I am compelled to raise this matter on the Adjournment by a sense of indignation at the manner in which the ESB have neglected, in the most disgraceful fashion, three households in the area of Forest, Swords, County Dublin, which is situated exactly on the fringe of Dublin Airport and, it might be said, on the land of Dublin Airport. The position is summarised by a letter which I have received from one of the parties concerned and which I shall read for the convenience of the House in order to set the matter in perspective. Mr. McLoughlin of Forest, Cloughran, Co. Dublin, wrote a letter to me on 22nd October, 1968, as follows:
I have been going around the ESB offices in the past two years— the one in Swords, Coolock and Fitzwilliam Street—as well as writing and speaking to them by phone, but it has come to nothing as they keep on saying that they are waiting for the Minister for Transport and Power to give his consent in writing——
I may say that these three people, these three households, have not got electricity for domestic use. They have no electric light. The three households are on the grounds of Dublin Airport, at the fringe of the runways.
—it has come to nothing as they keep on saying that they are waiting for the Minister for Transport and Power to give his consent in writing, and still he gave it by phone.
The blame lies somewhere and in the meanwhile we may put up with the hardships and candle light and pray that our young children won't get burned to death all because of the delay in one man trying to make up his mind.
There is a simple statement of the position. I took an interest in this matter in 1966—two years ago—at the request of the people concerned. On that occasion, in December, 1966, I made direct representations to the Secretary of the ESB and pointed out to him the extraordinary situation that here we have Dublin Airport which, as we know, is ablaze with light every night, as is the area immediately surrounding it, and, right beside are three households occupied by ordinary citizens and the ESB were making difficulties about providing for that supply.
My interest in the case began in 1966. In December of that year, I had a letter from the ESB to say that they were looking into the matter and would write to me further. In March, 1967, having heard nothing further, I reminded the Minister of the position by phoning his office. I also wrote to the Minister's office and, that month, I received a reply signed by the Minister stating that he had asked for a report from the Board—this was in 1967—in regard to the cases referred to with a view to ascertaining the position about the supply. From that, nothing ensued. On Tuesday, 23rd May, 1967, I asked a Dáil Question on this matter the reply to which read as follows:
I am informed by the Electricity Supply Board that there are four potential consumers in the townland of Forest, Co. Dublin.
There were three existing households ready to take supply and there was a prospect of a fourth coming into existence at the time.
The question of supply to these persons has been under consideration for some time past——
—that was in May 1967.
It was necessary to determine that an overhead supply to the consumers would not cause interference with airport operations. It is expected that an acceptable route for a line will be settled very shortly and that the ESB will then be in a position to offer supply.
In October, 1967, I received a letter, signed on the instruction of the Parliamentary Secretary setting out certain charges which were proposed in respect of supply. I continued to make representations in an effort to get the job done and, indeed, I was in touch with the ESB's Coolock office in February, 1968, on the matter. At that time, I was told that an official of the ESB would go to see the parties concerned in regard to the finalisation of the matter.
I was in touch with the Minister's Private Secretary in regard to this matter in June of this year and I had a letter, dated 23rd July, 1968, signed on behalf of the Parliamentary Secretary, again saying that the matter was receiving attention. There was a letter from the ESB to Mr. McLoughlin on 31st July of this year in the course of which it is said:
I now have pleasure in quoting new terms, based on the revised Government subsidy scheme.
It sets out what would be required to be paid—which was acceptable to the people concerned, as they indicated at various stages all along the line. The letter stated further:
The extension of supply would still be subject to approval by the Minister for Transport and Power due to the proximity of the Airport.
In July, 1968, the ESB said they were writing further to Mr. McLoughlin, one of the principal parties concerned in this case.
The most recent letter I had from the Parliamentary Secretary's office is dated 23rd October, 1968, in the course of which it is said:
A report in this matter has been received from the Electricity Supply Board. Following the review by the Government, earlier this year, of the position with regard to high special service charges, reduced terms for supply were quoted to Mr. McLoughlin and two other householders in Forest. These terms were accepted by all three householders. Following the acceptance of terms it was necessary for the ESB to get formal approval from this Department for an overhead supply line. This approval has now been granted and the ESB are at present making arrangements to extend supply to Forest.
The Board say they take into account wayleave across adjoining land and that this may not be determined before 31st January, 1969. They add that it may be possible that supply will be extended before Christmas.
This is an example, a very good instance of the manner in which the ordinary citizen's rights may be destroyed, trampled on, and in which the ordinary citizen may be frustrated by what are nothing less than bureaucracy, laziness and delays. This is a simple matter of three householders, surrounded on all sides by electricity —on one side by the Airport, possibly one of the largest centres of ESB consumption in the country. It is just a few yards away from the houses in which these three families live, who are deprived of the service simply because they are three ordinary citizens who have been put on the long finger, not from week to week or from month to month but from year to year down to the present day, and now it is suggested that it will be next year before they will be given an ordinary supply of lighting for their houses, in which they are using candles or paraffin oil at the moment.
The thing is a damn disgrace. I told the people to whom I was talking on the telephone that I would raise it in the House. This is not an exercise I enjoy. It is a duty that falls on me because it seems there does exist in these semi-State bodies and in the Civil Service a mentality which says that they are all right, that they make damn certain they are all right. They are the people who are writing these letters, making these reports. They are all right during the winter and it does not matter that three unfortunate families, surrounded on all sides by electric light, cannot have it.
I raise the matter here because I want to expose this and try to put a stop to this attitude of mind which apparently exists. I believe it does not exist in every Department or, indeed, in the case of every official, but it does exist in some cases as is made evident and revealed here—an attitude which seems utterly to disregard the elementary rights of the people. Just imagine what it means to a housewife with young children living in one of these houses, trying to carry on without the aid of domestic electric lighting, leaving aside altogether the other electric appliances, the normal requisites in any house today for cooking or whatever it might be. These people rely on candles and oil lamps for domestic lighting, implements of domestic use which have been out of use for almost a half century in even the most remote parts of the country. Even in some of the remote parts of the country referred to in the debate just adjourned, if such conditions prevail, I am sure tourists would be brought along to be shown cottages with oil lamps in them as an illustration of the ancient romantic Ireland that is dead and gone. They do not have to go to the west because they can go out to the Airport, a couple of miles beyond Santry, where they will find that situation.
I want to denounce the people who are responsible. Whoever they are, wherever they are, whichever Department they are in, they are guilty of absolute disregard of the welfare of the ordinary citizens. As I have said, I am satisfied that if they themselves found themselves in such a situation they would put up a mighty squeal about it and that they would get results.
This thing has gone on a long time, even before I became concerned with it during the past two or three years. It went on long before that. Now they are told they will be guaranteed supply when the winter is over, before 31st January. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to tell me on behalf of these people, so that they will get some hope this winter, that supply will be extended within the next week or fortnight. There is no obstacle except one, which is conjured up to cause delay. It is called "wayleave". Many county council members know that council gangers use wayleave. It is simply a form which is handed to landowners to indicate that the local authority intend to proceed across or through land.
In this case there is no need for this delay in the matter of wayleaves. If there is it should be ended. It should have been ended long ago. I do not think there is any need for this delay. The matter of wayleave is just an excuse to prolong the agony of these people. I conclude by asking the Parliamentary Secretary to give us a definite date, within the next couple of weeks at least, and to tell us he will see to it — and he has the power to see to it—that the ESB will stop this nonsense and give these people the supply to which they are entitled. If he does I will be satisfied, though the whole business has been a disgrace as, I am sure, the Parliamentary Secretary will agree.
