Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 21 Apr 1954

Vol. 43 No. 10

Electricity (Supply) (Amendment) Bill, 1954—Committee and Final Stages.

Sections 1 to 18, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 19.

Question proposed: "That Section 19 stand part of the Bill."

Professor Hayes

On the section. This section provides for pensions for whole-time members of the board. The Minister expressed himself in 1942, I think, as being in favour of the provision of pensions for people who served for a certain period as full-time members. I think his counterpart in the Opposition was in entire agreement with him on that particular matter. The provision of 20 forty-eighths is rather peculiar. The Minister is substituting 24 forty-eighths, which has the effect of bringing the pensions of these people into line with the pensions of civil servants and a great many people in this country. That means that a man who has served a certain period will get half salary as pension. However, in the case of civil servants, and in the régime of the last Government I think it was also introduced in the case of teachers, a person who has served for a certain period will get a year's salary and then a pension according to the length of his service.

Is there any reason for not doing the same thing for members of this particular board? The board is a competent one. It has done good work. Actually, it is paying its way. Is there any reason why a person who has served for 24 years or even 20 years as a full-time member of the board, and who retires, should be treated differently from civil servants? I am wondering if there is any particular reason why a distinction should be made between him and civil servants in refusing to give him the year's salary which they get.

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. Lemass)

The only reason which I can advance is that the full pension is earned by a member of the E.S.B. after a shorter period of service than in the case of a person employed in the Civil Service. Full pension is payable after 20 years in the case of this board, whereas they have to go to 40 years in the Civil Service to qualify for full pension.

Professor Hayes

The fact that it has been provided that a pension is payable after 20 years' service indicates that a person will not be appointed a full-time member of the board presumably until he is rather mature. That, I take it, is the reason for the 20 years provisions. The financial difference in the case of the board which handles such a great amount of money is very small and the burden which would fall upon the finances of the E.S.B. would be very small, if this proviso were added.

Mr. Lemass

That argument will not avail me with the Department of Finance because what is done in the case of members of the E.S.B. is a headline for what is done in the case of whole-time members of other boards and similar statutory organisations. We have been trying in recent legislation to get them all on to much the same basis, but we cannot just consider a change in relation to the E.S.B. and expect it to be confined to that, because, as soon as we make it there, we will be urged to do it for everybody else.

Question agreed to.

Section 20 and the Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

Agreed to take remaining stages to-day.

Bill received for final consideration.

Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

Professor Stanford

I want to make one observation at this stage. I think we may take it that the passing of this Bill amounts to a vote of confidence in the E.S.B. and I am sure we all agree that that vote of confidence is deserved. The board has shown a progressive policy from the beginning and has surmounted great difficulties with great success. But, for fear the authorities of the board should be complacent as a result of the easy passage of this Bill, I should like to voice very briefly one source of general dissatisfaction with the financial policy of the board. It would be out of order, I realise, to develop this at any length, but I think I may be permitted simply to voice it.

There is, I suggest—and I believe I am right in suggesting—general dissatisfaction with the method of charging private consumers for the amount of electricity they use. I have heard many people express dissatisfaction with that method, which at present depends partly on the rateable valuation of the house and partly—in the future—on the number of rooms in the house. It seems to me that the only fair method is to charge people for the amount of electricity they consume and leave it at that. I cannot see why these various methods which amount to a means test should be imposed on the consumer. A householder may accidentally have a very large number of rooms in his house, or may accidentally have a very high rateable valuation and this all goes on to his electricity bill. I simply say, without further elaboration, that that is a source of dissatisfaction which I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister and the authorities of the E.S.B. I end by saying that this Bill amounts to a vote of confidence in the board, which is on the whole, in my opinion, well deserved.

Mr. Commons

My complaint is on lines similar to that voiced by Professor Stanford, but it relates to the rural electrification scheme and to what is known as the two-monthly charge on each dwelling. People in these areas are very anxious to get in electricity and canvasses have shown up well. The only delay is due to the fact that the E.S.B. cannot reach the majority of areas concerned fast enough. When the supply has been connected, however, even though people are aware beforehand of what they have to pay in respect of the two-montly period, they find that this is the biggest item, the cost per unit of electricity consumed not being very great. I understand that the object is to evolve a scheme by which the E.S.B. will pay its way, but it would be wiser and fairer if some other scheme could be devised whereby the two-monthly rental could be, if not abolished altogether, considerably reduced, because it is the one source of complaint in an otherwise perfect scheme. In times of prosperity, consumers in these areas can afford the charges, but it is a bad feature of the scheme that, where a consumer decides to drop out, the E.S.B. should take away its meter leaving poles, wires and connections up to the consumer's door, with no supply of current to the house. I should like to suggest that, if necessary, the charge per unit might be doubled and, as Senator Stanford has said, let the householder pay for the amount of electricity he uses.

Mr. Lemass

While the E.S.B. is, under statute, completely in control of its own charges and is responsible only for making sure that its total revenue equals its total outgoings, the justification for the two-part tariff is that they have to bring the supply to the man's door and they have to get back on the fixed portion of the charge the capital cost of bringing the supply to his door. From that on, the man pays for the current he uses. Clearly, the E.S.B. would have to meet that capital cost of connecting the house to the system if the householder used no current and they must be assured of getting that capital expenditure back irrespective of the amount of consumption. The unit charge only pays for the cost of delivering the current to him.

Mr. Commons

I know several people who are falling out of the scheme because the cost is too high and would it not be wiser to anticipate that danger by reducing the two-monthly tariff?

Mr. S.T. Ruane

There is another point in connection with stores which are not used other than in the daytime. From May until July, no electricity is consumed in these places because they close around seven o'clock but the overhead charge is collected the whole time.

Mr. Lemass

And the wires are connected, too.

Professor Hayes

Connection and collection.

Question put and agreed to.