asked the Minister for Transport and Power if he will indicate the amount of State subsidy allowed to the ESB in each of the past three years towards special services provided in isolated rural areas; the estimated loss of such transactions each year; and if he will consider increasing the subsidy to reduce special service charges in all cases where the charge is 50 per cent above the amount which would be payable in normal cases.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - State Subsidy to ESB.
9.
State subsidy paid to the ESB towards the capital cost of rural electrification in each of the past three years is as follows:
|
1961-62 |
£767,000 |
|
1962-63 |
£977,000 |
|
1963-64 |
£1,075,000 |
Despite the substantial level of State subsidy which is at the rate of 75 per cent subject to a maximum of £75 per dwellinghouse the Board's losses on rural account have grown as follows:
|
1961-62 |
£689,000 |
|
1962-63 |
£801,000 |
|
1963-64 |
£898,000 |
It is not possible to indicate precisely the extent to which either subsidy or the loss on rural revenue account is incurred on connection of premises in more remote or isolated areas; but it is in general the case that premises in such areas are far more expensive to connect and, therefore, absorb a correspondingly greater proportion of subsidy and loss.
The substantial reduction or abolition of special service charges which exceed 50 per cent of normal charges would require very substantial increases in the present very high level of subsidy and/or losses in order to meet the cost of connecting isolated houses on an extravagantly uneconomic basis.
Could the Minister at least refer to the fact that there are householders in not excessively remote areas in County Monaghan who could reasonably look forward to getting supplies of light and power in less than two years, which is at present the period of waiting in some areas in the constituency which the Minister and I represent?
I thought I made it clear already that the costs of rural electrification have been rising. In order to keep the special service charges as low as possible, the ESB at my request, and certainly of their own volition, have planned the whole of this redevelopment programme on a basis of canvassing area by area and, instead of doing all the work at once, which involves difficulties, doing it at a steady pace over a period of five years from the time the subsidy was provided and connecting up a group of householders who are looking for power in the ordinary way in a given area.
This reduces the overhead cost. The Deputy should know that if they were to move from one place to another, connecting one house here and two houses there, the overhead costs would become enormous. What they would like is to appoint a group of people, executives, workers and installators to move into an area to do all the work required of them there, and then move on into another area. That would inevitably result in delays in certain areas in the redevelopment programme just as there were delays when the rural areas were first developed. Many areas had to wait for a considerable time. I can assure the Deputy that it is in the interests of the householders and the taxpayers that it be done on a planned basis area by area. As far as I can recall, something like one-third of the areas involved have now been developed in County Monaghan and the whole work there will be completed in the next two years.
While that is very convenient for the ESB does the Minister not realise——
And cheaper for the consumers.
——it is desperately inconvenient for a young married man and his family? His wife sees her neighbours being connected and is informed that she cannot have access to electricity for the next two years and is depending on the candle and the lamp. Surely that is approximate to a social problem.
The Deputy will be aware that there are a great number of people who could have taken service with the ESB at any time without paying any additional service charges and for one reason or another refrained from doing so. As a result of the increased subsidy, a great number of people who up to now had not been able to get power are able to obtain the installation without paying extra charge, or by paying very moderate additional charges. I do not see any other way of doing it except by a canvassing principle. I regret some people will have to wait but we expect that in the next two years something in the region of 90 per cent of the rural population will be connected. I think it will be a fairly good job, considering that it began after the war and for a considerable period incomes were not sufficient to bear the cost of current.
Does the Minister recall the speech he made on Sunday morning last in Laurencetown, County Galway, during which he told his listeners that rural electrification was to be accelerated in County Galway at the moment and that he was quite satisfied that most areas would have power and current with the least possible delay? He went on to emphasise the fact that these people would have current immediately.
That is clearly outside the question.
How is it they are given that promise in Galway?
The Deputy is misquoting me. I was referring to the new power station.
I was present.
Why did Deputy Dillon abolish the subsidy? Why did they not keep the rural electrification subsidy?
The subsidies were there all the time.
You abolished them. You would do the same tomorrow if you got back. You abolished the rural electrification subsidy.
Order!
Why promise the people of Galway light before Christmas, knowing they will not get it before Christmas?
(Interruptions.)
Why did you abolish the subsidy?
Order.