asked the Minister for Supplies if he has himself examined in detail the rationing policy adopted by the Electricity Supply Board; if he is aware of the acute situation which has arisen and confronts many consumers; and if he will be prepared to accept suggestions, for transmission to the Electricity Supply Board, to bring about a more equitable position for both private and industrial consumers.
Ceisteanna.—Questions. Oral Answers. - Rationing of Electricity.
asked the Minister for Supplies if he is aware that a very arbitrary manner has been adopted by the Electricity Supply Board in their efforts to bring about economies on the part of the users of electricity; that in many cases unnecessary hardship to private consumers, and grave danger of serious loss of employment in industry, have resulted because of quota fixing on the basis of 1941 consumption, or floor space, without regard to family circumstances in the case of private consumers, or continuity of employment in the case of industrial consumers; and if he will urge on the board to modify the present system so that a more equitable distribution of current will obtain.
I will take Questions Nos. 1 and 2 together.
The rationing policy adopted by the Electricity Supply Board was put into operation on my directions after the whole question was considered by my two Departments. The basis of the rationing was fixed in relation to the coal and water supplies which it is estimated will be available. I fully realise that the reduction in the case of domestic consumers imposes severe hardship, but the restriction is necessary so as to avoid a heavier reduction in the case of industrial consumers. I should say that the basic year for motive power and industrial process heating is 1943 and not 1941. I am aware that the Electricity Supply Board had been examining over a long period numbers of different schemes for the rationing of electricity and had subjected the whole problem to a very careful investigation. The scheme finally adopted was, in very difficult circumstances, the most equitable which could be devised. I should add that the discontinuance of supplies to consumers who have not complied with the restrictions imposed has my full concurience.
Is the Minister aware, first of all, that in the case of the ordinary domestic users a situation has now arisen where in some cases consumers are charged as much as 19/6 for a two-months' period on the valuation basis and are supplied with about 2/- worth of electricity? Secondly, is he aware that in a number of cases business houses are now classed as domestic users and that in the case of hairdressers there are upwards of 2,500 persons engaged in that business who will be driven out of employment because of the fact that these establishments are classed as domestic users? Will the Minister agree to receive representations with a view to alleviating the hardship in such cases where it can be shown that hardship can be alleviated by a more equitable distribution of the current available?
Might I ask the Minister is he changing the basic year from 1941 to 1943?
No.
Does the Minister not feel that, in addition to the formal restrictions imposed, it is most essential that co-operation on the part of consumers should be secured? Is he not aware that, so far as domestic consumers are concerned, the flat rate does impose inequalities in so far as it provides in the case of large consumers a far larger minimum for essential purposes than in the case of very small householders? Surely it would be possible instead of a pro rata system of restrictions to introduce a system which would allow at least a certain minimum ration to each consumer?
I would ask the Minister to consider the case of people who tried to save current two years ago when they were at first appealed to and who, as a result of that saving, now find themselves suffering very great hardship as they are rationed on that basic year. Would he consider allowing a better minimum consumption to these people?
Certain of the questions asked by Deputy Briscoe were of a character of which notice should be given. Any representations made on behalf of any class of consumers will, of course, be considered. The rationing of current for industrial motive power and process heating is on the basis of the 1943 consumption and always has been. The suggestion that rationing should be on the basis of need has, of course, been considered, but it has been decided that it would be impracticable. I may say that in no country, where curtailment of electricity production has been necessitated, has it been found practicable to ration on that basis. With regard to Deputy Byrne's question concerning the position of domestic consumers, in 1941 there was no restriction on consumption.
While no one expects the Minister to do the impossible, would he consider firstly the position of a man and his wife with 16 rooms in 1941 as against the position of a man and his wife with five or six children living in a three-roomed house? The latter has practically no ration, if you give him only 20 per cent. of his consumption in 1941, whereas the person who could illuminate 16 rooms in 1941 can now by closing half his house, have a very liberal ration for the remainder of his house. Fully appreciating the Minister's difficulty, would he consider whether anything could be done to relate in some measure the minimum ration available to the numbers in each family?
May I take it that the Minister is prepared to receive representations on behalf of specific cases, for instance, in the case of hairdressers, who are now classified as domestic users but who, in fact, carry on business houses?
There has never been any question of a disinclination to receive representations on behalf of particular users. It must be clear, however, that there can be no increase in the consumption of electricity.