Will the Taoiseach state on what date it is intended that the Bill should come into operation?
Committee on Finance. - Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) Bill, 1959—Committee and Final Stages.
Question proposed: "That Section 1 stand part of the Bill."
As soon as it is passed.
Will the Taoiseach state when the appointment of the new Minister will be announced?
Before the Dáil adjourns.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That Section 2 stand part of the Bill."
Has the Taoiseach's mind been directed to the Scandinavian experiment?
I have given a great deal of thought to this matter and, as I have stated, my views have been published in a pamphlet by the Institute of Public Administration. In that I made it clear that I had not come to any final decision at all and I contented myself with stating both sides of the problem while indicating my provisional conclusions. I agree with Deputy Dillon that these statutory bodies, which have an obligation of providing services to the public, should have within themselves some method by which public representatives and others could seek explanations of any action taken in any individual case.
I want to correct a misunderstanding. I am not clear whether the Taoiseach has, in fact, informed himself of this, and I fully appreciate that it might not have been drawn to his attention. I would like him to look at the scheme operating in Scandinavian countries, not that I am prepared to say I am certain it is right for us, but I think it is worth consideration. I should like to distinguish between it and what he himself said, that there should be in each of these bodies an officer of the body charged with this responsibility.
I want something slightly different. I want a person with an independent status, analogous to that of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, who would have a right to approach any of these bodies and to seek information that an ordinary inquirer would not be entitled to have, not for the purpose of publishing it but so that when he wrote in reply: "I have carefully investigated your inquiry and I have come to the conclusion, for the following reasons, that no genuine grievance exists", I, Deputy Sherwin or Deputy Norton, will know this man had the power to make such investigations, and that we have every reason to believe, with our experience of the public service, that he would have discharged his duty faithfully.
Will the Deputy say, in fact, whether he was ever refused that information on application?
I could not say that. I think there is a great deal of misunderstanding about the cutting-off of power and light from individual houses. I think that matter was blown up by a good deal of propaganda but, if such an officer existed, as I am adumbrating now, that kind of propaganda could never have got under way. I have had a great volume of hullabaloo about that matter, and I did investigate a few cases. I am aware of the fact that the Gas Company never cuts anybody off and they can collect their money, whereas the E.S.B. would seem, superficially, to be acting in a peremptory way but, when you examine individual cases—this is my experience anyway—you find that this has happened two or three times with an individual and the E.S.B., in a manner of speaking, threw their hats at it and took the peremptory step of cutting off his light. I am sure that is not true in all cases, but I do not think that kind of anxiety would have become widespread if there was somebody with authority to go in and root through the E.S.B., somebody who had sufficient power to make certain he got all the facts he could get.
In the absence of that, I believe you are going to have an extension of this kind of business, and it will be impossible to avoid ructions in Dáil Eireann, where exasperated Deputies will raise the roof because they are not getting the kind of information to which they think they are entitled when they are under legitimate pressure from aggrieved humble persons. If denied that, these persons will feel they have no freedom left.
I love the Parliamentary Question as a great instrument of human liberty, but I can see in the day-to-day administration matters of these companies it is not the appropriate instrument and, if it is to be set aside as being impractical for that purpose, I think we should devise some alternative instrument which will leave with simple people the conviction that there is nobody in this country powerful enough to walk on the fundamental rights of simple citizens.
As I see it, these State bodies now to be brought under the aegis of the new Minister are already in operation, and are in operation by virtue of a well defined policy in each case. If we are to be told now that the Minister-designate is to be responsible for policy only, and not for administration, what is the purpose of the Ministry and what power is the Minister going to have?
He will have a great deal more to do than supervise these State bodies.
I cannot see very much more that has to be done and, on that point, I should like the Taoiseach to give some indication of the additional functions which he proposes to assign to the new Minister.
I did so very fully, yesterday.
I may have completely misunderstood but I took it that there were certain functions outlined in the Taoiseach's speech—the marine service, harbours, inland transport, civil aviation, power—and then certain additional functions which it might become necessary to assign in the future, and that that could be done by Government Order. I would like to know what those are because, having regard to the Taoiseach's refusal, or at least his inability to give an assurance that this Bill would not mean a furtherance of State enterprises, I must say that I remain perturbed on the one hand, for the same reason as Deputy Dillon has given—that the individual is powerless against a monopolistic institution such as any of these bodies now in operation, or any such similar board in contemplation—and, on the other hand, because the extension of such State enterprises is at all times, having regard to our experience, something which will be, irrespective of success or failure, a perpetual drain on the fiscal resources of the country.
No Government, whether it be the present Government or a Government over which somebody else might be Taoiseach, can afford to let any State enterprise fail for want of State contribution voted through Parliament. It is all very well to point to the success of various boards but could they have succeeded if they were run on a basis of private enterprise without the knowledge that, whether they went short of money or not, it was there for the asking, for simply the political reason that no Government can afford a failure? Having regard to what has already been said I do not see the necessity for a new Minister when telecommunications have already been covered, and telecommunications are substantially the Post Office. They could be amalgamated with this and a whole new system worked out.
Is the new Minister simply going to be asked to keep an eye on the policy operations of the various State bodies, and will his only function be to report back to the Government and say: "The people in the E.S.B. or Bord na Móna propose to do this. I do not think they should. What do you suggest I should do? Let us consider what should be done." Then he goes back to the company and tells them they cannot do whatever is in question. If that is to be his only function it will be a waste of time, and unless the responsibility for administration, to some extent, is given to him he is not really answerable to Parliament at all for anything because policy, as operated by any Minister is, in my opinion, Government policy in toto. Therefore, I deprecate the tendency of this Bill to increase expenditure without any profitable results and to increase the tendency for the furtherance of State enterprises.
I am tempted to speak only because of what Deputy Lindsay said. I hardly think that what he has said is a fair appraisal of a number of our State-sponsored bodies. I think Irish Shipping is a first-class body. It was brought into being because of the unusual circumstances created by the war. Private enterprise could never have undertaken to provide these ships. It was not within the capacity of private enterprise to do so and, therefore, Irish Shipping was born and I think we are all glad to-day it has made such a success.
I think the Deputy should admit that private enterprise could not levy the insurance premiums Irish Shipping was offering.
Private enterprise could not levy them at all.
Private enterprise as opposed to public enterprise does not arise on this.
I am going on what Deputy Lindsay said.
Similarly, in the case of airlines nobody would have done the pioneering work were it not for the State. The State goes in, and Aer Lingus is created and has built up a very fine reputation for itself. Financially, it has been a success. Nobody would think tomorrow of dismantling Aer Lingus because, again, it is a first class success in the field of public enterprise. We can go on to electricity generating. Here, too, private enterprise was not capable of measuring up to national requirements in respect of electricity production on a national grid. The E.S.B. was brought into operation through legislation passed here. The E.S.B. now has a capital investment in the vicinity I think of £90,000. It is a first class undertaking. In the electrical field it has been able to give us something we never had through private enterprise and possibly never would have attained if we had to rely exclusively on private enterprise as it exists in a country where the financial resources are limited such as they are here.
Similarly, if we had not State undertakings in respect of railways we could walk today because only the State has been able by legislation and money to try to maintain the transport system. At the same time it has maintained the transport system for the benefit of the community and if C.I.E. loses money it is doing so because it is subsidising transport and the loss in the balance sheet is the benefit which finds its way into the pockets of the railway users.
That is a very wide field to get into.
I do not propose to travel further in that direction.
Not even on C.I.E.
C.I.E. had a tariff against motor cars as other industries had tariffs against competitors and quite possibly C.I.E. can do just as well in the transport field as other industries have done in their own particular fields.
This is a very wide discussion.
Yes, but what I want to say to Deputy Lindsay is that I do not understand the point of view that because we have a State-sponsored body the Minister's job is to take a grandstand seat and have a look at how the State-sponsored bodies do their work. I do not think I would make State-sponsored bodies absolutely independent. I do not think Parliament should abdicate its powers to State-sponsored bodies or should say to a State-sponsored body: "It is your job without interference from Government or Parliament to run the particular industry in any way you like."
After all, air development, power development, turf development and development of shipping are all aspects of Government activity and are part of national activities. These are therefore the channels through which a Government—any Government; I am not talking of the present Government—must develop its plans but of course, if the body is omnipotent and can close its ears to the views of the Government then what we have done is to create a Frankenstein. We have created a State-sponsored body so independent that it will refuse even to listen to the Minister who is the mouthpiece of Government policy.
I think the Minister must always have the authority in the field of shipping, the field of air development, the field of turf development, the field of power and in every other field to say to these State-sponsored bodies that were created as agencies of national development that the stage has been reached in our development when the Government desires that this, that or the other should be done. In so far as it needs legislation the Government has to come to the House; so far as it can be done by executive action, not alone do I not see anything wrong with the Minister saying on behalf of the Government: "We think you should fan out in this or that direction," but I think it is highly desirable that should be done once in a while in order that there should be a satisfactory scheme of progress and development undertaken by the body itself.
So far as the day to day administration of State-sponsored bodies is concerned, I think there is only one way of dealing with that problem. I think we should appoint a Board with a competent executive staff to do the job. If they do not do it, sack them and get another Board. So long as they are there they would do the day to day administrative work. My point of view is that the Board should be receptive to instructions from the Government in the field of expansion and development. If we do not make Boards receiving organisations for that kind of advice I think we run the risk of those Boards becoming a government unto themselves. In our stage of development I do not think that is desirable either from the democratic or the development point of view. I think it is not something that a Government could contemplate.
I agree with that.
That makes my intervention all the more necessary. There is a great danger of an authoritarian administration developing.
We are safe; we still have P.R.
I am referring to Section 2 of the Bill. Deputy Norton has spoken with effect and led himself to the point of saying that the danger was that if autonomy were conferred on those bodies we might construct a Frankenstein. Let us be reasonable. There is no danger of any Frankenstein confronting this Parliament. Oireachtas Éireann can do anything within the Constitution other than make a man into a woman or a woman into a man. No Frankenstein can long confront us in Parliament. We have the means of dealing with any Frankenstein because we are the Parliament of the Irish people and within the Constitution we can control any rival authority that challenges us. The ultimate authority rests in this Oireachtas.
Frankenstein is a word to be used in the relationship that may come to exist either between the executive and the citizen or between one of our creatures and a citizen. That is the correct context and that is the very point Deputy Sherwin and I have been trying to make. Here is the danger of creating a Frankenstein. If we content ourselves by saying that so long as the Minister can give a broad policy direction to any of these Boards and so long as those Boards are prepared to receive docilely his instructions and directions, all is well.
I want to sound a note of caution. That is not enough. That is the very danger I see in the present situation crystallising in these agreeable exchanges between the Taoiseach and Deputy Norton. I think both Deputy Norton and the Taoiseach have that much of a streak of authoritarianism in them that they have the feeling that there are limits beyond which reasonable men ought not be asked to go.
We are reasonable men.
Yes, reasonable men to cater for a little people. Mark you, it was not in the wind we got it. I remember distinctly——
I suggest the Deputy should remember that we are discussing the setting up of a Department of State.
That is what I am discussing.
There is a great deal of repetition in all these arguments.
We are in Committee.
I know, but repetition is not justified in Committee any more than on other Stages.
I respectfully submit I am entitled to counter arguments raised by other Deputies. We are giving the Government great facilities in despatching public business.
I am not concerned with facilities for the Government. I am concerned with preventing repetition of the same argument.
I suggest the Chair would not wish unduly to circumscribe debate.
Not unduly.
The point has been raised by Deputy Norton, to which the Taoiseach has nodded——
Deputy Norton raised arguments to counter arguments by Deputy Lindsay. Deputy Dillon raised the same set of arguments again.
Certainly, and why not?
That is repetition.
This is preposterous. Do you mean to tell me that if Deputy Lindsay raises an argument and Deputy Norton counters, I am not to counter Deputy Norton?
I am telling Deputy Dillon he has already said what he is saying now. He is repeating his first set of arguments.
I am now countering the case made by Deputy Norton to which the Taoiseach said that he says "Yes" to that. I said it was not with the wind he got that. I heard his distinguished predecessor say from the same seat that you cannot have omelettes without breaking eggs. I am here as a representative of the eggs. I am speaking on behalf of the eggs.
"The egg and I."
Yes. That is the most distinguished status that a Deputy can have, as a representative of the eggs who are likely to be broken. That is the profound difference of philosophy between the Taoiseach and Deputy Norton, on the one hand, and myself on the other. I glory in the fact that I am a Liberal. I suspect them of being more than half Socialist. I think a Socialist is prepared to say "for the better organisation of society and for the common good it may be necessary from time to time to break the egg."
Does the Deputy not think this is very general and has no particular relevance to what is before us?
Yes.
Would the Deputy please relate it to the section?
I am relating it to the proposal:
On the appointed day a Department of State to be styled and known as An Roinn Iompair agus Cumhachta or (in English) the Department of Transport and Power shall stand established.
That Section has been passed, Section 2.
Is that not the section on which we are talking?
Yes.
Then it has not passed and I may be allowed to proceed. I am trying to make the case that neither Deputy Norton nor the Taoiseach is correct in saying that, once you have required these bodies to accept direction from the Minister, that is enough. It is not enough. I wish other Deputies would associate themselves with me in saying that they do not agree with Deputy Norton and the Taoiseach in feeling that we have done our duty if we insist on that and do not ask for more.
I am not in the slightest degree apprehensive that any of these bodies would ever become a Frankenstein vis-a-vis Oireachtas Éireann, but I am extremely apprehensive that, in a desire to streamline procedure and out of a false loyalty to efficiency, we shall open the road to Frankensteins trampling on the rights of individuals. I believe, if we but reflect on this and dwell on it, in time that socialist as I believe the Taoiseach and Deputy Norton to be, they have not gone quite that far yet. I do not want them to stumble into accepting that principle inevitably. I believe we could get substantial agreement on all sides of the House; but I want to get it and I do not want to have Deputy Norton and the Taoiseach nodding to one another and saying “We say ditto to that,” without fully appreciating the reaction of their words. I want to say emphatically that I do not say ditto unless and until Deputy Norton and the Taoiseach are prepared to qualify that declaration by saying “but, in addition to this desirable relationship between the Minister and these bodies, we shall also resolve to repudiate emphatically the doctrine that you cannot have an omelette without breaking eggs.”
I should like to refer to one point. While agreeing to some extent with Deputy Dillon, I think public representatives have more authority and weight than he gives them credit for. From personal experience I can say that when one approaches one of these omnipotent bodies, they are generally listened to— and we still have vox populi to fall back on. As long as we have that, we need not worry about Frankensteins. However, it is a difficult problem— and the Taoiseach appreciates it—that with the growth of these bodies there is a danger that the little man will be pushed to one side.
There is one relevant point in regard to the efficiency of these State bodies. I do not mean efficiency in the sense of the outlook of the planners, but that these bodies will not become a burden on the community. Everybody has spoken so far in praise of Irish Shipping, Bord na Móna and the E.S.B.—and rightly so—but there are other instances where State bodies have not been efficient and have been, in fact, a burden on the community in that they have received substantial sums of money through the Oireachtas and these moneys have not been well expended. Because of vested interests and because of the social requirements of the industries concerned, the Oireachtas has had to go on giving money to keep them alive.
There should be some way by which a State sponsored undertaking could be measured by some independent body, whereby it would be possible to tell the Dáil that such-and-such an industry was operating efficiently in the interests of the community, or whether it was making a profit or a loss. In theory at least all a monopoly has to do is to raise its charges and recoup its losses from the public. But there should be some means of comparing its operations with efficient industries, either private enterprises or public enterprises in other countries. I would be very concerned with that facet of this development, that we should, as the necessity arose, be able to call on somebody to give an experienced and competent report on operations of our State sponsored bodies to the satisfaction of the public, who, after all, supply the money for them.
More than anything else I am concerned with the rights of Deputies to ask Ministers Parliamentary Questions. Deputy Dillon said that he had not come up against any of these Boards in matters of policy. I have. It is very unsatisfactory for a Deputy to put down a question and then be told by a Minister that he has no function in the matter at all. But, when the Budget comes round, we are responsible then and we are called on to vote the money. Since we are called upon to put up the money, Deputies should have the right to question the policy of these Boards, because, if we allow these various State bodies to carry on in their own sweet way, they can make mistakes just as well as anybody else.
The House has already given these powers to State-sponsored bodies.
Under this, we will have a figurehead Minister supposed to be responsible to this House but unable to say a word should we ask him a question about any of these bodies. Some citizen, or group of citizens, may have a grievance and, one of these days, we will have a Minister over there; if we put down a question to him about this grievance he will blandly tell us that he has no responsibility. The Electricity Supply Board grew up on its own. So did Aer Lingus. Now we are to have a Minister to look after these. If we are to have a Minister for that purpose, then he should have some authority. He should be in a position to interfere—I use the word deliberately—if necessary on behalf of any citizen, or citizens, if a complaint comes before this House. The Minister can judge for himself as to whether or not that complaint is justified. The legislation proposed here puts this Minister in a position in which he has no authority to right a wrong or even investigate a complaint. If it is proposed to appoint a Minister, then let him have the power and authority he should have over State-sponsored bodies.
I am as anxious as any other Deputy that there should be an expansion of State-controlled industry in the economic life of our country. I want to see both the Socialist type and the capital investment type of industry expanding. I am sorry the Minister has not made some attempt in this to come to grips with the real problem of parliamentary control of State-sponsored bodies. I do not subscribe to the suggestion that a Minister should be answerable by way of Parliamentary Question for the day-to-day activities of a State-sponsored company. That would be neither feasible nor desirable. If it were feasible, it could only be done at the sacrifice of the efficiency of the State corporation. Much as one might like to be in a position to question the activities of a State corporation, I think it would be very wrong to ask such a body to operate under those circumstances. No private enterprise concern would agree to work under such conditions. I do not think State Companies should be asked to do so either.
If the Taoiseach's general policy statements are implemented and there is greater investment in both State and private enterprise concerns, obviously the day-to-day activities of such concerns could not be subjected to Parliamentary interference. They must be independent. As a Socialist, I approve of State enterprise. I should like to see a much greater expansion of State enterprises. In its own interests such an enterprise should not permit itself any possible misrepresentation in relation to authoritarianism, or needless bureaucracy, or avoidable red tape. I have some sympathy with Deputy Dillon's concern for the small man, but it should not be necessary for a Deputy to interfere on behalf of a citizen so far as these State companies are concerned. It should be possible for a citizen to get justice on his own. The fact that a Deputy can at the moment get a satisfactory solution to problems that arise in the day-to-day activities of State corporations is a great credit to these bodies. At the same time, there should be some mechanism whereby the citizen will be enabled to maintain his position as the person who pays and consequently the person who should have a reasonable right to question the activities of these corporations.
So far as general policy and control of these State corporations is concerned, we have that control because we control capital. If capital is required, the Dáil must be asked to vote the necessary moneys. We have, therefore, the final say. It is we who decide whether or not these State companies will expand their activities. There is, therefore, a safeguard. So far as the small man vis-a-vis the State company is concerned, there is scope for some machinery to establish his rights vis-a-vis such a company. I could not agree with Deputy Dillon's suggestion, however, that State companies should be answerable by way of Parliamentary question. That would not be feasible at all.
C.I.E. is a social amenity and, because it is a social amenity, it must of necessity operate at a loss. It must be remembered that the private enterprise organisations which preceded it were virtually bankrupt. Whatever case there may be for running transport through the medium of a State corporation no case exists for running it as a private enterprise.
Would the Minister consider setting up some form of Parliamentary commission to consider the whole question of State bodies and State corporations generally in the hope that some machinery might be devised to make these bodies answerable in some way to Parliament without, at the same time, imparing their efficiency? Many other Parliaments are concerned with this problem at the moment. It is one we ought to treat seriously, particularly those of us, who, like myself, have a Socialist outlook in these matters and who are anxious that the efficiency of these bodies should not be impared by giving them, so to speak, so much rope that they may be in danger of hanging themselves.
It is impossible not to sympathise with the objection which Deputy Dillon has in mind. At the same time, I am afraid that, if he gets what he wants, he will get the shadow and not really the substance of the scheme of reformation he desires. The Deputy's suggestion is that a Public Relations Officer should be established, with some kind of independent functions in relation to all State subsidised bodies, and that he should occupy in relation to these bodies the kind of power which the Comptroller and Auditor General occupies in relation to the nation's accounts. Let us visualise a situation of that kind. Suppose the Taoiseach were to announce tomorrow that he had found a wizard who would fill that role and whose function in future would be to investigate any complaints made in respect of State-sponsored bodies. I do not know how many complaints it is visualised would reach that functionary each year. If everybody knew he was there for investigating grievance, I would imagine that he would never be out of work and it is conceivable that before many months would pass he would require an augmented staff to investigate all the complaints.
I have a fear that while that person, when new, might have all the zeal of the convert, that, as time went on, because of the nature of things and his status vis-a-vis Mary Murphy from the west of Ireland, he would, gravitate towards the outlook of those at the top level in the State-sponsored body and ultimately would assimilate the point of view of those who were his social and financial equals and, in fact, would not provide the effective remedy which Deputy Dillon has in mind and on which he relies so much in his suggestion for such an appointment.
There is a better remedy. At least, there is one available which ought not be scrapped in preference to that which Deputy Dillon advocates. There are 146 Deputies in this House, 146 effective, functioning Deputies. Each of them can be a watchdog for any person who has a grievance against a State-sponsored body. Each of them has a relationship with the complainant because of his geographical location, which is much better than the relationship that can exist between Mrs. A. and the highly placed public relations officer in Dublin. I think it is better that Mary White should see Jack Black, the Deputy, and say to him, "I have a grievance against the E.S.B. or Bord na Móna" and tell him the grievance. Jack Black, the Deputy, is likely to do a good deal more on behalf of Mary White, the constituent, than Mary will get in service from this highly placed Public Relations Officer in Dublin. The Deputy is a good weapon from the point of view of the aggrieved constituent. If he is a competent Deputy and has experience, he can devise ways and means by which reasonable grievances, not adjusted by the State-sponsored bodies, can be raised in Parliament. There is a safeguard there that I do not see in the appointment of a public relations officer.
In addition, so far as State-sponsored bodies in general are concerned, I do not think they look for complaints. When I was in the Department of Industry and Commerce I used to receive occasional complaints. If I put them to the chairman or top level people in the State-sponsored bodies, the anxiety always was to remove the complaint. Frequently it was mentioned to me: "We do not like these complaints. We try to adjust them and lean back in our efforts to adjust."
There is, of course, complaint against the E.S.B. It is a perennial complaint but that has arisen out of an economic malaise rather than any studied discourtesy on the part of the E.S.B. officials. That is a general problem. That problem can only be solved by putting more money in the people's pockets and giving them regular employment. That is an economic problem. In general, State-sponsored bodies do not go out of their way to look for trouble. They are not needlessly brusque with persons with whom they are dealing. My experience whenever I had to make representations was that they said, "There is our case. We think we have a good case and you have to test that against the case of the complainant". I have found many cases in which, for the sake of good public relations, they have adjusted complaints of that kind.
I come back again to the point that I do not think you can allow a State-sponsored body, operating in the interest of the people, democratically recruited, with directors responsible to a Minister, to be made the subject of a whole variety of nagging questions every week in Parliament on administrative matters. That cannot be done. If there are grievances, the Deputy is there as the first line of defence so far as the public are concerned. I think he is the best line of defence as I see the situation to-day.
There may be a case for creating— I do not think a public relations officer —but some kind of Parliamentary committee which would examine the activities of these bodies and which perhaps, could be a filtering organisation for grievances which were felt to impose hardship and rigour on sections of the community or a group of persons who had relations with the State-sponsored body but, in our effort to get reasonable protection for the citizen, we must not make the mistake of making the administration of State-sponsored bodies impossible by constant nagging Parliamentary Questions which can only have an impeding effect. As I said, perhaps some consideration should be given to the question of creating a Parliamentary body which would maintain contact with certain State organisations with a view to ensuring that their administration is of a character that gives maximum service and promotes maximum concord between themselves and the citizen.
It does seem to me that a buffer between the general public and any Department is the elected Deputy. The Government introduce a Bill creating a Minister for Transport and Power. As I see the position, practically the entire administration of transport and power is by State or semi-State bodies. Our position as Deputies in relation to these bodies is that we are unable to put Parliamentary Questions to the Minister to have some matter considered that we, as public representatives, consider has not been sufficiently noted by the body in question. If we are to have a Minister for Transport and Power, who is concerned with all these bodies, I do not see what function he will serve. It will put extra expense on the State, to start with, to have an extra Minister. If we have an extra Minister, let us hope that we will get some benefit from it. At present, if a Deputy wishes to discuss State-sponsored bodies in Parliament, he can only do so on the occasion of the annual Estimate.
I have been in this House for quite a few years. I have heard many discussions relative to public bodies. I have heard references to the E.S.B., Aer Lingus, the Tourist Board, and so on, made on the appropriate Estimate every year. Very often, a Deputy will speak at considerable length and make very good points. I do not say in every case but, in many cases, he gets no reply; he gets no satisfaction for the case he has made. It may be that the body concerned read the Official Report and take note of what Deputies say. The Minister is the defender of the democratic rights of the people, between the Civil Service, the administrators, and the public as a whole. It is possible, if you do not get satisfaction, to put down a Parliamentary Question.
Practically all our transport is State or semi-State controlled and many other concerns are State-sponsored to some extent. One gets up here each year, when the Estimate comes on, and makes a case relative to the fuel and power of the country but one cannot say anything about it for the next twelve months. Is it possible for the Minister and the Government, in this Bill, to change that state of affairs? Deputy Norton says that these Departments would be constantly nagged by questions by Deputies. I do not agree. The average Deputy has a high sense of responsibility and he will not bother a Department unless he has good reason to do so.
Occasions do arise when these bodies may feel for administrative reasons, or because they think it too costly, or because they do not want the trouble, that a question should not be answered. The Deputy concerned then comes into this House and raises the matter. My own experience is that I have often raised a question and got a negative answer but a short time later what I had asked to be done was done by the particular Department concerned, probably on the instructions of the Minister. I suggest that the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Taoiseach, who is sponsoring this Bill, should take this opportunity to ensure that the ordinary Deputy's democratic rights are maintained so that he may be able to make himself fully effective as the instrument elected by the people to look after their interests.
I want to add a little to what I have already said. In my opinion Ministers should have some power as representatives of the people. It does not make sense if they have no power. I would give as evidence for my argument that the E.S.B. makes it a practice to cut off people's lights because bills are not paid. We have no objection to that but what we do object to is the fact that they make it a practice to cut off the lights on Saturdays, a few minutes before the whole department closes down for the weekend.
The Deputy is not in order in going into matters of detail.
The Minister ought to have power to make an order, in the public interest, that these things should not be done. He should be able to say that he will not allow any person's light to be cut off on the eve of a holiday and he should also have the power to say that bills should not be sent out only every two months.
The Deputy may not discuss the whole routine of the E.S.B. on this section.
Suppose there is a widow whose whole allowance is 23/-per week. She gets a bill every two months from the E.S.B. and she cannot pay it. It is no use telling that woman that she should put aside enough every week to meet the bill when it comes. She just cannot do that.
These matters of detail are not in order. If the Deputy will not obey the Chair he should sit down.
The Minister should have some power in these matters.
If there was a Public Relations Officer or some other arrangement for dealing with these matters, I do not think we would have such speeches as that which Deputy Sherwin has just made. A Public Relations Officer for the E.S.B. would demolish the statement that it is the practice of the E.S.B. to cut people off on a weekend. It is not their practice. I thought Deputy O'Malley might be here today as he is reported in the papers as saying that the E.S.B. is dictatorial. I do not think they are; I do not think that such an attitude could be maintained in this House if there was some way of letting the public know the answers to the various problems.
The general line of division as regards these public bodies is that general administration and detail are left to the body itself and that policy is laid down by the Government or by a particular Act. The difficulty is to find some way of giving answers to the complaints that are abroad. There is a widespread belief that these bodies are acting in a dictatorial way. I do not agree with that belief. The record of these bodies is very good.
In 1948 the first Inter-Party Government was faced with this matter. There was a wide feeling throughout the country that the Government-sponsored bodies were inclined to hide too much behind the cloak of daily administration and that they were hiding things from the public. There was a threat, which I myself voiced, that we would pull up the blinds on the darkness that shrouded some of these concerns. The very talk of doing that led to a number of them presenting a much better picture to the public. They did come out in various ways and gave a great deal more publicity to their doings from 1948 onwards.
There is no easy solution to this problem. One method of dealing with it was suggested by a prominent member of the Labour Party in England and that was that a small number of members of the Public Accounts Committee should devote itself to the affairs of one of these bodies each year. That had the disadvantage that it was only an annual business and that each body would be dealt with only about once in every four years.
There is a Scandinavian procedure in regard to this matter whereby a section of the Parliament is established to deal with complaints in connection with Government-sponsored bodies. They bring the complaints to the particular body and see what answers are given. It is done through the channel of communication between a citizen who feels he is not getting a fair deal and the Board which he accuses of having done him some wrong. In the Scandinavian procedure, at the end of each year, instead of having Public Accounts Committees which are composed of Parliamentary Deputies and which take the evidence given by Parliamentary Officers, the public is allowed access and their complaints are examined in an open manner outside Parliament altogether.
Something between these two methods will have to be found because there is that view, though it may not be borne out by the facts, that bodies are reluctant to answer questions and to give certain information, which is a cause of objection amongst citizens. The alert Deputy is probably the best weapon of attack, but he cannot go too far because of the fact that the Minister responsible can always say whatever is in question is a matter of day-to-day administration for the particular body concerned. I feel that the complaint most commonly made to me is that there is too great an acceptance of the Minister's view of what is day-to-day administration. There are many times when the dividing link is narrow and, when such a point comes up, I think the Minister charged with the responsibility, or associated with some of these bodies, ought to be critical of himself in raising, as between himself and the Department, the shield of day-to-day administration. He ought to be more liberal as long as it is not interfering with policy. He ought to give the elected representative of the public more satisfaction than he gets at the moment.
Failing that, it would be best to have the public relations type of officer who would be nominated as such and who would have a group of Deputies, interested in a particular subject, allied with him. That would provide a narrow but clear channel of approach between the citizen and the State-sponsored body.
On this matter of the new Department, I am more interested in the question of general policy. The Taoiseach was asked last night would he give us an assurance that there was not going to be more and more Government interference in connection with these bodies. He said he could give no assurance.
About interference? I think the Deputy is mistaken.
He would not give an assurance that there was going to be less and less interference.
I certainly made it clear that I did not approve of State interference.
He stated there was going to be more and more State enterprise but, so far as Departmental control is concerned, is there going to be any further falling away from the situation created by the E.S.B. Act? I think that the E.S.B. has been very seriously weakened in administration. There has been considerable Ministerial interference and I refer particularly to the provision of electricity. Many years ago, at a time when the present Minister for Health was temporarily taking over the duties of Minister for Industry and Commerce, he made the case that it was necessary for the Government to interfere with even a body like the E.S.B., and outside the terms of the E.S.B. Act, in order to ensure that whatever was new Government policy, or adjusted Government policy from time to time, would be followed by a particular board.
I turn now to the pamphlet Economic Development in which Chapter 20 deals with electricity. It is the most critical chapter in the whole pamphlet and I believe that the Taoiseach knows that. It deals with investment in electricity and ancillary services. The capital investment at the time this was written was £100,000,000 of which £23,000,000 was for rural electrification. Then there is further development over the next five years, estimated to require £26,000,000, and of that £15,000,000 will have to be found from internal resources and the balance from the recent £5,000,000 public stock issue, leaving a further £11,000,000 to be raised. Therefore, from the date this was written, and looking five years ahead, the capital of the E.S.B. was deemed to be in the region of £110,000,000 to £112,000,000.
There is a third paragraph which deals with the magnitude of the investment, and then this critical comment follows:
The development programme, as outlined in a White Paper published in 1954, was based on an estimated annual average growth in demand for electric current of 13.4 per cent., i.e. on an expectation that demand would double itself every five and a half years.
The year 1954 was one in which there was a change of Government and that estimate was made out by nobody other than the present Taoiseach. It was his estimate that the demand for electricity would double itself every five and a half years.
Is the Deputy quoting?
I have interrupted the quotation to make that comment. The pamphlet says that the programme was based on an estimated annual average growth of 13.4 per cent, that is, on the expectation that demand would double itself every five and a half years. My comment is that it was the present Taoiseach who was responsible for that estimate. It was based on a misconception because some O.E.E.C. documents talked about the demand for electricity in various countries doubling itself every five and a half years. The Taoiseach took the optimistic view that that would happen here, forgetting that the growth in demand in other countries covered by O.E.E.C. was based on the development of heavy industries. He forgot that there are no heavy industries here.
The pamphlet continues:
This was related to experience in the pre-war and early postwar years. The expectation of such a rapid growth was not realised and early in 1956 the generating programme was revised downwards on the basis of an annual growth of nine per cent, but this has again been too optimistic. In 1955-56 growth was only 7.6 per cent. and in 1956-57 only 4.7 per cent. It has risen to 7.7 per cent in 1957-58 (equivalent to a doubling of demand about every nine and a half years) but this rise may have been exceptionally stimulated by the severe weather conditions in the March quarter of 1958.
That has surely been proved and that 7.7 per cent increase is not likely to be realised in years ahead.
The pamphlet goes on to say:
As heavy demand cannot be expected from the bulk of the new consumers remaining to be connected (i.e., persons in the poorer rural areas) and as there is severe competition both in town and country from oil and gases, there is no good reason to suppose that there will be a greatly increased rate of growth in the near future unless a rapid expansion of the economy occurs.
Paragraph 4 goes on to say:
In recent years the provision of generating capacity has run ahead of the country's requirements, and the E.S.B. has surplus capacity, over and above a reasonable reserve for contingencies, which would enable it to supply current of 400-500 million units a year in excess of the present demand of about 1,775 million units. This alone would suffice for almost four years of growth of demand at last year's rate.
May I interject again that that is the rate of 7.7 per cent increase, not likely to be realised, and even at that rate there was surplus capacity sufficient for almost four years of growth of demand at the exaggerated rate for the previous year?
The Deputy is getting away from Section 2 of the Bill.
I have only two sentences to go:—
The period of excess capacity will be prolonged by the completion of new generating stations now under construction. The heavy excess investment in plant adds to fixed charges and represents a deadweight burden on the E.S.B.
Who was responsible for that? Was it not the Taoiseach entirely? The Minutes of his Department showed it when we examined them.
They showed that the E.S.B., as a technical body, refused to accept the Minister's estimate with regard to growth of demand, and they were told he would supply the demand. They were told to go ahead and provide these generating stations and even at a later stage, when the programme was to an extent cut down, the Minister insisted that this excess capacity generating plant should be provided. We object to this disillusionment of the people. You have the figure of an independent Electricity Supply Board but in the background there is a Minister interfering, and making them do things which the minutes of Board meetings show they did not want to do, and which having regard to the governing Act, he should not have asked them to do.
If the Minister is going to continue on that line I think the sooner we get a radical change and get back to the old idea of the independent Electricity Supply Board the better—always with this reserve that if any Minister wants to induce the Board, or force the Board, to accept some policy which is more consistent with something that can be done nationally they should come to this House and declare that. Then the Board can protect itself by saying: "We did not do this on our own. This is a matter which is being done, not as a technical matter, but we are doing this now in answer to a national programme." Then, if there is any failure in the revenue of the particular concern everyone will know where to place the responsibility.
Last year was, I think, the first year since the formation years, outside the period of five years allowed by legislation for the Board to make its way, in which the E.S.B. showed a deficit. That is a year in which they were labouring under a deadweight burden caused by heavy excess investment in plant. They have not got out of that period yet.
On Section 2, I want to ask the Taoiseach what exactly is the significance of sub-section 4? It is one of these sections by reference. I do not know if it would be convenient for the Taoiseach to tell us now.
It applies the general code of the Ministers and Secretaries Act and relates to the authentication of documents.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
Agreed to take remaining Stages today.
Bill received for final consideration and passed.
Now, we are going to establish a new public company which I presume will be under this Minister to make grass meal.