asked the Minister for Transport and Power whether he is aware that, as a result of the new subsidy for rural electrification which is stated to be 50 per cent in excess of the previous subsidy, certain subscribers have had their special service charge substantially increased as a result of the limit of £75 in the scheme; and whether he will consider abolishing the £75 limit, or increasing it.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - ESB Special Service Charge.
36.
Up to the enactment of the Electricity (Supply) (Amendment) Act, 1962 rural electrification subsidy was made available at the rate of 50 per cent of the capital cost of connection. Since then, rural electrification subsidy is made available at the rate of 75 per cent of the cost of connection, subject to a maximum of £75 per dwelling. On this basis, it was estimated that of the 112,000 rural dwellings which remained unconnected, 77,000 could be connected at normal rates of fixed charge and a further 23,000 with special service charges not exceeding 50 per cent of the normal fixed charges. The remaining 12,000 dwellings, which were the most isolated ones and which would be entirely uneconomic to connect, would attract special service charges of more than twice the normal fixed rate of charge. The new subsidy scheme aims at securing the maximum number of connections and it is estimated that in due course some 96 per cent of rural dwellings will be connected. This achievement will compare favourably with that of many better off countries in Europe. It was not anticipated that any of the 12,000 houses which were most uneconomic to connect would in fact seek connection and therefore the Government decided to make available to them the subsidy of £10 per house for bottled gas which was already available on islands where it was impracticable to provide electricity.
The maximum subsidy of £75 per house represents a very generous contribution by the taxpayer to the cost of providing a rural dwelling with electricity. I am informed by the ESB that to remove this limitation would cost above £1 million over the next three years, principally on the connection of isolated houses on an extravagantly uneconomic basis.
Is the Minister aware that he has been furnished with particulars of one house in the middle of County Monaghan where the effect of the new regulations has been to increase the charges by approximately 100 per cent?
There are isolated houses in most counties which suffer this disability. I have had representations from all counties.
Is the Minister aware that I furnished his Department with particulars of a specific case in the County Monaghan which is not all that remote? There, the effect of the scheme has been to increase the special charge by 100 per cent. This subscriber was asked for something like £2 1s. two years ago and he is now asked for £4 6s. Surely that is an undesirable situation. Surely some plan should be devised to remove anomalies of that kind.
There are anomalies of this kind relating to a number of people in different areas and the problem is very complex. There are a number of cases where people, because of the application of the new regulations, are required to pay more now than they were under the regulations when the subsidy was only 50 per cent. Certain anomalies have occurred but out of 112,000 people, 100,000 will be able to get connection at very reasonable rates.
Would it not be reasonable to suggest that if the overall purpose of the new regulations is preserved, in the anomalous circumstances where the subscribers' special charge has in fact been substantially increased by the new regulations, we might provide that at least the old charge would be maintained and not doubled as a result of the Oireachtas determining to increase the subsidy payable in respect of these cases by 50 per cent?
If the Deputy will remind me again of the case he has in mind, I shall have it looked into.
I gave the Minister the fullest particulars.
A number of people have written to me and I cannot recall the Deputy's case.
I did not write directly to the Minister but I clarified the position to the Secretary of his Department.
Surely the Minister is aware this is happening all over the place?
One man living in a county council cottage in Kerry has been asked to pay £5 19s.
Only 12,000 out of 112,000 people are affected and naturally there are people who will make representations.
The net result is that the subscriber's charge has been doubled.
Would the Deputy propose the abolition of the subsidy altogether?
It is costing these people more to get electric light now.
37.
asked the Minister for Transport and Power if steps will be taken to provide electricity supply for all groups who have not already been supplied, and to reduce the special service charge that is required from some people.
The Electricity Supply Board are carrying out a re-canvass of the entire country on a planned basis and all householders as yet unconnected will have an opportunity of accepting supply on the best terms which the response to the canvass will allow of.
As regards the reduction of the special service charges which some people are paying, I would refer the Deputy to my reply of 20th February, 1963, to Deputy Patrick O'Donnell.
Will the Minister indicate what additional staff has been employed to carry out the canvass? Is he aware that the ESB have indicated that as long as 18 months will elapse before the canvass is completed?
The ESB plan to do this on an orderly basis over a period of years so that it can be done with the greatest possible economy and connections made at the lowest possible figure. It is being done on a planned basis, just as the main development work was done over the years. The post-development work is likely to be done in the same way.
I appreciate the need for that in respect of the post-development work, but would it be possible to indicate to these people what the charge will be before the canvass has been carried out?