Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 30 Nov 1966

Vol. 225 No. 12

Committee on Finance. - Private Members' Business: ESB Charges.

Mr. Mullen

I move:

That Dáil Éireann is of opinion that the Electricity Supply Board should not increase its charges to domestic consumers by seven per cent in view of the undue hardship which this price increase would create together with the inflationary situation which such an increase would initiate; and also considers that the ESB special charges should be abolished.

It is terribly important when considering this motion to bear in mind what actually brought this about. We are submitting through this motion that the seven per cent increase now in operation, and which was advocated by the Minister for Transport and Power on behalf of the ESB, should not be instituted because it will undoubtedly create undue hardship for domestic consumers. One has only to think for a moment to realise who are the people who will suffer most by this imposition: domestic consumers undoubtedly to a great extent, and people who are commonly described as members of the workingclasses; old age pensioners, unemployed people or people who are working for small wages. These are the people who, in the main, will be hit by this increase.

It is rather significant that the Minister saw fit to do this, despite existing legislation. The Minister who is responsible for this action has a penchant for talking down to the workingclass people. Very often he appears in the public press telling the workers how to behave, and telling them what to do. We find this Minister talking about an ordered way of going about things, and reasonable behaviour, and we find the self-same Minister flouting the existing Prices Act. I submit that if the Minister sees fit on numerous occasions to talk to the workingclass people about the manner in which they should behave and set about negotiating increases to meet their commitments, the same Minister should be conscious of existing legislation.

In this connection the Minister has seen fit to disregard completely the Prices Act. It is pertinent to ask the Minister why. Why did he not give notice of intention to the Department of Industry and Commerce so that they could consider an application for an increase? That is the general idea. That is what private employers are required to do. Surely that is something which a State-sponsored concern must do in order to set a good example? That did not happen in this instance, and no real explanation has been given. When one takes into consideration the attitude repeatedly adopted by this Minister, one would imagine that he is not au fait with what is going on, and that he is undoubtedly in the clouds.

It is a fact that the recent increase of £1 which was given to workingclass people did not represent seven per cent in a great many cases. It is also a fact that this increase in ESB charges is coming into operation at a time of the year when it will hit the domestic consumers more than ever. I am not terribly concerned about the effect of this seven per cent increase on manufacturers and people who run industries. If there is anyone who can afford to bear this increase of seven per cent, it is undoubtedly the people who have, and not the people who have not. We all know, and commonsense tells us, that this is the time of the year when domestic consumers use more electricity. Manufacturers need not use more electricity at this time. As a matter of fact, it has happened repeatedly that there has been stalling in the matter of supplying heating, and what have you, in factories, from electric power during the winter period. This could happen in regard to the seven per cent increase.

The Minister for Transport and Power has repeatedly talked about how matters affecting labour relations should be dealt with outside his Department. I suggest that this imposition of a seven per cent increase will undoubtedly create hardship. Not only that, but it is also an inflationary action. Commonsense tells us that in our whole scheme of things the working man who is a member of a trade union is obliged to conform with certain procedures in order to obtain an increase in his wage packet. It is a well-known fact that long drawn out discussions have taken place to bring about increases—even in the case of the £1 increase. Arguments have to be made, cases have to be substantiated, in order to extract an increase from the employers for the working class. In this case the Minister has jumped the gun. He has decided to have this increase implemented without having recourse to the Department of Industry and Commerce, without having to make his case, and without having to justify why there should be an increase.

I submit that if we are to have this dream order about which this Minister pontificates very often, the obvious thing for him to do is to set a good example. In this connection that was not done, and the situation we now find is that the Department of Industry and Commerce have been charged with the responsibility of looking into the matter and of making decisions in connection with it. We have been told that if it transpires the increase is not justifiable it will be taken off. However, nothing has been said about retrospective relief for people who have been paying the increase. It does not require great exercise of the imagination to realise that that type of action creates a situation in which the applicant, who will be either the Minister or the ESB, will be making a request from some other Department in the hope that a favourable decision will be given for the confirmation of this seven per cent increase. That is an absolute disgrace. It is a clear indication of irresponsibility and is not in accord with what was said about maintaining order in negotiations.

Why has this been done? The only reason for it is to get increased revenue and to disregard the requirements of the public. I see little point in introducing legislation in the House if any Department can come along and disregard the provisions of the legislation. Above all, we should expect a Minister to take every precaution by way of procedure when application is made for increased charges. Workers are very often told to work harder, to increase productivity, to be careful about their demands for higher wages. Surely it is reasonable and fair that the ESB would be required to be careful, to behave in a more orderly fashion and not to take lightning action of this kind which, from the opposite point of view, is equivalent to a lightning strike. This is a blow being struck against the consumer, a blow being struck by the Minister for Transport and Power who had many opportunities to do this in another way. Clearly the Minister is far removed from what is happening: he simply takes these things as they come along without giving any serious thought to the repercussions on the public.

Is it to be taken for granted that working class people, who will be most affected by this increase, will sit idly by and say: "We will not look for any further increases in our wage packets"? That is asking too much of the working class people. I shall take the situation in Dublin. The last £1 a week increase did not compensate workers for future price increases. It did not even compensate them for previous increases but the £1 a week settlement could have been regarded as a serious attempt on the part of organised workers to face up to the economic situation. What happened? Out of the £1 a week those workers who are corporation tenants are required to pay one-sixth in increased rents. In addition, the same set of people, and the tenant purchasers, will all be required to pay this seven per cent increase in their electricity bills.

I have repeatedly asked the Minister to be a little more mindful of the effects of ESB charges on our less fortunate people. Repeatedly we on these benches have urged the Minister to do something about meter rents, particularly in respect of old people. Up to the present nothing has been done and the old age pensioners are being required to pay the seven per cent increase in their ESB bills. It may be said they do not use very much electricity. It must be said also that the only way they can save is to put out their lights and those who use electric fires to provide simple comfort will have to give up their use.

This is a very bad situation, the worst feature about it being that old age pensioners, unemployed people, organised and unorganised workers, have absolutely no say in the matter of this seven per cent increase. Foolishly enough, we thought when the prices legislation was being put through the House a couple of years ago by the same Government that we were putting teeth into the measure when we requested the Minister to take steps to ensure that notice of intention to increase prices and charges would be given by those responsible. It was never in our minds at that time that there would be exemptions and that this would apply to a State-sponsored concern above all others. With the Minister's approval, the ESB would destroy that arrangement.

We have also suggested in the motion that the special service charges should be abolished. After consultation in the Labour Party and the trade union movement throughout the 26 Counties, we have ascertained that very often it is the poor people who are required to pay these special charges. Asking these people to pay £1 as a special charge is like asking others to pay thousands of pounds. They have not got it. This is an imposition the Minister is allowing the ESB to enforce on the community. It is an imposition which, in particular, affects the poorer sections of the community very seriously.

At the same time, it must be said that we all take pride in the fact that we have the ESB and that there will be more and more utilisation of electric power throughout the country—that it will be brought into more and more homes. However, while the type of practice illustrated by the special service charges is allowed to continue, we know the type of homes power will be brought to. We know such services must be paid for but we suggest that the manner in which the special charge is imposed is not the way to pay for rural electrification. In the first place, it means the ESB obviously will not get enough consumers. The way to do it is to subsidise the service. I know it is being done but the subsidy should be increased. If, however, there is to be a greater contribution from consumers of electricity we should remember that industrialists get huge grants from the State and they should be the people to make the sacrifice.

We are satisfied that the system employed by the ESB to finance rural electrification is a crazy way of doing business. We who have had the opportunity of being fairly close to the operation of the ESB realise well what brought this system about. There is an absence of thought, an absence of liaison between the ESB and their staff, between the ESB and the Minister and between the Minister and the staff employed by the ESB. We know full well that this particular motion will, of necessity, be opposed by the Minister and his colleagues. We put down this motion, not to gain any political capital, but to make it clear and distinct that it is extremely unfair. The manner in which the increase was brought about is absolutely wrong and it gives the lie to all the contentions which are made by particular Ministers, and in particular this Minister, of going in an ordered way about negotiations.

This is the sort of thing that sparks off a wrong action. I hold this is an unofficial action equivalent to an unofficial strike, a strike at the consumers. The Minister should reflect on it and be man enough to admit that this general decision of his, without giving serious consideration to the facts, will be changed. Let us hope that between this and the time when the Department of Industry and Commerce make up their minds about the application of the ESB, that the seven per cent which they have put on at the moment will be taken off and we will be told they have changed their minds.

We are quite satisfied that the only way in which this matter can be put right is to take off the seven per cent and then make the application for an increase but let whoever makes the application for the increase make his case clearly and distinctly, prove the case to the Department of Industry and Commerce just the same as the ESB workers have got to prove their case. Other workers have got to prove their case as well. The ESB workers had to go through many tedious operations to prove their case. Surely the people who have control and power over those workers should in turn make their case and justify why such an increase is necessary.

In conclusion, I want to say—I know I am repeating myself but I cannot over-emphasise this—this act must have a tremendous effect on people throughout the country. The fact is that the Minister who now and then takes it upon himself to tell workingclass people what they should do is the first one to jump the gun and not do what he should, conform with a regulation which is in existence.

Mr. Cluskey

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak later.

Mr. Lindsay

I have no doubt that when the ESB come before the tribunal in relation to this increase of seven per cent, they will be able, in the absence of firm contrary proposals, to prove their case. They will have figures to support it, based on certain costings over certain periods. I often think, in the matter of costings of this kind based on a certain period, the mistake is initially made in having the period under contemplation too short. In other words, too much is attempted in too short a time and we are judging those few people over a narrow range of years. Too much is asked for something which others will enjoy afterwards virtually free of charge.

I sympathise very much with the view expressed by Deputy Mullen about the Minister's action vis-à-vis the Prices Act. I fail to see why the Electricity Supply Board, with all the research resources available to them, with all their staff, with all their accountants and everybody associated with costing and all the other people associated with a body of that kind, could not be ready to go with their application to a tribunal straight away. Neither do I see, on the other hand, why the Department of Industry and Commerce, geared as it is, or should be geared—I am sure it is—to have such a tribunal set up forthwith, could not have the tribunal available and the ESB put their case before it. It is a bad precedent for a Minister, in view of the legislation which is before him, to give permission to any board, body, group, firm or individual to increase a price prior to the hearing envisaged by legislation to establish the need for such an increase.

That is all I want to say on that aspect of this motion. There is much merit in the argument put forward that others have to make their case and here we have this anomaly which amounts in my view to a very bad and very dangerous precedent of saying: "We will give you a decree first and we will hear the evidence afterwards". That is what it amounts to. "Then later on, when we have heard the evidence, we will see if the decree should be reduced or wiped out altogether." It is contrary to all recognised procedure by people who act in accordance with rules and regulations.

Many things have been said about the special service charge and much more, I suppose, will be said in this House and outside it in relation to it. I agree with Deputy Mullen that the special service charge falls most heavily on the people least able to bear it. That is particularly true of rural Ireland. I speak of the west of Ireland and indeed in very recent times I can speak of a certain part of the south of Ireland.

Last evening, while speaking on the Estimate for the Gaeltacht, I recommended to the Department of the Gaeltacht that they should take up this question of the special service charge in Gaeltacht areas with the ESB. Here we have a situation in which our people might almost be described, certainly in the Dingle Peninsula, as "muintear an chladaigh". Our people have survived in those areas for centuries. They have been living on the produce reaped from the sea, the mountainside or the rivers. They have been living in difficult and very often dangerous conditions all that time. Then our State was established and we set up various industries. We harnessed our rivers for the purpose of generating electricity. Who gets this service? In most cases people who have always lived within easy reach of every amenity.

I know it can be argued that it costs a lot of money to erect a large number of poles over long distances, but the Minister for Transport and Power, in another capacity, does not lack experience in relation to erecting a large number of poles over long distances to provide telephones for people, without a special service charge. When a humble citizen on the mountainside beside the coast is involved who wants to have the ESB installation, what do we find? First of all he has to pay a capital sum and after that a special service charge is added to the two-part tariff in addition to what he has to pay for the electricity he uses. I do not think that is very edifying, although edifying is hardly the right word to use in regard to people who are looking for something.

However, I was appalled last week when I went into a certain part of the Dingle Peninsula, in the heart of the Gaeltacht, and visited a house in which Irish is spoken by the children and by the adults. No word of English is spoken there. I was appalled when in this very modern, well-kept, clean house I saw a man get down the old lamp. I asked him "Why are you using the lamp? Did you not get in the ESB current?" He replied: "No, I could not because the charge is prohibitive." He told me what it was and it certainly was prohibitive. Here is a home in which the children are getting the £10 deontas for speaking Irish. Due, of course, to the vigilance and care of the parents, they are speaking it. These are people who did not close their door, leave the country, or go to Dublin or elsewhere, but stayed on the hillside and made their little contribution to the nation's economy, but for so doing they cannot avail themselves, by reason of their limited resources, of the one great amenity that the nation can provide.

The ESB are short-sighted in this respect and the Minister is short-sighted in not altering his policy in that regard and having talks with the ESB about it. There must be some way, in relation to costings, of being able to get the money without hurting anybody too much, and getting rid of the special service charge. I forget what it would cost to abolish the charge but I think it is somewhere in the region of £250,000 or £300,000. It used be anyway, in replies regularly given to the House. I also noticed in a reply given to me recently that the ESB spent something like £150,000 in one year on advertising, yet they have a virtual monopoly. I suppose they have a host of sales managers, advertising managers and the devil knows what. Some of this money could be saved and diverted towards rural electrification to reduce or abolish the special service charge. This is spoiling the ship for a ha'porth of tar. It is time we got rid of this complex which not only operates in the ESB but also in other aspects of our life. On the basis that the ESB were allowed to increase their charges by seven per cent before they went to a hearing, and secondly on the grounds that this special service charge should be abolished and this amenity provided for the people who richly deserve it, I fully support this motion.

Mr. Cluskey

We in the Labour Party feel that this seven per cent increase in ESB charges cannot be justified by the Minister who is responsible for the operations of the Board. The burden of paying this seven per cent will fall most heavily on the shoulders of those who can least afford it. We find it difficult to understand the thinking of Fianna Fáil when we look back over the last few weeks after the election of the Taoiseach. In one of the few statements he made the Taoiseach again lectured the workers and said that they could not seek any improvement in their standard of living at this time, by way of seeking increased wages or better conditions, without doing considerable harm to the economy! On the other hand, we have a Minister practically inciting workers to make demands in order to try to retain—not to advance but to retain— their standard of living and try to keep abreast of such additional calls on their meagre purses as this seven per cent.

It is the more difficult to understand when we find that this seven per cent increase is imposed at a time when the ESB are in a position to give the Government a loan in excess of £2 million. When one considers all these facts, one can only come to the conclusion that this is another form of taxation on the people who can least afford it. After the unprecedented muddle and financial difficulties caused by the Government's policy, and after their frantic search for money and finding that it was not as readily available as they had hoped on any of the normal markets in New York, Geneva or London, they came along and arranged with the ESB to avail of a surplus in excess of £2 million. One wonders was it part of the deal that: "If we can use your £2 million, you can increase your charges by seven per cent and this silly little routine through which private individuals and concerns have to go in regard to price control will be overlooked in your case. We get the £2 million; you get your seven per cent increase," and the ordinary workingclass people can once again pay the piper.

If the Minister and the Government wanted to be honest, they would have introduced a third Budget this year in order to meet the many commitments for which they found it necessary to borrow the £2 million from the ESB. We do not feel that there is any justification for imposing this increase just to make it handier for the Government to borrow money from this source which is to be spent, not on doing anything constructive for the people but in trying to pay off some of the debts and undo the mistakes they have been responsible for. It is not only a question of the direct seven per cent being imposed on the people. If we are to believe the Taoiseach and if he wants the ordinary working people to take him seriously, when he was lecturing those with less than £1,200 per year who secured an increase of £1 in the last wage increase, as to the dire effects that paltry sum would have on the economy as a whole, I wonder why he did not open his mouth when the ESB imposed the seven per cent. Surely if an increase for workers will upset the balance of payments and make us less competitive in the export market, this seven per cent will have the same effect. Undoubtedly this seven per cent will add to the cost of producing anything we produce and export. Is it, again, the Fianna Fáil policy that if something must be paid back there is only one section of the community to go to and that is the section that can least afford to pay?

After the ESB had been able to lend the Government over £2 million, letters were sent out to people who had applied to have electricity installed in their homes and the content of some of these letters was disclosed in the House by my colleague, Deputy Dunne. It was revealed that an ordinary workman who sought to have electricity installed was asked for no less than £150 before the ESB would install the supply. This letter came from a State-sponsored company that had a surplus of over £2 million to lend to the Government. In the year 1966 we had a man who wanted to have this great boon to mankind, this marvellous new discovery so far as the Minister is concerned, installed in his house and he is asked to put down £150 on a flimsy, vague statement that it might be returnable when the financial situation improved.

So much was said during recent weeks by Labour Party members in the Dáil that we believe the practice has now been dropped by the ESB. We also believe that there is as little justification for the seven per cent increase which will impose tremendous hardship on some people such as those trying to survive on old age pensions, on widows' or blind pensions. To these people seven per cent on the ESB bill can mean the difference between having light and having no light, having some warmth or having none. I do not think an appeal of that nature would be very effective to a Minister who, only three or four weeks ago, opposed another motion in respect of free transportation for people in the same category.

We in the Labour Party intend by every means at our disposal to oppose this increase of seven per cent in ESB charges.

Mr. S. Dunne

The Minister for Finance appears very lonely and in my view it is not right that he should be sent in here to defend an impossible position while his colleague who is charged with responsibility for the ESB by the Dáil is absent. Where is the Minister for Transport and Power without responsibility?

Mr. Mullen

In a night club in Paris.

Mr. S. Dunne

I do not blame him if he is in a night club.

Mr. Lindsay

You can be sure there are no special service charges there.

Mr. S. Dunne

Do not take me as being critical of a man who goes to Paris and takes in a night club because it is, perhaps, a natural thing to do. I learn with astonishment that he is not here. What is he doing in France? Is he taking example from an older colleague to whose activities I referred at some length recently? Is he, in fact, offering advice to le grand Charles? We go about the world offering advice. That seems to be our destiny or fate under this Government and we are more concerned with that than with matters more immediate.

For instance, Deputy Lindsay spoke about the Dingle Peninsula and the fact that the ESB service there is so dear as to be beyond the financial capacity of a small farmer in the area. I was in the district of Cloghran six miles from O'Connell Street, last Saturday in a house tenanted by Mr. McLoughlin, just on the fringe of the airport. He was using an oil lamp. We do not have to go to these hitherto unexplored districts such as the Dingle Peninsula or Waterford to find examples of the neglect of the ESB and of their imposition upon the people in increasing their charges by seven per cent.

I believe this is now an established fact: the increase has been enforced, but there is a group set up to investigate it. Imagine investigating after the act has been done to see whether or not it was justifiable. To me this kind of approach represents the confused thinking that has been so typical of the Minister to whom I am referring.

Let me add that when I say the areas of South Kerry and Waterford have been hitherto unexplored, I am speaking purely in the political adventurist sense. I have no doubt that the Party cartographers will have every highway and byway, boreen, laneway, field, haggard, hillside and mountainside trodden flat before next Wednesday, and anybody who is in need of ESB service will be put under the impression that it is just around the corner in the skilled fashion in which these people operate. They have the knack of promising, while at the same time not promising at all. It was bequeathed to them by those who went before them in this House, gentlemen who were pastmasters at this skill of appearing to say something which, in fact, they were not saying at all.

This motion of ours is a very important one and I am disturbed to see how few sit in the Government benches to take an interest in the welfare of the consumers of ESB current throughout the country. I note that the Parliamentary Secretary who has just arrived is scanning the Order Paper to see just what we are talking about. It is about the seven per cent increase which has been imposed upon the people by the ESB with the consent of the Minister for Transport and Power without responsibility, to which may now be added Posts and Telegraphs.

It is to be assumed that this Administration, whose forebears boasted about their upholding of the great principle of collective Cabinet responsibility do, in fact, share culpability— for that is what it is—for this increase with the Minister for Transport and Power and the ESB. This is no mere administrative detail to be brushed aside by the Government or the Minister who is now in France, no doubt advising de Gaulle on something or other. This represents a real increase in the cost of living of the ordinary people.

This makes us think of the vainglorious projections, which was the name given to the wild guesses of those responsible for that two-and-sixpenny dreadful known as the Second Programme for Economic Expansion, these guesses as to the gross national product and other matters of that genre. It will be recalled that it was said then by the economists, who apparently govern our lives and our future, that any wage increase in excess of three per cent would bring about disaster and ruin for the nation. There was no suggestion on the part of the Government that this very substantial increase of seven per cent imposed upon the ESB current consumers would adversely affect our national condition at all, but it does, and in a very definite and dangerous way.

Increased costs of any kind which bring about an increase in the cost of living for the ordinary worker inevitably provoke demands for wage increases because the worker has no way of keeping the sheriff's hands off his goods other than moving, through his trade union, for wage increases. We are all familiar with the economic fact that if there is too much money chasing too few goods—to use an economic cliché—there is inflation, and this can be catastrophic for the country as a whole. We, therefore, say that the action of the ESB in increasing their costs and in increasing their charges unnecessarily was an act calculated to cause inflation and to make life harder for working people and the people who live on small farms throughout the country who have to avail of rural electrification, and goodness knows life has been hard enough for them.

I referred to the situation in Cloghran, County Dublin. Is it not incredible that the ESB which, it has been remarked, has an absolute monopoly in the provision of electrical power and light is unable, apparently, to provide light or power for this cottage which is situate six miles from the centre of Dublin, and that we have at this time, after 40 years of the ESB's existence such an example of people having to travel into Swords and carry home paraffin oil in order to use an oil lamp for lighting? In this case the ESB has not given any real reason why power will not be supplied here. It has been a case of simple and utter neglect. These are the people who come along with all the effrontery in the world and, without as much as "by your leave" of this nation, increase their charges to domestic consumers.

The Minister for Finance is here and I should be glad if he would clarify one point. We have had over the last several weeks questions on the Order Paper directed to the Minister for Transport and Power without responsibility, who is now in France, in which we asked what is the meaning of the ESB's replying to applicants for power or current, as they have done in hundreds of cases, to the effect that current would be supplied on one condition only, that the applicant would put up the capital contribution; in other words, that they would lend to the ESB for an unspecified period the money to pay for the labour, the poles, the cable and all the equipment necessary to make a connection in such cases. What was the sense or the meaning in that? Has this ridiculous proposition been in fact withdrawn? I understand that, after much effort on my part and on the part of many other Deputies to prevail upon the Minister for Transport and Power without responsibility, in fact this policy of the ESB has now been cancelled and that they are prepared at present to make such installations without asking the applicants to provide the capital contribution. How utterly out of touch the ESB showed themselves to make such a suggestion at all.

I know of one instance concerning a small farmer in Rush which I mentioned before. I am sure the Minister for Finance, the former Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, will agree with me that the best farmers in Ireland come from there. This small farmer in Rush was asked to lend almost £300 to the ESB to enable them to instal current for use in his glass-houses. This man is a primary producer who should be helped. He is the type of man who is made the subject of many adulatory speeches in this House. No doubt this type of man will be lauded to the skies within the coming few days until he will be submerged in a final crescendo of praise and adulation by Wednesday next. Such a man was asked to put up almost £300 in order to get current from the ESB. Of course, the idea was ridiculous. If the ESB could not get money from the banks, how could the ordinary citizen get it? There was also another case in Baldonnel to which I referred previously, where a similar proposition was put up to a citizen. Those are only two out of many such instances, which I am sure Deputies know of in their own constituencies.

Has this policy definitely been reversed? I would like an assurance from the Minister for Finance on that point, if he is intervening, as I hope he will, in this debate. It will be too bad if somebody from the Government Benches does not say something. It will not look too good in the news-sheets in the next day or two if some contribution is not made from the Government Benches. At least before Sunday, I hope somebody will say something and that it will not meet with the silence apparent up to now.

Electricity as a commodity, if it can be so described, is one of the essentials of living today. The average housewife is anxious to be as good as her neighbour and, if for no other reason, she is anxious to have all the labour-saving appliances on the market. She is entitled to such facilities in the age in which we live, but increases in the charges of the ESB are making it impossible for people to avail of these facilities as they should or, even where such facilities are installed, they make it more difficult for people to continue to meet the charges. Is it not an odd thing that this monopoly, which is an absolute one, cannot provide a service comparable in costs with that provided by the Dublin gas company? Is it not odd to think that you can run a household more cheaply on gas——

Minister for Finance (Mr. Haughey)

The Dublin gas company do not operate all over the country.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach (Mr. Carty)

They do not operate in Connemara.

Mr. S. Dunne

Did you ever hear tell of Kosangas?

Mr. Haughey

We give a grant of £10 for that.

Mr. S. Dunne

I have no doubt you give every possible grant you can to muintir Connemara.

Mr. Carty

Go máith. Gaeilge Strasbourg, is cosúil.

Mr. S. Dunne

Gan aon amhras.

Mr. Carty

No doubt it is a gas world.

Mr. S. Dunne

That shook you. However, you are consuming my time.

Mr. Haughey

We will give you three minutes afterwards.

Mr. S. Dunne

I do not think the disposition of time is entirely at your command. However, you might intercede for me with the Chair. I am sure you have more influence than I have. This excuse of having to provide for the rest of the country is not a justifiable one and is not acceptable to the people. Why should it be that the average worker of this city should be imposed on to the extent of having to subsidise gentlemen, some of whom could buy out dozens of such workers, lock, stock and barrel? Where is the justice in that? There is nothing in it but vote-catching.

Mr. Carty

You are not a bad hand at it yourself.

Mr. S. Dunne

God give me the strength to remain here a little time.

Mr. Carty

"If Dunne can't do it, it can't be done." I should say "Deputy Dunne".

Mr. S. Dunne

I am not making any disparaging remarks about the people living in rural Ireland—far from it.

Mr. Carty

Remember Kerry.

Mr. S. Dunne

I know very well the help that has gone to them has come about after many long years of pressure by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government.

Mr. Carty

Who is he?

Mr. S. Dunne

I assumed you were.

Mr. Carty

No.

Mr. S. Dunne

Do you blame me being confused with all this shifting and turning we have had?

Mr. Carty

I thank you for the additional title.

Mr. S. Dunne

If you want titles, we will give you all you want.

Mr. Carty

There are no titles in this country.

Mr. S. Dunne

To return to what I was saying when I was so rudely interrupted by members of the Government, how is it that a commercial service such as gas can be provided at so much lower cost than electricity? This is against all the canons of efficiency, indeed of equity, and against the experience of every other country in the world. It is only in this country of ours that we have succeeded in establishing a State monopoly which apparently is unable to compete in terms of costs with outside commercial undertakings.

Mr. Carty

I thought the Labour Party were in favour of nationalisation of all sources of production.

Mr. S. Dunne

I know that you are saying outside the chapel gates that the Labour Party want to nationalise everything, including the heap of dung outside the farmer's door. I know your propaganda also. The Labour Party do not stand for anything like that.

An Ceann Comhairle

We had better come to the motion now.

Mr. Carty

We have come to the cowdung now, I see.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy has only five minutes.

Mr. James Tully

The cowdung did not escape off the boots of certain Deputies coming in here.

Mr. Carty

Remember Cloone.

Mr. S. Dunne

The agricultural policy of this country has been——

Mr. Carty

What has that to do with electricity?

Mr. James Tully

We use electricity in agriculture, to a great extent.

Mr. S. Dunne

It is obvious that there is a calculated plot to deprive me of my right to free speech here. It will not succeed because I know that the Chair will give me protection.

Mr. J. Gibbons

How can man die better?

Mr. S. Dunne

I will take up the question of nationalisation with Deputy Carty, whose title I do not know at the moment, on another occasion. I shall be pleased to do so when time permits.

Mr. Carty

I look forward to it.

Mr. S. Dunne

I shall recall the days when he and his Party sought to dispossess, without compensation, and sought to do to the farmers of Ireland things which they subsequently accused other people of trying to do but which the other people had no intention of doing.

Mr. J. Gibbons

That is very complicated.

Mr. S. Dunne

If it is, I would advise the Deputy to take a course of study in the complicated statements from his former leaders in this House who were masters of it. I listened to them many a time and am I to be blamed if some of it has rubbed off on me?

Mr. Carty

Let us have it on Sunday next. We shall arrange the meeting accordingly.

Mr. S. Dunne

Our motion is here to be considered by Dáil Éireann. It is here in spite of the fact that we know that most members of the Government are down the country in South Kerry and in Waterford trying to delude the people in order to save themselves from the inevitable wrath of the Irish nation.

Mr. Carty

The Deputy is not a bad hand at it himself—deluding.

Mr. S. Dunne

In spite of the absence from the House of the Sturmtruppen——

Mr. Carty

Ich spreche kein Deutsch.

Mr. S. Dunne

Deputy Carty's trips to Strasbourg and over the Rhine——

Mr. Carty

The Dunne patois they have over there—Gaeilge Strasbourg.

An Ceann Comhairle

I shall intervene very soon.

Mr. S. Dunne

I appreciate that, and I have my eye on the time. I am doing my best to make a constructive speech, in spite of the disorderly interruptions with which I have had to cope. I suppose we have to be thankful for the fact that travel broadens the mind. It broadens more than the mind.

Mr. Carty

True.

Mr. S. Dunne

It certainly adds to the phrases, as we have heard here tonight, but still the very mention of these German phrases suggests to my mind—and I want to say this openly —that in Germany at the present time, we are told, the Nazi mentality is rearing its head again.

Mr. Carty

Ha! Look over there on the Fine Gael benches, not here.

Mr. S. Dunne

I do not know Deputy Carty's title but we heard him express himself here in German. I hope it is not the shape of things to come. I understand that yesterday he was talking about free speech which brings to mind the question whether free speech is also part of the Nazi ideology. However, to return to the substance of the motion——

Mr. Carty

Good.

Mr. S. Dunne

We commend this motion to the House because we think it is very important. We think the ESB should be condemned for taking this action of raising their charges by seven per cent at a time when the people of the country cannot afford to meet these charges.

Mr. Booth

It has been something of a disappointment to me that Deputy Dunne should have spoken for so long without mentioning in any constructive way the terms of the motion which has been put down with such evident enthusiasm by his colleagues.

Mr. S. Dunne

Surely——

Mr. Booth

We have been treated to a remarkable dissertation on almost every other subject except the purpose of the Electricity Supply Board.

Mr. Carty

Kosangas—everything: "If Dunne can't do it, it can't be done".

Mr. Booth

As has already appeared from today's debate, we had the not unusual experience of listening to the Labour Party supporting a private enterprise capitalist company against a State-owned corporation. From my point of view——

Mr. S. Dunne

That is not correct. Deputy Booth will not get away with that.

Mr. Booth

It does show very clearly, the complete lack——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Dunne has spoken and he should allow Deputy Booth to make his contribution.

Mr. S. Dunne

I am sorry the Leas-Cheann Comhairle was not here. The greatest disorder was allowed to prevail while I was making my few civil remarks. I have no intention of following the vulgar lead given by the Parliamentary Secretary, Deputy Carty——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am calling on Deputy Booth to continue.

Mr. Booth

The fact remains that, according to Deputy Dunne, private enterprise can give better service than a nationalised industry—and this, in spite of the constant protestations by the Party that all means of production should be vested in the State. It is, of course, an illusion, and it is time the Labour party faced up to it, that the nationalisation of an industry, in itself, makes for efficiency. This is not inevitable. At the same time, I have every respect for the service which the ESB have given in the past, are giving at the moment and propose to give in the future.

Mr. S. Dunne

In other words, you have it both ways. You are for it and against it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Order.

Mr. Booth

No, I am entirely for it. I am entirely in support of this policy of which I approve, but I entirely disapprove of the vacillating policy of the Labour Party who can never make up their mind which side they are on.

Mr. Carty

Both sides.

Mr. Booth

There has been a complete lack of sincerity so far as Deputy Dunne was concerned.

Mr. Carty

Seán dá thaobh.

Mr. Booth

His remarks were obviously intended for printing. The remarks which Deputy Dunne was making were obviously intended for printing rather than for listening to.

Mr. S. Dunne

That is unusual in this House, mind you.

Mr. Carty

He reads well.

Mr. Booth

The obvious insincerity of his remarks when he was so cheerfully giggling while describing to us the intolerable hardship to which his constituents were subject was something which, to my mind, he should be thoroughly ashamed of.

Mr. Carty

Hear, hear.

Mr. S. Dunne

If you think I shall take lectures on behaviour from you, you are making a mistake. You content yourself to represent the royal borough of Kingstown: the Kingstown republican.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Dunne has already spoken and he should now allow Deputy Booth to speak without interruption.

Mr. S. Dunne

I do not intend to listen to personal attacks from this object——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy has a remedy. He can leave the House.

Mr. S. Dunne

I am staying here. I have more right to be here than he has.

Mr. Booth

That is very much open to question. The fact remains that the Deputy tried to wring the hearts of the public over the miseries of his constituents while giggling happily and openly, thereby showing to me, at any rate, that he was completely insincere and did not care a brass farthing for these mythical hardships which he was putting out as hard facts and which they are not.

Mr. S. Dunne

I think you are a liar when you say that. You are a liar. I state that definitely.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy may not state that; he will withdraw the remark.

Mr. S. Dunne

I refuse to withdraw the remark. I will not sit here to be insulted by this object.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy will leave the House.

Mr. S. Dunne

I will not.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Then I will send for the Ceann Comhairle.

An Ceann Comhairle took the Chair.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

A Cheann Comhairle, Deputy Seán Dunne has refused to withdraw an unparliamentary expression and subsequently refused to leave the House at my request.

An Ceann Comhairle

It is my duty to name Deputy Seán Dunne to the House.