I am not entirely satisfied with the Minister's reply on Second Reading in regard to two matters. One is the inquiry made by Deputy Cosgrave and myself in regard to the stations at Miltown Malbay, Screebe and Bellacorick, and the other is in regard to the future policy on the special service charge in relation to outlying districts. On the first matter, I want to know what is the exact position: in both Miltown Malbay and Screebe, are they working and, if they are not working, if it is intended that they will be put into operation at some future date?
Committee on Finance. - Electricity (Supply) (Amendment) Bill, 1965: Committee and Final Stages.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill".
They will be operating.
And the position at Bellacorick? I am particularly interested in the Bellacorick station because the employment content there should be at the very highest peak, having regard to the general lack of employment over such a wide area. I want to know how it is that weather appears to have interfered with the production of milled peat because from my own experience, passing by both day and night, there is activity on the bog and machinery is working there. I should like to know what is the situation there.
In regard to the second matter, rural electrification and the special service charge on people who live in remote areas, I am of the opinion that something should be done about reducing this charge. There is much more in it than the economic element. There is a psychological element and an element of patriotism in it. There is also the element that postal charges, for instance, are uniform, irrespective of how far the mail has to be delivered or how difficult it is to deliver it. Petrol and oil charges are uniform. Taxation is uniform. It is only in this aspect of our life that there is this peculiar imposition—an excessive imposition, in my view—upon people who have lived through the years with great difficulty in these dwellings on hillsides, in remote fishing villages or in isolated mountain areas. Something should be done as a matter of policy in regard to the plight of these people. I accept, and, indeed, these people accept, that they should pay probably something extra but the amount is at such variance with the regular charge that they naturally feel aggrieved as would anyone feel aggrieved if he were asked to pay five, six and even up to ten times the normal amount of the service charge. I should like to hear from the Minister on these two matters.
The Bellacorick station was affected by bad weather and the amount of milled peat made available from the bog. However, it will undoubtedly be operating and there is no danger in regard to the position of the station. In relation to the three small turf stations, although I believe that reasonable prices were offered for the turf supplied and that reasonable grants were made available for roads into bogs where better communications would be required to bring the turf out of the bog on to the main road, the ESB has not been able to secure adequate quantities of turf for these three stations and as a consequence they operate at a rather low level. They provide only a very small proportion of power to the ESB network so that they do not constitute any risk of a shortage of power.
In regard to rural electrification, it does not arise on this section, but as the Deputy has raised it, I may as well deal with it now. I thought I had spoken on that in great detail during the course of the Second Reading. As I said, some 95 per cent of all rural dwellers will be joined to the system under the present arrangements. The average cost of joining a dwelling in the areas where these very high service charges are asked is of the order of £400 per dwelling. What I said on the Second Stage was that it would be quite impossible to go beyond the provisions in this Bill by which we continue to subsidise 75 per cent of the cost of installation. The maximum subsidy is £75 per dwelling.
On a long-term basis, I am looking into the question as to whether anything more can be done for the people who live some distance from the main communication network. I said that on the Second Stage and there is nothing more I can do. If we were to abolish special service charges it would mean having to provide the ESB with £5 million capital in order to avoid very heavy losses on the rural consumption account, losses in the neighbourhood of over £2 million a year. We would have to provide £5 million in order to connect some five per cent of rural dwellers living some distance from the main communication network. That is actually the equivalent of the money now being raised under the terms of this Bill, the advance of the capital from £37 million to £42 million for the connecting of the rest of the people.
We have, I think, done a reasonably good job. There are quite a number of countries where not every single person in the community is connected. That is true particularly of those countries in which there is an absence of large city conurbations and towns. At this stage we can say, I think, that we will have done a good job by 1968 if something between 90 and 95 per cent of the rural population are connected. During that time I have undertaken to make an examination to see if I can assist those who feel they cannot pay this extra service charge. In numbers they amount to some 12,000 rural dwellers. When we started out with the increased subsidy in 1962—it was raised from 50 per cent to 75 per cent—there were at that time 112,000 rural consumers who could be connected and, of that number, 77,000 could be connected without paying any extra service charge, 23,000 on paying some extra service charge, but not more than 50 per cent, and then the 12,000 for whom the extra charge would be 100 per cent or over. That is the position. I have said I will have the position examined and, in the meantime, I think we can go on with the rural electrification scheme under the terms of this Bill. That is going as far as I can go in the matter.
I do not agree for one moment with the Minister's argument in relation to the undesirability of extending the service to 12,000 householders because their homes are removed from service stations and it would be too costly to give them this essential service. Again and again I have brought this matter to the attention of the responsible Ministers. I maintain it is unconstitutional to deny these people this service at the charge at which it is provided for others living in more favourable locations.
Hear, hear.
It is, as I say, unconstitutional. When the ESB was established—I think in 1924—to provide a service for the nation as a whole, it was believed by the promoters of the scheme that the service would be supplied on the same basis for all our citizens. Again and again the Minister for Transport and Power has told us that that is impossible. Today he says it would take some £5 million to provide this service for these 12,000 people ignored up to the present under the regulations.
I can instance other schemes promoted and helped by public funds. Take the lime scheme. Under that scheme lime is made available to farmers at a flat rate, irrespective of how far away they live from the lime kiln. In my constituency a farmer living out at the end of the Berehaven Peninsula can have his lime at the same price as the man living adjacent to the kiln. The fact that he is far removed from the centre of production does not preclude him from benefiting under the scheme. Surely the same case could be made by the Minister for Agriculture in regard to lime as has been made here by the Minister for Transport and Power in regard to electricity supply. The Minister for Agriculture could equally well argue that the farmers in the remote areas should be ignored because it would be too costly to supply them and impose too big a burden on public funds. Surely, if supply can be given where fertilisers are concerned, and all our farmers can benefit equally under the scheme promulgated by the last inter-Party Government, it should be within the competence of the Minister for Transport and Power and the Board of the ESB to give the people living in isolated areas the service to which they are entitled.
In my constituency a number of householders feel aggrieved by what they describe, and I agree with them, as an injustice in that the ESB asks them to pay this special charge. The vast majority, if not all, are people of slender means. Usually the type of person living in the more remote areas is not as well off as the urban or suburban dweller. That is all the more reason why we should address ourselves to this particular problem because we know the burden of the special charge is too much for them.
I suggest to the Minister that, if the money cannot be found by any other means, some of the burden should be put on the general bulk of consumers so that these people can be supplied with current at the standard rate. I know money must be found to do any job. If the Minister and the Government are not prepared to put the burden on public funds, there is, I maintain, every justification for increasing the all-over general charge. I make that suggestion in order that these people may have justice. No one likes suggesting increasing the price of anything—it is not popular—but it is very unfair of the Board, of the Minister mainly responsible, and of the Government—the Board cannot act if they do not get instructions from the Government and the Minister—to deny these people simple justice.
I am not at all satisfied with the Minister's figure of £5 million. I do not like Ministers coming in here and saying that something will cost £5 million in round figures. The Minister may be correct, but this seems to me far in excess of what it should take to supply these people. I do not base that statement on any calculations I have made. I base it on information obtained from people who know something about what is involved and something about the cost of providing this service at a fixed charge to these people in the remote areas.
We should have a breakdown of this figure of £5 million. I think it is an exaggerated one. I want to stress as forcibly and as vehemently as I can on behalf of the 12,000 people denied this current at the standard charge that they are being treated unfairly and unjustly by the Government and by the responsible Minister. If this issue were tested in the courts as to its constitutionality or otherwise, I have no doubt at all that the court would decide that the action is unconstitutional.
The Minister should stop making excuses now for not removing this special charge and in this year of 1965 he should make electric current available to all our people. Current is essential. These people cannot now even enjoy a television set, if they can afford one. The farmer who has no electricity cannot provide himself with a milking machine. Electricity is required for so much work around the house and the farm that it is absolutely essential to have it. Whatever extra burdens are involved initially in providing the capital to extend the service, possibly, with the use made of the service hereafter, the burden would be reduced drastically.
The people in rural districts as well as other districts realise that electricity is essential for many of the jobs carried out heretofore by other methods. It would be completely out of place to let the opportunity pass this evening without protesting against the treatment meted out to the people concerned. That is the reason I availed of the discussion to repeat the protest I have voiced here back over the years at the denial of justice to such people. Until the Estimate comes up next year it is unlikely we will have another opportunity of addressing ourselves to this question. Therefore, I appeal to the Minister to reconsider the matter in the light of the disadvantages which such people suffer at present when they cannot get service at a reasonable charge. If he examines it in that light he cannot but come to the conclusion to give them the service at the appropriate standard charge.
We also have a number of people endeavouring to get the service but who cannot get it without a long delay. I recently had a question to the Minister about the provision of service to some districts. From private queries made to the board as well, I understand it is not unlikely that some of these applicants will have to wait a number of years before service is provided. We should speed up the provision of service. I am well aware of the difficulties confronting the board. One of the main difficulties is the one we have been speaking about—the question of the special service charge—because some people in particular areas, mainly on account of the special service charge, will not avail of the service. By reason of their refusal to avail of the service, the board will ignore such a district until such time as all the residents in the locality, if possible, have agreed to accept it on the board's terms. It is a great hardship on people such as that to be left waiting for the current. While I know that the board are endeavouring, particularly in rural areas, to get 100 per cent acceptances, if that is not possible, as it may not be in some cases—people may consider it too dear or may not avail of it for some other reason—the others should be provided with service.
I am appealing to the Minister, first, to wipe out the special service charge, which is unfair, and, secondly, to expedite the extension of service to all districts. I believe that is not an unfair plea to make forty-one years after the foundation of the electricity scheme.
I should like to appeal to the Minister on behalf of the people in isolated pockets who will not procure rural electrification and those who will procure it at a special service charge. There is much more in it than the Minister has just told us. Most of the isolated pockets are in the poorer, mountainous districts of the west, south and north-west. As a matter of fact, I think I would be right in saying that practically 100 per cent of the pockets to which the Minister referred are in these poor, isolated, uneconomic areas.
Quite recently, the Minister's colleague, the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, at the opening of a festival in Sligo said that the Government would have another look at the question of the provision of industries in the west. In other words, they are now going to throw up the idea of industries for the west. If the present Minister is not going to provide rural electrification for these pockets and if the Government are going to reverse their view about the establishment of industry in the west, it means the west will become more depopulated than it is today.
For years we have been advising the Government and various Departments that industries set up in this country which are not based on raw materials provided within the State are most precarious. Surely electrification depends on home products for its progress and success—water and native fuel? We have more rivers in this country crying out to be harnessed than have been harnessed. Look at the amount of rural employment we could give in the uneconomic areas by the erection of more turf-burning stations.
It has become popular in this House to be parochial when speaking on matters such as this, particularly on Committee Stage. I hope I will be forgiven if I become parochial. I have on many occasions appealed to the Minister and his Department to establish more turf-burning stations in County Donegal. We have an abundance of turf. Turbary is about the only thing we have a surplus of. The turf-burning station set up there already has been a success. Bord na Móna have moved in and made a success of their station at Glenties. The provision of a further turf-burning plant at, say, Fintown in the Gaeltacht area of west Donegal, would give a considerable amount of employment to Irish-speaking natives of the county and encourage them to remain on in these pockets. Although they may not have the amenities their neighbours may have in other parts of the county, they would put up with that if they got employment.
I would appeal to the Minister to consider the question of establishing a second turf-burning plant in Donegal, particularly in west Donegal, and thereby give much needed employment with local raw materials to native Irish speakers, who at least will have to migrate, if not emigrate, if something is not done for them. Like Deputy M.P. Murphy, I know these isolated pockets. I know the hardship these people suffer through lack of electrification. I know the envious eyes they cast at their neighbours who have these amenities. I know households who have procured electricity at a special service charge. I know the disparity that has been created between neighbours in various counties as a result of the policy of the Minister. I do not think that is fair. I am inclined to agree with Deputy M.P. Murphy that it is not constitutional.
Shortly after the State was established, the ESB was set up for the purpose of developing the Shannon Scheme. That scheme was not popular in some quarters. I think it was once referred to as a white elephant. Thank God, we have a few "white elephants". We have the Shannon Scheme, the ESB and the Sugar Company. I think they were both branded as twin white elephants. Thank God, we have them still. The ESB was set up to serve the people and to provide electricity for the citizens of the State. Why now should they be denied the amenity to which they are entitled under the Constitution? It may be that it is not economic to provide electricity in very isolated pockets. Neither is it econonomic to send a postman to these places to deliver one letter per day or one letter per week. It is not economic to send a postman out there but these householders are entitled to such service from the postman and the Minister's colleague, the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, is providing that service for them. Why then is the Minister for Transport and Power denying them the benefit of electricity?
Even though it may impose an additional burden on others if we level off the charges it is not right that the people in these isolated pockets should be denied this amenity. The Irish people have sufficient faith in the ESB to see to it that if money is required and a loan is floated by the ESB, it is oversubscribed in no time at all. People have such faith in the ESB that insufficient capital should not prevent the Minister providing this amenity for all residents in rural Ireland. We all know that when all the areas are fully linked up and when sufficient power is generated, either through the fuel-burning stations or through the hydro stations, the Board will become a paying concern and that whatever money is borrowed will be repaid with appropriate interest. The Minister should not let insufficient capital worry him so far as providing the facilities and amenities for people such as those I have mentioned is concerned.
I am personally aware of a number of people in these isolated pockets who make a livelihood by sheep farming. They would be prepared to remain there and try to eke out what I might call a precarious livelihood in these pockets if they were given some of the facilities which can be given to them by the ESB. Yesterday I attended a local authority meeting at which we discussed the erection of houses for farmers whose poor law valuation is under £5, under a scheme promoted by the Minister for Local Government. While discussing this matter, our county manager informed us that where farmers were in excess of the valuation, he did not think it was proper to build houses. The Minister for Transport and Power tells us here that where these houses are in isolated pockets, they should not get power. He is, in other words, driving the people from the land into the villages, towns and cities of this country and depopulating rural Ireland.
Deputies from all Parties have been trying to prevent this. While it is all right for us to express sentiments about trying to retain the rural population, there is not much use in good sentiments unless we have action with them. If legislation has the effect of defeating our intentions, then it is time we revised our legislation. It is nothing short of mockery to find the Minister is not prepared to give amenities to people residing in these isolated pockets. There would possibly be less ambiguity if we knew where we stood in these matters. I would appeal to the Minister, no matter what the cost is, to abolish this service charge and to give rural electrification to everybody in this country.
(Cavan): I want very briefly to repeat the case I made on the Second Reading of this Bill for the abolition or drastic modification of these special charges because I am not satisfied with the Minister's assurance that things will go on as they are until 1968 and that then he will see what can be done as a long-term policy to extend rural electricity to all those requiring it. I consider there is a bad principle involved here, a principle which goes far beyond the amount of money which it would take to service all these isolated holdings and houses, or some of them not so isolated.
We have to decide whether Government policy is to be aimed at arresting the flight from the land or whether it is to accelerate it. We are told by Ministers from time to time, when we complain about the flight from the land, that it is something which is going on everywhere, something which is going on in every country in Europe, that the people tend to leave the land because there is not so much employment there for them. That may be true, but it is admitted that the flight from the land is an undesirable trend and it should be Government policy to try to stop this flight from the land instead of encouraging it.
The people we are talking about who require electricity and current cannot get it except at prohibitive charges. That is what these charges are, as I hope to show very shortly. These people have not proper roads. I know that is not the Minister's responsibility. These unfortunate people have not proper water supplies. I know the Minister is not responsible for that, but he is responsible for this question of electric light. Electric light and current, in this year of 1965, are no longer a luxury, especially in rural Ireland. They are an absolute necessity. These people, as I said on the Second Stage, contributed all through the years when the ESB needed to be subsidised. When the ESB needed Finance, they contributed in taxes on cigarettes, tobacco and beer in order to provide the necessary capital. Why should those people now be deprived of this amenity?
Deputy P. O'Donnell and others have spoken of those people as residing in isolated remote areas. All of them are not so resident. I had a letter this morning—I am again speaking somewhat parochially—from the district manager of the ESB in Dundalk. He was dealing with an applicant residing in a cathedral parish within three miles of a town with a population of about 4,000. That person has been offered a supply of electric current at a bimonthly ordinary charge of £1, plus a special charge of £4. That, in my opinion, is tantamount to saying to that person: "We are not going to give you electric light." The end part of the letter states: "Of course you can have bottled gas and we will give you a subsidy of £10". A person living in a labourer's cottage less than a mile away from the person I am talking about can have a radio and a television set but this person, in this particular case, a widow, cannot have electric light or current. That is fundamentally wrong. I think that if the Minister adopted a different approach to this problem, he would have the full support of this House and the complete support of this country.
The Minister told us this evening that it would take £5 million to service these remaining 12,000 people without any special charge. I do not think anybody in the House is asking him to go just that far. These people are prepared to pay some additional special charge but a special charge of 400 per cent, as I have quoted, is outrageous. I think that if there were a special charge of 50 per cent, or something like that, all round, the Minister would find that the £5 million would considerably be reduced to a manageable figure.
I do not think the taxpayers would mind coming to the relief of these people somewhat by additional taxation. I do not even think the people who have been enjoying the blessing and the comfort of electric light for over 40 years would mind a fractional additional charge to their bills in order to provide electric light for their less fortunate rural brethren.
As I have stated before, and it has been stated again, whether or not we like it, the ESB is a State monopoly which enjoys all the privileges and benefits that go with a monopoly; but, if it does, it should discharge to the citizens the duty of a monopoly, that is, to provide a service in places where it does not pay as well as in places where it must pay very well. The example of the Post Office has been mentioned and I pointed out the example of the transport company. If the transport company were to run buses, when they are running, in places only where they pay, then I think the people of this country would have to walk all the year round.
These people for whom I plead, as I have said before, contribute in taxes every day of their lives to amenities throughout the length and breadth of this country which are good for the country but from which they themselves derive not direct benefit. They themselves will be contributing towards a £2 million Concert Hall in Dublin which is for a worthy purpose, to commemorate a great man, but, at the same time, while that may be of service to the citizens of Dublin and while they may get some benefit from the Concert Hall, the people for whom I speak will get none. Therefore, it is only common justice and equity that these people should have their electric light and have it now at a reasonable charge. If a special charge there must be, it should not be a prohibitive one. It should be a charge which it is within the competence and the willingness of these people to pay.
I want to refer to the question of the erection of another power station in the Arigna area. In February of this year, and again in May, the Minister was asked about the policy of either his Government or the ESB in relation to the erection of another power station in that area. Since then, matters have worsened. Roughly 400 to 500 people are employed. They are all small farmers whose income is supplemented by the reward they obtain for work in the Arigna coalmines. Their average valuation would, I suppose, be in the region of £10 to £12. I am sure the Minister, as well as everybody else, realises that nobody could possibly live on the income derived from such a low valuation and a small farm of that type.
I do not think it unreasonable to ask the Minister to tell us the intention about the erection of this extra power station. During the past fortnight, the men for whom I speak have been working only every other week and emigration will face them. I am sure they are more than anxious to hear about the position from the present Government.
A tremendous amount of lipservice was paid during the recent general election by the Fianna Fáil Party in respect of the west and emigration and what would be done to cure it. I think that this is something the Government should do in an attempt to put these people back into employment. We may rest assured that, if they do not get employment, there is nothing for them but emigration. I shall be glad to hear the Minister state the position about the erection of that extra power station, when he comes to reply to this debate.
Before the Minister replies, there is just one matter to which I should like to advert. The Minister has told us that he will look into the matter for, say, the year or two ahead, up to 1968. There is a point which I omitted to make in relation to the special service charge when I last spoke on this matter. Educationally, I believe television will play a much more important part in the years to come, if it is properly used. It is possible for people without electric power to have the ordinary radio on the battery system. We have all had it in the west of Ireland in our time. We have the radio now, wherever there is electric power, and it is possible also to have television. Consider the position of these 12,000 families in these pockets. Generally speaking, in such areas, the families are large. If education will be propagated by television, as I think it will and should be, then these people will be deprived of the most modern expositions on various aspects of education. That is a matter which the Minister should consider.
I suggest very sincerely that he should use it in any discussions he may have with the ESB with a view to modifying these special service charges. In remote areas, too, where there are sheep farmers, electricity is playing a part. It is playing no small part in sheep-rearing, in pig-rearing and in very many other aspects of agriculture. In particular, I would ask the Minister to bear in mind the matter of education through the medium of television.
A number of Deputies have referred to the supplementary charge. As I have indicated, we have already made a very great contribution to bringing electric power to the people in the rural areas and to the People in the West of Ireland and the other congested areas. This is a question of seeing whether anything more can be done for a very small number of people who are living in isolated pockets. I have said that I have asked the ESB to examine again the position and, in fact, to do what some Deputies have suggested, namely, to see what can be done by scaling down the charges now required to a certain degree without abolishing them completely. I want to make it clear that this programme must proceed as at present and nobody should make a decision now, one way or the other, to refuse or to accept electric light because of the debate that has gone on in the Dáil. I should state that the £5 million required to complete this work represents the actual cost of joining these 12,000 people, apart from the capitalised cost of eliminating all special service charges from those who already pay. That is the explanation of the £5 million.
I should also say that subsidies were abolished between 1955 and 1958 and that, of course, added to the cost of the ESB financial operations. There was £530,000 approximately payment of interest for the provision of a good deal of rural electrification but we shall leave that out of the argument for the moment.
I should also say in regard to these isolated areas that not only have we given the 75 per cent subsidy but we have also provided special capital grants for backbone lines. We were able to bring power into the remotest areas. Without these special grants we would not have been able to go into certain areas where there was no power before the 1962 Act. Some areas were not covered for which some of these special backbone transmission lines were required.
I do not think it is true to say that the Government have failed to do anything to arrest the flight from the land. This is only one of the huge number of capital services made available for people in the west, and for small farmers, to improve their social and economic position. All I can say about it is that I am having the matter examined further in order to see what can be done on a modified basis.
In reply to Deputy Reynolds, I have no news yet about the possibility of extending the Arigna power station. There are a great many technical difficulties associated with the project. I should like to see it established but the whole question is still under consideration. It has been gone into in great detail with technical experts and engineering consultants. I am not able to say when a final decision can be arrived at.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 3 to 9, inclusive, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
Agreed to take remaining Stages to-day.
Bill received for final consideration and passed.