Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 10 Jul 1962

Vol. 196 No. 11

Committee on Finance. - Electricity (Supply) (Amendment) Bill, 1962—Second Stage.

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time.

The purposes of this Bill are:—

(1) to authorise the increase to £135 million of the existing statutory limit of £120 million on capital expenditure which the Electricity Supply Board may incur for general purposes, that is to say exclusive of capital expenditure on the electrification of rural areas.

(2) To authorise the increase to £37 million of the present statutory limit of £32 million on the expenditure which the Board may incur on the electrification of rural areas.

(3) To provide statutory authority for the payment of increased subsidy for rural electrification.

The Electricity (Supply) (Amendment) Act, 1961, authorised the ESB to incur capital expenditure for general purposes up to a total of £120 million, that is, an increase of £20 million on the then existing statutory limit of £100 million. The Board's generating plant programme announced early in 1960 was based on an estimated rate of growth in the demand for electricity of 7 per cent. per annum and provided for the raising of the Board's generating capacity to 1,148 megawatts by 1968/69. The Board subsequently found it necessary to accelerate this programme because of the continued increase in the rate of growth in demand for electricity. The rate of increase over the previous year during each of the last three years was as follows:—

1959/60

10.4 per cent.

1960/61

7.9 per cent.

1961/62

8.4 per cent.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted, and 20 Members being present,

The present total installed generating capacity of the Board is 723.5 megawatts; this includes 90 megawatts of old plant at the Pigeon House now available only for stand-by purposes and the four small turf fired stations on the western seaboard representing 20 megawatts. Under the revised programme, total capacity would be increased to 1,109.5 megawatts by 1966/67. The decision to accelerate the generating plant programme was dictated by the need to avoid power cuts, particularly for industrial uses.

The Board recently reported to me that on the assumption of an estimated annual growth of at least 8 per cent. in the demand for electricity over the next five years, and taking account of plant retirals in the meantime, it will be necessary to provide further new generating capacity in 1967/68 in addition to the capacity in the programme already approved. The Board propose to provide a coal/oil station of two 60 megawatt sets in the Waterford region, the first to be commissioned in the Autumn of 1967 and the second in the Summer of 1968. The target, for 1968 is, therefore, now raised to 1229.5 megawatts excluding retirals. As it takes over five years from the time of the decision to build before a generating station can be commissioned it will be necessary for the Board to enter into commitments for the Waterford station in the very near future.

The Board's expenditure and commitments for general capital purposes to 31st March, 1962, amounted to £119 million. The Board's capital expenditure for general purposes at that date amounted to about £84 million and work in progress or work approved represented about £35 million. The addition of the projected new station at Waterford, estimated to cost £7.8 million, to the Board's existing programme would, therefore, raise the total of their approvals above the statutory limit of £120 million on capital expenditure for general purposes. In addition, over the next two years it will be necessary for the Board to authorise capital expenditure on transmission and distribution systems and on buildings to the extent of about £7 million. The Bill, therefore, provides for the raising to £135 million of the existing statutory limit of £120 million on the Board's capital expenditure for general purposes which on the basis of present estimates should be sufficient to cover expenditure likely to be authorised during the next two years or so.

The installed capacity for hydroelectric plant at 31st March, 1962, was 219 megawatts. All the important rivers have now been harnessed for electricity generation. While the development of other rivers would in present circumstances be uneconomic, the Board are continuing to collect data and investigate other rivers with a view to possible development later for hydro-generation.

The Board's generating programme provides for the absorption by 1968 of the annual output of all the bogs which are at present considered economically usuable for the generation of electricity. This will mean an increase of 202.5 megawatts on the Board's existing peat-fired generating capacity of 205 megawatts. The programme provides that coal/oil-fired stations will be sandwiched between peat-fired stations so as to ensure maintenance of electricity supply in a year in which weather conditions would be very adverse for either peat or hydro-generation of electricity or both. To ensure continuity of bog development and employment by Bord na Móna, the coal/oil stations will be used only to the extent that hydro and peat generation will be insufficient to meet demand.

The investigation into the possibility of utilising deposits of low grade semi-bituminous coal at Arigna in an additional electricity generating unit is still in progress. It has been established that there are sufficient reserves of lower ash content coal but before any decision could be taken in this matter it must be first established that the coal can be extracted economically on a regular basis over the life of a new station. The necessary investigations are still proceeding.

The Board experienced a record peak load in January this year when to meet a load of 606 megawatts the Board had in operation 40 out of the 44 generating sets in their system. Two of the remaining four sets were out for overhaul and two small sets, one each at the North Wall and Poulaphuca were standing by leaving the Board with just enough capacity in reserve to cover breakdown of the largest single generating unit in their system, which is 30 megawatts. The system peak load of 606 megawatts experienced in January last, compared with peaks of 540 megawatts in December, 1960, and 476 megawatts in January, 1960. The addition of the 40 megawatt Bellacorick station to the system later this year should help the Board to meet the peak loads next winter.

From the end of the present decade onwards, the contribution made to electricity supply by native resources is bound to grow proportionately less. The Electricity Supply Board are keeping in touch with the work being done in various parts of the world in the application of nuclear energy to the production of electricity. It is clear so far that conventional fuels are cheaper than nuclear power for electricity generation. A nuclear station would not be commissioned in this country until the base load has increased to a point where a nuclear station of the minimum economic size could be given continuous night running of reasonable magnitude together with full load day operations. It is not expected that this stage will be reached in this country for at least ten years and even then the choice of a nuclear station as against the conventional thermal station will still depend on the relative economics of the two types of stations.

As Deputies are aware, the Government recently decided that increased State assistance should be provided for the extension of rural electrification. Under the existing rural electrification scheme which was started in 1946 and is due to be completed this year 775 out of a total of 792 rural areas will have qualified for development. The remaining 17 areas failed to qualify under that scheme because the total fixed charge revenue from them would not have been sufficient to meet the minimum return on the capital cost of development required under the scheme. These areas are mostly remote areas with low density of population and correspondingly higher costs of connection and low average return per house. A special subsidy of £90,000 is now being provided under the Bill to meet the cost of the necessary "backbone" lines in these areas so as to enable them to be developed and it is expected that as a result connection can be offered to about half of the estimated 6,000 dwellings in these areas at normal rates of fixed charge. Other dwellings can, of course, obtain supply but they will be asked to pay some extra charge.

The initial development of all the rural areas, including the 17 areas at present undeveloped, is designed to connect some 283,000 out of a total of 395,000 rural dwellings. Of the dwellings connected some 269,000 or 68 per cent will have been connected at standard rates of fixed charge compared with the target of 69 per cent. which was set when the rural electrification scheme was initiated in 1946. Some 112,000 rural dwellings throughout the country will still remain unconnected when the development of all the rural areas is completed. The initial development scheme, on completion, is estimated to cost about £32,000,000 of which the ESB will have contributed £25½ million approximately and the State £6½ million.

The ESB is now incurring very heavy annual losses on rural electrification despite the State subsidy towards the capital cost of rural electrification. In recent years these losses have grown to around £700,000 and are expected to continue at a very heavy rate for some years thereafter, and, thence, to reduce gradually. In order to avoid further increases in losses in rural electrification, the ESB have been connecting houses for electricity on post-development only on the basis of a minimum return by way of fixed charges of 7.3 per cent. of the capital cost of connection, this being the economic return on the investment after taking account of the State subsidy of 50 per cent of the cost of connection. The return required by the Board for initial development has been 4.7 per cent but even after taking account of the State subsidy this has been very uneconomic as can be seen from the losses of the Board on Rural Account.

With a view to stimulating a more rapid rate of connection in the areas already developed, the present Bill provides that over the next five years the existing subsidy of 50 per cent in respect of connections in areas to which a supply has already been extended will be increased to 75 per cent, subject to a maximum of £75 per house. The increased subsidy is designed to permit of about 77,000 of the 112,000 unconnected premises in rural areas being in a position to obtain the electricity at the normal rates of fixed charge. About 23,000 premises would have to pay a special service charge but except in very few cases, the special charge will not add more than 50 per cent to the normal fixed charge. There will still remain some 12,000 households mostly in remote areas which could be offered electricity only at rather high rates of fixed charge because of the very high cost of connecting such premises. The average cost of connecting these premises would be about three times the average cost of connecting other premises and, in the circumstances, these householders are being offered, as an alternative, a subsidy of £10 per house to enable them to install bottled gas. The bottled gas subsidy will cover the cost of two full cylinders, two blanked-off points, a regulator and the necessary pipes. A further announcement will be made in regard to this scheme shortly. Following on the provision of increased subsidy the ESB will adjust the charges of ruaral consumers who are already paying special service charges.

Of the 15,000 rural consumers at present paying special service charges, some 3,000 will have these charges eliminated altogether and the charges in the case of the remaining 12,000 households will be reduced by about half.

The ESB have reported that due to unforeseen circumstances such as severe storm damage there has been delay in completing the development of the economic areas but it is expected that all these areas will have been developed within a few months. The ESB will then start on the development of the 17 uneconomic areas and expect that work on most of these areas will have been completed before the middle of 1963 and that the development of the few remaining areas will be completed before the end of 1963.

Most other European countries had made considerable progress with rural electrification before our rural electrification scheme was started in 1946. The provision of rural electrification in these countries did not, however, present the same problems as in this country because most of their rural inhabitants live in villages and hamlets thus making connections easier and cheaper whilst in this country most rural dwellers live in scattered farmsteads thus adding to difficulty and cost of connection. When these factors and also the differences in social and economic conditions are taken into account this country's rural electrification scheme is a noteworthy achievement.

The ESB has an excellent record of public service and efficient administration since it was established 35 years ago. The country has every reason to be proud of this enterprising state organisation which has played such an important part in the economic development of the State. I would like to take this opportunity of congratulating the Board and their staffs on their achievements over the years and of wishing them continued success in the future.

I confidently recommend this Bill for the approval of the House.

Is it not hard to believe, when you hear speeches of this kind, that they are being made in regard to what Fianna Fáil once described as "McGilligan's White Elephant"? However, I have ceased to marvel at the amount Fianna Fáil have learned because, right enough, they started with a considerable vacuum of ignorance and there was plenty of room there to install education——

That is played out.

I do not know. I am still prepared to carry on the good work and it gratifies me to observe the results, however meagre.

Tell us what you said about wheat?

Mark you, there are not a few people who are coming around to agree with me. Ask some of your own colleagues. I want to ask the question which I asked before. One of the proposals in this Bill is to make provision for the problem of remoter areas and the extension of electricity supplies to them. When I was considering the Connemara scheme, one of my problems was to supply power and light and I remember approaching the ESB to inquire of them whether in view of the long distances over which main lines would have to be carried if we were to bring electricity to Connemara, would it not be possible to tap some of the mountain lakes in Connemara and to treat these remote areas as self-contained areas for the supply of power generated locally. What I wanted to know was if you had a mountain lake, could you not artifically create a fall of water to a power station situated at the foot of the hill or mountain on which the lake was situated and by operating the station at night as well as during the day to use the surplus power generated at night to pump water back into the supply lake from which you are drawing water when you operate the station.

I was told that the laws of dynamics made it impossible to conceive such an operation. I accepted that on the ground that it was an informed, expert opinion, only to discover that it is being done in Canada and is now quite common. I want to suggest again to the Minister that in these remoter areas where such sources of power are available, instead of concentrating on the possibility of linking those remoter areas to the national grid, we should consider if there is a local source of power available such as I have referred to and supplying the districts from that local source of power, quite apart from the national grid. I believe it could be done. I often thought we missed a great opportunity when draining the Moy. Anyone knowing the geography of that part of North Mayo would realise that if a channel had been cut from Lough Conn back to the coast at Killala, you would have enough power there to generate all the electricity required for the whole of that north-west Mayo area and you would also substantially solve the problem of the Moy drainage. I believe that that principle could be operated in certain areas in Donegal, Connemara and probably certain areas in West Kerry. It certainly is worth considering.

I notice that the Minister in the course of his speech said:

The programme provides that coal and oil fired stations will be sandwiched between peat-fired stations so as to ensure the maintenance of electricity supply in a year in which weather conditions will be very adverse for either peat or hydro generation of electricity, or both.

How would you get a year that was adverse to the generation of electricity by either peat or water?

It could happen.

We had one.

The spring could be wet and the harvest dry.

But if the spring——

You could be left without turf or water.

I do not think the Deputy is fully informed. The Shannon electricity station is not run off the showers that fall today.

It has happened.

The water that supplies the Shannon electricity station fell from October last year to March of this year and rests in the lakes which hold it and is released as it is required. If you have a very wet summer, that provides even more water but you do not get turf. If you have a dry summer and a wet spring —I cannot see any situation arising which would be inimical to both. If there is a wet season, it suits hydroelectric generation; if there is a dry season, it suits the turf.

Actually, you do get a very wet summer and a dry autumn. We have had that experience.

Perhaps the Minister is right. I suspected he just put in the words "or both" in order to round off the sentence and, in fact, it makes nonsense, but it is not very significant. It is just a faulty construction, in my opinion.

No estimate has ever been made, and I think it ought to be made, of what the comparative cost is of generating electricity from oil with the cost of generating it from turf. It is fundamentally unsound to be living on illusions. I can see a case being made that it is worth paying more to generate electricity from turf if you can use up native resources. I believe it costs more.

The cost of the unit sent out is in the ESB Report, as the Deputy knows.

The cost of what?

The comparative cost of units as sent out is in the Report.

I observe these words "as sent out". When you get into these questions it is very difficult to get a true basis of comparison. I believe it is a fact that if all the power generated at turf stations was, in fact, generated at the most efficient oil stations that could have been constructed the cost of the electricity would have been less. It would be useful if an honest appraisal were made of that so that we might know what this cost is and what it involves us in.

I am glad to see the fraudulent misrepresentation that increased costs were due to withholding the State subsidy when it was possible to meet is out of the profits of the ESB has been dropped but I want to repeat that that fraudulent misrepresentation has been made on more than one occasion by the Minister for Transport and Power. He has never yet answered the query: if he thought it was not right to withhold the subsidy in the years when we withheld it on the ground that the profits then being made by the ESB were sufficient to meet the subsidy cost, why he has never provided retrospectively a capital sum to cover whatever subsidies were then withheld? If it was wrong from the point of view of the national interest to withhold those subsidies in the years we determined to do it, why does not the Minister put it right?

It may have been very hard to find.

We are going to pay £8,000,000 on a nitrogen factory in Wicklow without batting an eye. If you believe the whole nation is labouring under a burden—which, of course, you know damn well it is not —why do not you put it right? The answer is, of course, that the subsidy the Minister speaks of was never necessary. It was met out of current profits of the ESB and for that reason the Minister does not introduce proposals which he has a clear duty to do if he believed his own story.

It is a question of what you spend the money on.

If you believe your own story, you ought to appropriate money to relieve the whole nation, the whole industrial life of the country, the whole agricultural life of the country, of a burden which you believe is unnecessary. It is because you know damn well the story you told is a travesty of the fact that you make no attempt to change the policy which we considered reasonable at the time and which I am quite satisfied was right in the circumstances then obtaining.

I do not consider it was a travesty of the facts. What I said was—do we have to go into it again?

Yes, because you know perfectly well that if this story you told were true you have a clear duty to put right that which you could perfectly simply put right. The reason you do not attempt to provide retrospectively the subsidy to which you refer is that you know it was unnecessary and in fact involved no additional charge on the consumers of the country.

I am glad that the tendency for the demand for electricity to rise should be sustained. I notice that the ESB take the view that there will be an 8 per cent. annual increase for the next five years. These estimates are hard to make. I hope the ESB estimates are correct. It would be an evidence of a sound economic situation if they are. However, I imagine that if these estimates prove to be excessively optimistic it will be possible to adjust the programme to meet any such eventuality whereas if the estimates were pessimistic it might be extremely difficult to bring the additional generating capacity into being unless steps were taken in good time.

We have no objection to the appropriation of capital for the provision of the necessary power. I endorse what the Minister has had to say about the ESB. It has been a well-run concern, it reflects credit on those who established it. It has been a source of education for those who denigrated it in their day and it has conferred very material benefits on our people wherever they may be.

There is a constant tendency to speak of the losses that the ESB are suffering in the distribution of electricity in rural areas. I do not know, I often wonder, on what basis these losses are estimated. I do remember that for a long time after the ESB was first established these rural areas paid their share of the cost and got no benefit at all. They may be getting back a little more now than the bare economics would entitle them to but there can be no doubt in the mind of any reasonable person that it is a salutary thing to make power and light as universally available as it is reasonably possible to do with the resources at our disposal.

I think the bottled gas idea is a good idea and can provide a very reasonable substitute for electricity in the very remote areas although it must be borne in mind that while bottled gas can provide light and, indeed, cooking facilities in those areas, it does deprive the rural dweller so situated from access to power which is becoming more and more important even on the smallest holdings but I am prepared to say that I think the bottled gas scheme is a reasonable compromise bearing in mind the exceptional distances over which power will have to be transmitted to individual houses in some of the more scattered populations. But, I would be interested to hear from the Minister if the ESB would give due consideration to the proposal of local generation of electricity where mountain lakes constitute an available source of power.

I welcome this Bill and I am very pleased that the Minister is relieving a number of electricity consumers who were paying the high extra charges, particularly those rural dwellers who live away from the line of the ordinary rural electrification circuit. There are quite a few of them and they will be very glad of the relief they will get under this Bill. I hope the day is not far distant when the Minister will be able to bring in a further measure to relieve all the people in the country who are paying these extra charges. A number of people in my constituency have not yet taken electricity because the special charges are too high.

I realise a lot has been done in this respect and I want to join with Deputy Dillon and the Minister in congratulating the ESB on the wonderful work they have done. While they may be suffering from a deficit at the moment, nevertheless, in this Bill the Minister is doing a good deal to encourage them. The Fianna Fáil Party as a whole have always been anxious to see that the people of rural Ireland should have electricity. A lot of good work has been done in my constituency since rural electrification first came there in 1946. With the exception of the short period when the inter-Party Government were in office, things have been going along very smoothly.

The rogue.

The only hope the rural dweller now has is that Fianna Fáil will continue in office so as to bring this work to a successful conclusion. I was delighted to hear about the scheme to provide bottled gas for people in remote areas to whom it is not yet possible to extend electric current. It is a scheme which will be very welcome to those people, and is further evidence of the Minister's aim to light up the dark portions of rural Ireland. Another problem in Dublin city at the moment is in respect of old age pensioners. They have been complaining to me and to other public representatives of the high charges they have to pay and I was wondering what it would cost if the ESB were to provide special meters for poor people. If this were done it would be a wonderful relief to many of them. I know this is a matter——

Outside the scope of this Bill.

I have made my point.

It is not outside the scope of Balbriggan.

Deputy Dillon spoke of tapping the lakes in Connemara for power. I feel sure the ESB have very fine engineers who will advise them if there is any potentiality in the lakes of Connemara or Monaghan, because they have not failed to avail of every possible source of power in any area. Again, I would compliment the Minister on bringing in this Bill and I hope to see the day when he will be able to extend further reliefs such as this measure provides.

Deputy A. Barry.

I had offered to speak. I understood people were called in turn, not two from the same Party.

Deputies Burke and Barry are not from the same Party.

I shall not keep the Deputy very long. Would the Minister ask the ESB that when they are wiring new estates they should avoid running these ugly service lines down the front of streets? They should take the lines around the back or underground. They have disfigured every suburb in every town and city.

It is very gratifying in this House to hear compliments being paid to a State body. Generally, when Deputies speak about large State controlled organisations they do so in critical terms for the purpose of lowering in the public eye the value of anything done by the State for the good of the public. Therefore, when we hear the praise lavished on the ESB it is good to know that Deputies have begun to appreciate that work of the magnitude of that carried out by the ESB could not have been successfully accomplished if it were not that the ESB are a State body charged with great responsibility.

When replying to the debate on an earlier Bill, the Minister commented on the desire of Deputies to interfere in the day-to-day administration of State bodies and suggested Deputies should read the Taoiseach's speech made to a group outside this House on the place of State and semi-State bodies in our society. The Minister admitted that the Taoiseach, and even the Minister himself, realised there were many points of view on the extent of the control that should be exercised by the Oireachtas over the functions and administration of the different State bodies. It is no harm when dealing with the ESB to emphasise that there must be power vested in the elected representatives of the people to extract information of public importance. The public are paying for the services and, as the people who have to pay the Bill, they are entitled to information.

It may not be desirable that the information be given directly through Dáil Questions. Undoubtedly, there may be a strong case put forward that the activities and efficiency of particular companies might be interfered with as a result of undue interference in their day to day administration. At the same time, there is a public demand for more information. It is a matter for the Government to decide how best to meet that public demand. The Minister should have this question reconsidered and brought again before the Government. If it is to be decided at this stage that Parliamentary Questions are not the best way to deal with matters of importance, it is highly desirable that a Committee of this House be set up which would be empowered to meet the directors or higher officials of the various State bodies and consult with them on matters of public importance. Such bodies function in the British House of Commons.

The Deputy is going widely outside the scope of the Bill.

The Minister went far outside it on the last Bill. What he said on that occasion had reference to State Bodies.

What the Minister said on that occasion on an earlier Bill has nothing whatever to do with the discussion on this Bill.

The Minister criticised Deputies who tried to extract information about the workings of CIE. His remarks in that regard can also be taken with regard to the ESB.

Whatever remarks the Minister made in respect of the administration of CIE are not relevant on this Bill. I gave the Deputy a chance to make certain statements about asking questions in respect of the ESB. I gave him a good chance, but now he wants to enlarge it entirely.

There is a big sum of money involved.

That is to be used for the extension of electricity in rural areas.

I have a feeling that, apart altogether from restraining Deputies from asking questions, it is the intention to prevent them even discussing the expenditure in the House. The day is coming when the right of discussion will be limited completely where public moneys are concerned.

The right of discussion is to be limited to what is in the measure before the House and not otherwise.

The Minister made a sound suggestion in regard to the remote areas. He is now putting forward a proposition that bottled gas be used and a subsidy given. I suggest that he bring a pipe into this House and he will get no end of bottled gas from various sources to supply all Connemara and indeed most of the country. I should like to get it clear from the Minister that the Government are prepared to consider the idea of Select Committees of this House being charged with the responsibility of examining the policies proposed by the ESB, Bord na Móna or other State bodies.

I told the Deputy previously he is going wide of the scope of the Bill.

The Minister has stated that the E.S.B. have estimated a certain increase in the consumption of electricity over the next eight or ten years. They made a similar estimate ten years ago and they were proved completely wrong. I feel I am entitled to comment on the accuracy of the ESB estimate. A Committee of this House would be helpful to the ESB in connection with the making of estimates.

The ESB estimates are not before the House now. I am not trying to limit the Deputy in any way but I want to keep him within the four corners of the debate.

I am leaving this House in protest against the outrageous decisions you are giving to prevent Deputies speaking on one of the most important matters here, the expenditure of money by the ESB.

This measure marks another step forward by the ESB, which has shown itself to be an enterprising and progressive organisation. It was well established and seems to have followed very good traditions. This measure deals with the steps to be taken in future for the extension of rural electrification which, on the existing basis of cost calculations, were considered to be uneconomic and had not much hope of getting electricity. When we examine the history of the ESB we find they have made a dramatic contribution to the national well-being. As the Minister said, if they had not been established in 1927, we could not have had the industrial development which occurred in the years that followed. As a result of industrial development based on the power provided by electricity, a great measure of employment was provided in the industrial field and it was possible for the workers to enjoy a good standard of living.

The original Electricity Bill provided for this rural electrification scheme. It is regrettable that for nearly 15 years after Fianna Fáil came into office they took no steps whatever to provide electricity in the rural areas. The year 1946 was mentioned, but I think that in that year only initial discussions for a rural electrification were held. It was started in 1947 and in my own constituency actually a pilot scheme was inaugurated which included the areas of St. Margaret's and Oldtown. In fact, it was established in a cloud of doubt and in trepidation, as to whether the economics of the scheme would justify the electrification of the rural areas. It was not long until that scheme demonstrated that it was quite possible, and that the extension should be embarked upon immediately. It is regrettable that the necessary finances, and the adjustments for the provision of capital, were not made available in the early Thirties after Fianna Fáil came into office, to provide some of the rural districts with electricity much sooner.

Rural electrification has enabled industries to be spread out through the country, instead of being concentrated in the centres where electricity was readily available. We can now see factories which were established in remote rural districts, thanks to electric power. In those remote rural districts, employment is provided in the various industries and factories for residents of the locality who would otherwise be faced with the necessity of seeking a living away from their native district. This measure which proposes a further extension of rural electrification into areas not already serviced is very welcome. The history of the ESB for the past 35 years has demonstrated what a valuable asset electricity is to organised society. It has certainly made a valuable contribution to our national economy.

I was struck by the figures given by the Minister of the number of houses not yet connected. I could not believe that over 100,000 dwellinghouses in the rural areas are not yet connected. The Minister went on to say that the proposed adjustments in the measure before the House would come to the rescue of approximately 77,000 householders out of the total of 112,000 not yet connected, leaving approximately 33,000 people still with no immediate prospect of getting electric power and light.

It is certainly very welcome that this new arrangement will result in connecting up over 77,000 householders. There was some kind of prejudice against being connected with an electric grid when rural electrification was first embarked upon when the inter-Party Government were in office in 1948. The scheme seemed to spread like wildfire and the necessary finances were provided. It has continued to spread and has resulted in only very remote areas being left without ESB power and light. For economic reasons, it was necessary to leave a number of householders in the rural districts without this power.

In County Dublin, there are quite a number of pockets, if you like, of isolated households and farmsteads where there is no immediate prospect of having electric power and light connected to the homes. This is an amenity to which people have become accustomed but the prohibitive cost of an extension to those places prevents the householders and the owners of the farmsteads from having power and light. Those who have witnessed it can speak of the remarkable transformation which has taken place, particularly in and around the farms. There are the electric pumps, possibly milking machines and various other types of machinery providing the amenities for the householders, and cutting out the drudgery which has been for so long associated with farm life.

There are a number of those isolated farmsteads still without those amenities and I am glad that this measure will come to the rescue of at least some of them by reason of the financial adjustments to which the Minister referred in the course of his statement. Quite a number of people have got quotations from the ESB for an extension from an existing transformer in the area where they are resident, but the high cost of wiring and carrying the service to the homestead prevents them from availing of it.

Quite a number of county council cottage tenants have not got electricity, although they want to be connected and it is necessary in their houses for one reason or another. I came across one case where the wife of a tenant really needed electricity because she had, I think, lumbago and needed the type of treatment provided by electricity to relieve her suffering. When the cost of having electricity connected to the cottage was calculated, it was found that her husband, in his circumstances, could not afford to avail of it, although there was a transformer only a few hundred yards away from the cottage.

I was impressed by the case made earlier by Deputy Dillon about mountain lakes and the possibility of small local schemes being devised. In our hurry to provide rural electrification, we embarked on turf-powered, coal-powered and oil-powered stations, in addition, of course, to the hydroelectric scheme. In the long run, I think the hydroelectric scheme is the best. The turf-powered scheme can be carried on as long as turf is available, but the quantity of turf which is consumed at the generating stations is remarkable. At the rate of consumption, we could almost calculate the time when we will not any longer be able to feed in the vast quantities of turf required to provide electric power in the grid.

Similarly, the use of coal and oil must be a costly way of providing electricity compared with the hydroelectric scheme. Certainly, we have noticed that in the past ten or 15 years the ESB have harnessed a number of swift flowing rivers which, of course, have put a vast amount of power into the national grid. But there is a number of mountain lakes, I believe, and swift rivers which could be harnessed by engineering ability to enable power to be provided in the locality, as distinct from the national grid. I am sure that engineers have considered these matters and they probably are in favour of the kind of efficiency and economy which a large scheme can assure them, but at the same time if we can devise smaller hydroelectric schemes in the remote rural areas economically, then I think we should try it.

A number of people in rural areas at the moment who have electricity connected to their homes and farms feel the fixed charges and bi-monthly rent to be rather heavy and I hope a new system of charges will be devised to cut down the heavy expense of electricity to so many people and bring the cost down nearer to the cost to the average consumer resident in a more convenient district. He has not the heavy fixed charge to pay which the others have. I do not want to mention any figures here because there could be figures much higher than I could mention and much lower too, but it is remarkable to see the heavy fixed charge some farmers are paying in order to have electric power and light in their homes. It is an essential amenity these days. It cannot be replaced by the kind of local windmill some of them tried to use and which certainly was not a success compared with the light and power available from the national grid.

I would ask the ESB through the Minister to examine the very high fixed charges which apply to so many people resident in remote areas. They certainly have to pay very heavily because of the location of their homes and in fairness I think more general consumers should be asked to bear an equal burden of the cost of this national service. It should be available equally to all citizens. At this stage, I can appreciate that we must take economics into consideration and observe priorities in providing the service, but when the service is provided to 90 per cent. of householders or even less I think the burden should be spread more equally among those who enjoy its amenities instead of the people in remote areas paying so heavily. There is also, of course, the question of meter rents and that is another kind of fixed charge imposed on consumers.

The Deputy may not raise it on this.

I want to mention the matter in passing because these two charges impose heavily on some people, particularly people who are on very small pensions.

The Deputy will find another opportunity.

I am glad to see this measure brought in and I hope the scheme will go through quickly so that the extra 77,000 householders will be connected as soon as possible.

I appreciate that this is not the appropriate time for a detailed discussion of the ESB and will, therefore, confine myself to one point in connection with the improvements offered in this Bill. Even with the increased subsidies I notice that of the 112,000 householders who are at present suffering certain disabilities because their localities are remote, 35,000 will still be outside the ambit of the benefits offered in the Bill.

I am anxious to get information on the position of those people who have already installed ESB current and are paying the special service charge. I am not satisfied with the special charges imposed by the ESB. I am not going so far as to suggest that there should be no extra charge because I know the extension of the service to some of these areas is a financial imposition on the ESB but what I am objecting to—and apparently it is to continue under the Bill— is the usury employed by the ESB On many occasions I have seen people presented with the contract to be signed in order to get ESB current into an area. It makes clear that an extra charge will be imposed upon them. That is all right, but there is no indication whatever of the possibility of these charges at some time in the future being reduced. Apparently under the Bill the ESB will continue to provide for themselves a way out of this dilemma as they have done in the past and are doing at present.

The Minister makes it clear to us that approximately 77,000 householders will benefit from the increased subsidies. Had it not been a question of an increased subsidy, they would, I presume, have to pay increased charges when they got the current installed in their households but what will the position now be for those people who have already signed these contracts with their special service charge? Surely the ESB are not going to continue to ask a special service charge imposed through the contract offered to the various householders?

It has been mentioned that in future the special service charge in order to provide more people with electricity in that area may be reduced. That reduction will depend apparently on a reduction in costs. We all know that economic trends in this country, and elsewhere, show clearly that there is no sign of any reduction in costs. The ESB, therefore, have apparently no intention of making any reduction in the special service charge.

It is not so long since an important Bill dealing with hire purchase was passed in this House. We all know that if any one wants to avail of certain appliances by buying through the ESB on hire purchase, that purchaser is told, and rightly so, the cash price and the price if he or she wants to avail of hire purchase, together with the period of time over which those hire purchase instalments will have to be paid.

Apparently the intention now is to continue in operation the policy of service charges. I know that in certain cases extra poles and extra wire are necessary in order to connect up homes, but surely the ESB cannot contend in all honesty that the special service charge to cover the extra cost of the two, three or four extra poles and wire should go beyond a certain period of time, a period of time in which the costs of the materials involved and the labour employed will be covered. There is no provision in this Bill amending the present unsatisfactory position. I would like the Minister to clarify this matter for the House. The present policy deters people from connecting up with the ESB. They object to the special service charge continuing forever. Some 35,000 householders are affected by this charge The Minister will have to clarify the position.

He has done so.

I am going on the Minister's statement.

(Interruptions.)

The Deputy may not have noticed what I said.

(Interruptions.)

It would be grand if the lighthouse keepers could throw a little light on it, but they have no ESB current at all.

(Interruptions.)

Order. Deputy Desmond, on the Bill before the House.

The Minister dealt with the point in his opening statement.

There are 15,000. Of that number, 3,000 will have their charges eliminated altogether and the other 12,000 will have their charges reduced by half. That is fair enough. The figure 15,000 is the total number paying extra service charges in the rural areas.

The Minister will appreciate that, while he said there would be a reduction in some 15,000 households, he did not state whether or not that was the total number involved. When the ESB were extending rural electrification in Cork, they did not do as they did in Wicklow; there they covered all the different areas. In Cork, they left pockets unattended to because they considered it would not be economic for them to deal with them. I am entitled to assume that a fair proportion of the 35,000 households which will still be outside the scheme are in County Cork. If that is so, and if these people have to meet a special service charge, I want the ESB to tell these people that that charge will be imposed upon them only until such time as the ESB recoups the expenditure involved in the provision of extra poles and wire and the labour costs in these areas.

I congratulate the Minister on introducing this Bill. It is certainly a step in the right direction. It shows the great progress in rural electrification. Some Deputies on the other side of the House have criticised the Fianna Fáil Party in relation to rural electrification. Perhaps they are unmindful of the fact that it was the Fianna Fáil Government who initiated rural electrification. It was the Fianna Fáil Government that provided the money to bring it to every corner of the country and every homestead in the State. That is not something I want to boast about. It is a statement of fact. It is a statement of fact that must be made because of what has been said by Deputy Rooney. I do not wish to denigrate or to take credit from those who initiated rural electrification in 1926. To bring electricity to every home in Ireland has always been the dream of Fianna Fáil. I am very happy to notice the progress that has been made. I am happier still that the Minister is now providing money in an effort to link up isolated pockets, pockets which were more or less inaccessible from the point of view of providing current because of the costs involved.

We all know how important electricity is. In this modern world in which we live it is very useful on the farms. It is commendable that we should make all haste to provide this amenity for the people in the rural areas. The Minister referred to some new stations. Part of my constituency is a coal bearing area and I would ask him to consider that as a possible site for a second coal burning station attached to the Arigna mines. The station erected in that area some years ago has been very beneficial. It provides a good deal of employment. I hope it may be possible to extend it further. The ESB deserves great credit for the fact that the new projects have been designed by Irish engineers. It is an education to many foreigners when they come to this country and see these stations designed completely by our own engineers, which is a tribute to the advance which has been made here.

Rural electrification also helps the establishment of rural industries in some of these backward areas that already have had the benefit of the Undeveloped Areas Act but who may not have had electricity heretofore. People in their criticism often forget the fact that the subsidy towards rural electrification was withdrawn during the time of the Coalition Government and that that definitely did slow up very considerably these rural electrification projects. I would ask the Minister to continue the policy he is pursuing in this regard and, whatever he may have in mind as regards bottled gas, he should make every effort to get electricity itself into every home in the country. On the mainland in particular, bottled gas might not be any substitute for electricity, and I hope that when he has this scheme pushed through, he will go back over some of the areas left out and include them if at all possible.

I also welcome the suggestion to recoup those people in backward areas who were willing enough to come forward in the past to pay the extra installation costs involved in securing the benefit of electricity. I congratulate the Minister on this Bill and wish him every success.

From my experience, I have always thought the ESB considered the local authorities and the ratepayers fair game in regard to what I call extortionate charges. We have found that in South Cork and other areas in respect of housing and sanitary services. However, I have a particular reason for speaking on this Bill. Last October, there was a revision of constituencies and a whole new area was thrown over to me. I was horrified to find districts there completely without electricity, districts within 12 miles of Cork and within five miles of Mallow. I was horrified to go into one of those districts to find children there having to do their homework under lamps. That should have been ended years ago. I have been hammering the ESB since last October and I am glad to know they are about to deal with this. If they do not, they will be hearing pretty often from me in the future.

Anybody who looks into the present position of any rural community in regard to water supplies, milking machines, grinding machines, and so on, will realise that they are absolutely essential to any farm but they cannot be used without electric current. I cannot understand how an area within five miles of Mallow and within 12 miles of Cork has been left completely without electricity up to the moment. I hope it will be the first area that will be done. I have a habit of seeing that the things I want are done. I cannot understand why it was not done previously but now that this area is in my hands I intend to see that electricity is provided immediately.

I should like to thank the members of the House for the cordial way they have received the terms of this Bill. We all agree more light is needed in houses. First of all I should like to refer to what Deputy Dillon said about making use of mountain lakes and pumping the water at certain times of the day for storage purposes. I understand this is a new method of generation which has been adopted in certain countries, including Great Britain. Here we can use our own existing hydro resources to help meet the peak loads and we have not got the same case here for the pump storage method. We are also able to supply the night load from hydro sources at virtually no fuel cost so we have not yet reached the position where this method might be useful to us.

I am also told that the catchment area of mountain lakes is normally rather small and it would be inadequate in relation to the amount of water that would be required to sustain even a small hydro station. Unless one could find a very large mountain lake rightly positioned and with the right features, it would be difficult to carry out the system in any event. However, I recently asked the ESB to consider all possible methods of producing power which are economic. I know they examine all the different systems in operation elsewhere and keep continually in touch with world electric power developments.

In reply to Deputy Dillon, the Board reports do show the cost per unit for oil and coal in various stations. Last year, the House was furnished, in reply to a question, with the cost per unit in each station on an equal priority basis. This does indirectly disclose the relative costs of turf and oil.

Deputy Barry raised the interesting question of the use of overhead lines in urban areas and pointed to the fact that they spoil the amenities of housing areas. I quite agree with him. I hope that when the Town Planning Bill is introduced it will be possible to use influence with the ESB to try to persuade them to change their method. I know that underground cables in certain areas in rural districts are very much more costly than overground cables. I hope we can do something about this because I agree with Deputy Barry that it does spoil the appearance of an otherwise attractive housing scheme to see a tremendous number of poles with hanging wires all over the place.

Deputy Rooney misunderstood the terms of the arrangement for rural electrification subsidy. He suggested that some 23,000 out of 112,000 households would never be connected, that they are outside the scheme. First of all, there are the 77,000 people who will not have to pay any additional service charge. Then there are 23,000 people who will have to pay an additional service charge but not more than 50 per cent. I understand that in the case of a great many of them the extra charge would be nothing like 50 per cent above the normal. Then there is a balance of some 12,000 people who would have to pay 100 per cent or over additional service charge. If they feel they are unable to do that, they can take advantage of the bottled gas subsidy. If their circumstances improve later on, they may join the district on condition that they return the £10 gas subsidy they were given.

Deputy Desmond raised the question of the special service charges and how long they would last. As I already pointed out in an interjection, there are 15,000 people now paying extra service charge and in respect of quite a number of them the extra service charge would be completely wiped out and in respect of another number the extra service charge would be cut by half. They will be placed in line with those who are now to get cuts so that they would not be discriminated against.

Appreciating that the charge on the 12,000 would be reduced by 50 per cent that charge would have to be paid in perpetuity. Is that not right? That is the point.

Yes. The ESB have said that where there is a significant increase in the numbers taking a supply in an area they will review the special charges with a view to reducing them. That is because the more people who take supply in an area the less costly are the overheads to the ESB.

One or two Deputies expressed disappointment that certain areas are not connected. Deputy Corry mentioned an area near Mallow. That is because the ESB in order to be fair and equitable and to have a system of administration for rural electrification which would bear examination here and involve absolutely no discrimination or unfairness, had to adopt a yardstick in respect of the areas which would qualify for connection and those which would not.

The yardstick is related to the amount that could be collected in service charges as a percentage of the total cost of installation of the system in the area plus the maintenance and depreciation charges. As Deputies know, the fixed charges are based on the area of the house concerned and, by adopting an absolutely strict method of calculation, the ESB can proceed on its way fairly and squarely, knowing no one can say they show any discrimination in any charges whatever.

Under the new scheme, the 75 per cent subsidy, I hope the people in the Mallow area will decide to join the system. I should state, however, that there are many thousands of people at this moment who could be connected, who would not have to pay any extra service charges, even with the subsidy of 50 per cent., and, for one reason or another, they have felt they could not do so. These are not necessarily people of very low incomes. You will see in any area people with equally small incomes who decide to take current. I hope that now that the subsidy has been increased they will all start applying for current because the more people who apply at once for current in an area the easier it is for the ESB to do the job and the less expensive it is to bring a gang of people to do the installation. That, in turn, will redound to the whole economics of the scheme.

The future of the ESB on its economic side depends to a considerable degree on householders in rural districts using electricity for many more purposes than they do now. In that respect, I was very glad to see that the increase in the use of electricity for farm machinery and ancillary purposes has gone up by 40 to 80 per cent in respect of different classes of apparatus as between 1959 and 1961, showing a very much greater appreciation of the value of electricity-run farm machinery in a very recent period.

I think I have answered all the points. One Deputy spoke of the high cost of electricity in the country districts. I should like to remind the House again that the rural electrification operation loses money and that in that sense the urban consumers are subsidising the rural consumers. I am quite certain from all the reports I have examined that the cost of installation and connection here is low in relation to the problem of connecting may scattered houses that are not grouped together in villages.

I am very glad to hear from the ESB that experts have come over to see how they do their rural electrification and that they have acquired valuable information on installation procedures. I recommend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.
Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 18th July, 1962.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.10 p.m. until 11 a.m. on Wednesday, 11th July, 1962.
Top
Share