Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 15 Jun 1965

Vol. 216 No. 6

Committee on Finance. - Electricity (Supply) (Amendment) Bill, 1965: Second Stage.

Minister for Transport and Power (Mr. Childers)

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time.

The main purposes of the Bill are to authorise increased capital expenditure by the Electricity Supply Board for general purposes and for rural electrification, and to provide for the continuance of State subsidy for rural electrification.

Section 2 proposes to raise the limit of capital expenditure by the Electricity Supply Board for general purposes, that is to say, for all purposes other than the electrification of rural areas, from the present limit of £160 million, which was set by the Electricity (Supply) (Amendment) Act, 1963, to £225 million. Actual capital expenditure is still far short of the existing limit—at 31st March, 1965 it was about £117 million but commitments entered into by the Board for additional generating capacity and for improvement of the transmission and distribution systems at that date were about £35 million bringing the total for expenditure and commitments to about £152 million.

At 31st March, 1965, the Board's total generating capacity was 1,009.5 megawatts made up as follows:

hydro	219	megawatts
peat	367.5	megawatts
coal/oil	423	megawatts

Commitments entered into provided for the addition of another 400 megawatts by 1969-70. These commitments comprise an additional 40 megawatts at the milled peat-fired station at Lanesboro, County Longford; an additional 120 megawatts of oil fired capacity at Ringsend, Dublin, 60 megawatts of which has just been commissioned, and the new oil-fired stations at Great Island, County Wexford and Tarbert, County Kerry each with a capacity of 120 megawatts.

The additional set at Lanesboro is expected to be commissioned this year. The only further addition to turf-fired capacity possibly with our present methods of bog development is a second generating set planned for Shannonbridge. With the installation of further oil-fired capacity, turf is now beginning to decline in relative importance as a fuel for electricity generation. The year 1964-65 was a rather good hydro year and 25.2 per cent of our electricity came from water power; 31.7 per cent came from peat; 2.7 per cent from native coal and the balance of 40.4 per cent came from oil. All the best of our water power is already being exploited for electricity generation, and no further significant addition to generating capacity can be expected from hydro stations. Indeed at the present high interest rates the hydro-electric development of the remaining few small rivers would be quite uneconomic. As I said when speaking on the Estimate for my Department, it seems unlikely at present that a nuclear generating station will be economic in our circumstances for at least about ten years.

Demand for electricity is increasing very rapidly. This is, of course, a mark of expanding economic activity and of improving living standards in the country. For the last four years the increase in consumption compared with the previous year has been—

1961-62 — 7.6 per cent.

1962-63 — 11.6 per cent (This was an exceptionally severe winter).

1963-64 — 6.1 per cent (This was a mild winter).

1964-65 — 12.9 per cent.

This represents an average increase over the period of about 9½ per cent and a total increase for the four years of about 44 per cent.

During these four years consumption for motive power increased by 38 per cent, for domestic purposes by 46 per cent and for all other purposes by 47 per cent.

The Board's long-term plans related to the period of the Second Programme are based on an average growth rate of 9 per cent per annum, which is 2 per cent above the European average rate. To meet expected growth in demand in the years after 1970 the Board expect, during the next five years, to have to approve the construction of 720 megawatts of further generating capacity estimated to cost £47 million. This would bring total generating capacity to over 2,100 megawatts or more than double the existing capacity. Further improvements of the transmission and distribution network costing an estimated £30 million are also expected to arise for approval over the next five years. It is proposed that the limit of the Board's authorised expenditure should now be raised to £225 million. Further authority will probably require to be sought in 1969 to cover further expansion likely to arise for approval in 1970 and the following years. The present North/South discussions to which I referred when introducing the Estimate for my Department, may, of course, suggest some alterations and economies in the programme of capital investment in electricity generation and distribution equipment for which the Bill proposes to provide, but we cannot anticipate them.

Section 6 of the Bill authorises the Electricity Supply Board to spend an additional £5 million on rural electrification, bringing the total authorised expenditure to £42 million. This expenditure should for practical purposes complete the scheme, and as the completion of the scheme is in sight, I should like to give a short synopsis of it.

A report on the electrification of rural areas was prepared in 1944 on the basis of experience in four trial areas. It was estimated that if 50 per cent of the capital cost were given by the Government as subsidy, supply could be offered at standard rates of charge to about 85 per cent of rural premises, that 80 per cent of these or about 70 per cent of the total would accept and that the scheme would be economic. To achieve this, supply was to be offered at standard rates to any premises, the annual return from the standard fixed charges on which would be at least 6.25 per cent of the capital cost of connecting the premises.

By the time the scheme had actually commenced, capital costs had increased, but the ESB adjusted the figure of 6.25 per cent downwards so that connection of about 70 per cent at standard rates of charge could be achieved. As, however, the more economic areas were connected first the loss to the ESB in the early years of the scheme was not great and indeed in the year ended 31st March, 1955, there was a profit.

From 1955 to 1958 the ESB paid the full cost of rural electrification and this, together with increasing costs initiated a loss on sales in rural areas which has continued since that time.

By 1962 practically all areas had had an opportunity to take supply under the Rural Electrification Scheme. Under the 1962 Act, the Government provided a special grant of £90,000 to enable the ESB to extend the scheme on the original terms to some areas which otherwise would have been completely uneconomic and could not have supply at all. In that Act the legislature also authorised the new subsidy arrangement in respect of houses which had not been able to accept supply on the occasion of the initial development of the areas in which they were situated. The subsidy, instead of 50 per cent flat, as under the initial scheme, became 75 per cent with a maximum of £75 per house. It was expected that the new subsidy would enable the ESB, without incurring any loss, to offer connection at standard rates of charge to about 70 per cent of those still unconnected. The ESB initiated a planned post-development scheme which will cover the entire country by 1968 and at the end of which it is estimated that there will be about 340,000 rural consumers.

In any case where the return from the fixed charges would be below the minimum percentage currently in force, the ESB, rather than refuse supply, have been prepared to connect a premises if the owner was prepared to pay an extra charge sufficient to bring his return up to the minimum percentage. The minimum percentage return was not, of course, an economic return. In fact it was well below the economic return. This is the origin of special service charges in the rural electrification scheme. Under the present post-development scheme some 70 per cent of the houses to be connected can be offered supply at standard rates of charge and a further 20 per cent can be offered supply at special service charges of not more than 50 per cent of their normal fixed charges. For a small farmhouse, a typical fixed charge without any special supplement amounts to about 4½d. per day and this together with unit charges compares favourably with charges abroad. The remaining houses, which represent little more than 3 per cent of all the rural premises in the country, would be so costly to connect that special service charges of more than 100 per cent of the normal fixed charge —very much more in many cases— would be required to enable them to show an economic return. It is a physical fact that in rural Ireland where houses tend to be scattered singly over the country it is impossible to design a network which will enable supply to be brought at a moderate charge to every premises, and the ESB have had to design the network as best they could to cater for those prepared to accept supply when it was offered.

Capital expenditure on rural electrification up to the end of April this year was £36½ million. It is expected that the statutory limit of £37 million will be reached in July and that the extra cost of completing the scheme, including the cost of necessary improvements to the distribution system, will be about £5 million. Section 6 of the Bill proposes, therefore, that the ESB should be authorised to incur expenditure up to £42 million, i.e. an additional £5 million, on the rural electrification scheme. The degree of rural electrification which will by 1968 have been achieved, 90 per cent, compares favourably with other European countries in a similar state of economic development. Electricity has been persistently demanded by rural dwellers and the Government have gone as far as reasonably practicable to ensure that that demand is met. It is now our hope that those for whom the service has been provided at such substantial cost will recognise and exploit its many potentialities for increasing their productivity and improving their incomes.

The total loss on rural consumers for the year ended 31st March, 1964, the last for which the accounts have been published, was £900,000 and it is expected that when the present post-development scheme is completed in 1968 it will be about £1.2 million per annum. This loss is in practice made good mainly from the surplus revenue from urban domestic consumers.

Section 8 provides for the continuation of the present rural electrification subsidy until the limit of £42 million is reached. By then it is expected that the total State subsidy for rural electrification will have exceeded £12 million. The time limit of five years from the 17th April, 1962, for payment of subsidy is being dropped because it will take until 1968 before the post-development scheme can be completed in all parts of the country.

I should like to mention, at this point, that the ESB are covering the country with a post-development scheme in an orderly fashion, just as they completed original development in an orderly fashion. This is necessary so that new connections may be made as cheaply as possible and the charges which the new consumers must pay kept to a minimum. If particular houses or areas were taken out of turn, the scheme would be disrupted and the cost of making connections would increase, with resulting increases in charges. The ESB local office is now usually in a position to inform interested parties about when the turn of any particular area will come around.

The consumption of electricity per consumer in rural areas has increased by 30 per cent approximately since 1960-61. The use of electricity for farm production is illustrated by the following percentage increases in the numbers of electrically-operated equipment since 1959:

	Percentage Increase
Infra-red lamps	17
Water pumps	42
Milking machines	98
“Burco” boilers	77
Grain grinders	92

Further evidence of the improvement in social conditions may be given by recording the percentage of farm residences using the following domestic equipment:

		Percentage
Electric	Irons	79
,,	washing machines	19
,,	kettles	47
,,	cookers	20
,,	vacuum cleaners	10

Sections 3, 4 and 5 are included in the Bill for the purpose of bringing the ESB into line with the State companies covered by the State Guarantees Acts, 1954 and 1964. This section will enable the ESB to borrow and the Minister for Finance to guarantee their borrowings in currencies other than Irish currency. Section 3 establishes the method of calculating the equivalent in Irish currency of borrowings in foreign currency. The rules for conversion follow those in the State Guarantees (Amendment) Act, 1964. Such conversion is necessary to determine the value of the Board's borrowings for the purpose of section 2 of the Electricity (Supply) (Amendment) Act, 1954, which is the basis for Parliamentary control of the capital expenditure of the ESB. Section 4 is the section extending the power of the ESB to borrow, with the consent of the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Transport and Power, to include borrowing in foreign currencies. Section 5 extends the temporary borrowing powers of the ESB to include borrowing in foreign currencies.

Section 7 of the Bill is merely to give explicit sanction to a clause in the superannuation scheme for full-time members of the Board of the ESB whereby any dispute as to the applicability of the scheme or the amount of superannuation granted is decided by the Minister for Finance and his decision is final. While the clause does not conflict with any existing legislation it is thought better to regularise it by a provision in the parent statute. The Turf Development Act, 1953, has such a provision in respect of the superannuation scheme for full time members of the Board of Board na Móna.

The ESB offer to the nation a generally high standard. There will always be some few complaints of course in the case of an organisation of the magnitude of the Board, with nearly 700,000 customers, but these have been minor and are rectified with all possible speed. The Board have an enviable record in the matter of maintenance of supply at all times. I recommend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Cosgrave

We welcome the provision made in this Bill for further capital for the ESB. The ESB has made a major contribution to the economic and social advancement of the nation. It was established and developed with skill and enterprise which reflect the highest possible credit on all concerned. It is a great undertaking which provides a first-class service, as well as very considerable employment. In fact, it is difficult to imagine what the economic and social condition of the country would be without the contribution which the ESB has made. As well as providing motive power and light, it has generally resnaped the general economy and, indeed, the whole standard of living of the nation in a way which it was initially impossible to visualise.

Nowadays we take electricity development for granted, to a great extent. In fact, on many occasions the only criticism expressed is impatience in regard to the extension of electricity supply to rural areas not at present connected, or the provision of a particular service required for a particular project, or the fact that it is not made available quickly enough, possibly without any thought being given to the remarkable development which the supply of electricity has made possible in the economic and social life of the country.

That contribution has been made possible by the immense skill with which the Board, the technical and non-technical staffs, and all associated with the Board, have undertaken their work over the years. They made the electricity supply service comparable with the best service provided in any country with problems similar to our own, for which one can get data. It is indeed one of the most, perhaps the most, successful of all State undertakings and the fact that it now extends to so many remote areas in the country means that the benefits of electricity supplies, which in the past were confined to large urban areas or accessible rural areas, are now made available on a much wider scale than ever before.

The quite remarkable growth in recent years in certain aspects of electricity supply for farm production is of considerable interest. It also involves certain considerations. Since 1959 the growth in electrically-operated milking machines is at a rate of 98 per cent. That is at any time, by any standards, in that period an extraordinary increase but it also involves reflection on the circumstances which have brought it about. One of the causes of the substantial increase in the use of milking machines, as indeed in other uses of electricity for farm production, is the decline in the numbers of agricultural workers. While this is not the appropriate time or occasion to reflect on that, it means that farms are to a very considerable extent dependent on electricity supplies for milking purposes.

I noted from the Minister's concluding remarks that the ESB endeavour to rectify any disruption in the maintenance of supplies as quickly as possible. The consequences of a disruption of electricity supplies to farmers who have large herds of cows is nothing short of calamitous. I do not know whether in certain areas, particularly the large dairying areas, there is some system of a booster character which would enable the maintenance of a supply at all times. Undoubtedly many of these disruptions occur close to farmers' places, or may only affect a limited area but the consequences of disruption in a matter of this sort can only be adequately understood by those who have been affected.

It is very significant that there has been this extraordinary growth in the number of milking machines, and indeed other machines as well, but it has been ascertained that milking machines have increased to a considerable extent because of the serious decline in the number of agricultural workers in these areas.

I note from the last report of the ESB that there has been a very marked improvement in wage and salary negotiations. It should be generally welcomed. The wage and salary negotiations, and labour relations generally, show an improvement on the conditions which operated prior to the debate here on the Electricity (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1961, and the fact that it has been possible to evolve a national agreement on wages and conditions is a development which all concerned about this will be gratified to see.

One of the remarkable facts about the Board's last report is the effect on the Board's finances of the ninth round. Included in it is the effect created by the turnover tax which appears in the ESB accounts for last year. The additional cost represented by the turnover tax is estimated at £280,000 in a full year. This is an example of yet another effect of the turnover tax and, while we recognised that once that tax was put into operation, it was one of those taxes that so operate that you cannot unscramble it, in this case once it took effect, it had very large repercussions.

Indeed, one of the indications is that, leaving aside what political views people may have held on either side of the House, the economic repercussions of the turnover tax are not yet exhausted and indeed the general impact of the tax throughout the economy has affected all sections and the cost of a variety of commodities, not excluding electricity.

In the course of his remarks, the Minister adverted to the fact that the rural electrification programme is proceeding on a planned and orderly basis so that the remaining areas will be connected as quickly as possible. In that connection, it is estimated that the total loss on the rural electrification scheme to 31st March, 1964, was £900,000 and that in 1968, when the programme is completed, it will amount to about £1.2 million per year. This is an aspect of the general finances of the Board which might merit further consideration.

It is hardly fair to expect urban consumers to pay for a rural service, or at any rate to pay the cost of a rural service to the extent which the present ESB charges may involve and there may well be something to be said for considering whether the cost of a service of this sort might not fall within the general ambit of the contributions which the State makes in order to assist rural areas, more particularly remote rural areas.

It may well be that the present method of financing is the simplest method of paying for the services but it seems that the estimated cost in the future will be a very considerable burden on urban consumers. When one considers that urban consumers are making this contribution in respect of electricity and also a very considerable contribution in respect of transport, one has to evaluate the total charges which fall on a limited section of the community to provide services for people scattered over remote areas.

On the other hand, we all recognise that amenities and services must be extended and diffused as widely as possible in order to enable those who are far away from the centre of activity to have these reasonable facilities and reasonable services. Whether the present method of doing this is the most satisfactory method or not may well fall for consideration. We have all endeavoured to direct public policy towards brightening rural life and making it more attractive. To that extent I believe there is a very considerable demand as well as considerable public support for an extension of the electricity supply network in the rural areas.

In that regard consideration may well have to be given to the method by which further extension may be financed as well as to the contribution which the nation as a whole may be called on to provide to ensure an extension not merely to those areas which can be connected on a relatively economic basis but to others as well. I notice that apparently for a small farmhouse a typical fixed charge without any special supplement amounts to about 4½d. per day and that this together with unit charges compares favourably with charges abroad. The remaining houses, which represent little more than three per cent, would be so costly that they would involve a special service charge of more than 100 per cent of the normal fixed charge. However, this is a matter that may well fall for consideration in the future. Rural electrification not merely brightens rural life but it is part of the national effort which must be made in order to make conditions in rural areas not only attractive but in many cases tolerable, if people are to be expected, in the general context of modern life, to live in these areas.

I was interested in the Minister's remarks about the possible further co-operation with the authorities in the North in regard to the extension and development of electricity supply generally. Many years ago I had the privilege of introducing the legislation for the Erne hydro-electric and drainage scheme. That legislation was the forerunner of co-operation on a number of matters. Since then the areas in which co-operation has been found possible have increased in number very considerably. We all hope that this co-operation will continue to increase to the mutual benefit of our people on both sides of the Border. This is an area in which further co-operation and further consultation may well prove beneficial and advantageous to the economy of the country as a whole and to the general economic and social benefit of persons living on both sides of the Border.

There is one other matter in connection with the development programme which I understand has caused some concern. I remember many years ago when visiting a briquette factory in the ESB network that one of the problems which arose was fall-out. I understand that that is still a problem and I should be interested to hear from the Minister whether any satisfactory developments have evolved which will enable the problem, if not to be obviated, to be lessened. I should also like to hear from the Minister what turf-fired stations are not at present in production; if there are any particular reasons why certain stations are not in operation and also whether reasonable advance notice could be given to those who are supplying turf, or those who are dependent on the activities of these stations for employment, where it is proposed that these stations should go out of production for a certain part of the season.

As I said initially, no public tribute can adequately convey appreciation of the debt which the country owes to the expansion and development of the electricity supply service. All connected with the ESB have made a very considerable contribution in this regard and for that reason I was very gratified to notice that the National Agreement on wages and salaries and on labour conditions generally has been signed and is in operation. I often think that it is a measure of our failure in many regards to measure up to the needs of modern society that a more rational and more reasonable approach to many of these problems cannot be adopted and the fact that it has been possible to evolve a satisfactory system in the ESB may well be regarded as, and I hope may well set, a headline for similar developments elsewhere.

Having welcomed the expansion of the ESB and paid tribute to the skill and enterprise of all involved in it and having welcomed the fact that it has been possible for so many skilled technical and other people in this country to secure employment in the ESB— which is one of the success stories of the economy of the State since its establishment—I want to refer to one final matter which I hope will not recur again. With a little care, this could have been avoided. Yesterday the ESB opened a new power station at Ringsend and I understand that to that opening invitations were not issued to Mr. Patrick McGilligan, who was Minister for Industry and Commerce when the ESB was started, to Dr. T. A. McLaughlin, who was in many ways the inspiration of the conception of the electricity supply network, or to Mr. James Fay who was a member of the Board for many years. It is impossible to exaggerate the magnitude of the contribution which the ESB has made to industrial development and the inspiration and guiding figures in the early years, during the term of the first Government, were Mr. McGilligan, Dr. McLaughlin and Mr. Fay, who were members of the Board for many years. I believe that on the occasion of a function such as that which took place yesterday invitations should be extended to persons like that who have made a very significant contribution.

I know that in matters of this sort it is very likely that lists of persons in certain categories are compiled and if a person does not fit into a particular category, he may not be included. On the other hand, some years ago. I attended a development in another State company and the directors were kind enough and careful enough to ensure that not merely were Ministers then dealing with the particular matter invited, but ex-Ministers or Deputies who had formerly been connected with it in any way were also invited. In addition, the Board were solicitous enough for the feelings of former members of the Board of that company to invite them and I think they went so far in certain cases as to invite the widow or some representative of the family of a deceased member. In a matter of this sort, the same care might be extended in all State companies. While we have often paid tribute—and rightly so—to persons long since dead for their services of one kind or another to the country, in a matter of this kind we should also recognise those who are still with us and ensure that no lack of courtesy is offered to them and that any apparent discourtesy will not occur again.

I once again welcome this further capital development and the further economic and social development which the present legislation envisages and which has been epitomised by the ESB for the country generally and indeed for the welfare of a great many individuals in the community.

Mr. James Tully

On behalf of the Labour Party, I welcome the decision contained in this Bill to give further borrowing powers to the ESB. It is said that the greatest invention of man was the wheel and that from it evolved everything else. As far as our country is concerned, the greatest development was the starting of the Shannon Scheme, followed up by the ESB. It is rather remarkable that if somebody from this country who has been away for many years comes back here and is asked what he thinks is the biggest improvement in the country over the years, he usually says: "The development of electricity and what follows after that." I think that is right because without electricity, without the ESB, the improvements which took place over the years would not have been possible.

The amount of money being sought in the Bill is quite substantial. It is suggested, for instance, that the new figure is to be £225 million. The Minister says that from 1963 until now the limit was £160 million. If I remember correctly, it was £135 million in 1962 which shows that although there was a substantial increase from 1962 to 1963, the increase from 1963 to 1965 is the largest that has taken place. Would the Minister say what it is intended to do with this very big increase? He mentioned briefly the reason for the extra money being required but I wonder is there a particular project which the Minister considers will require the expenditure of a vast sum such as is mentioned here over the next few years. If so, we should like to know what it is. Is it proposed, for instance, to have more new power stations? Is it intended to step up there?

The amount allowed for rural electrification again shows an increase but not nearly such a big one. I was rather surprised at Deputy Cosgrave's comparison in regard to rural electrification because I think that one can lose sight of the fact that there is a responsibility on those who live in a large community to bear a fair share of the cost of development of the hinterland and in this case the hinterland is the entire country. What is sometimes forgotten is that in the cities and towns the charge for electricity is lower per unit than in rural areas to begin with. If we use the same idea as Deputy Cosgrave used—perhaps I misunderstood him—it would not be right that people in towns and cities particularly, built-up areas, should contribute extra taxation so that those in rural areas could get an extension of rural electrification. If we reverse that, it would be wrong for the people in the rural areas to pay their share of taxation so that houses may be built for the many thousand who require them in the towns. There is nothing unfair in the system whereby taxation is spread evenly over the whole country.

There is a matter on which I should like to take issue with the Minister. In 1958 the figure for rural electrification was £30 million; in 1962, it was £37 million; and in 1965, it was £42 million. Changes have been made in the system under which rural electrification has been subsidised and I would ask the Minister to state whether or not it was ever intended by this House or the ESB when those changes were made that people in a rural area should be charged more for their connection than they would have been if they had accepted it in the previous year or some years earlier. I always understood that the idea of the extra subsidies for rural electrification was to ensure that the greatest possible number of people would get a connection in rural areas at the least cost possible. It has happened that over the past few years because of changes made, a certain manipulation has been carried out and that people who two years ago could get a supply for a fixed charge of, say, 15/- per two months and an extra charge of another 15/- have been quoted over £3 for the same connection.

I believe that was not intended by the House when they allowed the ESB to get extra money for subsidies nor was it the intention of the people who framed the rules under which the extension was to be made. I should like the Minister to contradict me if I am wrong, but I believe that certain people who are pretty good at reading things into regulations at local level have so manipulated this system that they have prevented quite a number of people from taking electricity because they cannot afford it.

Some years ago I put a case to the Minister of a man who lived 120 yards outside Gormanston Camp and would not get a connection unless he was prepared to pay £12 service charge per two months. The reason given was that it would cost a lot as all the power lines would have to go underground and this despite the fact that the huts in the camp and all the other buildings in the camp were connected overhead, so that his particular house, for some extraordinary reason, was to be connected underground while all the buildings in the camp area were connected by overhead wires. It looks as if somebody made a rather stupid decision and everybody stood in line and said: "Yes, this is what we must do."

That is one case but there are literally dozens of cases scattered throughout my constituency where people who live within a stone's throw of a village or town have been quoted very high figures for connection on the ground that they are so many yards distant from a pole, in one case, or that they are outside a certain area which was developed: they happen to be in a pocket which could not be developed at that time and they were left there. There is always a reason. As recently as today I got a letter from the ESB office covering a certain area where they gave a quotation for two houses. Those two houses were quoted 12 months ago at about 3/- per two months extra on top of the ordinary service charge and they are now being quoted £2 2s. 6d. extra and, to add insult to injury, the last line said that of course these people could have had connection two years ago at a lesser charge.

I do not think it was ever the idea of the Minister or of the people responsible that the charges should be increased. I always understood that when an extra subsidy was being given to these people and when money was made available to the ESB or when they were allowed to borrow, the whole idea was to make it easier for those people to get connection from the ESB but that idea seems to have been defeated because of certain officials who, apparently, take an interpretation out of the regulations which nobody except themselves can understand.

I would suggest to the Minister that there should be a way out of this. An arbitrary decision taken by a local district office should not be the end of these things. The ESB should have some type of appeals section into which appeals from persons who are aggrieved at the decision of the local office could be channelled and considered. If something like that could be done, possibly we might be able to have a lot of dissatisfaction removed but, most certainly, I find it impossible to explain to some family who have applied for connection and who have been quoted and who for one reason or another were unable at that time to avail of connection, and who again apply 12 months or two years afterwards, why they should have the charge doubled or trebled or even, in some cases, increased more than that. This is a really serious matter and it should be attended to.

There is also the question of the people who live in an area that has not been serviced. I did have before the Minister in this House a case of six farmers who came from the west of Ireland and were settled on farms in Meath and who found when they came there that they had not got ESB connection. They were dairy farmers. The milk was being supplied to a dairy who gave them an ultimatum: "Either you are able to cool the milk or we will not take it". They then required electric power and when they went to look for the electric power they were told that because of the fact that they were not in this area or that area they could not have the power or if they did have it the charges would be £6 or £7 per two months on top of their ordinary charge.

It was impossible for those people to get the current. The Minister wrote to me and suggested that, of course, they could have bottled gas. He and I had it out here before as to how you cool milk with bottled gas. I understand there is an elaborate process by which you can cool milk with bottled gas but I do not think it is what these little farmers wanted. Again, this is something which should be looked into. Those people should have the right to appeal to somebody who, apart from what the local office would decide, would send an officer or engineer there to look at the situation and decide whether the case made by the persons concerned or the case made by the local office was correct.

There is also the question of the areas that have been connected. Over two years ago I got a quotation from the local office for a group of over 20 houses that had been passed over in an area connection for one reason or another. I do not wish to go into that point now. I got the quotation on the condition that the forms were signed and returned to the local office before a certain date. These forms were signed. Half of them were sent to me and I sent them straight in. The other half were sent, not to the head office in the district but to the local office. For some reason, they were not passed on from there for some weeks afterwards. They have not got connection yet and all I can get out of the district office is that the forms were not returned, that if they had been in by 5th October, 1963, they would have got connection but they had not them in until 22nd October, and they must wait for two years. This is not one house. These were over 20 houses.

That is not the sort of treatment the general public should expect from the ESB. The ESB should have some section which would try to get these things cleared up. I am quite satisfied that if there had been an appeals section at the head office of the ESB to whom the people to whom I am referring had the right to appeal, the matter would have been cleared up pretty quickly and we would not have the sort of nonsense that is being carried on at the present time.

The other day, on the Minister's Estimate, I was going to refer to another matter and the Minister said it would be raised here today. Perhaps he could say something about it now. Have we got any guarantee that some of this money which is now being made available will be used for the purpose of stepping up the current in the areas which have been built up? I am sure the Minister is aware, as practically everybody in the country is aware, of the small transformer which is put in an area when there are 20 houses in the area. If two houses are subsequently built, the small transformer is still serving them. In the finish, it is nearly impossible to have light at certain periods, not to talk of cooking facilities. The ESB should make some effort to remedy this matter because it is not doing them any good. It is a matter which can be dealt with very easily if the will to improve the position is there.

Deputy Cosgrave referred to the fact that he was glad a national agreement had been signed and that the labour relations were much better than they had been when the 1961 Act was passed. I should like to say that the 1961 Act is a blot on this House which it will be impossible to wipe out. It is really too bad that less than a fortnight ago almost the same situation was allowed to build up again. Are we still, even though we talk about good labour relations, in the situation where people have not alone to threaten to go on strike, but to go to the very last extreme before they can get a decent rate of wages for the job they are doing? I believe, and any sensible person must agree, that people, where they are doing a responsible job, are entitled to a decent rate of wages and this penny-pinching which is being carried on by some semi-State companies has got to stop. The Minister would be very well thanked by the general community if he would take the necessary steps to see to it that the position should be reversed in which people who believe they should be well paid themselves do not want to see that those who are doing their work for them are paid.

Bord na Móna has been referred to here. I wonder why it is that it has been possible to close down some of the peat-fired stations. The water-powered stations, naturally, are the cheapest of the lot but the peat-fired stations are very cheap and were using native fuel. I know it can be said that the supply of fuel is running out. I do not think that is the answer. If the necessary effort were made and if the co-operation of the small people in the country who formerly cut turf in the smaller bogs that could not be used by Bord na Móna were secured, if the right approach were made and if an economic price were paid, I am quite sure it would be possible to get a far greater supply of fuel for these peat stations than would keep them going the whole year round. It is rather a pity that this year we are importing fuel for our generating stations. One or two stations which were set up originally were fired by imported fuel but, whether it is oil or any other type of imported fuel, we should not say that this is the right type of fuel to use. If it is necessary to use fuel other than peat, why not establish a station in areas where the mines are now closing and, by doing so, keep more people in employment?

Deputy Cosgrave also said that because agricultural workers were leaving the land, the farmers were buying milking machines. My experience has been that because milking machines were introduced, agricultural workers had to leave the land.

Mr. Donegan

It is a question of the chicken or the egg.

Mr. James Tully

When the farmer with four men employed found that by using a milking machine he needed only one man, I know what happened to the other three. I suppose that is progress. The more modern machinery introduced in agriculture the smaller the number of people who will be employed on the land.

There is reference in section 3 of the Bill to "moneys borrowed by the Board in a currency other than the currency of the State". I assume from that that money has been borrowed. Is there a limit on the amount so borrowed and where was it borrowed? It would be interesting to know where the money was borrowed so that we could get a pattern.

I notice the Minister has removed the date limit in section 8, which was 17th April, 1962. He has given a very plausible reason for it but since the Minister has mentioned the date by which he expects the advances to be ended, it looks as if there is no reason why the date could not have been included. However, I suppose it does not matter so much. Section 7 refers to the insertion after subsection (4) of section 16 of the Electricity (Supply) (Amendment) Act, 1961, of the following subsection:

(4A) A superannuation scheme may provide for the machinery for settling any dispute that may arise as to the claim of any person to, or the amount of, any benefit payable in pursuance of such scheme.

What type of machinery is proposed? I assume the Minister is taking advantage of the fact that this Bill is being introduced and that this is a tidying-up provision. He refers to the Bord na Móna Bill. I did not think he would refer to the Bord na Móna pensions scheme in this House, because some of us do not like it at all. Has any difficulty arisen? If difficulty has arisen, what type of machinery does the Minister propose to set up to deal with it?

Sir Anthony Esmonde

The Minister said that we had reached the limit of our hydro power and that to extend it any further by using the few small rivers at our disposal would be uneconomic. As far as I am aware, the only rivers that are harnessed are the Shannon and the Erne. I do not think there is any other major hydro scheme here. However, I would draw the Minister's attention to the fact that there are four or five other rivers that could possibly be utilised for that purpose. The reason I stress that is that reading the Minister's speech, I gather we are largely turning over to oil. In our geographical situation and in our peculiar economic circumstances, it is undesirable that we should be dependent on imported fuel.

Then the Minister goes on to say that it would not be feasible to establish more turf-burning stations. The answer to that is a simple one. In certain areas of the country there are large tracts of bogland, very largely in the poorer parts of Ireland, west of the Shannon. These bogs are not developed because it is not considered economic to develop them. I do not know if it is possible or not but the Minister and his advisers should give full consideration to the feasibility of developing these bogs. I am largely thinking of areas in Roscommon but there are many other bogs available in the west. Even though a small extra charge may be involved in doing that, it is desirable, when we have gone over so much to electricity, that we should be able to maintain it at all times in an emergency. The Minister should direct his thoughts along those lines.

The French have concentrated very largely on oil, apart from their nuclear effort, but their position is quite different from ours. They themselves are producing oil. We have no oil wells available to date from the investigations that have taken place. For that reason the question of hydro development and also the question of erecting more turf-generating stations should be given further thought.

The Minister also mentioned that it is not possible to have nuclear development here before 1970. He did not give us any reason for that. I take it that what is in his mind is that nuclear development is still in the embryonic stage and that it may not be possible for us to have the experts available or the facilities at our disposal for that purpose.

I should like to ask the Minister if in the trade and other discussions between this country and Northern Ireland, any thought has been given to the possibility of a combined effort between the two parts of the country in regard to nuclear development, related particularly to the production of electricity. There have been divergent views in this House on rural electrification in outlying areas. The people of this country are inherently conservative and it is very hard to get them to change. In the earlier canvasses on rural electrification, I always felt the Board made a mistake that they did not encourage people to take electricity. The greatest encouragement they could have given to the people in these outlying districts was to give electricity to them at a cheap rate over a certain number of years as in the case of the rates. Many people did not realise the enormous benefits that accrue from electricity and it was only when they saw their neighbour's house full of light in the evenings— they did not have to use the oil lamp or go down to the village to get a pint of oil to keep it lighting—that they realised the advantages of electricity.

Every Deputy has had the same experience of people who refused electricity coming along and looking for it afterwards. If there were a reduction in the charge for electricity, similar to that in regard to rates, it would encourage many people from outlying districts who have not already been brought into the scheme to take electricity. The Electricity Supply Board is a national institution which should cater for the needs of the community as a whole.

I find myself in full agreement with Deputy Cosgrave when he said that the cities and the urban areas have, to a large extent, paid for the rural areas. If we have people living in rural areas, as we have in this country, then we must supply them with all the amenities we possibly can. One of these amenities is electricity and the only way in which this amenity can be made available to all is by doing it on a national basis. People living in remote rural areas have been quoted almost impossible terms; but the fact remains that electricity would in the long run be a good investment nationally. The drive should be, in my opinion, much greater than it is. More money should be spent and, if necessary, there should be greater subsidisation for the purpose of developing rural electrification because, if people do not get these amenities, which are so readily available to urban dwellers, they will move from the rural areas into the cities and towns. Indeed, that trend is already in process of evolution not alone here but throughout the world. We are anxious to retain our rural population, but, if the people in the rural areas are deprived of these essential facilities, the only result will be large-scale migration to the cities. Money spent on rural electrification would be money well spent. This is a matter to which the Minister and his advisers might direct their attention.

There is apparent now an increased demand for central heating and that is something the ESB are in a position to supply. In fact, the ESB can supply central heating at a very economic rate, in some cases as low as one-eighth of a penny per unit. Bearing that in mind, it is fairly obvious the demand will increase. I am wondering if the projections in the Minister's speech will be sufficient to meet that demand. In the long run central heating is an economy. Would the Minister tell us as to whether his projection will be sufficient to meet the increasing demand?

I should like now to deal with the question of compensation. Most of our wiring is overhead and there are bound to be accidents because of that to both livestock and houses. Only yesterday evening a constituent came to me and told me his house had been practically destroyed by lightning last week. The lightning appeared to have come in through the leads to the house. These were blown away. There is a transformer station not very far from this man's house and it is conceivably possible—I am not making any charge against anybody — that this was not sufficiently earthed and that may have accounted for the accident. Whatever it was, this man is now liable for anything up to £1,000 to repair his house. The ESB should carry insurance. Cases have come to my notice in which livestock have been killed as a result of proximity to pylons: the animals were electrocuted. Surely it would not cost the ESB a great deal to carry insurance cover. I propose to approach the ESB to ask if they will make an ex gratia payment to the man I mentioned for the damage done to his house. I know they will tell me they are not liable. No State company will ever admit liability because, if they do, they will probably find themselves in trouble with someone else. They may possibly, however, make an ex gratia payment in this case.

The last point I want to make is relevant to my own constituency. We have a power station with a deep water draught harbour in Great Island in Wexford. I think this would be an ideal shipping centre. It was built for the purpose of bringing in oil. Would the Minister consider developing a miniature Shannon Development in that area? He might spend a little in Wexford to provide us with a few industries there. People think we are a rich and up-to-date county; we are undoubtedly up to date but we have our problems of unemployment and emigration. Perhaps the Minister would sympathetically consider the suggestion I make.

Seán Ó Ceallaigh

Ní rún liomsa puinn ama a dhiomailt leis an mBille seo óir tuigtear dom gur fánach bheith ag impí ar an Aire deireadh a chur le neithe áirithe atá sa Bhille agus a bhí san mBille a ritheadh i 1961. Siad san na neithe ar a dtugaimse na screapaill speisialta. Tá a fhios agam ó na figiúirí a chuir an tAire romhainn go bhfuil tuairim 12,000 daoine sa tír —daoine a chónaíos in áiteanna iargcúlta—nach acfuinn dóibh na screapaill i dtieis agam do dhíol.

Tá aithne agam ar chuid acu i gContae an Chláir agus do h-éilíodh orthu £5 nó £6 in aghaidh an dá mhí. Cuir leis sin an gnáth-tháille agus bheadh £7 nó £8 le n-íoc acu gach dhá mhí. Ní fheadar an bhfuil sé de dhánaíocht san Aire a rá liomsa gur acfuinn do fheirmeoirí beaga an méid sin do dhíol. Má chreideann seisean gur cumas dóibh é, ní réitím leis. Tuigim, áfach, dá mbeinn ag caint anso go Lá Pilib an Chleite ná féadfainn croí agus aigne an Aire do bhogadh.

Dubhairt sé linn sa Bhille gur cailleadh ós cionn £900,000 i scéim leictreachas na tuaithe i leith na bliana dár chríoch 31 Márta, 1965. Ba mhaith liom d'fhiafraí dhe de mhéid a dhíol muintir na tuaithe i bhfoirm cánacha d'fhonn solas do thabhairt do lucht na mbailte móra ó 1927 go dtí 1965? Cuir leis sin an méid bhreise d'íocadar i bhfoirm rátaí d'fhonn solas poiblí do thabhairt do na cathránaigh agus do lucht na mbailte beaga. Táim cinnte dhe go bhfuil i bhfad Éireann níos mó ná £900,000 íoctha acu chun na buntáistí do bhronnadh ar mhuintir na mbailte mór. Aoibhinn dóibh anois cuairt do thabhairt ar an mbaile mór agus solas amhail solas an lae ar na sráideanna agus filleadh abhaile chun bheith ag póirseáil dóibh féin sa dorchadas.

Dubhairt mé i dtosach báire gur fánach do dhaoine sa Tí seo bheith ag éigheamh ar an Aire Iompair agus Cumhachta cothram na Féinne do thabhairt do mhuintir na tuaithe. Fé mar adubhairt mé cheana, is íontach an duine é chun figiúirí do láimhseáil agus a léiriú dhúinn go bhfuil oiread áirithe faoin gcéad díobh go bhfuil na buntáistí acu.

Gheall sé cheana go bhfaighfí an rud ar a dtugann siad "bottled gas". Fiafraím de cá tairbhe dhóibh an "gas" chun innil chrúite d'oibriú nó chun bainne d'fhionnfhuaradh i dtreo go bhfaighidis an 1d breise ón uachtarlann. Fiafraím de cá tairbhe atá sa "gas" chun innil mheilte nó innill ar bith eile d'oibriú. Fágaimis sa dorchadas iad i muinín go dtiocfaidh Dia nó aire éigin luath nó mall chun an dorchadas do scaipeadh agus cothram na Féinne do thabhairt dóibh.

Mr. Pattison

Deputy Ó Ceallaigh has made a strong case for the extension of rural electrification. He said practically what was said by members of the Labour Party over two years ago when we put down a motion calling on the Minister to abolish special service charges. We pointed out at that time the injustice and hardship small farmers were suffering because of their inability to pay the exorbitant charges demanded by the ESB. I am glad a Government speaker has said so much in support of that view. I feel no words of mine could add to the forceful way he again brought this matter to the notice of the Minister. I understand there are about 10,000 or 12,000 rural dwellers who can never hope to get a supply, even at a reasonable special service charge. This Bill provides no hope for these people whatever. It more or less confirms them in the position in which they find themselves up to now, in which they are completely forgotten and ignored by the Government in this measure.

The Minister gave a comprehensive account of the development of rural electrification, but there was a significant omission—the bottled gas scheme. I would like to have heard how that scheme has worked out since it was introduced to alleviate the hardships on those who cannot afford to pay the high special service charges. I should like to know to what extent it has helped those people. Its very omission from the history of rural electrification contained in the Minister's speech is, I think, an indication of its failure. That is what we on this side of the House said at that time—that it was in no way a substitute for a proper rural electrification scheme.

My purpose in rising to speak on this Bill, which provides for additional generation capacity, is to ask the Minister to take positive steps to ensure that the ESB will use our natural resources to obtain this additional capacity. Deputy Esmonde pointed out the disadvantages of being dependent on an imported product, oil, for the generation of electricity, especially when natural resources are available. I speak in particular of coal. At present the coalmining industry is going through a very difficult time. The Minister said this is mainly due to marketing. I feel if one of these additional generating stations were set up in the coal mining areas to use coal it would be of tremendous help in aHeviating the present difficulties in the coalmining industry. The ESB are dependent on the people. No concern can carry on on its own. Those who produce oil in other countries are of no benefit to the ESB or to any body in this country. But the people who produce coal and turf in this country find that their products are being used less and less by this State body.

I hope the Minister will use his good offices to impress on the ESB that it is socially desirable that more use should be made of coal in generating electricity. I can anticipate the Minister's reply will be that it would not be economic, but this is not a question of economics. It is a question of putting thousands of extra people on the emigrant ship and of our coalmining industry being closed down. In a way the ESB are responsible for the decline in the coalmining industry because they have been allowed to draw on outside sources for their raw material. Therefore, they should lend a helping hand now that an opportunity arises. I hope the Minister will ask the Board to do this.

Mr. Donegan

It is rather unfortunate, and may be a parliamentary coincidence, that we are looking at this Bill at a time when we have not got the report of the ESB for the year ending 31st March, 1965. I know that is not the Minister's fault. It is just that if this Bill had been delayed for perhaps another week, we would have had this report. Some figures have been given in the Minister's brief but not in the detail we would have liked.

It is quite obvious the ESB has expanded and is constantly expanding in both domestic and industrial consumption. This is all to the good. The ESB must expand in the future and we must be able to keep up with the demand. I suppose that is the gravamen of this Bill and the point we must consider. I want to say that every expansion, big or small, which a company makes, brings very heavy burdens on its executives. Mistakes are often made in a time of expansion. Old men and even younger men in a time of expansion find the strain too great for them. You often find that a relatively large number of them fall into ill-health. I am glad to say, so far as I and anybody in this House can see, the ESB is bearing the strain of expansion well and providing a good service for the bulk of the people. We must be grateful, not only to the men at the top but to the men at the bottom and the men all the way down, that the ESB are providing such a good service. We should be grateful to everybody who is any way connected with the ESB that this great strain of expansion is not finding them wanting and they are producing good results.

There are, however, certain facets of this whole matter which must be considered. I have always said it is highly questionable whether or not the ESB should have entered into the sale of appliances at all. I believe they should instead have encouraged private enterprise operators who are paying rents, which the ESB are not, income tax and all the rest of it. These people should be encouraged to sell appliances rather than that the ESB should be allowed to go into the business themselves. The private enterprise operators have to pay their staff and have to provide for their families during the year.

There may be great arguments against me in that particular regard. The ESB has very great advantages. It has capital. I suppose, in relation to that particular field of its activities, limitless capital. At the same time, it has contact with every consumer which no private enterprise can possibly have. The ESB is in the position that when a person does not pay his bill, the light is disconnected from the man's house. The ESB, because of this, can give better repayment terms than can private enterprise operators. The ordinary benefits from the sale of his appliances may be offset by the fact that payments on hire purchase may not be kept up and that sometimes these payments are overdue for a considerable time. These payments cannot fall overdue in the case of the ESB because the current will be cut off from the man's house if they do. This means that the people who have put their lives and every effort into private enterprise sales of electrical appliances are competing with the ESB on an unfair basis.

There is another facet of this matter.

If you are an executive in the sales and appliances section of the ESB office, you are in a position whereby your whole future and your whole promotion lies in the expansion of that office. This is likewise true of CIE and all other large companies. A man may be running the appliances section in the ESB office in a small town. The only way he can get a transfer to a bigger and better position is to succeed in that office. The only way he can succeed, if he is not seeking a transfer, is to advance himself from one grade to another and the only way he can do that is by having five or six people under him, instead of two people. This also applies to the CIE. If you reach the stage of being in charge of six people, you are paid extra money.

This is right and proper, but it creates a situation in which somebody who has not the advantage the Board has can do nothing to provide for bad debts. He has not the advantage of contact with every consumer. The ESB operates in an unfair manner against private enterprise suppliers. You cannot turn back the clock in this matter. The Board of the ESB decided they were going to provide a sale of appliances service. This has been done. There are a large number of families who are involved in this private enterprise business. We cannot turn back the clock and put those people in danger of losing their jobs. Therefore, we are in the position that we have a fait accompli.

I believe the ESB should leave the sale of appliances section of their operations to private enterprise. I believe the ordinary radio, television and ESB appliance dealer in the town who is paying his rent, rates and taxes and who is giving his operatives trade union wages and conditions should be in the position of having to face fair competition. It is true that he is not in that position at the present time. We should not endeavour to crush these people out of business. This could easily happen and it would be quite foreign to our idea of private enterprise.

This is not a criticism of the ESB or its executives. It is a statement of fact. It is a statement of what exists and it is something which I definitely feel should be righted by the Minister. It is something which should not be left as it is. I believe there is grave danger to private enterprise in this.

I started off my remarks by congratulating the members of the ESB on the services they are giving in this time of strain when expansion is so much with us. It is true, however, there is nothing wrong in giving thought to those in private enterprise who can be put out of business by the ESB. I remember sitting behind a Senator, when I was kicked upstairs, who was not noted for the amount of time he spoke. He said on one particular occasion, when he spoke about the Civil Service, that these people who have reached the pinnacle of unsackability must be re-orientated. That might be amusing but it is a position which could arise, human nature being what it is, if you do not give the service which you started off to give. This is something which the executives of the ESB, the Minister and everybody charged with looking after power and light supplies must constantly bear in mind.

I shall give an illustration in regard to this. My very good friend, Deputy P.J. Burke, has many times extolled the virtues of a widow from Balbriggan. I am going to tell you now the story of a non-mythical, absolutely realistic and very decent lady from Annagassan.

Mr. P.J. Burke

Was she a widow?

Mr. Donegan

As a matter of fact, yes. She was a very good friend of mine and would be of the Deputy, too, if he knew her. She had two houses. She was absent from one and the bill was put in the letter-box. Eventually, she was cut off for the two houses because she had not paid the bill. She changed the law of this country. She sued the ESB in the High Court and proceeded to the Supreme Court, lost the case, paid all the bills, and then, six months later, we in this House legislated to say that the ESB could never do that again. I think possibly the present Minister for Transport and Power introduced the legislation but it escapes my memory: perhaps, it was not he. However, as I say, six months later, we changed the legislation and introduced legislation to say that the ESB could never do that again. I am not criticising and I am not being difficult but I am saying that if there had been a place next door, it could never have happened. I could never imagine such a thing happening in any of the business establishments in Deputy Burke's constituency or in my constituency because there is a place next door. It is something that must be watched and considered. It is something that must be in the mind of the Minister and of everybody involved in this at all times.

Human nature is such that as we get built into a position which we occupy and as our mind and our whole being become involved in our rights, our opportunities, in what we can do and cannot do, we tend to retreat within ourselves and not think of the other person. So, in fact, there is that danger in any monopoly situation. You have it in the Post Office, in CIE, in the ESB. What may seem to be a pattern of behaviour that is fair, proper and right for the executive of the ESB or of CIE or of the Post Office may in fact, when one looks at it in a fully detached way, not be a proper approach but may be an overconservative approach or one that does not at the time take into full account the proper and democratic rights of the customer.

Again, not in a spirit of criticism or of pointing a finger at any section of the ESB or anything else, I have given an instance which proves to everybody here that there is that danger and the Minister must watch it. If we have this situation in these State companies, then the service that is provided may suffer if we do not watch this problem in relation to the customer.

There are a few other smaller matters which I should like to mention. A great irritation to industry is the fact that the ESB insist on the building of a sub-station by an industrialist or the user of a lot of power in order that they will give him the amount of power that he needs. When they make him build that sub-station they insist that he will give them a lease of it for 999 years at 1/- a year. They further insist that they may supply anybody else from that sub-station. If a person wants a large volume of power and has to build a sub-station worth £500 or £600, the extra expenditure in relation to the amount of expenditure on machinery and buildings, and so on, may be quite small. However, this extra expenditure on sub-stations, in relation to the capital expenditure of the ESB, is quite small. It is amazing the bad taste it leaves in the mouth of an industrialist when he finds that, in order to get his power, he has to pay £500 or £600 and that out of that, all the factories and places down the street will get it. That may be a selfish viewpoint. It may be one that is, perhaps, improper or it may not be one that this industrialist should have. However, remember that if there were an ESB next door or a BSE next door, as well, and there were such competition, I repeat that such a thing could never occur.

This is a situation whereby you get wrong thinking, whereby you get thinking conditioned by a monopoly situation and thinking, in the immortal words of the person I have mentioned, that those people who have reached the zenith of unsackability must be re-orientated. I know that this practice has come about over the years but, in relation to that power on that site and the cost of it to the ESB, the building of this sub-station is very small. It could be written into the cost of the current and into various things and it would have no more effect on the finances of the ESB than a straw in the wind. All I can give is the instance of industrialists who have had a very bad taste left in their mouths by this particular facet of the operation in relation to power.

Deputy Pattison mentioned the ESB using coal. I presume he meant anthracite coal from our coalmines. The anthracite from Ballingarry is absolutely wonderful fuel for use in industrial boilers or in domestic boilers. It is excellent and not to be beaten. I believe that it is superior to turf. I know there is a problem in relation to the disposal of ash and that where this fuel has been used in factories there have been instances of complaints because ash has been deposited wherever the wind blew around the factories. We have had all these problems before in relation to factories. I have seen it beside me in Cement, Limited, Drogheda. Everybody who has been near an industrial centre has seen the problem of ash, smoke and so on. I think we can get over that. However, I have seen the figures and I know that with the price at the present moment it can be provided from Ballingarry.

Ballingarry anthracite is the best fuel for industrial purposes that can be provided in this country. There is nothing to touch it. Oil would not come within the roar of an ass of it. It is particularly important that the Minister should realise that. I know he probably does realise it. Today, at Question Time, it was indicated that the Government have this problem in view. I could not emphasise more the fact—I am certain it cannot be refuted—that anthracite coal from some of these coalmines is wonderful fuel for use in industrial boilers. From that point of view, I cannot see any reason why it should not be an excellent fuel for the generation of electricity.

Mention was made of this question of cost of urban and rural electrification. We all know about the fellow who lives across the hill. As practical Deputies on all sides of the House, we must realise that there is a point at which it would be cheaper to move him across the hill to the side of the road than to bring electricity to his homestead. That may seem an exaggeration but it is not. It is true that there are houses in this country which cannot economically be fed with electricity. I suggest that the only thing we can then do is to subsidise bottled gas, as has been done by the Minister. I think, however, that the view at the moment is, perhaps, a bit conservative. I think the Minister would not accept that as a great criticism: it is merely a question of how one looks at it. That has been my experience and it is my opinion. If one were able to look at all costs and figures in the detailed way the Minister can, one might find that I am wrong but, nevertheless, I think it is a bit conservative.

In the Minister's brief, mention was made of the fact that the urban consumer subsidises the rural consumer by about £1 million per year. I deprecate the practice which has grown to be standard first in the Department of Agriculture, afterwards in the Department of Industry and Commerce and now in the Department of Transport and Power whereby all the costs of providing power or subsidy or anything like that for the rural community are charged up and laid in a bill at their door. If somebody started a factory out in the middle of the fields and there were a power line three or four miles away from that factory, what would happen is the ESB would satisfy themselves that the machines were capable of using a certain volume of electricity. They would then get the directors to sign a form saying they would use the electricity for a certain period and the line would be provided. I am not convinced that every one of those operations is absolutely viable without subsidy.

It is wrong economics to say that because Joe Brown across the hill pays more for being given electricity than the man in the street, the urban consumer is subsidising the rural consumer by £X a year. I do not think there is any reason why this should be so. We have to utilise every source of production, and to do that there is need for capital expenditure. If the figures produced show that one section is costing per head more than the other, then I think a split up of the whole procedure is improper. That is not something we want in this House. It is something that will give rise to the perennial cry — the Dublin bus user is subsidising the buses in Connemara. If we establish a State company to provide a service, then it must be expected that the State company will provide that service for every individual, until it becomes impracticable. To do a series of statistical sums on this and produce a bill against the rural consumer is just cod. If he were not there to export the produce of his labour across the seas and pay for the raw materials of industry I know who would be out of employment first. It would be the urban consumer.

The ESB is the national supply line.

It is something we must have and something we must use with caution. It must be viewed on figures of cost, and not be subdivided. Bald statements should not be made by the Minister that the urban consumer is subsidising the rural consumer. It should never have been couched in these terms and that is the proper criticism of it.

I believe the ESB is doing a good job. But it is no harm to carry out a spring clean now and again and take a new look at it. The criticisms I have offered are in relation to matters that have to be watched. As the semi-State bodies expand they have to be watched and the first and last precept of all business is that the customer is always right.

Mr. P.J. Burke

Like Deputy Donegan, I wish to state that the Board of the ESB have done a very good job in this country over the years. It is a semi-State body of which we have a right to be proud. Countless members of the ESB have created something for posterity in this country.

The Minister for Transport and Power has a very big concern to look after, even if it involved only the ESB. This is one of the most powerful semi-State bodies we have. I am delighted that we can come in here and criticise in a democratic way this semi-State body. That is one of the reasons why the Board of the ESB will always be on their toes to meet the wishes of the people. I believe every semi-State company, no matter how good they are, should be subject to the democratic criticism of the public representatives in the Dáil. Now, Sir, pardon me for going away from the Bill, but I shall come back to it in a moment. In a number of cases with which I had to deal especially where electricity was cut off, a human approach was adopted by the ESB officials. Where they went to the defaulter who failed to pay his two-monthly account, or who did not pay his demand for four months, if there was any chance at all of getting the money, the light was never cut off. If there is a promise that the money will be paid by instalments the light is not cut off.

Some years ago the approach was more autocratic. If you or I, Sir, or the Minister himself, or any Deputy slipped up the ESB officials cut off the light. All that has been changed and that, I say, is a result of the democratic approach of the representatives of this House. That is why I say the ESB is subject to this House. When the Minister introduces a Bill to put ESB machinery into operation or when he gives a grant of money on behalf of the Government, he cannot interfere with or be held responsible for the everyday running of the ESB. He would be assuming responsibility that normally rests on the Board of the ESB appointed by him.

I should like the Minister to state how much money has been given towards rural electrification since the Act was passed. I may be asking too much but I should like to know this. Wonderful advances have been made in rural Ireland as far as the ESB is concerned. I have my own complaints about constituents of mine who were bypassed in the rural electrification scheme when it was first started. They lived half a mile from the area covered. When the ESB was approached to extend the power to them, they had to pay more than the people within the ordinary rural electrification network when the scheme was organised some years previously. A few years ago the present Minister cut down a good deal on that expenditure by asking the Government to give a grant towards it. I know the Minister has the same problems in his constituency and I know everybody here has these problems.

I asked questions of the Minister recently on this matter because I felt as a democrat that I did not like to see the Joneses down the road paying more for electricity than the Murphys living only half a mile away. This is all due to the economics of the ESB. The Board have to remain solvent, and if they want further grants they have to come back to the Dáil. We have this problem in various parts of the country. There are still certain people outside the ordinary network of rural electrification and they have to pay more for electricity.

I hope the day will come when the prosperity of the nation will enable whatever Government are in office to put everyone on the same footing. Until that day comes we can move only according to our resources. The resources of the country have moved reasonably well and have helped people who want electricity. During the past few weeks I got complaints from farmers in County Dublin who are outside the network of rural electrification. They claimed they should get priority treatment because of what they are doing. They would get priority treatment if they could satisfy the ESB rural electrification engineers that they were going to spend so much money, that their consumption of electricity would be a certain figure. They could not give that assurance so they had to pay the extra charges. Over the past few years the Minister has alleviated a certain amount of distress in regard to extra charges on people of that kind. I am sure he is fully alive to the position because we have often discussed this matter. When the resources of our country are such that we can afford to meet these extra charges, we will be able to put the Joneses and the Murphys on the same footing, and when we can do that we will have advanced quite a bit.

I listened to another Deputy speaking this evening about the use so far as possible of our native resources. The ESB are famous for doing that. They are more than anxious to harness any rivers they can. They are also anxious to use our own turf and they have succeeded in doing that over the years. They have succeeded in using more native fuel than we would have thought possible some years ago. Year after year they are extending their stations and using all the native fuel they can. Naturally, Deputy Pattison made a case for the use of more of our native coal. I am sure the Minister has made a note of that. We are most anxious that all the native fuel possible should be used. I am sure the ESB engineers and advisers have been exploring that possibility over the years.

In this amending Bill the Minister is empowering the ESB to increase their capital expenditure. That is very necessary. Our industrial development alone over the past five or six years has placed demands on the ESB which they had not bargained for. I am delighted the Minister is keeping abreast of the times and giving the ESB the capital they require to do the job.

The Minister has a big responsibility in dealing with this Board. Sometimes when he is asked questions he says: "I am not responsible for that." He says that quite rightly, and I, or any other person, in his position would say the same thing.

Mr. Coogan

That was in connection with CIE.

Mr. P.J. Burke

That is another day's work which I will discuss with the Deputy later. I am not as resourceful as the Deputy, and I can deal only with one problem at a time. The ESB have done a very good job and we are all very proud of them.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

Mr. P.J. Burke

I am sure that while the Minister remains in office he will at all times consider the interests of the nation.

Mr. Coogan

I welcome this Bill. I see it as an investment. It is very heartening to hear Deputy Burke describing the ESB as the finest State body in the country. That is very heartening coming from that side of the House in view of the fact that at one time they described it as a white elephant. Be that as it may, they have come a long way since, and have grown up quite a lot.

Rural electrification can be described as one of the greatest amenities for our countryside. It will play its part in making life in the country worthwhile and anything that does so is to be lauded. The only fault I have to find with rural electrification—and other Deputies find the same—is the charges. That has been the stumbling block, because the charges are by no means attractive. We are all aware that householders who were canvassed and refused to sign to take the supply are deprived of it for years afterwards. It is a grave hardship when the head of the household who was of that way of thinking has passed away, that the younger generation should have to suffer. It is not fair to deprive them of the supply. The paraffin oil mentality has held for a long time amongst the older people, and allowance should be made for that. It is unfair to blacklist the younger people, and that is how I describe it. The younger members of the family should not be made to suffer for what I might call the sins of the older people.

I want now to mention the power lines. They should not be allowed to destroy the beauty of the countryside. This has been mentioned recently in the papers. The ESB should work in greater harmony with the town and country planning authorities. If the ordinary citizen has to toe the line in this respect, I do not see why the ESB should not be made to do the same, to some degree anyway. They should give a better lead in this respect. So far as possible the cables should be laid underground in town and city. That would also play its part in tidying up our towns.

Could we have greater co-operation between the ESB and the authority responsible for the forest of direction signs erected in our towns? At the moment one can see "No parking" signs erected within a few feet of ESB standards. Co-ordination between the two authorities could have the effect of having these direction signs put on ESB standards. I suggest the Minister should use his good offices to bring about this co-operation. It would result in a considerable saving of public money.

I should like to know from the Minister what the production of electricity is at the Screebe power station in Connemara. It was established for the purpose of providing employment in an area from which there was massive emigration. There is still need for employment in that area and I suggest to the Minister that he should make every effort to get the ESB to boost the production from that station and thus create more employment in an area which so badly needs it.

I ask the Minister to see that greater priority in regard to electricity supply is given to householders along the west coast. A great proportion of them cater for tourists and because they provide such a much needed service in the national economy, I submit they should be much higher in the priority list for rural electrification. According to what we hear, there is hope for a joint North-South nuclear effort for the production of electricity. That will get the blessing of all sides of the House because, apart from the co-operation it can bring, it will help the economy of both sides. Again, I should like to welcome the Bill.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): Like other Deputies, I welcome the Bill in so far as its purpose is to provide additional capital for the ESB. It is admitted by everybody that, by and large, the ESB down through the years have done a very fine job of work. The history of the ESB is a success story from their inauguration in the mid-1920s. There are only one or two points I wish to deal with. One is the difficult question of special charges; the second is the unnecessary and unreasonable interference by the ESB with building sites where those sites are scarce in and around towns.

In reference to the question of special charges, I think the Government and the House have to decide whether it is to be the policy of the State to encourage people to remain on the land or to encourage, and indeed accelerate, the flight from the land. The ESB can play a very important part in determining whether people will remain in rural Ireland. It may be said that the ESB is a business concern, that its duty is to run its business on business lines, economically, and to show a profit.

I do not entirely agree with that. The ESB is a semi-State monopoly and as a monopoly, owes a duty to the people of the country just as the Department of Posts and Telegraphs and CIE owe that duty. It is the duty of CIE to provide a transport service, not only when that service pays but where it is required and does not pay. Likewise, it is the duty of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs to provide a communications service throughout the country where it is a paying proposition as well as where it sometimes and very often does not pay.

Therefore, the ESB should finish the job of rural electrification. It appears from the Minister's speech today that the job of rural electrification is very far advanced. Another £5 million is being provided in the Bill to further rural electrification but it is apparently accepted as a matter of policy that there are a given number of households throughout the country which will never be served. That is a pity. I know of cases where the standard charge per two months is something like £1 and the special charge asked on top of that is approximately £3. I am not citing a case in a remote part of Ireland; I am citing the case of a person living within approximately three miles of a town with a population of between 4,000 and 5,000.

It is very difficult to justify that special charge. It means in effect that a person is being told by the ESB: "We shall not supply you with current; you can get bottled gas and we shall give you a grant of £10 towards its installation." Persons such as those I have mentioned would be prepared to pay some extra contribution, perhaps 50 per cent of the special charge, as an addition to the ordinary charge, but to ask them to pay 300 per cent or more appears unreasonable.

As another Deputy has said, the ESB are inclined to use a very heavy hand with people who had the opportunity of taking an electricity supply a few years ago and refused. Such people apparently are to be punished through a refusal to give them a supply now on reasonable terms. I admit it is very easy to be annoyed with people who, when the workmen were passing their doors, refused to accept current and who come along looking for it years afterwards, but circumstances change and example is one of the best teachers we have in this or any country. Old people who were in control in those years have since yielded up the reins or have passed on, and the young people want electricity.

The case I am making is that even at the expense of calling on the general taxpayer to pay something more, this ten or 15 per cent, whatever it is, should be met so that those people can be given current. Those people have been for years, and still are, contributing to financial projects of one sort or another from which they, as individuals, reap no benefit. With the introduction of the turnover tax, they cannot avoid paying tax. They contribute in the form of grants to luxury hotels; they contribute in the form of taxation to magnificent main roads which they will never enjoy. They will contribute to projects in and around the city of Dublin which may be of considerable value to the nation but from which these people living in backward places can never hope to benefit directly. Just as the trunk road for the tourists or the comfortable hotel — not to go as far as using the word "luxury"—and the factory are assets to the nation, so are these people who are living in remote and not so remote parts of Ireland. They are an asset to the general economy.

In these days when we talk very often in terms, not of millions or tens of millions of pounds, but of hundreds of millions of pounds, it would appear to me that the amount of money necessary to finish this job must be comparatively small. I read the Minister's script and I do not think he told us what it would cost to finish off this ten or 15 per cent at a reasonable charge, but taking it that he is providing a further £5 million now for this project, I imagine it can be a matter of only £1 million or £2 million. If it is of that order, or even more, the Minister should encourage the ESB to give these people this service, a service which is due to them from this monopoly.

If the State had not conferred on the ESB the exclusive right to provide current and power within the State, who knows but somebody in these towns might have been able to set up private plants and serve these people? I do not think bottled gas is the answer. Bottled gas cannot do all the things these people want done and if they are to be given bottled gas while their neighbour a mile or two up the road is to enjoy electric light, then these people will regard themselves as second-rate citizens. I do not think that is reasonable.

That is my approach to this question. I know several cases in my own constituency where these complaints arise every day of the week and I am sure the Minister has similar complaints in his constituency, which is more or less similar to my own. As I say, these people have to contribute in the form of taxes whether they like it or not, to other projects which they cannot enjoy. Indeed, down the years they have all contributed to the foundation, organisation and growth of the ESB and it is not reasonable that now they should be deprived of the benefits.

The only other matter I want to deal with is the question of building sites around towns in urban areas and immediately outside urban areas. Many years ago, high tension wires were run across these sites when sites were not so scarce in many towns. Due to the nature of the land around, the hills and so on, it is difficult to get sites and it very frequently happens that perfectly good sites are spoiled by high tension ESB wires running across them. My experience has been that the ESB refuse to remove these cables, except at a prohibitive charge. Being a monopoly enjoying State assistance, the Board should be more reasonable about removing these high tension wires in order to provide very badly needed sites in and around towns.

I am sure this question has been raised before. I am not raising the much larger and more difficult question of putting all cables underground. That, I am sure, would cost a vast amount of money, might be prohibitive, and could be done only as part of a very long term policy. The matter I raise is comparatively small but is very important for the towns and individuals concerned.

While dealing with towns, I think the ESB should co-operate more in regard to providing public lighting at a reasonable charge in urban areas. Most towns are badly lighted. Perhaps the Minister can answer me by telling me that there is some special scheme under which the ESB provide lighting on reasonable terms, and if there is such a scheme I should be glad to hear about it because I know of efforts which were made to switch over from the old system of public lighting in towns to a new system but the cost was excessive and indeed for small urban areas, it seemed to be prohibitive. The Board could perhaps take a long term view of this and provide lighting on such terms as would recoup them over a long period.

I welcome the Bill and I hope the money will be wisely used, wisely not in the narrow sense of showing an immediate profit but in the broader, national sense of serving all the people, whether they are resident in cities or in towns or in backward areas.

Mr. Kennedy

There are just a few matters I should like to mention. The first is in regard to the service to rural areas. We are very concerned in my constituency about the lack of service. In this connection there are two headings, the first of which is that there are the larger areas which are still without service. There are whole townlands without any service. I agree that to provide service may be difficult and we may have to plan again and re-canvass again before these can be serviced. However, there is the case of the isolated house, the occupier of which did not opt to avail of the service some years ago. Now perhaps there may have been a change of ownership and younger people may have moved in. Where lines are passing nearby, it is unfair to hold over the isolated cases until there has been a complete re-examination of the whole area. They could be serviced for very little. I can say with a certain amount of authority that the people would be prepared, if a pole or two were necessary, to dig the holes for them and the gang could come along and erect the poles.

I shall give an example or two to illustrate the position. There is a farm of 100 acres less than a mile from New Ross, and when the area was being serviced, the then owner did not opt to take the supply. The farm has now changed hands and is held by a very progressive farmer with a young family. He has a herd of cows but cannot go into business because he cannot get, and has very little hope of getting, a service. I ask the Minister to picture farms of that size throughout the country with milk production held up because of the lack of power.

I am very far from satisfied with the service given by the Board in the lighting of rural villages: it is a bad service. Complaints made by county councils to the district offices seem to be ignored, or at least, following repeated complaints, there is no improvement in the service. In certain villages we find lights on during the day and off at night. In particular villages where three or four lamps provide public lighting, we find these are sometimes out for two or three weeks at a time. With a semi-State body with a monopoly, this is not good enough. It is our duty as public representatives to be everwatchful and critical so that we can maintain the efficient service for which the people are paying.

I want to draw the Minister's attention to a particular case where, on a big drainage job in County Wexford, pumping was employed for disposal rather than sluices. The pumping is highly efficient and effective. Two automatic pumps are used on this job at Ballinteigue, in the Kilmore area. These pumps are separately metered and we find we must earn the reduction on each pump even though they are being used on one job, on one outfall in the one area. This is unfair. I am subject to correction on this point, but I know the matter has been raised at county council level and the Board has been asked why this should be the case.

As regards development in villages, I think the Minister would agree that so far as possible we should be very careful about the erection of poles. One sees some very unsightly poles in some villages. Some of our villages are very pretty, and we are proud of them, and we could do a lot to improve the situation in regard to the use of poles. At least they need not be so unsightly. If the Board's engineers would consult more often with the county and district engineers and public representatives, we would not have as much to complain about under this heading.

My colleague from County Wexford, Deputy Esmonde, mentioned the matter of central heating. I think that will snowball and that no worthwhile construction of houses will be undertaken in future without central heating. It is important that where the Board submit quotations for this type of work, people should not have the experience I heard of recently of a man who got quotations from oil companies and others, and the ESB. The ESB was the cheapest but by the time he had the system installed, there was an increase in price which changed the picture completely. We must be prepared to say that with increased consumption there will not be increases of that kind because it is essential that the cost should be kept within the limit people can afford.

As one who was happy to work earlier in canvassing rural areas for the ESB, I can say that we felt at that time that as the people availed more and more of the service, there would be a greater assurance that it would remain at a fixed charge. It was reasonable to assume that the more people who used it, the more assurance there was, not that it would necessarily be cheaper, but that it would remain at the same price. That has not been so.

I should like the Minister to note my remarks because they relate to people in the rural areas particularly. I accept the Minister's statement that urban areas are subsidising rural areas as true on the figures that are available but one would like to see a breakdown of the figures and know more about them. I think we should keep away from comparisons of this type because if you continue making them in regard to every service, you would wonder who is paying for what or whom we are supporting. Certainly, comparisons between urban and rural areas are highly undesirable. In the rural areas we must have the people in the towns well enough off to be able to consume what is produced and it is for the benefit of urban areas to have the people in the country in a position to use as much of their products as possible.

Mr. McLaughlin

I welcome the Bill, but I am taking the opportunity of making known some grievances of the people in my constituency. Rural electrification has been of immense benefit to the whole country. It has brought comforts to the homes, to the housewife, the farmers and nearly everyone who has been supplied with it. Coming here as public representatives, it is our duty to talk about the people who have not got a supply. I see in the statement we got from the Minister that under the 1962 Act the Government provided a special grant of £90,000 to enable the ESB to extend the scheme on the original terms to some areas which otherwise being completely uneconomic, could not have a supply at all.

Our experience as public representatives is that very often we meet people, and representations are made to us, to see what can be done about a charge of, say, £4. Very often that applies to a small farm in a very out-of-the-way place, with all the drudgery and hard work attached to such a holding. Such a man is asked to pay £1 for his electricity, plus £3 special charge. He cannot understand it when in some cases he may not be more than 100 yards from a farmer who is getting a supply for 16/- or 18/-. There may be a few extra poles or a transformer involved but that makes it no easier to explain.

The long term view of the ESB should be that with the demand that exists for the supply and the potential consumption, these people, some of whom have been refused in the past and others who have not been considered until now, should in all fairness, be given every consideration. I am continually making representations to the Sligo office. I find the officials there very helpful. I have the greatest respect for the staff. Nevertheless, the answer to representations invariably is that the ESB cannot supply anybody without first making sure that it will be economic to do so and that the Board will be on the safe side. As I have said, taking the long term view and having regard to the thousands of people availing of supply, special consideration should be given in the cases to which I have referred. The special charge should be considerably reduced. I do not think there has been any case in which the ESB reduced the charge quoted to an applicant.

At the moment an attempt is being made to complete within three years schemes in Kiltyclogher, Glenfarne and Killavogy. I am continually receiving complaints from each of these areas of charges of £2, £3 and £4 per two months being imposed on small farmers. There is no complaint about the price of electricity per unit. The complaint is in regard to the service charge of £2 to £4 per two months. This is at a time when taxation of all kinds is increasing. The turnover tax has caused increases. Every time that local representatives attend rates meetings they find the rates being increased. The ESB and the Minister should try to meet the people to whom I have referred. Now is the time. If these people do not avail of the ESB supply now, they will have no further opportunity to do so.

I know some people who are going into the pig industry now as a result of the encouragement given by the Government. These people will be at a serious disadvantage if they have not got a supply of electricity. In some of the rural areas to which I have referred a supply of electricity is even more important than a piped water supply because they are mountainy regions where there is a very generous supply of water.

The £10 grant in connection with bottled gas does not appeal greatly to the people. In that case there is a great deal of preparation required and it is still only a rather makeshift job compared with electricity. In the case of electricity, there is nothing to be done except to switch it on. It is not nearly so complicated or as dangerous as bottled gas.

There is an ESB power station at Arigna which employs quite a number of men, giving great service. Recently, when I was going through Drumshambo I was approached by a number of men from my constituency who told me that they are off for a month or more and may be off until November. When men are left off in the power station it means that others will be left off in the coalmines. I should like to hear from the Minister what is the reason for this. The men told me that there would be a meeting to which public representatives would be called. I do not know if it will be held at Arigna or where it will be held. They informed me that I could expect to be called to the meeting with other representatives from Roscommon, Sligo and Leitrim. It would be advisable for the Minister to try to find out if these men could be kept in steady employment. The men to whom I was speaking are family men. They told me that it would be a struggle for them to survive on unemployment benefit if something is not done.

Everybody in an area should receive consideration at this stage and the ESB should complete the job in any area in which they are working. It is six years since they started in my area. They have done a great job. Every hill and dale was covered. They worked in all sorts of weather. The terrain was very difficult. No area defeated them. For that, I must certainly congratulate the Minister, the ESB and the men who did the job.

There is a matter which is a cause of constant worry to ESB employees, that is, the tendency to break the service of men who have given good, loyal and faithful service to the Board. That can be rather disappointing. A short time ago a man came to me in Dublin who had about eleven years service. He had had a rather tough passage because the ESB was doing its heaviest job at the time that he was employed there. A driver of an ESB truck has to be a really good man. That man was left off, despite representations that were made to the Board on his behalf. Only recently I had to make representations on behalf of a young man who had five years service. Fortunately, as a result of that representation, he was retained and he told me about a week ago that he is not being left off. It is a rather uncertain position for any young man to find himself in. That position should be watched. When a man has given good service he should not be left off in favour of a man who has had only short service.

Another matter that was brought to my notice recently is the question of ESB lights being erected at dangerous corners. This is a matter which concerns the local authority and the cost falls on the local authority. I am a member of a local authority and I realise that local authorities have a heavy burden to carry with rates soaring and expenses increasing. If at all possible, the ESB should move in and have those lights erected at minimum cost because when local representatives are told that a light will cost a very high price, very often the result is that the light is not erected at the dangerous corner.

Mr. Kitt

My remarks on the Second Reading of this Bill will be fairly brief because I intend to confine myself to the special service charge for rural electrification and I think the Minister knows my mind on the matter already; I have discussed it with him. But I should like to put on the records of the House a few cases of grave injustice in this matter.

My opinion about this special service charge for rural electrification is that it should be abolished or that the subsidy should be increased so that those in the most remote rural areas would get the power and the light at the same cost as is paid by those living in the cities and towns and on main thoroughfares. Actually, the subsidy should be greater in their case. There is a great campaign in progress now, a save the west campaign, and if we do not give people living in rural Ireland the same amenities as are available in urban areas, I do not see how they will stay there. It is no use for a Minister, in the Gresham Hotel or the Shelbourne, in Dublin, telling young farmers that the intention is to give the same facilities to the farmers as are available to people in towns and cities, if that is not put into operation, and it is not being put into operation by the ESB, as I shall try to prove in one or two brief examples.

I wrote to the Minister on behalf of a man in my constituency in regard to rural electrification. He is a lorry-driver for the Galway County Council, has a young family and was living in a rented house. By his own industry, he saved up enough money to buy a vested cottage where there are water and sewerage facilities and for which he paid the key money. His application was sanctioned by the manager of the Galway County Council. In the rented house in which he had lived, there were a television set, a washing machine, an electric iron, an electric kettle, and so forth. However, when he went to live in this cottage which is on the main thoroughfare, just because a few people living between him and the nearest connecting ESB pole refused originally to take it, the light and power were not brought to this cottage. These people are too old and they are not bothering, but in the course of time other tenants will come along and take the light. This man has applied for it and was prepared to pay a fairly reasonable extra charge.

I received a reply from the Minister to the effect that he could not deal personally with the matter. He sent my representations to the ESB and in the course of time this is the reply I received:

Dear Sir,

Further to your recent inquiry re above I wish to inform you that the cottage recently purchased by Mr. Grace at Meelick is in the Mount Bellew Rural Area which was recently recanvassed.

The terms required for an individual supply are as follows:

Normal two-monthly fixed charge:	15s. 3d.
Two-monthly special service charge:	£7 15s. 2d.
Total:	£8 10s. 5d.

The amount of line involved in extending supply would be 1,200 metres high tension meter and service and a separate transformer. There are four other householders convenient whose acceptance of supply would lessen the special service charge somewhat on Mr. Grace. However, these four householders refused supply during recent recanvass.

Is it not ridiculous that for the sake of a quarter of a mile—and it cannot be much more; I travel along there every day—this man is being asked to pay £7 15s. 2d. when the normal charge would be 15s. 3d.? He has all the equipment and it is no use to him. There is no incentive for a man to stay in rural Ireland when the ESB are dealing with him in that manner.

The second case is that of a farmer who wanted supply to his outoffices. This man happens to have only one hand. He was working for either Bord na Móna or the Sugar Company—I am not sure which—when his hand was caught in a machine and he lost the use of his right arm. He got compensation for this and with the compensation, he bought a farm two or three miles away from his original farm. Then he took advantage of the heifer scheme. He bought cows and is supplying milk to the creamery. He built a cow-byre on his farm three miles away from his homestead where he has electricity. Naturally with one arm, this man could not milk cows himself and he bought a milking machine but when he applied to the ESB for current, this is the reply he got:

In order to extend supply to your outoffices, the following terms would apply.

Two-monthly Basic Charge	Two-monthly Special Service Charge	Total
6/6	£6s. 9s. 6d.	£6 16s.

While these terms are high they are the best that can be quoted for an individual extension under the present regulations. It is expected to recanvass this area within the next 12 months with a view to extending supply to as many unconnected houses as possible. When supply is being extended to other houses adjacent to your outoffices it may be possible to quote you more attractive terms. The above terms are however the best that can be quoted now.

It is ridiculous that that man has now to take the cows every morning three miles back to his original home and outoffices to milk them with the milking machine. One knows the hour that has to be done in order to have the milk out in time when the lorry calls for it. The cows have to be driven out again and the same thing has to be done in the evening. I could quote many other cases.

The ESB are charging too much entirely. If the subsidy were increased or if some levelling out were done, the charges on these people would not be so exorbitant. I know of another man who is within 300 yards of a transformer. He has two sons and owns a tractor and a trailer. He offered to provide the labour to bring out the poles and to dig the holes. The ESB would not accept his offer. Their own lorries and workmen would have to be used and a capital charge made for the whole operation in order to increase the cost on this man

That kind of co-operation exists in other branches, in the rural improvements scheme. The payment is taken in kind instead of in cash. If the ESB were prepared to co-operate in the manner I have quoted in relation to the man who has two sons and who offered to provide the transport and free labour, the charges would not be so exorbitant on these people.

I would ask the Minister to look into the points I have made on this Bill. I would remind him that when the Almighty said: "Let there be light", he did not say: "Let there be light for 90 or 95 per cent of the people." He said: "Let there be light for everybody." I hope the Minister knows his Scripture and that he will see to it that there will be light and power for everybody when this Bill goes through.

Mr. Lindsay

Having spoken on the main Estimate which was presented here a very short time ago and spoken at length at that time and, indeed, on matters relevant to this Bill, I do not propose to make a long speech. There are, however, certain matters to which I must refer and I shall refer to them as briefly as I can.

Money is required to do the job the ESB have been charged with doing, and once money is required for any worthwhile job, then that money must be provided. It is on that basis that we approach this Bill and the Minister's request under it on behalf of the ESB. We regard this as top priority in the country, especially in relation to rural electrification. The ESB is a semi-State body which is responsible by way of general policy to the Minister for Transport and Power. It would have been worthwhile for the ESB to sit in here this afternoon and hear members all around this House, whether supporting the Government or in Opposition, speaking with the same voice on the special service charges and the provision of electricity at a reasonable service charge to people in remote areas.

It is difficult when one comes from a country constituency not to feel considerably irate at the treatment meted out to people in these outlying districts who have been the lifeline supply of the nation for many years, who have survived in the most difficult conditions, and who now, when Government through a State body like this wish to reach them, find these difficulties put in their way. As I said on the Estimate, the special service charges may appear small to people dealing in big money but they do not appear small—in fact, they appear formidable —to those who are asked to pay them. I can well understand a canvass in an area being a failure, once figures like this are presented to the people living in the outlying districts.

It is unreal for the Minister to say that the urban areas are paying for the rural areas. I deprecate strongly that attitude on the part of a Minister of State or on the part of the body for which he speaks here. This is a national concern and whether it is making in one place or losing in another is of no social consequence, but it is of great psychological detriment to have that view voiced abroad, the view that there is that difference in fiscal responsibility as between the urban dweller and the rural inhabitant. It is psychologically bad for our people and something that should not be tolerated. Indeed, even speakers of the Government Party this evening have condemned this in equally strong terms.

Rural electrification is one of the amenities for which our people have waited for many years. It is not an amenity that should now be made difficult of access for them. It is not unreasonable when considering a matter of this kind for one to cast one's mind back to the hundreds of thousands, even millions, that have been frittered away on enterprises, the viability of which was never certain and the permanent employment content of which was always in doubt. There is no need to be specific. It is well known that money has been thrown away in various fields of activity, and money misspent because of lack of planning or lack of proper conception at the right time. Here, the plans are in existence. The houses are there. Whether they are in outlying districts or in urban areas, they are inhabited by our people and they should be catered for by our Government through the semi-State body known as the Electricity Supply Board.

There is no doubt that the Electricity Supply Board has done a tremendous job of work, but, in relation to rural electrification, it should not allow itself to be choked by this strong economic content, if I might call it that, in which sums must be done, items carefully totted and subtractions carefully made and related to conditions that do not lend themselves to mathematical calculation or reference at all.

Let us approach this whole question from the social point of view as well as the economic point of view and also, indeed, from the psychological point of view. Is it any wonder that people in the remote areas, north, west and south, are leaving the country districts? Lack of amenities is one of the principal causes of that migration. One would think then that money should not be tightly withheld from them if the expenditure of money will help to keep our people in the rural areas. I expect the Minister will say in reply that things must be paid for and capital must be accounted for. If capital is to be accounted for in the Electricity Supply Board in this very rigid fashion, then equally it should be accounted for everywhere else with the same rigidity and with the same pangs of conscience.

Village lighting has been mentioned. Village lighting is reasonably well done, though here and there one finds a light, or lights, as the case may be, situated rather peculiarly, having regard to the layout of the village. That may be something for which local authorities are responsible but it does cause a great deal of dissatisfaction in the village and it very often generates ill-will as between the inhabitants.

On his Estimate earlier, the Minister said that nuclear stations would not be considered here inside ten years. My information since then is that they are already building at least one in England. Why should we put ourselves ten years behind even on the plan? It might not be necessary to go ahead with the plan but I think it vitally necessary to have the plan. Postponing something for ten years does not seem to me to be politic when our neighbours across the water are already under way and they will be followed, of course, with rapidity by the North of Ireland. In view of the North-South talks in relation to the ESB, tourism and so forth, this is something to which the Minister should direct the attention of the Board with a view to immediate planning, but not necessarily for the immediate implementation of the plan.

In the course of the Estimate debate, I asked the Minister specific questions in relation to the turf-fired stations at Miltown-Malbay, Screebe, and Bellacorick in my constituency. We have been given different reasons as to why they are not in full production. I want to know from the Minister now—he is looking for money—what exactly is the employment content and the production at the present time in each of these three stations. Naturally at Bellacorick, in North Mayo, I am desirous that the employment content should be kept as high as possible, having regard to the economic conditions in the area, but men have been laid off, a considerable number of them, and they do not know when they will be recalled. In fact, as one passes by, the station does not present a picture of activity. I have made no inquiries from anybody associated with the station but I have heard rumours that there is not a sufficient supply of milled peat to keep it going. I have also heard rumours that the station has been closed until the result of some legal action in relation to another station in a different part of the country about fall-out has been determined. I want to know if there is any substance in these rumours. I do not know whether there is or not, but I think the House is entitled to know what the reasons are for this place being closed.

Generally speaking, the big problem that emerges out of all this discussion is the problem of rural electrification. If a sum of £42 million has already been spent, it is less than one-fifth of the total amount we are now being asked to authorise the ESB to spend, £225 million. That being so, I see no reason why that percentage of investment could not be altered in order to subsidise over a very long period the amenity these people seek and the amenity to which they are entitled.

Deputy Kitt has given two very forceful examples of the insuperable difficulty facing the people who are looking for this. Deputy Kennedy of Wexford made a broader appeal in this regard. I endorse everything he said. It applies to my constituency the same as to his. If the Minister is not to be impressed by what is an all-Party appeal this evening, then he cannot claim to be putting into operation the demands of the whole of this Parliament upon the Board of the ESB, neither can he claim to be the director of general policy. He must, as the Minister responsible in this Parliament, listen to the views of all the Parliament. If he fails in that, he is failing in his duty both to the Government and to the nation.

Mr. Corry

Some couple of years ago I raised the question of rural electrification within five or six miles of the town of Mallow at Burnfort, Island, Knuttry and Knockbrack. I was surprised to find that, although promises were rather plentiful at the time, nothing was done. I should also like to call the Minister's attention to the position of the Garrymore-Killeagh area near Youghal. Whatever we might have said about rural electrification ten or 15 years ago, it is an absolute necessity in present-day farming. If we are to produce clean milk, it is necessary to have electricity for proper water supplies. It is absolutely necessary for the milking of herds. These people have been paying long enough for the gentlemen in the urban areas. It is time they got their share of the cake now. I would call the Minister's attention to this. I hope I shall not have to call his attention to it further.

Mr. Molloy

Ba mhaith liom aontú le gach aon rud aduradh i gcoinne na screapall speisialta. Ní aontaím leis na screapaill speisialta seo.

I see on page 5 of the Minister's brief that under the present post-development scheme some 70 per cent of the houses to be connected would be offered a supply at a standard rate of charge and a further 20 per cent would be offered supply at special service charges, if not more than 50 per cent of their normal fixed charges. Having listened to Deputy Kitt and the letters he quoted from the ESB, I wonder how some of these figures are arrived at by the ESB. Most of the Deputies who have spoken this evening against the special service charges come from the western counties. To us who represent the people there the unfairness and, I would go so far as to say, the victimisation of the special service charge is obvious. A large part of West Galway, the constituency I represent, comprises the Gaeltacht area. Tremendous efforts have been made to preserve the Gaeltacht, to preserve the Irish language and to keep the people living at home and prevent them from emigrating to England, America and other places. One of the greatest means of ensuring these people comfortable living conditions is to provide them with the amenity taken for granted by most people today—electricity. Adding my voice to the others raised here today, I would ask the Minister to seriously consider, if he can, the complete abolition of the special service charge or, if not, reducing it very considerably.

Mr. Childers

The debate on this Bill has been very constructive. I suppose the main issue we have to face is this question of the special service charges in rural districts. I want to make it clear to all Deputies who have spoken on this matter that the ESB do not punish people in some arbitrary fashion who failed to take power previously when there was a canvass and who now, when they ask to be connected, are quoted a very heavy additional fixed charge. I do not know whether at this time of the evening I need to describe in detail how the mathematical calculation is worked out. I do not think it is necessary. In fact, I think it is sufficient for me to say that I gave the full financial and mathematical analysis of how these charges were composed on Thursday, 13th May, 1965 in answer to a question by Deputy Hogan of South Tipperary. I gave full particulars of the exact method of calculation. I am sure everybody agrees with me that unless the ESB used an exact method of calculation, it would be unfair, because there would be all sorts of allegations of influence brought to bear by one person or another and the ESB would never be able to be in a position of defending themselves and saying: "Well, the charge in this case was based on the following costs in relation to the capital cost of installation in the area". That is the position. I do not think I need go into it in any greater detail.

I think Deputies have exaggerated the question of the numbers of people affected by the special service charges. I am aware in my own constituency that everybody who has to pay a very heavy additional service charge naturally writes to the Deputy or the county councillor or some person of prominence in the area to complain of this. The total of 12,000 prospective consumers in rural districts, amounting to three in every hundred of all rural consumers, does not constitute a number so great as to be a source of public scandal or to suggest that the Government and I have been very remiss in not taking care of the rural population as a whole. I do not think anybody can say that. At present levels the 12,000 most uneconomic houses would cost on average nearly £400 per house to connect. That is a very considerable sum.

I have already given full particulars to the House of what it would mean to abolish additional service charges in relation to the financial position of the ESB. The loss on rural consumption at the moment is rising to the order of £1 million. If we made changes in the special fixed charges arrangements they would have to apply to existing consumers as well as to the 12,000. The result would be if we abolished those special charges that the loss would rise very rapidly to nearly £2 million a year. The only way out of the difficulty would be to provide the ESB with sufficient capital to extinguish the loss of the extra capital for three per cent of the rural dwellers. It would be £5 million to fully compensate them. That is the equivalent of the actual money we are raising on the present basis to complete the scheme.

Everybody can see it is an extremely expensive business to contemplate the completion of the 100 per cent job. That, so far as I know, is not being done in any country in Europe. Therefore, we are at least going as far as we can. We are making it possible for 95 per cent of rural dwellers to have connection with the ESB. In the case of applications for connection where some additional fixed charge is imposed, in most cases the supplementary charge is not more than 50 per cent. Therefore, as I said, we are making a great contribution by providing light to people in rural districts.

A great many representations have been made about this question. The Government are considering all facets of it and I think it will be necessary to examine the position again, partly because of proposals which have been made by Deputies. Dairying is increasing in a great number of areas in which there were no creameries before. Various views have been expressed by Deputies on both sides of the House. People cannot understand why they should be isolated by reason of the attitude of the ESB towards them. They see somebody a quarter of a mile down the road who has received light installation at little or no extra charge and they wonder why they are being asked to pay such high charges. These charges are based on mathematical calculations which are considered fair and reasonable. Full particulars of these have been given by me already in answer to a Parliamentary Question.

We must certainly look into this matter. I consider it will be necessary to examine the position to see whether we can alleviate the position of these people in any way or whether we can link it with productive work. I cannot say what decision the Government will take in regard to the matter. Everybody knows the demands for capital made on the Government by the various Ministers. The capital programme has been raised to £103 million. It was only half that amount a few years ago. This work is being done in connection with all the developments in rural areas. Vast sums of money have had to be spent to try to bring up production in agriculture and to improve the social position in rural areas. It is very difficult for every Minister to get 100 per cent of what he is looking for in respect of every service under his supervision. While I regret the position of the three per cent, I still think, even if the position were never changed, if I could feel at the end of my political career that during some part of my office I did something to enable 95 per cent of the people in rural Ireland to be connected with the system, I should feel I was not doing so badly. As I already said, we are examining the position. It is a fact that there has been a great deal of agitation because a number of people in rural areas are being asked to pay these heavy charges and others have not to pay them.

The bottled gas scheme has not been doing so badly. Deputy Pattison asked about this. I want to say that roughly 600 grants have been given. We do not know what it is used for, apart from lighting. We get certificates when installations have been completed and they are satisfied with it.

Deputy Cosgrave asked a question about notice being given to turf producers when stations close down. In regard to three of these stations, the ESB cannot get enough turf for full production. I think it is true to say the ESB give reasonable notice of the opening and closing of these small stations which have not proved so successful as we hoped they would. If I have any complaints that reasonable notice was not given, I shall certainly approach the ESB on the matter.

Deputy Esmonde raised the question of compensation for damage caused by lightning. If the lightning damage was caused by ESB wires, sympathetic consideration would be given if it were brought to their notice.

Deputy Donegan mentioned the danger of the ESB monopoly position. He modified everything he said by pointing out that he had very little evidence of the ESB abusing that position. It is rather hard to answer what he said. All I can say is if there is any evidence of abuse on the part of any State company in any of their operations, we certainly look into it. We get very little such evidence. We should naturally take action in regard to any State company if we heard they were doing something which suggested arrogance on the part of a monopoly.

Deputy McLaughlin raised the question of the production of the Arigna power station. I think he was referring to over-production of coal. This may have some relation to the question of some workers being out of employment but the station will continue in operation as usual and large quantities of coal are required for it.

A number of Deputies, including Deputy Esmonde, raised the question of nuclear power. Deputy Lindsay asked whether we ought not, at the moment, to plan for a nuclear power station, at least commence a preliminary plan. I naturally would be very pleased to see any new techniques used here for our electric power but this is a matter of economics. At the present moment it would not be economic to have a nuclear power station running for 24 hours a day full load and entering into the entire network of the whole 32 counties. The cost would be much too great for that. As a result of the joint North-South Electrical Committee under the Chairmanship of Sir Josiah Eccles, something may come of this. If we can come to some agreement with the North and have a joint nuclear power station, that will be all to the good. Techniques in regard to nuclear power are constantly changing and recently there was a notice in the papers of a big break through in new techniques established by a certain British consortium, the Atomic Power Construction Limited. It would be necessary for the ESB to study this new system to see if it affects the cost of power in our circumstances. I think Deputy Lindsay can be assured that we will not be remiss in this matter, that the ESB will not be late in preparing a plan for an atomic power station and even in making a preliminary plan, if necessary. That will come into the picture just as soon as it is desirable.

Deputy Burke asked for the total cost of rural electrification up to 1968. It is estimated to be £42 million, of which £12 million will have been provided by subsidy. This is a capital subsidy paid to the ESB. It is not an operating subsidy. I dislike operating subsidies that cover only net operating deficits. It is a capital subsidy. It represents over 25 per cent of the total cost of rural electrification and again I think we are doing a fairly good job in that regard.

Deputy Pattison spoke of the reserves of coal in the Kilkenny and Tipperary areas and of the possibility of making use of anthracite for electricity generation. That matter will be examined. As the Deputy knows, it takes five years to instal any new generating station from the time the decision is made to have one in a particular area. It could not possibly affect the present position of the anthracite producers and so it is not a matter which needs the kind of urgent consideration which is involved in connection with the other problems attending the consumption of anthracite in this country. I have very grave doubts that an anthracite power station would be economic but that proposal, along with others, will be examined fully in connection with the problem of the anthracite coal miners and a decision will be made but that decision is not urgent as it cannot affect the position of the coal mines for the moment.

Deputy Donegan suggested that the ESB had an excessive monopoly position in relation to the sale of appliances and Deputy Ryan, on the occasion of the general Estimate for my Department said that the ESB entered into contractual arrangements with certain suppliers of electrical equipment on condition that they sold only electrical equipment and arranged that the hire purchase repayments would be collected on the ESB bills. I have not had complaints of any notable kind that the ESB is abusing its position or, because of its extensive capital and monopolistic position, is under-selling the ordinary suppliers of electrical equipment in the country. I really have not had any serious complaints but I think Deputy Donegan was under one misapprehension and that is that the ESB does not cut off consumers because of their failure to pay each instalment of hire purchase. They cut off people only if they refuse to pay their bill for electricity in the house.

Mr. James Tully

It is all on the one bill.

Mr. Childers

Yes, I know, but they are not cut off. If the hire purchase part alone is not paid, they are not cut off. People are not plunged into darkness simply because they have not paid their hire purchase instalment.

Mr. James Tully

That is not correct.

Mr. Childers

That is as I am advised. If the Deputy has any complaints, they will be investigated.

Mr. James Tully

I am not carrying a torch for those who do not pay for their appliances.

Mr. Childers

Those who are cut off generally have not paid any of the bill.

Mr. James Tully

If they do not pay the whole lot——

Mr. Childers

If the hire purchase part only is not paid off, I do not think they are cut off.

Mr. Norton

Will the Minister give a directive to the ESB to that effect?

Mr. Childers

I should like to hear the facts, first of all. I have not had very many complaints. Some three years ago, I used to have complaints about people being cut off without sufficient notice or sufficient chance to pay. There have been very few complaints since.

Mr. James Tully

When the second bill is delivered, if they have not paid the previous one in full, they are cut off.

Mr. Childers

I have had very few complaints. There is no use in suggesting that it is a matter of immediate moment or that the ESB have been acting excessively. I had a few complaints three years ago. I have had very few since.

While I disagree with Deputies who dislike the idea of pointing out, in a very obvious and emphatic way, that the urban areas are subsidising the rural areas because of the loss on sales of power in the rural areas, I understand their point of view. I am well aware of the fact that there is a great deal of trans-subsidisation going on. I would not be able to analyse the whole position. Nevertheless, the accounts of the ESB are accurately prepared. There is in fact subsidisation of the rural areas by the urban consumers and that kind of subsidisation goes on in regard to a great many features in our national life, as in the case of other countries that have achieved a greater prosperity than we have, and have had a far longer period of independence.

Trans-subsidisation between one section of the community and another is not at all an uncommon feature of national life and there is that feature within the ESB. I do not think it should become excessive. In relation to the tremendous agricultural aid offered to the agricultural community, I think that we should keep to a reasonable level the amount of subsidy the urban consumers—the vast majority of whom are people of very modest means— should be asked to pay towards the losses incurred by the ESB in operating the system in the rural areas. That is all I have to say about it. I do not think anybody need feel resentful that this question is mentioned. All subsidies as between one section of the population and the other have to be examined from time to time. That is all I meant when I stressed that this aid is being given from one group to another.

Deputy Lindsay asked a question about the Bellacorick station. On account of very poor weather conditions, insufficient milled peat was produced there for the station to operate on a full-time basis but Deputy Lindsay need have no fears that there is any suggestion of closing the station. It will be taking part in the generation programme this year in the usual way if we get reasonable weather.

I do not think I can deal with complaints made about public lighting. It is entirely a matter for the local authority in conjunction with the ESB. I do not think it would be right for the ESB to subsidise local lighting. Once the ESB starts to yield here, there and everywhere on a question of economic costs, it can very easily become a slipshod organisation. One of the reasons why power is comparatively inexpensive in this country, one of the reasons why the average cost of power has only gone up 34 per cent since 1949, when the cost of fuel has gone up 240 per cent, is that the ESB is efficiently operated and because it is given an order to charge its customers on a specific basis. Although the ESB receives a specific subsidy for the specific purpose of carrying out rural electrification it is expected in the ordinary way to charge economic prices for installations by, for example, local authorities. I do not think it would be fair to ask the ESB to give way here and there as suggested by some Deputies, in order to make public lighting as such less expensive in certain areas.

A number of Deputies, including Deputy Coogan, raised the question of the ugliness of overhead electric cables. I quite agree with all the Deputies who spoke about this matter. The cost of underground cabling is very high indeed. If local authorities are prepared to pay quite a considerable sum in respect of every house for underground cabling, then the ESB will arrange the underground cabling. Again, I do not think the ESB should be asked to subsidise underground cabling. That would place them in a completely anomalous position. The question of overhead payments will come under examination in connection with the new 1963 Planning Act. Quite obviously, the very best effort must be made to reduce the amount of overhead wiring, particularly in the new housing areas now being established. I agree with Deputy James Tully when he said last year that looking back at Baltray from a rowing boat, it would look like a gigantic spider's web on the edge of the sand because of the effect of the electric poles on the horizon.

As I said, this is a question of costs. In some areas it would cost fifteen times as much to lay underground cables, particularly in areas where the terrain is difficult, as it would to have overground cables. The cost would vary from area to area according to the soil conditions, but the extra cost would be very heavy indeed.

Deputy James Tully asked the reason for the £65 million increase in the amount of capital required for the general purposes of the ESB. He will find the answer to this on page 3 of the text of my speech, which I issued to the Deputy. It is to cover the construction of further generating stations. These will cost about £47 million and there will be £30 million in addition for transmission and distribution.

Deputy Esmonde asked whether the capital requirements in this Bill allow for the possibility of a great extension of the use of electric power for central heating and, perhaps, similar miscellaneous purposes, all of which arise as a result of new techniques and better standards of living. As far as I know, it will. If, of course, there was a total and exceptionally increased demand for electricity we would have to come back at an early stage for more capital. It is true the ESB have correctly predicted their requirements in time past and the fact that the ESB has never been required to shed its load in any noticeable way since its foundation is, I think, a remarkable achievement. It means that at times there is some excess plant which means also that new developments can take place and the power will be there to the degree required.

Deputy Esmonde and other Deputies asked about the use of our peat resources for electricity generation. We use all the bogs that can be exploited economically in connection with power requirements. I know of no new developments which would suggest that we should expand the use of peat beyond what is contemplated. It is very important to keep down the price of electricity. The fact that we are producing over one-third of our electric power from peat-fired stations is a remarkable achievement and it certainly indicates that we are making use of our native natural resources as far as we can in the production of electricity.

I think I have answered every question and I thank the Deputies for the general constructive attitudes they adopted on the Bill. As I said, let us go ahead with rural electrification and get 97 in every 100 people connected with the system. In the meantime, I shall make such examination as is possible to see what we can do about the remainder.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 22nd June, 1965.

The Dáil adjourned at 9.50 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 16th June, 1965.