I move:—
That Dáil Eireann is of opinion that extra service charges should not have been and should not be imposed on persons availing of the rural electrification scheme, and calls on the Government to introduce the necessary amending legislation to abolish these charges with retrospective effect.
There are many Deputies on all sides of this House who must, in their hearts, agree with the idea behind the motion. We have only to search through the Dáil Debates for the last three or four years to find Deputies from Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, Labour and Clann na Talmhan requesting the Minister for Industry and Commerce to ease the burden placed on certain sections of the rural community in respect of extra service charges imposed for the new amenity—electric light.
I have the greatest respect and the greatest praise for the E.S.B. This State body is an example of what can be done if the proper men are selected and if the goodwill of this House is behind the work. The work of the E.S.B., pursued as it has been throughout the entire country, can be used as an example anywhere of how successfully a State body can function if properly organised and conducted. We all realise that, were is not for the fact that the State stepped in and decided that private enterprise was not capable of embarking on such a nationwide programme, to-day in rural Ireland the people would be depending on the paraffin oil lamp and the penny candle. It was a State body, and not private enterprise, that was responsible for the revolution that took place in rural areas. No greater amenity has been given to the people of rural Ireland.
Frequently, inside and outside this House, expert views are expressed as to the reasons for emigration. It is accepted that one of the causes of emigration is the lack of social amenities in rural areas. To-day, the E.S.B., through the rural electrification programme, is helping to meet that great need and demand.
The motion before the House is to persuade the Minister for Industry and Commerce, a man with a generous heart, to ensure that the rural electrification programme, which is now being pursued so energetically, will receive greater impetus by the acceptance of this motion. If the motion is accepted, it will remedy an injustice that has been perpetrated on many people who have already taken advantage of the rural electrification scheme.
As I have said, a search of the Dáil Debates for the last few years will disclose questions from Deputies on this subject, some Deputies asking that the facilities be extended to certain smallholders in rural areas, and the reply given by the Minister or his Parliamentary Secretary, that a contribution towards the capital cost of extension is necessary to render the supply economic.
In another case, we find a Deputy from the West of Ireland requesting that the scheme be extended to the Gaeltacht areas, pointing out that the locality was very sparsely populated. The reply was that the extension of the service in these areas—mark you, the Gaeltacht areas—involves special service charges which would be quoted to the interested residents on application to the board. That is another way of saying that there is no hope of these people getting the supply at a fair charge.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Deputy Crotty, is in the House. In reply to a question on this very thorny problem, he pointed out that neither he nor the Minister had any power to remit, ease or reduce the extra service charge. According to Deputy Crotty, Section 93 of the Electricity Supply Act prohibits the granting of preferential treatment to consumers within the same area of supply.
That is a very important sentence. The Parliamentary Secretary said that Section 93 of the Electricity Supply Act prohibits the granting of preferential treatment to consumers within the same area of supply. I suggest that what is happening at the moment is that preferential treatment is being given. Otherwise, how have we the unfair situation that two or three small farmers who happen, unfortunately, to live perhaps 200 or 300 yards outside the area planned by the E.S.B. are expected to pay double the charge for the installation and that that charge should remain permanently on them? I think that they are not getting preferential treatment but that the people in the actual planned area itself are getting preferential treatment to the detriment of these other people.
In a recent Dáil question the Minister for Industry and Commerce stated that at the present time the number of consumers paying special service charges amounts to 4,831. That represents 3.2 per cent. of the consumers who are using rural electrification. That may not sound a very large percentage but I would like to point out to the Parliamentary Secretary that we have no figures available of the number of people who have refused to accept service from the E.S.B. as a result of the likelihood of an extra service charge being imposed on them. The number who have not accepted the service from the E.S.B. far exceeds those who have had it installed with the extra service charge involved.
Taking it on the basis of equal rights for all our citizens, surely it is unfair and unjust that a man with a valuation of £8, £9 or £10, who happens to live along a bohreen 200 or 300 yards from the area mapped out by the E.S.B. has, under the terms of the Act, to pay exactly double the charges that his neighbours within the area have to pay. Some Deputies may argue that the cost of the installations have to be paid for. Suppose we grant for the moment that the smallholder has to pay an extra service charge for the initial installation, why should that extra service charge be imposed on him for all time, long after the plant and wire have been paid for? He, and his people after him, have to bear this particular service charge.
I have letters from many parts of the country from people who have taken advantage of the rural electrification scheme and who are to-day bearing the exorbitant charge of this nature. I will give a few examples, but I will not give the names, although if the Parliamentary Secretary wants the details I will let him have the letters when the debate has concluded. I take the case of three neighbours in a certain part of my constituency. I will call them A, B and C. The letter from the E.S.B. to Mr. A states that, due to the distance of his premises and those of Mr. B and Mr. C from the nearest point of supply, he would be obliged to bear a special service charge in addition to the ordinary fixed charges if he wished to avail of the service. These are the charges involved for these three smallholders who live outside the planned area. For Mr. A the ordinary two-monthly charge would be 16/2 and the extra service charge imposed is 15/10, making a total two-monthly charge of £1 12s. For Mr. B the ordinary two-monthly charge would be 13/10 and the service charge 13/9, making a total two-monthly charge of £1 7s. 7d. For Mr. C. the ordinary two-monthly charge would be 15/- and the service charge 14/10, making a total two-monthly charge of £1 9s. 10d. The letter added: "Should you wish to avail of the service at the above terms, please let me know and I will arrange to have the necessary extensions erected."
The ordinary charge for the householder within the specified area in which the E.S.B. has been working would amount to 16/2 for two months but these three people, because they happen to live a couple of hundred yards outside the area, have to carry almost double that amount, not over the period in which the value of the plant and line are being repaid, but for all time. I think that is a gross injustice to people in the rural areas.
This is a letter to another prospective applicant. It states that, in the original survey of X area, Mr. A was advised that 14/6 was the charge applicable to his case. In the course of development it was found that a longer length of line was required to get to his premises. The normal fixed charge of 14/6 did not cover the cost of the extra line and it was necessary therefore to seek an additional fixed charge of 11/7. That is the case of an unfortunate smallholder who, because he was unlucky enough to have his house built outside the planned area, perhaps by the Land Commission or somebody else, has to pay 11/7 extra every two months. That is almost double the normal charge. It would not take very long to pay off the value of the extra line which the E.S.B. had to put up but why should he have to pay for that for the rest of his life?
The purpose of this motion is to secure the amendment of the legislation to ensure that this injustice will be remedied and that it will have retrospective effect, wherever these charges have been imposed in the past.
Deputies may say that this may sound very nice but they may ask how is it going to be done and where will the money come from? We have had this statement of the Minister for Industry and Commerce that, so far as the E.S.B. is concerned, there is plenty of money available. All we want is to have it directed towards this purpose.
In Volume 149, column 484, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, in reply to a question by Deputy Lemass, is reported as having said:—
"In each of the last six years during which the Deputy sat in Kildare Street as Minister for Industry and Commerce, the E.S.B. yielded a surplus as it yielded a surplus last year and as I have no doubt it will continue to yield in the future."
These are the words of the Minister himself, pointing out that the E.S.B. have a surplus revenue. I understand that under recent legislation the E.S.B. themselves are now required to bear the burden of rural electrification. My belief is that whatever profit is made by the E.S.B., with particular reference to the rural electrification programme, should be ploughed back into rural electrification to subsidise the people who pay extra service charges. I do not think that is an unfair suggestion to make.
If, as we understand, there was a surplus of from £80,000 to £90,000 last year on rural electrification, why should that money not be used to subsidise these unfortunate householders who just happen to be in pockets that are by-passed by the E.S.B. in their normal programme? It is not unfair to suggest that the Minister should have this matter reviewed. I have on a number of occasions discussed this matter with E.S.B. men and I have found that all of them are more than sympathetic towards these people in rural Ireland. I think these men believe that some Government should take the necessary steps to amend the E.S.B. Acts in order to ensure that this extra service charge is removed.
In reply to a letter which I forwarded to the E.S.B. I got this reply from them in connection with a case I mentioned: "I appreciate that these charges may fall heavily on the householder in this case but you will understand that under existing conditions no reduction is possible." In reply to a further letter I got a similar reply. Therefore, you have the E.S.B. officials and engineers themselves appreciating and admitting the fact that there are hardships imposed on people who have to pay the extra service charges. I am sure that Deputies on all sides of the House have received similar letters. I am sure there are Deputies who have received requests from their constituents to try and have this matter adjusted.
In bringing forward this motion, I do not want under any circumstances to halt the present programme of the E.S.B. or to alter their present plans with regard to the particular areas in which rural electrification is likely to be installed in the near future. If the decision were made straight away to do away with these extra service charges, I know perfectly well there would be an increased demand immediately from all over the country from people who have up to this refused to accept rural electrification. I am not suggesting that they should get priority of installation or anything like that because I do not think we should alter the arrangements made by the engineering section of the E.S.B. But I do think legislation should be changed so as to ensure that this burden will be no longer placed on the backs of these people. I think that the general view of Deputies in this House is that the areas yet to receive E.S.B. benefits are the hardest areas to deal with.
I think many Deputies will agree with me that what I should describe as the most favoured areas have received rural electrification benefits already and that the areas which are still to come before the board present greater problems. In many cases, frequent and repeated surveys and canvasses have been carried out of people in the poorer areas where the population is widely scattered and where the holdings are poor. It will be very difficult for these people if they are asked to bear these extra service charges.
I shall not say any more until I have heard what the Minister has to say on the question but I do think the Government should give some consideration to the motion. If there is any snag with regard to the wording of the motion that can easily be got over. The Parliamentary Secretary himself is aware of what I have in mind. If it is found, on closer examination, that it would be unwise to remove the extra service charge immediately, then I would suggest that, when the cost of repayment of the extra lines and the extra poles is met, the extra service charge would be eliminated. I think the House should make it quite clear that when these costs are repaid through the extra service charge, the charge should cease altogether.
Of course, the Parliamentary Secretary may tell me there are areas where, if other sections of the populations come in later, the extra service charge will be lightened on those who have been linked up earlier. That may be with regard to certain individuals, but the Parliamentary Secretary is as well aware as I am of the pockets of single individuals scattered throughout the country who have no relief and who must, under present circumstances, bear this extra service charge. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to give this matter his most careful consideration.
