asked the Minister for Transport and Power if he will take suitable action to ensure that special cases or remote areas or households are not unduly penalised by high charges if they wish to connect up with the national electricity network; and if he will make a general statement on this important matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Electricity Supply Charges.
22.
Under the subsidy arrangements for rural electrification introduced by the Electricity (Supply) (Amendment) Act, 1962, it is possible for some 96 per cent of rural dwellers to have electricity supply at reasonable charges.
The remaining four per cent are in locations remote from the supply lines and the cost of extending supply to them is very high. In their case, despite a subsidy of £75, high charges are necessary because of the very large amount of capital which the ESB would have to lay out in extending supply to them. Unfortunately, there is no way in which those charges can be reduced, short of an inordinately high subsidy. The funds which can be allocated for rural electrification are limited and revision of the subsidy arrangements would tend to result in the dissipation of quite a disproportionate amount of available resources in subsidisation of a relatively small number of extremely uneconomic connections.
Special service charges are a universal feature of electricity tariffs and I feel that the Government have gone as far as is reasonably practicable in reducing their incidence in this country.
Will the Minister not agree it was the original intention of the Board to provide electricity at a standard charge and that there should be no special charges?
The Deputy is wrong. On the contrary, the fact is that the subsidy was only 50 per cent until 1961, when it was raised to 75 per cent. There was never any specific decision to bring electricity to every single person in the community. The figure of 97 per cent compares very well with the corresponding percentages in Europe.
(Cavan): Is the Minister aware that special charges are being imposed in cases of people who refused to take the supply two years ago but who now, under changed family conditions, wish to avail of a supply? These special charges would appear to be imposed to penalise these people for not taking the supply a couple of years ago.
All the areas are being re-canvassed on a planned basis to ensure that the maximum number of people who make application can be supplied at the same time, thus reducing to the lowest level the cost of providing the attachment and thus, in turn, making the level of special service charges as low as possible under the circumstances. That is all that can be done about it. Otherwise, the cost to the urban consumer for subsidisation would be excessive. Under present circumstances this scheme will continue until 1968 or 1969 and then the matter can be further reviewed.
Will the Minister not agree it is unfair and unjust to impose this charge on people in remote and isolated areas, who suffer many disadvantages by reason of their location? Surely the time has come when a State-sponsored scheme like this, which originated more than 40 years ago, should be made available to the people at a standard charge and when the man in the remote area should have the same opportunity of getting a supply at the same price as the person near a town or city?
I have already dealt with those matters.
Would it not be time for the Minister to change his mind? Originally this was the white elephant scheme.
Question No. 23.
There is a credit squeeze on.
I think the Minister should examine this question.
Perhaps the Deputy would allow us to proceed? Question No. 23.
As this is my question, I will finalise it by giving notice of my intention to raise the matter on the Adjournment.
I will communicate with the Deputy