Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 2 Jul 1974

Vol. 274 No. 1

Electricity (Supply) (Amendment) Bill, 1974: Second Stage.

Minister for Transport and Power (Mr. P. Barry)

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The purposes of this Bill are to increase the limit of authorised capital expenditure by the ESB for all purposes, including rural electrification, from the existing limit of £450 million to a new figure of £700 million and to delete detailed provisions dealing with the terms of pension schemes for wholetime members of the board of the ESB.

Under existing legislation the ESB are authorised to incur expenditure for capital purposes up to a limit of £450 million. By the end of June, 1973, the total capital expenditure approved by the board had risen to £420 million, which will cover generating plant and transmission and distribution equipment due for commissioning up to the end of the present decade. However, over the next few years the board will have to decide on details of future generating capacity which will require capital expenditure exceeding the present statutory limit.

The board are working on the basis of a long term forecast of a growth rate of 10 per cent per annum in the use of electricity. This is based on rate of growth for some years prior to the recent energy crisis. It might be argued that the present increased prices of electricity could lead to a reduced growth rate in future as prices are unlikely to return to anything like their former levels in the foreseeable future. At the present time electricity consumption is, in fact, running at the same level as in the corresponding period of last year. At this stage it is not possible to predict the future rate of growth.

The high price of electricity must necessarily mean greater economy and care in its use but on the other hand electricity is relatively no dearer than other forms of energy and consequently there is no likelihood of a significant shift to other forms of light, heat and power.

Electricity consumption has increased in the past at a greater rate than other forms of energy and it is expected in most countries that this tendency will continue in future. In all the circumstances I consider that for the present at any rate it is prudent for the board to base their plans on a growth rate of 10 per cent per annum over the medium term we are dealing with in the context of this Bill and that the statutory limit on capital expenditure should be fixed on this basis. Should it prove to be the case that growth does not take place at this rate, the board's plans are sufficiently flexible to allow postponement of some elements of the new capacity so as to keep capacity and requirements in reasonable balance. In such an event the statutory limit on capital expenditure would suffice for a longer period.

A sufficiency of electricity is of such importance to the country, both socially and economically, that we must not run any risk of finding ourselves without adequate capacity to meet our needs. The board's programme within the statutory limit on expenditure is required to be submitted in detail for my approval from time to time and in that way the position will be reviewed at regular intervals in the light of experience.

The present generating capacity of the ESB is 1,798 MW and additional generating stations approved for construction total 1,392 MW. These are due for commissioning between now and 1980 and comprise four 250 MW units—two at Tarbert and two at Poolbeg; a 60 MW plant at Marina; the pumped storage plants totalling 292 MW at Turlough Hill and a 40 MW extension to Shannonbridge milled peat plant.

To cater for the growth in demand additional generating capacity of some 1,100 MW will require to be brought into service in the period 1980-82. The board will soon have to enter into the earlier of the various contracts involved. The total capital expenditure to which the board expect to have to commit themselves in the next few years is estimated at £250 million at present day prices. The actual expenditure will be spread over a period extending somewhat beyond 1982. The addition of £250 million comprises expenditure of:

Generation	£175 million
Transmission/System Operation	£20 ,,
Distribution	£45 ,,
Premises and General	£10 ,,

As Deputies will be aware, this country at present depends on imported oil for almost 70 per cent of our primary energy requirements. The recent oil crisis has made two facts very clear; namely that the era of cheap oil is over and that countries can no longer plan their energy programmes with the assurance of uninterrupted supplies of oil. The recent unprecedented increase in electricity charges was a direct consequence of the rise in oil prices. The Government are fully conscious of the heavy impost which the increased charges represent for the householder and for all sectors of the economy. These charges are particularly felt because of the pervasive role which electricity plays in all our lives. As I say, however, the increased charges are a direct consequence of the rise in world oil prices and there was no practical alternative to the introduction of electricity charges commensurate with the new oil prices. I might add that, despite these very substantial increases, electricity charges in this country compare favourably with the rest of Europe.

The energy crisis has served to reinforce our present policy in two areas— the resolve to maximise the contribution of native resources and to move away from our present over-dependence on imported oil. Prior to the onset of the energy crisis, it has been accepted that Ireland's native sources of primary energy, hydro, turf and a small amount of coal, were being fully developed. The position has been revised in the light of the changed energy situation particularly the increased price level of all forms of energy. Bord na Móna carried out a re-examination of bog areas which had previously been considered unsuitable for economic development in the face of low cost imported fuels. Bord na Móna and the ESB are now drawing up plans for a new turf development programme under which greatly increased quantities of peat would be produced for electricity generation. It is envisaged that additional turf fuelled generation plant of about 160 MW capacity will be provided capable of producing 700,000 units of electricity annually. The ESB are also reviewing the possibility of using a low-grade home-produced coal which had hitherto been regarded as too costly.

Marathon Petroleum Ireland, Limited have confirmed the presence of a significant deposit of natural gas at a point 29 miles to the south east of the Old Head of Kinsale. The find is described as relatively small in comparison with offshore finds currently scheduled for development in the North Sea and is not sufficiently large to justify a grid distribution system for use of the gas as a fuel throughout Ireland.

The present intention is that the gas should be piped ashore in the neighbourhood of Cork city and that priority should be given to the use of the gas for the generation of electricity and the production of ammonia for the nitrogenous fertiliser industry.

It is calculated that the deposit when fully developed should be capable of supporting a daily flow rate of 125 million cubic feet of natural gas for about 20 years. The ESB propose as a first step that a 75 MW gas-fired plant should be provided at Marina in 1977. In subsequent years up to 1982 a number of gas-fired gas turbines will be provided at Whitegate with the subsequent addition of steam turbines using the waste heat to give a total capacity of approximately 500 MW at the Whitegate plant.

It is recognised that the use of the natural gas for the generation of electricity is open to objection on the grounds that this is not the most efficient use of a high grade fuel. The combination of gas-fired gas turbines with the subsequent addition of steam turbines using the waste heat will, however, give the highest possible efficiency for the use of natural gas in power stations.

Having regard to our heavy dependence on imported oil and the necessity to ensure the greatest possible security of sources of energy in the event of another emergency similar to the one we had last winter, I think that the gas of a large proportion of the gas for the generation of electricity can be fully justified.

It is understood that the gas is of excellent quality and is suitable as a raw material for the manufacture of ammonia. It is proposed accordingly that approximately 52 million cubic feet a day should be used for an ammonia plant which Nítrigin Éireann Teoranta are setting up at Cork. This would meet the potential demand for ammonia, for the following decade, of the nitrogenous fertiliser industry for the whole Irish market. Gas used for the production of ammonia will replace oil which normally would have to be imported for this purpose.

Nuclear energy has now emerged as the best large scale alternative to oil for electricity generation. Since the Government approval in principle of the ESB proposal to construct a nuclear power station, the board have been proceeding with their plans. Their aim is to issue an inquiry towards the end of 1974, for a reactor in the 600 MW range with a commissioning date of 1982. The estimated cost of the reactor is £130/150 million. The selection of a site for a nuclear station is primarily a matter for the ESB. They have recently indicated a preference for Carnsore, County Wexford. A final decision on the sitting of the station will not, however be taken until further detailed investigation by the ESB is completed; a recommendation has been received from the Nuclear Energy Board and formal approval is given by the Government.

The Nuclear Energy Board have wide powers to ensure that adequate control is exercised over nuclear material and the operation of the nuclear station, and will oversee all stages of the design and installation of the plant. It is also a function of the board to prepare safety codes and regulations taking into account the experience of nuclear power in other countries and the standards recommended by international bodies dealing with nuclear energy. There are about 150 nuclear reactors in commission elsewhere and the ESB are satisfied that techniques are now sufficciently developed to make nuclear power safe. In addition, the board are converting some of their plant to dual firing which will allow the use of coal or oil depending on availability.

In the present world energy situation diversification in the forms of energy used for electricity generation is of paramount importance. The recent crisis has clearly demonstrated this. We in this country have been particularly vulnerable because of our very high and growing dependence on imported oil. Our present plans will do much to remedy this situation. Considerable diversification and security will be achieved by our plans for the greater use of peat, use of natural gas from our own shores and finally nuclear power. All this will bring about a much greater spread in our electricity sources.

Having outlined the ESB's future supply plans, I should now like to bring Deputies up to date on progress of one of the board's current programmes—rural electrification. As Deputies will be aware, the four-year crash programme designed to achieve the completion of the rural electrification scheme is in its final year. It is expected that supply will have been offered in all the 792 rural areas by 31st March, 1975, although the work may not be completed perhaps for several months afterwards. At the beginning of 1974, applications for supply had been invited, either by canvass or by advertisement, from residents in 552 of the 792 rural areas. The ESB expect that they will have made 60,000 new connections by the end of the crash programme, compared with the original estimate of 36,000.

The character of the rural electrification scheme has changed significantly since the original programme was devised in 1946. Then it was simply a matter of connecting houses already built to the supply. Now it is also necessary to cater for new houses industrial developments and the increasing demands of the agricultural community. In the year ended 31st March, 1974, capital expenditure on rural electrification was approximately £4 million, bringing the total invested in the rural electrification scheme at that date to over £59.5 million, of which £21 million was by way of Government subsidy.

The present capital expenditure figures for the ESB and the magnitude of future expenditure give some indication of the growth of the electricity industry and the important role the ESB plays in the life of the community. The operation and running of the ESB have been the subject of two major inquiries in the last few years— the Fogarty Report which specialised in the board's industrial relations and the Fletcher Report which was a general investigation into the affairs of the board. In both these cases the recommendations of the investigating committees have been fully implemented in so far as lies within the board's competence. The findings of the Fletcher Committee were quite complimentary to the ESB's performance and planning. Certain recommendations in the Fletcher Report which would require new legislation are under consideration.

These recommendations are of a long-term nature and mainly relate to the financial regime within which the board are required to operate. The existing framework was laid down in the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1927. That Act requires the board to operate on a break even basis after making provision for all charges properly chargeable to revenue. The board are statutorily precluded from making a profit. The mandate laid down in the 1927 Act has worked well down the years and has stood the test of time. However, it is being reviewed in the light of the Fletcher recommendations to see how far it should be modernised to conform with present day thinking on more sophisticated financial structures for State companies. Any change will require legislation and the House will then have an opportunity of considering the matter.

Fuel efficiency is now more than ever a matter of particular concern to the ESB in the design of stations, the control of their operation and in the allocation of loading to the more efficient plants. It is heartening to note that the board's new Poolbeg station has achieved 2 level of thermal efficiency which is a record for board plant and, indeed, is excellent by any standard in the world. I am satisfied that both in this matter and in the management of their other affairs, the ESB are in the forefront of electricity authorities throughout the world.

The purpose of the second section of this Bill is to delete sections 17 and 18 from the Electricity (Supply) (Amendment) Act, 1961. Section 16 of the 1961 Act, provides for the making of pension schemes to cover whole-time members of the board.

Section 17 and 18 and the Schedule of the Act outline the provisions required to be included in every pension scheme or amending scheme for whole-time members of the board. The detailed provisions outlined in sections 17 and 18 and the Schedule to the Act are not sufficiently broad to permit the pension scheme for whole-time members of the board to be brought into line with the superannuation rights which the board's employees enjoy. It is, therefore, necessary to delete these provisions from the Act. This will facilitate the amendment of the scheme from time to time to keep it in line with developments elsewhere in public service pensions. The deletion of the provisions of sections 17 and 18 and the Schedule would bring the statutory provisions in line with those governing the superannuation schemes for the whole-time members of other State bodies.

I might mention that the chairman of the board is the only whole-time member of the board.

I commend the Bill to the Dáil.

Mr. Barrett

The occasion of the introduction of a Bill such as this is not normally a time for creating controversy. Much of what is contained in the Bill is welcomed but this is an occasion on which we might dwell briefly on the energy situation and our policy which was brought very much to the fore during the oil crisis last winter. We must use an occasion like this to consider the effects of the Government's action, or inaction as the case may be, during the fuel crisis.

What we need to do is to have a complete reappraisal of our energy programme. On many occasions during last winter, by way of motion and in discussions, Fianna Fáil took every opportunity to warn the Government of the serious implications of the oil crisis for our economy and our great dependence on oil. We warned the Government of the charges that would be necessary because of the increased oil prices and the effect this would have on all sectors of our economy. We know now that the consequences will be very serious.

We were told not only by the Minister for Transport and Power but by other Ministers also that these matters were being examined seriously and that definite corrective action would be taken in due course. There was also the question of handling the price control machinery and we recall a matter that was mentioned today, namely, the millions of pounds excess profits permitted to the multi-national oil companies. These are inescapable facts. We had hoped something would result from the examinations we were told were taking place but nothing concrete has emerged from them with regard to the oil situation. I realise we have not complete control over our oil supplies but we have control over certain features of our energy policies with regard to oil. We wish to be helpful in this situation and we will spell out in simple language some ideas that may help to resolve our present problems with regard to fuel and oil.

As we have said already, the biggest factor is the increased price for oil. We must consider the effect the £150 million will have on our balance of payments deficit. The need to correct this deficit has caused the Central Bank—a State agency—to impose restrictions in lending. Without any doubt these restrictions will have a serious effect on the employment situation in many sectors, but more particularly in the building industry and its allied industries.

We have the situation where a State body, with knowledge of its own affairs, is acting contrary to the declared budgetary policy of the Minister for Finance as outlined in the budget debate. It is essential for the Government to recognise our major dependence on oil supplies for energy purposes, not only for the present but for the medium-term future. We must ensure that steps are taken to see that industry is so structured as to make oil products available where they are required and ensure that these oil products are available.

It is our duty also to keep a close watch and take the necessary steps in this regard in so far as we are able. Then only can the priorities of pricing policy be determined and based on the needs of the consumer. In any event, we should not permit any wasteful competition as exists at present: we should not permit it to continue between such bodies as the ESB and the Dublin and Cork gas companies. So far as domestic supplies are concerned, this competition definitely exists and we should take every step possible to have it eliminated.

It has to be recognised that energy supply for this nation is an absolute necessity; every child in the country knows that. Our present strategy of expansion, based on the promotion of the product of energy, should be reversed somewhat. We must reorientate our thinking into one of recognition that energy supply must be based on essential demand with the first consideration being given to costs.

The Irish financial system, as we know it, has been unable to meet the capital needs of the ESB for some years. It has fallen on the ESB to seek alternative sources of capital from time to time. In some cases, this capital was sought and got from outside what is known as the sterling area. We know also that the Government, through the Central Bank, are compelled to guarantee the risks to the interest and the capital repatriation of these loans. We appreciate also that, because of the diminishing value of sterling as related to other currencies, this has an effect on our balance of payments deficit. The risk is always present.

To recapitulate, the immediate task of the Government is to establish an energy conservation policy. As I have said on previous occasions, for months back, during last winter and in the early spring, we on this side of the House have been pointing out to the Government and emphasising their lack of control over the prices situation. That was very easily appreciated from the debates which took place here, the talk we had about the outer British zone and the removal of the price controls which existed until some time last December and which led to a situation where the multi-nationals were obliged only to give us very short notice of any price increases. We all know how we suffered in that respect last January. We would point out that the very same lack of control still exists. We must continue to emphasise the Government's incompetence in this field.

The board of the ESB bear the responsibility for supply; they also bear responsibility for prices. Costs, as we know, are examined to ensure that they are kept to the minimum. But there is also the human aspect of the costs problem that seems to have been ignored by permitting the fuel surcharge increase presently being leived on consumers. They are across-the-board increases which have raised an even greater amount of confusion in many consumers' minds. This we know from the Press and from the agitation displayed by people when they saw their exorbitant ESB bills recently and about which there is a lot of controversy. In fact, the Government have allowed the ESB—one of the earliest State bodies to be established—appear somewhat in the role of a dragon as far as some of their consumers are concerned when they receive these exorbitant bills. It is hard to blame them because some of them received shocks recently when they got these bills. I am referring to domestic users and, in particular, to consumers who have had installations for domestic heating purposes based on what is known as "off peak" consumption rates. This present scandal of the manner in which this surcharge is attached to these "off peak" consumption rates—which amounts to approximately a 200 per cent increase as far as I am aware—must not and should not be allowed to continue.

We propose, on this side of the House, that no further authorisation for increases should be permitted to the ESB until steps are taken to alleviate this very oppressive hardship on those people least able to oppose it. This is a most unfair hardship, an unfair method of levying charges. There is no way out where these consumers are concerned: when they get these exorbitant bills the next threat is that they will be cut off. Not only are these charges having a serious effect on people's pockets but they can have a serious psychiatric effect on very many people because, naturally, families do not like to be subjected to this type of exposure of their means, and so on, in a close neighbourhood. This is the situation obtaining where most of these consumers reside. We feel the method of application of these fuel charges must be amended so that the same amount can be recovered but on a basis, if you like, which would be in exact proportion to the basic charges. This is something the Minister should take up immediately with the ESB and ensure that the tremendous hardship on these people, about which we have heard and read so much, is alleviated.

With regard to the other matters concerning the ESB, the energy crisis that we experienced and our future energy policies, I made suggestions in this House regarding the short term —I suggested more storage. We know that that is now under consideration but it seems that there may well be a lot of controversy and discussion about who is going to provide the money for this storage. I emphasised also the importance of having a long-term policy with regard to oil because it is a product on which we are going to be dependent. As the Minister has rightly said, our natural resources will be expanded but they will not bear tremendous expansion. Our stocks of turf are not inexhaustible, at least so the experts tell us. There are quite a number of Bord na Móna employees who are entitled to a reasonable working life of, say, 30 years or more. Were we to run madly into the bogs now and start using them in easement of this problem, we would probably interfere with the livelihoods of many households and employees would find themselves out of work in a much shorter time than they had anticipated.

We must tackle the oil situation in the light of our present needs and where we meet these from. We must never lose sight of the fact that we are hopeful of reasonable oil finds off our south coast. At present we are completely at the mercy of the multi-nationals who, together with the Arabs, control the source and the refining capacity. In this country we refine only 50 per cent of our needs. Until such time as we enlarge our refining capacity to cater for our entire needs we cannot hope to control the price of oil products. I admit we cannot control the price of a product from Saudi Arabia or Kuwait and that if we are so fortunate as to get oil strikes off our coast we will have to apply world prices. However the Government should treat the matter of erecting an oil refinery as urgent because the erection of such a refinery could do a lot to ease the cost of our energy.

In the event of a good oil strike off our coast this country will benefit from the royalties and other taxes but if we were refining our own oil products we could control the price and the distribution of these products. The profits obtained from these products could be used to ease the cost to the consumer and there is no doubt that easing is needed. In order to have any semblance of control of our energy and as long as we are dependent on oil, which will be for a considerable time, we must erect another refinery. It appears that no plans have been formulated by the Government or any of the companies who announce wildcat schemes from time to time in different parts of our country. However among all the announcements by such companies there must be at least one solid proposal, one that would be worth following.

The Government, through the IDA, are in the best position to judge proposals put forward by oil companies and to assess the people involved in such promotions. There has been a lot of talk about the nuclear power station but this will not become operational until the mid-1980s. While such a station is to be recommended, we must remember that there are many people who fear the erection of such a station because of the danger of accident. One accident in such a station might be enough to destroy this country. However the Minister is satisfied from the advice available to him that there is no danger of such an accident. A nuclear station is a very long-term job and the type of one visualised by the Minister will on present calculations account for only about 15 per cent of our total energy.

The ESB is totally dependent, it appears, on Russian oil. I understand that because of previous contracts we are still exporting oil products from the Whitegate refinery. I am not aware whether there was an escalating price clause in the original contract but I sincerely hope there was such a clause. An oil refinery is essential because we should not leave ourselves dependent on those people who seem to come and go a lot with proposals about refineries in Bantry and the Shannon. These proposals do not seem to be materialising and it does not seem as if they ever will materialise. The Government should formulate a plan which will mean that we will not be dependent on other countries for oil products.

I understand that we could build such a refinery for between £70 million and £80 million. This is not a very big sum when one considers that earlier today we were talking about the sum of £35 million to erect storage tanks and to fill these tanks with the product. That must be nearly half the cost of a refinery which would provide the remainder of our energy needs. I believe that such a refinery would be operational within two to three years. It is proposed to spend between £130 million and £150 million on a nuclear reactor which will not be operational until the mid-1980s and for this reason the Government should consider the possibility of erecting a refinery and having it operational within a reasonable time.

We know how dicey it is for us to be dependent for 50 per cent of our oil products on oil refineries which are operating in other countries. We also know of the the risk we took last year at the time of the miners' strike in England, that we could have been told then by the British Government to forget about what we were supposed to receive from the refineries there. This can happen again, particulary because of the attitude of the miners. A refinery, in the long-term, is the solution to our problems and we cannot hope to solve our problem in any appreciable way from our bogs and our natural resources.

Even if we had a refinery operational within two to three years I accept that we would be dependent on outside sources for our crude oil, but at least we would be able to exercise some control over the product. The building of storage tanks is the quick solution in order to have the reserve which is required by EEC regulations but this will cost somewhere in the region of £35 million. We should see to it that we have our own refinery in operation in a short time.

There are many things contained in the Minister's brief with which we agree but I felt it was necessary to dwell more on the oil situation because it has so much to do with the ESB and with our future energy policy. We have to face up to the situation because of the way we were caught with our pants down during the last energy crisis. Has anything happened to safeguard the nation against such an eventuality again? The Minister for Industry and Commerce assured us, when replying to an Adjournment Debate, that a very detailed examination was in progress but we have not heard the results of this examination. In reply to a parliamentary question the Minister said that discussions were still going on with regard to storage tanks. Many months ago we were told that there was a body comprised of civil servants from the Minister's Department and executives of the multi-national oil companies meeting regularly to discuss our oil situation. Nothing seems to have come, on any worthwhile scale, from this body and the Minister should have another look at it. I questioned before whether it was wise to have people with a definite vested interest advising the Minister on a matter of such national importance as our energy and oil situation.

Mr. O'Brien

I welcome this Bill, which raises the authorised capital expenditure of the ESB from £450 million to £700 million. It is a clear indication of the confidence in this country and in its future because without electricity industrial expansion would come to a halt. We must give credit for the fact that during the 1960s and into the 1970s when we had industrial growth it was never held up because of a lack of power. I have no doubt that credit for that is due to the forward thinking of the people who run our electricity industry. In 1930 43,000,000 units of electricity were sold and in 1973 it was 5,705,000,000 units. That is a clear indication of progress. In 1930 the number of consumers was 48,600. There are now 845,000 consumers. That indicates the need for an improvement in the financial situation of the ESB.

Deputy Barrett was rather critical of the oil situation. Listening to him, one would think we were discussing an oil crisis rather than the electricity situation. Regrettably, oil has played a major part in increasing the cost not only of electricity but of all other items. However, people should be aware that before the oil crisis the ESB were very prudent in their purchasing and signed fairly long-range contracts which ensured that they were getting oil at a very reasonable price over a fairly lengthy period of time. Unfortunately everything happened together. Their contracts ran out. The oil companies increased the price. The increases seemed to be very large increases but if the ESB had bought on a year-to-year basis charges would have been higher before the oil crisis. This again is a clear indication of the board's planning.

Great credit is due to the ESB in respect of rural electrification. Most of us have been to other countries in Europe. I certainly have not seen any country as well catered for in the matter of rural electrification as this country. Most parts of the country have a good supply, well maintained. This is important, particularly in an agricultural country.

In regard to the conservation of fuel, I think turf has been fairly well exploited. Water has certainly been utilised to the full. At Turlough Hill there is the storage tank which I think is a new concept within the British Isles. Electricity will be generated at night. In other words, there will be a fairly even spread of generating capacity over the 24 hours, which will give a cheaper unit. I would like to see the ESB, local authorities and those engaged in housing construction cooperating. In the cooling systems within generating stations there is a tremendous amount of waste heat. I know that in Germany and in London they tap that source of waste heat and heat fairly large housing schemes with it. That would be a welcome innovation here. This can also be done in rural areas, particularly where bogs have run out. A glasshouse industry can be developed with a very low cost unit because they are using heat from the cooling towers. There is a saving there and that is important.

I am glad to see that we are allowing for a 10 per cent growth rate over the next few years. It is important that we have a clear indication where we are going. We must as a developing nation ensure that there is no impediment in the way of attracting industry such as a bad electricity supply.

Oil refining is something that I know the Government will have to come to grips with sooner or later. There have been some overtures in various parts of the country in regard to the location of an oil refinery, but that has not come about yet. The gas finds off the coast of Cork have been mentioned but there has been no mention of oil. I presume the same situation will arise if oil is discovered there, that they will also use oil. If there are vast finds over the next few years how will this affect the future nuclear programme? Will we decide to retard nuclear development or is it intended to diversify? I know the nuclear station will not be developed until some time after 1982 but in the event of oil finds over the next couple of years I should like the Minister to tell us how it will affect Government policy vis-á-vis nuclear development. I, personally, am not very happy about nuclear development. One never knows about waste disposal or whether there can be accidents. It is something new.

Obviously if the oil finds off the coast are not of any significance we will have to go into the nuclear field, because we cannot allow ourselves to be in the position of being vulnerable because of having one supply only. The last year has taught us a very salutary lesson: that if you have all your eggs in one basket your whole economy can be upset. We must look to the future at all times.

With regard to the Fletcher Report and bringing the financial planning and considerations of the ESB up to date, this is very important. Far too long the board have not been, as they should have been, generating more capital from their own sale of electricity over the years. If this was done the interest charges which they are paying today would be less and consequently the running costs would be down. The Minister has told us that action will be taken in regard to this in the near future. I welcome any updating in this regard. While the 1927 Acts may have been all right at that time, the industry is growing so fast that it is important that these Acts are looked at periodically to ensure they are doing the job they were intended to do and that they are keeping abreast of the times.

The planning for the ESB over the next eight to ten years envisages an expenditure of £250 million, consisting of £175 million on generation, £20 million on transmission/system operation, £45 million on distribution and £10 million on premises. This is an ambitious programme. I welcome this programme and I also welcome the Bill.

Mr. Tunney

There is one sentence on the second page of the Minister's speech to which I should like to refer. It is a true statement of fact and indicates to us the very important role played by electric power in our lives today. It is another reminder to us of the importance of having an uninterrupted supply of electricity available to us.

The Bill gives permission to the ESB to increase capital expenditure from £450 million to £700 million. The sentence in the Minister's brief to which I already referred reads:

A sufficiency of electricity is of such importance to the country, both socially and economically, that we must not run any risk of finding ourselves without adequate capacity to meet our needs.

The Minister is referring to both short-term and long-term policies and he is also referring to an ideal situation where, if the ESB are given the capital, they will supply the service and, conversely, they cannot supply the service if we do not give the capital to them. It is necessary to refer to occasions in the past when the supply of electricity was not available to us. This was not because the ESB were short of capital but because of other reasons. We now propose to give the ESB permission to raise, on behalf of the people of this country, their capital expenditure to £700 million. It is necessary for us, bearing in mind the wishes of the Minister who is speaking on our behalf, to examine the position and to make sure that electricity supply will not be interrupted, as it has been in the past, for reasons that are euphemistically described as "industrial causes".

This is an investment which is being made on behalf of all the people of this country. We know the important part electricity plays in our lives. We know its importance in the home, the hospital and industry. Last week I visited the new computer centre in John's Road which decides and collects income tax, most of the money which is used to operate the affairs of the nation in any one year. This computer entirely depends on electric power. Hospitals, operations, factories and jobs depend on electricity. The Minister stressed the importance of it but made no reference to situations which arose and are likely to arise again where we are deprived of electric power by one or two militant, belligerent men in any of our cities who can bring about a situation in which we are deprived of all electric power. I know I am now in an area that men braver than I have refused to travel, but we are living in different times. The slogans that were very apt and because of that, perhaps, sacred in other times, no longer apply. In the enlightened times in which we live everybody realises that men and women, regardless of which sphere in which they are engaged, must be paid for their services.

We should have reached a stage when we can discuss events that took place in this area. I am not attaching sole blame for what happened to the one person to whom I referred earlier. Perhaps blame lies in other areas of the ESB. It is possible that because of the attitudes and operations which these workers see in other areas they are driven to the point of believing that the only way in which they can achieve justice for themselves is by denying the people the service for which they have paid and to which they are entitled, a service without which the people cannot pursue their normal activities.

I hope that the Minister will indicate to us what precautions he has taken and what overtures he has made to ensure that there will be a continuity of supply of power, a subject about which he expressed concern in asking for this money. This continuation of supply would seem, according to the Minister, to be dependent solely on the availability of capital. We know that the question of the availability of capital has not been the issue in any of the instances in which there was an interruption in the supply of power.

Before revealing the one or two simple thoughts which I have in relation to this area I will quote the Minister's reference to the Fletcher Report:

The board are statutorily precluded from making a profit. The mandate laid down in the 1927 Act has worked well down the years and has stood the test of time. However, it is being reviewed in the light of the Fletcher recommendations to see how far it should be modernised to conform with present day thinking on more sophisticated financial structures for State companies.

As the gentleman at the corner of the street might ask: "What is all that in aid of?" Is it the prelude to a departure by the ESB from the position obtaining to date, that is, that they pay their way and make no profit? Have we entered an era in which it has become the opinion of the ESB that, apart from paying their way, they should generate a surplus which they might use for development? I do not know what is the answer but I am hazarding a guess as to what all this is about.

Their costs at present are high enough in circumstances where they are not allowed to make a profit but if we are to require of them that they make a profit charges will be increased accordingly and if ESB charges are to increase during the next six months in a proportion similar to that which they have increased in the past six months, it will be outside the capacity of the ordinary domestic user to enjoy the luxury of ESB power. That is a statement of fact, not a sweeping statement. The proof of it is to be found in, for instance, the Tolka Valley area, where people who, because other people decided for them that they should live in centrally heated houses, find themselves in a position where they cannot and will not be able to pay their ESB bills. The bills which they are getting in respect of power for cooking, for normal lighting and for space heating are such that these people cannot pay them. I understand that additional increases are contemplated. If that is so it will be the position in the Tolka Valley that people will have to leave their houses because of their inability to pay their ESB bills.

Apart from people in that area, all sections of the community have become more mindful recently than ever before of their ESB bills. Some people are more prudent than others. Some have better training than others in what would be regarded as domestic economy and, consequently, make provision for their ESB bills. However, there are many whose training and traditions are such that up to now their practice has been to pay for goods or services as they get them. That was their only concern. Now, however there are many young married couples who adhere to the easy philosophy of taking anything which one appears to be getting for nothing. These people avail of power for heating, and so on, to their heart's content but the shock comes for them at the end of each two-month period when their ESB bill arrives. A couple might receive a bill for electricity of the order of, perhaps, £35 but that amount of money to these people when they married was something about which they might have dreamed but never had. Now they find themselves being asked to pay that amount for electricity. They are living in houses which were designed and prepared for them by a local authority, in consultation, I presume, with the ESB. They are saddled with this and if they do not pay the bill the power is cut off.

I do not like to predict catastrophe but as sure as I am here—I do not wish this; I am saying it only to alert the ESB and all concerned—unless there is a change in attitude towards the people in those houses, unless the ESB can introduce a scheme for some financial assistance for those people, many houses will become vacant there and to some extent the same will apply in the Ballymun complex. Although it would, perhaps, be slightly more expensive, I suggest to the ESB that, having regard to the high costs prevailing, of which there is no indication of any reduction, they should consider presenting their bills monthly. This would help these people and many others. I am not speaking solely for the tenants of that house but I venture to say I am speaking on behalf of many Deputies when I say that what was formerly a bill that one was reasonably happy to pay—one is never happy in paying out money— has become a rather frightening event. I know that the ESB can cite the cause of all this but if the cost continues to rise as it has risen not many people of my acquaintance will bother the ESB about the commodity they are marketing.

I referred to the easy way in which the ESB may have its pound of flesh and the power they have to disconnect the supply. In fairness to them, while speaking in what might be regarded as a critical manner I should like at the same time to record my commendation of and regard for the manner in which ESB officials have treated people in the past, isolated cases of hardship in which people were unable to meet their bills. An ESB official, on the other hand may disconnect this house and apart from the inconvenience to the people living there, there is the attendant embarrassment which should not be lightly dismissed. This falls on the woman and the children of the house whose "ESB", as it is said, has been cut off. There were times when these people could have done better in settling their bills in the past but there were occasions, of which I would know, when, because the husband, perhaps, not fulfilling his duties to provide for his wife and children, the wife was unable to pay the two-monthly bill. When the ESB in the exercise of their rights denied her a supply for a week, a fortnight or three weeks the situation was known in the district that her electricity had been cut off. But then, at least while she had the embarrassment, she had a fireplace and was able in a primitive way, perhaps, to boil a kettle or heat a bottle or produce a meal. Now in the all-electric house such facilities do not exist. This heightens the tragedy and the need for a very close look at the situation before it goes beyond rectifying.

I presume it will be possible for the Minister to indicate the saving to the ESB in issuing bills on a two-monthly basis but I suggest that he remind the ESB that, perhaps, some of the arrears, and possibly a considerable amount of the time spent in collecting money, arise from the fact that bills are issued only every two months. If they were issued monthly it might not be necessary to spend so much time trying to collect the money. I remind the Minister also of the difficulty existing in these houses and of the natural inclination, especially for those who because of poor employment or bad management find themselves living from day to day, to treat themselves to something for which they do not have to pay until two months later.

On the matter of the extra £250 million the ESB are seeking here, I do not consider myself qualified to comment in any great depth. However, I would make one comment. In 1962 or 1963 when I was principal of the Blanchardstown Vocational School the central heating was based on turf and I remember many callers, not from the ESB, looking on it with a certain amount of cynicism and indeed with an inferiority complex—typical of us all in the matter of our turf burning schemes. Later on, somebody told me how the late Seán Lemass forced the ESB into building a generator in the middle of the bogs and that what he was doing was boosting the local Fianna Fáil cumann.

I am glad to see that the attitude towards turf has changed and I hope, again, having regard to the reservations expressed by Deputy Barrett on the inevitable point of exhaustion which must occur, that every possible attention will be given to what may be regarded as native fuel. Apart from the employment content of such operations, they will be helping to make money available elsewhere.

There is one final point I want to make in connection with the £250 million we are now asked for and which I gladly concede is necessary if the ESB are to continue to develop on what I suppose to be a progressive course. We must look at the real cost and must admit that £250 million is a sizeable amount, the real cost of which can only be shown when one contemplates what could be done with it if it were spent otherwise—the amount of trees we could plant, the timber industry we could build with an extra £250 million.

I will end on the note with which I began, that in respect of the total investment of £700 million, moneys which have been collected over the years from the pockets of Irish tax-payers and the efforts and the industry of all the people of Ireland, I sincerely hope that for whatever reason this service might be denied to us in the future it will not be because some workman—craftsman, professional or administrator—decides that because he is not getting his way the people of Ireland cannot get this service.

Mr. Haughey

My contribution to this debate on the Second Stage will be very brief. In other words, there are only a couple of points I wish to make in regard to the Minister's proposal to increase the capital available to the ESB as set out in this legislation. Perhaps it should be noted en passant that this Government seem to go in very considerably for this mechanical type of legislation. In the last 12 months or so we have had more of these enabling two or three-section pieces of legislation to increase the capital of State companies than we had in a very long time before.

With other speakers I welcome this piece of legislation and I am whole-heartedly in favour of the provision of this extra finance for the ESB. I think it is important that we should recognise that the ESB are a very fine institution, a first class semi-State organisation. In my time as Minister for Finance, on the question of the ESB getting finance from the World Bank—I think that finance was for the scheme in Wicklow—the ESB were examined by that institution and they got top marks. Their organisation and efficiency were very highly commended by that very critical institution. The World Bank were examining the ESB in the critical way that a potential lender will examine a prospective borrower. There have been other examinations of the operations of the ESB both internally and externally and in all cases the ESB have secured very high ratings.

We parliamentarians these days travel a lot more than our predecessors and we have got to visit other allegedly developed countries to realise the very fine electricity system we have in this country. It compares very favourably with any country I have been in and more than favourably with many of them. That is attributable to the high quality of organisation of the ESB as a semi-State company.

All of us will have individual complaints from time to time about the day to day operations of the ESB. Sometimes in an organisation of that size there will be local inefficiencies. Occasionally the board may appear to operate in a hard-hearted bureaucratic manner in individual cases.

In my experience as a Deputy representing a constituency where the ESB are widely and comprehensively represented and where their services are available in practically every house, even in their day-to-day operations they are very reasonable and when called upon they can be a very humanitarian organisation. While I pay this tribute to the organisational capacity of the board, I would hope that they would continue their efforts to maintain a high level of efficiency and efficacy. In a national monopoly the size of the ESB it would be quite easy for the body to become complacent and bureaucratic. One would like to see them renewing their dedication from time to time and taking positive steps to ensure that there is alertness and an up-to-date approach in regard to all the various aspects of their activities.

There are two broad aspects of the Minister's proposal on which I would like to comment. The Minister in his remarks adverted on a couple of occasions to our heavy dependence on imported oil. Not in any aspect of witch-hunting but, perhaps, with a view to being wiser in the future and helping ourselves to be wiser, it is no harm to ask ourselves how did this happen. How did we as an apparently modern State become so heavily dependent on imported oil? Somebody somewhere should examine his conscience. That person may be at Government level or in the Department of Transport and Power or in the ESB itself.

Recently I have read Solzhenitsyn's "The Gulag Archipelago". In that book the author recounts that some Russian engineers were seriously in error in their judgement as to what should be done about the development of the Russian railway system back in the 1920s. They were shot out of hand for their mistakes. I am not suggesting that anybody in the ESB should be subjected to that sort of discipline. It would be instructive for all of us—and I am sure that I myself have some responsibility in it having been in Government for quite a while—to examine our conscience in this regard and to ask whether imported oil was pushed at the expense of other resources in the operation of the ESB. Was there neglect of other sources such as the bogs, solar energy and energy from the sea?

I do not know the latest position in regard to the experiment which the French were carrying out or whether they were able to harness the tides. One would like to know if there is a proper development outlook in the ESB, and if there is now such a Department why it was not there before. Is there a development department now? Are there somewhere in the organisation people who are putting forward outrageous and far-out ideas? Was there a certain restricted, complacent settling for the way out, namely, just keep on importing more oil and leave it at that? If that is so, I ask that question not because anybody is concerned at this stage at having an inquest or apportioning blame but to determine whether we should, even at this point in time, be looking at a much wider range of possibilities in so far as the ESB are concerned.

I should like to refer also to the Minister's reference in regard to the establishment of a nuclear power station. It is no harm to express disappointment about the situation in this regard. I cannot recall when the decision was taken to go ahead with the nuclear power station. Perhaps it was in 1970 or 1971. The idea of having nuclear power stations making a contribution to the national electricity grid existed long before that. Is the whole programme not taking too long? The Minister has now mentioned a date—1982. It is his hope that the nuclear power station which is proposed to be built at Carnsore Point in County Wexford will come onstream in 1982. The Minister's statement is not definitive at this stage. We are told that Carnsore Point is being considered but that a final decision has not been taken. Why has it not been taken? Nuclear power stations are undoubtedly very important prospects. Other countries have built them. There is nothing devastatingly unique about them now. There is a real case for apportioning blame in regard to this delay among the Government of which I was a Member, this Government, the Department of Transport and Power and the ESB. Even at this late stage can we not get on with the programme much quicker?

One reads that the President of the US is going through the Middle East distributing nuclear power stations like——

Mr. P. Barry

Snuff at a wake?

Mr. Haughey

The very phrase— snuff at a wake. Is there not something of a dichotomy here? Apparently the countries of the Middle East can get nuclear power stations just because of a Presidential visit. They seem to be allowed to get them overnight. We are going through a very long, arduous process in providing ourselves with one such station.

In that regard, I do not know whether I would be in order in saying —perhaps the Minister would mention it to his colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs—I wonder whether there is very real cause for anxiety in this proliferation of nuclear power around the Middle East by the United States, whether we as an individual country which might be vitally affected by the inherent dangers in that situation are, through the Councils of the European Communities, asking any question about this situation, thinking up any attitude in regard to it. Anyway, I want to impress upon the Minister that it seems to me as an amateur outsider that this process of providing ourselves with a nuclear power station is, to say the least of it, somewhat protracted.

I should like also to emphasise the importance of the environmental aspect of this nuclear power station. I would hope that the Department would retain for itself a supervisory role in this regard, because it is becoming increasingly clear in the modern world that where environmental questions are concerned there must be two separate roles played by two separate bodies. Whoever is doing the job in this case, the ESB, will be providing and running the nuclear power station. From the environmental point of view they should be supervised by some other organisation, and I presume in this case it would be the Department of Transport and Power, and I hope the Department of Transport and Power intend to take that watchdog, supervisory role very seriously indeed.

No matter how responsible or prudent the organisation may be—and we all know that, if anything, the ESB err on the side of caution in these affairs—once they are charged with the responsibility of doing the job, somebody else should be charged with the responsibility of overlooking their performance of that job in so far as environmental considerations are concerned.

Here I would like, on the one hand, to praise and, on the other hand, to criticise the ESB in regard to the environment. In their operations on the Shannon, the way in which they have promoted the fishery interests there, they are entirely to be commended. The late James Digney, who was a director of the ESB, deserves the gratitude of the nation for his activities and zeal in that area of the board's activities. They have shown a very enlightened approach in regard to the entire waterway of the Shannon. As against that, one can only condemn them for the way in which they have put up that monstrosity, that chimney-stack in Dublin. It is visible for 50 miles and more from different directions. I may be wrong but some substance emerges from that chimney which to my untrained eye seems almost certainly to be polluting the surrounding atmosphere.

I mention these two points, again not for any purpose of apportioning either blame or credit but just as indicators to the future. In particular now that the ESB are going to embark on a number of new types of projects, I want to underline for the Minister the importance of the environmental aspects and of dividing the responsibility in the environmental field and not making the ESB the sole arbiter of its activities in this regard.

I would hope that, perhaps, increasing attention might be paid to the development aspect of the work of the ESB and that they would never become smug or self-satisfied in what they are doing, even though we all know they are doing it very well, that they will be continually on the look-out for new ideas, new projects. This is a great big technological world we are living in today and they have the resources, the tradition and the personnel to keep up with that new technological world, and I hope they will do so.

In that regard I would express some disappointment about the situation in regard to the gas find off the coast of Cork. One gets the impression from what the Minister said—and, again, I speak having no technological expertise at my disposal—that they are taking the easy way out. There is the question as to whether there could not be a more imaginative approach to the use of this new natural resource as distinct from apparently what has been done of simply channelling it, at the loss of some efficiency, into the existing structure.

Perhaps I might also avail of this opportunity to mention very briefly that there is widespread disappointment with the Government and particularly with the Minister for Industry and Commerce in regard to the promulgating of positive policies in this whole field of resources development. I heard the Minister for Industry and Commerce on the radio this morning being interviewed about it and he seemed to me to be adopting a very philosophical, long-term outlook. More and more people are questioning the Government's diligence in this regard.

It is, perhaps, no harm to avail of this opportunity to say that, if these resources are there, it is no good sitting back and congratulating ourselves that they are there and that we are much wealthier in natural resources than we ever thought we were. The thing to do is to get on with development and I would strongly urge the Minister to take over this responsibility. I believe he should have a bigger say than the Minister for Industry and Commerce who, for historical reasons, seems to be in charge of this matter.

It would seem to me to be something much more proper to be handled by the Minister for Transport and Power and I would urge him to use his influence to get some action going, be these resources on the land or in the sea. The time is past for philosophical discussion as to what the sociological implications are, who should develop them and what the—I do not want to use the words "rake-off"—proportionate share should be for whom. I think most people are concerned now that there should be activity. There has been enough talk.

I should like to end by coming back to what I said at the outset. I believe the ESB is a good organisation and that it serves the country well. Many of us from time to time get impatient with it but, on the whole, it has built itself up into a very fine organisation which stands comparison with any similar organisation in any other country. As far as I am concerned, I have no hesitation whatsoever in supporting the Minister in the provision of this additional capital for it. I hope the ESB will succeed in putting these new moneys to work in the service of the development of our country as they have so successfully done in the past.

Mr. Briscoe

I should like to start where Deputy Haughey concluded by echoing his sentiments. It seems the Government have plans to develop our energy resources but, at the same time, they do not seem to know how to go about doing it. They seem to have difficulty in reaching decisions. I should like the Minister to elaborate, when he comes to reply, on something he said in his opening statement. He said:

A final decision on the siting of the station will not, however, be taken until further detailed investigation by the ESB is completed; a recommendation has been received from the Nuclear Energy Board and formal approval is given by the Government.

How soon? Deputy Haughey mentioned that the Americans recently announced that they are going to provide nuclear energy stations in middle-eastern countries. I should think they will start doing that immediately. They have made their decision. We should make our decision and move very quickly. Every developed and developing country is faced with an energy crisis. It did not take the middle eastern conflict to make us aware of this. For the last two or three years there was a growing awareness of the need to diversify our energy sources because of the increasing need for fuel for our expanding economy. The faster the modern world develops the more energy is required. No one will deny that. Even when there was no shortage of oil it was forecast that within the space of a few years there would be an energy crisis. America in particular has been looking at this problem for quite some time. We have possibly been a little tardy in our approach.

The Minister spoke about getting away from our present over-dependence on imported oil. Of those requirements he told us 70 per cent is filled by imported oil. Actually that puts us in a somewhat happier position vis-à-vis the UK where the figure is something like 85 per cent. We are fortunate in not being as overly dependent on oil as other European countries are. What we will have to do will cost a great deal. The Minister mentioned a figure of £250 million; if the figure were £500 million it would not alarm me because I realise, as does everybody else, that the future development of our country and the raising of our living standards depends on our ability to produce in a manner which will make us competent to complete with other nations. We are most fortunate in having natural resources.

I should like to know whether any of the coalmines will be reopened. I know some were flooded. Would it not be an economic proposition now to consider reopening these mines to supply more and more of our needs? It is very important that, in line with most of the other countries in Europe, we should move away as quickly as possible from having to depend on an outside source for our energy.

Siberia has been described as a raft floating on oil. Those resources in Russia will not be fully developed for at least another ten years. Not before 1985 will they be in a position to export anything like the quantities which will be needed. By that time, the rest of the world will not be as dependent on oil as it was heretofore. I will stick my neck out and make this prediction. In order to slow down, if possible, the rate of diversification to other forms of energy, the price of oil may well drop within the next few years. I am now on the record of the House as having said that, and we will see.

Many things have become economically viable which were not viable up to this. Before the present oil crisis hit us, the purchasing of a nuclear energy station would give any Government food for serious thought because it calls for a huge investment. That is no longer the case. Because of our experience and the experience of other countries who were not involved in the recent conflict—and I believe that irrespective of that conflict, the price of oil would have gone up—we must make our decision and we must make it quickly. We must order our nuclear station and get on with the job. We must make far greater use of the turf and coal we have. I am as relieved, as I am sure the Minister is, that many of our power stations were not converted completely to oil usage and we are able to continue to use our natural resources. This was very farseeing. We can learn many lessons from what has happened recently.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): The closing of the railways.

Mr. Briscoe

We have learned many lessons. One of the best is that we must aim at being self-sufficient, even if it is at a price. We must always be able to take something out of storage and use it. It is essential that we plan ahead. We must look at what we have and if something is not economically viable we must leave it turning over so that we can go back to it in an emergency.

As I pointed out to the Minister previously, the Treaty of Rome states that where one country found itself with a shortage of oil the other countries would immediately pool together to help out that country. That did not happen in the case of Holland. Very often these treaties are not worth the paper they are written on when difficulties arise and, in the final analysis, we have only ourselves to rely on. We must see to it that we can always rely on ourselves. We can learn from this experience and we must put it to the best use possible.

Many people are paying a very high price now for what we are going through. There is the cost of heating their homes and cooking their meals. We have all had to tighten our belts. I do not think people really mind being told: "We must tighten our belts. The situation is serious but we are doing everything we can to combat it." Let us not try to hide the situation from them.

I have a suggestion which the Minister might pass on to the ESB. I know he cannot interfere in their internal affairs but I am sure they will not be hostile to any suggestion he makes. I suggest that people should be able to pay for their electricity with 12 monthly payments instead of paying every two months. The ESB should send people an estimate of what they believe they should be paying each month through their banks or otherwise. The oil companies are doing this for oil for central heating. They say: "You used so much oil last year. You should be able to cut it down by one third. Therefore you will be required to pay £10 or £20 a month, or whatever it is." If it is done that way the shock will be less to people when they get the bill. A bill for two months can be alarming.

Many people got a great shock when they got their first bill this year and the second was even higher. They had cut down on their electricity but they got huge bills. They did not know whether their meters had gone mad. People have got used to getting these shocks now. There is nothing like a few shocks to make people realise that they must conserve electricity. It is important to conserve in order to safeguard your outgoings, but it is also important from the point of view of our balance of payments. Our balance of payments problem is very serious. When people turn out that extra light, or use one bar of an electric fire instead of two, they are performing—this may sound mawkish but that is not intended—a patriotic act, because the less money they have to pay to the ESB the less the ESB will have to pay for the oil they import. It is very important that this message should be spelled out. We have a crisis situation. We have an emergency situation. We must cut back where we can.

People who find it no problem what soever to pay their electricity bills, people who have no problem in paying for petrol for their cars, people on expense accounts who do not have to worry about meeting the bill—and there are many people working for companies such as travellers, and so on —should be told that every unnecessary unit of electricity, every unnecessary gallon of petrol they use, adds to the deficit in our balance of payments. This is very important.

One of the sources of energy which I did not hear the Minister mention is solar energy, which will be a big thing in America in the 1980s. Already plans are well afoot to send vehicles into space to tap solar energy and to convert it for use here. We should be in constant touch with the United States about this. We have close connections with the United States. Having regard to the number of our people who went out there throughout the years, we have these close ties and we should be involved in finding out where the latest developments are coming from and what are the possibilities of a small country like this getting into that ball game. We should be ready to examine every possibility. We should be able to send our experts at the drop of a hat to conferences wherever they might be held, Los Angeles, New York, Tokyo or anywhere else. Japan, in particular, America and other countries, are dependent on oil for their industries. They must lead the way in new thinking and new methods. We should be there to find out exactly what they intend doing.

The Minister said that electricity was relatively no dearer than any other form of energy. Unfortunately, I have never found that to be so. It always seemed to me that electricity was dearer than any other type of heating. The Government have a duty to inform the people which is the cheapest type of heating for their homes. Electric fires are probably the most expensive. I would be very interested to see the comparative costs of heating the same type house by oil fired central heating and electric central heating. Is it cheaper to use electric central heating because the ESB can import oil at a cheaper price? These studies should be carried out because they are very important. This would help us cut down on our fuel bills.

People are griping at paying their ESB bills, even though they are trebled, because of the amount of VAT they are charged. The Minister should ask his colleague, the Minister for Finance, to lower these charges. This is a very significant factor in every bill. The Government should do something positive, such as reducing VAT from 5.26 per cent to 4 per cent. The Exchequer is benefiting enormously from the inflation over which they claim to have no control. Although they have no control over the price of oil, they have control over VAT charges. I will put down a question to the Minister to find out what the Exchequer received by way of VAT from the ESB compared with the figure for pre-October, 1973. I am sure there has been a substantial increase.

As I have already said, I am glad we are not as dependent on oil as many other countries. If we were we would be in a worse situation than we are at present. The Minister might, in his reply say if any coal mines are to be reopened. This is very important.

Supply and demand determine the price of a product. If the demand for oil can drop sufficiently within the next five years, that will affect the price of oil. If people, such as the Russians and those in the Middle East countries, see a real threat to the use of oil in countries other than their own, they may well decide to take action. We should still continue to diversify as far as we can.

I was interested to see on television the other night a car in France which was run on water with a small amount of alcohol. I do not know what type of alcohol——

Mr. R. Barry

Whiskey.

Mr. Briscoe

It interested me very much. They said it was economically viable but they were pouring in——

Mr. R. Barry

It keeps me going at times as well.

Mr. Briscoe

It keeps us all going. As we have heard so many times before, necessity is the mother of invention. The human animal is a very flexible creature when his back is to the wall. When he must think he will do so. Many improvements to our way of living will, I am convinced, emerge from the present crisis.

There is a quiet revolution going on in many countries which are developing new sources of energy. We should be having our own quiet revolution here and develop other forms of energy. I hope the Minister has enough money to do what he would like. As he said, present-day prices will bear little relation to what they will be in 1982. This is something we must face. Our whole future depends on what we do now and how energetically we pursue our energy policy. Decisions will have to be made quickly. As a newspaper journalist said, we can worry about the details later. Let us develop our resources with all possible speed before we go bankrupt.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): I should like to join with other speakers who spoke about the functions of the ESB. This organisation has played a particular role in the economic and social life of this country down through the years. As the previous speaker has pointed out, this is one of the best semi-State bodies in the country. We are asked now to increase the capital available from £450 million to £700 million. About four years ago we had a Bill to increase the capital from £340 million to £450 million and this shows the expansion that has taken place in the last few years. The additional money now required is to enable the board to plan for the future. I understand this will involve planning for four or five years ahead, taking into account the expansion that will occur and the equipment that will be necessary.

I realise that servicing such a large debt must put a considerable strain on the finances of the company. Some of the money has been raised abroad and it is a tribute to the ESB that part of it has been raised on the open market. As Deputy Haughey pointed out, if anyone lends this kind of money he makes sure that a detailed examination of the company concerned is carried out. The ESB have succeeded in raising loans from banks in Switzerland, Germany and the United States, to name a few. Although I dislike foreign borrowing, at times it is necessary because we have not the necessary capital here. The ESB have gained the confidence of those who lend money on the foreign market. I presume that it will be necessary to borrow from abroad some of the money the Minister is seeking now but I am sure the ESB will use the money wisely and for the economic and social development of the country.

In this House and elsewhere there has been considerable criticism of semi-State bodies, some of which is justified and some not justified. Perhaps the reason for the rather unfair criticism of the semi-State bodies is that it is difficult to get information about them. We cannot get information in this House about these companies, information which some of our constituents may be anxious to obtain. The time must come when semi-State bodies will be obliged to submit their accounts to a parliamentary committee. This has been mentioned on numerous occasions; certainly I am not the first Deputy to ask for it. It would be beneficial for the semi-State bodies if they submitted themselves to a committee of the House, perhaps the Public Accounts Committee or a committee the Dáil might consider competent to look into the accounts. A company should be subjected to fair criticism but often the criticism levelled at semi-State bodies is unfair. Much of this would be eliminated if a committee of the House had an opportunity to inquire into the workings of the companies. I hope the Minister will consider this aspect. We are considering very large sums of money here——

An Ceann Comhairle

I hesitate to interrupt the Deputy but he appears to be outside the scope of the Bill.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central)): I thought we were considering the working of the ESB generally. Perhaps if I confine my remarks to an investigation of the working of the ESB I will be in order. What I have said about the company applies to other bodies also but I will not refer to the matter again.

The ESB are compelled, by law, to pay their way. Their outgoings and revenue must meet although it has been stated in the reports of the Prices Commission that they are carrying a considerable deficit. I wonder how that complies with the legislation which states the ESB must pay their way. They have given a good service at a reasonable price but all of us know that in the last few months there has been an enormous rise in fuel prices. Deputy Tunney said that we are reaching the situation where people with large families and low incomes who are living in centrally-heated houses will not be able to meet the ESB charges. The surcharge in respect of a small house is quite considerable. I have an account here for what might be regarded as a reasonably-sized house; the cost is £19.20 for two months. This is for a house that is not centrally-heated but is using electricity for cooking. In this case the fuel charge is £5.12. In the last few months there has been an astronomical increase in the ESB accounts for which the average household has not budgeted. It may be easy for a person in the upper income group to meet those demands but I am speaking of people in the lower income group.

A man earning £30 and £40 per week may have to pay £10 in loan repayments for his house and the higher fuel charge is a considerable burden on such a person. I realise the ESB have no option in the matter but we may be getting to the point where many people will have their electricity supply disconnected, especially in the urban and built-up areas. Why I make the distinction is because there is always some hope in the rural part of the country in regard to the supply of fuel. I have a knowledge of the country and I know that with open fires it is always possible to get timber —the average farmer will give one fuel for the winter. It is a custom in the part of the country from where I come. But in the city there is no such way out for the average householder; if it is only a box of matches it has to be paid for. Many people have come to me, having received a huge bill for electricity, and said: "How am I going to meet it? We had not budgeted for this in our wages and we have this thrown on us now."

I should like to mention the VAT charge of 6.75, to which Deputy Briscoe has already referred. The Minister, in conjunction with his colleague, the Minister for Finance, should certainly examine these VAT charges. If VAT cannot be removed completely, there is no justification for having a VAT charge on the fuel cost variation of the bill. This is an unusual demand. This astronomical rise in the fuel charge has never happened before. The VAT charge on a bill of £19.64, at 6.75, is exactly £1.26 and one-third at least of that is taken up on the fuel cost variation. The Minister, in conjunction with the Minister for Finance, should examine this and show that they are concerned about this impossible position facing people today. Not alone that, but the Minister for Finance never budgeted for this increase in VAT when introducing the budget earlier in the year. This is an additional revenue which will show up in the revenue returns at the end of the year. Indeed I would consider that it would be a very small token if the fuel cost variation were exempted from VAT.

I have already said that the ESB are obliged to pay their way. This is something of which I approve in regard to any company, but unfortunately very few semi-State bodies succeed in doing so. There are one or two, apart from the ESB, of which I am aware that succeed in equating expenditure with income. But there are other semi-State bodies which are considered to be offering a social service—I am talking about the subsidisation of CIE. If some controls or economies are not effected so far as the ESB are concerned, I am afraid we will arrive at a situation where some type of subsidy will have to be made available to people if they are to be able to use electricity at all. Again I am talking of people in the lower income bracket. One has only to go round Dublin and speak to the average housewife—and her bill would be a relatively modest one with no heating charges taken into account because her type of house would not be heated by the ESB. I would ask the Minister, as a first step, at least to try to do something about VAT charges on ESB accounts.

Mention was made earlier that some provision should be introduced under which accounts could be paid monthly. I would certainly endorse this. We know that certain local authorities have made provision for rates and such things to be paid on a monthly basis. But there are people who, with all the good intentions in the world, cannot budget for ESB bills as they are being presented today. The ESB bill is now becoming a major factor in the household budget. Formerly it occupied a very low position on the list of expenditure of the average house. But when one takes into consideration expenditure today on food and rent, the ESB charges assume a very high importance. If some provision could be made whereby one's electricity bill could be paid monthly it would help the situation, especially for the type of person who never seems to save money and has not the ability so to do. Bills of amounts like these create a situation they find it impossible to meet.

I see from the Minister's brief that we depend on imported fuel for 70 per cent of our primary energy requirements. If my memory serves me right, on the last ESB bill here fuel constituted 50 per cent only at that time. I remember that four or five years ago oil constituted only 50 per cent. I think we have made a mistake in moving to an over-usage of oil and moving away from other solid fuels. I heard Deputy Briscoe say it is 80 per cent in the UK. I am not sure whether or not this is correct. But we have moved along the path that will lead us to depend entirely on oil. This is a dangerous situation when we consider what we have experienced in the last six to 12 months, where any country over-dependent on oil can be held to ransom by the sheiks of the oil-producing countries. We must find some alternative to oil to ensure that we are independent. We saw the way in which industry was put completely out of gear in this country. We know the hardship that householders and business people all over the country suffered during the last fuel shortage. We saw the hardship suffered where agriculture is concerned, where incubators, deep freezers and so on were put in jeopardy —all those sensitive areas where continuity of supply is important. We must ensure that we can guarantee this continuity. If we are overdependent on oil to generate our power, I can never see us being in a completely independent position and being able to guarantee that we will have supplies of electricity throughout the country. Industry can be upset completely; there can be loss of production; inability to meet orders for the export market— all of vital importance if we are to maintain our interests there. This is the important part electricity plays in our lives today. We should try to ensure we have alternative means.

The Minister, mentioned that he hopes to develop the bogs and coal mines. I wonder how effective this will be. It must be remembered that we cannot overwork the bogs. Some time ago I read that the output from the bogs could be exhausted in 20 to 25 years. If we are to over-indulge the use of these bogs they will be exhausted very quickly. This may create social problems because some people have built their lives around this industry.

In my view it would be better if we moved to some alternative source of energy. I have already mentioned nuclear energy as some alternative. I am aware that a board was set up some time ago to investigate the possibility of establishing such a station here. We will have to move very quickly in this regard because the amount of fuel which such a station would use would be infinitesimal compared with the amount used to generate power into the present system. The programme to establish such a station should be pressed ahead as soon as possible. Today 70 per cent of our power is generated by oil and we have experienced our supply of oil being withdrawn at very short notice. With the unsettled world of today there is no guarantee that we will be given our supply of oil. We can be deprived of this important commodity at any time, a commodity which we need to develop our industry and for use in our domestic lives.

On the question of the establishment of a nuclear power station this is an area in which we could co-operate with our friends in Northern Ireland. Already we have co-operation in tourism and in the supply of electricity. The building of a nuclear power station could be shared by the North and the South and in my view this would lead to a closer relationship between the people of this island. Whatever negotiations take place in future we should take into consideration sharing the establishment of such a station.

The Minister has estimated that there will be an annual growth rate in the use of electricity of 10 per cent. According to the Minister this is a long term forecast. I do not know what basis he used for this estimate because last year it was estimated that there would be an increase in production of the order of 12½ per cent. We all know that there was a shortfall of something in the region of 7½ to 7¾ per cent. Can the Minister's estimate be substantiated in view of the increases in ESB charges? If the price of electricity continues to rise at the present rate I do not think that growth rate will be achieved. People will have to move away from the use of electricity and find some alternative means. Houses which are fully equipped with electrical appliances will be altered for use of another source of energy. I am not sure if this will be cheaper in the long run but a change will take place. I cannot see the expansion of which the Minister spoke coming about in the very near future.

If the Minister could see his way to reducing the cost of electricity people would again be encouraged to use this source of energy. It is quite obvious that economies will have to be carried out in every household in order to reduce the electricity bill. People will have to reduce the number of bulbs they light and the number of electrical appliances they use. For this reason I doubt if there will be a growth rate of 6 per cent this coming year.

I should like to raise the question of safety standards in houses. Such standards, as far as electricity is concerned, are of vital importance. In my view we should have a proper code of safety standards and a proper inspection system operating. When I visit old houses and flats I get the impression the standard of wiring is not very good. I have visited flats where children reside and found that there was no proper plug. I have seen women using irons and other electrical appliances from plugs that were completely unsuitable. The maximum publicity should be given to the importance of proper safety standards in all houses. This could be done by an article in the newspapers or a good TV programme.

The danger to old people and young children living in badly wired accommodation cannot be over-emphasised. It calls for continuous inspection and this inspection should be carried out as a matter of urgency. Many old houses which have been let in flats are a hazard and a great danger to the people who occupy them. Local authorities could also play their part in this regard. They should carry out a comprehensive inspection of the wiring in their houses. Such houses constitute a substantial number of the houses in Dublin city. Some of them are very old and when they were wired many years ago the same standards did not apply. Local authorities should ensure that the standard of wiring and connection in their houses is good. Each house should be thoroughly examined before being re-let by a local authority because we all know the terrible tragedies that occur because of defective wiring. In rural areas too, farmers use heavy electrically driven machinery and I often wonder whether the connections for such machinery are up to the proper standard. The ESB should look at those matters and see whether something can be done about them.

A friend of mine who lives in Dublin bought a site recently at Maynooth, County Kildare, on which to build a house because he works in that area. He had a sufficient deposit to get a loan but he did not realise what it would cost to get an ESB connection in the country. He was quoted a sum of £650 to get connection. He only had the minimum deposit and he succeeded in getting possibly the maximum loan. He now finds himself with a demand for £650. This special charge is very unfair. I wonder what it would cost if the special charge were eliminated. I would appeal to the Minister to see whether anything can be done to reduce this special charge which operates throughout the country.

I have no doubt that when the ESB get the money provided for in this Bill it will be put to good use. We must expand if we are to keep up with standards in the EEC and these funds are necessary. I am convinced that they will be used wisely, used for our economic and social advancement.

Mr. Timmons

I should like to support in principle the measure before the House. I do not want to be repetitive but there are one or two points I should like to make.

I represent a Dublin constituency which has experienced the full impact of the recent charges levied by the ESB. I have had many complaints about exhorbitant charges levied irrespective of people's capacity to pay. The Minister said:

The recent unprecedented increase in electricity charges was a direct consequence of the rise in oil prices. The Government are fully conscious of the heavy impost which the increased charges represent for the householder and all sectors of the economy.

There is nothing in the Minister's speech to suggest what policy the Government have to deal with the impact particularly on those who are least able to bear the burden of the increased charges. The ESB have apparently worked over the last 50 years on a system of a two-monthly account. They have never changed their thinking on that. People are now very dependent on electricity for heating and cooking. The ESB are held in very high esteem throughout the country for their efficiency and for the service they have given to the country, for the way they have helped in the development of the country economically and socially. One would have thought that some effort would have been made to cushion the effects of those high charges which apply all over the country but are felt particularly in large urban centres where there are so many other demands to be met by families in difficult economic circumstances with price increases every day. The big ESB bills are a cause of consternation and dismay in many homes in my constituency and I am sure all over Dublin. The ESB have failed in their public relations. They have not explained things sufficiently to the public or taken any steps to revise their system of levying charges. Perhaps the Minister would bring to their notice the serious hardship that is being caused by these charges. There has been not only an increase in oil prices but also an increase in VAT.

When criticising their poor public relations, I have also in mind their failure to meet representatives of community organisations in this city to discuss those matters. Representations were made by the National Association of Tenants' Organisations and other interested responsible bodies and the fact that the ESB failed to meet them is a matter that has caused grave concern to many people. The much maligned CIE organisation at least has a public relations section which has met residents' organisations to discuss difficulties with them and where possible come to some amicable agreement. I regret to have to say this but I think it is only fair to say that the ESB have failed to communicate with the ordinary man-in-the-street on those vital issues.

The consequence of not paying a bill is a drastic one. A notice is sent out and the next thing is a man arrives and switches off the supply whether there are five, six or ten children in the family. No matter what the domestic circumstances in that house are the supply is cut off. In addition, the arrears have to be paid and the service charge is also levied. That is very wrong in this day and age. The ESB should consider forming a liaison with social workers in the city, the Eastern Health Board and other responsible social organisations before they take the drastic step of cutting off in many cases the only means people have to cook and heat their homes.

I want to support the points made by my colleague, Deputy Fitzpatrick, regarding the standard of wiring in the homes of this city. The ESB have a very important role to play in highlighting the fire hazards which exist in many homes, particularly the houses which have been acquired over the last few years and have been let out to young men and women from rural areas. Those houses have never been prepared for the service which they are providing at the moment. They are unable to cater for the huge electricity load they are using at the moment. I came across a ten-roomed house recently in which there was an electric heater, a cooker and other power points in every room. This is a very serious fire hazard.

The ESB should inquire into this very serious problem in the city at the moment. We all know of fires which have occurred in private houses which have been bought by people for investment purposes and are let out in bed-sitters and small flats. Those people are exploiting young people who come from rural Ireland and they do not look after their safety. I thought it well to take the opportunity of mentioning these few points in relation to the Bill before the House.

Ruairí Brugha

I should like to compliment the board, their advisers and planners on their foresight over the past few years in ensuring that some supplies of fuel were on order at a reasonable price which helped to reduce the impact of the recent oil increases. The Minister referred to the Fletcher Report, as a general report on the affairs of the ESB. This is a study for long-term purposes. There are a number of questions I would like to put to the Minister, which are probably outside the functions of this report.

Could the Minister tell me what studies in efficiency have been made in recent years? Should there not be an examination by the National Prices Commission of the recent ESB price increases, including the one published today, as has been done in the case of CIE? How long is it since there was a complete review of finance and accountancy systems in the ESB by a competent outside authority? How long has it been since there was an examination into the work-costing systems, especially the cost of rural work? How do the various factors in the cost of a unit output of electricity here compare with other countries? I understand a few years ago we were regarded as being on a par with similar organisations in other countries. Are we as competitive in our production of power as we were?

Is there co-ordination in planning for the long-term power needs of the ESB with the various other power suppliers in the country? In the area of housing and industrial needs, is there co-ordination with the various authorities which, through licensing and planning permission, are responsible for the distribution between various different types of power requirements, for example, the choice in housing and industrial estates, whether one uses gas or oil heating?

During the debate the question of capital borrowing, apart from what is involved here was mentioned. Could the Minister give us some idea of whether or not the board have done any borrowing in the past five years, particularly abroad? I would welcome any information the Minister could give on this. Perhaps, too, we could have a review of the Turlough Hill project particularly in regard to the cost justification in the light of the recent inflationary trends.

The question of rural electrification has been referred to by a number of speakers. It seems to me that the real bugbear here is the cost of servicing individual households in isolated areas, because it is from these areas that most of the complaints come. I wonder whether the Minister, in conjunction with the board, would be prepared to consider a situation in which householders would undertake to do the main installation work and thereby effect a reduction in the cost. They could avail of the capital grant which is available to the ESB for the purpose of increasing the number of consumers. I put forward this idea as a result of the success of group water schemes. I know of some cases in relation to that scheme where householders, instead of having to add to the grant payable, were able to effect a saving by executing the work themselves.

Mr. P. Barry

There would be much more involved in the case of rural electrification.

Ruairí Brugha

I appreciate that but I am prompted to ask whether the cost factors involved in the board having to send teams of workers to areas that are far from their base might be eliminated by potential consumers being allowed to undertake the work. Once the heavy work had been done all that would be required would be an inspection by the board.

Mr. P. Barry

For different reasons, what the Deputy is proposing would be impossible.

Mr. Geoghegan

I have no wish to delay the House but there are a few points that I should like to raise in connection with this Bill, a Bill which covers a wide field. As one who comes from a rural area my main purpose in speaking is to urge the Minister to tackle the question of rural electrification both in so far as supply and charges concerned. I am not blaming the Minister for the present situation, but ultimately somebody must bear responsibility for the charges that people in some rural areas are being asked to pay for their electricity.

Initially, when rural Ireland was surveyed in relation to the installation of electricity, the ESB decided to service first those areas in which the greatest number of people applied for the service. I can understand the line taken by the board in respect of, say, the Gaeltacht area of County Galway, where those areas in which there were the highest percentage of applicants were serviced first. However what I cannot understand is why in relation to certain townlands, although the percentages had been based on these areas, too, no steps were taken to provide the people of those townlands with electricity. I trust that the Minister will take some action to have this situation remedied.

I should not wish to introduce an extraneous subject but in passing I would suggest that the Minister would be doing a good day's work if he were to co-operate with the Minister for the Gaeltacht by way of, say, the payment of subsidies towards the cost of electricity in Gaeltacht areas. These are areas in which, unless some subsidy is given to help people pay the charges involved, they can never hope to be able to avail of the service.

I should prefer not to mention place names in this context because if I were to have the opportunity of ascertaining what is the position throughout the country I might find that it is as bad as it is in certain areas of Galway. However I am aware of areas in which consumers are asked to pay between £14 and £20 extra every two months on their bills. The Minister will agree that this constitutes a severe imposition on any man who has a wife and perhaps between six and ten children and who is depending for his livelihood on unemployment assistance or on say, a holding of about 20 acres of what is described as rough grazing. The Minister may say that such people would qualify for a grant towards gas lighting but we all know that there is no comparison between the light provided by gas and that provided by electricity.

Recently I asked questions here about an area which is north of Recess and which involves four or five townlands. This area is back in the mountains. It has always been a Gaeltacht area and will remain so, but if we wish the people to remain in such areas we must be prepared to help them by way of subsidy towards the installation costs of electricity, the cost of the erection of poles and so on. There are children in all the households in these areas and these children must do their home work by inadequate lighting.

Electrically operated pumps are very important in the provision of water for domestic purposes. A well that is 500 or 600 yards from a house is not of much use if there is no way of pumping the water from it. In such circumstances a hand pump would be useless. The water leak pump, as they are known, are available from the ESB and people are prepared to make the sacrifice involved in buying them if electric power is available to them. The pumps used cost about £60 but I expect they are dearer now. You buy an ESB cable which can be laid underground side by side with the water line. There is an automatic switch on the tank which switches on power as the tank goes down, every so often depending on how much is used, and your tank is filled again. That facility requires electricity.

In regard to cooking, in many cases the man and wife may be out at work and sometimes they have electric cookers with time switches which can be set to prepare the meal at the right time. Without electricity, that cannot be and somebody must knock off work for a half day and come in to prepare a meal so that both people can have a meal when the day is over.

In the case of the majority of people to whom I have spoken, their last two-monthly bills were practically double what they were this time last year. I agree that oil has gone up and that costs must go up but I do not think that bills should be practically double what they were, as is the case. In Galway we have a housing scheme with no chimneys, heated by hot air provided by electricity. These houses are occupied by working-class people and in the past six months their bills—I am almost sure they have not been paid because the people were unable to pay them—for the two-months' periods were in the region of £50, £60 or £70. I do not know what can be done but the Minister must agree that if it costs a working man who is trying to rear a family £60 or £70 every two months because he lives in a house where the air must be heated by electricity, this is out of the question. He could not possibly afford or be expected to pay that amount. I sincerely believe that.

I have been called to meetings where people are pressing for an electricity supply. These people were taken in on a percentage when they were first canvassed for an ESB supply. They signed an agreement to take the supply but when the ESB came along they put down the poles, and bypassed these villages. I cannot understand why this happened. I know that in certain townlands one or two backed out and the charges increased for those who were left. They agreed to pay and sometime later the others came into the scheme and those who were paying the extra charges had these charges reduced. I can understand that, but I cannot understand why people who agreed to accept supply at the beginning were not supplied. We know that costs have risen in recent years. Poles and high tension wire, I suppose, are costing more but we must make a start in having these isolated pockets supplied with electricity once and for all at a reasonable charge. I know that many people in these cases are prepared to pay a special charge but not as much as £14, £16 or £18 every two months when the next village pays something around £3 or £4. This is a matter that must be considered as soon as the Minister can possibly reach it. Everybody should be treated reasonably whether he lives in town or country but in this matter the towns and the villages on the main roads have a supply but the rest are denied it.

I think that planning permission is holding up progress. I understand that the ESB must apply to the local planning authority for permission to erect poles and so on. I cannot see that poles are unsightly no matter where they are put, so long as they are off the main road and not on dangerous corners. It sounds wrong to me that any planning authority should object to poles going up. I was told that in the case of the latest townland to be supplied, Shanafarahaun, which is in Claremorris ESB rural area, the poles had to come from the Finney district. The Upper Mask comes into the area and I understand that the ESB wanted to come in on one side of the lake, the planning authority wanted them to come in on the other side. If that is so, I think it goes a little too far. So long as the poles are off the main road and do not constitute a danger, I think they should be allowed. It may cost more to go a longer way around. In this case it may have cost less; I do not know. The complaint I received is that the people would have got the supply nearly 12 months ago if planning permission had not held them up. I asked the Minister to have a word with his colleague, the Minister for the Gaeltacht, from whom I think some subsidy should be forthcoming for a start. Then, let the people pay an extra charge of, say, 50p or £1 every two months extra. Let the charge be reasonable and such that the people can afford. People in remote townlands, who may have to come anything from three to six miles to the main road, are entitled to a little comfort at the end of their days. If their families have not some comfort we cannot hope to hold the Gaeltacht pockets in these areas. They are people who speak their native language, teachers and all the rest of it. If at all possible we must give light to our young people to help them to do their home-work. We hear of children whose eyes become affected by bad light, and gaslight is definitely not as efficient as electric light.

Therefore, I ask the Minister seriously to look after the areas still left without electricity. Once and for all he should get rural electrification completed so that no household will be without electricity. In this context I ask him as well to reconsider the special charge which means that many people are unable to meet their electricity bills with prices of all commodities rising. If they do not pay these bills the ESB have no alternative but to cut them off. Therefore, they must be subsidised in some way.

Mr. Brennan

The introduction of this small Bill affords us an opportunity to say a few things in a general way about the ESB. I concur with what other speakers have said about the ESB's great success. Indeed, their success has been so great that one wonders if they have not become a sort of Frankenstein and whether there should not be some diversification. As Minister for Labour, I found myself up against the danger caused by industrial unrest in the ESB. It is an organisation encompassing the whole country with a great number of field employees and of office staff. There is in such circumstances an inherent danger that a serious crisis can occur at any time in the simplest way.

Anything that could be done to offset that danger would be a very welcome and a very desirable development. It is difficult to know what can be done without taking some drastic action which might not be effective in the long run. As I have said, the danger is ever prevalent of some simple industrial dispute leading to a major national crisis which could throw the whole economic machine out of gear and even endanger life. Many unthinkable things could happen.

It has been suggested that something on a regional basis might be worth considering. In relation to another State company, CIE, people are wondering whether at this stage some element of private enterprise should not be permitted. Perhaps this could also apply to the ESB. Of course, it could easily be said that now that the ESB have done the donkey work private enterprise would come in, take over the good parts and leave the bad spots to the State body. However, it would be possible to allow private companies to undertake operations in specific areas. This might eliminate the likelihood of serious crises occurring. This might be considered a stupid suggestion but, as Minister for Labour, I found myself faced with a major crisis arising from a simple dispute and I was prepared to consider any suggestion that would eliminate the danger of a major crisis.

It is easy for a group to exact what they want when they have power behind them, and the ESB employees find themselves in the position of being able to wield power. The fact that we have not had more strikes in that organisation is a tribute to the efficiency of the board, because the temptation could be very great in an organisation where there is such tremendous industrial power. In the long term it is worth considering whether the entire energy resources of the nation should be left under one body. The ESB have now come to a state of maturity and it might be wise to farm out some of their operations. Gaeltarra Éireann found private enterprise a useful stimulus. Indeed, it is being suggested by more than a few people that our transport system might benefit by not being entirely confined to a State sponsored body.

Despite our experience of the efficiency of our State sponsored bodies, we realise that nobody can do a more economical job than private enterprise. From this point of view we must face the fact that there is the inevitable Parkinson's Law—there is always sufficient recruitment to cover what may to some seem necessary openings, to have every cog in place and running smoothly.

I was amazed to find that the oil crisis was apparent in the ESB output almost immediately. This was serious. In the earlier days of the ESB we gave ourselves encouragement by the knowledge that we had 100 per cent national, home-produced fuel for energy. This left us independent of much imported energy such as coal and oil, but we quickly realised that the sources of energy were interdependent.

A serious view should be taken of the position. We should not put all our eggs in one basket. The increases in the cost of hard fuel and oil have justified the use of turf which was hitherto regarded as uneconomic. We were lucky to have even a low percentage of our generating power produced by native fuel apart from the hydro schemes.

This year one sees vast quantities of turf being cut on our bogs. It is not unusual to see businessmen or shopkeepers trying to produce fuel on the bogs on Sundays in order to avoid large purchases of expensive fuel. When one speaks about the wisdom of having turf generating stations one remembers how easily the arguments in their favour were refuted. Oil was by far the easiest and most economical means of energy production. It was easy to see that the sources of oil and the profits arising from it would not always be left to the multi-nationals, who would enjoy vast profits at the expense of the Arabs and other oil-producing people. One could see that the day must come when the oil-producing countries would look for a higher percentage of the profits. We all knew that the multi-nationals would distribute the produce without suffering any diminution in their profits. On the other hand they would take advantage of the situation to improve the rate of profit. This is exactly what happened.

Our native fuel is now more valuable than ever. This has not always been appreciated. We have coal at Arigna and at Castlecomer. It can be worked more economically now. Every acre of bog is becoming more valuable.

I have previously explained to the House how disappointed I have been in regard to the Third Development Programme. Bord na Móna carried out their programme in conjunction with the ESB. They should have made more use of the vast bogs in Donegal. It has been said that the areas of bog there are not sufficiently large to permit the use of large machinery. Reference has been made to the moisture content of the turf there and the unsuitability of the high altitude for drying. Conditions were said to be unsatisfactory. I do not accept these arguments. Our forefathers saved turf over the centuries on these mountains. They often took two crops of turf per year from them.

The supply of peat in the country is limited. At one stage we were told that the peat supply would be exhausted in 45 years. It is now estimated that we have 30 years' supply left. The supply is not unlimited. We should use the turf to the best possible advantage, particularly while awaiting the nuclear energy station. The more rapidly we use the turf the more rapidly we will have cutaway bogs which will be useful for grass and crops. This will be of benefit to the country generally. This fuel should be used now in the period between the oil crisis and the coming into action of the nuclear station. It may be five or seven years before the nuclear station is ready for production. The people living in bogland areas could be helped in this way. This would tend to keep our population rising and give the people in the West of Ireland new hope.

Much greater production of energy by native fuel resources should be resorted to now even to the extent of using them up sooner than was expected. The Fletcher Report examined many aspects of the problem in depth. When reading that report I was impressed by the efficiency of the structure. Nobody doubts the efficiency and integrity of the ESB Under Parkinson's Law there is a tendency for the top of such a structure to adopt certain attitudes in regard to staff. The ESB are a more expensive organisation than private enterprise would be. There was no hope of private enterprise taking on this gigantic undertaking at the beginning. Private enterprise could be usefully employed now. One point that would justify it would be the breaking-up of a monolithic structure which could have such potential danger whenever there is industrial unrest. It would be justified on that score alone. Possibly it would not be more economical in the end. I know that the arguments against it are that one would have to give the good areas to private enterprise and the board would have to tackle the uneconomic areas. To do this they would have to raise some charges.

I am not sure whether the better areas now pay for the poorer areas— in other words, to what extent do urban areas pay for rural electrification? Urban charges in comparison with rural charges are very moderate indeed.

When I find the local authority building a mobile home for a couple of old age pensioners and the ESB charge from £300 to £700 to have the light connected, I wonder why such a huge organisation with its national strength and capabilities of increasing its income in the more densely populated areas could not do a little bit of the postage stamp type of development and give the old age pensioner in the mobile home or the demountable house down in Bangor Erris or Glencolumbcille the same rate as the city dweller. A 5p stamp delivers a letter next door to the GPO as well as up to Malin Head in County Donegal. Although the city dwellers might not support it, I would be in favour of that social element being introduced into the ESB in relation to charges in the farflung areas on the western seaboard. We know that the cost of bringing lines to the houses that are far apart is greater than for houses built more closely together. The same equipment as would take in a couple of hundred houses in the city is required for four or five houses in a rural area.

The amount of subsidisation which has gone into rural electrification in my time is colossal. We are told there are only so many pockets to be dealt with in order to complete the programme, but there always seem to be pockets left. Every so often the newspapers report that the cost is to increase by 30 per cent or that it is to be doubled. Anyway, it is going up all the time. Then we are told we are lucky, that there are other countries in western Europe where it is costing more. We are a developing country. We developed rural electrification rather rapidly, and it is something that affects the cost of living for every person. Any money which is used to subsidise it and which tends to keep down the cost of living would be very well invested, and anything that could be done to keep down the rural charges would be particularly well invested.

It is very difficult to explain to people moving into a new house, who know that their neighbour had electricity installed free of charge when the development originally took place, why they must pay £600 to have the connection made, that a new transformer was required and that if some of the neighbours came in later on it would be reduced. The reduction never seems to happen. Of course, the fixed charge continues despite the fact that the reasons why the fixed charge was brought in in the first instance do not exist to the same extent. The fixed charge was brought in because the amount of electricity the rural dweller would use would be uneconomic and would not justify the capital cost of bringing the current to his home.

Over the years people have tended to use more and more current. They have learned to use all the different gadgets there are in order to make life easier. As the standard of living improved and as this equipment became available on easy terms, purchaseable on the meter, which is something the private electrical shops did not like very much, people went in for it more and more. The stage has been reached when I think we could discard the fixed charge and accept that sufficient use will be made of the power in dwellinghouses and premises, generally speaking, to justify its installation in the first instance. There is the old story from the early days of electricity that when the electricity man went into Mikey Murphy's house to read the meter and expressed amazement at the small consumption of electricity, the woman of the house said she only switched it on while she was lighting the lamp. That illlustrates how economical people were in its use in the early days, but those days are gone. Now electricity is used to the extent where the fixed charge should no longer be imposed. We all know that once a charge is applied it is practically impossible to get rid of it, and I suppose it will be there for all time.

Then there is the other imposition that we have never succeeded in talking the ESB out of, the extra charge applied where the house is in an isolated area or does not happen to fall into a group where houses can be economically attached to the same transformer. Thus, some poor person living up the side of a hill is asked to pay double or treble the fixed charge. There, again, people are being victimised for living in rural areas, while we have been crying about their leaving those areas. There is no institution in Ireland more capable of giving relief to the outlying uneconomic areas than the ESB. It is a pity we could not have got around to giving people in those areas the same advantages as the people in the centralised areas enjoy, and I suppose it is unlikely to take place now.

Getting down to more parish pump matters, I would like the ESB to take a special look at areas where the supply is not as efficient as it might be for reasons of load shedding and failures which occur rather frequently as a result of overloading of the system or of the transformer. Where there is a big population the demands are met much quicker when there is an outcry regarding insufficiency of supply. I must say we get a very reasonable response and attention from the area engineers in regard to all the problems we must inevitably bring to their notice time and again on behalf of constituents. While we get the same prototype letter: "These charges are based on what are regarded as necessary for the economics of the system throughout the country. It would not be possible to depart from the terms already quoted. Yours sincerely, Area Engineer," we keep trying. There is still tremendous dissatisfaction in rural areas in relation to present day costs for installation, and I would like this to receive attention.

Finally, let me say that the Fogarty Report, which was placed on my desk not so many years ago, is now showing its effectiveness. That was, indeed, a worthwhile exercise. It did cost a few pounds, but it was an excellent study and, as a result of the study, excellent recommendations were made. Reading the report would have the effect of pouring oil on troubled waters because both partners in the industry would get to know where each was aiming. There were accusations of a certain snobbery in the ESB. If these were true it would be a very bad thing indeed. I am not saying this off the top of my head because I was the recipient of some of these complaints and discussed them on occasion with the people concerned. There should be a proper mingling of employees at all levels, be they professional, temporary, those doing extra maintenance in the summer, executives, clerical assistants and so on. The Fogarty Report was not remiss in suggesting that there should be a getting together to ensure there would be no insulation of any particular stratum from any other since that might be interpreted as due to something that ought not to exist in any industry, namely, snobbery.

Naturally, when the opportunity offers to say these things, one has to take that opportunity, but I agree with all the previous speakers who have pointed out what a great organisation the ESB is, efficient and well-managed and, in general, a great boon to the country. Being as large as it is, and as efficient as it is, it naturally can have inherent potential dangers, dangers which could cripple the organisation. I refer to the danger, for instance, of industrial unrest and the necessity for keeping ahead of the posse in anticipating any possible trouble. That might mean keeping rates and conditions abreast of other employments and that might not have a good effect when comparisons are made.

I have often wondered why the ESB went into sale of equipment. That could have been left to private enterprise. I doubt if this retail trade does anything for the organisation generally. There are plenty of private enterprise undertakings to cater for people. Possibly this retail trade may help to keep down costs, though I doubt if that is the case. I am not too sure that all the showrooms built at enormous cost in provincial towns are really justified. I do not regard them as an essential part of the ESB undertaking at all.

I am sure every Member will be glad to subscribe to the provision the Minister is seeking here both in relation to pensions and extra capital for future cost increases in generating power for capital development.

Mr. Healy

Consumers of electricity are facing a problem of crisis proportions in their ESB bills and, as public representatives, we must take this opportunity of bringing the matter to attention. The charges are to a large extent outside the control of the ESB but that is not much help to the young married couple who were invited through large-scale advertising in the media to invest in all electric houses. For a time everything went all right but now the situation has changed completely. People are now receiving bills which literally stagger them. These people over the last two years have had the experience of costs escalating at a rate never known before but, of all the commodities that have been increased, electricity is the one causing the most hardship. This is a problem and it is up to all of us to try to find a solution. I wonder what would happen if a young couple could not afford to pay the bill. It is all very well to say they could do without electricity but there are cases in which they have no alternative because they took the advice of those who told them they should get in as much electricity as possible.

We have all learned the lesson now that we must never be dependent for an essential commodity on outside sources. As a previous speaker said we have an alternative; it is, perhaps, a modest one. We will, of course, have to develop the alternative as efficiently as we can. One thing that worries consumers of electricity more than anything else is the fact that added to the bill is an extra subvention to cover the extra cost of generating electricity. The normal consumer has no idea how this figure is arrived at and I confess I have not been able to explain it. People could measure the price of a unit in the ordinary way, but now there is this addition and added to that is value-added tax. These three or four figures together result in some cases in a 100 per cent increase. There was a suggestion that it might help to solve the problem if bills were sent out monthly instead of bi-monthly. Undoubtedly that would cause a problem for somebody but, if it would relieve the consumer, that person should consider it realistically. If it is a help it should be done.

Much has been said in praise of the ESB this afternoon. I am as proud as anyone else of this semi-State body and the way it works. It is a huge concern. We want to help it over a difficult period and my remarks are aimed at that. One of the abuses is that a man whose duty it is to read the meter puts a card into the letterbox without knocking. He estimates what the bill will be. That estimate may be less, and often is less, than the actual amount but, in some cases, when the person receives the amended account he cannot meet it because he has not budgeted for it.

I know that on many occasions the reader of the meter can justifiably say that he got no reply, but I know of cases where the card was put into the letterbox and the reader of the meter did not knock on the door. That should not be allowed to happen. It is hard enough to pay for the amount you have consumed, but it is much more difficult when you have to pay for three months' supply instead of two. The only constructive solution I can see at the moment is that people should be able to pay in easier instalments. I come from Cork city and the ESB accounts, and the fact that they cannot read them or estimate them, are a problem for many people. I could not let this occasion pass without intervening to say that this is a national problem at present and it is almost a crisis where I come from.

Mr. Power

I welcome this Bill. It provides increased facilities to enable the ESB to borrow more money and, reading through the Minister's statement, I agree that there is a great need for that. I want to pinpoint the need for the expenditure of more money on the completion of the rural electrification programme. Most people who do not live in the country do not realise the revolution which rural electrification has brought into the lives of those people. We have now reached the stage where only the very awkward places are left. The pockets which we continually mention as not being connected with the electricity supply are those which will entail the greatest expenditure. The Minister must take a firm stand and ensure that those people who have been deprived of electricity because of their geographic position, or because of some other factors in the nature of the terrain or something like that, will get this service and that they will not be expected to pay an exorbitant figure for it.

It is easy to understand that only the very awkward places must be left now since the ESB have taken a survey of the areas for a second or third time. On their third time round they hope to finish in 1978, approximately. That is surely an indication that the places left need very special treatment. You would need to live in the country without electricity to realise the penalty imposed on people who have not got that facility and the great help it is to those who have it from the point of view of pumping water from a well, the light itself and farmyard machinery which depends on electricity. Television, which we take for granted in other parts of the country, would not be available without an electricity supply.

I should like to impress on the Parliamentary Secretary that it is the duty of this Government to face up to their responsibility and help those people living in rural areas who have not got electricity and who have no possible hope of getting it under the terms now being quoted. These people deserve that help. They may be small in number. The Parliamentary Secretary referred to different bodies that do not draw much water and on that account may not be able to exert political pressures which other bodies can by nature of their numbers.

It is important to remember that the people I am referring to, while they may be small in number, definitely draw a lot of water for their own personal needs. They have suffered already from the point of view of living in remote areas. They may not have good roads or communications. They may be far from schools and shops. We have a duty to provide them with current at a reasonable figure.

Some people may not be aware of the huge amounts quoted for the provision of electricity to people, some of them living in old houses and some in new houses. It is not unusual to see a figure of £700 or £800 quoted to provide electricity for a new house. I know one man in the south of Kildare who bought for £250 a three-roomed cottage where his father was born. The problem was aggravated somewhat by the fact that the line nearest to him was incapable of supplying him and they had to go back further to another transformer. For a house that cost £250 he was quoted £260 for the provision of electricity. That is ridiculous and it needs instant attention. Money must be provided or funded from some source to enable these people to get electricity.

Many members of my party have raised this matter in the Dáil and, while the Minister has listened to our case and I am sure has sympathy with it, nothing has been done to help these people. On average, many of the people who come to me are being quoted £300, £400, £500 and up to £800. In some cases they are asked to provide poles. In some cases they are asked to pay for a transformer and the proviso is added that, if more people avail of the current which they have helped to bring there, they may get a refund later. I do not think it is fair to ask people to do that. The Minister has a duty to act on this matter.

The Minister mentioned the Fletcher Report and some of the recommendations made in that report. He said:

In both these cases the recommendations of the investigating committees have been fully implemented in so far as lies within the Board's competence.

If the board as it is now composed and as the statutory regulations allow is not competent to deal with this, it is up to the Minister to make provision for it and I hope he has done so. I have read his statement and I have not found any proof that this is his intention. It is essential that these people should be given reasonable terms.

Something which amazes me is the fact that some people were prepared to stretch a point and pay the lump sum on the instalment system and have it added to their Bill every two months and this has not been accepted by the ESB. They want the sum in one lump or nothing. Surely if a person wants to build a house in a country area and finds a site which suits his pocket better than a site near a built-up area, he is entitled to consideration. Since I entered the Dáil and, indeed, since I entered local politics, I have felt that we all have a commitment to ensure that the countryside is not denuded. In many cases county council policies and Government policies are geared towards driving people from the country areas into the towns where services are readily available, rather than allowing those who wish to live in the country, and who have known nothing else only country life all their lives, to provide a home for themselves where they want to provide a home for themselves.

The Minister has a duty to ensure that ESB supply is made available to people in country areas at a price they can afford. If the present regulations do not allow that, they should be changed. An effort should be made to act on the recommendations of the Fletcher Report. We are talking about millions of pounds here. A small amount of that money could be spent to provide electricity for those who have none. To ask anybody who is building a house today, who is paying at least £600 VAT on materials to contribute £600 or £700 so that electricity can be installed, is very wrong. Everybody in this day and age considers electricity an essential. The fuel crisis should have awakened us to the fact that we were wrong—maybe our Government and party contributed to this—to depend for 70 per cent of our energy on imported fuel. Maximum use should be made of our native fuel. There is a limit to the time available to us to do this.

Mr. Kelly

I am glad to hear the Deputy's very fair approach to this problem.

Mr. Power

When our party made a move towards the provision of a turf fire generating station at Allenwood in 1948 a former Minister, a Deputy in the present Government, called it the greatest white elephant of all time. He said that when it was just a few feet off the ground. That station has functioned very well since then. With co-operation between the ESB and Bord na Móna it has helped to make one of the most depressed areas in my county into a thriving area with many young families, schools and villages vibrant with life. We can feel proud of that. I welcome that co-operation.

It was suggested that we should go all out and utilise our bogs to the maximum. It would have been very foolish to do that because they are not expendable. They cannot all be cutaway. I have a particular interest in this. I have seen the work done in cutaway bogs in Lullymore with the Agricultural Institute and other private enterprises for the growing of vegetables and different types of horticulture. We must start early so that there will be a sufficient amount of cutaway bog available to be tilled later. There is a limit to what we can do in this way. I hope that when Bord na Móna comes to the end of its tether in that respect, employment will be found in those cutaway bogs for workers who become redundant.

The Minister said that we should look at our natural resources and utilise them to a greater extent. We have plenty of water power. We have harnessed the Shannon, the Lee, the Liffey and the Erne. Every day water which flows to the sea is being lost to us. We should try to harness this power rather than burn away a fuel which we cannot replace. The recent project at Turlough Hill was a great concept and a tribute to the staff, engineers and everybody involved. This set the headline for other countries. It is nice to know that we can act on our own initiative and produce something which is better than anything which already exists. I congratulate the ESB who, despite heavy commitments, found time in the Wicklow Gap area—which is a tourist attraction—to bring their expertise to bear to ensure that conservation was maintained. They took special pains to ensure that a nasty scar would not be left in a very beautiful spot when the work was completed. They deserve to be complimented on that fact alone.

We, in the course of time and with our dependence on foreign oil, have gone away from the concept of Sinn Féin and self-reliance. Our natural resources should be availed of so far as possible. Other countries are studying how tides can be harnessed. Perhaps the ESB hold a watching brief on this. There would be a never-ending source of energy. I hope a study is being carried out here in that regard.

It is generally admitted that, while a unit of electricity may be dear, it is worth it. Prices have increased rapidly due to our dependence on foreign oil. Every effort should be made to keep costs down. In my experience, the ESB is well run. I compliment the staff on their courtesy and the good work they have done. Recently in an area in my constituency a large scale operation was taking place in a Bord na Móna bog. The electricity supply was disrupted every day for a fortnight. The staff took the trouble to be courteous. Their obvious thought for the consumers made the disruption acceptable to the people, simply because they explained the need for the disruption. When there are courteous public relations at that level, the ordinary consumer will go a long way to meet anybody providing the service. This service cannot be available to them at all times.

I agree with the future policy of the board. More use should be made of turf, but only as an interim measure. We should be careful that our bogs are not completely cut away. I am sure the Minister and Bord na Móna will not allow this to happen.

I read of the forecast of finds of natural gas off our coast. The indications are that they will be good. This would be very acceptable coming at a time when other sources available are either too dear or expended. Our investment in nuclear power is the long-term solution to this. I presume that nuclear power is unlimited and will not become expended in the future.

I note that some of the money being made available to the Minister is being earmarked to provide a pension scheme. Many employees who have been with the board since it started and have given a lifetime of service, are past their working days. It is only right that they should be recompensed.

I should like to compliment the Minister on the courtesy he has shown. I have written to him on many occasions regarding the ESB and other matters. I should also like to compliment the staff of the ESB. In any matter I have brought to their notice they have been helpful. The board, as now constituted, runs very smoothly. Some years ago there was a very rigid interpretation of what should happen if a person allowed a certain number of days to elapse before paying the second of the two-monthly bills. In such circumstances they were cut off, even if they offered to pay the man who called to their home. I am glad that this rigid interpretation is no longer adhered to.

I would impress on the Minister that people in rural Ireland are being asked to pay hundreds of pounds to have an electrical supply. It is an intolerable situation and it is a matter about which I feel very strongly. The Minister has a duty to ensure that some of the large sums now given to the ESB is made available to implement the findings of the Fletcher Report and ensure that the unfortunates who are still forced to live without electricity supply, those people in the remote parts of the country who may have built houses not too far from the supply, are connected to the ESB supply at a reasonable charge.

It is often the case that Deputies are sent in to the House by their Whips to make their contributions but I am very happy I had the opportunity of bringing this matter to the notice of the Minister. I have already raised it with him during Question Time. I hope he will take some action and help those people in the remote areas. The Minister has an opportunity to help in the matter and I hope he will not let the chance go by.

Mr. Dowling

Having regard to the substantial amount of money that is involved—a sum of £700 million—in return the people must be guaranteed continuity of service. In addition, the structure of the ESB must be examined in relation to the contentment of workers, to management and the introduction of industrial democracy. In his speech the Minister stated:

Sections 17 and 18 and the Schedule of the Act outline the provisions required to be included in every pension scheme or amending scheme for whole-time members of the board. The detailed provisions outlined in sections 17 and 18 and the Schedule to the Act are not sufficiently broad to permit the pension scheme for whole-time members of the board to be brought into line with the superannuation rights which the board's employees enjoy. It is therefore necessary to delete these provisions from the Act.

I should like to comment on the ESB's superannuation scheme and the manner in which many of the members are treated, and to bring to the attention of the Minister some facts in relation to the generosity of the workers referred to in this legislation. I am positive that the board members will have substantial pension rights and that the amended provisions will be to their advantage. However, two men who have given a lifetime of service to the ESB in difficult conditions, people with more than 40 years' service to the board, received a letter from the ESB dated 21st March which stated:

You have the option now of applying for membership of the General Employees' Superannuation Scheme or retaining your membership of the Manual Workers' Scheme. If you apply for membership of the General Employees' Scheme, the rate of contribution payable would be 58.9 per cent of your salary...

Now we are told the board's scheme is inferior to the scheme in operation.

Mr. P. Barry

How old is the operative?

Mr. Dowling

He has more than 40 years' service. He came into the ESB around 1927 but now he is told he will have to pay 58.9 per cent of his salary——

Mr. P. Barry

He must be 60 years of age.

Mr. Dowling

A man who has given a lifetime of service is now told that in order to get reasonable pension rights he will have to pay more than half his salary.

Mr. P. Barry

He can stay at the existing pension rate.

Mr. Dowling

So can the board members, but provision is made to ensure that the people at the top are well padded and well heeled while those who have given a lifetime of service are asked to make this very substantial contribution.

Mr. P. Barry

That is not true. I am sure the Deputy does not want to see the board members in a worse off position.

Mr. Dowling

Both the manual workers and board members should have reasonable pension schemes. I am sure the Minister will agree that the board members——

Mr. P. Barry

It is a question of one board member only.

Mr. Dowling

That person could have a short-term appointment. I am quite sure it would not measure up to the 40 years' service of the manual worker. Another worker with more than 40 years' service received a letter which stated:

You can apply for membership of the General Employees' Scheme. The rate of contribution would be 47.7 per cent of your salary.

The situation is impossible. This scheme is a farce because no one would be in a position to make a contribution of 58 per cent of his wages to get the benefits outlined. However provision is made that the board member will be assured of adequate rights. I would ask the Minister to examine the situation where employees with long service are asked to make this substantial contribution.

Recently a driver with 25 years' service and whose wages were £33.76 received an increase of £3.77 under the National Wage Agreement and he is asked to increase his contribution from £9.29 to £13.70. The increase in wages is £3.77 while the pension contribution increase is £4.51. As I see it, this is a farcical situation and I would ask the Minister to examine it. I believe these men are victims of circumstances and somebody will have to take a second look at the entire pensions scheme of the ESB. As we are aware, it is funded to the extent of, possibly, well over £6 million at the moment. I made a request to the Public Accounts Committee and to the General Office to obtain up-to-date figures for me. The figures I have at the moment are in relation to the report for the year ended 31st March, 1972 when it was then in funds to the extent of £5,829,000. I would ask the Minister to ensure that the workers get a fair share of the fund in relation to a lifetime of service. It is not the only semi-State or State concern where men with a lifetime of service are treated in this way. There are other sectors also with which we shall deal later—CIE and others where the contribution to the men who have built up the systems was very miserly indeed.

I would ask the Minister to examine the ESB Superannuation Acts, the two Acts brought in, and to pay particular attention to one group of men who were transferred to the ESB from Dublin Corporation electricity supply service way back in 1927. Those men came in at that stage. Certain adjustments were made and Bills were enacted to ensure that they would have certain rights. But in 1965 another Act was passed which did not become operative until 1967. I am not blaming the Minister for that but grave injustice was done because of the two year delay. Because a substantial number of people voted for the acceptance of a particular scheme in 1965 and, because of the two year delay, they were then ineligible because of their age.

I would ask the Minister to examine the entire situation—not just the board or the chairman of the board—to ensure that the injustices existing and that are obvious—as I have illustrated for him—are eliminated so that we can have some sort of across the board action and not merely action which will ensure a substantial increase to one particular man or group of men as the case may be from time to time. It is a serious situation, and one facing many men in the ESB at the moment, who are being offered a betterment of a pension scheme at the expense I have mentioned while there is existing a vast fund. It is not the only pension scheme in this country doing an injustice to the older sections of workers and, in particular to the man with 25 years' service who has received an increase of £3.77 and a demand for an additional contribution of £4.51. This is really nonsensical.

I would urge the Minister to pay particular attention to this development. If it is not corrected we could well have in this country pension schemes that people would be unable to afford. We would have them in name only. They would be pension schemes, in name only, for some employees. While the ESB can boast of a pension scheme, there are many men there with a lifetime of service unable to benefit from it because of the contributions demanded notwithstanding the fact that there are substantial funds in the kitty. This having been brought to the Minister's attention, I am sure he will give consideration to the entire question of superannuation rights rather than the superannuation rights of one man as written into the Bill. Where there is such a number of people—as in the case of manual workers and others in the ESB—I believe consideration should be on the broadest basis possible.

I mentioned earlier the question of continuity of service, the problems that developed as a result of power cuts from time to time. Again, I am not blaming the Minister for the power cuts. Nevertheless, there were suggestions within the ESB that ineffective management of one kind or another aggravated the situation and created problems which led in some cases, to industrial unrest. The contentment of workers is of vital importance. This is an essential service and it is in the essential services that the introduction of industrial democracy can best have priority. It is in the area of essential services also that the workers' participation and viewpoint are important, particularly in vast organisations like the ESB. I would hope that the Minister would examine the situation of worker participation and the possibility of introducing industrial democracy so as to ensure that problems can be ironed out before the development of industrial unrest. I am quite sure that we have, within the ESB, many excellent able workers, many people well able to participate and convey the viewpoint of their fellow workers to the board and others so that there can be more effective co-operation leading to more efficient management and, in the end, to a basis of contentment which is both desirable and necessary.

While many members of the Government, while in Opposition, had indicated clearly the desire and necessity for the introduction of industrial democracy within State service, and that if they were returned to power this would be their first goad, I would say to the Minister—he is a member of the Government and of the Fine Gael Party—let us see now how far in advance of the Labour Party are Fine Gael. Let the Minister introduce industrial democracy ahead of the people who shouted loudly in the past and who are now silent. The argument has been put forward in relation to industrial democracy and worker participation and has been accepted by all parties in principle. It has been accepted by all parties as being desirable in certain circumstances, in certain industries, and particularly in the tension sectors such as the essential services. There might well be far less tension and fewer problems if workers' grievances and workers' voices were heard and aired at the proper place and at the proper time. Very often problems are swept under the carpet right along the corridors up to board level with everybody trying to cover up for somebody else. In the end we experience disruption of service which causes many people problems throughout the country.

Many people, the sick, the aged, those working in industry and workers in other sections, have problems and with a capital investment of £700 million they should be guaranteed continuity of service. Every method must be tried in order to ensure that the effectiveness of management is at the highest possible level. We should not be afraid to introduce a pilot scheme to allow for worker participation. For too long the views of workers have been disregarded and neglected but at later stages have been accepted when the problem reached a crisis stage.

We have had, during periods of industrial unrest, indiscriminate power cutting by officials of the ESB. Allegations of this have never been refuted and members of the ESB staff have told me, when I questioned them about this, that this was at the whim of certain officials who would be at the posts. I can understand load shedding at a time when the system is operating under stress. This is necessary and desirable on occasions and it happens that some areas are affected. On the last occasion there was a dispute in the ESB advance information was given to the people in relation to power shedding but on previous occasions there was no consideration for the worker, the housewife, those confined to bed in hospital and those in industry. We do not want to return to that situation and the Minister should ensure that we do not do so. Indiscriminate cuts were made in certain areas and some members of the staff felt perturbed that certain areas had been singled out for special consideration.

I should now like to deal with the ESB shocks that many people are getting. An ESB bill shows electricity on two-part tariff, electricity fixed charges; fuel cost variation and VAT at 6.75 per cent. We have VAT on the fuel cost variation and VAT on the fixed charge. The benevolent Government who took VAT off foodstuffs then put it on the ESB bill. They put VAT on this bill which affected the very people they pretended to be helping. This is only one of the examples of the deception of the present Government in relation to the VAT alterations which they made. Even on the fixed charge a person must pay VAT at the increased rate, a rate which was increased by the Minister for Finance in the budget a year ago. This was deception because the Government prior to the general election indicated that they would remove VAT from certain essentials. The supply of electricity to the home, in my view, is an essential. VAT was removed from foodstuffs but put on clothing and the electricity bill.

The increasing of the VAT rate to 6.75 per cent was the result of deliberate action by the present Government more than a year ago. It is regretted that VAT is now being applied to electricity charges apart altogether from the fact that it applies to the fixed charge. The Minister should explain why VAT is charged on the ESB bill. This is a matter of great concern to the public. The ESB bills have increased substantially and are now beyond the normal family. Fridges, cookers, central heating and other electrical devices installed in modern homes, in many instances purchased from the ESB, are now lying idle and depreciating because the housewife cannot afford to use them.

Because of the high pressure of salesmanship of the ESB many items are purchased from them and the hire purchase charges are put on the two monthly bill. If a housewife fails to meet her commitment in relation to a hire purchase agreement her supply is cut off. In some instances such a housewife is in a position to pay for the current used but unable to meet the hire purchase commitment. However, the shock troopers come in with their pliers and cut off the supply.

Hire purchase repayments should be divorced completely from the ordinary ESB bill. They should be put on a separate bill. If the ESB wish to repossess equipment they are free to do so without the interruption of an essential supply to a home. We have outmoded and outdated approaches to the problem of the removal of the supply of current to a house. Supply may be withdrawn without further notice if an overdue bill is not paid. There are many circumstances in relation to family problems and in relation to the inability of a person to pay. Many people have experienced situations where there were temporary problems in relation to finance and the ESB bill may be one factor. People who entered into hire purchase agreements with the ESB were blackmailed into keeping up the repayments under the threat that their light would be cut off if they did not do so.

The Minister should remove this threat of blackmail on people who purchase items from the ESB. Hire purchase should be removed from the electricity bill and the failure to pay for power should be the only basis for disconnection. People should not be blackmailed into paying that particular bill at the expense of something else when they are unable to do so during this crisis. There should be a more enlightened approach. At the moment because of the bus strike there are people on short time and, naturally, they will be unable to meet all their commitments. People enter into commitments on the basis of anticipated income.

I visualise that because of the bus strike some people's electricity supply will be disconnected. This shows a lack of consideration by the ESB. There should be consultation with social workers particularly in the poorer, problem areas. There was a terrible tragedy in my constituency some years ago. A woman went into the city to purchase clothing for her son who was to make his first holy communion on the following day. When she arrived home she found the house in darkness. The electricity had been disconnected on the outside by the ruthless shock troopers of the ESB. I hope this will never occur again. It is the sort of tactic that has been ruthlessly applied. Within the ESB in this enlightened age there should be a section with a heart that would give consideration to people and their problems during temporary periods of tension. People should be given additional time to pay during such periods. People have been marked as good pays and bad pays. People have been marked as bad pays through no fault of their own but because of an accumulation of problems and because of the highpowered salesmanship of the ESB. At one stage they were pressing the sale of their appliances and people fell for their advertising and purchased cookers, washing machines, food mixers et cetera. These things should be separate and if the charges are not met supply should not be cut off.

Many points have been made by previous speakers. Points are an important part of the ESB set-up but we want to try to keep the heat off people who are in difficulty through no fault of their own. Deputy Timmons mentioned the social workers who would be in a position to advise in relation to problem families. I hope the Minister will give consideration to this important aspect, perhaps not so important in well-to-do areas or in rural areas but very important in urban areas where problems develop quickly because of the pressures and tensions.

Young couples are encouraged to purchase their own homes. We know the number of houses that have been built on the perimeter of this city in the last three or four years. A gas supply is not available in those places and electricity is the only means of heating. Those couples are faced with a cold future. They will not have light or heat because they cannot pay for it. I hope the Minister will examine the problems of young families who have purchased houses on the basis of their income and who now find that because of the substantial price increases particularly in the case of light and heating they are unable to meet their commitments. It means that they will be able to pay the ESB but unable to meet their mortgage charges.

I know how difficult it is for young people in this city to set up a home. I know the shock they got when they were presented with their ESB bills in the last two months. I have seen the Bills presented to members of my own family and, indeed, the bills of others. I hope the Minister will institute some type of examination of this problem and see whether reliefs can be given in certain areas to young families who have made a substantial contribution by endeavouring to purchase their own homes and who now find themselves being forced out by the ESB. I hope this will be considered before the long, dark cold evenings of winter close in on us so that young people will know exactly what their commitments are and at least be warned in time before they make substantial down payments on particular items. We owe this to our young people who are prepared to meet their responsibilities in full. It is a live problem in the perimeter areas of Dublin where families have to meet the cost of long bus journeys to work, long journeys of children to schools, long journeys to hospitals and other places.

I hope the Minister will give some relief towards meeting those additional costs. We agree that the fuel cost variation figures that appear on ESB bills may be justified to some degree but these costs must be examined to ensure they are appropriately charged. In many cases, where an across the board charge is made, people find themselves in difficulties. When it is examined we find an injustice has been done in border line cases. We are then told that it is in operation and nothing can be done about it. Something can always be done. If VAT was removed from the bills it would help considerably. A number of suggestions have been made in regard to the fuel cost variation charge and I hope the Minister will be able to tell us what action he proposes to take to relieve the problems of the group of people I have mentioned.

One Deputy mentioned wiring standards in homes. We have seen Press reports of cases where houses would not be wired and where others were wired but would not be connected. People waiting to go into their homes cannot do so because the ESB will not connect them notwithstanding the fact that the standards required by them were met in full. However other factors which they refused to speak about are the underlying ones and many people are without electricity for a substantial period.

I want, once again, to ask the Minister to ensure that the pension scheme of the manual workers in the ESB is examined and that the cases which I have brought to his attention will be examined, especially the case where 58.9 per cent of a man's wages was demanded so that he could participate in a pension scheme. I understand that even greater sums have been demanded. No worker could afford to pay such an amount to a pension scheme. The necessary machinery is provided in the Bill to ensure that the chairman of the board gets the pension which the Minister considers he is entitled to. Workers who have been in the ESB for over 40 years are also entitled to consideration but there is nothing about that in this Bill. The fund, as I stated, is substantial. There is over £6 million in it.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is now indulging in repetition. I have heard all this before.

Mr. Dowling

I was merely relating the situation to the last paragraph of the Minister's statement and pointing out once again the desirability of ensuring equality of rights for all members, whether it be the chairman or an ordinary manual worker in the ESB. They have equal rights in many respects and a Bill such as this should not contain a provision to ensure that one man's pension rights, are fully safeguarded while at the same time a grave injustice is done to men who have given long service. The Minister should seriously consider that and also the workers in the ESB who came from Dublin Corporation Electrical Supply Service in the 1920s. Many of those people are now being victimised after giving a lifetime of service.

The anticipated growth rate of 10 per cent last year was not met. In fact the consumption of electricity is running at the same level as for the corresponding period of last year. This shows a falling off. I am certain that during the long cold winter evenings we will find there will be an even greater falling off. The Minister goes on to point out that there is no likelihood of a shift to other forms of heat or power. The ESB have a monopoly and there are very few other sources of power. The Minister may state that people throughout the country should get bottled gas but the price of this has also increased.

Turlough Hill was mentioned here. I, along with many other Deputies, visited Turlough Hill. We saw the development work there and the manner in which Irish workers, tradesmen, technical personnel and engineers have carried out this magnificent feat of ingenuity at Turlough Hill. They deserve great praise. No words of mine could do justice to the wonderful work done by those people.

The question of native fuel resources has been mentioned. We hope that whatever resources are available will be exploited to the full. In conclusion I lend my support to the Bill and trust that, with the extra moneys being made available, the board will be able to tackle the various problems that have been highlighted by the contributors to this debate.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

I intend making only a short contribution to this Bill but at the outset I, too, welcome the increase in the limit of the authorised capital expenditure for the board during the coming years. We are all aware of the importance of electricity and we must stress also the importance of providing power as efficiently and as economically as possible.

There are a few points I would make regarding electricity supply generally and I trust that the Minister will give serious consideration to my suggestions. First, however, I must pay a tribute to the excellent work carried out by the ESB staff in the aftermath of the unusual storms of January last. Immediately after these storms the ESB staffs went into the areas that were affected badly and proceeded to deal with the damage that had been caused. In Cork there was a very bad situation but teams of workers from various parts of the country were deployed there in restoring supplies. No words of mine could praise adequately all those workers who were engaged in that difficult work in what were very trying and dangerous conditions during the hours of day and night.

Deputy Dowling emphasised the necessity for good staff relations and for worker-participation within the ESB. When the Government were in Opposition they were often critical of the difficulties in the area of industrial relations in the ESB but I have not noticed the present Minister make any move regarding the involvement of workers at managerial level within the board's structure. Such a move should be made quickly. In any efforts in this direction I am sure that the Minister would have the support of all sides of the House.

There are many problems regarding electricity supply and it would be my hope that the extra money being voted to the board would be used in alleviating many of the hardships which the ESB are creating. It may seem strange to state that the ESB are creating hardships but this can be seen if one relates present circumstances in a number of spheres to the charges being levied by the ESB in respect of connections. I am not referring to the enormous increases in the ordinary consumer charges but to house connections. In this context I would draw the attention of the Minister, as I have done already by way of questions here to the degree allowed me, to the huge charges being imposed on young married couples who build their houses. The costs associated with house building are increasing week by week. The grants remain the same while loans are more difficult to obtain and it is almost impossible for the ordinary individual to obtain bridging finance. Added to these difficulties is this huge increase for the connection of electricity. I accept that this work is costly from the point of view of the board but it is wrong socially that £200, to put it at its lowest, an average of £300 and in many cases a cost of £600, should be levied on any young couple but if such charges must be levied I would ask the Minister to examine the possibility of arranging for repayment by way of meter rent over a certain period. One might say that any young married man who builds his own house is faced with this unexpected extra charge for the connection of power supply. I say "unexpected" because until a comparatively short time ago the charges for this service were only nominal. That is one of the social problems being created by the ESB for young married couples in many country areas.

Another problem is the inadequacy of the power supply, particularly in built-up areas. This is another reason why I welcome the making available of this extra capital expenditure. There are many instances of inadequate power supply in developing areas. This results in consumers not having as much power as would boil a kettle at peak times or which would allow them to obtain a decent picture on their television screens. Work on the eradication of these black spots must be speeded up.

While I accept that the delays incurred both by the January storms this year and by the industrial difficulties of last year helped to slow down work on the elimination of these problems, the Minister must insist that the areas affected are given immediate attention. No doubt he is aware of the difficulties in the Cork area.

I know of a case where, recently, householders in a newly developing area had to take turns to boil kettles of water in the evenings because of the shortage of power and where they used a communal television so that they might have decent reception.

The next point to which I wish to draw attention affects the farming community particularly, that is, the delay in the connection of adequate power to operate bulk tanks and so on. I have known of many cases of farmers who, having had all their plans made and the appropriate equipment installed and paid for were forced to leave their equipment lying idle because of lack of power. The ESB should be ahead of the situation and should be aiming at providing for the supply of bulk tanks in the same way as they should be ahead of the situation in a fast growing urban area where similar difficulties exist. I trust that the Minister will impress on the board the necessity of having these problems eliminated.

We all know that electricity charges have increased by approximately 50 per cent. Here I think cognisance must be taken of the private consumer. A firm can apply to the Prices Commission to increase prices because of extra electricity charges: the individual, or the family of the social welfare recipient have nothing to call on but their rapidly diminishing income. Ministers of the Government claim credit for social welfare increases but the ESB bill has been one of the fastest methods of eroding the benefit of social welfare increases in many cases. I urge the Minister to ask his colleague, the Minister for Finance, in order to avoid hardship—I am sure he knows of many cases of hardship as well as I do—or alleviate it, to remove VAT from electricity charges, as was done by the Government in respect of food at a particular time and for a particular reason. Let the Minister make a name for himself and do something positive for the average householder by taking VAT off the ESB bill. It will not be a great help but it will be some consolation to a householder on whom increased electricity charges bear heavily. The social welfare recipients who are not entitled to free electricity are suffering severely in this way; they are afraid to use the electricity.

I notice that electricity consumption is running at about the same as last year but we know the weather is not good and if there are heating appliances in the home in the form of central heating or something else, the aged and the sick need them now. Recent summers have not been good and even in these months when one might expect a saving on electricity charges, that cannot be achieved. Therefore, I ask the Minister urgently to look into this. I am talking only of private householders. There are ways open to the others to get compensation in the form of increased prices by using the higher electricity cost as a reason. Private householders, some with young families, some who are social welfare recipients, are all suffering very severely. The ESB bill is more complicated and it needs to be explained to them. Therefore I ask the Minister to adopt my suggestion about removing VAT from the ESB bills.

I want to refer to the oil and gas situation in what is now known as the Celtic Sea. The energy crisis has been mentioned and so has the necessity to reinforce our present policy by resolving to maximise the contributions from natural resources and move away from our present over-dependence on imported oil. One is naturally glad to see this change of emphasis but I am concerned about the situation off the Cork coast. If the Minister wishes to correct me on this I gladly bow to his superior knowledge but I suspect our Government are depending on information being supplied by oil companies, multi-national groups. I believe the Department or the Department of Industry and Commerce should have an expert or experts on location where this operation is going on, reporting back to their Departments on the actual situation so that we would not depend on information supplied and, perhaps, slanted to suit their own designs, by the multi-national oil companies. Is it true that the information is being supplied by these people? Have the Minister's Department or any other Department expert or technical staff on location, keeping an eye on those people and making sure they are not deceiving anybody, above all the Government? That would be a tragedy.

We had many pious offerings from members of the Government—not the Minister—when they were in Opposition as to what they would do. I would like to know what control is being exercised and are we satisfied that the information being supplied is factual, that information is not being withheld? This matter is not only important from the ESB point of view but from the national point of view and it is particularly important for the south of Ireland. We should know if we are depending on information from Marathon, ESSO or somebody else.

The present intention is that gas should be piped ashore in the neighbourhood of Cork city, we are told. One is disturbed to read statements in the Press that the Government are dragging their feet on coming to terms with the harbour commissioners on the actual plans for the development of facilities for piping this gas or oil into the Cork area. I wish to impress on the Minister, a respected Corkman, the urgency of tackling these plans. If there are members of the Government who may look at Cork as a place of lesser importance I ask him to keep pushing until such time as he satisfied that appropriate steps are being taken. I am sure he is aware of the publicity at present coming from prominent people in Cork Harbour Board circles.

Mr. P. Barry

There are no proposals from Cork Harbour Board to bring gas or oil ashore.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

Is the Minister aware of the criticism of his Department by people in the Cork Harbour Board?

Mr. P. Barry

Yes, I can read, but there are no proposals before my Department at the moment in relation to bringing gas or oil ashore.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

Would the Minister feel it incumbent on his Department to suggest to the Cork Harbour Commissioners that rather than publish articles such as have been published they should approach this Department and discuss the situation?

Mr. P. Barry

They are drawing up plans.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

But the Minister has heard the criticism of his Department?

Mr. P. Barry

Yes, I have.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

It has not been contradicted.

Mr. P. Barry

I am well accustomed to criticism. I think the Deputy is confusing two things.

Acting Chairman (Mr. M.E. Dockrell)

We are getting away from the ESB Bill.

Mr. P. Barry

The Deputy is confusing the Cork harbour development plan, which is a different thing——

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

No, I am not.

Acting Chairman

We had better get back to the Bill.

Mr. C. Murphy

It is most enjoyable.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

I accept the ruling of the Chair but I am certainly not confusing two different things. The articles I mentioned did not refer to the Cork Harbour plan.

Acting Chairman

They do not arise on this Bill.

Mr. P. Barry

I would ask the Deputy to read these articles again.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

If the Minister would like to read them I have them upstairs.

Mr. P. Barry

I have read them.

Acting Chairman

I cannot allow this type of discussion.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

I am sorry to have to contradict the Minister. He must have read these articles.

Acting Chairman

They are not in the Bill.

Mr. P. Barry

There was an awful lot more said since 4 o'clock today which was not in the Bill. It is a pity you were not in the Chair all day.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

It is everybody's wish that the necessary finance would be made available to the ESB to maintain the suggested growth rate of 10 per cent per annum and to ensure that supply will be maintained economically and efficiently. I ask the Minister to bear in mind the few problems I have mentioned. I also ask him to try to ease the burden on new house purchasers by placing charges on their meter rent over a few years.

Mr. C. Murphy

A Bill of this nature provides an opportunity for Deputies and the media to comment on current affairs. It is good that we have the opportunity to review a difficult situation at the moment due to the energy crisis. In his speech the Minister used this sentence:

At the present time electricity consumption is in fact running at the same level as at the corresponding period last year.

This is not very enlightening. The Minister for Local Government claims that 25,000 new houses have been built. Of course it is all very well to claim credit for such houses completed but there has to be a start and many of these houses were planned by Fianna Fáil. With these extra houses, consumption of electricity must have risen, one would imagine, and therefore consumption must be running much higher now than this time last year. What are the reasons why it is not? Perhaps the general appeal to the public to cut back on usage may have been successful. Perhaps greater care is being taken in the use of electricity. Another factor is that people in industry may have had to economise because of the spiralling extra costs. These costs seemingly will continue if the oil producing companies decide to add further to their prices.

These two factors bring us down to mundane issues and that brings me down to difficulties in my constituency, particularly to two new estates in the Bray area. Young couples were elated at the prospect of being able to manage their own homes, but eight months later due to the continuous increase in the cost of electricity they have been ringing me to try to devise a means whereby they could return to old houses in order to be rid of these monstrous costs.

The ESB have a proud record of giving demonstrations on domestic use of power. I do not know if they are still holding these demonstrations through which they encouraged young people to take care in the economic use of electricity. It strikes me as remarkable that young couples should be complaining about bills for £90. At 7 o'clock this evening I had a telephone call complaining about a bill for £85. I believed the woman when she told me she was trying to run her home to a budget and could not meet such bills. Her option is simply to move back into unfit accommodation unless the Government can offer her and others like her some immediate help, not something in the remote future. We have been told that deposits of natural gas are being found off the coast. That is hope for the future but those people need help now.

I should like to congratulate the ESB personnel who came along to attend a public meeting in a hotel in Bray no longer with us—the International. They gave up their free time to come to that meeting and took great pains to explain to the people why bills were so high. It falls on people like me to try to get the Government to bring pressure on the Minister for Finance to make subsidies available to ease the situation of our people. Another measure that might be considered is the removal of VAT from ESB bills. It would reduce bills by a small amount and any reduction would be welcomed by the people I have been speaking about. It is fitting to remark at this point that the present Government increased VAT. Perhaps they can now find a way to remove it.

These are the points which the people in these estates are anxious about. They do not require promises. Some rash promises have been made about these bills but the people realise that they must pay them. Some of them have visited ESB offices and have met the understanding accounts manager, who pointed out to them that whatever reasonable efforts they could make would be acceptable. They were dismayed by the thought that within two months they would have to pay some other bill. They would have to readjust. They do not know how they can do so. They look to the Government to help them. We have been told that this is the Government of concern, but concern is not enough now. The people require action. On their behalf I plead with the Minister to bring pressure to bear so that these people can obtain relief.

Moving from the urban to the rural scene, like other Deputies I have been frequently asked to make representations to the ESB for a reduction in the cost of a new connection. A person may have difficulty in getting a site and planning permission. He may have his bungalow built before he thinks of approaching the ESB for a connection. He may have thought it was only necessary to approach the ESB but he finds that he receives an estimate of £200. This puts a different complexion on the situation.

In west Wicklow there is an industry the owners of which wish to expand and to add to their personnel. This area requires employment. They require three-phase power. They believe the cost will be £3,900. They cannot afford to pay this money and to expand at the same time. If the Minister for Defence were prepared to consider bringing three-phase power to the nearby camp this local industry might be able to avail of it with less capital outlay. This would fit in with the Minister's recruitment campaign for the Army. Personnel enlisting in the Army can obtain training in varous skills. The employers and the population would benefit. This would open the way to further industry in the area.

Much has been said about the Turlough Hill plant. Many people in my constituency regret that the work there has been completed. It gave them employment and money. We congratulate the ESB on being so willing to meet many of the just demands of the local authority in ensuring that the scenery and natural beauty of the area were maintained. Underground cables were laid through the gap. I wish to thank the ESB personnel at Turlough Hill for the informative tour some Deputies were brought on. We know it is impossible to maintain employment at a very high level. It is good to see a car park being built and a good roadway laid to bring tourists to the area. Many views of Wicklow will now be opened up to the people. It is good to see a semi-State body giving aid in this way. The building there has been designed in such a way that the facade will in time blend with the local scenery.

Two minor difficulties have been encountered. One is in connection with a pylon on a large junction where the Baltinglass and Wicklow roads meet. This is near a bend and is dangerous. Local people have complained about it. At Hollywood high tension cables come very near a new bungalow built by a local person. These are only minor points in the overall development of Turlough Hill but they are important to the people in the area.

The Minister mentioned NET. It it fair to say that NET are now expanding not only within the Arklow area but also in Cork. It is fine to see that this go-ahead company are availing of the significant deposits of natural gas off the coast. It is to be hoped that this natural gas will be used to the best effect and that NET will be able to meet the potential demands for the next decade.

A number of my constituents have expressed dissatisfaction at the little warning in red on the ESB bills which often goes unnoticed, to the effect that if the amount was overdue again they would be cut off without notice. Might I suggest that, particularly now in the holiday season, the ESB would issue a note of warning or advice to people to make sure they have paid their bill before departing for their vacation so that they will not find when they have returned that their electricity has been cut off?

The fixed charge is a feature of ESB bills which people do not like. Having paid this rental over a number of years, eventually people would have paid the value of the meter and, while not necessarily being entitled to own the meter, they should not have to make any further payment. This may seem a small point in connection with a Bill which increases the capital to be provided from £450 million to £700 million, but it is small points like this that affect the man-in-the-street and the housewife. It is not that I am objecting to the provision of this £700 million. It seems a vast increase from £450 million, but I would like to see it expressed in terms of the year in which the existing limit of £450 million was introduced. If allowance was made for inflation, the figure might be seen in its proper perspective. However, I welcome this increase without reservation.

According to the Minister's speech, the board are working on the basis of a growth rate of 10 per cent per annum in the use of electricity. I wonder if this is an over-calculation having regard to the fact that while many new consumers have been added, many people will have to restrict their consumption of electricity due to the extra costs. The brief also says that a sufficiency of electricity is of such importance to the country both socially and economically that we must not run any risk of finding ourselves without adequate capacity to meet our needs. It seems that the ESB are increasing the capacity so as to provide ample supplies to meet our needs. I dealt at some length with the social need, but it is no harm to repeat that electricity is not a luxury, but it has gone beyond the means of a great many people who are frustrated, particularly the younger people who have set up house and who are not able to cope with the situation. These are people in many cases with young families who need a boost to their morale in order to see that their children are brought up in a good and peaceful environment. Electricity is a basic commodity which, before the crisis, we tended to abuse somewhat. People would flick the switch, walk away and perhaps the following morning discover that the light had been left on all night. People also switch on lights in halls, lights which are not really necessary. But that is the way. The same situation arises in the case of petrol. People simply do not advert to its value. That was made pretty clear a short while back.

When we consider what I describe as the social angle we must also consider the economic angle. The ESB are required by statute to submit certain information to the Minister and that enables Deputies and the mass media to review and comment on the activities of the ESB. Deputies are more aware now, as are the public generally, of how dependent we are on imported oil for almost 70 per cent of our primary energy requirements. This was brought home to us in the increase in electricity charges as a direct consequence of the increase in the price of oil. I believe the Minister told Deputy Fitzgerald there are no proposals in his Department to bring the oil and gas discovered off Cork ashore.

Mr. P. Barry

I did not say that.

Mr. C. Murphy

I said "I believe". I was listening to the exchange. I accept that was not what the Minister said. If there are plans to bring these natural assets ashore when may we expect to reap the benefit? I read recently that we would have ample gas and oil for our own needs. Possibly we might even be able to join the other oil and gas exporting countries. This is a consummation devoutly to be wished. Such exports would be a tremendous boom to our economy. But what about the intervening years? The next five or six years could be crucial. The ESB, the Minister said, are working on the basis of a growth rate of 10 per cent per annum in connections to the national grid. What will be the cost to the consumer? That is the question. Will bigger bills make the consumer's position intolerable? Will the industrialist find himself priced out of the market? The Government will have the task of striking a balance between social and economic needs. With employment at stake the economy must naturally come first. But social needs will also have to be considered.

The Minister said in his introductory speech:

Prior to the onset of the energy crisis, it had been accepted that Ireland's native sources of primary energy, hydro, turf and a small amount of coal, were being fully developed.

Are they, I wonder, being fully developed? Had the emphasis not been removed from turf and placed on oil? I do not think I would agree that our native resources were or are being fully developed. Bord na Móna in the last report appeared somewhat disenchanted because the ESB had turned to oil and were using less and less turf. This was to their disadvantage financially.

The Minister also said:

The position is being revised in the light of the changed energy situation, particularly the increased price level of all forms of energy.

This supports my view that our native resources as regards turf are not being fully developed or utilised.

Bord na Móna carried out a re-examination of bog areas which had previously been considered unsuitable for economic development in the face of low cost imported fuels.

If this examination is satisfactory we may be able to manage until such time as we can avail of the gas and oil deposits off our coast.

The Minister struck an optimistic note. The people who have to meet increased charges for their electricity are not very optimistic about the immediate future. It is easy to say the situation will improve in some years' time, but how are the people to cope in the interim? As I say, the Minister struck an optimistic note:

It is calculated that the deposit when fully developed should be capable of supporting a daily flow rate of 125 million cubic feet of natural gas for about 20 years. The ESB propose as a first step that a 75 MW gas-fired plant should be provided at Marina in 1977. In subsequent years up to 1982 a number of gas-fired turbines will be provided at Whitegate with the subsequent addition of steam turbines using the waste heat to give a total capacity of approximately 500 MW at the Whitegate plant.

That will be the position in 1977. We are now midway through 1974.

Debate adjourned.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 3rd July, 1974.