Menu
-HOME
Baile
-DEBATES
Díospóireachtaí
-DÁIL DEBATES
Díospóireachtaí Dála
-SEANAD DEBATES
Díospóireachtaí Seanaid
-SEARCH
Cuardach
-ABOUT THIS SITE
Faoin Suíomh Seo
-LINKS
Nascanna
Previous - Lch. Roimhe Seo Up - Suas

Dáil Éireann - Volume 39 - 08 July, 1931

Public Business. - Electricity (Supply) (Amendment) Bill, 1931—Second Stage.

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. McGilligan): I move this Bill with a great deal less pleasure and much less satisfaction than I have ever moved any Bill in this House before. There are three things in it. In Section 6, sub-section (2) a sum of two million pounds is mentioned. I am asking for leave to have ready for advance to the Board two million pounds. In Section 4 a sum of two thousand pounds is mentioned. I am asking that the Board may be directed to pay that two thousand pounds in the manner stated. In Section 3, sub-section (1), the phrase occurs in relation to the sums of money previously mentioned, that there shall be advanced “as and when requested so to do by the Board all such sums as the Minister for Industry and Commerce shall from time to time certify to be reasonably and properly required by the Board.” Those are the three main things in the Bill. With regard to the sum of two million pounds I wish to have it at my disposal for the Board's purposes. Instead of that sum being handed over as in the previous Acts in certain half-yearly sums on a demand made by the Electricity Supply Board, I propose that it shall now be handed over as the Minister for Industry and Commerce shall from time to time certify to be reasonably and properly required by the Board.

In addition to these three things which are in the Bill, there are two other matters which are somewhere in the shadow of the Bill. One is the question of why the Executive Council accepted certain resignations of the members of the old Electricity Supply Board and secondly, what is the position of the present part time members or, as they are generally called, the business representatives who are associated with the Board in a part-time way. All these five things are somewhat tied up with the past history of the Electricity Supply Board and of the Shannon scheme, and I propose to give that history so as to secure the perspective in which these matters should be discussed.

There have been put to this House two main Bills dealing with the Shannon, one in 1925, the Shannon Electricity Act, which was amended [1629] in 1929, in its financial provisions, and secondly the Electricity (Supply) Act of 1927, which was amended in 1929 in certain small respects, and amended further in 1930. As far as the first of these Bills is concerned, it has very little if anything whatever to do with this general measure, but I refer to it to get the scheme properly set out. In the first Bill, the Shannon Electricity Act, the sum of £5,200,000, afterwards raised by the 1929 amending Bill to an effective sum of £5,700,000 was given for the construction of what was described and defined in that measure as the Shannon Works.

In addition there was a certain sum of money, which in the 1929 Act became £156,000, set aside to meet deficiencies and interest in the non-productive years. There were therefore the sums of £5,700,000 if we take the second Act plus this sum of £156,000, and for that there had to be constructed the whole Shannon Works as described in general in the Siemens Schuckert plan of many years ago. The sum of money I mentioned, £156,000, was supposed to be the sum which, with the revenue derived from the sale of current sold in bulk, would remunerate all the expenditure necessary in connection with these works and their construction, provide the interest payments, repayment of principal, depreciation, renewals, repairs, management and so on. Some of these things were not to be brought into account in the non-productive years, but it was estimated that if the maximum current that, in a dry year, would be produced for sale at the outskirts of towns and villages, namely, 134 or 138 million units, could be sold at a figure established by the experts, a sum of money, roughly £500,000, would be secured, and that would be sufficient to pay all I have spoken of, the interest, sinking fund, renewals and repairs, management and operation and other expenses of that kind. That was the first system, the Shannon system properly so-called.

I stated when the 1929 Act was under consideration that the sales figure of .84 of a penny mentioned by [1630] the experts, in their report, and taken as the basis of the calculation in the 1925 Act, had obviously suffered an enlargement and would now have to be raised to .9 of a penny. The position then was stated to be that if a sale of 138,000,000 units could be secured at .9 of a penny, we would have secured the all important sum of £500,000, which would meet all the Shannon construction expenses, interest on advances, repayment of capital and so on. That was the Shannon Bill proper. There was an Electricity Supply Act which dealt with distribution as apart from generation and long distance transmission. I want to go in more detail into the provisions of that Act. Under that Act a sum of money was voted—two and a half million pounds. It was voted to the Board to enable them to carry out all the purposes that were stated in the 1927 Act. It was the sum that was estimated to be the proper sum to enable them to carry out all the obligations imposed on them under the 1927 Act. They were to carry out all distribution, where it meant new net works to build new net works, and where there were old works to take them over, and if they were privately owned to take them over at a fair valuation, which in default of agreement was to be decided by an arbitrator, and to reconstruct such old net works as had to be reconstructed. It enabled them, or it was supposed to enable them, to have money free for house wiring, for the purchase of appliances for sale, for the provision of show-rooms, to engage in manufacture and to meet their own management and office expenses—that and the revenue they would derive as they went along.

The sum of money, as I say, was £2,500,000. Based on that sum, the scheme of the 1927 Act was this: A board was set up, a board which was declared to be independent from day to day inquisition either in Parliament or elsewhere. The consideration—and I stated that several times during the course of the debate on the 1927 Act— for this great freedom which the board was to be given was that there should [1631] be the fullest publicity possible of all their activities and, in particular, that there should be special publicity with regard to their accounts. The Dáil decided that there were certain accounts which must be produced. They detailed those. They said: These must be brought forward with regard to the Board's activities in a certain year. They said further that there might be produced such other statistics and returns as the Minister for Industry and Commerce thought fit, under a certain section, to demand. There was independence balanced by publicity and particularly by publicity on the financial side.

The Board was to have a maximum term of appointment of five years. In the clause establishing them, there was a sub-section to say that the members of the Board were subject to removal at any time by the Executive Council if in their opinion the effective and economic performance of the functions of the Board rendered dismissal necessary. Again, counter to that, was the fact that, if a dismissal took place, a statement of that fact and the reason for it had to be put before both Houses of the Oireachtas.

There are several sections which dealt with the accounts. Section 7 is the main section dealing with these. Section 32 is the section to which I have referred already, the section which ordained that an annual report must be made, and which also gives the Minister power to demand certain statistical and other returns as he may require them, and to publish these if he thinks fit to demand them. The Board were given £2,500,000, but they were not given any borrowing powers. They were limited to the sum of money set down, that is, £2,500,000 and this was to be advanced in certain instalments—or at least not more than a certain amount of it would be claimed in half yearly instalments. The interest was to be paid on each advance as made, but repayments of advances, that is to say, sinking fund arrangements, were not to begin until after the appointed day. The appointed day was to be the end of the [1632] year 1932, or such later day as might under stated conditions be determined. The Act looked to an appointed day, unless otherwise determined, of the 1st January, 1933. Interest on anything given to the Board had to be paid running from the date upon which each particular advance was made. Repayments of capital were not to start until after the first of the new year, 1933. Similar conditions held with regard to the Shannon Works, and the moneys involved in them as and when they were handed over to the Board. As each piece of the Shannon Works, representing a certain capital sum, came into the hands of the Board interest began to run on from that date. Repayment did not start till after the appointed day.

The Board was given a direction as to its operations under the Act—rather it was given an order as to its operations on the finance side. Section 21 detailed the system of charges that were to be made.

The first sub-section laid down that the charges must be such before the appointed day as would conduce after the appointed day to certain conditions being met. These are detailed in sub-section (2) of Section 21. That sub-section provides that charges for electricity, goods or services, should be

“fixed at such rates and at such scales that the revenue derived in any year by the Board from such sales and services together with its revenue (if any) in such year from other sources will be sufficient, and only sufficient (as nearly as may be) to pay all salaries, working expenses, and other outgoings of the Board properly chargeable to income in that year (including the payments falling to be made in such year by the Board to the Minister for Finance in respect of interest and sinking fund, payments on advances out of the Central Fund), and such sums as the Board may think proper to set aside in that year for reserve fund, extensions, renewals, depreciation, loans, and other like purposes.”

Later sections gave power to the [1633] Board to acquire existing undertakings. Section 39 details the process and the results of acquisition of authorised undertakings. Authorised undertakings were distinguished into two types, authorised municipal undertakings and authorised private undertakings. As far as an authorised private undertaking was concerned the Board might make a vesting order, and after certain formalities that are detailed had been attended to, a fair value was determined, fixed by a certain process, if not by agreement. On becoming possessed of such property under the order the Board had to set aside the determined sum. In regard to municipal undertakings the Board had power to take these over. There did not vest in the Board the liabilities of the previous undertaking, but the Board under Section 39 of the Act was bound to indemnify and keep indemnified the undertakers against all undischarged liabilities, borrowings, etc., previously made for the purposes of the undertaking.

That is, more or less, the scheme of the 1927 Act. I would like to summarise it. There was to be set up a Board, independent but subject to removal. The Board was bound to publicity, especially in regard to its finances. It was bound to the production of certain specified accounts. It was bound further to produce, at the request of the Minister, certain statistical reports. These were to be published under certain circumstances. The Board was bound to take over all the undischarged liabilities of authorised municipal undertakings on condition of indemnification and was bound to set aside a sum of money equal to the fair assessed value of privately-owned authorised undertakings. The Board was bound up by the limitation of the sum of two and a half million pounds given to it. It had no borrowing powers given to it, and therefore it had no borrowing powers under the law. It was given an instruction that its charges must be such as to conduce to meet all the things I have detailed: salaries, working expenses, interest, [1634] sinking fund, reserves, extensions, renewals, depreciation and so forth. It was clear from that, I think, that the indication that Parliament gave to the Board was that it must run the scheme on the basis of supplying people at cost, but at a cost which had to include all the items that are specified in the particular section to which I have referred. The costs were certainly to include these items after the appointed day and before the appointed day the charges must be such as to conduce to these expenses being met afterwards.

There may be inquiry made as to how this sum of two and a half million pounds was arrived at. There were many checks put on that sum when it was first considered. I mentioned on the Second Reading of the 1927 legislation that certain groups outside this country had shown a tendency to come in here with a view to securing the service of electricity in the country, and that one group in particular had advanced to the point of making very detailed calculations as to the amount of capital that would be required for purposes similar to those that were afterwards incorporated in the electricity supply legislation. I had that particular financial statement in my possession and discussed it with a person who afterwards became a member of the Board. I had from him memoranda prepared on various points which indicated that for all the purposes set out in the legislation the sum of two and a half million pounds should have been not merely sufficient, but amply sufficient, to meet all that the Board had to do. I had, in addition, material for a further test which was applied at that time. I had before me the capital accounts of a great many undertakings in many parts of the world, and from those it was clear that the ordinary disposal of capital was almost in equal one-thirds as between generation, transmission and distribution. As we had previously set out a very carefully considered and expertly advised scheme to provide £5,200,000 for generation and transmission, our next calculation was that the sum of two and a half million pounds should be taking it as a rough figure, a proper sum for the purpose set out in [1635] the 1925 Act. That was the legislation, and that was the sum of money. These were the directions that to my mind the Oireachtas gave to the Board to be appointed, with regard to this duty.

The Board was in due course appointed. I found myself at a very early stage in the Board's life faced with the question of what exactly was my responsibility for the Board, and if I had any responsibility at all how was it going to be exercised. There was the section in the Act, to which I have already referred, giving the Executive Council power to dismiss, in the interests of the effective and economic performance of the duties of the Board, any member or all the members of the Board. It seemed to me that where power to dismiss was given, in other words power to decide when the interests of the effective and economic performance of their functions by the Board demanded certain people's dismissal it was part of some Minister's duty and his right to satisfy himself as to the effective and economic performance of their duty by these people.

There was an accidental circumstance which happened at that time and which drew me into very close contact with the Board. The construction works were not complete. There were certain works which I was still carrying out and was clearly bound to carry out under the 1925 Act. I had contractors on the scene for the purpose of carrying out these works. It was represented to me that there were certain other works which the Board required and which could most effectively be carried out by my contractors with the plant that was on the spot at the time and under the expert supervision of my contractors and my own engineering staff. The Board put it to me that acting for the Board on an agency basis I should get my contractors to undertake specified work for the Electricity Supply Board. That led to a certain amount of investigation as to what these works were and to the type of control to which I was myself properly subjected on the construction of the works. Consequently I had to exercise a limited supervision [1636] over the works which the Electricity Supply Board requested my Department to have carried out for it.

In that way I was thrown into certain touch with the Electricity Supply Board, probably closer touch than I would have insisted on having if I was merely operating the section which gave me power to dismiss. But, let me repeat. Nevertheless, I hold that under the 1927 Act unless the power to dismiss was only an empty threat, then the people who might have to use that power in certain circumstances must have some right of investigating how the affairs of the Board were going.

At a very early stage in the Board's career, I sent letters to them stating that the construction works had got to a certain point, that the finances of the construction works to that point were amounting to a certain figure, pointing out that the final cost of electricity depended, not merely on the cost of generation and transmission, but the cost of distribution, and asking for an assurance that they were optimistic— no further than that—that they could, within the limits of the money granted by the Oireachtas, carry out all the work put upon them in such a way that at the experts' price sufficient units were likely to be sold as would recoup the money expended on the whole scheme and meet all necessary outgoings. I got very little satisfaction from the early letters. I did not expect a great deal of satisfaction then from letters written at the end of 1928, but in the course of correspondence that followed one fact clearly emerged, and that was that the Board felt that the sum of two and a half millions which they were entitled to demand from the Minister for Finance did not include any undischarged obligations that they took over from municipal undertakings. I had some conferences and wrote some letters on that point. In the conferences I pointed out that the undischarged liabilities were clearly in the sum which the foreign concern had decided to expend if it were allowed to electrify the country, and as that was the basis of our calculation, the undischarged liabilities were clearly intended to be within the sum put at the [1637] disposal of the Board. I argued that the undischarged liabilities, whatever they might be at the date of the vesting of the municipal undertakings in the Board, must be subtracted from the two and a half millions, and that the residue was what the Board might demand.

I got a statement from the Board at one time which showed a certain expenditure to that date and certain commitments beyond that date, and when I added the undischarged liabilities as estimated by me—for I had no precise knowledge of them—I found that the total sum had gone substantially higher than two and a half millions. A letter was again sent calling attention to what we felt was the intention of the Oireachtas with regard to this, but, nevertheless, asking if they could show us that this money could be remunerated. I stress this latter point as the main demand ordinarily made by us. In conversations or correspondence I had with members of the Board I frequently said or implied that once any stage of the Shannon had been completed in such a way that the accounts could show that it was financially sound, it would be an easy matter to get money for further development. I instanced the type of Bill that is brought frequently here with regard to the Telephone Capital Account and said there might be debates as to whether or not the telephone system was properly functioning but there was no hesitation in granting further moneys, because people knew where they were under that particular system.

My endeavour was to get some stage of the Shannon completed and its finances rounded off, showing the units being sold, the price at which they were being sold, the money that had to be remunerated, capital spent on it and all other charges met. As soon as that was shown it would be easy to provide further money for development. Although I raised the undischarged liabilities point at the very beginning, the moment I heard that undischarged liabilities were not regarded as being in the two and [1638] a half millions, nevertheless, I wrote to the Board asking it to show how this capital sum of two and a half millions, plus the surplus which I saw they had announced they were likely to require, was likely to be remunerated, the basis upon which the calculation that it would be remunerated rested. Again, I got no satisfaction on that point.

Eventually I took the opportunity offered by the introduction of a Bill in 1929. I had previously written to the Board to say that if the two and a half millions was not clearly to be read as including undischarged liabilities on acquired undertakings, then I would put that clearly into the Bill and go with it to the Dáil. I felt that that was the only thing that could be done. Deputies who were here at the time will have to search their memories for these debates, but I certainly was under the impression that I had left the House under the impression that the two and a half millions was the full capital sum the Board would have to remunerate, that it was inclusive of the undischarged liabilities, and that they certainly had not two and a half millions, in addition to the other sums. I argued to myself that that was clear and I used this argument to others to demonstrate to them our clear intention. What was the good of imposing finance restrictions, and not giving borrowing powers if the Board had this way of easing its financial position, that they could as controllers of authorised undertakers, and they had power to control, make these undertakers incur certain expenditure prior to being formally acquired, regard that fresh expenditure as an undischarged liability, and so free a larger amount of the two and a half millions for their own building expenses? Finally, arguments not having been much good, I brought in my 1929 Bill. I called the Board together and told them that I was going to insist on moving two amendments. One was a clause making it quite clear that the two and a half millions did include undischarged liabilities, and the other was that in Section 12 (1), which says: “the Minister for Finance shall advance” I was [1639] going to put in the word “may” instead of “shall” and by this change have a definite declaration in the Bill that until the construction period was over, as long as there was overlapping, and as long as I had certain contact with the Board's operations, I was clearly faced with responsibility. The Board met me under these circumstances and made an appeal to me not to put in the two amendments. They gave a written guarantee that they would scale down their expenditure so as to keep within the two and a half millions, minus the undischarged liability of the acquired undertakings. They made certain arrangements with regard to liaison, so as to keep a better flow of information between my Department and the Board, and on these two guarantees being given, I agreed not to bring in these amendments to the 1929 Act.

That meeting was held in the beginning of July, 1929, and the agreement was reduced to writing in August of that year. After that, operating on the new liaison arrangements, I asked again for certain information. The information I asked then and later can nearly all the time be summed up in the request put in letters during August or September, 1929, to this effect, that we wanted an assurance that the Board could, within the moneys given to them by the Oireachtas, carry out all the work put upon them, and that they could do that in such a way that the charges they would fix would remunerate all the capital put into it, and enable them to pay all the other expenses set out in the Act. Always we persisted in this, that we wanted a clear picture of their finances. Letters passed and certain information was given—certain very incomplete and unsatisfactory information was given. Finally, making a calculation from figures put before me in a letter in the early part of 1930, I issued a letter stating that in my opinion the Board had definitely gone beyond the sum of money which they had agreed was at their disposal. In the month of April, 1930, I had a letter from the Board proving—at least the letter began by saying that the purpose of the letter was to show that the Board [1640] had kept within the bounds of the two and a half million pounds, minus the undischarged liability. In the month of June, 1930, the Board made another approach to me, stating that they felt that they could not any longer keep within that limit unless they were to close down abruptly on certain schemes, and they felt that a sudden stoppage would cause wastage, and they asked that they should be relieved from any agreement they had given. I think somewhere about a month later they advanced to a further point, not so much that they could not any longer keep to their agreement, but that they had not kept to the agreement. Later I got a letter which announced to me that it was then clear that in December, 1929, the Board had passed the limits of the expenditure sanctioned—that at least in January, 1930, they had gone beyond the limits of the money that was allowed to them.

Mr. Flinn: What is the date of that letter?

Mr. McGilligan: I think that also was a June letter. I shall get the date afterwards if it is material. I still persisted in my inquiries. The agreement was there and talk as to whether the agreement was kept or was broken was, while important, relatively a secondary matter. The main thing that had to be determined was in what state were the accounts of the Board; how was consumption going; what relation did consumption and charges bear to expenditure; how far were the Board's operations likely to remunerate all the capital that had been involved? In the autumn of 1930 under the section which gives me the right to demand certain things, Section 31, I demanded certain statistics and returns and demanded further that if I could not get these statistics and returns at once I would be told the precise date by which they would guarantee to let me have these things. I might say that I have not got these returns yet.

Mr. Briscoe: Section 31 the Minister says. Is it not Section 32?

Mr. McGilligan: Yes, Section 32 is the one under which the annual reports [1641] and returns may be demanded. I have not yet got the returns I then demanded. That is why I said at the beginning that I have less satisfaction in coming to the House with a proposal such as is before it now than I had with any proposal that I ever had to introduce, because I am without the financial information that I should have upon which to base a demand for more money for the Board. But this, at any rate, I can state as clearly revealed to me: that there was a sum of £2,500,000 voted by the Oireachtas; that the Board agreed that that sum should be regarded as including undischarged liabilities of acquired undertakings; that these amounts came to a sum of about £800,000 at the date of their vesting in the Board, and that, therefore, there should have been given to the Board under the agreement £2,500,000, minus £800,000; that the Board have in fact got more than that money; that they have in fact spent more than the amount of the advances actually made to them, and that they have in fact committed themselves to an expenditure of at least a quarter of a million beyond that again.

It became clear, apart from the agreement altogether, as this correspondence drifted on, that the whole accounts system of the Board must be very incomplete. Financial information could not be supplied as it was demanded, nor could it be supplied months later. In probing around for the reasons I found that the Board had been operating a particular policy. It is quite clear now that that policy was wrong. I do not know what judgment I would pass on that policy if I had been a member of the Board at a particular time and had been asked to decide upon the policy. But it is quite clear that the policy which the Board adopted right from the start was that they must get revenue speedily without having before them any statement of the expenditure necessary to get that revenue, and therefore not having taken into their consideration the actual money that they were expending at any time. They had not got these details, or if they had, they have withheld them from me for a period [1642] extending over a year. The Board were going on that policy apparently, whereas the policy laid down in the Act is clearly a different one. It is that they should make their charges in such a way before the appointed day as to conduce to certain things arising after the appointed day, and that was that they should meet, but only just meet, all the things set out in that particular section. Instead of that, the Board operated another policy. The result of that policy was, as I say, that they made capital commitments without previously considering what was going to be the remuneration of that money or how that money was going to be remunerated, if at all.

There is a further point. It appears in the course of the later stages of this long drawn-out correspondence that the Board felt that the first scheme, the partial development of the Shannon, had been exploited, that they had committed themselves to something beyond that; that they required the provision of money for certain extensions; that, in fact, they had done what I have said was not in the mind of the Oireachtas at all when the measure was being passed. They had gone on to a new scheme without giving the Minister concerned, the Executive Council or the Parliament an opportunity of deciding whether or not that new scheme should be gone on with. The Board declared that their policy, such as it was, and whatever I may imagine it to be, was in their minds the proper policy and they seemed to me to indicate in a very definite way that that policy being approved of by them was the policy which would be pursued in future. In these circumstances I was told that further money was required for certain extensions and certain stand-by arrangements. If I had granted the money requested in the circumstances I have detailed I would be granting it with the whole history of the Board revealed to me over a couple of years and on a more or less definite statement of policy of a type which was definitely to my mind not what the Oireachtas intended them to have. In these circumstances, when certain resignations [1643] were offered, I asked that they should be accepted and they were accepted. The position we find ourselves in at the moment is that if we count the undischarged liabilities in the sum of money which the Oireachtas put at the disposal of the Board, the Board have overspent by a sum of about £600,000 and they have committed themselves, I cannot say whether it is inextricably, but I am afraid it is, to the extent at least of another quarter of a million.

Mr. Briscoe: Does that include the money still to be called upon by the Board?

Mr. McGilligan: Perhaps the Deputy will listen to me. If we take the two and a half million pounds as including the undischarged liabilities, and if we subtract the sum of those from the two and a half million pounds, there ought to have been disbursements of a certain figure. There have, in fact, been disbursements of £300,000 in excess. When I tot up the excess and other things I find that the Board have overspent by £600,000 and committed themselves to an expenditure of about a quarter of a million more.

Mr. MacEntee: They already overspent to the extent of over £600,000 and had committed themselves to the extent of another £250,000.

Mr. McGilligan: I am speaking roughly because in my position I have no clear accounts. That is the position after I had given it a great deal of examination. That is the best way I can explain the position at present.

Mr. Flinn: May I put this question? I am trying to get an accurate figure.

Mr. McGilligan: It is impossible at the moment. It cannot be got. The Deputy is on a fruitless quest.

Mr. Flinn: I want to understand the Minister. Does it mean that the Board was committed roughly speaking to the expenditure of £3,350,000?

Mr. McGilligan: Yes, if that is the tot of what I have given the House.

Mr. Flinn: That is what I wanted to make sure of.

Mr. McGilligan: Counting in the undischarged liabilities, yes. That is what I want to say at the moment on the question of resignation of certain members [1644] of the Board. As to the part-time members and our attitude to the part-time members, it is this: The Executive Council has re-appointed the three part-time representatives for a period of six months from a date in April last. We want that six months period or the portion of it now left in order to discuss with them from their inner knowledge of the Board what is the proper scheme to have of part-time representation or if part-time representation on such a Board is a proper system at all. Personally I am strongly in favour of having the business point of view represented upon the Board. I feel that a scheme can be worked in which part-time representatives of a business type can pull their weight on a Board, but there has to be made for the future some definite relationship which is not there at present as between their power on the Board and their strength to modify the affairs of the Board and the responsibility they will carry if and when the affairs of the Board go wrong. That has not been determined yet; and as I regard the whole plan of the Electricity Supply Board as not merely a good thing for electrical development but a very good experiment of a sociological type, I want to have it better argued out before I can come to a final scheme. The part-time members remain on for a limited tenure. But as far as I am concerned that is for the purpose of enabling me to get certain discussions with them on their inner knowledge of what has happened, and to relate all that to the future to see what should be their authority and equally their responsibility as things go right or wrong.

I ask in these circumstances with great hesitation for the sum of money set out in the Bill, that is the sum of two millions, some of which is required, of course, to meet what I call the over expenditure plus what I think are the inevitable commitments. In regard to the rest, I asked the Board, after certain resignations had been accepted, to make out for me as speedily as they could and as accurately as they could a statement of their requirements over a reasonable period. I pointed out to them when talking about the period that the [1645] scheme was more or less at a transition period now; that there might have to be a considerable amount of discussion and Parliamentary drafting of new legislation was required, and so I asked them to give me a statement that would cover and amply cover what they thought they would require over a reasonable period. I emphasised that there might be delays in getting before the Dáil again.

I ask that this sum of money should be put, not at the disposal of the Board, as heretofore, not subject to demand in certain half-yearly instalments from the Minister for Finance, to which the Minister must respond by giving the money, but I ask that it should be more or less put at my own disposal for the Board. I ask that this money shall be given out as the Minister for Industry and Commerce shall from time to time certify it to be reasonably and properly required. If I am asked does that mean that I have decided upon a complete change in the whole scheme of the Electricity Supply Act, I want to answer very definitely no! But I want to relate the change now suggested and the circumstances of the suggestion to circumstances in which that sum of two and a half million pounds was previously voted. Previously we had a good idea of the Board's duties though we might be conjecturing on certain points. We knew the field they had to cover, and we had two or three outside minds working on the same problem, and we saw what they had decided as the amount of capital they required to sink for the purpose of the Act if they got possession of the electrical supply of the country. Therefore we had some data on which to go when we decided that a sum of two and a half million was required for the purposes of the Board. At this time with regard to the future we have practically none. I cannot say that I am satisfied with regard to any of this money, but I want to say that I shall have to be satisfied before any of the money will go to the Board. This is the only plan I can think of at this moment. There must be money at somebody's disposal for the purposes of the Board. We cannot leave it as it was under the old Act, that the [1646] Board could demand it at will and it must be given, because we have no clear evidence of their programme and no basis on which to form our own judgment as to whether or not that programme is good and sufficient and likely to be a remunerative one. This puts a responsibility on me which I am very loath to take. I was very happy under the Act of 1927, because to a certain extent, though not completely, I had shed my responsibility for what the Board did. I think it would be fatal to the whole electrical development of the country if the Minister was to become so far associated with the Electricity Supply Board as, say, the representative of the Government is with the Post Office. I do not want that situation with regard to the Board. All I do want is that now, not having the material available for a decision as I had when the previous sum of two and a half million was voted, I shall be able to demand that material for certain blocks of this money as and when people come and demand it from me. As I do not want this responsibility, as, indeed, I want to shirk that responsibility, the House can take it from me that the moment I do get sufficient justification for a block sum I am coming again to the House to rechange to the old scheme, and that the Minister for Industry and Commerce, or the Minister for Finance will have no responsibility in the matter other than the responsibility the Ministers concerned have in the matter of the appointment of the Board, and I should add such other responsibility as arises from the fact that they are entitled to dismiss in certain circumstances, and, I argue from that, entitled to supervise to a certain limited extent for the purpose of ascertaining if and when dismissals should take place.

I am asking that the House should assent to Section 4: “As soon as may be after the passing of this Act, the Board shall pay to Thomas A. MacLaughlin, lately a member of the Board, a sum of two thousand pounds.” I ask for the money for certain reasons, and mainly for this: Dr. MacLaughlin brought the Shannon scheme here, and brought it here at a time when the tendency in electrical development was [1647] in another way, in a way that if it had been allowed to proceed would have stopped national electrical development for centuries. He therefore did this country a great service by turning it to a scheme which meant a national instead of a local scheme, and a local scheme of such a type that it would, by absorbing the biggest number of available consumers have stopped for many a year all possibility of a national development of electricity. By reason of the fact that he was the author of the scheme, and by reason of the very great industry he showed in it, and the tremendous amount of energy and enthusiasm he put into its promotion, and the great amount of hard work he put into its development since its inception, I ask that we do now what an ordinary business firm would do.

He has followed a policy which I put to the House was wrong, but it was a policy which was honestly taken up. An ordinary commercial undertaking would allow a man in such a position who left their employment at least a year in which to look around for other work, and would finance him accordingly, and we want in this case to pay a sum of money which would be equal to a year's pay if he had remained on in the services of the Board.

Question proposed: That the Bill be read a Second Time.

Mr. Lemass: It is very difficult for the members of the Dáil not possessing the inside information of the Minister to discuss the Bill that is before us on the statement we have just heard. For the majority of the members of the House and the general public the Press announcement of the acceptance of the resignation of Dr. MacLaughlin was the first intimation of any differences between the Minister or Executive Council and the Electricity Supply Board. Up to that time such statements as had been made by the Minister, both in this House and outside it, led us to believe that satisfactory progress was being made with the Shannon scheme in all directions and that no cause of friction of any sort existed. The Minister [1648] has now made a statement which would seem to show that differences and causes of friction existed between his Department and the Board from the beginning of 1929 onwards. We have heard the history of these differences for the first time. They reveal a situation which, I am sure, will cause considerable uneasiness in the minds of Deputies because they seem to show that the causes which have produced the necessity for this demand for £2,000,000 are of long standing and might have been eradicated if the Minister had taken action earlier.

The Minister dealt at length with the whole history of the Shannon scheme.

Deputies will remember that when the scheme was first brought to the House they were given to understand that its cost would be limited to the figure of £5,210,000 in respect of the generation and transmission sides. That figure was exceeded. The Minister came to the House in 1929 and got the amount which he was entitled to spend on generation and transmission increased by, approximately, £600,000. Even then, however, the Minister quite clearly gave the House to understand that the £2,500,000 provided for the Board plus the additional £156,000 secured in 1929 was adequate, and more than adequate, to meet all the expenditure likely to arise upon the distribution side. Deputies will even remember that as late as the middle of last year when the 1930 Act was under discussion here and an amendment was introduced by Deputy Fahy, which, if passed, would have had the effect of increasing that £2,500,000 by a half million pounds, the Minister vigorously opposed the amendment and stated definitely that there was no reason to believe that the two and a half millions voted in 1927 would prove inadequate to enable the Board to meet the duties and functions imposed on it by the Act of 1927. Now we are informed that long before the introduction of that 1930 Act the Minister had grave doubts as to whether the sum provided would be adequate and that before the 1929 Act was introduced here he had a conference with the Board on these matters, a conference which resulted [1649] in a certain agreement which was broken, according to the Minister, in December, 1929, or in January, 1930. Certainly it was broken long before the 1930 Act was introduced.

In the statement made by the President to the Deputies here when the first announcement of the dissensions between the Executive Council and the Board was made, the point that struck many members of this House, and many members of the general public, and which the Minister has not answered, is this: It was stated that the differences of opinion on major matters of policy had existed for a long period between the Executive Council and the Managing Director. The Minister has detailed the differences which existed between the Executive Council and the Board. The point to which I wish to refer is this: how did it come that the Managing Director had dealings with the Executive Council other than through the Board? Were not the whole Board responsible for the policy of the Board? Should not the resignation of the Managing Director have been accompanied by the resignation of the other members? The fact that only two members resigned and that the other members continued in office would seem to suggest that the Executive Council, or the Minister for Industry and Commerce, was having discussions on matters of policy with individual members of the Board and not with the Board as a whole. Such practices would seem to be very undesirable indeed.

Mr. McGilligan: There were no such practices.

Mr. Lemass: If there were no such practices how did it come about that the Managing Director could announce that differences of policy had arisen between him and the Executive Council?

Mr. McGilligan: Ask him; I do not know. I am not responsible for the phrase he used.

Mr. Lemass: But that was the announcement made, and it was on account of these differences of opinion that the Executive Council accepted [1650] the resignation of the Managing Director.

Mr. McGilligan: Not in the terms of that particular statement. I had all my dealings with the Chairman of the Board or whoever officially represented it.

Mr. Lemass: And the whole Board was responsible for the policy adopted, for the inefficiency in relation to accounts which the Minister has referred to, and other matters which resulted ultimately in the resignation of the Managing Director?

Mr. McGilligan: All the full-time members of the old Board.

Mr. Lemass: Were not the part-time members also responsible?

Mr. McGilligan: I have mentioned that as a reason why the part-time members are on a six months basis. There must be some proper relation in future of authority and responsibility.

Mr. Lemass: The position is that the part-time members are held by the Minister to be equally blameworthy with the other members of the Board, but that the Minister has retained them in office for the purpose of discussing a further scheme.

Mr. McGilligan: No.

Mr. Lemass: But surely they were as much responsible as any other members of the Board?

Mr. McGilligan: If all the Board had resigned I would have accepted their resignations, but only two came in.

Mr. Briscoe: Including the Chairman.

Mr. Lemass: The Minister certainly gave the impression that it was his opinion that the management of the Board had been so unsatisfactory that if these resignations had not been forthcoming he might have had to avail of the powers given to him in the Act to dismiss certain members of it.

Mr. McGilligan: I do not remember saying that or anything like it.

Mr. Lemass: Am I to understand, therefore, that if the Managing Director or another member of the Board had not resigned this matter would not have arisen in this way at all?

[1651] Mr. McGilligan: It would be wrong to understand that.

Mr. Lemass: It is very difficult——

Mr. McGilligan: It is, very.

Mr. Lemass: —to understand what the Minister's position is. He has given us a detailed statement of his dealings with the Board which would seem to show that in his opinion the direction of the affairs of the Shannon scheme by that Board was most unsatisfactory. It had embarked upon a wrong policy. It had broken agreements made with him. It had been unsatisfactory in the manner in which it kept its accounts. It had failed to furnish information which it was obliged by statute to furnish. Despite all these facts, the Minister apparently is taking up the position that if members of the Board had not resigned he would have allowed them to continue in office.

Mr. McGilligan: I never said it.

Mr. Lemass: The Minister would not have allowed them to continue in office?

Mr. McGilligan: I never said that either. I was pursuing enquiries when certain things happened. What these enquiries would have resulted in I do not know.

Mr. Lemass: I am anxious to find out what the Minister's position is. As far as I can understand it now, he has been forced to come to the Dáil with this Bill, and to undertake the reorganisation of the Board, not because the affairs of the Board were going wrong, but because certain members resigned. Their resignation concentrated attention upon the mismanagement that existed, but if they had not resigned he would not have dismissed them, and this reorganisation could not have taken place.

Mr. McGilligan: I will explain myself.

Mr. Lemass: The Board was established, as the Minister stated, an independent body, absolutely free from control by the Executive Council. This Dáil gave them certain statutory powers and charged them with the [1652] responsibility of running the Shannon scheme in such a manner that the revenue from the sale of electricity would meet all the charges specified in the Act, the payment of interest, the repayment of capital, maintenance of the works and charges of that kind. Despite the declared independence of the Board, behind which the Minister always sheltered when its activities were criticised in this House, it appears that quite early in 1927 the Minister was inclined to interfere with its activities. He found that a section of the Act gave him power to dismiss members in certain circumstances. He interpreted that section to mean that he was entitled at all times to be informed as to the activities of the Board and of its policy, so that he would be in a position to say whether or not the situation had arisen or was likely to arise which would necessitate the use of his powers of dismissal. It is, I think, and the Minister has admitted it, most desirable that a Board of this kind should be independent of political control, yet it appears to me that it was from the time that the Minister attempted to exercise that supervision over the affairs of the Board that friction arose, friction which has continued since. The Minister is now proposing, though deploring the fact, to destroy the independence of the Board, at any rate, for a period. The Board which is given this two million pounds on the condition that it could not secure it unless the Minister is satisfied as to the purpose for which it is being expended could not be described as an independent Board. In future the Board will be directly subject to the control of the Minister in all matters relating to policy and administration. Is not that so?

Mr. McGilligan: No.

Mr. Lemass: The fact that the Board will not be able to procure any part of that money until it has submitted its plans to the Minister and got the Minister's approval would indicate to any ordinary commonsense individual that it could not be described as independent. The Board may not have [1653] been independent heretofore. It certainly will not be independent if this Bill is passed. The future decisions upon its policy will be made directly by the Minister, on the advice no doubt and with the assistance of the Board. But the final authority on all matters of policy and administration will be the Minister. Does the Minister think that that is likely to produce fewer causes of friction in the future than appear to have existed in the past?

I wonder if the Minister told us the whole story concerning these causes of friction. The Board appears to have embarked upon a very widespread policy at the beginning and to have embarked upon it vigorously. The Minister told us that its policy, no matter how widespread it was or how vigorously embarked upon it may have been, could have been carried out within the financial limits of the 1927 Act, but those financial limits were originally devised by the Minister and not by the Board. The original limit of £2,500,000 was fixed by the Minister. He gave the data upon which it was fixed. It may have been right. It may have been wrong. It is quite possible that any Board in the circumstances in which this Board found itself, endeavouring to fulfil all its functions within the Act, could not have done so within that limit.

Mr. McGilligan: What should it have done when it found it could not?

Mr. Lemass: It should have come undoubtedly to the Minister, or through the Minister to the Dáil, for an extension of the limit. That is what it appears to have done.

Mr. McGilligan: No, they spent first and asked afterwards.

Mr. Lemass: I am not clear about that at all. There may have been disagreement as to the legal significance of the wording of the 1927 Act as to whether or not undischarged liabilities of the acquired municipal undertakings were properly chargeable against the amount provided for the Board under the 1927 Act, in which event obviously the Board appeared to have acted correctly [1654] in the manner in which it dealt with the situation. If it is clear from the wording of the Act that these undischarged liabilities were properly chargeable against the two and a half million pounds, then the Board's duty was obviously to bring that fact to the attention of the Minister as early as possible, and the Minister has informed us that they did bring that to his notice before the 1929 Act was introduced.

Mr. McGilligan: They brought the thing to my notice after they had overspent.

Mr. Lemass: The Minister has told us——

Mr. McGilligan: If I have misled the Dáil, I want to say that they always came to me after the event.

Mr. Lemass: The Minister informed the Dáil that before the 1929 Act was introduced he had concluded that the Board must, on the programme it was then following, exceed that limit, taking into account the undischarged liabilities of the acquired undertakings. He stated that while that Act was before the Dáil he had a conference with the Board in which he said that he was going to introduce two amendments unless he got from them an undertaking that they would reduce their expenditure, so that the total of that expenditure with the total of the undischarged liabilities would amount to two and one-half million pounds. He got that undertaking: he states that it was broken, that subsequently he got a letter from the Board stating that it would be impossible to keep to its undertaking and asking to be released from it after, in fact, it had broken the undertaking. The position was that after the 1929 Act was introduced the Minister knew that the Board had either to abandon its original programme or exceed the limits fixed by the 1929 Act.

Mr. McGilligan: And they agreed to that.

Mr. Lemass: Was not that the time for the Minister to come to the Dáil and say that the original programme could not be carried out under the original estimates?

[1655] Mr. McGilligan: No, because I thought the original programme would be carried out because they said it would be carried out.

Mr. Lemass: These are the Minister's words: Before the 1929 Act was introduced he wrote to the Board asking them for an assurance that all the work could be carried out under the financial provisions and got little satisfaction. One fact emerged, namely, that the Board held that the two and a half millions did not include the undischarged obligation of the undertakings taken over. He got no satisfaction when he asked the Board whether the financial provisions could be adhered to, and he knew then that it was the Board's opinion that these undischarged liabilities of acquired undertakings were not chargeable against the two and a half million pounds. He then came to the Dáil and said that under no circumstances was there any possibility of the total expenditure of the Shannon scheme exceeding five million eight hundred thousand pounds plus two million five hundred thousand pounds plus one hundred and fifty-six thousand pounds. He said there might be variations, in other words, the charges which were originally intended to be brought against one item would be put against another but under no circumstances would the gross total be exceeded. It has been exceeded. The Minister said that although he knew that the Board could not carry out its programme within the financial limits and at the same time meet its undischarged liabilities——

Mr. McGilligan: I did not. The Board said they would modify their programme and would keep within the sum of money and in April, 1930, they wrote to me to point out how they had kept to it.

Mr. Lemass: The Minister has just stated that the Board wrote to him in April, 1930, that it had kept within the limits of the agreement made when the 1929 Act was before the Dáil. In his original statement he stated that in that month and in that year the Board wrote to him to the effect that [1656] it could not keep within the limits and asked to be released from the agreements made when the 1929 Act was being discussed here. We are anxious to get the whole facts clear; it is necessary to wander from point to point because we have been given a whole lot of information concerning the Shannon Board and its activities which we have not had an opportunity of getting before. The Minister must remember that Deputies are dependent on the meagre information given in the daily press. We have not even accounts of the Board for the financial year 1929/30 much less for the year 1930/31. We are completely in the dark as to what it has been doing. We are anxious to find out how the necessity of providing another two million and adding that two millions to the cost of the Shannon scheme has arisen. The Minister might have gone into that at greater length than he did.

He said as far as he has been able to discover the Board has overspent to the amount of £600,000 and that it has entered into liabilities amounting to a quarter of a million pounds and that if we add those figures on to the original two million five hundred thousand pounds we get a total of what it has been responsible for, taking into account the undischarged liabilities of the undertaking, but the Minister has not accounted for the balance of the two million pounds.

Mr. McGilligan: I cannot.

Mr. Lemass: The Minister must. The Minister came to this House in June, 1930, that is twelve months ago, stating that he could see no necessity whatever for increasing the £2,500,000 which had been given to the Board by the 1927 Act. When a proposal was made here to increase that amount he opposed it. He stated that all the factors in the situation had been taken into account when the original estimate was made, and that in that month, June, 1930, he was satisfied that the two and a half millions would be adequate to meet all the expenses of the Board, including those statutory undertakings. Now he comes and asks for two [1657] millions more. That is a large sum of which he can account for only £850,000. What is the balance going to be spent on if the original two and a half millions was sufficient to meet the cost of all the activities of the Board?

Mr. McGilligan: It should have been but it was not.

Mr. Lemass: The Minister states that it should have been. He now has discovered that it was not. He mentioned the fact that it has been exceeded by the sum of £850,000. That accounts for the £850,000. Under the circumstances the Dáil cannot refuse to give that £850,000, but what about the £1,150,000 the Minister is asking the Dáil for?

Mr. McGilligan: Accruing liabilities and developments.

Mr. Lemass: What developments?

Mr. McGilligan: The Board has other liabilities that have been mentioned.

Mr. Lemass: I am anxious to get from the Minister information that he does not seem anxious to give.

Mr. McGilligan: Because I cannot get it from the Board.

Mr. Lemass: The Minister took up the position that this two and a half millions was sufficient to meet all the charges likely to arise, and, if the Board properly managed its affairs, it could have kept within that limit.

Mr. McGilligan: Certainly.

Mr. Lemass: It has exceeded £2,500,000 by £850,000. We propose to give them £850,000 which represents, I understand, roughly, the undischarged liabilities of the acquired undertakings.

Mr. McGilligan: There would be about £850,000.

Mr. Lemass: The Board, having got £2,500,000 plus £850,000, should have enough.

Mr. McGilligan: To meet its debts to date.

[1658] Mr. Lemass: To carry out all the functions placed on the Board by the 1927 Act. The members of the Board whom the Minister considers unsatisfactory are gone. We are going to get a new Board at the end of a few months. Under what circumstances can that Board be called upon to spend a sum of money equal to half the total granted in 1927 to meet all the activities of the Board? The Minister is not treating the Dáil fairly in the attitude he is taking. £2,500,000 was estimated in 1927 to meet all the expenses of the Board from 1927 to the end of 1932. That amount has been expended plus another £850,000 on something. The distribution networks must have been erected or acquired or reorganised. The privately-owned undertakings have been acquired. The wiring installation business has been established. Showrooms have been procured. Stocks have been purchased. All the purposes for which that money has been given to the Board have been provided for.

Mr. McGilligan: Not at all.

Mr. Lemass: What has not been provided for?

Mr. McGilligan: You may take one thing alone. All the networks which have to be built have not been built.

Mr. Lemass: Is it the Minister's position that this £1,150,000, which he has not accounted for, is going to be spent on networks not already provided?

Mr. McGilligan: Portion of it.

Mr. Lemass: What portion of it?

Mr. McGilligan: I do not know.

Mr. Lemass: The Minister has some basis for his calculations.

Mr. McGilligan: I said before I have very little.

Mr. Lemass: The Minister was able to arrive at a figure of £2,500,000 and say that that sum of money should be sufficient to meet all the financial requirements of the Board up to the end of 1932. He was so certain that the basis of his calculation in that year [1659] was right that in 1931 he is prepared to accept the resignation of important members of the Board because they exceeded the amount, and could not bring their activities within the financial limit he imposed.

Mr. McGilligan: That is not the reason.

Mr. Lemass: What is the reason?

Mr. McGilligan: Because they incurred expenditure for which they had not got any money.

Mr. Lemass: They exceeded the figure?

Mr. McGilligan: I stated distinctly to them that if they wanted more money they should make a case for it, that whatever had been spent had been spent in a way that would be remunerative, and that I would get approval for it. The question of how much was spent was a minor consideration. It was the method was the principal consideration.

Mr. Lemass: How is this money going to be remunerated?

Mr. McGilligan: That is what I am waiting to see. If I knew that the phrase about the Minister for Industry and Commerce would not be in this Bill.

Mr. Lemass: Is it not the Minister's position that everything will be all right if he has the final voice in policy?

Mr. McGilligan: No.

Mr. Lemass: How is the fact that the Minister must certify in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (3) before the money can be advanced going to improve the position? An additional £2,000,000 is being added to the cost.

Mr. McGilligan: No.

Mr. Lemass: An additional £2,000,000, interest and sinking fund charges which must be met out of revenue.

Mr. McGilligan: Not unless it is spent.

[1660] Mr. Lemass: Will it be spent? Why should the Dáil vote money that is not required?

Mr. McGilligan: Because, as I have said before, this is the most accurate view I can get of the money that might be required for a special policy. I would not say that the £2,000,000 is going to be spent. I doubt it very much.

Mr. Lemass: The Minister has said that the greater part of it might be required. Might be required, for what? What particular activity of the Board is to be financed out of these moneys? The greater part of the original activities of the Board as planned must have been covered.

Mr. McGilligan: I do not agree with that.

Mr. Lemass: How far have they not been covered?

Mr. McGilligan: I have not been able to get the accounts to show it.

Mr. Lemass: If the Minister has not the information why should the Minister come to the Dáil asking for this sum? The Minister requires immediately £850,000. That is to provide the £600,000 which has been spent and the £250,000, liability for which has been incurred.

Mr. McGilligan: Debts to date.

Mr. Lemass: The debts incurred amount to £600,000 plus this £250,000. But the Minister asks the Dáil to give him a blank cheque for £1,150,000. He does not know what the money is required for, he does not know what it is to be spent on, he does not know if there is need for it or where the need exists. I think the Dáil ought to be slow to give this money, particularly in view of the financial history of the Shannon scheme. Remember that Deputies, confined to the information which the Minister has given from time to time to the House, have only these facts to go on. There was an estimate for £4,600,000 cost of construction at first. The Minister said he had a binding estimate for that.

[1661] Mr. McGilligan: I did not.

Mr. Lemass: The Minister's words are on record.

Mr. McGilligan: I want to get the quotation in which I am on record for that statement.

Mr. Lemass: I will get it. I quoted it before.

Mr. McGilligan: If the Deputy looks the matter up he will find that I always said there was a percentage addition one way or another, and provision might have to be made for it.

Mr. Lemass: I will try to get the statement in which the Minister said that the original estimate was £4,500,000. He then came to the Dáil in 1929 for an increase of £600,000, part of which was for additional works not included in the estimate—£100,000 at most. The greater part was to provide for an increase in the cost over the estimate—£300,000 of it at least.

Mr. McGilligan: £200,000.

Mr. Lemass: I will give the Minister the exact figure. A sum of £96,000 was for the additions to the scheme prepared by the experts; £100,000 was for the cost of purchasing pole sites, not included in the original scheme.

Mr. McGilligan: It was included as an annuity, but it was capitalised.

Mr. Lemass: It was a capital figure on this occasion. There was £160,000 additional cost for civil works; £140,000 additional for electrical and mechanical works; £53,000 for contingencies. Then there was a sum of £150,000 for administrative expenses, and £132,000, the cost of additional navigation works, which were not being charged against the scheme. The bigger part of the sum represented an increase in the cost of the work over the estimate presented to the Dáil.

Mr. McGilligan: About one quarter of a million increase in the cost of the work.

Mr. Lemass: £274,000 plus £96,000 plus £93,000.

[1662] Mr. McGilligan: What was the £96,000?

Mr. Lemass: We will leave that out. There was £274,000 plus £53,000 for contingencies.

Mr. McGilligan: If spent.

Mr. Lemass: Has it been spent?

Mr. McGilligan: Not yet.

Mr. Lemass: We will leave that out. The position is that it will probably be spent.

Mr. McGilligan: It is estimated.

Mr. Lemass: Judging at the rate at which the expenditure is going on, that is not an unfair assumption.

Mr. McGilligan: Judging the rate at what expenditure is going on?

Mr. Lemass: The original estimate has been exceeded despite the fact he said it was binding.

Mr. McGilligan: The Deputy ought not to repeat that until he gets that quotation.

Mr. Lemass: I remember distinctly producing it when the 1929 Act was under discussion, and the Minister took the same attitude then as now.

Mr. McGilligan: The Deputy ought to get it before he talks of it.

Mr. Flinn: My recollection was that the total figure was £5,990,000 when the matter came before the Dáil in 1929.

Mr. McGilligan: I do not remember that.

Mr. Flinn: We will look it up.

Mr. Lemass: In the year 1929 a sum of £5,800,000 was provided, increased by £156,000, which was to pay the accrued interest to date, decreased by £132,000 which was not chargeable against the scheme, because it went against navigation. That was as far as the cost of the scheme was concerned. When the 1927 Act was going through a sum of £2,500,000 was granted to meet the cost of distribution and the other activities of the Board. That has been exceeded. It has been very considerably exceeded, as the Minister has just informed us. [1663] Now he comes and asks the Dáil to provide another £1,150,000 for purposes which he cannot detail, the necessity for which he does not know. It is to be given to him with power to expend it without any obligation on him to come to the Dáil for the purpose of getting approval for it. The Minister talked about new developments. What new developments is he going to undertake? Have they any reference to statements which appeared in the Press with regard to the extension of the Shannon scheme? A considerable amount of uneasiness has been caused in the City of Limerick by these reports and the possible effect which the developments will have in regard to the trade of that city in the district served by the Shannon. Are these the developments which the Minister has in mind, and if so, is he going ahead with them? What works are being undertaken and has the Board been consulted? Is the idea of the Minister, before he advances the money, to insist on the Board coming into conformity with his wishes on the matter? I certainly think the Dáil is entitled to much more detailed information than the Minister has chosen to give before the Bill can be passed? There are two big issues involved. The first is the provision of £2,000,000. It is a big sum to be asked to pay in part for mismanagement and in part for purposes we do not know.

Secondly, there is the issue of the independence of the Board which has been destroyed by this Bill. Whether, in fact, the Board was really independent in the past we do not know. We have reason to believe the contrary. The Minister has given foundation for that belief in the statement he made to-day, that he interpreted the section of the Act dealing with powers of dismissal as giving him the right to insist to be informed at all times concerning the progress and policy of the Board. Can the House be told when it is likely that the overdue accounts of the Board will be published? If the Minister is anxious to get the position rectified I suggest that he should confine himself to this extent, [1664] to ask the Dáil for the £850,000 which he says is essential, and suspend his request for the balance until the Dáil has been furnished with the accounts to which it is statutorily entitled.

The Dáil was informed last week that these accounts have been submitted in a provisional form to the Government. It may be a long time yet before they are ready. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the accounts for 1928-29, we think that before the House should agree to sanction such a large addition to the cost of the scheme the available financial information should be brought up to date, and in a form which would be considered satisfactory by the Dáil. As Deputies will remember, the form of the accounts published for 1928-29 was not satisfactory.

Statements have appeared in the Press that some of the friction which appears to have arisen between the Board and the Executive Council arose out of appointments made by the Board. I would like if the Minister could inform us whether there is any truth in that.

Mr. McGilligan: Not a particle.

Mr. Lemass: Are we to take it that at no time representations were made by the Executive Council or any member of it to the Board concerning any appointment, promotion or dismissal made by the Board?

Mr. McGilligan: The Deputy is not to take that.

Mr. Lemass: Well, representations were made by the Executive Council which it had no legal authority to make.

Mr. McGilligan: I wonder.

Mr. Lemass: The Minister has stated repeatedly in the Dáil that the Board was at perfect liberty to employ whatever persons it wished, and that it had perfect independence and control over its own servants. The Act setting up the Board provides that the Board is at liberty to avail of the machinery of the Local Appointments Commission if it so chooses. It did not do that, but made its own appointments in its own way. It promoted [1665] and dismissed officials according as it believed that course to be satisfactory or otherwise. The Minister says that we cannot take it that no representations were made to the Board concerning the personnel of its staff, and at the same time he informs us that the question of the employment of the staff was not part of the cause of the friction which arose. I think it is very unsatisfactory that the Dáil should be treated in this cavalier fashion. What exactly was the position between the Executive Council and the Board in relation to the employment of staff? The Minister cannot ignore the question. It has been stated in quite a number of newspapers throughout the country that the prime cause of the resignation of the Managing Director was friction arising over the personnel of the staff. That statement has been published and has not been denied. The Minister says in one breath that it is not true, and in the next breath he says that representations have been made by the Executive Council to the Board concerning the staff. What exactly is the position? Was the Board given absolute independence in that matter?

Mr. McGilligan: Absolute.

Mr. Lemass: Were any attempts made by the Executive Council to limit the independence of the Board or to suggest the employment of particular individuals or the dismissal of others in accordance with their political opinions?

Mr. McGilligan: That was not done. The question of political opinion never entered into it.

Mr. Lemass: I think it did.

Mr. McGilligan: It did not.

Mr. Lemass: I will look up the Official Reports on that. The Minister admitted in this House that representations were made to the Board to secure the dismissal of individuals with whose political opinions the Minister disagreed.

Mr. McGilligan: Political opinions, never.

Mr. Lemass: I am quite certain I can [1666] get that in the Official Reports. In any case we are in the position that I think we are bound to refuse the Minister the two millions which he asks for on the information that he has given to the House. The Government may have been justified in its attitude to the Board if the affairs of the Board were conducted in the manner which the Minister has stated. If the Minister has given us the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, there would be a strong case not merely for accepting the resignations but for utilising the power to which the Minister has adverted of dismissal in the case of other responsible members. The fact, however, that such mismanagement has occurred in the past and may occur in the future is one strong reason why the Dáil should insist on getting the fullest possible information concerning what has happened and what is in contemplation before agreeing to the expenditure of any more money. No one wants to delay the progress of the Shannon scheme. If it can be shown that the money is essential for its progress, no Party in the Dáil will refuse to give it. I submit that has not been shown. The Minister has merely contented himself with the statement that he thinks it may be necessary. For what purpose he does not know. I do not think the Dáil should provide money on that basis.

Mr. J.X. Murphy: I am completely at sea over this whole business. The Electricity Supply Board is a concern with a capital of two and a half million pounds. Is it not absurd that after sixteen months they cannot produce any report for the twelve months ending March, 1930? No business concern could carry on on those lines. What I want to find out is, who is responsible for that chaotic state of affairs? Is it due to the inefficiency of the Board? Why cannot they produce their accounts? The Minister has not told us that. We have got into the soup over this thing and I sympathise with the Minister because I think he has been let down by the Board. The House is now asked to vote £850,000 to pay the debts of the Board. I would also like to know [1667] from the Minister in connection with the money that we are asked to vote whether any member of the Board has submitted a programme to him or not. If the Minister can tell us who is responsible for the failure to produce the accounts I think the House should know that, too. If Dr. MacLaughlin, the Managing Director, was responsible for telling the Minister that up to a certain stage two and a half million pounds was all that was necessary to carry out the programme of the Board, and if he was responsible for misleading the Minister to the extent of nearly a further million I fail to see why he should be remunerated for doing that.

Mr. Davin: Is the Deputy aware that this Board was baptised at the Dublin Chamber of Commerce as a business man's Board?

Mr. Briscoe: I must say that I was rather disappointed at the very poor statement made by the Minister on this very important matter concerning the situation that has arisen in the Shannon Board. I do not want to take the line of saying that the Minister is as innocent as he pretends to be, or as ignorant of the Board's affairs as he tried to make out he is. The Minister knows that before the first set of accounts came out there were doubts in the minds of many people as to the advisability of certain lines of action that had been taken by the Board, and also as to the benefits that would accrue to the Board as a result of their policy. I asked for the production of the earlier accounts of the Electricity Supply Board half a dozen times.

Mr. McGilligan: What ones are these?

Mr. Briscoe: The first accounts.

Mr. McGilligan: Ending March, 1929?

Mr. Briscoe: March, 1929, and also March, 1928. It was very difficult to get these in the very early stages. I do no know what the difficulty was. If the Minister had looked at the [1668] accounts as any member of the House did he would have found out at that time, and he should have taken the steps he has now taken, if the conditions were as they appeared to be from the accounts. The Accountant to the Minister pointed that out in his very meagre report. Dealing with the two and a half millions the Accountant stated that the Board appeared to be at sea with regard to stocks, accounts, and works in progress. If the Minister read the accounts as any ordinary member of the community read them, if he was interested, as he must be, he could not possibly plead ignorance as he pleaded it in his speech, because letters appeared in the Press at that time from citizens of Dublin pointing out that the whole situation required to be looked into. The Minister spoke about the amount of money due as a result of taking over undertakings and their undischarged liabilities. Take the case of Dublin. I understand that the undischarged liabilities on the Dublin plant are about £300,000. The Dublin station was worth two millions and it showed a profit of £70,000 a year. I think the Board would have been foolish when they had the powers if they did not take it over, although I resented and opposed their action in doing so. The Minister was a party to that, but at the Chamber of Commerce he stood over all this confiscation of property without compensation. In acquiring all the other undertakings he knew very well they had undischarged liabilities.

Mr. McGilligan: Certainly.

Mr. Briscoe: Why, then, did the Minister come and plead ignorance, seeing that he knew as much as the Board knew?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: The Deputy should address the Chair.

The Minister: Ignorance about what?

Mr. Briscoe: Ignorance about the situation and the financial position that the Board was heading for. He could have consulted them regarding their policy.

[1669] Mr. McGilligan: The Board had enough money to pay the undischarged liabilities, and said they had.

Mr. Briscoe: The Minister cannot blame the Shannon Board because he created it. Therefore the Minister cannot blame the Board. It was his creation. It is all very well to beat a man when he is down. If the Board was up against great difficulties, and if there were differences of opinion which have resulted, as the Minister stated, in the person who thought out the Shannon scheme having to give up his public position, it is not fair to put all the responsibility on his shoulders, or on the shoulders of the Board. The Minister had two civil servants attached to this Board for a considerable time, both of whom must have been reporting to him, because they were au fait with everything that was going on. The Minister could have stepped in long since if he meant what he said. In the early days the Minister was not anxious to give this House any information beyond what was gleaned when the Minister thought it good policy to deal with the matter on public platforms in the interest of his Party. On public platforms, when the Shannon scheme was discussed, it was frequently stated if it had not been for the previous behaviour of Fianna Fáil there would have been a dozen Shannon schemes Perhaps it is just as well there is not—at any rate, until we get this one right. I made a little report for myself about 12 months ago when the first accounts came out, and I am sure the Minister, who has very able civil servants at his disposal, knew the points that I would put to him. I asked the Minister when he would set aside a day for discussion of the report of the Shannon Board. He always refused to give it and, consequently, he deserves no sympathy from this House in his predicament. If he had discussed the accounts 12 months ago we would have a better picture of the situation, and Deputy Murphy's questions would not be asked to-day about a scheme that everyone hoped would be a success. The Minister was asked how much the Board owed. They did not even know the amount of their stocks. [1670] I also pointed out that there was grave discontent on the part of traders who could not get paid their accounts by the Board. I do not blame the Shannon Board. I blame the Minister, because he refused to give them money for over nine months. The Board had to carry on out of revenue while they were not selling the full development of the scheme. If anyone is to blame for damaging the prestige of the Board and the country, because the Board was not able to pay, it is the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Minister for Finance.

Recently I asked when the last payment was made to the Board under the Act, and I was told that it was nine months ago. How anyone could expect that Board to function under the difficulties that it was faced with I do not know. How could it be expected to develop when the money to which it was entitled under the Act was denied it? I asked a question recently about the accounts for the year ending March, 1930. That is several months ago. The Minister said that he had these accounts in hands since May but the House has not got them. Deputies will probably recollect that on many occasions I had to fence with the Minister in asking him to present the accounts. He always took up a supercilious and sarcastic attitude, as much as to say: “I am the head bottle-washer and no one can get any information unless I desire to give it.” Now he comes along and repeats the provisions of the Act which say that this House must be furnished with the accounts. Still he refuses to give them. When the Minister speaks of liabilities as the result of taking over other undertakings he puts the figure at £850,000. Are we to take it that it is the intention of the Minister to pay that amount immediately he gets the money?

Mr. McGilligan: No.

Mr. Briscoe: Then the Minister does not need £850,000 for that purpose. Are we to take it that the interest has not been paid on these moneys to whoever holds the bonds, as in the [1671] case of the Dublin undertaking, and that only the interest will be paid? The Minister says that he wants £850,000 to discharge these liabilities, but when he is asked if he is going to pay them he says “No.” Therefore the £1,150,000 is reduced by £850,000, so that all the Minister's requirements would be to pay off the immediate trade liabilities of the Board, and to give them sufficient to carry on development which should be in the neighbourhood of £300,000 to £400,000.

We do not know what the Shannon Board owe to the Minister. I think he hinted it was about £250,000. The Minister says we are not going to discharge these liabilities. Then what is the sense of asking for the money now? Why has not the Minister presented to the House the last accounts of the Board in view of the present demand? Why is he giving no information as to how far they have developed and what number of units they sell? We had grand reports on the last occasion with pictures of transformer stations, and we were told about the amount of current. What we want to know now is, apart from what we heard at the Rotary Club and street corner meetings during elections, how far has the scheme advanced, and what is the position to-day? I may not be in agreement with members of my own Party on this, or with the House, but when the Shannon scheme was started the development that I would like to have seen was the getting of customers for electricity who had not hitherto been using it. Instead of that they grabbed all they could in the shape of existing plant. They took over the Rathmines plant and the Pembroke plant, thus committing themselves immediately, in order that Shannon current would be used, to replacing every implement, every piece of machinery, every motor, every wireless apparatus, and even every vacuum cleaner. They had to replace all these for the users for the purpose of getting the customers in Rathmines and Pembroke. I consider that that was a silly thing to do.