Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 29 Jan 1963

Vol. 199 No. 4

Private Members' Business. - ESB Special Service Charges: Motion (resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That Dáil Éireann deplores the continuance by the Electricity Supply Board of the special services charges, and feels that the time has arrived when these charges should be abolished, thus removing this unfair burden on rural dwellers.

—(Deputy Tully)

Mr. Pattison

I second the motion. It is generally agreed on all sides of the House that one of the greatest Acts passed by this Parliament was the rural electrification Act. That measure dealt with the provision of electricity for our rural community. It was decided to give to rural dwellers the amenity which was enjoyed by urban dwellers in the previous 20 years. Rural electrification was designed to benefit most those living in isolated areas—the small farmer, the cottier and the housewife.

It is now accepted that rural electrification is essential for the social and economic betterment of country life. The dependence of farmers and people in the country in general on electricity is quite obvious. It was illustrated in the recent bad weather when the ESB workers had to work night and day to maintain a supply to those people. In passing, I should say that great credit is due to those workers for the manner in which they kept a very necessary commodity in good supply to the people in rural Ireland. Conscious of these facts, we ask the support of the House for this motion.

We feel that anything that is beneficial to rural life is in the long run beneficial to the community as a whole. The special service charges are supposed to concern people in remote areas and people in areas whose neighbours did not or would not avail of the supply. From the numerous complaints Deputies receive from those people and also from people in not too remote places— places within 10 miles of Dublin City —we find that these special charges also affect them. The Labour Party had a similar motion on the Order Paper since about last November twelve months. We believe that, because of that motion and because of the numerous complaints which the Minister and his Department and the ESB have been receiving, the recent relief was given in the Budget.

That announcement in the Budget brought hope to many people. In practice, it has worked to the detriment of a great many more because not alone were some charges not reduced but they were considerably increased. The types of people most affected by these charges are cottiers, small farmers and the tenants of houses which are being erected from time to time, and which were not in existence when the particular area was being developed, as well as new tenants of houses.

Among the grievances which I have had to deal with was one from a man who had a cottage in an area and who, when it was being developed, accepted the supply. He got electrical gadgets in the house. After some time, he found he had to move house. He moved to an area which also was developed but the cottage to which he transferred was not connected. This man, who was a very good customer of the ESB, found himself penalised to the extent of a very heavy special charge. It is to these types of people that these charges refer. In general, we can take it that the low income groups are affected.

There are many reasons why this charge should be abolished. From 1927 up to 1947, when the rural electrification scheme was started—for those 20 years—the people in rural Ireland got no benefit whatsoever from the scheme. Even at present, there are people who, as taxpayers and as members of the community, are still contributing indirectly to the ESB, who are not getting any return for their money and who have little or no hope of getting any return for their money.

The fact that the consumption of electricity by rural dwellers is steadily increasing should also help to bring about the end of these charges. There is a bigger percentage of people in rural areas seeking supply and there is a bigger use of electricity for farm purposes — for milking machines, grinding machines, improved water schemes, and so on. There are prospects of further increases in electricity consumption in rural areas.

Just yesterday evening, I read in one of the evening newspapers that the ESB had quoted to connect a housing scheme in Drogheda. Having quoted their figure, they said that for each house which would instal an electric cooker they would deduct a sum of, I think, £27 10s. That illustrates the influence which an increase in the use of electricity should have on these special service charges. Definitely, there is an increase in electricity consumption.

I submit that the whole method of financing the scheme has led to a great deal of wastage. The House was recently informed that there were 112,000 unconnected dwellings in developed areas. Why were these unconnected in developed areas? We can take it it was because the charges quoted to those people were too high. They were so high as to be beyond what those people could pay or felt they could pay. Now it is decided, after the development of these areas and after workers have packed up and left these areas, to give an extra subsidy to help those people to become connected. The result we are told is that 77,000 of those people will benefit and that no special charge will be required from them.

That is a deplorable overlapping and wastage in the working of the rural electrification scheme. If that had been decided upon at the time the areas were being developed there would have been a far greater number of acceptances in the areas; there would have been a far greater amount of electricity being consumed since the areas were developed and in the long run the whole scheme would be much more economic. The ESB crews now have to go back to those areas, erect their workshops and go over all the work that was done in the last number of years. Even though it is late in the day to be doing it now it is better late than never and the benefits which those 77,000 people will get are very welcome. If it had been done at the time of the original development of those areas, however, there would be much more money now available to give the service to the remainder of the people at a reasonable charge.

The Minister told us recently that there were under consideration 17 uneconomic areas—he referred to them as uneconomic areas—and that there are about 6,000 dwellings in those areas, half of which will be connected at the normal charge and the other half of which will have to pay a varying special service charge. What will be the result of that? It will mean that 60 to 70 per cent. of those 6,000 dwellings will accept supply. It would be much more economic in the long run to offer the supply to the whole 6,000 dwellings without any special service charge rather than do it in years to come. The cost per installation is very reasonable and to bring the percentage up to what it is in other countries, up to 90 to 96 per cent. of rural dwellings, we should do away with those charges.

Apparently there are now 11,000 people paying those charges and if the recently announced subsidy has the desired effect, there will be 37,000 people paying those charges, that is, excluding 12,000 dwellings to which the £10 grant for bottled gas applies under the relevant section of the Act. There are 12,000 people who are almost completely disowned by the Government and by the ESB and told that the cost of connecting their premises is completely prohibitive. The people who live in those 12,000 dwellings have been taxpayers since 1927 and as long as those 12,000 dwellings are there, there will always be taxpayers living in them. It is not good enough completely to disown those people. The £10 subsidy for bottled gas is no compensation for them. There are 37,000 people paying varying special service charges and most of them have been paying them for some time and under the present regulation, their children and grandchildren will have to pay those charges. If those charges are designed to cover the cost of connecting the supplies from the nearest line to the house, we believe that after a certain time those charges should cease but that is not the position.

For those reasons and because people especially in remote areas, are in dire need of electricity, we ask support for this motion. Measures have been brought in here by the Minister for Agriculture and the Minister for Local Government to improve rural life. Some of these measures cannot be availed of unless the people have electricity connected to their premises. People cannot effectively avail of a group water scheme unless they have a supply, and when the cost of supply is prohibitive, people are very reluctant to take it, and it is only the very well-off people who can do so.

In regard to the 12,000 dwellings which are completely ignored, the position will eventually be that the farmers among those 12,000 will sell their holdings because they will not be able to brings their equipment and the working of the farms up to date. The people who will buy those places will be foreigners who will be able to afford these charges.

I notice that the ESB spent well over £100,000 on publicity last year. I presume that was spent to attract customers and to encourage increased consumption of electricity. If most of that money had gone on helping, say, the 3,000 dwellings in the 17 uneconomic areas, it would have been much more fruitful expenditure. I am sure that every Deputy has from time to time received complaints about these charges. We do our best to explain to the people the implications of these charges but the people still cannot see any justification for them, and we cannot see any justification for them either.

Minister for Transport and Power (Mr. Childers)

First of all, I should like to correct the impression about the origin of the rural electricity scheme. It was initiated and planned by a Fianna Fáil Government during the period 1943-46. Rural electrification actually started in 1946 and plans were laid down at that time.

Next, I should like to point out to the House that the taxpayer does not pay any subsidy to cover the normal operations of the ESB. They are a self-supporting body and the only burdens on the taxpayer are the charges required to bring about rural electrification, that is, the annual capital subsidy provided for this very excellent purpose.

Next, I think I should correct the statement made by the Deputy who suggested that 37,000 people were paying supplementary charges prior to the inauguration of the present scheme. In fact, there were 15,000 consumers of this category and of these the charges have now been abolished in the case of 3,000 and reduced in the case of the other 12,000.

On 31st March, the number of rural consumers was 280,000. To deal with the motion, I think I should point out, first of all, that the result of the increased subsidy has been that the ESB are getting a very greatly increased demand for connection. In October of 1962, the demand for rural connection was four times what it was in October of 1961, indicating that the number of people thinking of joining their houses to the network of the scheme is progressing satisfactorily.

If we are to debate this motion, we must have a clear understanding of the supplementary fixed charges and their place in the accountancy of the ESB. When the ESB connect urban or rural consumers to the network, they are liable for an annual expenditure in respect of, first, the servicing of the capital involved in the connection; secondly, the depreciation of the system; thirdly, its maintenance; and fourthly, for a sum to cover the overhead charges for accountancy and so forth. Those charges have to be met if no electricity at all is used, and before a single light is turned on in respect of any dwelling.

Most electricity authorities adopt two-part tariffs consisting of a fixed charge which meets the cost I have already indicated, and a unit charge which meets only the cost of providing power, the cost of generation. It has been found from long experience that that is the fairest way of allocating the charges among the various types of consumers with their varying incomes.

The level of the fixed charge in the rural districts is such that after excluding uneconomic connections, the receipts will meet the outgoings after taking account of the capital subsidy. In the case of premises where the income from the fixed charge falls short of the minimum return required by the ESB to make it a viable proposition, after they have taken account of the subsidy and of the surplus that arises in some connections, they add a supplementary charge.

The whole of the rural electricity system has been subject to a very serious annual loss which has been rising through the years. In other words, in spite of levying some supplementary charges on a percentage of the consumers, and in spite of all the current consumed, the rural electricity system was losing at a recent date some £700,000 per year and that had to be subsidised or, you might say, cross-subsidised by the urban consumers. It is true to say that, as the years go by, if the amount of current consumed increased very largely, that situation might alter.

I have noticed with great delight that the increase in the purchase of farm machinery and equipment of various kinds in the past two years has been of the order of anything from 40 to 100 per cent. Of course, when I say that, the total amount is so small still —we are starting from a very low basic figure of farm machinery utilised. Farm machinery power consumption is growing but will have to grow for a long time before there will be any likelihood of the urban consumer ceasing to subsidise the rural consumer.

I do not think it is possible to ask the urban consumer to go any further in the direction of subsidisation. I should say that one of the complications in this is the fact that the subsidy for rural electrification was abolished by the Coalition Government in 1955 and was only re-established in 1958. That resulted in a loss of income to the ESB of about £529,000 a year. I read through the debate that took place here in 1955 on a motion moved by Deputy McQuillan in which he called on the Government to abolish all service charges and I find that Deputies in the Fianna Fáil Party took the attitude then that, if the Government really thought they could abolish the subsidy, it would be ridiculous to ask the rural consumers to pay any extra service charges.

Mr. Tully

They said a little more than that.

Mr. Childers

That was Deputy Lemass's point at the time. It was also Deputy Blaney's point. I notice, in connection with that debate, that the Labour Party voted against Deputy McQuillan's motion.

Mr. Tully

The Minister did not notice anything else, did he? We will remind him of a few things he missed in a few minutes.

Mr. Childers

I have read the debate and that was the whole point made by the Fianna Fáil Deputies.

Mr. Tully

The Minister did not see Deputy Lemass's statement.

Mr. Childers

Deputy Lemass's attitude was that, if you could afford to abolish the subsidies, then you could also afford to abolish the special service charges.

Mr. Tully

What did he say he would do if he came back again?

Mr. Childers

He said he would abolish the special charges, but he had no idea at that time of what the mounting liability would be. He could not possibly tell.

Mr. Tully

The Minister should not make excuses.

Mr. Childers

He was very quickly made aware of the financial position, however, when in 1956, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Deputy Norton, increased the charges for electricity, having quite clearly declared in the previous period that it would not be necessary to do so; within a very short period, indeed, there was an increase in the unit charges.

Mr. Tully

And Fianna Fáil promptly reduced them when they came back into office again.

Mr. Childers

There was an increase in the unit charges to meet the results of the mishandling of the whole business, as I have said.

Mr. Tully

That is all cod.

Mr. Childers

Next, I should point out that the capital subsidy has been increased from 50 to 75 per cent with the provision that there is a maximum expenditure of £75 on each dwelling. As a result of this, a much larger number of householders will be able to secure supply without paying any special charges. I have heard no word of that from the Deputies who moved this motion. Before the Act was passed increasing the subsidy, there were 54,000 persons who could secure supply without special charges. Now there are 77,000. In addition, there are 23,000 households whose connection can be secured with charges of up to 50 per cent., but in many cases it will be very much less than 50 per cent.

I want to give an idea to the House of what that subsidy means where it is required and where the figure does not exceed 50 per cent. The electricity charges for a typical county council cottage amount to 14/- per two months, or 1/8d. per week. A typical usage of electricity is 300 units a year, at 3d. per unit, making a total charge per two months of £1 6s. 6d., or 3/2d. per week. If there is a supplementary charge of 25 per cent, then that is an extra of some 3/6d. per two months, or 5d. per week. If the supplementary charge is 50 per cent, the addition for a typical county council cottage is 7/- per two months, or 10d. per week. In respect of that particular group of consumers, it cannot be said that the additional charge, whether it be 25 per cent or 50 per cent, is a very burdensome one. It obviously means something to the household budget but, nevertheless, in relation to modern wages, no one could say that the addition of 5d. or 10d. per week, according to whether it is 25 or 50 per cent., is an excessive or a crushing burden upon the householder.

I mention that because I do not want the House to feel that these 23,000 consumers, or those amongst them who are persons of very modest income, would be in the position that this could in many cases make the difference between their taking power and not taking power, having regard to the increase involved. I would say that, if they could not take power, it would be because they could not afford the basic figure anyway or because they felt, in relation to the way they lived, that they would not want to afford the basic figure. I do not think the extra could make it impossible for them to have their houses connected with the system.

Mr. Tully

They are just peasants!

Mr. Childers

If we take the 77,000 people who will not have to pay any supplementary charges and the 23,000 who will pay a very moderate supplementary charge, the total becomes 100,000. There are then only 12,000 consumers left in the developed areas, and these 12,000 will be asked to pay 100 per cent. or more service charge. I am advised by the ESB that, in respect of the very great majority of those, it is unlikely that they would take connection. Under the previous system, in relation to the small number of cases in which charges have been increased beyond that, because there is a limit of £75 per household in the Act, only in a very small number of cases would these people have taken power anyway, so I doubt if we have made the position very much worse in respect of the majority of them.

If the whole of the 100,000 households take connection, that will mean virtually 96 per cent. of the population will have power, which is a figure that compares very satisfactorily with the figures to be found in other northern European countries. We shall have achieved the almost complete rural electrification of the country, counting urban and rural consumers. I think that is a reasonable aspiration and a reasonable target at which to aim. In relation to the national income, to the need for growth in industrial development and the need for capital for all the purposes for which it is required, to aspire to 96 per cent. connection is, I think, something of which we can be proud. I am perfectly prepared to defend it at any time.

Next, I want to deal with the 12,000 dwellings which will have to pay 100 per cent., or over, special charges. The average cost for connecting these dwellings is, I understand, about £200 per dwelling. That is a very heavy cost and we decided that it would be better in the circumstances to offer these people a £10 grant for bottled gas; that would cover a considerable part of the cost of installation. In regard to the 100,000 houses, the total cost will be £9,000,000, of which no less than £6,000,000 will be subsidy. If all the houses in the country were connected, and supplementary charges eliminated, the cost would be up to £11,000,000. Even if we decided to connect all the dwellings of the country without making special service charges, there are some 3,000 of the 12,000 where the cost would be no less than £300 per dwelling and there would be a loss even after that to the ESB in respect of their connection.

It is too much to expect the taxpayer to pay for the connection of every isolated house in the community. We would be asking too much. I should say that the abolition of the special service charges would cost twice as much in subsidy as the subsidy required to secure the connection of the 100,000 houses to which I have already referred. Again, as I have said, we must establish some upward limit of costs somewhere. It is impossible to do everything to the limit of 100 per cent. in a growing community where there are such tremendous demands for capital and I think it would be wrong to ask the taxpayer to accept that burden, a very, very heavy burden, for a comparatively few houses.

I should also say that, again excepting the 12,000 houses, in respect of a great number of the 23,000 dwellings which have to pay some extra service charge, the extra will not reach the figure of 50 per cent. and from my own experience as a Deputy I find that a great many people are accepting the small supplementary charge in that group of householders. In my view, to describe these generous arrangements as an unfair burden on rural dwellers is really ridiculous, an abuse of the meaning of the word, and irresponsible.

Deputies are perfectly entitled to criticise anything my Department does. I do not blame anybody who looks for perfection and it is quite natural to ask in the course of a motion why we cannot do the whole job absolutely perfectly. My answer is, as I have said, the extra cost of subsidy for this group of 12,000 would be prohibitive in relation to all the other kinds of assistance the Government give, in relation to the housing grants, grants for farm buildings, grants for industry. If we look at the whole panoply of grants, the vast majority of which were initiated by the present Government at one time or another, it would seem to me we are doing, relatively speaking, a good job in securing the connection in time of 96 per cent. of all the dwellings of the country.

I might add in that connection that the cost of rural electrification is extremely moderate. Statistics prepared by the United Nations have to be looked at with reserve in this sense that when you compare costs of rural electrification you are simply using a common currency with which to compare them. All I can say from looking at the figures published by the United Nations is that the ESB is doing a very good job at very reasonable cost, particularly allowing for the fact that, with Sweden, we are the most unvillaged community in the whole of Northern Europe. We have lesser formation of villages and hamlets than any other community in Northern Europe, with the Swedes. Bearing in mind that fact, I think the costs as I know them of rural electrification are as low as they could be expected to be and I do know that there have been people coming over to our country to find out from the ESB the technical methods involved in carrying out rural electrification and they have been able to get a good deal of useful advice.

I should say in reply to Deputy Tully that although I have sympathy with the people who live adjacent to Gormanston Camp, as I have already said, that is a matter for the Department of Defence in so far as security measures have to be taken in relation to overhead cables. The extra cost of putting electric cable underground is very, very high indeed and in relation to anything that is done under town planning in future the authority concerned will have to bear in mind the cost. I would hope that there will be greater investigation in the future, particularly by those who are building industrial estates, to see whether they could not provide underground cables where there are a large number of houses being constructed together. I hope there will be more co-ordination in the future, particularly under the operations of the new Town Planning Bill if it passes this House, but we have to bear in mind that while, if the whole scheme is planned in advance, the extra cost of underground cabling may not be as much as it would be if it were done piecemeal, nevertheless there is an extra cost involved. While I sympathise with what Deputy Tully said about looking at a village in Meath from the sea and seeing how the electric poles spoil the horizon, the cost element is still there. I hope there will be some helpful solution to it later but I can see there will be difficulties and any extra cost has to be paid for by somebody, either by the taxpayer in general in the form of greater subsidies or in the form of rents by the householders concerned. I think it would have to be looked at very carefully.

Deputy Tully also spoke of some firms in County Dublin where there was a question of milk cooling.

Mr. Tully

County Meath.

Mr. Childers

County Meath. I understand it is possible to undertake milk cooling using gas but I am not going to go into the technical details.

Mr. Tully

Can we say that it would be a gas way?

Mr. Childers

I am told it is not over-costly and that if the firm is a fairly well established one and it is worth having that equipment, the cost of the diesel motor plus the gas cooling equipment is not so great as to prevent the operation of milk cooling. Perhaps Deputy Tully might ask his constituents to consider that, if they have not done so already.

Mr. Tully

They have. It simply means the motor is used for pumping water up so that it may be poured on the milk.

Mr. Childers

There may be some difficulties there.

Mr. Tully

It is very primitive, I am afraid.

Mr. Childers

The main point is, the ESB have always been fair in their application of charges. I am sure Deputies have had a great deal of experience in checking the ESB supplementary charges, sometimes very small, sometimes large. The very careful methods used in assessing, show absolute impartiality all over the country, are a great credit to the ESB and show there can be no possible question of political influence arising in regard to this matter. Indeed, in my experience I have very rarely found they have made miscalculations. The calculation is based on a rigid principle: They decide they must get a return of so much per cent. on the total of the annual costs which I have already given the House and after allowing for the subsidy, if they cannot get that percentage, they then add a supplementary charge to the point where they then are able to receive the minimum required.

In the present scheme, the percentage now is 4.7 and no one can dispute it or suggest that some officer was prejudiced in some way. As a result, the scheme has progressed very satisfactorily.

I would ask the House to regard this motion in a reasonable light. As I have said, we are doing a fairly good job. I would be delighted if I could announce a scheme which would satisfy every single person in the community but I do not think I am likely to. I do not believe any Minister following me is ever likely to satisfy everybody. While I quite understand the reasons why this motion was framed, we must not allow unusual cases of additional charges being made to create anomalous argument. We have to take into account the fact that in this country there were, at 31st March, 1962, 363,000 urban consumers and 279,000 rural consumers and that the people who are the subject of this complaint number only some 12,000 and they are all, as I said, in exactly the same position in regard to their isolation from the main system. They are more distant from the main system than those who do not have to pay charges and they are being treated more than fairly, in the sense that there is no prejudice against them. The basis is the established system of charging and I do not think we should exaggerate this matter.

I hope every Deputy will encourage local organisations, and Muintir na Tíre, the ICA and Macra na Feirme, to encourage people to apply to join the network as quickly as possible because the more people who apply in an area, the cheaper it is for the ESB to make a connection and the less burden there will be on the consumers in the area. I would also ask all Deputies to encourage the farming community to make enquiries from the ESB in regard to electrical equipment. The growth in the use of electrical equipment has been so rapid that it must have been found to be productive and economic to a great many farmers and the more quickly that consumption grows, the better will be the economics of rural electrification on the whole.

Mr. Donegan

I have listened to the Minister with some interest on this question of special charges. There is one type of special charge he has not mentioned, that is, the special charge involved where the ESB seeks a contribution from a local authority when they wish to provide services for a new building scheme. It is something which has been paralleled all over Ireland, that where a local authority has a gas works of its own, the ESB demand a special charge and where the local authority has no gasworks, there is no special charge. In Drogheda Corporation, of which I am a member, the whole matter is being discussed and fought at the moment and I seek not to abuse or criticise the ESB but perhaps to introduce a spirit of amelioration or some sort of compromise into the negotiations.

The whole thing was brought into the open when the ESB said that unless the Drogheda Corporation refrained from putting gas cookers in 100 odd houses we had built, they would demand a special charge of over £8,000. The Minister and the House know enough about local government finance and housing finance to realise what that means. It means higher rents which must be passed on. If it does not mean that, it means higher rates. We can take our pick which way we charge. It seems extraordinary that a housing estate right beside the town and beside heavy cables, and which eventually over the next five or ten years will be an estate of 500 houses—a fact which is known to the Government and to the ESB—should have a special charge levied on it of £8,000 just because we have a gasworks.

I want to make it quite clear that we in Drogheda do not regard the gasworks, the property of the Corporation and therefore of the citizens, as a dying concern. To ensure that it is not a dying concern, we have spent, or are in the process of spending, £60,000 on a new wharf, on a new retort which is at present working and on machinery in order to provide cheap and good gas for the people. It is quite extraordinary to me and quite impossible to believe that the argument which the ESB put forward in this case, namely, that if they do not get the opportunity to have a number of cookers in this built-up area, the revenue will be such as not to merit electrification without a special charge, is a proper argument. It would not appear to me that there is any parallel between giving me electric light in a house I am building 300 yards from the nearest source of supply, without an extra charge and the giving to 500 houses in one block beside the power lines a new service and a new supply —and I will not have an electric cooker.

This has been paralleled in Kilkenny and in Clonmel and it cannot be tolerated if we are to allow a company sponsored by the Government, with Government funds, to proceed to give an essential service to the community. If perhaps I have been too hard on the ESB, I want to say that what I am trying to do is to introduce a compromise and I want to make this plea that in high places, at the very top, this will be looked into. I have deliberately refrained from putting down questions about this to the Minister for Transport and Power. He had better look at it and discuss it with the ESB so that this extraordinary anomaly can be straightened out.

Mr. Childers

I can have it examined but it is not really part of this motion, which deals with rural dwellers.

Mr. Donegan

On a point of order, Sir, I would ask you to rule whether or not a special service charge to Drogheda Corporation in respect of Ballsgrove Estate is or is not——

Mr. Childers

This is entirely a question of rural dwellers.

Mr. Donegan

I would ask you, a Cheann Comhairle, to rule me out of order if——

Mr. Tully

The Minister does not know where Ballsgrove is. He has never visited it.

Mr. Donegan

I place myself completely in your hands, Sir, and I am trying to help. This is something affecting the rents of 500 people in the next five years and 100 odd people at the moment.

An Ceann Comhairle

This motion seeks that "these charges should be abolished ...

Mr. Donegan

And I wish to have this special charge abolished.

An Ceann Comhairle

... thus removing this unfair burden on rural dwellers."

Mr. Donegan

You can decide whether or not the people of Ballsgrove are rural or not.

An Ceann Comhairle

The word "rural" has a very definite meaning.

Mr. Tully

I think, Sir, you are being unfair to Deputy Donegan.

Mr. Donegan

I accept your ruling——

Mr. Tully

It is out in the country.

Mr. Donegan

——but I think I have made it clear to the House that 500 houses in one block are an economic unit to the ESB, whether or not there are electric cookers in them and that the comparison is quite incorrect, and that this sort of unfair competition with Government funds against the money and the enterprise of the ratepayers is something that must be stopped. I appeal to the Minister and the ESB to see that it is stopped.

Mr. Tierney

I should like to support this motion which has been put down by my Party as it is essential that we give a service to the people in rural Ireland. The Minister made the point that the ESB are very courteous. I can say that in any dealings I had with them, as far as replying to correspondence goes, they were very courteous, but when it came to trying to get them to take off something, perhaps a special charge or an extra charge on some poor person, I was never able to make any headway.

When the ESB began the rural electrification programme, local branches of Macra na Feirme and the National Farmers' Association went about in groups and canvassed their parishes and submitted lists of names to the ESB. If we got between 75 and 85 per cent., the ESB would consent to take over the area and give a service. We went wholeheartedly into that with the ESB officers and in some cases we got almost 100 per cent. of the people willing to accept and pay for the service they were offered. But when the ESB actually laid out the scheme, we found it was a different service from that which the ESB officer in the parish had indicated when canvassing and the charge was a different one.

I could name areas where houses were inspected and measured as houses in a group making up a number willing to accept electricity but when the ESB came to instal the current, they by-passed many of these houses. I can understand the Minister's point of view in regard to people who refused the supply at first or where the ESB could not at the time take over the area, but where they did take over an area and supplied little more than threequarters of it and then came back in six or nine months and put an extra charge on the people they by-passed previously, I think it is very unfair. These people should get the same service as those connected six or 12 months earlier.

In North Tipperary, we find that in cases where a labourer's cottage is less than 40 yards, or in some cases only 30 yards, from the nearest ESB transformer, the ESB have quoted £40, £50 or £60 for providing light for the cottier. These are matters that could easily be remedied without imposing a big financial burden on those who pay through the ESB. The burden should be spread over the whole population.

The Minister made, I think, a very good point in calling on farmers to use more machinery and thus more current but most farmers in my area have to pay a very heavy special service charge as many of them live on by-roads and were by-passed. Some of them have been called upon and asked if they would buy out the line completely for £600 or £700 cash down. After about 12 months' negotiation, the ESB have agreed to put in the line and put a service charge on these people which makes it impossible for them to use much current, seeing that they have to pay a very heavy bi-monthly charge. Even though the light is very cheap, the ground rent, so to speak, is so heavy that it leaves little room for further expenditure. Many people would be inclined to use more electricity, if it were not for that charge.

The Minister, I think, said there were actually only 12,800 paying the extra special service charge——

Mr. Childers

There were 15,000: 3,000 have been abolished and there are now 12,000, most of them reduced somewhat.

Mr. Tierney

I think, on his statement, the Minister should accept this motion because if there are only 15,000 people involved, it would not put any great strain on the Government or even on the people as a whole to abolish the special service charge.

Mr. Childers

That was before the introduction of the Bill.

Mr. Tierney

How many would it be after that?

Mr. Childers

If they all took it, there would be a total of 35,000, including the present number.

Mr. Tierney

Even 35,000 would not still mean a very heavy charge on the ESB. When the ESB started, we were told they were a non-profit making concern, that they would plough back into the service any profits earned. The Minister said they were running at a loss at present. Is that not hard to understand, especially for country people, when they can read the papers and see where the ESB propose to demolish the whole side of a street to provide a new building? It is hard to understand where the profits from the rural dwellers are going. Certainly, they are not going back into the service.

The average small farmer's light bill is only 12/6d. but his special charge is £2 10. 0. That man is paying the ESB more than his rent and rates amount to and he will not use any more current when he has to meet that charge. It would not break the country or the Government or the ESB if the special charge were abolished for these 35,000 people.

In December, 1955, Deputy McQuillan brought in a private member's motion in relation to rural electrification charges and I think he made a wonderful case. He was very ably supported by many Members of the House. Deputy Hilliard, who is now a Minister, seconded the motion calling for the abolition of the special charge and the present Taoiseach made a very good speech. In the Official Report for 8th February, 1956, at column 169, he said:

Why should the ESB supply one rural dweller with electricity at a loss and refuse to supply another unless he pays something towards the minimisation of the loss?

I could understand such a statement from a man who had never been a Minister and who would not know the workings of the ESB but this was a speech by the present Taoiseach who was supporting Deputy McQuillan and he charged, rightly or wrongly, that the inter-Party Government had withdrawn some subsidy. It was after the subsidy was withdrawn that he made the statement. He said to the ESB: "Your job is to give a supply of electricity at a uniform rate of charge to every rural dweller and to carry the cost." He went on to say:

There is no justification for it. So far as I am concerned, I will give an undertaking that if ever again I become Minister for Industry and Commerce, I will abolish it forthwith as unjustifiable and immoral. I hope Deputy McQuillan will put this amendment to the House and divide the House on it because it is entirely wrong to maintain that extra charge in the circumstances in which the subsidy was abolished. How much would it cost? Is it not a mere bagatelle in relation to the charges you put on the ESB last year?

Dr. Browne

Read it for them again in case they did not hear it.

Mr. Childers

On a point of order, I do not think the then Deputy Lemass should be misquoted. On 8th February, 1956, at column 169 of the Official Report, he said:

I will abolish it forthwith as unjustifiable and immoral. I hope Deputy McQuillan will put this amendment to the House and divide the House on it because it is clearly entirely wrong to maintain that extra charge in the circumstances in which the subsidy was abolished. How much would it cost? Is it not a mere bagatelle in relation to the charges you put on the ESB last year by abolishing the subsidy?

That is a perfectly clear explanation of what he said.

Mr. Tully

The Minister must have been down in Waterford along with the Parliamentary Secretary. He caught a few red herrings down there and this is one of them. However, it does not alter the situation.

Mr. Childers

I am quoting from Deputy Lemass, as he then was, in this House.

Mr. Tully

He said he definitely would abolish it, if ever he was Minister for Industry and Commerce again.

Mr. Childers

On a point of order, does the Deputy deny what I said? He made it perfectly clear in relation to the subsidy.

Mr. Tully

He said it was a mere bagatelle.

Mr. Childers

That £8,000,000 had to be found in three years?

Mr. Tully

He said it was a mere bagatelle in relation to the subsidy.

Mr. Childers

He did not. I will not have the Taoiseach misquoted.

Mr. Tierney

The then Deputy Lemass was speaking about the Bill. He said:

There is no justification for it. So far as I am concerned, I will give an undertaking that if ever again I become Minister for Industry and Commerce——

Deputy McGilligan interrupted to say: "That is easy", and the then Deputy Lemass went on:

——I will abolish it forthwith as unjustifiable and immoral. I hope Deputy McQuillan will put this amendment to the House and divide the House on it.

Am I correct in that, Sir?

Mr. Childers

Why does the Deputy not continue a little further?

Mr. Tierney

Going down further through this, I find that a big percentage of Fianna Fáil Deputies made able contributions supporting what this motion of the Labour Party now seeks. Many Deputies, who became Ministers subsequently, told the Government of the day that it was unjust to put this charge on the rural population. I went down to the voting list and I found that Deputy Aiken, Deputy Blaney, Deputy Brennan, Deputy Eamon de Valera, Deputy Lemass, Deputy Lynch, Deputy MacEntee, Deputy Ryan, Deputy Smith all voted to have the special charge abolished. Surely what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander?

Mr. N. Lemass

Did you not vote the other way?

Mr. Tierney

I did not vote at all.

Mr. N. Lemass

The Labour Party?

Mr. Tierney

I was not in the Labour Party at that time. Considering that all the leading members of the Fianna Fáil Party, including the present Taoiseach, supported Deputy McQuillan's motion at that time, I would appeal to the Government to accept this motion. I do not see how they can now tell the people they have changed their minds. What was good for rural Ireland when they were in opposition is now apparently bad.

Mr. McLaughlin

Deputies find themselves being continually approached by constituents to have supplies of electricity extended to various groups who have been forgotten up to now or refused a supply. I have a small notebook in my pocket containing the names of about ten people on whose behalf I had to go to the offices in Sligo to ask to have the special service charge reduced. In some cases, the charge had been almost doubled on those people. They refused to pay it, because small farmers in my constituency could not possibly meet such a demand. I would appeal to the Minister to give a supply to people who are within a stone's throw of those who already have the current but who find that they cannot get it. I do not think it would make all that difference if an effort were made to extend the supply, particularly where there are groups of four or five and sometimes up to nine families, as there are in the Sligo and Manorhamilton areas where I can point out groups of nine families most anxious to get supplies.

It is easy to understand why such people refused to accept current at the beginning. Some unfortunate farmers thought the price demanded for current was too high. They refused to take it and that was responsible for depriving many others in these areas of current. All those people are now most anxious to get the current and if they made a mistake originally, the Minister should overlook it now and provide them with supplies. Had I more time I could give figures but I shall finish by pointing out the advantage of current in these areas of dwindling population. Young farmers with families, and others in outlying areas, would find life on the land much more attractive if they had the advantage of electric current.

Mr. Tully

The fact that this is the second motion of its kind within a few years has been referred to during the debate and since the Minister commented on a quotation by Deputy Tierney from the Official Report, I should like to continue that quotation. It is from column 169 of the Official Report for 8th February, 1956. We have Deputy Crotty saying: "We did not put them on"—I assume he was referring to the special charges. Then the present Taoiseach continued

This pretence that we can only get a rough estimate is nonsense. If you telephone the ESB now, they can tell you the exact amount that came in last year in respect of extra charges and they can give you the estimate for this year, too. I say that the only reason why the Parliamentary Secretary will not name the amount is because he is ashamed to do so. The amount is so small, in relation to the charges they put on the ESB, that he would not humiliate his Government by mentioning them.

According to that, the amount must be very small in relation to the amount by which the subsidies had been reduced. It was alleged there was a charge of £250,000 a year on the ESB because of the renewal of the levy. If it were only a small amount, a fraction of the £250,000, I do not know what the Minister is worrying about. Deputy Lemass was not the only person who was very much in favour of passing Deputy McQuillan's motion. Deputy P. J. Burke went a little further and at column 64 of the Official Report for 5th July, 1955, he said:

I wish to protest strongly against the special charges that the ESB are making in respect of a number of people in my constituency. Quite recently, I put down a question in the House about these extra, special charges. I maintain that these charges are totally against the spirit of the Rural Electrification Act. It is completely wrong. I go further and say that these people should be refunded the money that they have been charged by way of special charges and that they should be put on the same basis of charge as applies in the case of other people who have availed of rural electrification. This discrimination is unfair and, as I have said, it is diametrically opposed to the spirit of the Rural Electrification Act.

If Deputy Burke and Deputy Lemass thought then that it was wrong to have these special charges, I feel sure they have not changed their minds and that, when the division bell rings, they will troop into the Lobby with the Labour Party to support the proposal that the special charges be done away with. Perhaps the Minister himself will accept the fact that the special charges, in the circumstances, can no longer be sustained and that if they are only a fraction of £250,000, the easiest thing to do is to get rid of them completely.

The Minister corrected Deputy Pattison, saying his figures were wrong. Deputy Pattison had quoted some figures given by the Minister here last year. The figures given by the Minister then—he can check them immediately—were that 11,000 were at that time paying special service charges and 26,000 others, if they accepted, would have to pay the special charges. That is a total of 37,000, not 35,000. In addition, there are 12,000 who will have to pay a prohibitive special charge if they accept and all that would affect 50,000 dwellings, not 11,000 as the Minister said when he was speaking.

The Minister made a point about whether or not bottled gas was the answer to the problem of people being asked to pay a prohibitive charge, since reference was made to people being asked to pay two or three times the normal charge. I cited the case, and I do so again, of somebody living beside Gormanston Camp in a council cottage of three rooms where overhead aerials are the order of the day. Yet that man is being asked to pay a special charge of £10 15s. That kind of thing cannot be breezed away. The Minister said bottled gas is possibly the answer. If bottled gas is the answer, will the Minister say how many people have applied for bottled gas subsidies since their introduction? Is it not correct to say that very few people have availed of the £10 offer? Is it not true to say that not alone do the people concerned consider it to be absolutely useless, but that the bottled gas companies themselves consider it to be of very little assistance to them in selling their commodity since the Minister's scheme is not encouraging anybody to take bottled gas?

Not alone does that apply to the islands off the extreme southern and western coasts but it applies equally in Counties Meath, Dublin, Kildare and all around. I asked the Minister a question recently and he gave me the slick answer that because details of the subsidies would not be supplied by the firms concerned until the end of the financial year, he could not say how many had applied. I said that if he wanted to give me the answer he could easily have asked the firms concerned what the figures were, that he would not have to write them down because such a small number were affected he could very easily have given me the information on the spot. It suited him better to say he would have to get the information.

Mr. Childers

It is much more satisfactory on the islands.

Mr. Tully

I shall not quarrel with the Minister. He cannot always be wrong.

Debate adjourned.