Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 11 Nov 1976

Vol. 293 No. 11

Electricity (Supply) (Amendment) Bill, 1976: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

When speaking yesterday I was about to make the point that people in rural areas who do not come within the scope of this Bill—people who are now or are about to build new houses—will be very disappointed that the Minister has not made any provision for them.

Perhaps I might refer to a statement of the Minister in reply to a supplementary question by me in the Dáil on the 14th May, 1975, at column 1865, when he said:

There is another category that must be considered also, namely, the houses being built in closed areas. I am engaged in this study at the moment and I hope to complete it very shortly. It is my wish to formulate some plan to cater for these people.

While the Minister might argue that he has, in his brief, referred to those people by stating that a scheme of deferred payments will be introduced, that is hardly sufficient. Deputies on each side of the House have quoted the enormous figures being quoted by the ESB to people building houses in rural areas. The Minister's brief more or less invites people to keep away from rural areas. He suggests consultation with the ESB and says:

As Deputies no doubt readily appreciate the cost of connection of any new house to the electricity supply is largely determined by its location in relation to the nearest electricity distribution centre.

In other words, he invites people to come into built-up areas which, in my opinion, shows a rural bias. We are all delighted to note the lovely new houses being built all around the country; visitors and others often remark on this fact. It is indeed worth while and has added considerably to the countryside. Some people make the point that a person building a house in a rural area does not have to meet the expenses one might have to meet in a town, that one can get a house built more cheaply in a town. From experience I know well that the development of a site in country areas can be very costly. There are other extras and overheads that have to be met, such as water connection and the building of septic tanks. All of that costs a considerable amount in contrast to a person going into a town getting a developed site, when he will have all of those amenities laid on. Perhaps the Minister would examine further the question of subsidisation of people who have to build houses in rural areas. In most instances they do not have a choice.

We all know the position in relation to land. Agricultural land is going at a very high price and land for development purposes, even in rural areas, is fetching a very high price also. I know of a young man recently who bought a site for £2,000. That would not be any more than he would have to pay in a built-up area.

Another thing that disappoints me about this Bill is that the Minister has forgotten completely the few inhabited islands left around our coast. I mentioned the plight of such islanders on a number of occasions here. The Minister states that this is a once-and-for-all scheme and that no grants in aid will be available in the future for any further development of electrification. As has been said by myself and others here, we are proud of the progress made by the ESB. But I think that the small portion of people still awaiting supply, such as those I have mentioned, should not be left out in the cold. The cost involved will probably be fairly high. But when one notes that the Department of the Gaeltacht are in a position to provide funds for the Gaeltacht islands in respect of this kind of development, I do not think it unreasonable to ask that people living on the few islands off the west coast who do not speak Irish and who have lost the language through no fault of theirs should be catered for. Perhaps the Minister would see if he can prevail on the Government to make some funds available for these few islands, Clare Island, Inishturk and Inishbofin, those with which I am familiar. They are entitled to this service. Tourism is playing a large part in the life of the people on these islands also. More people are getting to know about them. If the people living there want to take full advantage of tourism it will be necessary that they have electricity provided.

Another point I should like to put to the Minister is this: the Bill caters only for applicants up to the end of March, 1975. This is unfair. Would the Minister consider ensuring that people who applied recently and who are anxious to avail of this subsidy could get it? Would he tell us when it is proposed to have the Bill in operation? When will the money be provided to allow the ESB to go ahead with the scheme? During the last two or three years we have had several Bills introduced and have found ourselves without money to implement them. One of those is the supplementary Social Welfare Bill, which was welcomed in the House and which all Deputies agreed was necessary. Although that Bill was passed a year ago it has not been implemented because presumably the money has not been made available by the Government. I would like to get a guarantee from the Minister in regard to when money will be provided to implement this Bill because there are many people waiting to get the ESB power supply. I hope there will be no delay in implementing it.

I welcome the introduction of this Bill which provides the last opportunity to people residing in rural areas who are not connected to the ESB supply, to connect at subsidised rates which are very attractive. It applies to people residing in old houses and £300,000 is considered adequate to give a generous subsidy to those applicants. It is well to encourage any person who is not connected to the ESB supply to get connected on those subsidised terms.

There are about 900 houses still unconnected to the ESB supply. We must also remember that we have 98.4 per cent of residents in rural areas connected to the ESB supply. This is very high when it is related to connections in the USA and many European countries. This is due to the foresight of our predecessors in Government, the then Cumann na nGaedheal Government who initiated what was known as the Shannon Scheme in 1927. The inauguration of the Shannon Scheme at Ardnacrusha, County Clare, provided the first water power in the country. If it was not for the forward thinking at that time we would not have had adequate current when industrialisation came.

The people who for one reason or another were not in a financial position to be connected with the ESB will now be able to avail of the subsidies provided. Those are, particularly, the people in the congested districts of every county on the west coast. I saw a particularly worrying example of a person in Mayo who had not this electrification. This person was provided with a kidney machine but, because there was no ESB connection this facility could not be availed of and he had to attend hospital twice weekly. This was a great hardship. When the Minister visited those areas in Mayo he was brought face to face with the urgency of making provision for people in pockets very remote from the services enjoyed by other people.

I would like to see young people building houses being able to receive subsidised terms. At the moment, because of financial restrictions, this cannot be done. I hope, when extra finance can be provided, that the Minister will be able to give some incentive to those young people building their own homes. We should all encourage the 900 odd people in the country, who now have a chance to be connected with the ESB supply, to avail of it. As it is the final opportunity they would be well advised, when such generous subsidies are being made available, to avail of them. The Minister will pick up the Bill and reduce the demand by the ESB in a very substantial way, and that is an encouragement to any late applicant. I support the allocation of this £300,000 and hope that people will now make use of the opportunities given to them.

I wish to intervene very briefly in this debate and I do so because the Bill will be of the utmost disappointment to very many people in my constituency of Wexford. There are quite a number of people there with very large estimates for the installation of electricity who have been waiting for quite some time, some of them almost two years, in the hope that when this Bill would be passed here it would bring some relief to them. They will be sorely disappointed when they find out what the Bill contains. Many of those people have very high estimates for the installation of electricity in their homes too, and the hope was strong that this measure, when it would be passed by Dáil Éireann, would have brought them some assistance by way of grant or otherwise towards those very high estimates. As a result of waiting, the estimates have increased. As everybody is aware, the estimates from the ESB increase from month to month. The estimate may be for two or three poles for installation. If a new generator is needed that shoots up the Bill very high indeed.

This measure will bring no relief whatsoever to any person waiting for electricity in my constituency. I doubt if anyone will benefit. I had a case during the week where a person had been quoted a very high figure for the installation of electricity in his farmhouse. He bought the holding a couple of years back. The person who was in it prior to him did not apply for the installation of electricity when that area was being finally redeveloped. He waited in the hope that this Bill would cover him, and it does not. He has no hope and he has now to pay out £700 or £800 for the installation of electricity. Everybody is aware that one of the major requirements in any homestead is electricity.

Is the Deputy sure that that person is not covered?

I have been informed that he is not.

Informed by whom?

From the Minister's Department and from the ESB. I had the letter only during the past week. He was not in possession of the holding when the area was redeveloped.

That does not matter. I find it hard to deal with individual cases in a debate like this because every case is different.

Nor would I expect the Minister to deal with individual cases, but in this case he has been told by the ESB that because he was not in possession of the holding when that area was redeveloped he does not qualify for the subsidy under this Bill. If the Minister says that he does, I will be quite happy in this case.

Is the Deputy sure he was informed by my Department?

The reply said that as far as they were concerned they felt that it did not apply to him and that the ESB would write directly to me to inform me whether he was covered or not under this measure.

I would want to know the details. If the Deputy would give them to me.

I will have to check back on it and find out the details.

It sounds as if he might be covered, from what the Deputy has said.

He said to me that when the area was finally redeveloped he was not in possession of the house.

That does not matter.

If the Minister tells me it does not matter if the previous occupant of the house did not for one reason or another apply for electricity, this subsidy will now apply to him, that is OK. This is something we can check.

This Bill should have gone much further. I know the difficulties of the financial situation at present, but I feel that in the interests of the nation this Bill should have gone very much further. As has been said in this debate, a very large number of people building their own houses are applying for electricity. When they apply they find that the estimate is so high that it is almost impossible and in many cases quite impossible for them to instal it. This Bill does nothing whatever to meet that case. It should. The Minister should go back to the Cabinet and ask for further money and amend the Bill to deal with that type of case. People with excellent sites for building houses cannot build on those sites. The cost of the installation of electricity is one of the things that would prevent them doing so. When people wish to build a house the first question they will have to ask themselves is: what will it cost? Whether they qualified for grants or not, and a large number of them will not qualify any more, the big question is the cost of installation of electricity. The Minister should take steps to remedy that position. Were it possible to introduce some system of HP for electricity, were it possible that the cost of the installation of electricity could be spread over a few years, it might help.

The last word I will say on this is that I strongly appeal to the Minister to have another look at this Bill and to include something in it to cover cases of the type I have mentioned. The amount of money mentioned in this is very limited indeed. The amount of work it will do will certainly be very limited. We could approach this in a different way. We should at this stage, in view of the prohibitive cost in many cases of the installation of electricity, introduce some system of grants or subsidies or, failing those, some system whereby the cost of the initial installation of electricity can be spread over a period of years.

I will not delay the House very long. I welcome the introduction of this Bill because we, TDs, Parliamentary Secretaries, Ministers and local representatives, are continually being approached about this special service charge and this big sum of money which is mentioned in the notification. I thank the Minister for having allocated the sum of £300,000 for the purpose of subsidising the many homes that have yet to get a supply of electricity.

Many people are very disappointed when they get notification from the Department or from the local ESB office. I knew one progressive young farmer in my constituency who got a demand for £1,150. Electricity was necessary in order to develop his farm and to provide an adequate water supply. When details of this scheme were published recently this young man phoned me to see if he could avail of the scheme. He had waited for two years to see if something would be done but finally he had to pay £1,150 so that he might carry out the necessary improvements. He is very anxious to find out if he would benefit from the provisions of this Bill and I hope the Minister will be able to help him.

Recently a young man who is married for only the last six months contacted me with regard to the amount of money demanded from him. He is not three miles from the town of Sligo but he was quoted a sum of £750 for ESB supply. I told him that I had yet to see any change made in ESB figures once they were quoted to the people concerned. I hope this man will benefit from this Bill. Otherwise, he and his family will not be able to get a supply of electricity. Another category who suffer are old people because quite often they have to do without heating or light.

I think the Minister will find himself scarce of money by the time all the allocations are made. Very many people are faced with demands ranging from £750 to £1,150 and they need all the assistance they can get. I accept that it is expensive to connect homes in outlying areas having regard to the cost of wages, materials and clerical assistance. Formerly the owners of such houses had no option but to defer applying for a supply of electricity.

On a few occasions the Minister was asked to consider the provision of a second power station at Arigna. If that could be done it would not be too expensive to have an electricity supply over a wide area—by this I mean a rural area. The proposed station would be in the centre of a rural area convenient to Arigna. Not alone would it cut the expense of providing a supply to many homes, it would also create substantial employment in the Arigna coalmines. This would be of great help to that part of Leitrim and Roscommon that is served by coal supplies from the Arigna colliery.

Deputy Taylor referred to people who are obliged to use a kidney machine in their homes. If it should happen that a person needed a kidney machine in a home that had not a supply of electricity, such a person would have no option but to go to hospital and his relatives might be obliged to travel up to 20 miles to visit him. People who need this service should receive special priority when the applications are sent in.

The amount of money involved here is about the smallest amount that the House has been asked to sanction for many years. A sum of £300,000 is very small when one considers that we borrow up to £675 million and that our national debt is £3,000 million. Yet we say to a certain section that we will only provide £300,000 to ensure that they get their normal rights.

I have never understood why a certain section of the people have been discriminated against. The Minister in his statement said that there are approximately 420,000 in rural Ireland receiving electricity under the rural electrification scheme and that there are 800 or 900 left out. Personally, I believe the number is much more, but let us assume for the sake of argument the number is correct.

Is that not completely wrong? Is not the whole idea that everyone should get a fair crack of the whip and be treated equally? That is what we should aim for, whether we are legislators at ministerial level or are Members of either House of the Oireachtas. Those unfortunate people have been discriminated against for a long time and it is obvious they will not be fully helped now.

The advent of rural electrification was the greatest thing that happened in rural Ireland. It gave the chance of a better and easier life to those people, whether they were county council tenants or had their own private houses, whether they were farming or working for the local authority. We must remember that they have cost the State very little money during the years. These people have not got running water or sewerage schemes provided out of public funds. They have not got public lights outside their homes or at the crossroads. We are not able to help those people in any way because they live off the beaten track. Some of them may live in places like the Black Valley, or the side of a hill or even very far inland. They are doing a great job in their own right and that has never been appreciated.

Today we are being asked to pass a Bill for £300,000. If it cost twice or three times that amount, it is the duty of Dáil Éireann to provide the money to give those people a fair crack of the whip. We are talking here about the drop in population in the rural countryside which is the result of the attraction of the bright lights. We should be falling backwards trying to keep people in the countryside. These people may not have their own land; they might be living in a council house or in a private house. There will always be people who want to farm or work for the council but there is no hope of attracting even a small factory to these areas unless there is electricity.

There has been a great deal of talk about this £300,000. The State will get back a big portion of that within the next five years. Once electricity is installed in a house the man sets about providing the electrical gadgets of the day, a cooker, television, radio, blanket and different equipment in the yard, lights, milking machines and so on. The State gets VAT on all those items. In other words, from the time that house is connected, the State gets revenue from current used and the new customer who buys these gadgets. Therefore, this is a very sound investment and the Minister should look for more money. We are borrowing very large sums and it is very hard to see where the money is going. It would be hard to find a more productive project than providing electricity in rural areas.

Several Deputies have already spoken about what is needed in the country. This £300,000 can only be regarded as a little sop. I cannot recall any Bill being brought into this House to provide for such a small amount. We should not hesitate to double or treble that amount which would provide subsidies for those people who want to build new homes in the countyside. When planning to buy a house one must also take into account the enormous cost of installing electricity. If this costs a great deal, what happens? The would-be builder, the man who applies for planning permission, will move nearer a town, creating further congestion and becomes another user of an already over-loaded water and sewerage system. If he built in the rural area he would be a much happier man and the State would be better off. We talk about the high price of building land but how will we keep these costs down when the ESB ask would-be builders for from £600, to a few thousand pounds to instal electricity?

Nobody can expect any newly-wed young girl to go into a farm unless there is electricity. Those are the facts of life. Many people have brought up the subject of building a new house. The ESB consider this a new case although the new house is only 200 yards from the old one and the people have been living there for 20 years. The ESB are charging exorbitant amounts to install electricity there. These people should not be charged £200 or £300 for moving 100 or 150 yards further down a field.

What will the Minister do about rural electrification? What have the Government in mind about the people who will want to build in rural areas? Will we go further than this Bill and say that there will be no further subsidies for people who build in the rural areas? That would be a tragedy. People living in rural areas find it very hard to compete with people living in the built up areas. They will find it hard to educate their children if they are not provided with a transport service. If they want an evening out they have to travel seven or eight miles to the nearest town. That takes petrol. Very few of the people we are helping here today send their children to ballet classes. Have they not the same right as anybody else to do that? It is our duty to provide the necessary funds so that their children can avail of all the good things of today.

The Minister should go back to the Minister for Finance and persuade him, gently or otherwise, and come back here with a Bill that would provide more money so that an applicant who is being charged a very high sum for rural electricification will not be stopped, because of shortage of money, from building a house in the rural areas.

There are some people who wait for somebody else in an area to have electricity installed. Once the poles are laid and the lines are there, it should not be very expensive to install electricity in nearby houses. If a person living a mile or one-and-a-half miles from the nearest transformer applies for electricity, he must pay a very large sum, but if an individual closer to the transformer then asks for electricity, the charge cannot be very high. In my opinion the subsidy being given to the original purchaser is no more than adequate.

If we are to tackle this problem properly the money being provided in this Bill is very small. Perhaps the Minister was lucky to get that amount; perhaps it is only a start. When replying he will probably tell us what he has in mind for the future and what he has in mind for the person who intends to build in rural areas.

A farmer and his wife rear their family and their son or daughter comes back to take up a position perhaps ten miles from the old home. It could be handy for parents to give their children a site at the end of the field and it would be very sad if the ESB charged them a very large sum of money. Perhaps they would not charge very much if the new home was built near the old home, but even if it is only 200 or 300 yards from the old home, they are charged a very high price.

The Minister should make a supreme effort to get more money for rural electrification. I realise he may have a hard job but every Member of the House is behind him because if that money is invested along the lines suggested here, it will be a very sound investment for the future.

This legislation is welcome. Deputy Meaney drew attention to the fact that this is a special Bill making provision for a maximum of £300,000 for what the Minister generally described as "finishing off" the old idea of rural electrification. The previous speaker said it is rather unusual for us to be dealing here with a Bill covering a provision of a mere £300,000. Normally, in matters like this, we talk in terms of a much higher money level. This is an important Bill, despite the small figure involved. What is really remarkable about it is the fact that this is a Bill to redeem one of the promises made by the Coalition in the West-Mayo by-election.

Basically, that is what the Bill is doing. It is a first experience, and a welcome one, in the three-and-a-half years of Coalition Government of the Government taking some step to redeem at least one of the by-election promises.

I hope Deputy Lalor will stay for my reply and I will convince him of the contrary.

Fair enough. The Minister pointed out that the people in the Black Valley and Ballycroy area do not have available to them a service which is now regarded as a basic amenity. It is not just a basic amenity; it is a basic necessity. In other areas of the country, such as Wexford, Clare and several other counties, there are people who are deprived of this basic necessity. Questions were asked about these last week and in a bulk reply the Minister said the ESB were still studying the situation. When I left my room Deputy Seán Browne was telephoning the ESB in an effort to get that body to clear up the matter and the ESB confirmed that these cases are not covered.

I believe we will find very little evidence of availability of this service to people other than in the two areas mentioned specifically. The Minister is, of necessity I believe, being too careful. He says that trying to eliminate anomalies in rural electrification over the whole country would be a virtually impossible task. It is a downright impossible task in view of the ceiling of £300,000 he has set. I believe widening the scope of this measure would be a worth-while exercise in providing potential applicants with what the Minister has described as a basic amenity. Other basic amenities are water supply and sanitation. Successive Fianna Fáil Governments provided grants to encourage people to avail of these amenities and basic requirements.

The Minister spells out here the finalisation of the rural electrification scheme with a paltry provision of £300,000 and he says there will be no more State assistance. I welcome the compliment the Minister paid to successive Fianna Fáil Governments for their continuous recognition and support of this basic requirement of electricity in the home and on the farm. We are ahead now of Britain and the USA and just a short head behind Germany and possibly Switzerland and Sweden. Fair dues to the Minister that he accepts the fact that the rural electrification scheme sponsored by successive Fianna F£il Governments has put this country in this enviable position. We are rather proud of the achievement. Around 98 to 99 per cent of our houses in rural areas now have electricity. This provision of £300,000 is a rather poor contribution from this socialist group towards the finalisation of the rural electrification scheme.

The Minister offered a sop to those who will henceforth have to pay the full cost of providing themselves with electricity. He paid tribute to the ESB for their assistance in providing this sop. Supply to new applicants will be on the never-never system. The ESB have agreed to deferred payments where subsidised terms are not available. I take it he had discussions with the board about this over a period of time.

Unfortunately, the message does not seem to have got around to the divisional inspectors. I had occasion recently to write to the divisional inspector in Portlaoise in connection with an application for electricity by two entrepreneurs who were endeavouring to get a small industrial project off the ground. They erected a suitable building a short distance from a local village but the ESB asked for almost £900 to install electricity. Because they had spent their own resources and the accommodation obtained from banking institutions to purchase a site and erect a building, I decided to ask the ESB if it would be possible to pay this amount on an instalment basis. The ESB had indicated that it would be possible in three or four years' time, if they used a sufficient amount of electricity, to refund some of the capital contribution, as is the normal practice. I was informed by the company that they were not allowed to accept the cost of installation on an instalment basis.

In view of the fact that discussions were in progress between the Minister and the ESB in relation to the question of deferred payments—the Minister has already paid tribute to the company for accepting this arrangement—one would have expected that the message would have filtered down to divisional inspector level. The official I had contact with should have been in a position to tell me that while it would not be possible to accommodate my constituents then that the proposition I put was under consideration between the Department and the company. I hope the Minister will develop more on his statement, that full details of the scheme will be available shortly.

It is not in the Bill; it has nothing to do with the Bill.

I agree, but I presume I am in order talking about this because the Minister dealt with it in his speech. I will make my constituents aware of the position this afternoon. I should like to draw the Minister's attention to the fact that the Department of Local Government can help people who need essential amenities such as water and sewerage. The Minister told us that electricity is now a basic amenity of life and for that reason I was disappointed that there is no provision in the Bill to help out those who live in rural areas and who are anxious to instal electricity. Such people could benefit under the former rural electrification scheme but now if of necessity they must erect a new house they must pay the full capital cost of installing electricity. The Minister has suggested that such people should consult with the officials at the local ESB office about possible relocation of the site of a house. In most cases the people involved, small farmers, have put a lot of money into improving their holdings and would not be in a position to pay up to £2,000 for the installation of electricity. There is not much point in officials of the ESB telling such a farmer that he would be supplied with power if he built his new house some distance away from his farm buildings and the charge then would only be £100. I hope the ESB can be prevailed upon to be a little more reasonable in their demands and in meeting the requirements of existing consumers in rural areas.

While this measure is not very wide-sweeping, it is the end of the sugar stick as far as electricity is concerned, the remaining ½p lollypop of the £300,000 election promises made in West Mayo, it has afforded Government Deputies an opportunity of highlighting the problems of rural areas. I do not think any Minister in recent years has got as much credit from his own backbenchers as this Minister has. Some extraordinary measures have gone through the House and we did not hear a contribution from Government backbenchers, but everybody has trotted in since this Bill was introduced to get a lick of this lollypop. Government Deputies are anxious to show the people in the west that the Government are doing something for them but if they look for extra money for areas other than the two specified they will find it difficult to get it.

I am a member of Laois County Council and unfortunately in recent times, from the official point of view it has become the policy to build houses in groups instead of building isolated cottages for farm labourers. Not so long ago a farmer whose son was getting married decided to give him a site on which to build a new house. The ideal site was decided on but it has ESB wires overhead strung between pylons, so they had to decide on an alternative site. They discovered, however, that the ESB charge for connection would be about £1,100. Nowadays the county council realise that before they build houses in outlying areas they have to contact the ESB to find out what the connection costs will be.

There was a lot of credit given to the Minister when he announced his intention to introduce this Bill which would help to subsidise electricity supply to new houses. He lost all his credit, however, when we read the Bill and discovered it does not mean a thing in the matter of new ESB connections. In the case of the farmer's son I mentioned, I found it was useless to appeal to the local ESB office to try to get special treatment for him. He had chosen the alternative site because of ESB pylons on the site he would have used. The ESB's reply was that it was just too bad, that under their regulations they could not do anything.

I accept from the Minister that some of the anomalies will be removed by this Bill but I suggest that he should provide more money for this essential service. The Minister for Industry and Commerce has to come back to us for more money for the IDA and the ICC and I do not see anything wrong with the Minister for Transport and Power coming back to us occasionally looking for more money to provide this necessary amenity for rural households. We do not oppose this Bill in principle because it will do a little of the work required.

I speak on this Bill because I have a particular case before me from an area which could not be called rural in the sense in which Deputies have been speaking. The case I mention is in Enniskerry, a fairly well built-up district. Recently a young friend of mine, aged 27 or 28, newly married, returned from England. He decided to build a house in Enniskerry and he was asked by the ESB to pay a sum in excess of £1,100 for connection. The distance from the site to the supply is about half a mile. I went to the accountant in the ESB. He was extremely helpful and agreed to get in touch with the local office. The young man had said that even if £200 could be knocked off the quotation it would be of some help, but £1,100 was prohibitive. The man in the ESB said that if the applicant would dig some of the drains and trenches the amount could be reduced. The young man was happy at the possibility of reducing the cost. About ten days afterwards he received a letter from the ESB, which I will quote. Enclosing that letter, the young man wrote to me:

Please find enclosed a copy of a letter which I received from the ESB. I find it surprising and disturbing. Hopefully Mr. —— of the ESB will use some of his influence to clarify the problem.

Here is the letter he had received from the ESB:

Following representations made by Alderman Briscoe concerning the capital contribution required towards the cost of supplying electricity to this site, I am writing to tell you that the charge cannot be reduced. The new line to supply the site has been designed in the most economical way possible and the contribution calculated accordingly. The terms originally issued to you on the 11th May, 1976, have now expired and I regret that inflation has increased the contribution now required to £1,209. As before, this quotation will remain valid for three months.

The last paragraph of the Minister's Second Stage speech is excellent but I was not aware that before embarking on the building of a house a person should ascertain the cost of having power supplied. I fail to understand why it should cost £1,200 to bring electricity a distance of about half a mile. This begs the question of who is being subsidised by the person paying the bill. We are told that in the event of another person building a house nearby a refund in part is made to the person who originally paid the bill in full. Consequently, if a number of people build houses in the area there would be a fairly good refund but we are talking of a very big "if". In any case it would appear to be a rather peculiar way of operating.

The Minister tells us that in order to ameliorate this type of burden he intends having introduced a scheme of deferred payments. What period of time has he in mind in this regard or what would be the approximate amount of the instalment? I realise the special problems of areas such as the Black Valley. Such areas are remote, but the case I am talking about is not a remote area. The gentleman in question received a reply which indicated that should he make further representations, the quotation would be likely to be greater. Although the price quoted would apply if taken up within a three-month period, the pressure on people to act so quickly is great.

In the case I am talking of I could understand the exorbitant estimate if the area concerned were, say somewhere high up in the Dublin mountains although even there there should be some electricity supply not too far away, but I am talking of Enniskerry. I should like to hear what the Minister has to say about cases such as these and to tell us whether such persons can expect some kind of assistance.

It seems to me that the £300,000 being voted here represents a mere pittance in relation to the amount required to deal with this situation. It is all very well to talk about this Bill marking the final stage of the rural electrification scheme, but in the case I am talking of the person concerned came back from England unaware of the special subsidy scheme that existed up to May, 1975. There is no longer such a scheme, so perhaps the Minister has some advice for those people who may wish to come back here in the future and build houses. There are not many coming back now but we can expect some to return when things are better. By that time will these people be asked to pay £2,000 each for a connection?

This Bill is too restrictive in its application. It is aimed at a very small number of people only. I have a strong suspicion that the measure has been brought in as a result of pressure applied in the early days of the bye-election campaign in Mayo. At that time I was told by people in that area of Mayo referred to in the explanatory memorandum that the Minister had given them an undertaking to have them supplied. The Bill is merely adding insult to injury when one thinks in terms of the exorbitant charges demanded from those who do not come within the terms of this Bill. I am not in favour of referring here to specific cases but I consider it germane to the debate at this stage to refer to a letter I received from the ESB following an appeal to them to reduce their estimate for a connection for a man living in a cottage in a Gaeltacht area of Donegal. The estimate was for £3,790. I have had photostatic copies of the letter made for future reference. While it may not be in order to refer to the committee that is to be set up to look into the affairs of State-sponsored bodies, I take the opportunity of this Bill to offer some criticism of the ESB. However, I must record first the tremendous success of this body. Rural electrification has been a revolutionary force in the lives of our people. It has become an integral part of our whole economy and social life. Must we be penalised, though, for the great benefits that this scheme has conferred on us? We might say that we are now experiencing stage two of the ESB's operations because we are dealing with a board that has become immense but which also has become arrogant and dictatorial.

Many Deputies can relate the problems of people being asked to pay too much for connections. In some cases the amount required is greater than the value of the house concerned. When one asks the reason for an estimate being so high, he merely is told that it has been arrived at by the board's method of calculation. One will not be told that it takes, say, six men working for three days and using so much material to make power available. My suggestion is that as much as possible of the work being done by the ESB in this sphere should be removed from them and given to private enterprise. Should not a person seeking a supply have the right to seek estimates from a number of local electricians? Another case I have in mind is that concerning a man in the village of Ardara who built a new bakery beside his old premises and who was told that he would have to pay £700 to have his electricity line transferred. The only explanation was that a new transformer was needed because the one that was there was loaded. He pays for a transformer that will serve several other people, and that is already serving a number of them.

Those are the things that have damaged the image of the ESB throughout the country. It is not sufficient merely to say: "We are a great body. Look at what we did in spite of what people thought. We brought light to the tops of mountains". Give me plenty of money and qualified people and I would do the same thing; anybody would. They must now recognise that they have become an indispensible part of our economy. They have got to behave accordingly. Some agency of State has got to be set up to ensure that they do because they constitute far too important a link in our whole economic set-up and they should not be allowed to go unbridled.

This might sound rather paradoxical, but I object to the profits made by the ESB this year. They have changed a deficit into a surplus, if I remember details of their annual report correctly. That is not a commendable exercise at a time when our people were on their knees in an economic recession and paying mounting prices for everything. Why should they have chosen the worst period in our economic history to convert a deficit into a profit? For the life of me I cannot understand why.

Though I shall not go into the details of it here, I question the wisdom of their foreign borrowing. The interest rates imposed are merely adding to the stupid borrowing the Government have done and aggravate an already very serious position.

The huge rise in ESB costs hit all consumers, the poor in particular. A lot of that has been blamed on the increase in the price of oil. The ESB can rightly pass part of that blame onto the Government, because every time the Arabs did something the Government matched them with another increase. A quarter of the total consumption of oil in this country is accounted for by the ESB. That is colossal. While they may maintain that their old system of purchasing oil was a good one, we are paying for it now. I question the wisdom of the system they had of purchasing oil, under which they dealt with three main companies and bought spot cargoes at breakdown prices, if you like.

The Deputy seems to be moving away from the scope of the Bill.

I am dealing directly with ESB costs. I am not questioning the Chair's ruling. This is very much germane to what is in the Bill because it is an attempt to reduce installation charges for certain people. I am trying to deal with overall costings and their causes in relation to ESB charges. For example, when oil prices rocketed and scarcity was reported, we discovered that the ESB had no storage, no contract; they were, day to day, playing one company against another —this worked fairly well for a time— and picking up spot cargoes. For a time that did give the consumer a certain advantage. I should like to have seen a long-term contract, a huge storage and less dependence on oil for the generation of current. At one time it was very difficult even for the Government——

The Deputy has made his point and is moving beyond the scope of this Bill.

I am still on the Bill, I hope. At one time it was very difficult to get the ESB to resort to any native fuel generation. Those were days when oil was the cheapest of all fuels and we had fairly well exhausted our hydraulic power. They wanted oil; there was no doubt that they were orientated in that direction.

There is great difficulty even yet in getting this House to agree that they should use native fuel.

I hope the Minister is ensuring that they do.

Oh, I am but Deputy Barrett says they should not.

This has a social as well as an economic value. I know Deputy Barrett's views on it perfectly well.

The Chair thinks that at this stage the Deputy is straying from the contents of the Bill.

If the Chair does not permit me to deal with the method of costing of the ESB, I am afraid I cannot keep within the fairly strict confines of what he would have me adhere to because it would be hardly worth discussing the measure at all. I would have thought that costs were most relevant in this case. This Bill is all about costs.

The cost of installation, not the cost of electricity.

The Chair is merely trying to get the Deputy to keep within the confines of the Bill.

The cost of electricity is what we are dealing with in the Bill. We are trying to reduce costs. If the Chair insists that I do not speak, I will sit down.

The Chair does not wish that at all. The Chair wishes the Deputy would keep to the Bill.

I am making the point that, if things in the ESB were as they should be, huge installation costs would not be necessary. I do not think they are warranted anyhow. I want to say in relation to installations —if the Chair will confine me to that only—that in the method of calculating installations two slide rules are used. The board use one method of giving an estimate to a customer but use another method within for the actual carrying out of the job which works out cheaper. They have two methods of costing. That is something that may not be known to the Minister, but it is a fact. The first method of calculation is one that is over and above covering everything that would be foreseeable in relation to the cost. For the actual measuring up of the job before it is carried out a totally different method is applied.

I am sure the Deputy is incorrect about that; he must be.

That is not a complete secret at the moment.

It is a secret from me and I am sure from 99 per cent of the population of this country. Does the Deputy mean that they deliberately polarise accounts to hoodwink the customer?

They use two methods of calculating the cost of installation. They use one method for giving a customer an estimate and, when it comes down to the job, they have detailed costings carried out measuring every inch of material and every hour of work that goes into it. These are two separate things and the end result of the actual work carried out is that the cost is much below what was the figure given.

I would imagine the estimate might not be correct, because it is an estimate, but the customer is charged for costing.

The customer pays what is the estimate. He is not told how it was arrived at. Like the letter Deputy Briscoe read out, he gets a reply back saying: "You are terribly lucky and if you do not take it soon, it will cost more".

The Deputy is making a serious charge. I hope he realises what he is saying.

I do indeed. I am making it deliberately because I got my facts from people who were involved. Can the Minister give us any particulars, when replying, of a position where a customer has been given the actual figures of the cost after installation was carried out?

I give them here in the Dáil when I am asked for them.

In relation to any particular installation?

Deputies frequently ask—I get many questions—why the cost of connecting Mrs. So-and-So was £1,100. In my reply I give the cost of the cable, the man hours, the number of transformers and whatever else is involved. I have done so a number of times in this House and I presume previous Ministers did the same.

I should like to see it given to the customer in relation to the cost and to what he is charged in relation to installation. We do know that if the work was permitted to be done by a local engineer, to standards specified by the ESB, it would work out much cheaper.

In relation to costing the ESB are spending too much under the heading of training. They are over-staffed. They deny that they are but they have shown a reduction in staff this year without impairing output in any way which, in itself, is an admission that there was over-staffing. Neither are they wise to be competing in the retail business for the sale of products. They resent the intervention of the Prices Commission. They do not think the Prices Commission should interfere with them. I am inclined to agree with them. The National Prices Commission can only look at the surface of anything. If we are to have an effective Prices Commission we have now reached the stage where it should be a commission which can examine efficiency, production methods, how costs are arrived at, not the across the counter profit. The ESB have a right to resent the National Prices Commission looking at their charges and stating if the consumer is paying enough, too much or too little. The ESB ask the Prices Commission to give them a free hand to charge what they like and they will do a tremendous job.

The ESB have to take into account that they have much more effect on our economy than any State Department. Their behaviour in relation to the economy generally is very much bound up with production, production costs, consumer charges and even with the social life of the people. They are using a tremendous amount of consumers' money. Now that the ESB have reached the stage that they have proved they have done a great job and have brought power to the remotest parts of Ireland they should sit down to examine how it can be done in the most economical way and how it can best be applied to improve the economy. That applies to manufacturing industry, agriculture, farmyards and the thousand and one ways in which it can be used.

I am sure the Deputy appreciates that the Chair has allowed his contribution to get rather wide.

I thought some of the speeches so far covered the whole range of the work of the ESB.

The present occupant of the Chair is concerned to keep the debate within the scope of the Bill.

This Bill is so restrictive in its applications and deals with so few cases that it tends to aggravate those who will not benefit. In the beginning everybody benefited and although many people were doubtful of the ESB once it became part of their lives people wanted it. People now feel they must have an ESB connection and some people are straining to use it when they cannot afford it.

The deferred payment system announced by the Minister could be helpful provided it is not made an easy way of getting the big cost accepted. My remarks are possibly more relevant on the measure to set up the committee that will have an opportunity of looking behind the scenes in relation to the ESB and several other bodies.

This has been an interesting and, I must admit, a somewhat more lengthy debate than I thought it would be. I should have realised that with the best intentions in the world the Chair would not be able to confine the debate as rigidly as he would hope to do and that people, as Deputy Brennan has just done, would tend to talk generally about the ESB, their place in the economy of the country and in rural Ireland and their contribution to the development of our economy. I am sure every Deputy will agree with what Deputy Taylor said this morning, that the ESB have been a greater influence in rural Ireland than practically any other thing. Rural electrification—Deputy Lalor referred to it and I do not begrudge him his pride in the fact that it was a Government, of which he was a supporter, that brought in this measure—has been of tremendous benefit to Ireland. In the last few years, not directly because of electricity, although it was one of the contributory causes, there has been a great desire by people not to leave the countryside and not to come into cities and large towns. A lot of the amenities in towns are now available in the countryside as a result of electricity, plus the motor car, which has a social effect in this regard. This has stemmed the flow of people to cities and towns.

Deputy Lalor, Deputy Leonard and Deputy Barrett said that this was a chicken of the West Mayo by-election coming home to roost. That is not true. If it was I would not object to having that label hung around my neck or having to suffer the odium of the politician keeping his promises. I would be quite willing to accept this odium but this goes very much farther. It goes back ten years to another by-election in another part of the country, the South Kerry by-election, as a result of which Deputy John O'Leary came into the House and Deputy Michael Begley was the defeated Fine Gael candidate.

The first place I was interested in was the Black Valley, not Ballycroy. Even though those are the two places mentioned in my opening statement it does not necessarily mean that the beneficiaries under this Bill are confined to those two areas. Practically every rural electrification area, of which there are 792, can benefit under this but those are the two big concentrations of power. Those are the areas where the bills for the connection of electricity were largest. That is the reason why I picked them out. There are also other areas such as Woodford, which Deputy Callanan and Deputy Hogan-O'Higgins mentioned, which will benefit.

This as I said, goes back ten years to the halcyon days when the people who are now in Opposition campaigned in South Kerry. Their campaign was conducted by Deputy Blaney, who now sits on the Independent benches, waiting for a chance to give his ex-colleagues a kick in the behind every chance he gets. His co-director was Mr. Boland, of glorious and almost immortal memory. When Queen Victoria came here the criticism of Yeats in a poem was: "He is parading me crimes, says she, in The Irish Times, says she.” Mr. Boland's contribution to politics seems to be parading in The Irish Times the crimes of his former colleagues. That was an extraordinary by-election, when many promises were made. It was a critical one for the Government of the time, in 1967, which they were determined to win. Another one was held in Waterford at the same time. Every weekend the mighty cars of the mighty men in Taca swished down, splashing mud on the peasants as they passed by to South Kerry to ensure the election of the Government candidate. I was not even in public life at the time. I was not even a county councillor but I was a supporter and member of the Fine Gael Party. I was stationed in Killarney. One of my duties on two Sundays was to go up to the little church in the Black Valley and advise the people there that the best thing they could do was to vote for Michael Begley and get rid of the Government then in power.

Of course not being a public representative I would have taken my turn in the queue. The first speaker on each occasion was a Fianna Fáil Deputy or Minister, whoever was there. In fact Ministers did not go into the Black Valley. It is pretty hard to get at. Each Sunday up on the box with a microphone in his hand was the Fianna Fáil Deputy or councillor of the area and he would say, "You vote No. 1 John O'Leary and you will have electricity in the Black Valley in another three months". The people voted No. 1 John O'Leary but they did not get electricity in the Black Valley in three months. A general election came around again and I understand from the Parliamentary Secretary, Deputy Begley, that up at the church in Black Valley was the Fianna Fáil speaker saying, "You vote for the Fianna Fáil candidate and you will have electricity within three months." They did not get electricity in three months.

Between those two elections, the by-elections of 1969 and the general election, I was in Kerry on my holidays a few times and Deputy Begley told me of this problem in the Black Valley and I went to see for myself. The church of which he had spoken is at the very head of the valley and below that, stretching for a distance of six or seven miles, is the gorgeous valley with a river running through it and it comes out at the other end on the road to Sneem. There are very nice people there. Deputy Begley told me that the people in that area could not really enjoy life as everybody else in Kerry and most parts of Ireland because they had no electricity. I made inquiries and I found that the cost of connecting them, because of the remoteness of the valley, was enormous and they were being asked to make this capital contribution. They accepted in my conversations with them the fixed charge because everybody in the country pays this, and I will explain in a minute how these charges are built up. It is confusing and difficult to understand and I will make it as simple as I can. The electricity was a thing they would welcome but they were asked to pay the fixed charge and the special service charge, and after that the capital contribution, which can range from £10 to £3,000. Of course in an area as remote as that, even seven years ago up to £600, £700 and £800 was being asked from individuals living in the Black Valley for connection of electricity.

That election went and they did not get the electricity, even though they voted as they were advised to do. At the last general election the worm turned and people in the Black Valley did not vote at all. They protested against a Government and a system that, because they were living in a remote area, deprived them of what they considered an essential amenity, and they went on strike.

That is the background of it. When I was given my present responsibilities I discussed that matter with Deputy Begley again and said I would see what was involved and what I could do to help solve the problem. Not long after that, certainly during my first 12 months in office, Deputy Staunton, as he admitted here yesterday, and the late Deputy Henry Kenny came to me. They did not know I was interested in the Black Valley, but they made representations on behalf of an area called Ballycroy in Mayo where the same situation exists. Prior or subsequent to that Deputy Callanan, Deputy Hogan-O'Higgins and Galway Deputies came in and told me about the third area in Woodford where the same position existed. I set about doing what I could for this quite small number of people in remote areas, for whom the very remoteness made life different if not difficult for them, in regard to the absence of what is now considered a basic amenity, even though our fathers and our grandfathers would not have thought so. I decided to get what information I could. Deputies have criticised the small amount of money and the few people being catered for in this regard. The people who have the lists are the ESB, and I must accept when they say it is 80 to 900 people and it can be done for this amount of money. That is the money I am providing here for the purpose of connecting these places to electricity.

Deputy Enda Kenny, by a strange coincidence son of Henry Kenny who, as I said, was one of the people who approached me about this, made a very good point in a very good maiden speech yesterday. Generally speaking, I think the new younger Deputies who came into the House in 1973 are of a higher calibre and have made better contributions to debates on both sides of the House that I have listened to from those who came in with me in 1969. I do not know whether Deputy Barrett or Deputy Briscoe would agree with that. The contributions from the younger Deputies in this House now are thoughtful, significant and well researched. I am very pleased about that, because politics has come to be debased, and they perhaps can bring some idealism and vision back into their contributions here and from here out to the ordinary people.

No matter how much critics outside this House, or indeed we ourselves, decry our role, in this country the alternative to politics and to politicians does not bear thinking about. We are elected here for a very short time in the history of the free Parliaments of this country. Any one of our contributions, be it from Minister, front bench spokesman, backbench Opposition or Government Deputies is pretty insignificant; but we have responsibilities and duties. One of the responsibilities is that when we take public money from taxpayers— and that is all that is spent in this House; nobody ever puts a £10 note from his own pocket up on the benches and says we should discuss what we are going to do with that— we have the responsibility to spend that money with the interests of the taxpayers in mind. We also have a duty to see as far as possible that the quality of life and the standard of living enjoyed by people, whether they are rural or urban, is as much in balance as possible. One of the ways that can be done is to see that what material benefits are available are available to all the community, though we may have at some stage to spend the taxpayers' money and to spend it in a responsible way to fulfil our duties.

The money we are providing here has been criticised as being too small, £300,000. In my speech introducing this Bill I pointed out that £80 million or so has been spent on rural electrification since it was introduced in 1946, just after the war. Of this the taxpayer has provided about £27 million. Regarding the cost of connecting these last 2 per cent of houses in remote, scattered areas throughout the country, the relationship between what has been spent, what has been voted in this House and what will be spent is the same relationship. When we vote here £300,000 we are talking about a figure of around a million pounds which will be spent, because all the rural electrification schemes have had a contribution from the ESB. Of the £80 million so far spent they have contributed £53 million and the taxpayer £27 million. The same relationship will apply to the money we are voting today and that should be sufficient. That is what the ESB have asked for.

Deputy Lalor pointed out a minute ago that, when the question was answered last week by the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, I said this information was not yet available from the various counties. I think some people were surprised. They thought it would be an easy thing to ring up the ESB and ask how many people in a certain county were looking for electricity under the scheme. As most Deputies know, the ESB have divided the country into 792 rural electrification areas. They are not necessarily grouped countywise but are under regional offices. In addition the information they have may not be asolutely accurate because there were cases between 1971 and 1975 when people refused to take electricity under the subsidised scheme and they may be still on the ESB books. It could also happen that some of the houses have been knocked down in the meantime. Until the whole scheme is finished I think it would be nearly impossile to say how many houses are connected and the cost. The best estimate the ESB can give is that between 800 and 900 houses are involved. The amount the ESB looked for from the Exchequer was less than the £300,000 I am looking for now, but I put in a little extra because I thought the estimate might not be correct.

The Minister should not tell that to the Minister for Finance. He might take it back.

First, I shall try as best I can to explain how the figures were arrived at. I referred to this matter in my opening statement. Under the rural electrification scheme a subsidised price is given for the connection of electricity to houses in rural areas. If that charge is £700 or less then the ESB will foot the bill and look for a return of 5.2 per cent on their investment. If the cost exceeds £700 they will look for £36.40 annual return. Everyone in the country, whether they live in the heart of Dublin or in a rural area, has to pay a fixed charge and this varies from house to house. In the urban areas it is the number of rooms in a house that determines the fixed charge level and in rural areas it is the square footage of the area to be connected. There is no blueprint that can be used; it is a variation for each connection.

I have given an example of a house where the charge was £700 and where the ESB look for 5.2 per cent in that case. If the fixed charge for a rural house is £15 per annum the ESB will take that as a contribution towards the cost of providing the £700. The special charge is £36.40 minus the £15; in other words the amount is £21.40. If the charge is £1,000—£300 more than the £700 I mentioned—the £700 is taken care of in the way I have stated but the individual householder has to pay over the £700 to whatever it costs in the form of a capital contribution. This Bill will be paying the capital contribution for those people who wish to have connections. They will still have to pay the fixed and the special service charges but in respect of any capital contribution that had been sought in the period 1971 to 1975 and which they turned down because they could not afford it the State will pay that for them. That is what is involved.

What is the position with regard to the case I mentioned?

New houses are not involved in this. However, that is a point I shall take up because there is a real problem here——

I am sorry to interrupt the Minister but I was not here for his opening statement or for the debate. Will the Minister say if this project is being aided from the European Regional Fund?

No. The money is voted by this House.

Have the ESB been given a grant from the EEC?

Because they would not qualify under the Regional Fund. However, before I finish I will give the Deputy an explanation. To revert to the point made by Deputy Briscoe, as Deputy Brennan said we should not deal with individual cases here because there is no law governing connections. Different rules apply to each case.

With regard to county councils and local authorities, this is a problem that has only come to light in the last three or four years when people started to build very fine houses considerable distances outside towns or in remote rural areas. The procedure was that they applied to the local planning authority for permission to build. Up to a few years ago the local planning authority considered this matter from the point of view of access roads and the provision of sewerage and water services. I have had frequent representations about this matter myself. Frequently the reason the applications were refused was that the county council considered there were not adequate roads to take the traffic, that there was no water or sewerage services and so on.

What was becoming equally significant and a greater cost was the availability of electricity but the planning authorities never took this into account in advising people. Since I came to office I have been instrumental in getting the Minister for Local Government, his Department and the planning authorities to advise people that in addition to the ordinary permission given to build a physical structure they will have the further cost of connecting the house to the electricity supply. Depending on the area, the proximity to the nearest supply and the level of voltage required, the cost can be quite significant. They will be able to advise people before they finally commit themselves to go to the local ESB office and find out how much they will have to pay.

Unfortunately that does not happen in many cases. It has been said that perhaps people have not a great choice with regard to sites but I think they have a certain degree of choice. Somebody gave an example of a farmer who gives some land to his son but the cost of providing electricity is enormous. However, that might be in respect of a certain site. If the farm is of any reasonable size there may be a number of sites that might be considered for a second house. If the young person building that house went with a map of his father's farm with the sites marked on it to the ESB offices, they would tell him where from their point of view it would be cheapest to connect electricity. That could be quite significant if the house was on the wrong side of the road, if they were further from the transformer, or if they moved into a different transmission network feeding another group of houses. Because they would be lowering the voltage in the other houses, a new transformer would have to be supplied which would increase the cost. All these things should be taken into account.

There should be much more consultation between the planning authorities, the ESB and prospective builders in rural areas to ensure that the people building the houses could pick sites and be connected with electricity as quickly and as cheaply as possible.

Some planning authorities do advise, but many do not.

I thought most of them did. I was surprised to hear people say otherwise today, but I will go back to the Department of Local Government and ask them to get after all the planning authorities and make sure they advise people to consult the ESB.

Is that in the Local Government booklet on buying a house?

I am not sure, but I think it is. We have impressed on the Department of Local Government that there is much need for consultation and appreciation by planning authorities of the cost of electricity to people who are developing a site for an individual house. If that is not being done I will get it moving down through Local Government to the planning authorities.

There are some who do not do that.

If the Deputy knows any of these authorities, I will be glad of their names so that I can pass them on to the Minister for Local Government. If there is any gap in this communication between me and the Minister for Local Government and the planning authorities at lower level, I will again bring it to the attention of the Minister and ask him to make sure that the planning authorities advise people of these facts.

Many Deputies raised a number of points, but the problems do not vary very much from Donegal to Cork or from Galway to Wicklow. One Deputy made the point that there should be no charge for transferring electricity from one house to another. If a person moves house he must pay for the transfer of his phone and furniture. The ESB must operate in a commercial manner. I am sure Deputies would not like that company to be susidised and having to come back here looking for money every year to keep them afloat. If it costs them so much to do a job, they have to charge the customer that amount. Therefore if the customer wants his electricity supply shifted to another house they must charge for that. If somebody is moving close by the charge is nominal, but every case is different. You cannot say that the same rule applies all over the country. Every house is different and has to be treated differently.

Deputy Barrett made a point yesterday. Perhaps I did not hear him properly but it was repeated on the radio this morning. He said that 25 per cent of the cost of electricity was attributable to the fall in value of currency. I heard the British Prime Minister use a very old saying recently that a lie is half way around the world before the truth has its boots on. I am afraid this 25 per cent may become part of the mythology or folklore of the ESB. The cost of providing money to build power stations to generate electricity has a bearing on the price of electricity. It is not 25 per cent; the adjustment of the currency is less than 2 per cent. The total cost for capital is much less than 10 per cent. I do not know where Deputy Barrett got the figure of 25 per cent.

My figures were based on the fact that the previous year the ESB owed £100 million non-sterling, and between interest and readjustment payments at the end of the next year they owed £149 million.

I do not see the significance of what the Deputy says, because it is not the difference between the two but the total borrowed capital, its use and interest rates that count. To deduce a figure of the percentage of a consumer's bill that is attributable to the fluctuations in currency would need many more figures than Deputy Barrett is using now and more study than I could give it here. If the Deputy wishes I will send him letters showing how I arrived at the figure of 2 per cent in the fluctuation in currency.

I arrived at my figures from the annual report.

Deputy White, Deputy J. O'Leary and Deputy Leonard suggested that some of the work for the connection of electricity should be done by farmers digging their own trenches to put the cables underground. I agree these trailing lines across the countryside are offensive to the eye and are a visual pollutant, but the cost of putting them underground at this stage would be prohibitive, about ten times the cost of doing it by poles.

Deputy White's point was that farmers have so much machinery that they could help in this way. There are a number of housing estates throughout the country, for example the village of Tyrrellspass, where the cables have been put underground. This makes the place extremely attractive visually. Since yesterday I have found out that in certain parts of the country the ESB are conducting experiments to see if rural people will do some of their own work by digging trenches.

Deputy Brennan termed the ESB as dictatorial and autocratic. They certainly are careful about people handling electricity and we would all wish them to be careful. We want them to ensure that, when connections are made, houses wired, trenches dug and cables laid, the highest possible standard of safety would apply. We all hope that the ESB would adopt safety standards because electricity can and does kill and is a dangerous commodity. It should be carefully handled by professionals and not just by somebody who decides he is going to become an electrician overnight.

Was there not a suggestion that people could lay the lines and instal the switches?

I think it would go a little further than that. I am not sure but I understood him to mean they would wire their own houses and bring a cable from their own houses down to the main point of supply and this would save a lot of money. I do not think we could accept that.

I think the suggestion was they would do all the preparatory work except the laying of the cables.

In fact that is what the ESB are experimenting with at the moment. If it works out and if they can get co-operation between neighbours, they will probably continue this.

The Minister would encourage them to do that.

I certainly would. I think Deputy Briscoe had better give me details of his particular case because it seems to me a unique case needing special consideration. I may have some news for the Deputy after Question Time.

Deputy O'Leary made a point about low voltage in farming areas. There was a breakdown in communication to some extent. One Department was encouraging farmers by way of grants and credit facilities to go into new machinery while another State agency, the ESB, not knowing there would be a sudden and very dramatic increase in demand in certain areas, were more or less caught short. What was involved was going back over the area and reviewing it to meet the increased demand. Of course, there were complaints about low voltage and the ESB are getting around as quickly as possible, particularly in dairying areas, to improving the voltage as much as possible. Some 18 months ago I used have quite a lot of complaints—I still get some—but the number has dropped considerably now. The ESB must be catching up.

Deputy Gallagher and I think some other speakers expressed the hope that we would write into the Bill a specific date so that the ESB would be compelled to complete the work in a given period, say up to December, 1977. It is desirable that the work should be completed as quickly as possible and I have been pushing them in that regard but it would not be wise to write a specific time limit into legislation because, if they were unable for any reason to complete the operation in that time, they might be inclined to take people off in other areas to enable them to comply with the law and people suffering from low voltage as a result of that would start complaining. That is something we must guard against while ensuring the objectives of this Bill are achieved as quickly as possible.

There are three main divisions in the Bill: there is the Ballycroy, Woodford and Black Valley areas, the deferred payments system and the need for more co-operation between local authorities and the ESB and the additional cost to someone connecting a house to electricity. With regard to the deferred payments system, Deputy Gallagher said I had made a promise—rather, what he look to be a promise—in a reply I gave that new houses would be included in this Bill. In fact, I said quite the reverse on a number of occasions here. I spelled out very clearly, despite pressure from both sides to extend the scope of the Bill, exactly the people who would be covered by this Bill. Even on the famous occasion on which I spoke in Ballycroy I made it very clear who would be covered by this Bill. I did not intentionally pull the wool over anybody's eyes.

With regard to the deferred payments system, I can see that it would be very difficult for people to meet lump sum requirements of £800 or £1,000. At the same time, I can see it would be unfair to ask the taxpayer to pay for someone who can afford to build his own house when we have to provide houses for a great many people who cannot afford to build houses for themselves. There is this conflict of interest. There is this stretching of one's wing in two diametrically opposed ways. I have been speaking to the ESB for a number of months now trying to devise a method of deferred payment. It was only on Tuesday of this week that the board agreed they would introduce a deferred payment system. The details have not yet been worked out. I hope the scheme will be in operation in five or six weeks' time. Now I do not want anyone to go away from here under the illusion that the Government will meet a proportion of the cost or anything like that. The total cost will have to be paid by instalments by the consumer. The details have not yet been worked out but, as soon as I get them, I will make a statement and the ESB will probably issue a statement giving the details.

The Minister mentioned five or six weeks.

That might be wishful thinking but I hope the scheme will be in operation at the beginning of the year.

People will, of course, delay connection pending the outcome, and they will be deprived of the amenity in the meantime.

And their bills will go up.

I appreciate that, but people who are being quoted now would probably not be connected before that anyway. Deputy Lalor complained that the people in his local ESB office did not know there was a possibility of this scheme being introduced. As I said, the board did not take the decision until Tuesday of this week and prior to Tuesday no one could know there was a possibility of this scheme being introduced. As a result of all the publicity now people will be more aware that something is going to be done very quickly and I am sure that even those people who may have got quotations will be catered for under the terms of the scheme.

I wonder could I have an answer to my question.

No, because I have not got the information myself. I will give it to the Deputy after Question Time.

Debate adjourned.
Top
Share