On behalf of the Labour Party, I move:
That Dáil Éireann deplores the continuance by the Electricity Supply Board of the special service charges, and feels that the time has arrived when these charges should be abolished, thus removing this unfair burden on rural dwellers.
Many people may not be aware that the ESB are not prepared to connect certain houses in the country, not alone houses in the wild, mountainous parts but even houses within a very short distance of our cities and towns, unless a very high special service charge is paid by the house owner or occupier. The position is, in fact, that people living within a stone's throw of existing ESB installations have been, as recently as a few weeks ago, quoted as high as over £10 per two months of a special service charge in order to have a three-roomed county council cottage connected.
We in the Labour Party feel that while there might have been—we do not agree there was—some case to be made when rural electrification was being started for charging extra to those who were not immediately convenient to the areas being developed, we cannot at all agree that, in the year 1963, there is any justification whatever for charging an extra special service charge to persons because of the fact they do not live in an area which the ESB say can easily be serviced.
Let me give an example. We do not believe that because a person lives in Gormanston Camp, the centre of County Meath, in my constituency, he should be asked to pay £10 15s. per two months extra. We feel the people who live in such places are as much entitled to have the ESB current connected to their homes at a reasonable charge as those who live in the cities and towns. The question of whether or not there is any justification for what the local people call a ground rent, a meter rent, is a matter which might be decided here. However, it is not the issue to-night. We are not suggesting the meter rent should be done away with completely, but we are suggesting there is no longer—if there ever was—any justification for continuing to charge extra to people in order to give them the same facilities given to those living close to them or indeed far away from them.
The ESB is paid for in two ways. The people who use the current pay their two-monthly charge and they pay also a certain amount for the current used. It is true there are different charges—one for the town and city areas and a higher charge for the rural areas. There is a different charge for industry and for ordinary household use. While we agree there may be certain reasons for that, we do not think any case whatever can be made for the matter we complain about to-night. The fact that the whole burden of the ESB cost is not carried by the user makes the matter even worse, because the time comes when the general taxpayer is contributing a certain amount towards the running of the ESB.
It is true loans and grants were made available by various bodies down through the years for the purpose of developing the Shannon Scheme, and subsequently the electrification of towns and cities, and then rural electrification had to be put into effect.
As has been said in the debate on another Bill here to-night, we will remember, no matter how young we were at the time, the trumping around of the famous white elephant of the Shannon Scheme. Then it did not turn out to be a white elephant and everybody wants to claim responsibility for supporting it. Whether it was a white elephant or not, it certainly is very much so to the person who is asked to pay a high charge, or who is in fact refused service altogether if he happens to live in a place which the ESB consider is a little outside the area they are servicing.
Some very extraordinary situations have arisen as a result of this charge. When the ESB were planning their rural electrification schemes, they decided to do it in a certain way. They decided—and I do not quarrel with the experts' advice—to do certain areas in circles. The result was when four adjoining areas were done, there was what the ESB referred to as a pocket and the people who lived in that pocket were refused service. They were told that because of the fact that it would take so many extra poles to bring service to them, a very much higher charge than that being charged to their neighbours 100 yards up the road would be required.
We were under the impression last year when the Government decided to take a hand in this matter that practically all those pockets would be wiped out and those who were being asked to pay the high charge would then, or now, be able to get current at a normal charge. We and the people concerned are sadly disappointed when we find that very many of these people, far from getting the service at the normal charge, when they ask for a new quotation discover that in fact the charge has been increased, and in some cases, more than doubled. The quotation had been more than doubled and there did not seem to be any sense at all in the approach which the ESB had to the matter. When protests were made by the people concerned, and by public representatives, to the ESB local officials, they were informed that that was the regulation, that was the way it was laid down and the ESB could do nothing. If, however, they liked to apply for a grant, they could possibly get a £10 grant for the supply of bottled gas.
I took up a number of these cases, which I thought were a glaring example of injustice, with the Minister and he went to great pains to give me a very full reply. The reply consisted of two typed pages of foolscap in which he went into great detail about the matters of which I complained. He finished up with the gem that, of course, these people, if they still wanted current and could not afford to pay the charges, could apply for a £10 grant for bottled gas. One of the complaints I made was about five small dairy farmers who had been given farms by the Land Commission. Most of them were migrants to my constituency from the West. No matter how much we object to bringing them in, we treat them as if they were born and reared there. They asked me if there was any possibility of getting current for them at a reasonable charge. They gave the reason that they were dairy farmers and that they supplied milk to one of the dairies and had recently been informed that, unless they were able to instal cooling equipment, the dairy would be unable to continue taking their supplies. I explained this in detail to the Minister and I felt they should get the current at the normal charge. They were quoted what I and they consider to be a very exorbitant amount for the supply of current and those were some of the people who the Minister suggested should apply for a bottle gas grant.
I understand milk can be cooled by using bottled gas but I believe it is a very costly way of doing it. I do not believe it is done very widely in this country but I think it is radically wrong for a Minister of State to suggest that people who want electric current for many reasons, but mainly because they want to cool milk, should be asked to apply for a grant for bottled gas. We know there are inaccessible areas in this country. During the recent blizzard there were areas which some people said could not be reached by normal means. I saw on a TV programme where a lady was explaining—in one of these areas—that of course she was all right until the ESB current failed. In fact this good lady had ESB current out in the hills. That is as it should be. But surely if the current can be supplied in mountainous areas, it is not too much to ask that it should be supplied at a normal rate to those who live in the particularly level portion of the country.
I am referring again to places such as my constituency but I know it is not confined to my area. The same applies to practically every county in the Republic. People have asked for a quotation for ESB current again and again over the years and some years ago, it was the practice to promise that it would be "post-developed"— this was the expression used at the time. When the post-development was being carried out, they would be considered for connection at the normal rate. When this post-development work did not materialise and they asked again, they were told that they would possibly be able to get current at a higher charge than that being paid by their neighbours.
In the early years, the charge quoted was usually a couple of shillings more than the ordinary rate per two months. While a couple of shillings to a person of low wages or income in the country district is a lot of money, the ESB at the time did not seem to think that it mattered so much. As the years passed, for some reason or another, the amount those people were quoted seemed to increase more and more.
One of the peculiar circumstances about all this is that it is sometimes suggested that it is necessary to get a return from the connection which would compensate, over a period, the ESB for the cost of the connection. I am sure if that were applied to the connections being made all over the country, since the Shannon Scheme was first introduced, we would find very many areas that would not measure up to that requirement. This is sometimes used to justify the connection of a wealthy farmer's place, for instance, on the ground that he will use much more current for lighting, heating and machinery than the cottier who lives near him. While there is a certain amount to be said for that, it does not seem fair that the cottier with a big family has to depend on the old-fashioned lamp while his neighbour who is better off is able to get current.
I know of a recent case of a person in those circumstances who applied for ESB connection. He pointed out that the line passed within a very short distance of his home and he felt that there was no justification for charging him anything extra for connection. He was informed that it was not a service line and, therefore, it was not possible for him to get a connection from that line. The line from which he had to get connection was much further away and a figure was quoted which he just could not meet. Being a sensible man, he accepted the situation.
Shortly afterwards, a wealthy individual came to the area and bought a large house further away from this so-called service line. He re-decorated it and promptly got ESB current from that line. I do not know what justification there can be for that sort of thing. I have not the foggiest notion how any justification could be given for it, but this has been done. I have brought the matter to the notice of the Minister in a previous debate and I should like, if possible, to get an explanation as to how the ESB can do things like that.
I referred in a previous debate to the situation in certain areas near airports, particularly to the military airfield at Gormanston Camp. Here we have the electric light connected by overhead lines to the pylons in the camp. They have been connected for many years. I served there myself during the Emergency and we had electric light then. A number of the houses adjoining the Camp have also got electric light from overhead lines. Some of them have been informed that they cannot get electric current from the normal lines, that they will require to have underground cables, and the figure of £10 15s. which I quoted here is one which was quoted to the tenant of a county council cottage.
The extraordinary thing is that the reason given by the ESB for the extra charge was that the Department of Defence were insisting on the cables being run underground for safety reasons. We cannot quarrel with that. If they consider it necessary for safety reasons, it is necessary. However, a few yards from the Camp, there have been overhead cables for very many years. Nobody will suggest that it is dangerous for a plane to fly over a county council cottage to which electric wires are attached but not dangerous to fly over a hut in a military camp where there are wires attached. That seems to be the argument made by the ESB and by the Department of Defence in this case.
I believe that if it is at all possible, most of the electric wires should be run underground because the country is disfigured with these electric pylons and electric wires all over the place. If it is necessary for Gormanston to do that, surely the responsibility for extra demands should fall not on the unfortunate tenant of a cottage but on the Government Department. I feel this matter should be dealt with by this House. The Government should accept the motion. I would remind them that when the present Government were in opposition, they submitted a somewhat similar motion in the House, but it was not carried. There was a free vote on it. If it was right then, it is surely right now.
Everyone in the country should be treated on equal terms, and this is certainly one matter in which there should be equity. I can see no reason at all why I should have to pay—if I live in a certain district—anything from 3/- or 4/- up to £10 15s. per two months extra, while my neighbour who lives down the road only pays a normal service charge of something like 15/- or 16/-. The ESB and the Minister may feel that this situation has been allowed to continue for so long that there is no point in changing it now. Nobody has been kicking up a row about it: therefore it must not be improved. If the Minister requires written evidence from discontented people all over the country I shall be glad to let him have one or two complaints. Indeed, I have a very hefty file, built up over the past 12 months, of correspondence from people who were under the impression that the recent change in the ESB regulations would let them in at the normal charge, but who now find that they will have to pay as much as or maybe a little more than they would have had to pay if they had taken the current some time ago.
I do not want the Minister to get the impression that I am blaming him entirely. This is something which has been handed down from one Minister to another, from one Government to another. All the time, the ESB have been simply sailing along and when questioned about the matter, reply: "This is a Government regulation: there is nothing we can do about it."
