to keep the right to refuse to sanction regulations drafted by the board, but to give the board the opportunity of reconsidering the matter and if necessary of submitting a fresh draft rather than that he should amend the draft and insist that the Electricity Supply Board should accept his amendment whether they like it or not.
I think the Deputy has forgotten that there is no new principle here at all and that the principle set out not only in the 1942 Act but in the 1945 Act is just the same principle as the one in this section.
The 1945 Act dealt with a different matter altogether, the superannuation scheme.
The Deputy is talking about interference with the board and introducing what he described as a new principle. There is no new principle. The Deputy will recollect that according to section 4 of the Electricity Supply (Amendment) Act, 1945, the board may prepare and submit to the Minister a scheme and the Minister may take this in three different ways; he may (a) by Order approve of such scheme, or (b) refer such scheme back to the board for reconsideration and re-submission to him under this section, or (c) refuse to approve of such scheme.
That is a scheme for the establishment of a generation station.
It is the same principle.
I do not think so.
The principle is the same. The fact of the matter is that —apart even from the fact that the public interest may be affected—there is some need for the Minister to inquire as to the necessity for the powers, or whether it is necessary that the regulations should be so drafted.
Nobody is questioning it.
That is all we are seeking here. There is no new principle. One other point is that the board has been advised on the legal point. They may publish the regulations, but it is not made obligatory in the statute. I am informed by the board that it has been legally advised that that is a position that needs to be clarified and it has been suggested that this is the way to do it beyond a doubt.
Major de Valera
This section as it stands in the Bill seems to suspend the board between heaven and earth like Mahomet's coffin. In the first instance, the original principle appeared to be that the Electricity Supply Board should be an independent undertaking designed to function as such with the minimum amount of Ministerial interference. On the other hand, the public need does make it necessary that the Minister should have some say in certain matters but, nevertheless, it is desirable to keep the board in the position of an independent undertaking as far as possible. This is going a certain distance toward complete control by the Minister. What I see in the terms of this section is that it can operate as complete control for the Minister over the board, to the extent that the board may find it necessary to make regulations for the proper running of the concern—take the question of charges, for example—and while the Electricity Supply Board may look at the question from one point of view, the Minister may look at it from another point of view and, possibly from a political point of view, may not like the regulations.
He may go further, if this Bill stands as it is, and dictate the particular amendment of the regulations that the board should make. If that is the position, I can see the possibility of something happening as happened previously in regard to transport. If the the Minister is going to adhere to this section, he should logically take over complete control and be answerable for it. He is, under this section, in a position to dictate to the board their regulations and exactly how they will proceed, and, nevertheless, keep up a facade of having no responsibility here for the board. That is an undesirable position. The Minister should do one thing or the other—leave the position as it was or face up to taking complete executive responsibility for the board. He should not introduce a measure such as this, which is really sliding into a position of complete control. I think it desirable that this section be deleted, as it stands at present.
I suggest that the Minister should not accept the amendment. It seems to me that there is a lack of clarity at present amongst those speaking for it. Deputy Vivion de Valera declared it would leave the matter hanging in the air, like Mahomet's coffin, but to accept the amendment would put us in that position, as there may be a complete deadlock between the Minister and the board which there would be no power to resolve. It has been overlooked that, outside the board and the Minister, there is the public. Whatever Deputy Lemass may say, there has been a great deal of criticism of the Electricity Supply Board, and criticism all the stronger because it has been impossible to find any way of obtaining reasonable consideration of the points of view put forward. That refers particularly to the point Deputy de Valera mentioned—the rateable charge —which has been raised time after time in the House and about which nothing has been done.
I feel that, in the Bill and in the proposed amendment, there is an issue involved which we should face. I do not think it is good policy to press for the complete independence of these semi-State bodies. I recognise that in their practical day-to-day work they should enjoy that day-to-day independence which makes for efficient working; but there should be some possibility of raising questions. We have found in the last 12 months the need for some channel to raise questions of urgent public importance which affect the running of these semi-State bodies, which have a vital effect on many sections of the public and even on the general economy of the country. I believe the amendment is of such a nature as to continue the difficulties we have experienced before and that the Minister would be unwise to accept the purpose of the amendment. It continues an unpleasant situation and, so far as it is designed to meet the difficulty raised by Deputy Lemass or Deputy de Valera, it leaves the possibility of a deadlock. If regulations are made by the board and sent to the Minister and he does not approve, he is depending on the board submitting fresh regulations. If they do not, there will be a deadlock, as the Bill stands.
In so far as semi-State bodies serve the public, the person of the Minister should have some initiatory power to resolve these deadlocks. We have to take for granted that the person who is directly responsible through this House to the public is in many ways going to have a greater sense of public responsibility than a board sitting in the seclusion of a boardroom and remaining remote from the effect of public opinion. Despite my criticism of present and past Ministers I would prefer to deal with these Ministers than to deal with boards to whom there is no direct access and for whom the Minister cannot accept responsibility.
Major de Valera
In reply to Deputy Larkin, first of all, I doubt if this present provision in the Bill will in any way tend to make the Minister more amenable to answer questions here than heretofore. On the other hand, it seems to me that this is the thin end of the wedge towards complete nationalisation of the Electricity Supply Board.
I hope so.
Major de Valera
Very good. If that is the view of Deputy Lehane and Deputy Larkin in the matter, let us be frank about it and let us do it without the thin edges of wedges. What I do not like is that it represents a drift, a concealed initiatory power, to use Deputy Larkin's phrase, for the Minister. It seems to me there is nothing in this Bill that will make the Minister more amenable to answer for that concern here than he has been heretofore. It is very probable that, if questions are raised the Ministerial attitude will be that the Minister has no direct responsibility. That is why I use the phrase "suspended like Mahomet's coffin". The Minister will have, through this, a certain directing power, an initiatory power, a dictative power in this matter, while at the same time having the benefit of the formal lack of responsibility which will enable him to evade accepting responsibility in the face of any question or challenge in the House, as heretofore. This is a very unsatisfactory position.
I am not joining issue at the moment with Deputy Larkin on the question of nationalisation, but if such a question is to arise let it arise naturally and openly and not as a drift in this way, as a drift towards Ministerial dictation to the board in an executive capacity. What the next step can be, one can guess for oneself. In the meantime, the Minister remains in a sheltered position and can claim no direct responsibility. For that reason, I think the amendment is preferable to the way the Bill stands at the moment.
I hesitate to pit my view of the section against that of Deputy de Valera, but I must say I cannot agree with him. The section as it stands goes the whole distance to making this corporation amenable to this House. In my view, it will enable Deputies in future to elicit from the Minister, by way of Parliamentary Question or otherwise, information which, in their opinion, is in the public interest. I may be mistaken in my view of the section, but that is the way it appears to me, and to that extent I hope the section will stand and that the Minister will not accept the amendment.
The making of corporations such as the Electricity Supply Board amenable to this House was one of the points of policy upon which there was agreement between all the Parties who came together to form the Inter-Party Government. To the extent that this is an implementation of that policy, I welcome the section. Anything that ends an anomalous position, wherein you had a semi-State corporation such as the Electricity Supply Board, over whose detailed activities this House had little or no control, is something that should be welcome, and for that reason also I hope that the amendment will be rejected.
It is well that we should get this cleared up because there seems to be some slight confusion. The Minister is responsible to this House for everything he does as Minister, and for the future he will be answerable here for his act in approving any regulations drafted by the board which he confirms by Order under this section. How far are we to go in that direction? Are we to deprive the Electricity Supply Board completely of discretion in this matter? Let us examine this on a practical basis. I know, as we all know, that, where any matter arises between the Electricity Supply Board and the Department of Industry and Commerce, the chairman of the board and the Minister can and will meet to discuss it before formal action is taken under the law. That being so, we have to consider what precise significance is to be attached to the inclusion in this section of a provision which says that, where the Minister and the board disagree in relation to this matter, the Minister will have the right to direct the board and the board must do what he says.
I am not objecting to the change which makes regulations of the board subject to confirmation by the Minister, because I am told that that is necessary to give them a legal validity which they may not have now, but I do not want to go any further than that. I want still to give the Electricity Supply Board the status it now has, or a status as near as possible to it, so that, when it comes to dealing with the Minister, if there should be disagreement between them, the statutory position will enable the Electricity Supply Board to come back and reconsider the matter, and, having reconsidered it, to submit alternative proposals to the Minister. That is better than saying that the Minister, having got their proposals, should have the right, if he wishes, peremptorily to direct that they should be amended as he thinks fit and that the board must accept that amendment, irrespective of what views may be held as to their utility.
I said that I did not want to widen the discussion to bring in the general question of the relationship between the Executive and statutory bodies of this kind. I said also, and I think the record of a number of years past shows, that I have no objection whatever to the establishment of state boards or corporations to take over and discharge economic functions which in this country cannot be effectively discharged otherwise. The biggest obstacle in the way of the extension of that is this insane desire which has been frequently expressed by members of the Labour Party to bring all these organisations so subject to the control of the House that they can function only as Government Departments.
That is not so.
It is so, and Deputy Hickey and Deputy Larkin know that I have frequently argued the point with them before. If they are going to establish here the right of Deputies to question every act of every one of these corporations, they inevitably must have the same system of records and the same type of organisation as State Departments have. A large part of the organisation of every State Department is in existence because of the right of Deputies to ask Parliamentary questions. It is not because Deputies will always be asking questions about every activity but because they have the right to do it that the records of the Department must be so kept that, on two or three days' notice, all the information concerning every activity of the Department can be produced and published in the Dáil. If a commercial organisation is to work on that basis, it will be so ineffective that it is bound to fall down on its main job. The argument in favour of giving these organisations the same type of freedom as a private commercial organisation has is that their efficiency is going to be judged in contrast with private commercial organisations, and if we are going to tie them up in the manner in which they would have to be tied up if this system of Dáil supervision over their activities is to be maintained, it inevitably condemns them to failure and will stop useful developments in that direction, because people will be so disgusted with the bad results of previous attempts that they will not approve of it.
The scope of this discussion is becoming very wide.
I find myself not quite in agreement with the views expressed on this side or on the other side because I am not quite satisfied as to what the Minister intends to do with this section, including the words which it is proposed to delete. I am one of those who have always held that the members of this House have been precluded from getting information and asking questions about certain of the activities of the Electricity Supply Board, as distinct from its own administration. We have the Post Office, which renders services to the community almost similar to those rendered by the Electricity Supply Board. It is run as a Department of State, and I have always held the view that the Electricity Supply Board, because it affects intimately the lives of so many of our people, because its establishment involved so much expense for the people, and so on, should be in the charge of a Minister for Electricity.
I am not so sure that the section as worded is really intended by the Minister to meet the views expressed by Deputies Larkin and Lehane. I do not think the Minister would say that, if the section in its present form is accepted, he is prepared to answer questions in future even in respect of the charges which the Electricity Supply Board will make to the public. If the Minister says that that is the intention, I would welcome the section as it stands, but if the Minister says that he is not going to make any change with regard to the responsibility of this House, I feel that the objection to the amendment is altogether different and I should like to be more clear about it.
I should like the Minister to say frankly if he is accepting the interpretation put on the section, without the deletion of these words, put forward by Deputies Lehane and Larkin. If he says that is the interpretation, I am inclined to go a long way with these Deputies, because I have always held that it is wrong that our people, through their representatives, should not have the right of control which questions in this House give them. I do not suggest that we are going to interfere in the running of the Electricity Supply Board any more than we interfere in the running of the Post Office. The Post Office has its telephone section, its telegraph section and its wireless section, and it renders a service to the community similar to that rendered by the Electricity Supply Board, but I want to be satisfied by the Minister as to where he stands in this matter.
He may say that this term "regulations" will have to be defined, but I could not understand any definition of the word which did not include the charges to the public and the terms and conditions of employment of the workers, and I, therefore, ask the Minister to be quite frank with the House and to let us know whether or not the section as it stands gives the power which Deputies Larkin and Lehane suggest. I am inclined to the view that we are reaching a stage when not only should the Minister have control to the extent suggested but there should be a Minister for Electricity here.
The section gives the Minister no power to control charges.
None.
It may, if the board make regulations in the future. Deputy Lemass has built up a bogey to knock it down. Nobody has suggested that we want to ask questions in the House as to what way the electricians put up some stations in the country, but the issue as I see it is, is a board which is meeting in the seclusion of a board room likely to regard itself as having a greater sense of public needs, a greater regard for public probity than a Minister or any other member of this House who has direct responsibility to the public on issues of main policy? I do not think anyone in the Labour Party or even Deputy Briscoe, who seems to be going much further than I am going, wants to see continual interference with any semi-State or nationalised body. But I do feel, and I think Deputy Lemass will agree with us, that men and women elected to this House to represent the public must of necessity have a greater sense of responsibility to the public than boards of technical experts who are removed from the ordinary pressure of public opinion and the complaints, criticism and discontent that are common among the public from time to time on all these issues. Deputy de Valera spoke of us as trying to nationalise the Electricity Supply Board. The Electricity Supply Board is a nationalised concern. There is no doubt about it.
We are now discussing the question of the form of control and it is because I have no exaggerated idea of what is going to flow from the present Bill that I do support the amendments. I am going a little beyond it now because I propose to support Deputy Lemass in his amendment. In so far as these regulations made by the Minister would come before this House it would at least give us some commencement of what many in this House feel is necessary, some association between this House representing the public and these boards that operate under the authority of the House but that so far have been removed from any direct control in so far as main issues of public policy are concerned. That is our only concern.
I appeal to the House to use this opportunity to ensure as far as we reasonably can that the tendency of the Electricity Supply Board to make regulations which are often unfair to the public and to be high-handed in the enforcement of their regulations will at least be curbed. Everybody who has the slightest association with the public knows that the board can be very high-handed and has been very high-handed in some of their dealings with the public. Take for instance, the system of collection of charges in connection with corporation housing schemes. The charge is 1/4 a week. A collector is sent around and if the lady of the house does not happen to be in, the collector goes away and does not call again. When the unfairness of this system is pointed out, the answer is that the woman of the house can leave the 1/4 with the lady next door. That is no answer to the Dublin housewife. She may not be pally with the lady next door. In other dealings with the public the Electricity Supply Board have shown that they can be very high-handed. I would appeal to the Minister and to the House to try to ensure here to-night some measure of control that will have some regard for the real needs of the public.
I think Deputies might read the section we are discussing. First, the board may make regulations:—
"(a) for any purpose connected with the generation, transmission, distribution or use of electricity,
(b) for any purpose connected with the performance by the board of any of their powers, duties or functions."
If I understand Deputy Lemass aright in connection with sub-section (2) of Section 2, he is in favour of (a), he is against (b) and in favour of (c). In other words, the Deputy agrees, or is prepared to agree, that the Minister should have the power to confirm or the power to refuse to confirm but he does not agree that he should have the power to suggest to the board that they should amend the regulations.
No. I have no objection to the Minister having all the power of suggestion that he wants. I can understand the board saying: "We want to make this regulation." The Minister can say: "I do not approve", and that may end the matter but the board might have very strong objection to that regulation being amended by the Minister's direction in some way they do not approve of.
I will come back to that in a moment. May I say this? I do not understand Deputy Lemass on this. I do not understand his amendment or his fears about the effect of this because this section that we are now discussing was drafted, was in this Bill and was approved by Deputy Lemass before ever I became Minister.
My outlook broadens.
So that I want to assure Deputy de Valera, who appears to have fears that we are now going to nationalise the Electricity Supply Board—as if it were anything but a nationalised undertaking—that if the wedge is being prepared, it was not prepared by me. The fact of the matter is that we have travelled far beyond anything that is either in this section or the amendment. It is very simple. The board has power to make regulations covering any of their functions or their powers. This section says that they shall submit them to the Minister. The Minister may (a) confirm the regulations; (b) suggest amendments in the regulations, or (c) refuse to confirm. Supposing the Minister refuses to confirm and has not the power to suggest amendments to the regulations, what is the position going to be then? I think that there is nothing whatever objectionable in any way in the section as it is before the House. I think it is a very reasonable section. The Minister has certain responsibility, and ought to have certain responsibility, so far as the public are concerned. I want to draw Deputies' attention to what those regulations will or may cover. The board may make regulations for any purpose connected with the generation, transmission, distribution or use of electricity.
Distribution includes charge?
If the Deputy will read the two together he will find, I think, that the regulations can cover anything, because whatever is not caught under (a) would appear to be caught under (b). Clause (b) says: "connected with the performance by the board of any of their powers, duties or function". I do not want to interfere with the board and I will be perfectly frank and say that I have no desire in the world to be asked here from day to day to answer for the day-to-day work of the board, and if there is anything in this section that is going to put me in that position, I will drop the section immediately. Surely it is not going to be contended that the board should have power to make regulations covering any of these things with the Minister having no power other than to refuse flat-footedly?
They have all the power to make these regulations without consulting the Minister.
I know.
At least, we thought they had.
The Deputy explained the reasons why it is now considered necessary. First, it is doubtful whether those regulations would stand up in a court. As a matter of fact, the board has been legally advised that they would not stand up in a court. The board themselves suggest this is the way in which it should be met. This section is not my section. It was the Deputy's own section.
I will have a few observations to make on the section if I get rid of the amendments to-night. I am not pressing it.
I am sorry I cannot accept the amendment.
It is not pressed. I shall discuss the wider question on the section.