No, but I think the Minister for Local Government must have read the Minister's scheme backwards. I agree with the Minister's scheme as far as it goes. What happened on that occasion was that there had to be political capital made out of the thing, so it was held up to ridicule. I do not think it would be fair for anybody, no matter how much he might disagree with the Bill before the House, to approach it with that carping attitude, or to try to ridicule what is intended to be achieved. My purpose is not to be a carping critic of the Bill, but rather to express the viewpoint that the beginning which has been made, good in itself, should be wider in its scope—that a wider view should have been taken of the problem facing us. First of all, I think we should compliment the Minister and the Electricity Supply Board on the White Paper which was produced dealing with rural electrification. I think it is a very fine document, because not only is it a document with a technical approach to the problem, but, more important still, it does attempt to give what we very seldom get in this country, a social approach, an understanding of the people who are going to be involved in the scheme, their background, their basis of life, and how they can best be fitted into the national scheme. I think it would be of tremendous value if the Minister had at the same time sought from the Electricity Supply Board a similar White Paper dealing with the generation and distribution of electric current on a long-term plan, and taking that problem of the production of electric power not in isolation, not as merely a single technical problem, but as part of a national plan which we require very much here. Hydro electrification and the production of electricity is not something that should be developed in isolation. It could and does have its contacts with one Bill which is now likely to become law, the Arterial Drainage Bill. It is also linked up with afforestation. I think it could even to a certain extent-although I am not an expert in this particular matter—be linked up with the question of soil preservation and soil improvement.
Surely, if we are trying to raise the general standard of life in this country, give to, particularly to our people in the rural areas, a better and higher standard of life, we should have approached this question on that basis. Surely we should have examined all the factors which affect their lives, and tried to discover by what method we could improve those factors in order to help our people. We have here a Bill which, as I say, is good in itself, with the exception of one or two parts, but in many ways it touches only upon the fringe of the problem. At the end of his speech—I did not hear the whole of it—Deputy Briscoe referred to the personnel of the Electricity Supply Board. I have had some contact with them, and I am not one of those who object to that type of management. I do not agree that, because there are certain defects in the board as such, this whole type of management or State enterprise has been condemned. Those who are charged with the direction of the Electricity Supply Board are, within their own particular field, competent men. But there is an addition required to that board, and that is not merely men or women with a knowledge of the business life or the farming life of the community but men and women with a social outlook on the community. In our country, electrification is more than merely producing light or power. It is bringing light into darkness. The great value of this proposed scheme of rural electrification is not that we are going to have farming by electricity instead of by hand but that we are going to put into the homes of our people in rural areas a light which will light up their minds as well as their homes. If we do that we will have brought a new atmosphere and a new outlook to many of those people. It often appals me to think that we have just under 2,000,000 men and women, the majority of whom are, in many physical ways, debarred from mental development, the application of their mental faculties, just because they have not got the elementary physical help of a decent light with which to read. If we can give that light, and nothing else, then I think we have brought about a great change. Therefore the Electricity Supply Board should consist, not merely of technicians on the scientific side, not merely of able administrators most of whom have been taken from Civil Service personnel—and who have taken with them not only the good points of their Civil Service training, but many of the retarding influences that are necessarily inculcated in the Civil Service—but in addition, as I believe, of men and women who will look upon our people as a unit, not only in the town but in the town and country together, all of whom have need of a higher standard of life. The board, so constituted, should try to discover in what way technical development under the Electricity Supply Board can be utilised from a social point of view to enable our people to reach a higher standard of life.
I was particularly struck by one line of thought along which Deputy Briscoe allowed his mind to run. That was when he was dealing with the finances of the Bill. He wanted to know if we could find out some day what exactly our commitments are and why the Electricity Supply Board should not be able to make a profit. Of course, the facts in that connection are that due to the system of financing and the heavy commitments imposed on the board, they have been largely engaged up to the present in paying off the money advanced to them by the Government. When Deputy Briscoe approaches the other problem of finding the additional £40,000,000 for rural electrification, he starts a hare that I think is going to get a fairly long run in this country. The suggestion is that instead of having the Electricity Supply Board a State-owned institution, it should be thrown open to the investing public and that we should give them certain rights and property in the concern. I do not think that Deputy Briscoe is speaking altogether for himself in this matter and I believe that we shall shortly see a change in the constitution of the board along the lines suggested by the Deputy and in consonance with the new outlook of the Minister on theories of management of large concerns in this country which he developed in the course of the debate on the Transport Bill. I hope that before he reaches that stage he will revert to some of his old outlook on these problems. The fact that the Electricity Supply Board may have made mistakes or that we are paying —and I am not to be taken as in any way admitting it—a high price for our electricity, that the board have been limited in their outlook on the problem of electrification in this country, is not in any way a justification for transforming this concern into another source of profit for the investing gentlemen in this country.
The Electricity Supply Board, whatever its defects may be, is good in principle. Whatever defects it suffers from can be removed without making it another milch cow for those whose only interest in the country is to draw dividends on their invested capital. I hope that the development envisaged by Deputy Briscoe will not come to pass and that we shall retain the Electricity Supply Board in its present form, remembering the great work that it has done even though it has not been as great as many people looking forward to the possibilities of electrical development expected. Our aim should be to try to remove any defects which it may have and to make it a still more willing and capable servant of the public. In the approach to this problem I think that even now the Minister might attempt, in the course of his reply to the debate, to give a broader picture of what are the prospects facing us in this country for a term of 15 or 20 years in regard to electrification. I was not quite clear as to how the Minister says his technical advisers envisage the period immediately ahead of us. We have first of all the statement that he has been advised by the Electricity Supply Board that the normal increase in consumption to be expected in the post-war years is in the neighbourhood of 35,000,000 units. It was not clear whether that included the requirements for rural electrification. I take it it does, but in the report of the board they estimate that there may be a current consumption of 200,000,000 units on the basis of carrying out this rural scheme. He tells us that at the moment we are using 114 units per head of the population which, the Minister said, is a very low average compared with other countries in a somewhat similar position to ours. But the estimate made by the board of the current required to meet the rural electrification scheme is only based on 500 units per family in the rural areas. Yet we have a total population of 1,800,000.
If there is going to be any value in this scheme, and if it is going to develop along the lines we hope, I think that that estimate made by the board will be found to be too low and that we shall have to provide current far in excess of 200,000,000 units, though perhaps not immediately. Here we are dealing, not with periods of five or ten years, but with periods of 20 or even 50 years, because, remember that even this year we are celebrating the 20th anniversary of the setting up of the Electricity Supply Board. Within that period, we have had, time after time, to revise our plans. The Minister did indicate that, in so far as the Erne project is concerned, he has certain plans to meet the increased consumption. That will give us about 150,000,000 units per year. We have also the Clonsast scheme, the Liffey scheme and some other smaller schemes in contemplation. If there is any increase related to the normal increase pre-war which reached nearly 30,000,000 units a year, it is quite clear that within a short period we shall again be up against the problem of not having sufficient resources to meet the demand. If, as we hope, and the Government assures us time after time, industrial development is going to continue and we are going to see an increased industrial demand for current power, I think that the schemes outlined at the moment will fall far short of what is actually required. The Minister says, however, that the board is engaged in carrying out the necessary collection of data on many rivers throughout the country so that other schemes can be formulated.
It is now 20 years since the Shannon scheme was completed and the Electricity Supply Board was set up. It has been quite clear for at least more than ten years there would have to be an improvement in our power resources here. During that time surely there was sufficient opportunity to collect the data of which the Minister now speaks. If there had been a social and national approach to the problem, instead of the Minister coming in and presenting us with this scheme, which is within its limitations a good scheme and is to be welcomed, he could have presented us with an all-round picture of what our requirements are likely to be at certain fixed intervals of five or ten years—based on estimates, of course— and what resources we now have in the way of electrical power, under various headings including even tidal energy. He could give us that picture to show where we stood, an estimate of the finances that would be required to meet that development and a general view of how we would stand at certain intervals during the carrying out of this plan. Instead, we are left in the position of having this very fine scheme of rural electrification presented to us, with many of us having a doubt at the backs of our minds that, if it does develop rapidly, at the rate of progress set down in the Minister's speech, and if at the same time we have a normal development in urban areas and in industry, we will soon reach the point where there will be a clash between production and consumption.
That is a problem which has faced other countries. Recently there has been on sale in the bookshops in Dublin a small pamphlet dealing with a scheme something along the lines that we require here. It was carried out in the United States. I refer to the Tennessee Valley project, in which they had not only to deal with flood control, hydro-electrification and soil surveys, but they had also a problem which had to be approached as an all-round problem. It was one which gave fruitful results. Along these lines I think we could get far more benefit. It is desirable that we should have some kind of social approach in which the various arms of our national body would not be divorced one from the other. I feel the Electricity Supply Board is operating in a vacuum. It is dealing with technical and administrative problems. The Minister is dealing with his problems, and we do not get them all related.
One of the chief factors in connection with the Electricity Supply Board is that, in considering the working out of these plans, there seems to be a tendency to deal with them solely within the confines of the board. I feel that the board has a problem to solve which should be thrown open for public discussion, not merely by ordinary men and women, but by experts outside the immediate scope of the Electricity Supply Board— experts in the field of production, power distribution and so on—not on the basis of the submission of expert testimony in response to a formal request, but in the nature of a free exchange of opinion and criticism. You would then have an interchange of ideas out of which you could get a general conception. I do not think that has been done.
In the case of the Liffey project we had an example of that. For quite a while I think the Electricity Supply Board was not too anxious to participate in the scheme; it was only after some time that they decided to do so. Yet we all recognise that it is a good scheme. Possibly it could have been much better and bigger if it had been approached from a wider viewpoint.
When we come to consider the financial provisions, one very peculiar thing happened in the House yesterday and that was Deputy Allen's call on the Government to repeat their generous gesture to the Electricity Supply Board in earlier years. He told us of all the free money that was given. Does Deputy Allen ever read the Electricity Supply Board reports? There was very little free money given to the board in the past, and if we are going to put such burdens on the board in the future the outlook will be very black indeed.
As regards the point raised by Deputy Briscoe—the total amount required—the amount of interest, which will be in or about 5 per cent., means placing on the back of somebody a sum of £2,000,000 or £2,250,000. I believe it would be a good thing if we approached the problem of raising this money not from the point of view of ordinary orthodox finance, but that we should rather regard it as a contribution to the improvement of public health, the improvement of agriculture —just the same as in the provision of any of our social services. The provision of electric current to rural communities is a social service and we all should be prepared to bear a share of the cost. I believe it would be preferable if we arranged a loan, with a definite period for repayment, in order to obtain any money that may be required, or the money could be raised by the Government out of ordinary revenue and let us all carry our share. Some of the money that is required will be given by way of a gift as a result of this Bill.
It is true, as Deputy Allen says, that those of us who live in cities have been given this light and this source of power in many ways at the expense of the population as a whole, and those who dwell in the rural areas are entitled to every consideration because they have as great, or greater a claim. They should also be assisted by the population as a whole. I do not think those living in an urban area would have a great objection to that when they realise that the benefits which the urban areas have had for years will now be given to another section of the community who can with advantage use light and power.
As regards the point mentioned by Deputy Allen about fixing charges, I can appreciate the difficulties that face the board in trying to find a system of charges which would be simple and which would meet the situation. I have no objection in principle to the system of fixed charges except this, that possibly, because of the necessity of having to have a fixed charge, it would militate against the acceptance of the scheme by large numbers of the rural population. Even in the cities the one thing a consumer does not quite understand is the fixed charge and how it is arrived at. As a matter of fact, I once asked an official about it and he could only refer me to the head office; he did not know much about it himself. One of the difficulties about the fixed charge is that the average person has a difficulty in understanding why he must pay a fixed charge regardless of whether the consumption goes up or down.
I am merely trying to convey the approach of the average person to the use of electricity when it is subject to a fixed charge. If there is any alternative which will meet the situation so as to avoid a fixed charge, it should be explored. I think you will find that many possible consumers in rural areas, because of their habits of thought, because of their approach to money problems, will be very reluctant to commit themselves to this system of charging.
It has to be considered that payment must be made monthly, quarterly or over some definite period and it has to be a cash payment. While I am not an expert on rural life, I appreciate that for many thousands of people one of the biggest problems, apart from life itself, is the simple one of obtaining cash to meet ordinary debts. Here there will be an additional requirement to find cash every two months, or whatever the period may be. Some Deputy asked whether it would be possible to have slot meters installed. I can see many difficulties there. The Electricity Supply Board is trying, in the city, to do away with slot meters and to get everybody on the flat rate. I do not think they would be willing to change their ideas in order to meet the peculiarities of persons in the rural areas. If we had some system of slot meter, and if we could do away with the fixed charge, I think it would make for the more successful carrying out of this scheme and for a more ready acceptance by the people in the rural areas. I believe that it would be easier to operate the scheme in that way than under the present arrangement.
The Minister is like many reformed drunkards—he becomes a rabid T.T. once he changes over. At one time he had a wholesome belief in the idea of control by the people of the important factors in their lives. He believed in the nationalisation of railways and many other undertakings, but now he has gone over to the other extreme. Here in this Bill we are dealing with an enterprise which will be carried out by the people. We put up the money; we generate the power; we distribute it along our transmission lines; we wire the houses; and we even sell the apparatus. But one thing we will not be allowed to do: we will not be allowed to make the apparatus. I should be interested to know why the sudden break is introduced. The Minister will recall that, in the early days of the Electricity Supply Board, a very valiant battle was put up by those commercial people with whom he is now concerned, that is private enterprise, in an effort to prevent the Electricity Supply Board from engaging in the sale of apparatus. The board succeeded in securing that right and I think it was a very good thing. There has also been continuous objection to the board's engaging in the wiring of houses. So far they still do so, and whether the Minister will curtail their powers in that respect or not I do not know, but it is a fundamental feature of both gas and electricity production that an increase in consumption is all-important, that every possible concession and every possible inducement should be given to consumers to increase their consumption, because increased consumption means cheaper power and light.
One of the important factors in bringing about increased consumption is the use of various appliances and the cheap and efficient installation of whatever system of wiring is required for the particular purpose. Here we are dealing with one of these important factors, appliances. A very large number of different forms of appliances—even leaving out altogether any normal development in urban areas—will be required as this rural electrification scheme gets under way, in addition to the technical equipment the board itself will be called on to obtain for the erection of transformers, transmission lines, and so on. Yet we say that this important thing can be manufactured only by the board in one way or another—either in its own operated factories or by arrangement with a private company, after the Minister has fully examined the position to see whether any Tom, Dick or Harry in the country is in a position to carry out its manufacture. Why should we always be so much concerned with the private manufacturers? If we can make them ourselves as well and with greater benefit to the country and to consumers, why should we not go ahead with it?
One thing is important. The Electricity Supply Board sells a great many of its appliances on the basis of hire purchase. That means that, if we are dealing with privately-manu-factured apparatus, the apparatus is bought from the manufacturer by the Electricity Supply Board and their money or our money is sunk in it. It is sold on the hire purchase system, and it is our money which lies out, but the private manufacturer has got his money. Secondly, in the supply of apparatus, it has been accepted as worth while by companies supplying light and power to dispose of apparatus below cost in order to boost consumption. If we have these appliances manufactured by private manufacturers and if we believe it is good social policy that the Electricity Supply Board should sell appliances, especially to the rural community, at low cost in order to boost consumption and drive our scheme to its completion at a rapid rate, we are subsidising the private manufacturer. We pay his cost of manufacture and we sell below that cost. We may never reach that point, but if we do decide on that we commit ourselves to a system of subsidy, and a system of subsidies seems to be something to which the Minister had always a strong objection, except when it benefits some section of the private investment class.
I do not want to close on a carping note, and I do wish not merely to compliment the Minister, who is responsible, but the board so far as their ideas go in regard to the rural electrification portion of the scheme. They are bringing light into many dark places, and I think it is something which will bring about a tremendous change in this country in the next 20 or 25 years, if the scheme does progress on the lines the Minister outlined and at the rate he indicated. Possibly some of the light which will be supplied in rural areas may shine into some of the darkened minds in this House. We may learn something of the little problems facing us and discover that it is better to deal with them on a broad basis, with a proper appreciation of the fact that we are dealing with our people as a whole, rather than to deal with them in water-tight compartments, and then find that we have not dealt with them but have only intensified them and produced results in conflict with those which we sought to bring about.