asked the Minister for Transport and Power if he is aware of the discontent among rural electricity consumers at the recent increase in rental and unit charges; and if he will arrange that the increased amount needed by the Electricity Supply Board be supplied by Government subsidy so as to leave the rental and unit charges as they were before the increase.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Electricity Charges in Rural Areas.
20.
I am aware that discontent has been, in the main, deliberately fomented——
I cannot hear the Minister.
I am aware that discontent has been, in the main, deliberately fomented in a limited number of rural areas, particularly in connection with the increase in fixed charges. The statement issued by the Electricity Supply Board should have made it quite clear that there is no foundation whatsoever for the allegation that the Board had broken faith with consumers in increasing these charges. Both fixed charges and unit charges have always been increased when the general level of the Board's charges was increased.
The recent increase in charges, which applied to both urban and rural consumers, was designed to increase total revenue by some 5% or a total sum of £750,000 per annum, which is required by the Board to meet increasing costs and the growing losses on the Rural Revenue Account. Naturally, I regret that the increase had to be imposed, particularly since the rural community had become accustomed to stability in charges since 1956. The Rural Revenue Account of the E.S.B. for the year ended 31st March, 1960, showed a deficit of £888,000, which had to be met from the surplus on Urban Account, supplemented by withdrawal from reserves accumulated on Urban Account. I am informed by the E.S.B. that despite the increase in charges the estimated deficit on Rural Revenue Account for the current year is between £750,000 and £800,000. Of this, £529,000 represents the Interest and Sinking Fund charges arising from the abolition of the subsidy for rural electrification in 1955. This was restored in 1958 by the present Government. The immediate need for an increase in charges is directly due to this deficiency. In 1956 fixed charges were increased by 8½% at a time when livestock prices were down by 16% over the previous year and the economic crisis was in full swing.
Those who are now agitating are mainly inspired by the elements of the community who saw no objection to the E.S.B. increase in charges in October, 1956.
Is this in order? This is not giving information.
The Deputy asked for it.
Is this the speech he wanted to make in Sligo-Leitrim and would not be let?
Can the Deputy hear the Minister now?
I am raising a point of order that the Minister in reply to a Parliamentary Question is giving arguments, not the information sought.
I cannot exercise censorship over the answers given by Ministers.
It has been done before and I suggest the Ceann Comhairle do it now.
It has not been done before.
It was done four years ago in this House when the Chair disallowed a Minister's answer at the instance of the present Taoiseach who was then in opposition.
Is the Minister aware that the rental in the City of Dublin has been increased——
The Minister has not finished his reply yet.
There is profit on the buses. The rental in Dublin was increased.
Let him finish the speech he would not be allowed to make in Sligo-Leitrim.
The Minister for Transport and Power.
A year earlier the then Government had withdrawn the subsidy, as above indicated, making an early increase in charges inevitable.
If the Minister continues this will be raised further. We are not going to have arguments used in reply to Parliamentary Questions.
I have no such authority over the answers given by Ministers to Parliamentary Questions.
The Chair has ample authority. I am submitting the Chair has power.
If the Deputy does not like hearing facts——
I do not like the silly arguments the Minister was afraid to make in Sligo-Leitrim.
Does the Minister intend to refer to the fraudulent statement by the Taoiseach that he was going to abolish the special charges?
Electricity is still a relatively cheap commodity. As compared with 1939 the average cost per unit of electricity has increased by only 36 per cent. While other commodities, such as coal, oil, gas, sugar, milk, eggs and flour have increased by amounts varying between 120 per cent. and 218 per cent.
Flour, certainly.
This is absurd.
The 36 per cent. increase compared most favourably with those recorded in other countries. Over the same period the agricultural price index has increased by 224 per cent. It is difficult to find any commodity or service costing £1 in 1939 and now costing 27/3. The effect of the recent increase in charges will be to add between 3d. and 4d. per week to the total bill for electricity for the typical farm consumer and I do not consider that the impact of this increase justifies any special measures by way of increased subsidisation for rural electricity. May I say without any hesitation that for the Government to subsidise any further the general operation of the E.S.B. from taxes raised among the whole community would be merely charging the consumers more by a different method. It is far wiser to devote budgetary resources of the State to increasing farm incomes by measures such as the eradication of bovine tuberculosis and other direct aids to farmers than to dissipate them by offsetting modest and necessary increases in electricity charges.
Is there going to be any limit to this?
Successive governments have made it clear that the E.S.B. must pay its way and the Electricity Supply Board 1927 Act enshrined this principle.
Does the Minister think it is just or equitable that the rural consumers—I am speaking for the majority of them now—whose consumption of current is small, should be asked to pay 5½d. or 6½d. a unit as against an industrial consumer who can get his current at between 1½d. and 1?d.?
The pattern of charges is designed to make it possible for the E.S.B. to run its concern at the lowest possible cost and so be able to offer equitable charges to everybody concerned. If the Deputy studies the charges he will see this is the case.
What did the Deputy himself do about it when he had the power?
The E.S.B. is no different from any other Government Department, for instance, the Post Office. Does the Minister think it fair that there should be one scale of charges for the rural consumer at a time when their fortunes were never lower, and another scale of charges for other types of consumers who, I assume, could afford to pay higher charges? The person in the most backward area in the country has to pay the same price to post a letter as a person in the City of Dublin. Why does the Minister think it fair there should be a different set of circumstances in regard to electricity?
Because you took the subsidy off.
The Deputy did not do anything himself when he had the power.
(Interruptions.)
I do not think the Deputy understands the position. If the E.S.B. cannot sell as much electricity as they possibly can, particularly to industrial consumers, it will be impossible to charge even the present figures for electricity to rural consumers. It is part of a whole pattern of charges designed to make the operation as economic as possible and to safeguard the interests of the small consumer.
What about Dublin? The people here have to pay 10/- for a shilling's worth of current.
Before the Minister sanctioned these increases laid before him by the E.S.B., did he go into the fact that it was inequitable to charge one section of the people as much as 5½d.——
The main fact is that the Board's Rural Revenue Account has to be subsidised from the Urban Account.
By Dublin.
The question does not arise.
Suppose——
No. 21.
I cannot raise this matter on Agriculture or any other Vote. I want to ask the Minister what does he propose to do if 50 per cent. of the rural consumers decide to throw out the E.S.B.?
I do not believe they will.