asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he can state the amount received annually by the Electricity Supply Board from the consumers on the valuation charge; if he is aware that the collection of payment on the valuation basis for ever-reducing quantities of current is causing an unreasonable charge to the consumer and if, in the public interest, he will now consider intervening with the board in the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Valuation Charge for Electricity.
asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if, in view of the recent cuts in electricity allowances, he intends to make representations to the Electricity Supply Board to reduce the valuation charge to consumers.
I propose to take questions Nos. 16 and 17 together. The amount of the revenue derived by the Electricity Supply Board in the year ended 31st March, 1944, from consumers charged on the valuation tariff was £918,147, of which the sum of £520,975 represented the fixed charge portion. The fixed part of the charge is designed to cover fixed costs which are not affected by variations in the consumption of current. Reductions in sales of electricity do not mean corresponding reductions in the board's costs.
While I am prepared to request the board to examine the position should the present curtailment of supply to domestic consumers be prolonged, I should make it clear that I would not be prepared to approve a reduction of charges to domestic consumers which involve an increase in the charge for current supplied to industrial users.
The Electricity Supply Board will, of course, be prepared to disconnect any consumer who wishes to avoid payment of the fixed charge in present circumstances, in which event the householder concerned would be qualified to receive a ration of paraffin oil during the months in which such ration can be made available to householders with no other means of lighting.
In connection with the fixed charge on the present ration basis, is the Minister aware that the actual charge per unit, taking my own case, is 2/3 per unit, while, if I were obtaining electricity on the quarterly basis, I would be paying only 10d. per unit? It should not be a question of continuing the sources of income of the Electricity Supply Board but one of equity between the board and consumers. Surely, in ordinary common sense, it is not fair to ask people to pay a fixed charge related to an unlimited supply of electricity, and continue to apply that fixed charge to a limited consumption, in which case the charge per unit works out at 2/- or 3/- per unit, while the charge on the quarterly basis was 6d. or 10d. per unit.
I stated that I am prepared to request the board to examine the position if the present curtailment of electricity consumption by domestic consumers is likely to be prolonged. The Electricity Supply Board is not at present making a revenue sufficient to cover its outgoings, and if a reduction in the charges to domestic consumers were to involve an increase in industrial costs, I think it would be a wrong step to take. I pointed out that, if any householder feels that electricity is too dear under the present system, he can avoid the charge by having his supply disconnected, in which case he will be placed in the same position as the majority of householders in the country.
Is not the Minister aware that there are two distinct classes of consumers on the valuation basis? There are some who have no right other than the right which the Minister has suggested, to have their electricity disconnected in order to save themselves the present excessive charges. There are others in a position in which they can put up a case to be changed from the valuation basis to a consumption charge. I would ask the Minister to look into the matter from that point of view. I think if he does he will find that there are a large number of people suffering hardships, because while they have to pay on the valuation basis, in some cases they are only getting four-fifths of a unit for their electricity supply over a two months' period.
Will the Minister say if the curtailment to which he has referred is likely to be prolonged? Can the Minister give a definition of the word "prolonged", whether it is likely to be one month or two months?
It is a relative term, and I could not attempt to define it.
Will the Minister say if the present charge on the valuation basis is being maintained by direction of the Minister for Industry and Commerce?
The Electricity Supply Board is bound by law to fix its charges on such a basis as will yield it sufficient revenue to cover all outgoings that it must meet. That is a legal obligation on the board. No suggestion has yet been made that I should release the Electricity Supply Board from that obligation. Subject to that obligation, the Electricity Supply Board itself determines its own charges.