I have read the script. The notetakers are very accurate. We do not always get exactly what is said. Perhaps it is just as well. The position about the whole matter is that time and again over the years, this matter has been referred to by Deputies and in every case the Deputies speaking to the motion are able to make separate points and to refer to instances which they themselves know of people who have to pay charges which they should not have to pay.
The Minister says that, as a result of legislation passed last year, everybody, with the exception of about 12,000 people—and again let me remark on a comment which the Minister made — because of how 12,000 people lived—I assume he meant because of where they lived— would be unable to get current at a reasonable charge and that, therefore, it was assumed they would not have a connection with the ESB.
I do not entirely agree with the Minister. I can understand in the case of somebody who lives ten, 15 or 20 miles across the mountain away from the ordinary ESB connections, that it may be difficult to justify connection at a reasonable charge, despite the fact that the then Deputy Lemass said that it was right that they should have these connections. Even though I agree it might be difficult to connect them to the ordinary services, I still cannot see how the fact that those people, who are living almost beside the ordinary ESB connections, the people, across whose land the ESB lines are running, who live within half a mile of a village which is lighted by electricity, cannot have ESB current without a special service charge.
I am afraid the Minister seems to have got the idea that all those who are being left out are people who live in the back of beyond. That is a matter which he and his Department must look into, and look into quickly. There is a growing feeling of resentment that the people who live in the centre of an area which is serviced will find they cannot get a supply unless they pay an exorbitant charge.
There is another type of person also left out—and I think it is one of the greatest scandals of the whole lot— that is, the person who builds a house in an area which is serviced by the ESB. If that house had been in existence when it was originally being serviced, the owner would have got current at the normal charge, as all his neighbours did. He builds a house in that area. In spite of the fact that everybody else in the area has got the current at the normal charge, he is told he cannot have it unless he pays an exorbitant service charge.
I have been reminded of the position of council cottage tenants, people who have had new houses built for them. The county council take sites where they can get them in a reasonably suitable place, and it is only after the houses have been built, after some of them have been wired at a cost either to the local authority or to the tenants themselves, that the ESB say they cannot have current unless they pay something which may appear small but which is in fact a high proportion of the wages paid to the people living in those houses.
I was under the impression when the motion was being introduced that we were pushing an open door, that the Minister would see the virtue of it because it had got not alone support in the lobbies but a volume of support from members of his Party and the Government before that and that we would have no difficulty at all in having the motion accepted by the Minister.
Before I conclude, I would ask the Minister to reconsider the matter. This is something which as stated by the present Taoiseach in 1956 must be a matter which would cost the ESB very little. The reference was made again and again during that debate to the fact that it would cost only a fraction of the subsidy of £250,000. This was stated by the Taoiseach who must have had his figures correct—a fraction of that figure. If it were only a fraction of that amount, then the amount would be less now because the Government have included very many people then left out. Would the Minister not consider that these people should now be protected?
Reference has been made again and again by the Minister and indeed by the ESB to the fact that those who were "outside the Pale," those who could not get current, could apply for a £10 subsidy for bottled gas. That has been discussed at various levels and I have had communications from one of the agents of bottled gas pointing out what can be done. I am aware that the bottled gas at the present time is a very economical way of lighting, heating and cooking. I am also aware that if the present system of bottled gas had been introduced before rural electricity was introduced, we would not have rural electricity being developed in the way it is today. You cannot run a radio or television on bottled gas. For that reason, people will, if it is suitable, have everything else. They will still want those amenities and they will be entitled to ask for them. Is it unreasonable, in view of the fact that the ESB can now, at a nominal charge go to £75 towards the cost of the installation of electricity in a house, to ask why should the bottled gas subsidy be confined to a grant of £10? If you are already using bottled gas, you cannot take advantage of the £10 subsidy and if at some future date, you decide to instal electricity, you must return the £10. If that is not a grant with strings tied on it in every direction, I do not know what it is. Therefore, before the Minister takes a hasty decision on this, he should go into the matter with the ESB and see to it that, perhaps, if not all, at least most of the people who could be connected at a reasonable cost will have that connection made as soon as possible.
