When speaking on this Bill last night, I reminded the Minister that it was only last August that he had been to the House with a similar Bill in relation to the capital requirements of the ESB and that the fact that he was coming back within such a short time showed, perhaps, in one respect that there was some degree lacking in the planning that might have been done at that time. On the other hand, however, it does show that what was described some 35 years ago by the Tánaiste and Minister for Health as a baby elephant was, in fact, a thriving baby and that piece of elephantine stupidity by Deputy MacEntee, as he then was, is now characterised for what it was worth.
The Minister last night, in his introductory speech, made reference to rural electrification, though in fact, as he said himself, rural electrification was not covered by the terms of this Bill. The position in relation to rural electrification, as I was developing last night, is that there are two methods of dealing with the contributions necessary to ensure that those people in the less populated areas are able to obtain adequate supply or, indeed, any supply of electric current. One approach is that it is better for the taxpayers to meet the additional cost and, indeed, that is the method Fianna Fáil have put into operation. The other approach is that in relation to the widespread use of electricity, it is just as fair as imposing an additional charge on the taxpayers to impose an additional charge on the other users to make certain that their less fortunate brethren will be able to get supply. We chose the latter approach. Whether one chooses one approach or the other from the point of view of overall financing of the Board, it does not in any way affect, and never did affect, the position as regards the method by which the Electricity Supply Board would make the services available to the consumer. The ultimate cost to the consumer in a rural area would remain the same, regardless of whether one method of financing the Board itself or the other was adopted.
The Taoiseach when on this side of the House promised faithfully that if ever he moved back on to the Government side, he would abolish the special service charges and make certain that there were no special service charges in operation. Of course, when he got into power, he found that that was an entirely rash promise, that it was a promise that nobody could possibly hope to fulfil and, instead of being man enough to say that he had been mistaken, he tried to cover it up and gave the present Minister for Transport and Power instructions on a recent occasion to endeavour to cover it up also. The fact, of course, is that it was an irresponsible statement, made solely for the purpose of a political attack on the then Government, as everybody knew at the time. It was just as irresponsible as was the attack made on Deputy Norton as Minister for Industry and Commerce when he said that it was better in 1956-57 to taper off slightly and not to wind up all the rural electrification connections in that particular year with consequent hardship for the teams of men and staff that were involved.
Looking back over it now, it is perfectly clear that the decision he took at that time was correct. In fact, in the year ended 31st March, 1956, 34,257 consumers were connected. In the year for which he was attacked, 34,627 rural consumers were connected, more, in fact, than in the previous year, and since then the number has been tapering down, and correctly tapering down, to 17,000 in 1958, 15,000 in 1959 and 14,000 in 1960. As I say, looking back on the records as they are there now, as apart from estimates, it is perfectly clear that the decision then taken by Deputy Norton and for which he was so bitterly attacked by the Fianna Fáil Party was absolutely the right decision.
Every year I ask the Minister for certain statistics in relation to the cost of electricity generation and I confess frankly that they are statistics that give me immense pleasure. It is sometimes difficult to compare the cost of electricity generated and produced at one station with the cost at another station because one must take into account the weather and the station at which the load is taken. It is a truism that the worse the weather for our harvest, the better the weather for electricity production; the heavier the rainfall, the easier it is to produce electricity from hydro-electric schemes. It has been pretty well established now that the basis of the policy of the Electricity Supply Board is to provide that the hydro-electric stations will carry as much of the load as their water supply will enable them to carry. It is, therefore, clear that in a very wet year they are able to take up more of the load than they would be able to take up in a dry year. Apart from that, in relation to other stations which generate electricity by heat, there is always the question whether these particular stations are utilised for main pay load or only thrown in at peak periods.
In the statistics given to me from time to time over the years, an effort has always been made to compare the cost on a load factor parity basis. When one examines these costs, taking the two years 1960-61 and 1961-62, which are set out in the Official Report of 29th March, 1962, and 28th February, 1963, respectively, certain peculiarities emerge, peculiarities about which I should like some little explanation from the Minister. I know, for example, that the capacity of the Electricity Supply Board generating plant in both those years was practically the same at 723.5 megawatts. In the second year, output was a little more than in the first year, but the general implication is that the plant available for 1960-61 was in fact more than was required. I should like the Minister to tell me, first of all, whether in fact the plant that was available for 1961-62—I have no figures for 1962-63; whether or not the Minister has, I do not know—was fully extended during the whole of that year. I say "the whole of that year" but I do not mean by that phrase to include a period of extraordinary weather, weather such as we had earlier this year. Indeed, in respect of that period, I pay my tribute on behalf of Fine Gael to the loyalty and devotion to duty of the ESB staffs, particularly the outdoor staff who, to my own knowledge, in the hilly areas of east Kildare and west Wicklow, as well as in other parts of the country, did more than men were entitled to be expected to do to keep current going for the consumers in the areas.
I find also in considering these figures that the increase in capital employed in 1961-62 was only some £6 million. Yet, it would seem from the increase I spoke of earlier from last August, that the increase in this current year must be very much higher. Is that because there has been a very high upsurge in the cost of construction, generation and distribution? Or is it because the Minister is thinking now more in terms of commitment than in terms of actual cost? I know the Minister did indicate in his statement that he was considering commitment as well as cost but I was not perfectly clear how he was correlating the two. Those of us who remember the year 1960-61 and who compare it with 1961-62 are rather surprised to see that the 1961-62 year was so very much cheaper for hydro-electric stations.
While there was some deterioration in the weather in that year, to those of us who do not keep weather records, it would seem that the difference is incommensurate with the climatic differences and I should like the Minister to give us some indication of the cause. It may be that, in relation to some of the problems I am posing at this stage, he will not be able to answer. If that is so, if he is not, shall I say, on top of his job to that extent, I will forgive him and allow him to wait until the Estimate comes along to give me the information.
If the Minister examines the position for 1961-62, he will see that the Shannon, that scheme derided by the elephantine stupidity of a colleague of his, produced far the cheapest current per unit at approximately one-third of a penny. The Erne was the next cheapest. The Liffey cost about one and one-fifth of a penny per unit. The Lee cost about one penny and the Clady something under one penny. I find it difficult to understand why the Clady should generate at a substantially lower cost than the Liffey or the Lee and I should be grateful for some explanation of that before the money for this new generation is given to the Minister in this Bill.
I remember the way in which certain people were violently attacked on the subject of sod peat, violently attacked for their criticisms of wet sod peat. Remember, it was then handwon peat and not even macerated sod peat. It is interesting to look at the figures. We find that the cost of generation for the handwon sod peat stations is almost 2d per unit compared with one-third of a penny per unit in Shannon. When we come to macerated peat at Portarlington and Allenwood, the cost is about one and one-fifth of a penny. Lanesboro is a little less. It is only when we come down to milled peat, a comparatively new invention for electricity generation, long after the discussions to which I have referred, that we are anywhere near comparable figures. Indeed, the milled peat figure for both Ferbane and Rhode are over the cost of North Wall, Marina and Ringsend. The native coal figure for Arigna is able to bear comparison with the milled peat figure and, as well as that, to bear comparison, though not as cheap, with Marina and Ringsend.
How the generation of electricity by oil is affected by the refinery is a matter upon which I am not competent to speak, but I should like to know; I refer to the costing basis on which these figures are computed by reference to the cost of turf, be it sod turf, macerated turf, or milled peat, provided by Bord na Móna, on the one hand, and the Electricity Supply Board, on the other. Who fixes the price? Is the price fixed by reference to the rates at which the Electricity Supply Board would be able to get their supplies of hard fuel elsewhere or is it fixed by reference to the cost to Bord na Móna of producing this fuel? In other words is it a case of putting the cart before the horse I have never been able to get a clear picture in that respect and it is only fair, before the Minister asks us to vote the money for this further generation and other general purposes in this Bill, that he should make the matter clear for us beyond all question.
Is it clear that all possibilities in relation to the erection of further inland hydro-electric stations have been completely and absolutely exhausted. It is clear that the possibility of large hydro-electric stations has been exhausted but coming on to the smaller ones, is that clear beyond question? Has there been any exhaustive examination of the possibilities of generating by the somewhat high and speedy rush of the tide in certain long inlets or bays? In certain of the larger bays with narrow inlets, the tide does seem to come in and out at such speed that it might be possible to generate electricity, as people at one stage, before the advent of nuclear power, believed on the other side of the water that the Bristol Channel would be able to provide a source of supply.
The Minister, might I suggest, was much too vague in his opening remarks about the possibilities of nuclear generation. We should get in the House some indication from him of the progress that has been made in other countries and of the possibility of bringing such progress to bear on our generating problems here and the likely cost involved in such a nuclear generation. I am sure there must have been a clear examination of the minimum size of nuclear generating stations that could be erected. I am sure that the examination in other countries and here by the ESB must have made it clear what would be the smallest possible unit that would have any comparative cost success.
Sooner or later, it is inevitable that nuclear power will be one of the things upon which mankind will depend not merely for the uses to which it is now put but for peaceful development as a warlike deterrent. I use the words "warlike deterrent" quite deliberately, not "warlike uses". So far as we are concerned, it is in the civil harnessing of nuclear power to development here that we are likely to be able to use it ourselves and that we hope to be able to use it ourselves. Something more than a vague statement by the Minister that a watch is being kept on the possibilities is very desirable before this £25 million is made available to the ESB.
