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 Next - Ar Aghaidh

Dáil Éireann - Volume 39 - 09 July, 1931

Electricity (Supply) (Amendment) Bill, 1931—Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: “That the Bill be now read a Second Time.”

Mr. de Valera: Before the debate is resumed, there is a point of order upon which I want to get information. We endeavoured, as you know, to get the consent of the Chair to the introduction of a reasoned amendment to the motion for Second Reading. As that has been ruled out, I would like to move, under Standing Order No. 127, for the suspension of Standing Orders relative to notice in regard to this particular matter. Standing Order No. 127 states:—

“Any Standing Order or Orders of the Dáil may be suspended for the day's sitting, and for a particular purpose upon motion made after notice: Provided that in cases of urgent necessity, of which the Ceann Comhairle shall be the judge, any such Order or Orders may with the unanimous consent of the Dáil, be suspended upon motion made without notice.”

I am asking here that they be suspended without notice for this reason, that it was only after we heard the Minister's statement last night we were in a position to bring in a reasoned amendment to this Bill. In speaking upon it we made certain suggestions but they can only be given effect to by bringing a motion before the Dáil. I do not propose, unless the Ceann Comhairle permits me, to read the proposed amendment.

An Ceann Comhairle: The amendment of which the Deputy speaks is an amendment of which no notice was given until shortly before 3 o'clock today. Therefore, it obviously fails. This particular Standing Order, No. 127, [1740] provides that “any Standing Order or Orders of the Dáil may be suspended for the day's sitting and for a particular purpose upon motion made after notice.” That is not the present case. The proviso in the Standing Order is: “Provided that in cases of urgent necessity, of which the Ceann Comhairle shall be judge, any such Order or Orders may, with the unanimous consent of the Dáil, be suspended upon motion made without notice.” Two things are required, both the unanimous consent of the Dáil and a decision from the Ceann Comhairle that the matter is one of urgent necessity. The Deputy desires to move the suspension of Standing Orders for the purpose of moving without notice a reasoned amendment to the motion for the Second Reading of the Bill, the discussion upon which was entered yesterday.

General Mulcahy: In regard to the first point, there would not be unanimous consent.

An Ceann Comhairle: That disposes of the matter.

Mr. MacEntee: Last night I pointed out that the question at issue between the Minister and the Electricity Supply Board narrowed itself down to the manner in which provision was to be made to discharge the liabilities of those municipal undertakings which had been taken over by the Board. Apparently the attitude which the Board at the outset took up, which it in fact took up immediately after its constitution, if the Minister has been correctly reported, was that it was entitled under the Electricity Supply Act to make provision to meet those liabilities from year to year as they fell due, and to meet them out of revenue. The position, on the other hand, which the Minister appears to have adopted was that these liabilities of the transferred undertakings were to be provided for, immediately provided for, out of hand and provided for out of capital. I think I am correctly stating the issue which was raised by the Minister with the Electricity Supply Board.

[1741] Mr. McGilligan: I have denied that twice already, but for the third time I might as well deny it.

Mr. MacEntee: For the third time the Minister has denied that his words bear the plain interpretation which anybody must put upon them. Let me remind the House of what the Minister did say on the Second Reading of the Bill, so late as yesterday. He said this:

The fact emerged that the Board did not consider that the sum of 2½ millions which they got from the Ministry of Finance included any undischarged liabilities which they took over from the municipal undertakings.

The Minister was stating the position which the Board had taken up in this matter. Then he went on to say:

He asked (that is, the Minister asked) that the undischarged liabilities, whatever they might be at the date of vesting of municipal undertakings, should be subtracted from the 2½ millions and that the residue should be what the Board might demand.

What is the plain and simple effect of that? Was it either that the Board, having authority from this House to demand, without reason stated, from the Minister for Finance the sum of £2,500,000, having made that demand, once it was honoured had to hand back £800,000 to the Minister for Finance in order, presumably, that he might discharge the liabilities of the undertakings transferred from local authorities? Is there any other interpretation to be placed on the statement of the Minister than that? He goes further and states that the only sum which the Board might demand for expenditure upon new capital works was the residue, the difference between the estimated total of the liabilities of the transferred undertakings and the £2,500,000 which the House had placed at the disposal of the Electricity Supply Board, had put at its disposal upon demand. That meant, if there is anything in the attitude which the Minister took up, in effect that the net [1742] sum which this House placed at the disposal of the Board was not 2½ millions but was £1,700,000.

Let me emphasise again that there is no difference between the Minister and the Board as to the obligation of the Board to discharge the liabilities of the transferred undertakings. The Board, so far as we can gather from the Minister's statement, are prepared to discharge them. They are prepared to discharge them in the way which is provided for in the Act itself. That is the difference between the Minister and the Board. The Minister, in the course of his statement, appeared to rely upon two sections of the Act. Section 12 provides that, subject to certain limitations, the Minister for Finance shall advance to the Board on demand certain sums.

The wording of the Act is mandatory upon the Minister. He has no power to inquire as to the purpose for which these moneys are being required. As a matter of fact I think that at the very inception of the Board when it had been constituted, when it was looking for a place to meet, when it decided that, in order to carry out the multifarious duties cast upon it by this Act, it would be necessary for it to have an office, tables and chairs, the Board presented a demand to the Minister for Finance for a sum of £1,000. That demand was returned to the Board by the Ministry of Finance, with a request that the Board should furnish a detailed statement to the Minister as to how this £1,000 of the Board's money, provided for the use of the Board by the Oireachtas, was to be spent. And this was the Board that was to be independent of all ministerial control! It was to be the Board that was to handle 2½ million pounds, and was to be independent not only of ministerial control, but independent even of the control of the Comptroller and Auditor-General. And when they asked for £1,000, the first thing that the Ministry of Finance required of them was a detailed statement as to how they proposed to spend that money. In point of fact, the attitude that the Ministry of Finance took up in regard to this matter at that time showed that, notwith- [1743] standing the promises given by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, there was a certain element in the Executive Council which was determined to bring this Board under Governmental control and influence so far as they could do it.

It was because the Board realised what was at stake, and it was because the Board realised that if they were to carry out the duties which were cast upon them by the Act, they must preserve their condition of independence, in order that they could secure the confidence and support of every section of this community, that they refused to furnish that detailed statement as to how they proposed to spend that £1,000 which the Ministry of Finance demanded of them. It is because of that, that the Board, from the very beginning, has kept itself strictly within the terms of the Act and has kept the Minister strictly within the terms of the Act. It was because of that, and not really because of the manner in which the Board should meet its liabilities with regard to the transferred undertakings, that the difference and dispute have arisen between the Minister or the Executive Council and the Board.

I was referring to Section 12, sub-section (3), the section which deals with the advances of £2,500,000. The words of that section are plain and clear and simple. They are as follows:

The total amount of the sums advanced to the Board under this section for any purpose other than to meet the liability and expenses mentioned in the foregoing sub-section shall not exceed the sum of two millions five hundred thousand pounds, and the total amount of the sums so advanced in any one half-year except in the half-year ending on the appointed day for any purpose other than as aforesaid shall not exceed the sum of four hundred thousand pounds.

Mark, the only provision in that sub-section is as to the amount of money that shall be advanced to the Board for any purpose other than to meet the liability and expenses mentioned in the foregoing sub-section. The contention [1744] of the Minister is that that section is to be read as if it were that the total amount of the sum advanced to the Board under this section for the purpose of meeting new capital expenditure and providing for the liability of the transferred undertaking shall not exceed two and a half millions. But there is no such condition imposed by that section. There is nothing in that section to make it conditional upon the Board to discharge the liabilities of the transferred undertakings out of the two and a half millions which were to be provided under this sub-section which I have quoted.

The Minister not only relied, fallaciously relied, as I think, upon this section, but he relied also upon Section 39. Section 39, from the point of resolving this difference which has arisen between the Minister and the Board, is a very important section, because it deals with the liabilities not only of those undertakings which have been transferred from the local authorities, but also from those undertakings which have been transferred from private ownership, and it deals with them in two different ways. The difference in relation to this dispute is a very significant one. Let us see, first of all, how this section dealt with the liabilities of these undertakings which were transferred from private ownership to the Board. That is dealt with in sub-section (8) of Section 39, which is as follows:—

Whenever the former undertaker is not a local authority the new undertaker shall within three months after the date of the vesting order pay to the Board or, if the Board is itself the new undertaker, shall put to a separate account a sum equal to the fair value on the date of the vesting order of the undertaking (with all the property, assets, and liabilities thereof transferred to or imposed on the new undertaker by the vesting order) as a going concern and interest on such fair value from the date of the vesting order at the rate of five per cent. per annum ...

Mark what was to be done where the Board took over an electricity supply undertaking from a private owner. [1745] Under the sub-section which I have read the Board is bound to put to a separate account a sum equal to the fair value, including all its property, assets and liabilities, of the undertaking as transferred to the Board at the date of the vesting order, and, in addition, to put aside a sum to meet interest at five per cent. upon that capital value. That is how those undertakings transferred from private ownership were to be dealt with, and that is the obligation which was imposed upon the Board by this section.

Sub-section (6) of this section, on the other hand, deals with the undertakings which were transferred from local authorities, undertakings like the Dublin Corporation or the undertakings of the Rathmines or Pembroke Urban Councils. It deals with them, and they are dealt with in quite a different way. Sub-section (6) of Section 39 of the Electricity (Supply) Act of 1927 reads as follows:—

Whenever the former undertaker is a local authority the new undertaker shall, as on and from the date of the vesting order, become and be by virtue of this sub-section liable for and bound to indemnify and keep indemnified the former undertaker against all capital loans (including current bank overdraft) outstanding at the date of the vesting order...

In this case, the “new undertaker” is the Board, and the “former undertaker” is the local authority. Mark the difference between these two subsections. Sub-section (8) deals with the undertakings transferred from private owners, and there the obligation is imposed upon the Board to put certain sums to separate account in order to meet the liabilities of these transferred undertakings and to provide for the purchase of the properties and assets of these undertakings. But in the case of undertakings transferred from the public owners there is no obligation imposed on the Board to put any sums to a separate account. There is no obligation to earmark any portion of that two and a half million pounds to meet the liabilities of these transferred undertakings. Yet what is the issue raised by the Minister? It is [1746] this: that the public undertakings, the undertakings transferred from the public ownership, instead of being dealt with by the Board as the Board is permitted to deal with them in sub-section (6) of Section 39, should be dealt with by the Board as if they were undertakings transferred from private ownership, and accordingly dealt with as provided by sub-section (8). Is not that the difference?

The Minister said that the undischarged liabilities, whatever they might be at the date of the vesting of the municipal undertakings, should be subtracted from the £2,500,000, and that the residue should be what the Board might demand. What is that, in effect, except to say that the £800,000 should be put to separate account, and that the Board, presumably, if it were to act strictly in accordance with Section 39 (8), should pay additional interest at the rate of five per cent. upon that £800,000? There is nothing in the Act which compels the Board to do that. The fact that sub-section (6) has been included in Section 39, and enables the Board to deal with these municipal undertakings in a different way to those which were transferred from private ownership, would seem to indicate that the Minister and the Oireachtas, when this Act was going through, contemplated that the Board, in relation to the undertakings transferred from municipal ownership, would act exactly as the Board has acted, despite the Minister.

If, however, notwithstanding the opinions of the former Chairman and late Managing Director of the Board and their colleagues who have been on the Board from the start, notwithstanding the advice which the legal advisers to the Board have given as to the proper interpretation of these sections, the House still decides to support the attitude which the Minister has taken up, in what position will these undertakings which have been transferred to the Electricity Supply Board be in, in so far as their undischarged liabilities are concerned? According to the statement which the Minister made yesterday, he does not propose to discharge these liabilities out of hand. According to [1747] his statement, in so far as we on this side of the House could understand it, he proposes to do what the Board has hitherto done; that is, to provide for the sinking fund and interest, to provide for the capital charges on these transferred liabilities as they fall due from year to year. Presumably, he proposes to do as the Board had intended to do and was actually doing. He proposes to provide for these charges out of the revenue accruing to the Board, as a result of its operations from year to year. That is what the Board, has been doing and that is what the Minister proposes to do. If the Board has been doing that, and the Minister still proposes to do it, what real substance is there in the dispute which the Minister alleges has arisen between him and the Board in regard to an important question of principle?

If the Minister proposes to do exactly as the Board has been doing— to provide for these liabilities out of revenue—what justification is there for him to come to this House and ask it to grant to him—no longer to grant to the Board—and to place at his disposal the sum of £800,000 in order to provide for these undischarged liabilities? It may be said that one of the obligations imposed upon the Board by sub-section (6) is the obligation of keeping the former undertakers indemnified. Who are to be the judges of the validity of the indemnity which the Board offers? Who, but the former undertakers themselves? So far as I know, none of the former undertakers, the municipal authorities, the former owners of the undertakings which were taken over by the Board, has objected to the policy which the Board has pursued. If they have objected, the Minister has not disclosed the fact to the House. They have been, so far as I know, content, knowing the progress which the Board was making, knowing, according to the Minister, that the development of the national electricity supply undertaking had been so phenomenal that in less than two years they succeeded in doing what [1748] the experts originally estimated could scarcely be done in four years.

So far as I am aware, and so far as the House has been informed by the Minister, no municipal authority in this country has objected to the manner in which the Electricity Supply Board was providing for capital charges and interest on loans and mortgages connected with the transferred undertakings. If I am incorrect in that statement, it is because the Minister, in his opening address, concealed the fact from the House. Possibly it is not the only fact which he has concealed in relation to the undertaking. The point, however, which I am leading up to is that if the Minister is going to do exactly as the Electricity Supply Board was doing in regard to these transferred liabilities; if he is going to provide for them out of the yearly revenue of the Board, then what is the reason, what is the purpose, and what is the need for the House to vote £800,000 to provide for the liabilities of those transferred undertakings?

I do not know whether at this point I should remind the House of what I said last night. I said that if there was any question as to the powers of or the rights of the Board as laid down in Section 39 (6) to provide for these liabilities in a particular way, or if there was doubt that the Board had not been directly empowered by the Electricity Supply Act to do what it has done, and if the Minister had been empowered to intervene in the matter and to say that these liabilities should be provided for in the specific way in which he wants it to be done; and if, as against that, the Board had the right to provide for them in the way they have done without being specifically empowered to do that by the Act, as between the two methods of discharging the liabilities, what choice would any business man make?

Here was £800,000—not all of it, but certainly a considerable portion of it, advanced to public authorities at a very reasonable rate of interest, advanced possibly at a lower rate of interest and upon easier terms of repayment than either the Board itself, which, as the [1749] Minister said, had no borrowing power, or the Minister for Finance, who might act as the Board's agent, could borrow. £800,000 was there in the Board's hands invested in generating plant and equipment, invested in earning assets, and the Board had that £800,000 at a lower rate of interest and upon more favourable terms as regards repayment than it could raise a similar amount in present-day circumstances.

The Minister says the right thing for the Board to do, the business-like thing for the Board to do, was to take the £800,000 which it would borrow upon very onerous terms, and redeem the £800,000 of capital fruitfully invested, which had been borrowed upon more favourable terms. He says that because the Board did not do that, did not do what no business man in his senses would have done, the Board, is to be criticised, but the chairman of the Board, a public financier of wide experience, and the managing director of the Board, to whom all credit has been given by the Minister, and everyone in this House for the inception of the Shannon scheme, for the enthusiasm which drove it through, are to be virtually dismissed from their offices because, having the interests of the undertaking at heart, being just as anxious to see that undertaking succeed as the Minister, they had the temerity to differ from him as to the way in which this £800,000 was to be used, and differ from him in exactly the way in which an acute, keen, conscientous, earnest, business man would differ from him if he had to choose between the two propositions, the proposition put up by the Board, and the proposition put up by the Minister. Merely upon business grounds alone, if upon no other, I think the Board is justified in the action which it took so far as this £800,000 of transferred liabilities was concerned.

There is just one other point before we leave this. If the Board's contention is correct that it was empowered under the Act to provide for the liabilities of the transferred undertakings out of capital, then the Board has not overspent one penny piece. The Board has entered into capital commitments to the very limit of its £2,500,000, exclusive [1750] of working capital. It has entered into commitments for new plant and equipment up to the extent of £2,500,000. That is what we actually provided. Not being at all biased in favour of the Board, or against the Minister, having read the Minister's statement and the Act, and listened to the speeches made in this House, I have come to the conclusion that in providing for that expenditure of £2,500,000 the Board was acting within its rights in the matter, and that so acting within its rights in the matter it has not overspent one penny piece. If it has not overspent one penny piece, what is the reason why the Minister virtually demanded the resignation of the former managing director and the former chairman of the Board? Surely there must be something else behind it.

I should like the House to bear in mind that the Minister has not challenged the action of the Board in regard to its relations with labour, in regard to the manner in which it has conducted a considerable number of ordinary trading activities outside of and apart from the generation and transmission and local distribution of electricity. He has not questioned its conduct under any one of these heads, so far as we know. He dare not question its conduct, because whatever the Board did, either in relation to labour or in its relations with ordinary private traders in this country, the Minister upheld and sustained it on every occasion. Deputy Briscoe, acting, as he was entitled to act and was bound to act, on behalf of a number of his constituents, on many occasions put questions in this House to the Minister as to the manner in which the Board was conducting its business. I do not think that on a single occasion he got a civil reply from the Minister. Whenever the various collateral and amending Bills to the main Electricity Supply Act were before the House, whenever a member of the House, whether a member of this party, or of the Labour Party, or an Independent member, endeavoured to get any information from the Minister as to the conduct and affairs of the Board, invariably he was treated by the Minister [1751] with the utmost discourtesy, until it became painful to sit in the House when any business in relation to the Shannon electricity undertaking was under discussion. Is not that a fact? If, as a result of all this, the Minister has now come to the conclusion that the Electricity Supply Board cannot make a success of the Shannon undertaking, if he has come to the conclusion that things have not been done properly inside the organisation of the Electricity Supply Board, surely he ought to come to the House and put his cards on the table and give to the House at long last the information which he has denied it during the past three years. Even if the Minister's contention in regard to the £800,000 of transferred liabilities was the correct one, surely the Minister cannot wash his hands of all responsibility for the position in which the Electricity Supply Board and this House now find themselves. He has stated that this question became an issue between him and the Board in 1928. He stated that early in December it became clear that the liabilities of the Board had already exceeded the £2,500,000 granted by this House. In June he had not any doubt about it.

Mr. Good: And the Board admitted it.

Mr. MacEntee: And the Board, according to the Minister, admitted it.

Mr. Flinn: And in July we had an Act.

Mr. MacEntee: In June, 1930, according to the Minister, he again approached the Board, and the Board stated that it could not keep within the limit unless they closed down certain schemes abruptly, and that a sudden stoppage would cause wastage. They said that therefore they should be released from that agreement. That was in June, 1930.

Mr. McGilligan: After the Bill.

Mr. MacEntee: The Bill is dated 3rd July.

Mr. McGilligan: That letter arrived [1752] the day after Deputy Fahy's amendment was discussed. I think it had some relation to the amendment.

Mr. MacEntee: The Bill was still before the Seanad, and it was still possible for the Minister to stop the Board in its mad career.

Mr. McGilligan: By doing what— voting another £500,000?

Mr. MacEntee: By at least making a disclosure in the Seanad of the real position. He had already misled the Dáil in June, 1930, as to the real position of the Board. When questions were raised by members of this Party and other Parties in this House they were told by the Minister that they were attacking young Irish engineers. That was the attitude the Minister took up in June, 1930.

Mr. McGilligan: That is misleading. I think you are misquoting. The point about the engineers arose in connection with the 1929 Act.

Mr. MacEntee: On June 12th, 1930, when he was speaking on Deputy Fahy's amendment, the Minister used these words: “The amendment would mean that the sum of two and a half millions originally voted for the Board would be increased by £500,000. There is no necessity for that. The Board is not straitened owing to the outgoings to date. The purchase of the Cork Station was always before those who drew up the 1929 Act, and the purchase price was also considered to be included in the £2,500,000.”

Mr. McGilligan: That is not a complete quotation; there is something in between which you have omitted.

Mr. Flinn: We will quote the whole thing fully.

Mr. McGilligan: I have it here, and I will give it myself. There is an item in between that if the Board wanted extra money they should make a case for it.

Mr. MacEntee: I am not misquoting the Minister and I submit the important passages in this quotation are these: “The amendment would mean [1753] that the sum of two and a half millions originally voted for the Board would be increased by £500,000. There is no necessity for that. The Board is not straitened owing to the outgoings to date. I have no reason for believing that the two and a half million pounds will not be sufficient for all purposes.” The Minister made that statement to the Dáil.

Mr. McGilligan: And something else.

Mr. MacEntee: And something else. He made that statement. He led the Dáil to believe that two and a half million pounds would, according to his information, be ample and sufficient to meet the liabilities of the Board. He made that statement in the Dáil, but he not only made it then to the Dáil but he also, though speaking here, made it to members of the Seanad, many of whom take a very close and very deep interest in the operations of the Electricity Supply Board. When the Minister made that statement in the Dáil he unwittingly misled the Dáil, and he also equally unwittingly misled the Seanad. But after he had misled the Seanad, and after having received the other statement from the Board, according to the Minister, I think the day after he made that statement, or very soon after making that statement and before the Bill went to the Seanad, I say it was incumbent on the Minister, having received the later information, to put before the Seanad the true position and to disclose to them and to this House the full facts.

I have shown that the Minister, before the Electricity Supply Act, 1930, became law, had a definite admission from the Board that their liabilities, including the liabilities of the transferred undertakings, would exceed two and a half million pounds. The Minister himself, even before he had extracted that admission from the Board, had reason to believe that the Board had already, in fact, exceeded its financial resources, in so far as he envisaged these resources, because they had already in respect of new capital [1754] equipment and in respect of the liabilities of the transferred undertakings, commitments amounting to £2,700,000. He knew already how much the Board received from the Minister for Finance —I think £1,900,000—and he knew also what the liabilities of the transferred undertakings were, because he says, and he said yesterday, that in the early part of 1930 he issued a letter stating that, in his opinion, the Board had definitely gone beyond the sum which they agreed was at their disposal.

In the early part of 1930 the Minister wrote to the Board, stating they had definitely gone beyond the sum which they agreed was at their disposal. That was what the Minister did in the early part of 1930. But what did he tell the Dáil in June, 1930? “I have no reason to believe,” he said, “that the two and a half millions will not be sufficient for all purposes.” The Minister, who has told the Board that in his opinion the liabilities had definitely exceeded the two and a half millions, comes to the Dáil and says, dealing with the amendment put down by Deputy Fahy: “I have no reason to believe that the two and half million will not be sufficient for all purposes.” I do not think it is necessary to comment on that any further. There are two statements—the statement the Minister made yesterday and the statement the Minister made to the House in June, 1930. And if the Board has not been candid with the Minister and has not been informative, surely there is no person more blameworthy than the Minister, who at the time misled the House and the country as to what the real position between him and the Board was.

[An Leas-Cheann Comhairle took the Chair.]

Now in addition to providing this £800,000, which I again repeat if the Board's contention is correct is not required, the Minister is asking this House to place at his disposal an additional sum of £1,150,000. For what purpose? The Minister has refused to disclose the purpose in any settled scheme or programme to this House. [1755] The sum of £1,150,000 is to be placed at his disposal to be expended by the Board in any way the Minister sees fit to approve of. There is nothing more concrete than that. Everything else is vague and shadowy. The Minister, who relied for the last four years on the Electricity Supply Board, is going to place equal confidence, or at least is asking the House to place the same confidence in him and the new Board as he now tells us was misplaced with him and the old Board. Before this difference of opinion became public we knew the attitude of the Government to the Electricity Supply Board. The Board could do no wrong. The Minister and the Government felt they were responsible for it. So they were. They selected the members of the Board, they put them in office, and they boosted them.

They did everything they possibly could to create public confidence in them, and they placed at their untrammelled disposal the sum of 2½ million pounds. If there is any substance at all in the indictment which the Minister made against that Board it is that of that 2½ million pounds the sum of £800,000 has been extravagantly spent by the Board, and the Minister who constituted the old Board, who had confidence in the old Board, who compelled the Dáil, under the lash of his incivility, to be silent in regard to the old Board, now asks the House to give him £2,000,000 in order that he and the new Board, about which the Dáil knows nothing, may spend it upon proposals which the Minister has not even outlined in his own mind.

Of this £1,150,000 some portion must be spent on certain constructional works. What are these constructional works? Is there going to be further extension of the Shannon generating plant? Is there going to be enlargement of the water storage and the building and equipment of new distribution networks? Are these things to be done out of that £1,150,000? Surely, if they are, then in view of what has transpired in this House yesterday and of the statement made by the Minister that he does not know —I do not know whether I can credit [1756] that statement—how many units of electricity were sold by the Shannon scheme, that he does not know how much was received in return for these units, that he does not know what the cost of generation and distribution were, this House can have no justification for placing £1,150,000 into the hands of the Minister to play with. If there is going to be any further capital expenditure on the Shannon, surely that expenditure should only be undertaken after full and searching investigation into the present position of the undertaking and an examination of its future prospects. That is what we want. Surely there should be some such investigation as would satisfy this House and the public generally that the expenditure of that £1,150,000 will be an economic proposition and will yield a profitable return.

The gravamen of the charge against the Electricity Supply Board by the Minister was that they spent money regardless as to whether it would provide an economic return. We say that the Minister has made that charge against the Board, and I do not know whether the charge is well founded or not. I say the Minister has not advanced to this House in relation to that charge one iota of evidence. He has raised what I believe to be a fictitious issue in regard to the transferred undertakings. I hold that clear proof of the success of this undertaking is the only justification for providing the undertaking, through the Minister, with a further £1,500,000 for capital purposes. The Minister has not said a word to justify the Bill upon these grounds, and I ask the House to vote against it.

Mr. T.J. O'Connell: I waited long last night, and did not intervene in this debate in the hope that some other member of the Government would intervene and throw some more light on this very important question than we had from the Minister for Industry and Commerce. I am in the unfortunate, or perhaps I should say the fortunate, position of not knowing anything whatever about all these matters that have been discussed here except what I have heard in the House, and [1757] with the exception of some statements that appeared in the newspapers. Nobody has approached me to give me any information as to the happenings we heard so much about yesterday and to-day. This question is eminently one that must be approached by this House in a different spirit from questions which ordinarily come before us, because I think we all recognise that it is not the credit of a particular Government or of a particular Party, or even of a particular Minister that is at stake, but the credit of the whole country. This is a national scheme, and it is really in the interests of the whole country that everything should be done to make it a success and to remove anything that tends to prevent its success.

I should like to say, too, that of all the speeches that I listened to during this debate, the one that appealed to me most was that delivered by Deputy de Valera yesterday. I think he approached it in the proper spirit, a spirit in which we should all approach it. He made it quite clear—I am glad to hear him say it—that what he was interested in, as we are all interested, was the ultimate success of the scheme. I have a considerable amount of sympathy with the Minister. His name has been very closely associated with this Shannon scheme, and when many of the things for which we criticise or praise him here will be forgotten his name will be linked with the Shannon scheme, and the greater the success of that scheme the greater will be the credit that will come to him. As I say, I had very great sympathy indeed with him when he had to come to this House yesterday to make the statement which he had to make. But I agree with some of the speakers on the other side who said, that in making that statement he was not only not fair to the House, but not fair to himself, because it was obvious to anybody listening to him that there were many things which he did not tell us. I can understand and sympathise with his reticence, but I have a feeling that in a matter of this kind reticence begets suspicion, and when partial disclosures of the nature made yesterday are made—they were obviously partial [1758] disclosures—they lead to all kinds of rumours, and suspicion of one kind or another. It is not helpful that that should be the case. It would be much better when it has come to this stage if everything in connection with the whole business was disclosed, especially to members of the House. What has transpired will undoubtedly create uneasiness in the minds of the public. They will be wondering whether after all the money that has been spent, and all the great talk we have heard, not only in this country but all over the world, about the Shannon scheme, it is going to be the success we all hoped it would be. That will be the first question that will arise in the minds of a great many people.

It would appear as if the debate tended to develop into a question of the Minister versus the Board in regard to this particular matter and arising out of this particular Bill, and it is rather a pity that that should happen. If I had any prejudice in the matter my prejudice would be with the Minister rather than with the Board, because he is the representative of the Oireachtas, and we are the representatives of the people and this scheme belongs to the people, not to the Board and not to the Government, and he comes into it as the representative of the people. As I say, if I had any prejudice at all in the matter it would be with him rather than with the Board. But I have listened carefully to his statements and to other statements, and I cannot conscientiously say who is right and who is wrong in this particular dispute that has arisen. That is my position, and I believe it is the position of a great many Deputies in this House.

The question of the independence of the Board has been raised in that connection. I should like to refer very briefly to the attitude we took up when this Electricity Supply Bill was going through the House in 1927. At that time the then Leader of the Labour Party, now Senator Johnson, was absent from the House, and it devolved on me to state our position. Much had been made about the necessity [1759] of having this Board independent, and various Deputies had adverted to the necessity of making it absolutely independent. Dealing with that point, I said:

I thought the Minister was overanxious to declare that this Board would be almost absolutely independent. A certain amount of independence as to the way in which it should carry out its work is advisable, and may be necessary; but I do not think the Board should be given the idea that it is entirely independent of criticism by this House. I think there are opportunities of discussing the general policy of the Board; it has, for instance, to furnish a report, which will be laid on the Table. I think the Board should not, as might be implied or inferred from the Minister's statement yesterday, be given the impression that it will be absolutely free from criticism or interference. I think it is right that the members of the Oireachtas, which represents the nation, should have the opportunity offered them, if and when necessary, of criticising the general policy of the Board—not, of course, mere details of administration or matters of minor importance, but the general policy in so far as their operations affect the welfare of the community. (Cols. 1978-9, Vol. 18, Official Debates.)

Later on, when the Minister was replying, he specially stressed the fact that the Board would be independent, and, as I say, we rather thought that he was over-stressing it. While we were prepared to give it a very large measure of independence, we felt that there was necessity for some control, but the Minister had a different view. He stated:

“I did point out, and I would like to point out again, that if this Bill passes as it is at the moment, there will be no discussion on Estimates; there will be no matter of Parliamentary Questions in the House, not even that type of permitted Parliamentary Question which is sometimes indulged in regard to the [1760] railways. Even that will be done away with.”

Then Deputy Davin asked:

“And there will be no interference with the Board by the Minister or from his Department?”

Mr. McGilligan replied:

“None whatever.”

That was the attitude very definitely of the Minister, and, as I say, we felt that it was going a little too far in the matter of the independence which was being given to them. We had this assurance from the Minister, as he mentioned himself yesterday, that we should have an annual statement of accounts from the Board; that we should have an annual report, with accounts, that would be laid on the Table of the House and that any Deputy or Party who wished it could have an opportunity of discussing it in the House, as well as the general policy of the Board. Nobody, of course, would want to discuss small details of administration, but they would desire to discuss general policy. I do not think the House has been treated fairly in this matter. We have had no such opportunity afforded to us in the past three years. We have had no discussion with regard to the general policy of the Board. It is obvious, from what the Minister himself has stated, that very shortly after the Board was set up there was a question of dispute. There was a question as to his right to interfere very early after the Board was set up. Clearly there were differences of opinion within the first year of the Board's working between the Minister and the Board. That is obvious.

Mr. McGilligan: Obvious from what?

Mr. O'Connell: Obvious from the Minister's own statement.

Mr. McGilligan: If I left the House under that impression I misled it.

Mr. O'Connell: I certainly assumed from the statement the Minister made yesterday that his view and the Board's view on certain matters were out of accord as early as 1928.

[1761] Mr. McGilligan: I wanted to get certain information about the accounts and I could not get it. It was not that there was any dispute as to my right to ask for the information, but simply that it could not be provided.

Mr. O'Connell: That they would not provide it?

Mr. McGilligan: Not so much that, but the information they could give was so vague and unreliable as to be useless. Their accounts were in such a state that they could not give any information.

Mr. O'Connell: In any case in 1929 there were obvious disputes between the Minister and the Board as to how certain money would be used.

Mr. McGilligan: No, as to the total sum voted by the Oireachtas. That is what it came to.

Mr. O'Connell: As to how a certain amount of that money should be expended. I take it that what the main dispute arose about was whether that sum contained the money that should go to discharge the obligations of the undertakings taken over, and it seems to me that that question arose very early. It does not matter whether it arose in 1928 or 1929. The point I wish to make is this: That I feel that when the Minister saw that position developing he should at that time have come to the House and put the whole position before it. He should have pointed out to the House what the Board's view was, what his view was and what he understood the view of the Oireachtas was when it passed that legislation. He did not do that, and that is the first criticism that I want to offer of the Minister. After all, this House was the ultimate court of appeal so far as the Minister was concerned, and I think that in 1929 we should have been made fully aware of the state of affairs that existed.

There are many things in connection with this whole business that the ordinary Deputy finds it hard to understand. There is the question of the Chairman's position. The Minister stated yesterday that if the Chairman had not tendered his resignation he [1762] might have found it necessary to come to this House and ask for his dismissal. Now, obviously there were very great differences on vital issues between the Minister and the Chairman. They were evidently taking totally different points of view so far as policy was concerned, so far as the powers of the Board were concerned, and so far as the general conduct of this undertaking was concerned. Yet we find that, although the Chairman resigned from his position as Chairman, he continued as a member of the Board. It seems to me, without knowing any of the details of how they carry on their business, that his influence as a member of the Board would not be very much less than it was when he occupied the position of Chairman. That is one point in connection with this whole business that seems a mystery to me. If there was such a gulf between the Minister and the Chairman that if the Chairman had not resigned the Minister was prepared to ask the House to agree to his dismissal, it seems peculiar that when he did resign the Minister put him back as a member of the Board.

There are many matters that were not touched on at all and that we would have been anxious to discuss if we had the accounts presented to us in the ordinary regular way. There were matters affecting the working of the Board: its attitude to the workers, for instance; its general attitude to labour and the allegations of all kinds that have been made in that connection. One of the unions catering for electricians here found the position such that none of their men would work for the Board. Allegations have been made that houses have been wired and electrical work of various kinds done by men who were not fully qualified to do it—work that was done by amateurs and local handymen. Allegations of that kind have undoubtedly been made. I merely mention them and do not want to go into details now. They are matters that we certainly would like to have had an opportunity of discussing and inquiring into. Allegations have also been made of wasteful expenditure, of the opening of shops, stores, offices, in places that [1763] ordinary business people would not select, and other matters of that kind. I do not want to go into them now, but I want to make it clear that I do not regard for a moment the Board as being free from all fault and deserving of no censure or blame from anybody. It is a pity that immediately the Board was set up and before it began its operations there was not some attempt made—I do not believe there was from anything the Minister has said—to have right from the beginning a complete understanding as to the powers and limitations of the Board, and also in regard to general policy. If that had been done at the beginning all this trouble, I believe, would have been avoided. I quite see and am prepared to admit that it is very easy to be wise after the event, but, as I have said, it is a pity that was not done in the beginning.

There does not seem to be much use in trying to discover here where the fault lies. I do not think that we can do it. The question then for us to consider is what is to be done in view of what we are faced with at the present time? The Minister asks us to pass this Bill to give him power which he does not hold under the present Act, and to place at his disposal two millions of money. I feel that we have not sufficient knowledge or evidence before us to justify us on the mere statement of the Minister in doing that without further enquiry. I could understand his position if he came before the House and said “Things have not gone as they should have gone, or as this House intended they should go; they have got into— I do not like using the word—a mess, but now it has been cleared up. Those who were responsible have disappeared. A new Board has been formed with new Terms of Reference; so much money is required to pay off commitments, and to meet the kind of work I want to get done.” If the Minister came here with a proposition of that kind, the House would understand it, and would know what it was expected to do. But the Minister has come along and said: “I can get no information. I do not know whether one [1764] million, two millions, or three millions is wanted, but £850,000 is required immediately. Beyond that I have no information, and I can not get any.” The strange thing about it is that practically the same Board with one or two exceptions is there still.

Mr. Flinn: Five out of seven.

Mr. O'Connell: Five out of seven of those who are responsible and who have failed to produce any accounts to the Minister in a satisfactory way are there still. The Minister has not stated that he is going to dismiss or to remove them. He asks the House to give him this amount of money, and says: “I will not pay this money unless I am satisfied as to the manner in which it is to be used.” He hopes to use that, I suppose, as a lever to coerce the Board into certain action. But has he any assurance that he can do so? That is where I find the problem really difficult, that there is no certainty if things were wrong up to this that they are now going to go right. I have no assurance that they are going to go right, and the Minister has not given us any grounds for believing—assuming that he gets this Bill through—that things will, there and then, be put right.

Deputy Good told the House what would be done by an ordinary business man or by a board of directors if matters like this turned up. I believe that Deputy Good made a practical suggestion. As representatives of the people who find the money to finance this great undertaking, and as one of those in whose guardianship the undertaking has been placed by the people, I certainly think that we are entitled to know very much more about this business than we know at present, and I suggest that before we proceed to give the Minister what in effect would be a blank cheque, we ought to have very much fuller knowledge of the whole affair, and not only that, but practical suggestions as to how the state of affairs that has transpired will be cleared up, and what are to be the plans and policies for the future. Within this House I believe we could find a committee of members, men of calm and judicial temperament, devoid [1765] of any desire to make party capital out of this matter, with power to send for persons and papers, who would go into the whole matter fully, hearing not alone the Minister's side of the case, but the Board's side; who would report to the House and give full information as to the real position, as well as suggesting what should be the future course having regard to what has happened. I suggest very strongly to the Minister that, even if he succeeds in getting his Bill through by a majority, it will not be satisfactory from the national point of view to leave things as they are now without a full inquiry of the kind suggested.

I believe it is possible to have such an inquiry by members of the House. If the Minister agrees to do that I would be quite prepared to give him whatever sum is immediately required, because I recognise that the undertaking must be carried on, commitments entered into much be honoured, work must proceed, and we cannot afford to leave this great undertaking in the position described by Deputy Flinn, viz., that there is a doubt whether they are able to pay their way or not. I recognise that something like that must be done, and I am prepared to give the Minister whatever sum he says—£850,000, or even to the extent of one million—is immediately required to carry on and keep the undertaking going until the inquiry would be concluded.

It is the future policy of this Board and of the undertaking I am concerned about. If the inquiry is set up I believe it will do a national service, because it will remove the suspicions that are growing up and that always tend to grow up around an undertaking of this kind. I believe, above all, that it will help to dispel any fears that people may have of going further in the way of experimenting in this direction, as the experiment was one that all of us are anxious to see successful. If the Minister cannot see his way to do that I fear there will be nothing left for me but to refuse to give him the blank cheque he has asked for, in the circumstances. Candidly, I would be very sorry if I was forced into that position, but, on the evidence the [1766] Minister has put before the House, I cannot definitely say that he has been right from the beginning and that the Board has been wrong. No one in the House, I think, is in a position to say that. Having regard to what I said, if I have any prejudice at all in this matter, it is with the Minister and not with the Board.

Professor Thrift: I agree with much of what Deputy O'Connell has said but I disagree entirely with his conclusion. I think Deputy O'Connell struck the nail on the head when he said that what we are here to do to-day is to decide on the best method of setting this Electricity Supply Board on its feet. To my mind, it has been a pleasing feature of almost every speech which has been made that that has been the primary idea in the speaker's mind. I think that it was regrettable that many of the speakers got led away from that in thinking that it was necessary, at this stage, to try to apportion the blame for the position which has arisen. I have no intention whatever of going along that line. As has been said, we have not got the data. Like Deputy O'Connell, my sympathies in the matter are very much with the Minister. The Dáil very deliberately took a line of action which was mainly calculated to keep this Electricity Supply Board an independent body— independent of Ministerial control. The attacks which have been made on the Minister have been from two entirely different angles—one that he did not interfere and the other that he interfered too much. But what the Dáil wanted was an independent body, as Deputy O'Connell pointed out—a body which could not be challenged here either by motion or question on matters of administration. The question is not really who is to blame. The point is, what is the exact position and what are the best measures to take to meet that position? One of the most important things to remember is that we should not be led into magnifying the position. What we are determined to do and what we have been determined to do all along is to make a success of the Shannon scheme, not alone in [1767] its production of electrical energy—I think it is an admitted fact that that has been a tremendous success—but in the business details which are necessary in order that that electrical energy may be properly distributed and made properly available to potential consumers. Those are business details, very important business details, I grant, but surely it is not beyond us to devise some scheme which will secure that those business details are carried out efficiently.

I want to emphasise the point that, so far as I understand the position, the worst that can be said about it is that what has happened has merely led to some delay in the final success of the scheme which we are all pledged to do our best to secure and which we are all anxious to secure. If the scheme fails, undoubtedly it will be a damaging blow to the credit of the country. The Dáil, in dealing with this matter, was in a dilemma. It did not want to take any step towards Government interference with what was really a public enterprise. Neither did it want to surrender completely its control of this undertaking, which was given the use of public money for a public purpose—for the benefit of the people, as Deputy O'Connell has said. If fault does lie—and this is the only point on which I am going to touch upon the question of blame—it lies in the Act which the Dáil passed, which was deliberately designed to make the control of the Minister as slight as possible. I think that we placed the Minister in a most impractical position, because we made it impossible for him to exercise any kind of control unless he was prepared to dismiss the Board. Dismissing the Board in the middle of its work would have been to leave the helm without a steersman, and it might have been, and probably would have been, a disastrous step to take. In saying that, I do not wish to be taken as attaching the blame to the Board. I attach this amount of blame to the Board—if I may use that form of words—that we did not get the audited accounts of the undertaking and its proceedings in anything like a [1768] reasonable time after the close of the year. We should have had the accounts of the undertaking for the year 1929-30 given to us shortly after March, 1930. I understood the Minister to say yesterday that he has been exerting every pressure to get those accounts and that he has not yet succeeded in getting them. Those are the accounts for the year 1929-30. If it is true that the Minister has used every effort to get those accounts— and I believe he has done so, as he told us himself—it shows that there is something wrong. But the fact that they were not produced cannot be attributed to the Minister. Beyond that, I do not wish to go into the question of blame.

Mr. Briscoe: Might I interrupt the Deputy to get the position clear? Deputy Thrift has stated that in his opinion the accounts were due for presentation to this House in March. The Minister has stated on many occasions in this House that he would introduce the accounts when it pleases himself and when he thinks proper. I always argued that the accounts should be introduced once a year and within twelve months of each other.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: The Deputy is making another speech. He is not at liberty to do so.

Mr. McGilligan: I never made any such statement.

Professor Thrift: I was just going to say that I never heard the Minister say anything of the sort.

Mr. Briscoe: I will produce the statement for the Minister.

Mr. McGilligan: We always get promises of that sort, but we never get production.

Professor Thrift: As I understand, the accounts of the Electricity Supply Board should have been submitted by the Board within a reasonable time after the close of the financial year in March, 1930—that is, the accounts for the year 1929-30. I hope the Minister will correct me if I say anything which is incorrect, but I believe that he said [1769] definitely yesterday that he had been trying his utmost to get the accounts and had not yet got them.

Mr. McGilligan: I have not got them yet.

Professor Thrift: And that he had been trying for twelve months to get them?

Mr. Briscoe: He has not got them except in provisional form.

Mr. McGilligan: Except in provisional form.

Mr. Briscoe: Why not say so?

Professor Thrift: What the Deputy wanted was the audited accounts.

Mr. McGilligan: They have not been presented for audit yet.

Mr. Briscoe: Did not the Minister refuse to have discussion in the House on this question?

Mr. McGilligan: No.

Mr. Briscoe: Does the Minister deny that he wrote me a letter saying that he would oppose any such motion as I proposed to introduce? I will produce the Minister's letter.

Mr. McGilligan: What is the date of it?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Deputy Briscoe must allow Deputy Thrift to make his speech. Deputy Briscoe was allowed to make his speech yesterday.

Professor Thrift: If Deputy Briscoe gives me a chance, I will bring out what I consider are very good points which he made in the course of his remarks. I am not speaking against Deputy Briscoe. I am stating what I conceive to be the present position. I am not speaking against anybody. I want to get at what is best to be done to get the Electricity Supply Board going and to make the undertaking the ultimate success we want it to be. Deputy O'Connell stressed that aspect emphatically, and that is the right thing for us to do. I think that it is unfortunate that this sum of £850,000, about which there was a dispute as to whether it was included or not in the two and a half million pounds given by the Dáil to the Board for the purpose [1770] of the undertaking, should have been introduced into this discussion at all. To my mind, it does not affect the matter one iota. If it is decided that that £850,000 is not included in the two and a half million pounds, it simply means that you are making the Board a present of the £850,000 more than the Dáil thought it was giving. The Dáil will have to vote that £850,000 in order to meet these undischarged liabilities, so that you are really dealing with the matter in a different way.

It does not affect one iota the question that is before us—the total amount the Electricity Supply Board is to have for the purpose of bringing into being the lines that are required for the transmission and distribution of the Shannon current. I think it is a pity that it was even mentioned in the discussion more than to say, as the Minister said yesterday, that he believed and understood that there was enough remaining of that sum to meet the hitherto undischarged liabilities of these undertakings. I think I understood the Minister to say that yesterday. It simply means that the Dáil on that view voted £1,650,000 for other purposes. The difference is that the Board took the view that they had already two and a half millions for these other purposes. It is all a question of how much more is to be given. If you say that they have already two and a half million for these other purposes, you would not require the same sum for these other purposes. The amount you would require would be £850,000 less and you would have to vote £850,000 to meet the undischarged liabilities of these other undertakings.

Putting that aside, I come to my understanding of the position as it is. Here I get very near indeed to Deputy Briscoe's concluding remarks. There are debts, if you like to call them so, which must be met immediately in order to keep the Electricity Supply Board on its feet. The Minister gave a figure yesterday, I think, of £700,000 as the sum of those debts. If you do not vote that now what will you do? Bring the Electricity Supply Board to an end? Wreck the [1771] whole scheme? Lose the credit of the whole country? If you do not enable them to meet their liabilities and make payments, the credit of the country must go. I do not see how anyone can get behind that. It has been stated that firms are waiting to bring the Electricity Supply Board into court. They cannot get their accounts paid. We cannot stand for that. I think every Deputy will admit that we must provide the money which is required to enable the Board to pay its debts.

Mr. Lemass: There is half a million there already.

Mr. MacEntee: The Minister is holding the money.

Professor Thrift: For what purpose?

Mr. MacEntee: For nothing.

Professor Thrift: You are trying to confuse us by bringing in the sum required to meet the undischarged liabilities.

Mr. MacEntee: The Minister brought it in to confuse the issue.

Professor Thrift: The whole issue it seems to me is that a sum must be provided. The debts must be paid. Furthermore, commitments have been undertaken for extensions whatever they may be. Sums are required for these extensions to enable the Board to keep its promises. These the Minister told us amounted to a quarter of a million or £300,000. You cannot expect the Board to carry on even for a limited period without some available cash in hands. It seems to me to be a reasonable thing to state that you must provide the money that the Board requires to meet its undischarged liabilities. We must provide about a million and a quarter to re-establish the credit of the Board, to put it on its feet, and enable it to carry on successfully. So far, I cannot conceive how anybody could vote against the Second Reading of the Bill. We must give the money.

When we come to the Committee Stage, the amount of the money, how [1772] it is to be allotted, what is to be done with it, what are the purposes for which it is—there is plenty of scope there for modification. My view at present is that we should alter the Bill in Committee in such a way as to make perfectly certain that we shall have an opportunity at an early date of rediscussing the matter in this House. Deputy Briscoe—I do not want to bring a personal matter into the discussion—did me the honour to quote various remarks which I made on the Committee Stage of the principal Bill. I have not had time to read them all. I looked up some of them and I do not wish to draw back one word of what I said on the Committee Stage.

I am just as keen now as I was then on the complete and absolute necessity for full publication year by year of the working accounts of the Board so that we may be in a position, so far as we have any expert knowledge, to judge for ourselves as to whether the scheme is working economically and whether it is likely to prove the ultimate success which we all hope it will, and more important still, so that those who have that expert knowledge may be in a position to form an opinion.

I think it is essential that we should get regular publication of these accounts. But what ought we to do in the actual securing of it? We left the Minister in the position that if he simply does not get that information he has got to dismiss the Board. There is no other action open to him. That has to be amended. I think the Minister indicated himself that it was necessary to amend the Bill, because as he said he retained the services of certain members of the Board in order that he might discuss with them a scheme in which the business interests might be retained on the Board in a successful and satisfactory way. I doubt, however, from a very cursory examination of the Bill, whether it would be possible for him to make that modification without coming back to the House for power to do so. In any case I think there should be an opportunity in the House for discussing the scheme before the House [1773] decides on giving him this power. I think that is a very important point in connection with the scheme. The conclusion of the matter to my mind is that we must provide the money and provide it at once because we do not want to pull up the work of the Board.

Mr. Lemass: Where is it being done?

Professor Thrift: It is not for me to answer that question, but what I would have done if I were in the Minister's position, and had asked for the accounts which should have been given and which I could not get, would be this: I would apply all the pressure in my power to apply.

Mr. Lemass: Had he any legal authority to hold the money?

Mr. McGilligan: Why did not the Board apply under the terms of the Act for it?

Mr. Lemass: The Minister informed the House last week that they applied and that he refused them.

Mr. McGilligan: They did not apply under the terms of the Act. They applied subject to the agreement.

Mr. Lemass: That agreement is not in the Act.

Mr. McGilligan: No, but they knew it was in their contractual relations with me.

Professor Thrift: In any case Deputy Lemass's point does not meet mine. I tried to show one and a quarter millions as necessary. He does not contend that they have got that money. The money must be provided to some amount, and the actual amount can only be got at approximately at present. I said that I disagreed with Deputy O'Connell's conclusion as I disagreed, though I approve very much of Deputy de Valera's remarks in many ways, with his conclusion that a committee of the House should be appointed to inquire into this.

Mr. de Valera: I want to make clear that I did not suggest that a committee of the House should be set [1774] up. I would oppose vigorously the setting up of a committee.

Professor Thrift: I beg the Deputy's pardon. I thought that was his suggestion.

Mr. de Valera: No.

Professor Thrift: Deputy O'Connell obviously did. It seems to me that would not be the right way to meet the difficulty. You want experts. You want, as Deputy Good said yesterday, some firm which is accustomed to dealing with accounts of this magnitude. You want to put the matter in the hands of auditors who are capable of dealing with a scheme of this magnitude. It is only by having men who are experts in dealing with large amounts that you can arrive at a proper estimate of the position. As has been said, the position is clearly serious. I believe, however, it is not at all so serious as there is a tendency to believe. I see nothing in the position which is likely to do more than delay the success of the scheme, to which success we are all looking forward. I think that the majority of us are anxious to get the complete publication of the accounts which has been insisted upon. We should take steps to ensure that the matter will come before us again as soon as the Minister is in a position to give us these accounts. We should then have an opportunity of discussing them and, incidentally, of discussing the general question of policy. If the Board is going to be changed we should have an opportunity of discussing the new scheme that the Minister proposes for the new Board. I cannot see how we could refuse to grant money. We must do it in order to save the Board and in order to save our own credit. The question of the amount and how it is to be allotted is one for the Committee Stage.

Mr. Fahy: I have no intention of reiterating what has been said in this matter. I do not presume to be an expert on finance or an expert in electrical economics. As a matter of fact, I am somewhat confused by the millions that have been flung at our heads during this debate. I am certain [1775] that there are other Deputies on both sides of the House who are in the same predicament, if only they would admit it. I have attempted to follow the discussion, and there are certain points on which I seek enlightenment. Deputy Thrift referred to the question of apportioning blame. We are not in a position to apportion blame without the facts.

Professor Thrift: But we have the facts.

Mr. Fahy: The Minister has referred to the Managing Director and the Chairman of the Board who were compulsorily, or otherwise, retired from that Board. As regards that matter, there were three directors, Mr. Foley, Mr. Egan and Dr. Kennedy, who were reappointed for six months. They served with the two men who were retired. I have no brief for the two men who were retired. They are very estimable gentlemen, I believe, and quite able gentlemen, but I have never met either of them. The point that strikes me is: were not all the members of that Board, severally and collectively, responsible for the financial policy of the Board? If they were, in what respect were those who were dismissed or resigned more incompetent or negligent than those who were reappointed to the Board? Was any special duty delegated to the Chairman or the Managing Director? If so, I hope the Minister will tell us what that duty was. The essential factor is this: to whom was the accountant of the Board responsible? Hardly to the Managing Director, whom he might be holding up. Does the Minister know what he was doing? If he does not, I maintain that he should. He was certainly responsible to someone and we have not been told to whom.

[An Ceann Comhairle resumed the Chair.]

I think it would be in order to advert to other problems arising in connection with the Shannon scheme but, lest I might confuse the issue, I shall refrain from so doing. We have to clear up the difficulty, call it a mess or call it what you like. It seems to me that [1776] the Minister, in asking for two millions, has not fixed upon that sum without having a definite plan in mind. He certainly has formed some estimate, however rough. It is not characteristic of the Minister to ask arbitrarily for two millions or four millions without knowing upon what he is going to spend the money. I suggest he should be more frank with the House. He should tell us what he intends to do with this money. Deputy Thrift states that one and a quarter millions are immediately required. I suggest that that is, more or less, an attack on the finances of the scheme. The Minister has made no case for the one and a quarter millions.

Professor Thrift: I took the Minister's own figures.

Mr. Fahy: If the Minister gave us some information as to why he now demands two millions, we might be in a better position to judge the whole case. Reference was made to an amendment I moved last year for an extra half a million. At that time I heard what was common knowledge in business circles in this city—that there were differences between the Board and the Minister regarding responsibility for the liabilities of the concerns transferred to the Board.

The Minister stated definitely that he has no intention of amortising that now, even if he gets the money. Those were going concerns, and there were profits. I presume the profits are there still. What is the urgency now?

Under the Act, the Board was entitled to £2,500,000. The Minister has advanced £1,900,000. Why not advance the difference if they are in such difficulties? I think he is bound to do so under the Act, and no agreement the Minister has made with the Board can overrule an Act of the Oireachtas or prevent them getting the money. If these undertakings are in debt, why not give them money to meet the debt? That is provided for under Section 12 of the Act. Does the sum of £3,335,000, which the Minister mentioned in connection with liabilities of the Board, include working capital, and if so, to what extent? If it does not include working capital, how was [1777] working capital provided? By the Minister and his Department, this sum of £2,500,000 seems to be regarded merely as expenditure. It is, in fact, the capital invested in the business, and it would be so regarded by any business man. We would like some information on that point.

The actual amount is really irrelevant. The question is whether a return is being made. Does the Minister suggest that any of that money has been wrongfully or improperly invested by the Board? Would any sum less than that which they have so invested have been sufficient to have ensured the development which the Minister contends has taken place in the Shannon scheme? It is possible the Minister under-estimated the scheme at the outset, and it has turned out to be a greater scheme than he anticipated. The energy put into its development is greater than he hoped for. If that is the case, and it seems to me it is the case, then the Minister should come to this House and frankly state the fact that that was so; that the scheme had developed beyond his expectations, that the rapidity of the development prevented the Board possibly from keeping the accounts up-to-date, and that more money was required to be invested in this undertaking. Had the Minister done that I feel sure that he would have had not only the sympathy, but the cordial co-operation of this House in providing the further investment required for funds for even the greater success of this scheme. We have no desire to imperil this scheme. We do not think that two million pounds is necessary, or that even one million pounds is necessary. The Minister should tell us what exactly is necessary to meet the present debts—to meet the liabilities, and to carry on for the next three months. The Minister should present us when we meet again in October, with the detailed statement of the accounts before any further monies are granted. In addition to that, there should be an inquiry as to whether the old Board was a failure, and I am not suggesting it was. I cannot apportion the blame and I cannot fix the responsibility. [1778] Meantime I suggest that the Board should get the amount of the money required to carry on. I suggest that this money is much less than one million. That inquiry would give us a full account here in this House before any more money would be asked for.

Professor Thrift: And they must get that at once.

Mr. Fahy: They must get the money required and nobody in this House will deny them that money. They can also get the money which the Minister is holding, and if that is not sufficient they should get more.

Mr. Geoghegan: It is difficult to discern what the case that has been made here by the Minister for the million and a quarter pounds referred to. Even as regards the rest of the money sought here I would have liked further evidence. I share the feeling expressed by the Leader of the Labour Party that there is a lack of evidence. The Minister, in his speech, seemed to me himself not very clearly to advert to the evidence upon which he proposes to act. The Minister, on a matter so important as the granting of two million pounds, referred to various documents and letters which apparently he considered material. Apparently he referred to them from memory. That is hardly satisfactory. Not merely that, but I think it is not too great a claim to make upon the Minister, in a matter of this sort, that if the Minister refers to correspondence passing between him and this Board, refers to memoranda relating to interviews and references to alleged agreements, that these agreements and letters should be here in the House, that they ought to be cited and quoted from by the Minister, and that the House ought not to be asked to accept any paraphrase of the Minister's, or any summary of the Minister's, as to what they contain. The documents ought to be here, and the documents ought to be made available to the Deputies, so that they may draw their own conclusion from them, and so that they may, if they wish, follow up any [1779] line of inquiry that anything in these letters or memoranda may suggest to them.

I feel also that the Minister has not given the House the assistance to which it is fairly entitled in regard to seeing precisely what are those major matters of policy that have led to what some people seem to regard as a national humiliation. What are they? Apparently under Section 12 of the Statute of 1927 the Minister for Finance is bound to pay over to the Board sums of money amounting to £2,500,000 on request. I do not express any view as to the construction of the section. I simply take it that that is conceded by the Minister. If that is so why should the Minister withhold any part of that money in a left-handed attempt to enforce the production of accounts to which he is entitled under Section 7? Surely that is not the way to do it?

Surely if the Board have been given by this House a statutory right to that money they ought to get it. The Board, presumably, had made their plans on the basis of receiving that money. They have taken steps to make these Shannon generating works remunerative by linking them up with the consumer. They have budgeted on that statutory obligation of the Minister's being carried out. Why should he refuse to pay? If the Minister is entitled to those accounts he is, of course, entitled to them.

It is hardly necessary to suggest that there exists machinery for the compelling of the furnishing of these accounts. Why has he not resorted to that machinery? This Board is an independent Board. The Minister need make no apology for any action he might take duly to compel the Board to carry out their obligations under Section 7 of this Act in regard to the keeping and furnishing of accounts. The way to do that is not to withhold the money to which the statute gives the Board the right, and which seems to be absolutely necessary for the carrying on of the business of the Board.

I do not pretend to be a business [1780] man. The phrase has been used here pretty freely. I make no pretence to that, but, so far as I can see, the whole basis of these discussions is that the Board really want money and that really they are short of money. I gather from the Minister that the Minister had not any confirmed view that on this statute he had any right whatever to withhold any part of these two and a half million pounds, but that, by virtue of some arrangement come to between him and the Chairman of the Board (I cannot recall his exact words), he retains this money. The question has been asked by Deputy Fahy what right has the Minister to enter into any agreement with this Board? What right has the Board to enter into an agreement with him? The Board was set up by the House to act under the statute. If under the statute the Board are entitled to get this money for their working expenses, what right have they to waive that money? I fail to see any. Apparently owing to a similar difference of opinion arising on Section 39 this trouble that has now arisen may be to a large extent attributed. It has been suggested here that this £600,000, or whatever the figure is, representing the outstanding capital indebtedness of municipal undertakings taken over by the Electricity Supply Board, ought to be disregarded for the purpose of a discussion on this Bill. That is not relevant at all. I cannot see that. As has been pointed out here, that seems to be the very kernel of the dispute between the Board and the Minister. The Minister speaks of making a present of £600,000 to the Board if he yielded to the Board's interpretation of Section 39 (6) of the Electricity Supply Act, 1927, and some other Deputy here endorsed that view with great enthusiasm. He repeated the phrase, “making a present to the Board.” What does that mean? Is not the money going to the Board for the purpose of being expended on the completion of this scheme? Is it not conceded now by the Minister that a very large sum is required over and above even the two and a half million pounds to do that? Where does the “present” to the Board come in?

[1781] The Board, under Section 39 (6), is in this position. The sub-section says:

Whenever the former undertaker is a local authority the new undertaker shall as on and from the date of the vesting order become and be by virtue of this sub-section liable for and bound to indemnify and keep indemnified the former undertaker against all capital loans (including current bank overdraft) outstanding at the date of the vesting order and borrowed by the former undertaker for the purpose of the undertaking and all mortgages and charges on the undertaking or the assets thereof outstanding on the date of the vesting order ...

What force is the House to attribute to the words “and keep indemnified”? It is not that he is to indemnify, but to keep indemnified. Surely that contemplated that loans which were being served by means of a sinking fund would continue to be served by means of that sinking fund out of the revenue produced by the undertaker. Otherwise what is meant by that phrasing, that in respect of the local authority the Board is to be bound to indemnify and keep indemnified against these outstanding capital loans and mortgages? Why not have used plain English and say that the Board is to pay off all capital loans out of the moneys it is to get, if the House meant that? We have been treated here by certain Deputies to statements about what the intention of the House was. What I entirely fail to understand is where this intention is to be got. Is it from certain discussions which seem to be lodged in the bosom of the Minister for Industry as to what the intention was in regard to a certain statute or agreement. Where is it to be found? The only safe course to take is to administer the statute precisely and exactly as you find it, to play the game according to all the rigour of the rules. If this House feels now that the better course would be to pay off these capital loans, pay off any stock outstanding, pay off any mortgage made to raise money, let them say so.

But let that not be made an excuse for giving the Minister under this new [1782] Bill the power of interfering with and controlling the actions of the Electricity Supply Board by doling out money at his sweet will, a power that he was denied by the Act of 1927. I am not suggesting that the Minister, if the power is conferred upon him, will exercise it unwisely, incompetently, or anything like that. I merely say that the Legislature, in its wisdom, in 1927 embarked upon a wholly different plan and set up an independent Board. There is nothing inherently bad in that scheme. On the contrary, various speakers in the course of the debate seem still to be gratified that such an expedient was adopted. Why should the House now go back on that? The only reason that seems to be advanced is that there have been these disputes between the Minister and the Board as to the effect that should be given to the statute and that both as regards the municipal undertakings and the two and a half million pounds the Board, so far as one can see, took their stand on the letter of the statute as they ought to have done. They occupy a fiduciary position to this House and the people of this State. What right have they to depart from the statute? If there is any real doubt about the interpretation of the Act, it is hardly necessary to say that there is a cheap and quick method of having the words (if there is any obscurity about them) authoritatively interpreted.

Mr. McGilligan: Will the Deputy say what is the cheap method of deciding?

Mr. Geoghegan: The cheap method is this: There is no disputed question of fact; therefore the matter can be summarily decided by a judge. It is not necessary to have a trial; it can be summarily decided on a case stated as a pure question of law without delay, and cheaply decided. Cheaply decided even if it bore relation to a much smaller sum than £2,000,000. But, apparently, as has been indicated already by Deputy O'Connell in another connection, the Minister prefers to have these things done in a different way. It has been said in this [1783] House, from apparently reliable hearsay, that work in connection with this scheme in other directions, as regards fitting and so on, has been entrusted to handymen. Apparently when you have to interpret the statute also you are to go to handymen. That is, apparently, the idea of the Minister. I repeat that if there is any real dispute or difference as regards the interpretation of either Section 12 (3) or Section 39 (6) that could have been very quickly and cheaply set at rest with full authority, and the House would know where it is. Instead of that we must take everything on trust. As I said before, documents and letters are referred to from hearsay. They are not even on the Minister's table. There is no indication that the House will have access to them. Apparently things are to be done in accordance with what somebody conceived to be the intention, rather than in accordance with the law and the Act. Apparently all sorts of short cuts are to be taken and we are to risk the consequences.

The leader of the Opposition has suggested, and the suggestion has met with a certain measure of approval, that this whole matter should be referred to a tribunal of experts. That is the way to deal with it. The suggestion I think, came from Deputy Thrift that really what was needed is that this matter should be put into the hands of auditors who are familiar with this question. I do not know what is meant by that. Section 7 (2) provides that the accounts are to be audited by duly qualified auditors appointed annually for the purpose by the Minister. I have enough confidence in the Minister to believe that the Minister selected duly qualified auditors who were capable of dealing with it as far as auditing was concerned. As somebody else has pointed out, what is really necessary is not an auditor, but an electrical economist, somebody who has special knowledge in a big way in regard to electrical undertakings of the magnitude of this scheme.

I ask the House to refuse to grant this £2,000,000 asked for by the Minister. [1784] Wholly different considerations arise if the Minister confines himself to asking for three-quarters of a million, but I ask the House to refuse to give the Minister what has been called a blank cheque. A Deputy has used the phrase that if you do not give this you will wreck the whole scheme and destroy the credit of the country. Surely such phrases are scarcely worthy of a discussion of this kind and hardly helpful to the House in discussing a matter of this sort. The House should not hesitate, even if it indicated humiliation to the Minister in this matter, to refuse it. But it does not. No one is apportioning blame in this, at least no responsible person would dream of apportioning blame in this in the complete absence of data. Therefore, the only course the House can take in order to prevent any recurrence of what we all regret is to refuse this request of the Minister. I do not see how that can be done, according to the rules of this House, except by voting against the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Anthony: I want to ask the Minister one or two questions before I give my vote on this matter. Not being satisfied that I had correctly followed the Minister, although I took fairly copious notes of his speech, I read the admirable summary of his speech in the Press to-day to assure myself. I find that the figure of £850,000 has been mentioned so frequently in the Minister's statement, and in the speech as made, that I would like to be quite clear as to how this figure was arrived at. I understand that in the course of the activities of the Electricity Supply Board a number of municipal undertakings were appropriated and taken over by the Board, such as publicly and municipally-owned undertakings. I know there is an outstanding exception in the case of Cork, where the undertaking was privately-owned, but Dublin, Rathmines, Pembroke, Dun Laoghaire, Clonmel, Enniscorthy, and a number of other undertakings had to be acquired and paid for, and I want to be satisfied upon this. Is this [1785] £850,000 that the Minister referred to the approximate sum of the liabilities of acquired undertakings at the date of their acquisition? These loans, I understand, were made repayable out of the revenue of the E.S.B., and I think it is unfair to debit the whole of the £850,000 to the E.S.B. when they were paying for these owned undertakings out of revenue. I want to know how much of that £850,000 was paid by the E.S.B. by way of compensation for the acquisition of plant, installations, etc., in these municipal undertakings to which I have referred. Did the Minister arrive at this figure in the way that it presents itself to me? I do not want to misinterpret or misquote the Minister, but I think he suggested that the Electricity Supply Board was by statute entitled to receive £1,650,000, and that it spent £2,500,000. Taking the £1,650,000 from £2,500,000, I get the sum of £850,000, and that is what I want to be assured of by the Minister. Am I correct in that calculation, or is that the way the Minister arrived at the figure of £850,000?

Like Deputies in other parts of the House I feel that this question is one which must be approached in an altogether different way from many questions which come before this House from time to time. No Deputy so far has found fault with the Minister as a Minister. I must say there is a good deal of logic and reason on the side of those who suggested that things were allowed to develop in a way that they should not be allowed to develop. The Minister, while exercising control by statute, found at the end of a period, according to his own statement, that he never got any correct returns or statistics or information that he considered necessary. He never got these returns. What I am surprised at is that the Minister has not long before now come to the Dáil and asked for any powers he considered necessary. I feel no Deputy would object to giving him these powers, in view of the fact that this is not a mere local institution, but a great national undertaking.

I am sure we are all glad that tribute has been paid to the young and gifted man who conceived the scheme and [1786] carried it out, and who, I feel, in all the circumstances has been badly treated. I may be wrong, but that is my deduction from some of the speeches I have listened to and even from some portion of the Minister's own statement. I hope his treatment will not be taken as an indication of the Government policy in the future, because if it is we are not going to attract to the State and to the national service young men of brains and ability if they are to be scrapped at the end of a particular period because somebody has bungled. I also feel it is a reflection on the businessmen who were connected with the Board, men who have made a success of other business enterprises. I consider it is a reflection upon their ability and, to an extent, on their probity, that they should be, even by inference, held up to be incompetent, as the captions in the daily Press would lead one to expect. Those business men have undoubtedly co-operated very largely in making the scheme a success from one point of view, at any rate. Perhaps it may be found if, and when, this examination takes place that they may have from time to time resented interference from outside, and when I say from outside I mean from the Civil Service Department. Nobody has greater appreciation of the value of civil servants to the State in their own sphere than I have. But I do know that civil servants, particularly in the higher division, have a tendency to develop what is known as the official mind. They cannot get away from it. It is part of their training; it is a corollary to the system which builds up and maintains Civil Service. I may be anticipating what may be adduced or evolved from an inquiry, if and when it takes place. That, of course, depends on whether the Government or the Cumann na nGaedheal Party will vote for this motion. It will largely, if not altogether, depend on their votes.

But I do feel that it may evolve from an inquiry, if and when held, that businessmen doing their business in their own way did not want to be subjected to undue interference by highly placed officials in the Civil [1787] Service. I may be wrong. I am not even suggesting that I am right, but knowing what I do about the capacity of the businessmen on the Board, they were not all supermen but at least they were men who appreciated their position and their responsibilities and you have to-day, one of the greatest undertakings in the world, a monument to the genius of the young man, Dr. MacLaughlin, whose name is mentioned in this Bill and also to the Minister. I do not want to take any credit whatever from the Minister, because we all know that at its early stages the Minister was the godfather to that undertaking. Some other Deputy—I do not know how it was—suggested that in anything that might occur here, either now or at any future time, to prevent in any way the further development of that great national scheme the Minister would share the discredit that may be brought about, but the Minister would also deserve, equally with Dr. MacLaughlin, any encomiums that could be given if it were a still greater success.

I feel that the Minister must appreciate the fact that all the Deputies who have spoken so far—at least those whom I have heard—have paid tribute to those who were associated with that scheme in its earlier stages and they have all been most moderate in their criticisms, possibly with one or two exceptions. It is a healthy sign, and I do hope that the Minister will at least satisfy some of the Deputies who have criticised, not for the sake of criticising or for being carping in any way, but who have done so inspired by the very highest and best motives. I at least want to be satisfied with regard to this sum of £850,000. How much of it was expended by way of return of loans or paying off liabilities incurred by the Electricity Supply Board in taking over the municipal undertakings to which I have referred.

Mr. Moore: We are all asking for more information, and there is just a little that I want for myself. I think [1788] that the Minister should tell us what reason the present Chairman of the Board has given for withholding the information he has been asked for. The present Chairman of the Board is a civil servant: he has had a Civil Service training. We cannot believe that he has simply said: “I am not in a position to furnish you with the accounts or with the statistical information you require.” We are sure that he has not made such a reply as that. It is useless, then, for the Minister to reply, as he did yesterday: “I cannot get it from him.” If the Minister says that, I think, in justice to the House, he should go a step further and say what reasons Mr. Browne has put up for not giving this information. It is presumed that when the present Chairman was appointed last Octob