Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 15 Feb 1956

Vol. 154 No. 3

Private Members' Business. - Rural Electrification Charges—Motion (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:—

That Dáil Éireann is of the 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.

Mr. Blaney

This motion which is before the House and which has been before it in connection with the special extra charges levied on those who wish to avail of rural electrification in some outlying areas is a motion with which I find myself in very full agreement. I know from experience in my own constituency and my own area that this extra burden being imposed on certain of our people is most unfair and unjust. The Government's attitude to this motion apparently is that the extra charges cannot be evaded because there is no money at the moment and that if we did try to give these services to all and sundry irrespective of where they are situated, we would find others carrying the burden of them.

Our point of view is that there was a subsidy given to the E.S.B. for the purposes of rural electrification. That subsidy was originally in the region of £5,000,000. That £5,000,000 was supposed at that time to represent half the estimated cost of giving rural electrification service to all of our people in rural Ireland. Since then, as everyone knows, the costs have soared and are continuing to soar and the result some short while back was found to be that instead of £5,000,000 being required, in actual fact it was likely that £10,000,000 would be required for this purpose.

The last Government, therefore, made provision for giving a further subsidy of £5,000,000 in the years to come to the E.S.B. for the purpose of rural electrification. The present Government, shortly after assuming office found themselves in straitened circumstances and one of the first things they did was to wipe out the proposed subsidy for future rural electrification. To really add weight to their argument they then decided that not only would they not pay a subsidy in the future but that the £5,000,000 already paid in the years past by a Fianna Fáil Government and later disbursed by the last Coalition Government, would also be paid back.

To-day we are being told here and have been told elsewhere at the time this subsidy was wiped out that it would not make any difference to the consumers of electricity in rural Ireland. I want to ask the members in the Government to-day whether they can stand up in this House or elsewhere and say that £10,000,000 can be taken from the E.S.B., that they should be deprived of this £10,000,000, and that nobody will feel the draught. The rural consumers and those who are not getting connections at the moment are the people who are feeling the draught and those who are consuming electricity now are paying more for it than they need normally pay if the present Government treated them in a just manner.

Mr. Donegan

That is not true.

Mr. Blaney

The Deputy from Louth would, of course, know quite a bit about rural electrification and all its implications in rural Ireland. I have no doubt he is well aware, as I am aware, that in his own county and not far from his own home there are people being deprived of electricity because of the action of the Government of which he is a supporter.

Mr. Donegan

That is not true.

Mr. Blaney

The Deputy at the moment is not withdrawing his support from the present Government?

Mr. Donegan

I said that is not true.

Mr. Blaney

Possibly the Deputy is not sure what is true and what is not true. For his enlightenment let me repeat that the E.S.B. are being deprived of the £10,000,000 which was being provided by Fianna Fáil, £5,000,000 of which had been paid to E.S.B. and is now being paid back by them. The consumers of rural Ireland are paying that money back. That money is being filched from the people of rural Ireland. It is being stolen from them by the present Government. No matter what this Government or its supporters may say, that £10,000,000 must be found in charges under the rural scheme. The electrification charges must be met by £10,000,000 extra in order to make up for the lack of subsidy and the paying back of the subsidy already paid.

The Deputies from the rural parts of the country and from the western seaboard in particular are well aware that there are and will be quite a number of their constituents in the different areas left without any connection to the electricity supply. The direct cause of that is the action of the present Government in wiping out that subsidy that was created in the first instance to help the people in rural Ireland, to make their lives brighter by helping to pay the cost of installing the system of electrification that they themselves were not in a position to bear. That was Fianna Fáil's idea. The Coalition idea is that if you cannot pay for those services in rural Ireland then you can do without them.

We want to find out from the Government to-night whether or not they have changed their views from those stated last Wednesday night when some of their spokesmen said that this £10,000,000 subsidy being wiped out will not impose any extra burden on the consumers in rural Ireland. I want to know where the £10,000,000 to fill that gap will come from. Is it not from the pockets of the consumers in rural Ireland? Therefore, is it not logical and quite clear that these people are paying £10,000,000 which they would not have to pay if Fianna Fáil were in office to-day?

Irrespective of the political capital it is possible to make out of this matter, the plain fact remains that there are people to-day without this service, who will not get the service while the present system of financing the E.S.B. is continued.

I listened to Deputy Lindsay, from North Mayo, last Wednesday night. So far as oratory is concerned, Deputy Lindsay did himself full justice but I disagree with him when he says that there are no complaints in North Mayo in regard to availability of supply. In Deputy Lindsay's home parish, not so many months ago, the people had been trying to get a supply. They did not have Deputy Lindsay there to tell them how to go about it. He has not done anything for these people in his own area. Yet he told the House last Wednesday that he had no complaints. It is possible that the reason he has not got complaints is that he is not there very often. Anybody knowing anything about that particular constituency knows that around the western tip of North Mayo there is no rural electrification and it does not appear that there will be any in the near future. It looks as if, like the grassmeal factory in that district, it will be forgotten by this Government.

Mr. Donnellan

What about the biscuit factory?

Mr. Lemass

It is a good job it did not start. It would be closing down, like the others, if it had started.

Mr. Blaney

The Deputy may well talk of the biscuit factory but, if there is a last biscuit to be taken, this Government gets that biscuit. As Deputy Lemass has just said, the last biscuit may come from some of the factories which, due to the present Government's withdrawal of the flour subsidy, are to-day working only two days a week.

An Leas-Cheann Comairle

This does not seem to be very relevant.

Mr. Blaney

Let us, once and for all, get from this Government, its henchmen, spokesmen and Cabinet Ministers an admission that, when they were stuck for money, the last time they came into office, the first class they nailed was the rural community; the first thing they did was to take £10,000,000 from the rural community. We want the people of rural Ireland to recognise that this subsidy was paid by the taxpayers, the majority of them city dwellers. For years they had enjoyed the benefits of electrification. The rural dwellers needed electrification. It was thought fit to ask the taxpayers in the city to pay something towards bringing these benefits to their brothers in the country.

The argument has been used that those getting supply should pay for it. It is true that the taxpayers are helping out local communities in isolated areas. That was the programme of Fianna Fáil. The Coalition's programme is, if the community is isolated, let it remain isolated; if it will cost money, do not pay that money; if they do not like it, they can lump it and get out. They are getting out, and quickly, as every Deputy from the West knows. This Government, through their niggardly withdrawal of the subsidy of £10,000,000 can lay to their doorstep a very great share of the blame for that new exodus to foreign lands. People will not return because they see that under this Government there is no hope that their lot in rural localities will improve, as it would have been improved by Fianna Fáil.

Mr. Coogan

What about Kerry?

Mr. Blaney

The Deputy would do better to be in Kerry if he wishes to bolster up this Government rather than interrupting here in regard to something about which he apparently knows nothing or does not wish to say anything because the truth would hurt the people whom he is supporting. I would advise him to take himself down to Kerry.

Mr. Coogan

They do not want white elephants.

Mr. Blaney

There will be something worse than white elephants if the Deputy visits the constituency. These matters are not relevant to rural electrification and I shall not oblige Deputies who interrupt by leaving the question at issue. The motion now before the House can be accepted by the Government and it can be agreed by this House that no special extra charges should be made for the installation of or connection with supply in rural areas. The way to get the money required to give this service is to replace the subsidy that was promised and to wipe out the commitment the E.S.B. is being asked to undertake of paying back £5,000,000 that they had already got. It is not asking too much of the Government that professes to be so very careful in looking after the interests of rural Ireland. This is the eve of a by-election which they are fervently hoping to win, forlorn as that hope may be. Surely this £10,000,000 that they filched from the rural communities a short time ago might be used, as they used public funds in the not so very distant past, in buying the votes of the community. Possibly it would be a good bargain if they said: "Here is the £10,000,000 we took from you. We will give it to you for these charges now being levied in isolated areas. The people of Kerry will get the benefit of that." To do that would be a more honest attempt to win the election than the attempt now being made.

I would strongly advocate that this motion should be accepted, with the best possible grace by the Government and that it be funded in the way I have suggested, by giving back to the E.S.B. the £10,000,000 provided by Fianna Fáil. Then let the E.S.B. carry on the job in the way in which Fianna Fáil had outlined to help those least able to help themselves, to give electricity to all and sundry in rural Ireland about whom the Government seem to be so solicitous.

Mr. Desmond

Now that we have voted on the electric hare and heard the electric Deputy talking about the goodness of Fianna Fáil, we might discuss the motion as it is before us. Deputy McQuillan seeks to secure that these special charges should not be imposed on persons availing of rural electricity. People availed of it when Deputy Lemass was Minister and they paid the self-same charges as they are now paying. Furthermore, I cannot see anything in this motion which will help the down-trodden people about whom Deputy Blaney is so anxious. At least in the southern areas with which I am familiar, in the pockets into which the E.S.B. are slowly moving, we have no guarantee from the E.S.B. or from this motion that the E.S.B. will even consider going into them.

Already in parts of South Cork, in relation to rural electrification, the E.S.B. have refused to develop certain pockets irrespective of the question of charges. They have imposed increases in certain areas but they have refused altogether to go into other areas. While the motion may have a certain amount of justification, in relation to small pockets it is mere wishful thinking as regards rural electrification. It is fantastic and extraordinary to come in here and talk so much about increases in charges which have occurred within the past 18 months or two years. I am amazed if Deputy Blaney will say that the E.S.B., in rural electrification, are charging higher now than they were two years ago. We know it is not true in most cases.

Deputy Blaney, who accuses the Government of negligence in this regard, had the opportunity of discussing this when he was perched on this side of the House supporting Deputy Lemass as Minister. Of course, he will now go into the Lobby and vote against something that he and Deputy Lemass knew to be in existence when Deputy Lemass was Minister. Deputy McQuillan wants to get this thing through and I have no intention of tying him to a quarter of an hour for his reply but I should like to say that the motion is a small one and would probably benefit very few people.

Mr. McQuillan

God help you if I bring in a big one.

Mr. Desmond

Deputy McQuillan would not bring in a big one. He is quite satisfied with tying himself around small ones near his own area. It will be up to Deputy Lemass and his henchmen to bring in the big one but I should like to say that, please God, there will be before us before this Government leaves office more important motions in relation to the E.S.B. than that of Deputy McQuillan or of Deputy Lemass.

Mr. Donnellan

Listening to Deputy Blaney to-night, I was reminded of a man with a face of brass. He talks about last year's removal of the subsidy. I want to ask him a question: Did the removal of the subsidy increase rural electrification by one farthing? It did not.

Mr. Blaney

Does the Deputy want an answer?

Mr. Donnellan

Did it increase the outside charges? No, not by a penny. When Fianna Fáil were in power they were the people who could give away £10,000,000 by one stroke of the pen. Despite their subsidy the charge to the rural consumer for electricity is the very same to-day as it then was. They cannot have it both ways and it would be better if Deputy Blaney realised that here he is not on a soap box in Mayo.

Mr. Blaney

Or in North Galway.

Mr. Donnellan

This motion has my sympathy because I know quite well there are always outside areas that would be involved in the extra charge. But that was evident from the moment rural electrification started. It was also evident from that time that there would be areas which would not be connected up. More people may be implicated in the extra charges at the moment because rural electrification is now in its winding-up stages. It is now going into the bad areas, the good areas having been selected first. As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry and Commerce said the other night, something may be done later to bring people in the outside areas into the scheme. Deputy Blaney spoke about elephants—white ones and black ones. When one talks about electricity in this House one must always associate it with the name of elephants because long ago when it was first mooted by the present Attorney-General, then Minister for Finance, the word "elephant" was a very much used one from the Fianna Fáil Party who are now so anxious to take credit for it all. Not so long ago I heard a Fianna Fáil Deputy saying they were responsible for rural electrification. He never associated it with the initiation of the Shannon Scheme. According to them, it was they, and they alone, who brought about rural electrification. Yet, very well Deputy Lemass knows that the very first day electricity from the Shannon was mooted rural electrification was also thought of.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The motion here has reference to the extra service charges.

Mr. Donnellan

That is what I am coming to. As one whose sympathy is with this motion I would remind the House of the statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary, Deputy Crotty, on behalf of the Minister here the other night to the effect that, later on, it is the intention if possible to do something so that those so-called outside areas where extra charges are at present in force may be brought in. But if Fianna Fáil tries to get away with it and say that because of the subsidy we have increased the charges on the people for rural electrification, such is not the case. Fianna Fáil will not get away with that. They can make up their minds about it. Electricity is not to-day any dearer to the rural consumer and there is no extra charge to the man in the outside area other than what existed when the so-called Fianna Fáil Government was paying the subsidy, and applying the same charges.

Mr. Blaney

Fewer of them are getting it now.

Mr. McQuillan

I think it is nearly time that we got a factual approach to this motion of mine. There was nothing political in mind when this motion was thought up and put down, and I am sure Deputies on both sides of the House will agree that no matter what has happened in the course of the debate, it was not put down for any political motive. If the Deputies care to go back over the Dáil Debates of the last four or five years, they will find questions from the Fine Gael Benches, from the Clann na Talmhan Benches, from Labour and from Fianna Fáil Benches asking the particular Minister for Industry and Commerce to intercede with the E.S.B. in order that the extra service charge imposed for the installation of rural electrification be reduced. That appeal was made by Deputies from rural areas who were familiar with the problem and the hardships imposed on the people who live in isolated pockets or who are sandwiched between different areas of development initiated under the rural electrification scheme.

It was only when it came to my notice in my own constituency that a grievous extra service charge, in many cases double the actual fixed charge, was imposed on these unfortunate people that I decided that I would put down a motion calling on whatever Government was in power to remove this special service charge. I felt at the time that I would have the support of all rural Deputies irrespective of their political Parties because if these Deputies were coming in, asking parliamentary questions and further supplementary questions of the particular Minister concerned, pointing out how unfairly this system has worked, it was not illogical for me to expect that they would support a motion that would prevent these charges from being imposed in future and at the same time ease the position for the rural consumers.

However, as the debate developed we had cross-fire from both sides, and it amounted precisely to this: that the spokesmen on behalf of the Government, especially the Fine Gael Party, decided their attitude would be that as the special charge was imposed by Fianna Fáil why should they remove it? That is the sum total of the debate that took place here. If there is anything more stultifying or nauseating in public life at the moment it is this attitude that is evident in this House every day—"Why did you not do it when in office?" Surely, if there is something that is a burden on the people in rural areas which was put on by any Government, is it not the duty of the incoming Government to remove that burden if possible and not to take up the attitude of criticising the people in opposition by saying: "Why did you not do it, you imposed it?" I am not holding any brief for the Opposition——

Parliamentary Secretary to the Government (Mr. O'Donovan)

Deputy Blaney does not look so happy now.

Mr. McQuillan

I am not worried what way Deputy Blaney or the Parliamentary Secretary looks. What I am worried about is the people of the rural areas when I see Deputies coming into this House to play politics. Whatever about generating electricity outside I do not want to start generating it here because there would be too many sparks flying, and I do not want to add to the hot air. I want to get this on a reasonable basis, and I am convinced if this motion is left, as it should be left, to a free vote of the House that rural Deputies from all Parties will support it. I do not see any reason in the world why that should not be done in view of something which the Attorney-General said in the House the other night when he described this matter "as a mere bagatelle." He spoke at some length on this and as reported in Volume 154, No. 1, column 175, he said:—

"After the Parliamentary Secretary's remarks I must go on with what I have already remarked, that is, that reduction in the special charges spread over the whole body of electricity consumers would not make any great difference..."

Now, without mentioning the word "subsidy" at all, the position is that if the extra charge that has been imposed is removed, it would not be any hardship on the consumers as a whole. That is the statement of the Attorney-General, who was a Minister in this Government from 1948 to 1951. Surely, the members of his own Party are not going to contradict him.

When the rural electrification scheme started, there were three points to remember with regard to initial development. The first was that the E.S.B. should not lose on rural electrification; the second was that as far as the economic element was concerned, that would be met or carried by a State subsidy. The third point was that where the capital cost of giving a supply in any case exceeded 16 times the fixed charge revenue, the extra service charge would operate. These are the three points to remember about conditions when rural electrification started.

What has happened since? The last two points I have mentioned have disappeared. The ratio of 16 to 1 has been changed on a number of occasions, in 1951 and again in 1952. That ratio went up from 16 to 1 to 20 to 1 and then to 24 to 1. If it was found desirable to change that ratio on two occasions in order to ease the burden on rural consumers, surely there is nothing to suggest that these people who have to pay the extra service charge in outside areas should not be facilitated to some extent? That is one point that has gone by the board, the ratio.

Another point that has gone is the subsidy. I do not care who likes or dislikes it but I maintain that so far, to my knowledge, the removal of the subsidy has not made any difference with regard to the installation cost in the particular areas of development by the E.S.B. I want to be quite frank about the situation so far as I know it but I am not discussing the areas involved in this case. That has nothing to do with this motion which has regard to the people who are on the fringe of these areas. That is what I want the Deputies to remember when it comes to making a decision. This is a motion to remove a hardship on the people who live on the fringes of development areas. Deputy McGilligan, the other night, spoke at length on this question and one of the points he put up was that if the motion was accepted the large houses and the big holders would get facilities that they did not deserve. He even went so far as to suggest that there should be a form of means test imposed if the motion was carried.

I do not think that anybody would agree with that but I defy anybody to show me, on the western seaboard, in Galway, Mayo, Kerry, Cork and Donegal, any number of big houses involved. Those who are affected mostly by the motion are people with valuations of from £3 to £10, who are living at the end of a boreen and who happen to be one, two or three hundred yards from the end of the E.S.B. poles. Because a man is unlucky enough to be living there, does that mean that he should have to pay double the ordinary charge that other people have to pay for getting the facility of light and the other things that go with rural electrification?

I am not going to enlarge on the question of emigration but the most important amenity that was ever brought to the rural areas is rural electrification. It has changed the minds of the people for the better and it has given the one hope that I can see that a few people will, in the long run, now remain in the rural areas. Let us ensure that the people who live in the most neglected areas will, as far as we can possibly manage it, continue to remain there.

Deputy Desmond was worried that this motion of mine did not solve certain problems or bring in other matters in the South in which he is interested. I believe that bringing in a very far reaching measure here in the form of a private Deputy's motion would be rather foolhardy. I would not dream of doing so unless I were able to argue the whole pros and cons of the matter. What I am trying to do, in my own small way, is to remedy a grievance that affects roughly 3 per cent. of the users of rural electrification. The figure given to me, in the form of replies to questions I have asked, is that of the number who have already had rural electrification installed 3 per cent. are paying the extra service charge. That figure of 3 per cent. will naturally rise to 6 or 8 per cent. when finality is reached with regard to rural electrification.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance, Deputy Donnellan, suggests that I should have patience and do what the Parliamentary Secretary, Deputy Crotty, suggests—postpone this motion until rural electrification is complete. Rural electrification will not be completed for a few years yet. Is it suggested that when it is finished it is the intention to go back on these pockets, these isolated houses and small villages and give them the benefit of rural electrification without the extra service charge? Is that the guarantee that is given?

Mr. O'Donovan

The guarantee is that the matter will be considered then which is the normal way to do the job.

Mr. McQuillan

I want to put this to Deputy O'Donovan. When the motion was being discussed before, the Parliamentary Secretary responsible for the job was here and the least a Department or a Minister should do, when a motion of this nature is being discussed, is to have in the House the particular Minister responsible, or the Parliamentary Secretary to that Minister, so that it cannot be stated at a later stage that such and such a guarantee was never given.

Mr. O'Donovan

On a point of order. The Parliamentary Secretary, Deputy Crotty, is in the Seanad and he asked me to stand in for him. I do not understand the jibe of Deputy McQuillan and I think it is most un-called for.

Mr. Blaney

You are afraid to answer the question.

Mr. O'Donovan

If he had any decency he would withdraw the innuendo.

Mr. McQuillan

If the Government was interested in this motion, they would have here the Minister who is attached to that Department and would not send in Deputy O'Donovan who is known as the most irresponsible member of that Party. They show very little interest in rural Ireland when they do not send in here a Minister from rural Ireland instead of a city Deputy.

All I want to say in conclusion is that I would ask the Government to accept this motion. There is no use waiting until three or four years' time to put into operation what can very simply be done at the present time. This is simply a book-keeping arrangement. Deputy McGilligan described it as a mere bagatelle. I would ask the Government to reconsider this motion in a more favourable way, so that the people in the areas yet to be developed will avail of rural electrification without delay and so that installations in rural Ireland will be completed in the shortest possible time.

Motion put.

The Dáil divided:—Tá, 48; Níl, 65.

Tá.

• Aiken, Frank.
• Allen, Denis.
• Bartley, Gerald.
• Blaney, Neil T.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Brady, Seán.
• Brennan, Joseph.
• Breslin, Cormac.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Burke, Patrick J.
• Calleary, Phelim A.
• Carter, Frank.
• Colbert, Michael.
• Colley, Harry.
• Corry, Martin J.
• Cotter, Edward.
• Crowley, Tadhg.
• Cunningham, Liam.
• Davern, Michael J.
• de Valera, Eamon.
• Fanning, John.
• Flanagan, Seán.
• Flynn, Stephen.
• Geoghegan, John.
• Gilbride, Eugene.
• Gogan, Richard.
• Harris, Thomas.
• Hilliard, Michael.
• Kelly, Edward.
• Kenneally, William.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Lahiffe, Robert.
• Lemass, Seán.
• Lynch, Celia.
• Lynch, Jack.
• MacCarthy, Seán.
• MacEntee, Seán.
• McGrath, Patrick.
• McQuillan, John.
• Maher, Peadar.
• Moher, John W.
• Mooney, Patrick.
• Moran, Michael.
• Moylan, Seán.
• O'Malley, Donough.
• Ryan, James.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Walsh, Thomas.

Níl.

• Barrett, Stephen D.
• Barry, Anthony.
• Beirne, John.
• Blowick, Joseph.
• Burke, James J.
• Byrne, Alfred.
• Byrne, Thomas.
• Casey, Seán.
• Coburn, George.
• Collins, Seán.
• Coogan, Fintan.
• Corish, Brendan.
• Cosgrave, Liam.
• Costello, Declan.
• Costello, John A.
• Crotty, Patrick J.
• Crowe, Patrick.
• Deering, Mark.
• Desmond, Daniel.
• Dillon, James M.
• Dockrell, Henry P.
• Dockrell, Maurice E.
• Donegan, Patrick S.
• Donnellan, Michael.
• Doyle, Peadar S.
• Dunne, Seán.
• Everett, James.
• Fagan, Charles.
• Finlay, Thomas A.
• Flanagan, Oliver J.
• Giles, Patrick.
• Glynn, Brendan M.
• Hughes, Joseph.
• Kenny, Henry.
• Kyne, Thomas A.
• Larkin, Denis.
• Larkin, James.
• Leary, Johnny.
• Lindsay, Patrick J.
• Lynch, Thaddeus.
• McAuliffe, Patrick.
• MacBride, Seán.
• MacEoin, Seán.
• McGilligan, Patrick.
• McMenamin, Daniel.
• Manley, Timothy.
• Morrissey, Dan.
• Murphy, Michael P.
• Murphy, William.
• O'Carroll, Maureen.
• O'Donnell, Patrick.
• O'Donovan, John.
• O'Hara, Thomas.
• O'Higgins, Michael J.
• O'Higgins, Thomas F.
• O'Sullivan, Denis J.
• Palmer, Patrick W.
• Pattison, James P.
• Reynolds, Mary.
• Roddy, Joseph.
• Rooney, Eamonn.
• Spring, Dan.
• Sweetman, Gerard.
• Tully, James.
• Tully, John.

Tellers:— Tá: Deputies McQuillan and Hilliard; Níl: Deputies P.S. Doyle and Mrs. O'Carroll.

Motion declared lost.