asked the Minister for Transport and Power if he will state the reason for increased ESB charges; and if from the increased revenue he will now take steps to abolish special service charges.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - ESB Charges.
4.
The reasons for the increased charges for electricity are given in the Electricity Supply Board's annual report for the year ended 31st March, 1966 which was laid on the table of the House on 27th July, 1966. As the Deputy is aware, costs of materials and labour are mounting and because of these the Board consider that an increase in charges is necessary to enable it to fulfil its statutory obligation to balance annual revenue and expenditure. In the circumstances, on 25th May last the Board applied to the Minister for Industry and Commerce under the Prices Acts for permission to increase prices by 7 per cent. That Minister has now provisionally authorised the increase in prices, subject to review when the Prices Advisory Body, which he proposes to set up, has submitted its report.
The question of special service charges for electricity has been dealt with by me on several occasions in the House. I would refer the Deputy to column 21 of the Dáil Debates for 20th October, 1965 in which I gave a very full reply to a question on this subject. Charges of this kind are a universal feature of electricity tariffs and the Government have already gone as far as is reasonably practicable in reducing their incidence in this country. The increased charges sought by the ESB are intended to bridge the gap between revenue and expenditure. They would not, therefore, provide the Board with any surplus which would make it possible to abolish special service charges.
Having regard to the fact that the Minister says that this increase is provisional from the information available to him, does he anticipate that there may be a decrease in this allowable percentage at the moment after the inquiry has taken place?
I do not intend to prejudice the work to be done by the Prices Advisory Body. There evidently is a prima facie case for raising charges. In view of the fact that the vast majority of the population are electricity consumers, the Government consider that it would be a good thing for the Minister for Industry and Commerce to make an inquiry into the necessity for the increase. I do not propose at this juncture to give any further details or enlarge on the reasons already stated by the Board whereby prices had to be increased.
In relation to the special service charges, would the Minister not agree that the imposition of these charges is a factor in reducing the population trend we have at the moment in rural areas?
Would the Minister also indicate why the procedure adopted was to allow the increase before the investigation by the Prices Advisory Body? Why was the investigation not carried out before sanction for the increase was given?
It was perfectly clear that there was a prima facie case for increasing the charges and also because the ESB make no profit and therefore there was no question of having to investigate the profit. The ESB are directed by this House to bring revenue and expenditure into line, taking one year with another. For this reason it was considered that there was a prima facie case for the increase. That can be checked by the Prices Advisory Body.
Is the Minister aware that the special charges mainly hit people in remote districts, that is, the poor people of this country? How does the Minister justify those special charges down through the years? Surely he will agree that this is a most unfair imposition on such people just because they happen to reside in remote or isolated areas?
I have dealt adequately with this matter before.
You voted to abolish the subsidy for rural electrification.
Do not be joking.
Did you restore it? "Let Lemass lead on".
The loss incurred on rural consumption is £1,346,000. It is affected by a subsidy from the urban areas. There is already a contribution enabling the price of electricity to be kept down. Of 385,000 rural consumers, some 22,500 are paying the special service charges. That is not a very large proportion.
Would the Minister not agree that he might be doing a good thing to keep the 22,000 in the areas they now reside in, if he made his contribution by abolishing the special service charges?
I have adequately answered that.
Is the Minister aware that in South-West Cork at least the only people who can get electricity are the foreigners who are building houses because they are able to pay the capital cost? The provision of electricity is now confined to such people. Is the Minister aware that local residents who are clamouring to get this service to which they are entitled are left over until the foreigners have got supply? Has the Minister any answer to that?
Question No. 5.
You should give the Minister an opportunity to answer this.
I am calling Question No. 5.