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 - 15 July, 1931

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

The Dáil went into Committee on Finance.

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. McGilligan): Before moving the Money Resolution I would like to have a ruling on points of procedure. The Money Resolution reads:—

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

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

An Ceann Comhairle: The Minister is in the position that he may either formally move the Money Resolution, hear the amendment proposed and speak on the amendment or speak first on the Money Resolution and subsequently on the points raised on the amendment which he did not deal with before. I think it is a matter entirely for the Minister whether he deals with the matter first or deals [2079] with the matter when he hears the case. Perhaps it would be better for the Minister to move the motion and then hear the amendment moved.

Mr. McGilligan: I move the Resolution formally.

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

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

Mr. O'Connell: I take it that if the words “two million pounds” stand it would decide my amendment.

An Ceann Comhairle: Technically, from the point of view of order it would [2080] not necessarily, but I take it the Deputy would accept that decision for Committee purposes.

Mr. Lemass: I move:—

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

The Bill which is before the Dáil is one the main purpose of which is to provide a sum of two million pounds which may be advanced to the Electricity Supply Board for any purpose arising in the performance of its functions under the Electricity Supply Acts, 1927 to 1930, on a certificate from the Minister for Industry and Commerce that such money is reasonably and properly required by the Board for that purpose. When the Bill was before the Dáil on its Second Reading, Deputies will remember that the Minister did not attempt to give any explanation whatever as to the purposes for which this two million pounds was required. He gave us no information as to the basis on which it was calculated, he expressed his inability to give us any information as to the purposes it was required for. He expressed the view that he thought it would prove to be more than was likely to be required. He made it quite clear, however, that the figure was arrived at by a process of guesswork, that it was put into the Bill without any serious grounds for assuming that it was required or was necessary for the Board in the proper performance of its duties. We think it preposterous that any Minister should come to the Dáil and ask the Dáil to sanction the expenditure of such a large sum on such grounds. A House presumably serious about its work and anxious to carry its responsibilities properly, which would sanction the expenditure of two million pounds upon the information which the Minister has given [2081] would be, I think, open to the charge that it had seriously neglected its obligations and had jeopardised the welfare of the people to whom the House was responsible. A House which would sanction two million pounds in that way would sanction anything. I do not think that there is any other Parliament in the world in which any Minister ever came with such a proposal as that which the Minister for Industry and Commerce has put to this House. He wants this two million pounds to be expended on a purpose which he cannot explain, which he says may not be required, two million pounds concerning which he can give the Dáil no information whatsoever. It is to be given to him in whatever manner and for whatever purposes he likes, and no section in the Bill provides that any check is to be given to the Dáil on that expenditure or that the Minister is to be responsible in any way for a proper accounting of it. We do not propose to agree to the giving of that money in that manner. We propose to ask the Dáil definitely to limit the amount which is to be made available for expenditure by the Board on the certificate of the Minister in the manner proposed in the Bill. We propose to limit that amount to £500,000 and to provide in addition a sum of £600,000 which will be available for the Board as and when required by the Board, for the express purpose of repaying the capital liabilities acquired by the Board when it took over the electricity undertakings of local authorities.

In order to satisfy the House that the proposals which we are making to-day are reasonable, it is necessary to review briefly the present financial position of the Board as explained by the Minister in his speeches here on Wednesday and Thursday of last week. Deputies will remember that when the 1927 Act was passed, a sum of £2,500,000 was provided for the Board to finance all its activities, to meet its requirements in all respects except in regard to the maintenance, operation and repair of the Shannon works. Briefly, this £2,500,000 was to finance [2082] the distribution activities of the Board as distinct from its activities in the generation or transmission of electric current. The Minister told us here on Wednesday, for the first time, and to the astonishment of the Dáil and people generally, that the Board had overspent that sum by £600,000, and that, in addition, they had entered into commitments involving the expenditure of another quarter of a million pounds. In other words, that the total expenditure and liabilities of the Board to date amounted to £3,350,000. He explained that of that sum £600,000 represented capital liabilities of municipal and electrical undertakings acquired by the Board, and in respect of which the Board was required by the 1927 Act to keep those local authorities indemnified. If we deduct that sum of £600,000 from the total of £3,350,000, to which I have referred, we get the figure of £2,750,000. The Board has received to date from the Central Fund under Section 12 (3) of the 1927 Act, in respect of its distribution activities, a sum of £1,950,000; £200,000 went to repay some of these acquired capital liabilities, but that is the total which the Board has received and which we can deduct from the other figure of £2,750,000 to which I have referred. That leaves us a figure of £800,000. We have got to provide for the Board that £800,000, and, in addition, to give them a sum of money which will enable them to carry on their activities pending whatever inquiry or whatever reorganisation scheme the Dáil may decide upon. There is to the credit of the Board with the Minister for Finance a sum of £550,000. The Dáil in 1927 provided £2,500,000 to finance these activities of the Board. Of that sum only £1,950,000 has been drawn. There is still available or withheld from the Board a sum of £550,000. If the Dáil accepts our proposals concerning the capital liabilities of the municipal electrical undertakings that sum becomes released to finance the Board's activities, and we propose to add to it a sum of a half a million pounds. That will enable the Board to pay off the existing liabilities, to provide for the commitments into which it has [2083] entered, amounting to a quarter of a million pounds, and will leave them with another quarter of a million pounds with which to engage in activities for the period during which the inquiry or reorganisation scheme will take place. That, in brief, is the nature of our proposal.

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

I take it that that reorganisation cannot take place without submission of legislative proposals to the Dáil. It would be necessary therefore for the Minister in the next Session of the Dáil to come here before us with additional legislative proposals relating to the Shannon scheme. We suggest, in relation to the financial position, that we give the existing Board sufficient to carry on until then. I do not think that the Dáil should, under any circumstances, agree to provide for the [2084] purposes of the Board or any other purposes a large sum of money until it has submitted to it a clear case for the provision of that money, and until it is demonstrated that the expenditure of it is likely to prove remunerative. There has been no attempt made to do that as yet. Deputies must remember that the original Shannon scheme was alleged to be an economic proposition on the basis that its cost would be limited to a certain definite amount, and that sale would be available for a particular number of units of electricity. The total cost of the scheme was to be £5,210,000 on the construction side, and £2,500,000 upon the distribution side. These were the figures upon which the original Shannon scheme was based. We were given to understand that there was no likelihood of an increase in these figures. Time and again the Minister made statements that these figures were not likely to be exceeded.

Mr. McGilligan: When?

Mr. Lemass: When I made reference to the first of these figures, the cost of construction, the Minister asked me for that quotation. I stated then that the Minister had informed the House that he had binding estimates for the construction of the Shannon works, estimates which could not and were not likely to be exceeded. I am quoting from the Official Report of the debate of the 3rd April, 1925, volume 10, column 2019, in which the Minister said: “but the only scheme that is under consideration at the moment is the scheme entailing a cost of £5,200,000. Nobody can question that is the amount which we are considering because for that we have binding estimates, if we care to accept tenders here and now. With the exception of the item referred to by Deputy Thrift on page 80, limited to civil constructional costs, the prices are absolutely fixed and binding. They are maximum prices from Siemens Schuckerts' point of view. They are not the minimum from our point of view. We have checks and controls by which if we find a reputable firm in any other part of the world that would do any part of this [2085] work at less than Messrs. Siemens Schuckert then we can beat them down to that, or give the contracts on those parts to other firms.”

Mr. McGilligan: Would the Deputy say is that the quotation he gave before?

Mr. Lemass: I think so

Mr. McGilligan: No. The Deputy left out part of it. He omitted the limitation referred to by Deputy Thrift on page 80 of the experts' report. Does the Deputy now realise what that means?

Mr. Lemass: What does that mean?

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy had better proceed with the speech.

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

If we are going to increase the cost of the Shannon scheme by two million pounds then in some way the revenue of the Shannon Board must also be increased by the amount necessary to pay the charges on those two million pounds. The Minister has given us no information as to how that is to be done. Is it to be done by increasing the price of [2086] electricity? If so what is the average increase per unit likely to be? I think the Dáil should be very slow to provide any sum whatever for the purpose mentioned in this Bill until it knows what the exact consequences of the additional expenditure are likely to be. Will the whole or any part of this money prove remunerative? Will this expenditure increase the revenue? Will that revenue be sufficient to pay the charges upon this money without an increase in the cost of electricity? Have the Shannon Board up to date been selling electricity at a price which will enable it to meet these outgoings when the appointed day arrives?

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

[2087] The legal position, whatever it was, is not changed by this Bill. This Bill does not propose to rectify or remove any doubts that may exist in that respect. If these £2,000,000 are provided, they may, or may not, be used for the purpose of discharging these acquired capital liabilities. If the Board were entitled to maintain heretofore that the moneys provided by sub-section (3) of Section 12, need not be used for the purpose of discharging these liabilities, then no part of this sum of £2,000,000 need be used for that purpose. We are proposing to take these capital liabilities out of the arena and we are proposing that, of the sum which we provide for the Board, £600,000—that is the aggregate, roughly, of these liabilities—should be earmarked and made available to the Board for the purpose, and only for the purpose, of repaying these acquired capital liabilities if and when it is proposed to repay them. There is, of course, no obligation to repay them. Certain sinking fund arrangements existed in respect of these liabilities. The Board is required by the original Act to pay whatever charges arise in that connection and to pay the interest charges out of its revenue. We are not proposing to take that responsibility from the Board. We think it is most unlikely that any part of this £600,000 will be called upon, but the Minister thinks it necessary that a sum should be available so that the indemnification clause of the 1927 Act should be complied with. As I have already explained, if a special provision dealing with these acquired capital liabilities is made, the £550,000 of the original 2½ million pounds which the Minister has withheld from the Board will become available to the Board to finance its ordinary activities and to discharge the liabilities which have been mounting up during the past nine or ten months in consequence of the Minister's withholding of the money. The amount of these trade liabilities, together with the total of the financial commitments into which the Board has entered but which have not yet matured, we are informed by the Minister, [2088] amounts to £850,000. We will be providing a sum—these figures are only approximate—of from a quarter of a million to £300,000, to enable the Board to proceed with whatever development programme it believes to be necessary in order to reap the benefit during the next few months of its past expenditure. I do not know to what exactly that £250,000 for commitments to which the Minister referred relates. We take it that it means the cost of the Board's development programme in the immediate future.

Now, we come up against the question whether this half-million pounds should be provided by the Board in the same manner as the original £2½ million was provided, or whether it should be only made available if and when the Minister for Industry and Commerce certifies it to be reasonably and properly required by the Board under Section 3 of this Bill. We dislike the section of the Bill which requires this certificate from the Minister for Industry and Commerce, and we had to consider very carefully whether we would propose to the Dáil to delete the words which dealt with it, or whether we would leave them as they are. This is our position: We wish to see the Board independent of control by the Executive Council or any member of it. We think the original plan of an independent Board the best one, and we hope it will be found possible in a very short time to return to it. But we have there a Board which has, according to the Minister, not done its job properly. We are not putting any responsibility upon that Board. The Minister is responsible to this House for everything that has happened. He selected the members; he appointed them, and he reappointed some of them when they resigned, or for certain reasons they vacated their jobs. They are there. The Minister is answerable to this House for his selection. There are on that Board at present, I understand, two whole-time and three part-time members. The three part-time members may be disregarded. They are not active. I have heard it stated that they are not even being summoned [2089] to meetings of the Board at present. The other two members of the Board were members when the greater part of this excess expenditure was entered into. The Minister told us, for example, that in the middle of last year he asked this Board for certain statistical information, and that he had not got it yet. He told us about the delay in furnishing the accounts, that a firm of auditors has been working there for a long time, and has not yet succeeded in straightening them out. I do not think that any member of the Dáil would say that he would willingly give to that Board, as described by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, unlimited control over this sum of half a million pounds or two million, or whatever sum we provide for the purposes of the Board in the future. A reorganisation is in contemplation. We propose that until that reorganisation takes place this requirement of certification by the Minister for Industry and Commerce should remain.

The other amendment in my name provides that the money can only be expended by the Board for the purpose mentioned in sub-section (3) of Section 3. The wording of the amendment to the Financial Resolution on this point is unsatisfactory, but the amendment to the Bill makes the idea clear. As I explained to the Dáil, Section 12 of the 1927 Act provides for the financing of the Board's activities. Sub-section (2) of that section provides the money which is to be expended upon the maintenance, operation and repair of the Shannon works. Sub-section (3) provides the amount which is to be spent by the Board on all purposes other than the maintenance, operation and repair of the Shannon works. The Minister has led the Dáil to understand that the £2,000,000 mentioned in the Bill is required to discharge liabilities entered into by the Board in its distribution activities, and to finance future development upon the distribution side. We want it to be clearly understood that no part of this money can be utilised for additional developments on the generating side without the Minister being under an obligation to come to the Dáil and explain his proposals. We [2090] want it to be clear that no part of this money can be used to pay increased cost of construction, if such an increased cost has arisen. References have appeared in the Press, for example, to a claim which Messrs. Siemens Schuckert are making against the Board in connection with construction work done. If any part of this sum is being ear-marked, or is required for the purpose of meeting any such claim, that should be clearly stated. The Dáil should not be asked to provide money without knowing exactly what it is to be used for.

Mr. McGilligan: That money could not be legahy used for that purpose.

Mr. Lemass: It can only be used for the purposes mentioned in sub-section (3) of Section 12?

Mr. McGilligan: I would not like to confine myself to that—not to the last thing the Deputy mentioned.

Mr. Lemass: Would it be possible for any part of this sum to be used to finance, say, an additional development on the generating side?

Mr. McGilligan: It is possible.

Mr. Lemass: I think it undesirable that it should. If the Minister is contemplating such an additional development——

Mr. McGilligan: Then I would bring it before the House.

Mr. Lemass: If the Minister states that he will bring it before the House then our point is met.

Mr. McGilligan: I will make certain reservations about it when I am speaking.

Mr. Lemass: I think I have now dealt with the three matters that arise. It will be possible to deal with some other aspects of them later. My main concern at the moment is to impress on the Dáil my view that it should not in the future give the Executive Council or the Minister or anybody else a free hand in relation to the Shannon scheme. I refer to the Minister in [2091] this matter, although the responsibility under the 1927 Act is placed upon the Executive Council, and the Executive Council have exercised that responsibility. As far as the Dáil is concerned it must hold the Minister responsible for the position that has arisen. We do not think the Minister should get behind the Board for the purpose of getting away from his share of that responsibility. He appointed the Board. He was responsible for their appointment. He presumably selected the people whom he thought best fitted for the position. If he did, then whatever consequences arise from those appointments he must take responsibility for in this House. He had the power to dismiss members of the Board if at any time he considered a situation had arisen which would justify such action. He allowed a position to develop in which the financial conditions of the Board, according to his account, got into considerable confusion and in which considerable over expenditure was indulged in. He took no action. Certain prominent members of the Board resigned. Their resignations forced his hand and made it necessary for him to come to the House with this Bill to make the explanatory statement which we heard last week.

That was the first statement that this House heard concerning any dispute that existed between the Minister and the Board. We must remember also that it was the Minister and not the Board that prepared the original estimate of two and a half million pounds to meet the activities of the Board on the distribution side. That estimate appears to have been wrong, as far as one can judge from the statement of the Minister and other statements which have appeared. Every member appointed on that Board from time to time expressed the view, in one form or another, that it was impossible to carry out the functions of the Board within that figure. The Minister, however, instead of coming to the Dáil and admitting that his original estimate was wrong and asking for an increase in the amount provided [2092] appears to have stuck his heels in the ground. Instead of increasing the sum he endeavoured to force the Board to do what members of the Board, experts in finance and experts in electrical matters, expressed the opinion it was not possible to do. Under those circumstances the amount of confidence which members of the Dáil can have in the Minister must be strictly limited. When a Bill like this comes before the House, a Bill which proposes to provide a huge sum of money with which the Minister can do practically what he likes, the House should be slow to pass it. Deputies should not pass it in its present form and with the information now available. We think there is a case for providing temporarily a limited sum to be expended in the manner proposed in the Bill, subject only, however, to proper assurances being given that a full expert enquiry, such as has been suggested, will be held, and that the Board is reconstituted in such a manner as will permit of its being given an independent status, and that will be some sufficient guarantee to the Dáil that the position that has arisen in the past will not arise again in the future. I move the amendment.

Mr. Briscoe: When the Minister was speaking on the last occasion he read a letter which I addressed to him. He also read the reply. At the time the Minister was reading the reply I understood that he was referring in the last paragraph to the Whips of the various Parties. I have not been able to trace my letter, but since reading the official report of the debate I am satisfied that the letter the Minister read was the one I received because it refers only to the Whips of his own Party. I want to take this opportunity of withdrawing any suggestion that I put on the letter that the Minister read—that it was not the one actually sent to me. Having since had an opportunity of refreshing my memory and of reading the report, I want to take this opportunity of making that statement.

Mr. McGilligan: Is that all the Deputy has to say on that?

[2093] Mr. Briscoe: Yes.

Mr. McGilligan: Does the Deputy still persist in his definition of that letter as indicating opposition to the discussion of the accounts? That was the reason the Deputy gave for introducing the subject.

Mr. Briscoe: I will come to that. I am trying to show the Minister that it is hard sometimes to do the gentlemanly thing. I have done now what I consider to be right. I did not use the phrase, but if I did suggest that it was a fake letter I think the proper thing for me to do is to make amends at the first opportunity for making that suggestion. I am doing that now. As regards the letter itself and the merits of it I can deal with that later. I hope the Minister understands the motives that have prompted me to do what I have just done. Perhaps it is just as well that I should deal with the letter now. I wrote a letter to the Minister after having made a careful examination and study of the accounts as presented to the Dáil. I was satisfied that not only did these balance sheets and accounts not conform with the sections of the Act which stipulated what class of accounts should be submitted to the Dáil, but I was also satisfied that a debate at that time was imperative. I thought that the proper attitude for me to take was to write to the Minister himself and find out. I knew from previous questions that I had asked in the House and from previous debates that had taken place that the Minister never wanted any light thrown on the Shannon scheme either as regards the Shannon works or the Shannon Board. I wrote to the Minister and got the letter that is now on the records. That indicated to me that the Minister was not prepared to suggest time himself for a debate on the accounts, nor was he prepared to facilitate—

Mr. McGilligan: Will the Deputy read the letter?

An Ceann Comhairle: I wonder if this letter is relevant to the Money [2094] Resolution before the House for two million pounds?

Mr. Briscoe: I presume that we can discuss the Act under the Money Resolution?

An Ceann Comhairle: Which Act? Does the Deputy mean the Bill?

Mr. Briscoe: I presume that we can discuss the amendments in relation to the 1927 Act.

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy can do what Deputy Lemass did, take all the amendments to the Bill together, and debate them now.

Mr. Briscoe: If I deal with the first amendment on the paper, which has relation to bringing the expenditure of this money within sub-section (3) of the Act of 1927, and other relevant sections, I presume I can discuss that section and the other relevant sections?

An Ceann Comhairle: I would much rather if the Deputy discussed the difference between £1,200,000 and £2,000,000, and the uses to which the moneys will be put.

Mr. Briscoe: I want to show that it is essential that we should reduce the amount. The Minister has given no reason here showing why he requires the money. He does not say what it is required for, and he has not accounted, in the manner laid down by the Act, for the moneys which he handed over to the Board. If we are to get as little information with regard to the money now being voted as we have got in relation to moneys paid over in the past, the proper attitude to adopt is to vote against giving any money except what is absolutely imperative to keep the plant going, and even that money should only be issued on a certified statement. In Section 32 (3) of the 1927 Act, the Minister is directed to produce to the Dáil a definite statement with regard to any moneys handed over. Sub-section (3) states:

The Minister shall lay as soon as [2095] may be before each House of the Oireachtas a copy of every report made to him by the Board under this section, together with a copy of the last capital account, revenue account, profit and loss account, and balance-sheet of the Board...

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

We should be very careful before we sanction any further payments to the Minister. We find that the Minister and his colleague, the Minister for Finance, are jointly and individually responsible for what happened in the past. The Minister may talk about the difficulties he had to contend with, but can he argue that under Section 7 of the 1927 Act he had not at all times the right to examine and have placed before him in any way he liked the accounts of the Board, or does he contend that he should not be kept au fait at all times with what was happening there? I am almost tempted to say that Section 7 puts the two Ministers in the position of being ex officio members of the Board and therefore, [2096] in regard to anything that has happened as regards finance, the Ministers, as far as we are concerned, are responsible to us; they cannot throw their responsibility on the shoulders of other people. It might be well for the Dáil to refresh its memory with regard to Section 7:

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

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

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

I am satisfied that when the present Chairman of the Board was appointed he must have been given special instructions by the Minister. As far as I understand, it was the present Chairman who asked that auditors be sent to try to straighten out things. Is it not fair to assume, in view of the manner in which the first and second balance sheets were presented, that a [2097] lot of the present work deals with the periods with which those balance sheets were concerned? I maintain that the accounts were not presented in the manner directed by the Dáil. It may be argued that we should now only give such moneys as are sufficient to meet requirements and to permit the carrying on of all the operations of the Board, so that we will not be adding extra cost to the scheme in the shape, for instance, of solicitors' fees for serving civil bills, a great number of which are in the possession of the Board. They would not be there if the Minister had given the Board money when they were in need of it.

In the balance sheet presented to us for 1928-29 there is one item of £10,574 12s. 0d., which is referred to as a surplus of revenue over expenditure. Can the Minister explain that surplus? I believe the Minister could not possibly show any surplus, particularly when it relates to the initial stages of the undertaking, when they were selling a very nominal amount of electricity and when they were engaged in preparing the most important part of the project. I have consulted qualified auditors in regard to this item, and, as a result of the information I have been given, I am satisfied that these accounts which the Minister circulated are not a true reflection of the business of the Board during the first two years. The Minister apparently did not know what he was doing when he issued them. I believe he was responsible for their publication, and not the Board.

Does the Minister claim that his auditors were not furnished with everything they required when they were examining into the Board's affairs? I have read the addendum to the auditors' report, and they say that they were furnished with everything they required, with the exception of one or two items; they could not certify certain liabilities because they were not vouched for. We are now asked to give practically a blank cheque to the Minister, and we have absolute proof that he did not carry out his duties in accordance with the [2098] Act in regard to the moneys formerly handed to him. He had no right to do what he has done.

Another matter I want to refer to is this. In portion of the reply given to-day to a question by Deputy MacEntee, the Minister, in giving particulars of the salaries and remuneration paid to the members of the Board, included an item of £1,250 paid as a lump sum to the late chairman when he took up the position of an ordinary member of the Board. On the Second Stage of the Bill, when I asked the Minister if the previous chairman received any compensation when he retired, he said no. Then he argued that he got something by way of extra remuneration.

Mr. McGilligan: Why not quote what I did say?

Mr. Briscoe: I will quote it.

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy is not saying a word about Deputy Lemass's amendment, except that now and again he has mentioned £2,000,000.

Mr. Briscoe: The position we are in is this: the Minister has not given the House a proper accounting for the moneys which the Dáil entrusted to him for a certain undertaking.

An Ceann Comhairle: That can be discussed in a particular way. I do not want in any way to hamper this debate. We had a Second Reading debate on the Bill, and we are now discussing whether the Minister will get £2,000,000 or £1,100,000, and whether the money will be given as Deputy Lemass suggests in his amendment, or whether the Minister will be asked to certify for the amount. The Deputy is really discussing the accounts of the Board, and not how the Minister has carried out certain obligations imposed upon him by the 1927 Act. The Deputy occasionally is saying, “for these reasons we should not give the Minister £2,000,000,” but that does not put him in order.

Mr. Briscoe: I think on the previous behaviour of the Minister as regards this matter, we should not give him [2099] anything. I am trying to argue that in giving him the amount that the amendment reduces the £2,000,000 to, we should be very definite as to why we are not giving the Minister the blank cheque he requires. I must argue the reasons why I am taking up that attitude.

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy is only taking an opportunity of reviewing the Board.

Mr. Briscoe: No, I am reviewing the Minister.

An Ceann Comhairle: Reviewing the operations of the Board and the Minister.

Mr. Briscoe: The Minister on the Second Stage disputed the fact that the previous chairman of the Board was given compensation, and I pointed out that there was another item in this Bill something similar to that, and the Minister asked would I quote his statement.

An Ceann Comhairle: Will the Deputy deal with the point of relevancy before he quotes?

Mr. Briscoe: The point of relevancy is this: the Minister has given certain figures for which he says he required this money. I am not prepared to accept that he has proved to us in a clear, open and frank manner what the amounts are for which he requires the money. He spoke of £250,000 to discharge certain trade liabilities and he said he required a further sum of £600,000 for another purpose. I was in doubt, and I believe others were in doubt, when he spoke of the undischarged liabilities of undertakings, as to whether portion of this money was for that purpose.

An Ceann Comhairle: That is relevant. What is the point about the £1,250?

Mr. Briscoe: When the Minister was asked whether the late chairman had been given any compensation when he resigned, the Minister said no. This afternoon an answer to a question put by Deputy MacEntee clearly shows that [2100] the £1,250 was given as compensation, although the Minister argued it was extra remuneration.

Mr. McGilligan: Why not quote what I did say?

An Ceann Comhairle: Before the Deputy proceeds to quote I want to say that I can understand the matter about the £600,000, the £850,000 and the authorised undertaking, but I do not see the relevancy on this Money Resolution and on this particular amendment as to whether a particular chairman got £1,250, and how he got it.

Mr. McGilligan: May I help the Deputy?

An Ceann Comhairle: I am afraid the Minister will help the Deputy in further irrelevancy.

Mr. McGilligan: He is trying to establish that my credit with regard to a statement is not good and he wants to establish that on foot of a statement which he says I made with regard to the £1,250. I think it is relevant and I should like him to prove it. The statement is on column 1683 of the Official Reports. What did I say?

An Ceann Comhairle: Whatever the Minister said, and whatever the Deputy says, the question of the £1,250 is not relevant.

Mr. Briscoe: The Minister made certain allegations against members of the Board—those who have resigned and those who are still there. He has made certain statements about certain transactions of theirs and was then asked about his own transactions. Certainly the Board cannot be accused of having spent that £1,250. I take it the Executive Council spent that £1,250 and not the Board, and in that way the matter arose.

Mr. McGilligan: The point is that I denied compensation was given.

Mr. Briscoe: I will read what the Minister said. I asked: “Is there any foundation for the statement that the previous chairman of the Board was given any compensation whatever [2101] when he resigned from the chairmanship?” The Minister intervened and said: “I could answer that question simply by saying `No,' but that would be misleading. He did not get it on resignation, but he got it by way of extra remuneration on being reappointed as a part-time member.” I then asked: “Could the Minister say what was the amount?” and the Minister said: “I have not it in my head.” Then I asked: “Would the Minister promise to get the amount?” and the Minister said: “Certainly, quite soon.” Then I went on to say further: “If the Minister has come to the House now to give the ex-Managing Director £2,000 on his resignation on the grounds the Minister stated, I say the Minister had no power previously to give the previous chairman any compensation by way of extra remuneration when he resigned from the chairmanship over differences on policy. That chairman was brought back as an ordinary member of the Board. He has also gone out with Dr. MacLaughlin. I do not suppose he is getting compensation again this time.” The Minister then said: “Section 2 is where my power was to do whatever was done.” I then asked: “Why is not the late Managing Director given compensation under that section?” and the Minister replied: “Because it does not apply.”

An Ceann Comhairle: If the Deputy stops there he is proving completely that it does not apply. Perhaps it arises on the section of the Bill which proposes to give £2,000 to Dr. MacLaughlin.

Mr. McGilligan: Where is the contradiction from the point of view of credit?

Mr. Briscoe: Certainly the Minister hedged about it. My reading of his answer to Deputy MacEntee is that the chairman resigned and got £1,250. and that he did not get it for nothing. It was not anything else but compensation for something or other. The Minister tried to explain it afterwards in his own speech by saying that the gentleman made an appeal to him because he had suffered some loss by way [2102] of contract between himself and the Commissioners and his emoluments arising out of his pension.

Mr. McGilligan: And something more—I said something more.

An Ceann Comhairle: More and more irrelevant. Let us get away from this.

Mr. Briscoe: The fact remains——

An Ceann Comhairle: The fact remains that the Deputy is altogether away from the amendment.

Mr. Briscoe: The fact remains that he got £1,250.

Mr. McGilligan: I can answer, I suppose?

An Ceann Comhairle: Yes.

Mr. Briscoe: You are ruling that any reference to the accounts is irrelevant, even if it goes to show that the Minister was——

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

Mr. Briscoe: Deputy Lemass gave the Minister an indication as to the reasons for his first amendment and the Minister, I believe, has given an assurance, which amounts practically to an acceptance of the amendment, that no moneys will be used for any purpose other than described in sub-section (3) of the Act. As regards the £2,000,000 which the Minister wants, and the third amendment in the name of Deputy Lemass, which states that the Minister should have £500,000, I do not know whether the Minister is prepared to say that his figure will cover all the immediate requirements of the Board. I presume this £500,000 will be in addition to the unexpended balance that the Minister [2103] has at his disposal for the Board out of the original £2,500,000. I think the House is entitled to know at the earliest possible moment what is the true position as to the affairs of the Board, and the House should be given an opportunity of setting up an inquiry to find out who is to blame for the situation that arose. I want to make this point, that the Minister will be held responsible for any loss that the Board has suffered, due if you like, on the one hand, to being held up in the normal working of the undertaking on account of not having the funds in hands which the Minister withheld, and for the extra costs which have been piled on to the Board in meeting legal expenses arising out of the position adopted by the Minister. I hope the Minister will, on an early occasion, take an opportunity of giving to the House a detailed statement of the exact amount he has cost the Board by his peculiar action and by his attitude during the last four or five months anyway.

I want to know what attitude he will take when he gets this money. Is he going to take up the attitude again of keeping from the Dáil the information they require from time to time or is he going as he indicated the last day to give an opportunity at the earliest possible moment to have a debate on the published accounts as circulated, or will he again, once more that he has got sufficient money to carry on the scheme for a certain period, close up and leave the Dáil and the country ignorant of what is going on and what has transpired? I do not know whether the Minister when he replies on this amendment is going to give any indication as to how the capital situation of the undertaking stands and will stand from the extra money he is getting in relation to the charges for electricity that will be consumed by the users. He knows whether there are certain contracts existing between the Board and certain traction undertakings to supply current at a certain price. Is the Minister in a position to assure the House that the extra capital that [2104] he is now going to get and which is going to be added to the cost, that the whole of the additional charges will not fall upon the ordinary users of electricity but that there will be some means of recouping it from some of the undertakings that have had special consideration.

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

An Ceann Comhairle: This is a subtle form of disorderly criticism of the Chair.

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

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy will not find that ruling in the Official Reports.

Mr. Briscoe: I presume I can go on then.

Mr. Flinn: Do we understand that the Official Reports will not contain your ruling?

An Ceann Comhairle: The Official Reports will not contain that ruling, because no such ruling was given.

Mr. Briscoe: I want to know what is the position the Minister is taking up now with regard to the auditors and their activities with the Board. I understand the auditors themselves have accountants on the premises of the Board, and they are reorganising all their financial affairs, accounts and books and so forth, and that they will prepare the accounts for the Board and then that they themselves will audit their own accounts. I ask is it fair to ask a firm of auditors to complete the accounts of the Board in such a state of affairs as the Minister describes, and then for them to certify their own accountancy? Is he prepared to have an inquiry as suggested, or, at least, is he prepared to get a firm [2105] capable of dealing with accounts of a nature such as this to certify the accounts of his own auditors? As far as I am concerned, and as far as this Party is concerned, so far as I understand, we want to see that everything is done that would clear up whatever difficulties there are, and that would assure as far as possible the future success of the undertaking. I cannot at all believe, for instance, that the attitude the Minister has taken up is going to bring about that. I believe the Minister in concealing from the House certain essential details is going to lead to more difficulties in the future, and we will have the same thing again to face as to what happened and more disquiet in the minds of the people as to what is happening and when it is going to end.

I would like the Minister's interpretation of Section 7 of the Act. Is he going to apply rigidly the powers conferred upon him by that section? Will he admit his responsibility for the accounts and the affairs of the Board and the manner in which they kept their accounts, and will he be able to state exactly what is happening? There is an item in the accounts of 1928-29 of £35,000 suspense account to which the auditors refer, which the Minister at that time had from his own auditors' report, but he never presented it to this House, and which must have drawn his attention to the unsatisfactory state of certain of the items. I do not know whether the accountant of the Board presented a statement of accounts to the auditors which was unsatisfactory, but certainly I am satisfied that the Minister's auditors and the Minister himself presented to this House a statement of affairs far from satisfactory or clear. Anybody taking the slightest trouble to try and read that statement would have been satisfied when it was issued that there was something wrong. At the present time, if we assume that things are as bad as the Minister says, then things must be considerably worse, yet at the present the Minister is asking for a considerable sum of money without giving any undertaking that he is going to exercise his power under Section 7, and not the [2106] powers he had not got and which he did exercise. I think the Minister should first of all accept—I do not know whether he will or not, but I presume he will accept—the amendment moved by Deputy Lemass without any quibble.

Mr. McGilligan: I am not accepting it at all.

Mr. Briscoe: He will not accept it, although he himself states that the money is going to be used in accordance with sub-section (3) of the Principal Act.

Mr. McGilligan: I do not think I said that.

Mr. Briscoe: I am afraid that the Minister has a manner of saying things I have never been able to understand.

Mr. McGilligan: Hear, hear! Quite right.

Mr. Briscoe: I am afraid when we read what the Minister said we will not understand it.

Mr. McGilligan: Go back to one thing to-day.

Mr. Briscoe: When I make a mistake I admit it, when I find that I have made a mistake. When can the Minister remember adopting the same attitude when he made a mistake——

Mr. McGilligan: Always.

Mr. Briscoe: The Minister owes the Dáil two million apologies——

An Ceann Comhairle: It is a question of two million pounds, and not two million apologies that is now before the Dáil.

Mr. Flinn: The Minister might let the Deputy make his own case.

Mr. Briscoe: The Minister is not going to accept the amendment. What argument has the Minister got against it? He says he wants this money for the purposes of the Board. We say: “Very well, if you demand whatever money you want for the purposes of the Board at least take it in a Bill which has distinct reference to the purposes for which it is to be expended.” The Minister says he will not do that; that he will give us his word, but he will [2107] not put it in an Act. The second amendment proposes to reduce the amount to a certain figure. I say that the Minister, if he is wise, should accept it, and that the first opportunity he gets he should call the Dáil together —if it is not dissolved during the long adjournment—and present a true and frank statement of the affairs of the Board. Some people will not be terribly upset if that statement shows that the scheme cost more than the Minister anticipated, but the fact remains that we should only give him as much as will enable him to carry on for the present, and give a full detailed statement of the position as regards the present situation, as regards future development, and whatever capital is supposed to be required. I feel that the Minister has no reason to refuse to accept the amendment. I do not know whether the Minister disputes or disclaims the statement that there was a claim made by the builders for further money.

An Ceann Comhairle: That is a claim against the Minister, not against the Board.

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

Mr. de Valera: I think on the Second Reading we made our attitude on this situation fairly clear. It is not necessary to go back on the general points that we raised further than to the distance necessary to enable Deputies to understand the purpose of these proposals. On the last occasion it was pointed out that the three main points on which difficulties between the Minister and the Board arose were the accounts, the question of a certain agreement, and what were referred to as matters of major policy. With regard to the accounts, we were inclined to accept the Minister's position that there was a delay which could scarcely be explained. Some Deputies, I think, said that the accounts were in a mess. Thinking over that since, I am not at [2108] all so satisfied that we were right in coming to a hasty judgment on that matter. I recollect that the Dáil accounts, the full accounts for each year, are very late in appearing and when you take into account that this was a new enterprise on which a great deal of new work was being done, that a completely uncharted road had to be travelled, I begin to ask myself whether I was fair in coming, on the Minister's statement, to a judgment of these accounts. As I have said, there was the precedent of the Dáil where at least for some years past we have had a very well defined system—things have been got into a definite routine order —and if it takes the Dáil a year or so before it presents its final accounts, we should not be too hard on an enterprise such as the Board if its accounts are delayed somewhat longer. Even the Post Office accounts are delayed here for a year and a half sometimes. Therefore, our position on the accounts was at first somewhat to side with the Minister and I think it is only fair that we should realise—and I want to confess it as far as I am concerned—that our judgment was rather hasty. I am afraid also, that when I thought of the accounts being in a mess, I did not fully realise that it was entering up, so to speak, transactions, that the materials were there, that they could be gone through, and that really what was at fault was there was delay in following up the mass of material that was available and putting it in the order which would satisfy the auditors. However, we pass away from the accounts.

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

[2109] The third matter was the question of major policy. There again it was not easy to find out exactly what were the differences between the Minister and the Board. The Minister told us that there was no such thing as a budgeting system. They were going blindly ahead, spending money without any idea whether it was going to be remunerative or not. I find it very difficult to agree that any people who had any business experience whatever were likely to proceed in that reckless and wild manner. I am inclined to think notwithstanding the statement made by the Minister that there must have been a system of budgeting in the Board. I find it very difficult to think that the Minister did not at an early stage indicate to the Board the form in which he required the accounts kept, and indicate that he would like to have some information on this particular head. As I say, I find it very difficult to believe that if the Minister was doing his work at all, that if he was interested as we have every reason to expect he would be interested in that enterprise, he did not at an early stage get from the Board material which would enable him to give some opinion as to whether the Board were proceeding in this wild, reckless manner or not.

Finally, we are not here in a position in which we would be able to judge whether the policy the Minister stands for or is going to stand for, or the policy of the Board is the better one. On that head, we said that there was a case for an examination into the whole present position by people who would be competent to judge on it—not by members of the Dáil—a point on which apparently there was some misunderstanding on the last occasion. My view is that the whole of the present position should be submitted to experts for examination and to present their report on the present condition of the enterprise. It is due to the enterprise and to us that such a report should be presented. Having stated that, as our general attitude towards these three questions, the question of giving the Minister further money to meet the wants that have to be relieved arises. [2110] The Minister found fault with the Board for not living within two and a half million pounds including what they themselves felt did not come under that head at all—that is to make provision for some capital to meet the capital liabilities of the acquired undertakings. He comes to the House now and asks to get two millions more. In face of that it seems very strange that he should want the Board to live within two and a half millions when he comes here and confesses that he was so far out in his estimate that he proposes to give himself two millions in addition. That seems very strange to us and therefore we are not prepared to give to the Minister two million pounds, practically to do as he pleases, at least to hold it for the Board and use it as a means to compel the Board to work as he wants them—not as they themselves think, in accordance with their own views, is best to be done.

As far as we are concerned we do not propose to give the Minister the two million pounds to be at his discretion to use in any particular way. We do not think it would be wise for the House even if it did feel confidence in the Minister, to give him that money in the present circumstances. We feel that what the present circumstances demand is that the Board should get just that sum which would enable it to meet its present liabilities and to enable it to carry on any work it has in hand for such time as will enable the necessary information which the Dáil ought to have to be prepared. I think six months or so should be sufficient for that. I believe that if experts were to enquire into the present condition of the Board, men who know what the business of electricity supply is, they would be able to supply us with a report which would enable us to take action within a period of three months. Assuming that three months would not be too short a time, I think that we ought to vote supply for the Board for no longer period than six months and that we should not give the Minister supply for a longer period. That should be sufficient time to enable him to make whatever adjustments are necessary [2111] to meet the circumstances and to meet the immediate liabilities of the Board —to give them such a sum as would cover their commitments for a period of six months.

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

The Minister also indicated that the Board had to meet some commitments to the extent of £250,000. I want to know whether when he spoke of commitments to the extent of £250,000, he estimated that the sum of £250,000 in addition to the £600,000 was required by the Board in order to keep them going for the immediate present —I take it for a period of six months. Assuming that the Minister meant that, we calculate that a sum of £850,000 is required to cover the immediate requirements. To meet that there is a sum of £550,000, which the [2112] Minister has, of the Board's money. We believe the law was that the Board should get that. We believe that that is due to the Board, and, therefore, in this proposal our attitude is that that sum should be made available to meet this total sum of £850,000 which they require. We propose then to add to that a further half million. That will give the Board a sum of one million pounds available to meet liabilities which the Minister had estimated at £850,000.

I take it that our proposal to give another half million pounds to the Board is generous to the extent of providing £150,000 more than the sum which we understand the Minister says is necessary to meet debts that have been incurred, and to meet the immediate liabilities for, say, the next six months. In fact we say that the sum we have suggested should be sufficient to give the Board the money required to enable it to operate for a year, if necessary. The sum is not niggardly, but is generous. As regards the other sum, which is the subject of dispute, and which is referred to in the agreement we have heard of, namely, £600,000, which remains of what are called the capital liabilities of the acquired undertakings, we propose to take that matter out of dispute altogether, and to deal with it this way: The Board, by its Charter under the Act, is bound to indemnify and to keep indemnified local authorities from whom these undertakings have been taken over in regard to the capital debts of those bodies. We propose that that sum should be put at the disposal of the Minister for Finance to enable him to meet any demand that may be made by the Board on the basis of keeping them indemnified with respect to the clearing off of any capital debts. In order to know the exact situation in respect to all the undertakings, we would have to have details of the nature of the capital borrowings of the local authorities concerned, and to know whether they are redeemable at a certain time or not. If there were not certain periods in which this capital sum was to be redeemed, we do not understand why the Minister [2113] wanted the £600,000 at all. Clearly, the Board was responsible for meeting sinking fund and interest on the loans, and if they are going to be paid off in the usual way, by sinking fund and interest annually, then the Board was responsible for meeting the annual payments and meeting them out of revenue. Lest there should be some undertakings where some extraordinary arrangements were made, which we do not know of, for the repayment of the loans, we propose to give the Minister for Finance authority to pay over to the Board as and when required, any sum that may be necessary in accordance with the conditions of the original borrowing, to meet the capital liability. Therefore, the position would be as regards these liabilities, that the Board would meet from year to year the annual payments, the interest and sinking fund necessary, and if there were some conditions in the original borrowings which demanded that the capital sums be paid, then those capital sums would be available to the Board on requisition to the Minister for Finance. I hope Deputies understand what we are trying to do. We want to take the question of the capital liabilities of the acquired undertakings away altogether from the sums being voted to the Board. We want to get them aside, only to be used if it should be necessary for the Board to make application for them. The ordinary liabilities from year to year to meet sinking fund and interest, should be met by the Board out of revenue. I think that was the position the Board took up. We do not want to alter it. Once we have taken away the question of the capital liabilities of these acquired undertakings, and set them apart to be dealt with on a special basis of their own, we have provided for the Board a sum of money necessary to cover immediate debts and immediate working needs for the period just ahead.

We think then that our proposal from the point of view of finance is in no way niggardly at all, that it is on that basis generous and we think that the Dáil, in order to preserve its own rights to interfere if [2114] there is any other proposal which the Minister may have in mind and which he has not revealed here, ought not to put him in a position in which he can go off on his own to agree with the Board to do things that have not come before the Dáil for sanction. There were, for instance, certain debts mentioned. The Minister pointed out that these debts could not be met by that sum. But there may be other things. These were ones that occur to us at first sight. They appeared immediately. There may be other things the Minister may want to do with this lump sum for which he has not given any detailed budget. We do not propose to give him that lump sum. We believe that the sum proposed here, £500,000 in addition to the £560,000 which is due to the Board, which together comes to over a million, would cover the £850,000, and as regards the other question of the capital liabilities, that that should be dealt with in a separate way, and that if there are any payments due on that particular score that the Minister for Finance should be empowered to deal with them.

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

Mr. McGilligan: Deputy Briscoe has asked me in the course of a long and [2115] wandering discourse would I be prepared to come to this House at some date and tell the House what my interference with the Board has cost the country—I am not quite sure that that was the word he used, but it was its implication—what my interference with the Board has cost. I am going to do that now. If I could find out what was the smallest coin that has ever been before the Deputy's mind in any business transaction which he ever had to carry out, and if I had that coin divided into one million parts, I would not accept responsibility for the one-hundredth section of one of these parts. That is what I have cost the scheme by what I have done. But one of these days I shall have to put before the House and tell the House what my interference and the interference of the people I put in upon the Board has saved the country. That would be a big sum, indeed.

Deputy Briscoe made amends to-day with regard to one letter on which he certainly had wrong ideas on the last day. But having made amends, he proceeded to say that his view of the letter which he has now before him, is the same as he described it a few days ago—that I refused a discussion. The letter clearly states that I was going to put it as a point of order to the Chair that there should be no discussion of the Electricity Supply Board Accounts on my Vote, but winds up that if a debate were wanted there was a way of getting it—the general way of arranging for time with the Government Whip.

Mr. Briscoe: Read the second paragraph.

Mr. McGilligan: I have read it—that was the form of the letter.

Mr. Briscoe: No.

Mr. McGilligan: The Deputy can correct me.

Mr. Briscoe: In column 1805 of the Official Reports for the 9th July, the letter appears.

Mr. McGilligan: What is the point that is wrong?

Mr. Briscoe: The letter goes on to say: “It is not the Minister's present [2116] intention to have time set aside in the House for a debate on the reports and accounts of the Board.”

Mr. McGilligan: Read on.

Mr. Briscoe: My letter was addressed to the Minister asking him for his personal intimation as to what he would do.

Mr. McGilligan: The Deputy is refusing to read the rest of it.

Mr. Briscoe: Read my letter and read your answer.

Mr. McGilligan: What it said was: “It is not the Minister's present intention....” The letter, however, went on: “If, however, there is a desire to have the reports and accounts discussed, and that an application for such discussion would seem to be approved by a fair number of Deputies from a particular Party or from several Parties, it seems to the Minister that the proper course to follow would be to seek an arrangement with the Government Whip as to the setting aside of time for the purpose.” Is that refusing a day? That is the point upon which the Deputy based his allegations that I refused to have the accounts discussed. He adds this further statement by way of insult, after making amends to-day, that it was clear from other statements of mine that I never wanted any discussion. The Deputy will, I hope, in the course of some later debate, refer me to one or two quotations which make it clear that I never wanted a discussion on this. I courted discussion. I remember on a couple of occasions when people like Deputy Flinn were disclosing their ignorance to the countryside at cross-roads, asking why they would not discuss this sort of thing here where it could be answered. But I never got any of them bold enough to attempt a discussion. I looked for discussion.

Mr. Lemass: When?

Mr. Flinn: Never when we were here.

Mr. McGilligan: I challenged people to come along here and get the discussion started.

Mr. Briscoe: Give us one single proof of where you challenged discussion in the House.

[2117] Mr. McGilligan: I will certainly get that.

The Deputy wanted to shake my credit later on in his speech. That was his long irrelevant point to-day. He stated that when he asked if any compensation was paid to the Chairman I said “No.” I asked him to quote what I said. This is exactly what I said: “I could answer that question by saying `no,' but that would be misleading. He did not get compensation on resignation, but he got it by way of extra remuneration on being appointed as a part-time member.” Those are exactly the facts and if I had to study that particular question and that reply for a couple of days I would not change any part of that reply. It is in accordance with the facts.

Mr. Flinn: Was £1,250 extra remuneration?

Mr. McGilligan: It was remuneration.

Mr. Lemass: Paid in one lump sum.

Mr. McGilligan: It is a remuneration under the Act. Argue about whether it was rightly paid if you like. That is a different matter, but on the point of credit based on accuracy of statement, my statement revealed this: to say “no” simply to the question of compensation would mislead the House. The first chairman did not get any money on resignation, but he got it on reappointment. That is perfectly correct. You can argue as to the rights and wrongs of giving the money, but ——

Mr. Briscoe: What is the difference?

Mr. Lemass: Compensation or remuneration?

Mr. McGilligan: Remuneration under the Act.

Mr. Lemass: That is exactly the point.

Mr. McGilligan: That is exactly the point.

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

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Could not all these questions be asked at the conclusion of the Minister's speech?

Mr. Lemass: The Minister asked the [2118] question himself. Of course we know the rule of the Chair in this matter. We know the actions of the Chair.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Would the Deputy explain what he means?

Mr. Lemass: It is always the practice of the Chair to prevent Deputies on this side interrupting Ministers, but not to prevent Ministers from interrupting Deputies.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: That is absolutely an uncalled-for statement.

Mr. Lemass: Read the Official Debates.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: It is not in accordance with the facts and the Deputy has no right to make the statement. Deputies know that quite well.

Mr. Briscoe: Sixty-six interruptions of Deputy Lemass by the Minister last week.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: I have read the debates and listened to Deputies. One point is clear as was put by the Ceann Comhairle. This House is entitled to hear the Minister and the House ought to be allowed to hear him and the people of the country are entitled to hear what the Minister's explanation is.

Mr. Lemass: That is a perfectly good rule if it is applied to everybody.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Deputy Lemass knows better than any other Deputy in this House that it is.

Mr. McGilligan: Deputy Briscoe accuses me of a great number of omissions, mainly basing his accusation on the fact that accounts had not been insisted upon and that certain accounts that have been published are in a particular form. I wonder did he change his mind after listening to Deputy de Valera the other day? Deputy de Valera the other day was a little bit inclined to agree with me that these accounts were in arrears, but he now has made up his mind that that would be judging the Board too harshly. Is that Deputy Briscoe's view?

Mr. Briscoe: Have I the permission of the Chair to answer?

Mr. McGilligan: I wonder does Deputy de Valera agree?

[2119] Mr. de Valera: If I have permission to answer I will answer the Minister.

Mr. McGilligan: Certainly.

Mr. de Valera: What I said was—I think it was clear to every Deputy— that I was inclined to give a hasty judgment on the last occasion when the accounts were mentioned and to side with the Minister in thinking that there had been unconscionable delay. But on thinking over it since and realising that the accounts of this House are not presented in full form for over a year, that the accounts of the Post Office are not presented in final form for a year and a half, and that these are long established so to speak, and running on routine lines, I asked myself have I not been guilty of a very hasty judgment when I judged as against the Board on that account, on the question of fact as to whether they were late or not and as to whether there was blame. I was inclined to attach blame to the Board for having them so late.

Mr. McGilligan: Deputy Briscoe I hope will take a lesson from that. I can leave this matter of the accounts aside without much more ado. The Deputy thinks that because I have power to prescribe accounts under Section 7 I have power to appoint myself almost an official of the Board. I can prescribe accounts and see that they are asked for, but that does not say that I will get them. I have prescribed a form of accounts and asked for information repeatedly, pressed about them and wrote letters about them. Deputy de Valera said the material was there but that unfortunately it could not be put together for the auditors. I have evidence that records were not there. The material was not there, and what these outsiders have been doing, and I am informed now that the number has gone up from 7 to 17, is not putting the material together but doing what the accounts side of that particular organisation should have been doing for about two years, collecting information that should have been in hands. Deputy de Valera is in a peculiar position over this. The other day he was inclined to pass what he thinks [2120] now would have been a harsh judgment upon the Board, because he thought the accounts might be in the arrear, “in a mess”—somebody used that phrase. He thinks it is unfortunate. He thinks we should not be too harsh on this new business. As far as the accounts are concerned he keeps in his usual state of philosophic doubt. At any rate, he is not going to pass judgment on the Board in the matter of the accounts. The Board is out of it as far as one of the three charges I made against it are concerned. He says that he understands the material is there and that it is only a matter of putting the material in order for the auditors. That I can assure him is not the case. People have been engaged on remaking records, getting receipts, looking for invoices, and so on. The whole system of records was disorganised. There was no material for the auditors, but the Deputy has his own view upon that. He says the Board is all right. At any rate, he will not pass judgment upon the Board.

As far as the agreement is concerned the Deputy again reserves judgment. Until the documents are published the Deputy will not say one thing or another. The third thing is the major item of policy. On that the Deputy's conclusion is that there must have been some system approaching a budgetary system. So on the three items which I really felt I was by implication charging against the Board, the Deputy said I am not in a position to pass judgment. Nevertheless he will not give them any money.

Mr. de Valera: I am giving money for immediate needs.

Mr. McGilligan: Why restrict it to that? They are still a good Board as far as he is concerned.

Mr. de Valera: No.

Mr. McGilligan: He has said that he will not pass judgment; he will not accept an ex parte statement of mine. That being so there is no case against them. His inner conscience tells him that there must have been something approaching a budgetary system. Then it was a good Board.

Mr. de Valera: I did not say that.

[2121] Mr. McGilligan: The Deputy always objects to add two and two together and to make them four.

Mr. de Valera: The Minister adds two and two together and makes them five.

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

The Deputy said that I want this money for the indirect purpose of being able to insist on the Board working as I desire it should work and not as the Board desires. That raises the general question—we should know where we stand about this Board. Deputy Briscoe's implication on the question as to what I have cost the country by my attitude towards the [2122] Board is exactly the same as Deputy Lemass's explicit statement. Deputy Lemass explicitly stated that I am to be held responsible for all that has happened, on this special ground, apart from anything else, that I appointed the members of the Board. We have this position then with regard to an independent board, that if the Minister or the Executive Council appoints an independent board, and leaves them clearly to act as an independent board, they are nevertheless responsible at the end of the time for what that independent board has done. They are responsible in so far as they have appointed the men.

Mr. Lemass: And re-appointed them.

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

At the moment the position is that I am in the new Bill as the phrase is there about certifying reasonable expenditure, but without that phrase, it appears that as the person who appoints, I am going to be landed with the full