Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 8 Dec 1976

Vol. 85 No. 9

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

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

Minister for Transport and Power (Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick,

Cavan): The purpose of this Bill is to enable additional assistance to be given from public funds towards the cost of connecting some isolated houses in rural Ireland to the electricity supply.

Rural electrification was first commenced in 1946 under the provisions of the Electricity (Supply) (Amendment) Act, 1945, which authorised capital expenditure by the ESB on the scheme. In the past 30 years some 420,000 houses have been connected to the rural network at a total cost of about £80 million, some £27 million of which represents State subsidy, the balance being met by the ESB. The total of 420,000 houses represents some 98-99 per cent of all rural houses and compares favourably with the connection rate elsewhere. In Britain and the USA the connection rate is believed to be about 98 per cent and 98.4 per cent respectively, whilst on the Continent generally the connection rate is somewhat less. It is only in countries such as Germany and, possibly Switzerland and Sweden, that the connection rate in rural areas exceeds the 98-99 per cent level.

What is known as the final phase of the rural electrification scheme was undertaken over the four years, 1971-75, to give every unconnected house in rural Ireland a final opportunity of obtaining electricity supply on subsidised terms. The programme was well publicised and at some stage during the four-year period every rural householder then unconnected to the electricity supply had an opportunity of obtaining electricity supply on subsidised terms. The final phase was officially closed on 31st March 1975, that is, no further applications for subsidised supply were accepted after that date, but subsidised terms have yet to be quoted by the board to applicants in a few areas while construction work remains to be done in these and some other areas. However, all householders in each of these areas where work remains to be done, whether already quoted terms or not, who applied and qualified for subsidised supply before 31st March 1975, will still get supply on subsidised terms.

Under the final phase of the rural electrification scheme the board looked for the very modest rate of return of 5.2 per cent on their capital outlay or investment in providing supply to each house. The board were prepared to meet, subject to a limit of £750, the capital cost of providing supply to any house or premises. If the applicant's ordinary annual fixed charge which every consumer pays—usually about £12 per annum or so in rural Ireland— was not sufficient to cover 5.2 per cent of the cost of connection, the applicant was required to pay what was known as a special service charge. The amount of the special service charge in any one case was the difference between the ordinary fixed charge and the sum representing 5.2 per cent of the cost of connecting the house in question. For example, if a house cost £500 to connect, the ESB would look for a return of £26 per annum, that is 5.2 per cent on their investment of £500. With a fixed charge of, say, £12 per annum, this would mean that the special service charge payable by the applicant would be £14 per annum in six two-monthly instalments of £2.33 each.

Business suspended at 12.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): In those cases where the cost of connecting a house exceeded £750 the board required the prospective consumer to meet by way of lump sum payment part of the cost of connection, as determined by the board. This lump sum payment was known as a capital contribution and, in effect, represented the non-recoverable part of the connection costs above £700 which would arise in the event of the consumer refusing or ceasing to take supply shortly after having the house connected. The ESB adopted this arrangement in the light of working experience.

During the final phase of the scheme some householders, mainly in the Black Valley area of County Kerry and the Ballycroy area of County Mayo, found themselves unable to accept the board's offer of subsidised terms, involving payment by them of substantial sums by way of capital contribution. Precise figures of the number of such householders are not readily available but the ESB have estimated that, in all, there are some 800-900 such householders in these and other isolated areas. This is not a definitive figure as there are also individual houses in this category here and there throughout the country and the final total may well be more than the ESB estimate.

While any scheme of rural electrification will throw up anomalies, the plight of the Black Valley and Ballycroy householders is probably the worst of the unresolved anomalies revealed at the closure of the final phase of the scheme. These householders can reasonably be regarded as unfortunate in that, through no fault of their own, they live in areas where the cost of connecting them to the electricity supply, even under subsidised terms, is substantial. The cost of connection under normal economic or unsubsidised terms would of course be very much higher. All, or nearly all, of the houses in question were built when proximity to the electricity supply was not an obvious factor to be taken into consideration when selecting a site for a dwelling. The practical effect of the Black Valley and Ballycroy householder's inability to accept the subsidised terms of supply offered to them in 1971-75 is that they do not now have available to them a service which is widely regarded as a basic amenity of life. They represent, by and large, the hard core or outstanding balance still remaining of the unconnected rural houses which the subsidised rural electrification scheme was intended to benefit. To leave them unconnected to the rural network now would, to some extent at least, vitiate the whole purpose of the rural electrification scheme which was to bring the benefits of electricity to all parts of rural Ireland. The scheme was not limited, and was not intended to be limited, only to the parts of the country where connection was relatively inexpensive.

The Government are in all the circumstances prepared to recommend approval to the provision of additional moneys to enable the Black Valley and Ballycroy householders, as well as others in the same category throughout the country, to obtain electricity supply on terms comparable by and large with those generally available to applicants under the final phase—1971-75— of the scheme, but with a special concession in relation to payment of capital contributions. Briefly, what is in effect proposed in this Bill is that these householders, that is, the householders who refused supply under the final phase of the scheme because of the requirement to pay capital contributions, will be given a further and final opportunity to obtain supply on subsidised terms, but this time without having to pay a capital contribution. In so far as provision of supply to them is concerned, they will only have to pay an annual or standing charge of £36.40 in six two-monthly instalments. This standing charge, which may from time to time be subject to review by the ESB in accordance with the board's normal criteria for review of fixed charges, is inclusive of both the usual fixed charge and the special service charge; if there is no review by the board the standing charge remains unaltered.

Apart from charges for electricity consumed or for instalment payments, if any, in relation to electrical appliances and so on that may arise, no other charges will be payable by them. The appropriate capital contributions which these householders would otherwise have had to pay to the ESB under subsidised terms will be paid on their behalf to the board out of the Vote for my Department. At this stage it is not possible to indicate with certainty the aggregate of all such capital contributions, because costs of connection are rising all the time, but the sum of £300,000 being provided in the Bill should meet the requirements of the scheme.

This is a once-for-all scheme of limited application intended to deal with a special case of localised hardship which, because of the nature and extent of the anomaly revealed under the final phase—1971-75—of the rural electrification scheme, merits special consideration. To eliminate all anomalies in a scheme of rural electrification which covered the whole of the country would be a virtually impossible task and involve an unacceptable drain on the Exchequer. In taking steps to eliminate this anomaly the Government consider that they are going as far as they can reasonably go in all the circumstances. Government expenditure on rural electrification down the years has been in the aggregate very substantial and further expenditure other than that now proposed could not be justified.

The details of the proposed scheme are now being worked out but, broadly speaking, what is envisaged is that a reasonable period will be set during which applications from the householders in question for benefit under the scheme will be accepted by the ESB who will then proceed as quickly as possible to provide supply, after issue and acceptance of quotations, which will not include capital contributions. When the work has been finished subsidisation of electricity supply in rural areas will then finally come to an end and normal economic or unsubsidised terms of supply will apply from then on.

While I must, because of Exchequer constraints, set my face against any further extension of the rural electrification scheme, I am very conscious of the heavy financial burden which can be involved on householders, both persons building new houses as well as existing householders not already connected, in meeting the cost of connecting their houses to the electricity supply. I am, therefore, pleased that, in order to ameliorate such burden, the ESB at my request agreed to introduce a scheme of deferred payments for costs of connection to the electricity supply in cases where subsidised terms are not available. Details of the scheme which came into operation on 1st December have already been published and I must commend the board for agreeing to an arrangement of this kind which will go a long way towards easing the financial burden sometimes involved in obtaining electricity supplies.

I might also add my voice to the board's appeal to persons proposing to build new houses for prior consultation with their local ESB office before deciding on sites for their new houses. In very many cases consultation beforehand with the board can result in considerable financial savings. As Senators 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 recent months the board have been at pains to emphasise this, and to encourage prospective new householders to inquire beforehand as to the cost of providing electricity before irrevocable commitments as to erection of new houses are entered into. I can only endorse the board's appeal and reiterate the importance of prior consultation with the board's local office in all cases where erection of new houses is contemplated.

The Bill also includes provision to enable the ESB to submit to me schemes amending the general employees and manual workers superannuation schemes to provide improved superannuation benefits for persons retiring from or being discharged by, the board on grounds of ill health. This provision is being added to bring the ESB superannuation schemes into line with recent similar improvements in the Civil Service superannuation code.

I recommend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Lenihan

I should like first to say that there is no objection as far as we are concerned to this Bill which is really a culminating effort on the part of the Government to deal finally with the important work as far as rural Ireland was concerned that was embarked on in 1945—the rural electrification programme announced under the Act of that year and intensified under the Act of 1971 continuing up to 1975. As the Minister mentioned, there were these two particular anomalies in areas: the Black Valley area in County Kerry and the Ballycroy area of County Mayo where, because of the remoteness involved, a very real cost problem existed. We have £300,000 provided under this Bill to deal with these areas, on the basis of the capital cost of connection exceeding £700.

This provision is welcome because of the remoteness of the two areas concerned of which I am well aware, knowing them through various political and social procedures over the years. This is welcome as a final addition to the programme of rural electrification which undoubtedly has done more to revitalise rural Ireland than any other single scheme. One may talk about redistribution of land and talk ad infinitum on the various measures which could be required to revitalise social living in rural Ireland but the most fundamental area, both from the social point of view and the practical business point of view, was rural electrification. The social point of view was obvious in giving basic amenities to rural homes. In regard to the business point of view, the very provision of electricity to rural homes made possible the up-to-date milking and other facilities needed to make the farmyard and the area around the rural home an efficient farm industrial unit. In that area electricity was very important.

The progress, as mentioned by the Minister, has been very real and very creditable. The figures bear repetition. We have 98 per cent to 99 per cent of all rural homes connected. This is a fantastic development compared with the connection rate in other countries. It reflects on the interest and the basic capacity of the rural population. This has been, since the inauguration of the scheme in 1946 and since its intensification in 1971, one of the great social developments of our time. It has been so fundamental that other schemes and other ideas for the improvement of rural life pale in comparison. I am glad to see that the Minister is dealing with the two outstanding areas where because of their remoteness there was a real problem from the finance point of view.

I would like to welcome the Minister in his new capacity as Minister for Transport and Power and to congratulate him on his appointment. I and my party consider him to be fully fitted for the task he has undertaken.

Mr. O'Toole

I, too, would like to welcome this Bill. It is an expression of the commitment of the Government to ameliorating the difficulties of people in less well-off areas. The two areas mentioned in the Bill are Ballycroy in County Mayo and the Black Valley in County Kerry. As the Minister has said in his speech, they are the less well-off areas. The areas mentioned in the Bill are Ballycroy in County Mayo and the Black Valley in Kerry. As the Minister said in his speech, the residents in these areas through no fault of their own have found themselves incapable of meeting the cost of providing themselves with electricity. The onus is on the Government to see to it that these people get what is their right in equality with other people all over the country.

Another aspect of the Minister's speech which has very important implications also is his statement that the ESB will now accept payment of lump sum charges on a deferred payment scheme for other parts of the country. We all know of people who come to us in our capacity as Senators asking us to do something for them because of the bills that have been presented to them by the ESB seeking a capital contribution towards the cost of providing them with power. I have seen bills in my area of up to £2,200. When one considers the cost of housing and the problems which young people have in providing and paying for new houses, this is an intolerable burden on them. They cannot and should not be expected to pay the full cost in lump sum form of providing themselves with electricity. This new scheme will be welcomed by many people who are faced with big bills, which in many cases they did not give any thought to initially when they were providing their houses. They thought of the price of the site, of a contract price, rates and so on, but they did not give any thought up to now of ESB charges. Many people thought that up to now the subsidised scheme still existed. Overall this is what might be regarded as an enlightened approach to a very dark problem.

I should like to welcome the Minister to Seanad Éireann. It is his first visit as Minister for Transport and Power and I wish him well in his new office.

Mr. Dolan

A small Bill such as this gives us the opportunity to have a look at the excellent work the ESB have done since they were founded and especially since the 1945 Act. Nothing has happened in the history of the State that has the same importance as the rural electrification scheme so far as rural Ireland is concerned. It has made it possible for factories to be established in very remote parts of the country. It has contributed immensely to the welfare of the farming community and has been a great social amenity in many ways. We would be very backward as a new country in the EEC were it not for the foresight of the Government in those days in seeing to it that rural electrification was extended as far as possible over the whole country. It is only fair to pay a special tribute to the ESB personnel, their engineers and workmen, because they did a magnificent job in record time. The figures the Minister has given compare favourably with much richer countries.

Unfortunately, in any scheme it can happen that there will be pockets left out. Appeals have been made on many occasions to people in any such pockets to send in their applications, but very often some are rather hesistant to do this and others may not read the papers carefully. Consequently, it transpired that some pockets were left out, as indeed were some individual houses. In many cases the individual houses were occupied by old people. This situation was attributable to the very high rate of emigration. All the members of a family could be living in America while the old people were left at home.

Despite the cost, the way we treat our old people is vitally important, and I know that electricity will be a great consolation to them in their old age. It will be of great benefit in providing many necessary amenities for them. I would like to see them being provided with this amenity if they are anxious for it. It would enable them to have wireless sets or television sets. There is no use in saying that an old age pensioner is entitled to a free television licence if he has not the current to enable him to have a set. He might as well be offered a free trip on a Concorde. I would make a special appeal on behalf of those people.

The fact that we have rural electrification has enabled farmers to install water and provide many amenities that are vital in this day and age in rural homes. From the tourist point of view this scheme has put us on a high level and has enabled many rural houses to join the various schemes for enticing tourists and fishermen into areas to which they would not come otherwise. They find our standard of living and standard of cleanliness second to none by virtue of the fact that piped water and water from deep-bore wells is available, thanks to the ESB, in most homes in the country. That is how it should be.

In my area very often the ESB lines run along the Six Counties. On previous occasions I happened to be successful in getting some connections made from here for residents in the Six Counties. The same scheme would apply from the other area. The ESB have no legal power to erect transformers in the Six Counties but they have been very helpful in so far as the transformer situation would allow. This co-operation is important so far as ESB power is concerned.

The Minister will probably be looking at the various sources of power to carry the extra loads that may be needed to keep the supply adequate. He will have another look at water supplies or some other means of providing power apart from imported oil which costs a lot—both to the ESB and to the consumer.

I welcome the Bill and, as a Cavan man, I welcome the Minister in his new position. I am glad to see him here. I know he will have many problems so far as transport and power is concerned in our area, but I am glad to see him in the hot seat.

Mr. Moynihan

I, too, would like to add my words of welcome to this legislation which aims at giving the overwhelming majority of people electricity supply at subsidised rates. The growth of the ESB since it started is a credit to that body and is an indication of the extent of the input of national finance over the years. It is reflected in the living standards, both socially and economically, of the community. The absence of it is also reflected in the frustration of those who have not got the same amenities and living standards. It is pleasing to note that the Black Valley in Kerry and the Ballycroy area in Mayo are, because of their peculiar terrain problems specifically to benefit from this legislation. The introduction of electricity to the Black Valley will, I hope, bring brightness instead of darkness to that area.

The Minister in his opening speech said that, despite what he envisaged in this legislation, some anomalies would still remain. I would ask the Minister for some clarification. Up to the moment we have had two classes of people who have been out of benefit— those who were quoted special service charges and those who were quoted a capital contribution. Many people were obliged because of the economic circumstances to refuse the electricity.

It is difficult to know where the real dividing line should be. This legislation concerns mainly the western seaboard counties. Much of the line work will be to houses in valleys. People living at the end of those valleys will be asked for a capital contribution. They would have been quoted a special service charge. The line may well be passing people quoted a special service charge and subsiding a house further on. Possibly a number of those people may not be in a position to benefit from this subsidisation. I should be glad to know if the Minister has investigated and examined that type of situation.

I am glad to see that this legislation has been availed of to give to ESB personnel retiring on health grounds the same benefits that have for so long been available to civil servants.

I wish to welcome the Minister here in his new capacity as Minister for Transport and Power and wish him well in that office.

Mr. M.D. Higgins

I should like to begin by clearly associating myself with the remarks of welcome to the Minister for Transport and Power, Deputy Fitzpatrick, to this House. I have very clear memories of the generous response which he made to a number of amendments which were put down when legislation which affected his previous Department was introduced in this House. While I was not too happy with the result of some of them, his response was generous and I wish him every good fortune in his new ministry.

As a former ESB employee, I must confess a slight personal interest in the Bill, I have been fascinated by the operations of that board. In the interests of the provision of electricity and of the future of the board and myself, I think it is well that we parted in the 1960s. I might address those of you who may be interested in researching the meaning of that remark to a very fine play which has been written on the subject of the Electricity Supply Board entitled "The Board" which was produced in the Abbey some years ago.

I know the Minister will excuse me if I begin at the end of the Bill, or at the end of his speech, at that section which includes provision to enable the Electricity Supply Board to submit to him schemes amending the general employees and manual workers superannuation scheme to provide improved superannuation benefits for persons retiring from or being discharged by the board on grounds of ill-health. This is introduced on the ground that this provision is being added to bring the ESB superannuation scheme into line with recent similar improvements in the civil service superannuation code.

ESB pensioners—I am referring particularly to the body known as the Electricity Supply Board Retired Staff Association—have had unsuccessful meetings during the past five years with different people involved in the Department of Transport and Power. The representatives have had very reasonable requests. On one occasion I accompanied them myself to meet some officials and we had an argument as to whether a pension was a matter of contract or was something that took cognisance of a lifetime of work given in national service. I think that the very reasonable request not demand, of the employees on that occasion might have been met. I should appreciate the Minister's opinion on it. The ESB Retired Staff Association requested very simply something which was legislatively possible, that is, that they be allowed representation on the superannuation council of the board. Legislation provides that where one third of the signatures are gathered a meeting should be called by the board to enable a representative to be put on the council.

The board has systematically refused over the years to summon such a meeting. The ESB Retired Staff Association have secured more than one third of the signatures of retired people. They have pointed out that their request is legislatively possible, but the board still refuse to meet their request. May I say why one of the pensioners might be represented on this council? Members of the ESB Retired Staff Association, mainly elderly people, are worried in particular about two aspects of the use of superannuation funds. They are worried about the low returns on the capital sums invested by the fund and they are worried also that so far no scheme for the widows of manual workers exists or has been approved or suggested by the board. If for no other reason than to press the very reasonable demand that their pension be invested to yield a proper return and to express their concern about the widows of their fellow workers, they are seeking representation on the superannuation council. Their meetings with the board have gone on for over five years. There might be more appropriate occasions for raising this, but I am encouraged to raise it in so far as the superannuation benefits are referred to in the Bill itself as a result of a motion suggested in the other House.

The major substance of this Bill is of course a tidying-up operation that particularly affects two areas, the Black Valley and Ballycroy. I note from the Minister's speech that these two areas are the worst of the unresolved anomalies in provision of electricity supply. It is quite fair, too, that in the Minister's speech he mentions other people who are in the same situation. There was a long discussion in the other House as to who would be entitled to assistance and who would not.

One point which has confused me a little is the extent of other areas, peripheral areas particularly, which might be applicants for assistance under FEOGA schemes. These are also areas for which the capital contribution required or quoted for the supply of electricity might be high. I wonder whether a source of assistance under FEOGA might continue after this Bill has drawn a line. My own estimation of the operation of FEOGA is not encouraging and I believe that some grants which might have been available under this year's budget may not be available in the coming year.

The third and last part of what I have to say refers to the section in which the Minister addressed his appeal to persons proposing to build new houses to consult the ESB prior to actually becoming involved in the building. As one drives around Ireland one is continually aware of what a marvellous engineering achievement it was to erect poles on different parts of the Irish landscape. It is one thing to marvel at man's achievement, the technical achievement in bringing light where there was no light or light where there was dark, as other Members have said. It is not too unreasonable now to ask that there be a fit between what might be regarded as reasonable demands of visual amenity and the activities of the Electricity Supply Board and, indeed, the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. In the absence of a Department of the Environment different Ministers have to be careful about the operation of their Departments and ensure that they in fact are not environmentally detrimental. There are no rigid lines laid down as to, for example, the manner in which poles and low tension cables can be strewn across different small towns and villages which are otherwise attractive, not only for tourist purposes but because people want to live in a pleasing environment, and the environmental impact of electricity provision is something which should concern us.

May I say immediately that I do not want anybody to make me the reply that I am saying we have to make a choice between having no light and proper visual planning. Thankfully we do not have to make that choice in this country yet, and it is wrong for people to indulge in crude similarities and the general idea that no matter what the cost we must have poles strewn across the country. We do not have to make that choice. In addressing myself to the new Minister for Transport and Power I may say that it may not always be appropriate to rely on the provision of electricity in the conventional way for a number of parts of the country. I am aware that alternative energy sources are now being investigated within the Department of Transport and Power, and these alternative energy sources are often more in keeping and in a better fit with the natural conditions of communities, and I hope that we will have the applied or technical spin-off of those investigations quite soon.

I welcome the Bill as other Senators have welcomed it. In welcoming it I might reflect on something else. I think one gathers from the Minister's speech a concern that we are living in economically difficult times. Of course we are, but I have always argued that one should never ever judge the provision of basic necessities, the provision of transport, or, in this case, the provision of electricity by economic criteria. For many people the provision of electricity supply was a basic necessity.

Anybody studying the effects of the major demographic trends in our population over the last decade will know that the counties that have been most affected from the outflow of migratory movements have been the western counties and peripheral counties, and I might even mention islands. Now in the case of these, even when an outflow of migration from this country to Britain ceased and was replaced by an internal flow of population to the larger centres of population, it meant that a great number of old people were left in their houses on their own. For such people, in the absence of very sophisticated home care, medical care and other facilities, visiting facilities, the sheer existence of the possibility of having electricity was a basic, human and necessary requirement. We should set ourselves to it that no matter what penalties we may impose on people well off in our community we should always protect the interests of such people, who are after all the most vulnerable members of our community.

Let us be clear about what happened in an analogous situation in the case of transport. The people who were left at home when public transport was cut back were the least vocal lobby in this country. They were not a lobby at all. They were simply people who retired from active participation in life because they no longer had the railway. In exactly the same way, lost in valleys and in peripheral areas in Ireland today, there are people who are old or who, because they are not a vociferous lobby, sometimes do not have their needs pressed in the same way as other sections of the community.

I had been speaking about different aspects of this Bill, and the one so far that I would stress is the one concerning the position of ESB pensioners, particularly those I referred to who are members of the Electricity Supply Board Retired Staff Association.

I should like to clarify two points before I conclude. Reference is made to the Black Valley and Ballycroy. At the time an offer was made to these two areas, an offer was also made to and rejected by the people of Omey Island in the Clifden area. I quite accept the Minister's explanation that the Bill is limited in scope and that any review of the rural electrification programme will involve the making of special cases. Of course it is limited in scope. There is also the case of localised hardship. I mentioned Omey Island. This is an island when the tide is in, and it is a peninsula when the tide is out. The offer made to the people of Omey Island was unacceptable at the time the offer was made to Ballycroy and the Black Valley.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): I do not want to interrupt the Senator, but it is not confined to the Black Valley and Ballycroy. It includes the entire country, including Omey Island.

Mr. M.D. Higgins

Yes. I am grateful for the Minister's intervention. He said:

The Government are, in all circumstances, prepared to recommend approval to the provision of additional moneys to enable the Black Valley and Ballycroy householders, as well as others in the same category throughout the country....

This is the point to which the Minister correctly draws my attention. I am adverting to the fact that, in the discussion in the other House, many people wished to extend that category. The circumstances of the rejection of the offer by the householders at Omey correspond almost exactly with those of the two areas mentioned in the Minister's speech.

Another point intrigues me somewhat, and here I am seeking enlightenment. When the ESB are considering the supply of electricity—obviously the Minister takes cognisance of their opinion—I am sure they have what they would call a hardship category. The Minister said: "This is a once-for-all scheme of limited application intended to deal with a special case of localised hardship...". I am concerned about people who were unable to take up the board's offer because of the size of the capital sum at the time the offer was made. There were technical restrictions on what the board might offer in that period. For example, since then, availability of expertise has enabled the idea of the supply of electricity to islands to be entertained. On an island such as Inishbofin which does not come within the competence of the Minister for the Gaeltacht there are a number of householders who are anxious to have electricity available to them. I mention their case although I am well aware of the fact that I introduced a note of environmental responsibility, and I seriously question whether we should not regard remote locations as suitable locations for alternative energy supplies. We should be imaginative in doing that and, if necessary, we should be willing to subsidise alternative energy sources where they have a high environmental attraction.

I want once again to welcome this Bill. I know I have raised some questions. The one which bothers me is the provision mentioned in the last paragraph of the Minister's speech which seeks to allow for amendment of the general employees and manual workers superannuation scheme.

May I finally wish the new Minister for Transport and Power well in dealing with the Electricity Supply Board, a board of which I am a former employee. My memory of that board is quite clear. I can remember some major difficulties concerning the integration of engineering and administrative functions.

My reason for stressing the importance of dealing well with ESB pensioners and particularly the case of the widows of manual workers who have worked for the ESB is that I know the commitment which the linesmen had to the supply of electricity in rural areas and the sense of attachment many of these men had to the provision of a valuable amenity to people in remote rural areas. It would be very wrong if the widows of manual workers, or the retired members of the Electricity Supply Board in this most exciting stage of its history, were somehow or another left behind. It might be very useful, too, when we look at the history of these boards—and we should look at them more critically than we do— to contrast the sense of zeal which inspired the workers in their early stages with the present atmosphere in a number of the semi-State bodies now that they have become bureaucratic because of insufficient allowance being made for participation by employees. As I say, that people have said it is a mixed blessing. I wish the Minister for Transport and Power well with all the new semi-State bodies he has just so recently acquired and which are now more accountable, so many of them indirectly, than they have ever been before to both Houses of the Oireachtais.

I only hope that these bodies including the Electricity Supply Board who are not mentioned in the motion, will realise that if the public gaze comes on them it is not in a spirit of criticism. Many socialists, like myself particularly, see it as an attraction to work for the community rather than for individual profit. I hope that, as we finish with this minor aspect of the ESB's activities, people will discover, perhaps for the first time, the genuine enthusiasm which can come from serving the community rather than individual profit motivation. It is high time we realised that many of the semi-State bodies are not just left-overs from private enterprise, or some area into which private enterprise would not move. It is true that private enterprise will never move into something that does not make a profit, but there can be a great spirit of excitement, and we are moving into an area where the private sector will be withering away more and more, and the experience of having worked in the Electricity Supply Board will be a more valuable one in the future than I have found it myself to date.

Mr. W. O'Brien

Like previous speakers I welcome this Bill. I believe it will make many people happy who thought they would never enjoy the ESB service. I was disappointed at first when I read the Bill because I thought something should be done for the ordinary young married couples throughout the country. When it came to building their own homes, they were confronted with a very heavy demand at a time when they could least afford it. I am glad they, at least, are being considered. I often wondered why we could not have a co-ordinated service between the Department of Local Government and the ESB. I believe it is not impossible to introduce some form of rent or rates structure which would meet that demand instead of requesting a contribution to be paid immediately.

It is nice to know that people are very anxious to return to rural Ireland. This is a step in the right direction and something which we all welcome. That step should be encouraged and every possible effort should be made to induce and help people to live in rural Ireland. There are many things I fail to understand about the ESB services. Very often when people were about to build a home public representatives were asked to make representations to the ESB. At no stage in my life as a public representative was I successful in getting an ESB bill reduced. Very often I was told it was a problem of so many poles or an additional transformer. One felt that some people who could least afford it were making a contribution to an additional transformer for the entire district. One was told the people concerned should have consulted the ESB before they decided on the location of their house. For a married couple purchasing a site in rural Ireland at the moment there is very little choice. They have to take what they can get.

The ESB were most unreasonable when power was being transferred from an old to a new house. In that case there should have been no charge, and I often wondered why it was raised. In rural Ireland the farming community have many grievances because of the lack of power in their area. It is often said that the power is completely inadequate to cope with their milking machines and other modern equipment. It is gratifying to know that 98 per cent of our rural. houses are connected to the ESB service. Not alone do we compare favourably with other countries, but we are ahead of quite a number of them. I welcome the Minister here today in his first appearance as Minister for Transport and Power and I wish him many years of happiness.

Mr. Deasy

There is nothing like a by-election for getting results. In 1966 in South Kerry, the people were "rained" with wellington boots and eventually they got a bridge to span the divide between Valentia Island and the mainland. Now, as result of the 1975 by-election in West Mayo, the people of Ballycroy are to get electricity, and rightly so, and the people of the Black Valley in Kerry and places like Woodford in Galway will benefit from this new Bill. The Minister told us there are some 800 to 900 householders without electricity in these and other rural areas. I find it difficult to believe that figure is correct. I would have thought that it was much higher.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): That is not what I said. There are between 800 and 900 people who declined electricity because they were not prepared to pay the capital contribution.

Mr. Deasy

I would hope that, if the £300,000 which is being voted in this Bill is used up in attending to areas such as Ballycroy and Black Valley, other parts of the country will not suffer. For instance, my own county of Waterford has a considerable mountainous area and there are numerous houses without electricity. I should like to get the same consideration as the areas mentioned.

Mention has been made of people who build new houses and get very high quotations from the ESB. I have the greatest sympathy with these people. We, as public representatives, receive representations daily from this type of person. The people themselves are largely to blame, but they are not completely to blame. What may appear to be an excellent and convenient site can often turn out to be very costly. Looking at a specific site people might say that to connect it up to the ESB mains would not require even one pole. When the house is half-erected the builders ask the ESB for a quotation. They can get the shock of their lives when they are asked to pay £300, £400 or £500. It is not the ESB's fault. I presume prices dictate their policy. I wonder if it could be made complusory that when people apply for planning permission to a local authority they must also apply for a quotation from the ESB. Time and again I have seen people getting caught in this way. They cannot afford to pay this charge unless they skimp on some other item and the house may be left unfinished for a couple of years as a result of this exorbitant ESB charge.

We have many problems in the country as regards low voltage, particularly now that farms are becoming more and more modernised and using expensive milking parlours. Neighbouring houses and even the farmer's house can suffer from a lack of voltage at milking time. I know the ESB do their best to remedy this situation, but I believe they have a criterion that the voltage has to be less than 200 volts before they will attend to the matter. If many farmers in one area are milking at the same time, this can result in people in nearby houses not being able to get television reception, or not being able to use electrical applicances. The limits the ESB adopt are a bit too severe. They should facilitate people on a wider scale.

If a young man is setting up an industry, be it a metalwork or a woodwork industry, he has to have a three-phase supply of electricity. He has to pay the full whack for connection to the ESB. The Minister might consider giving a subsidy to somebody setting up such an industry. Very often the capital cost of installing a three-phase supply can stop or, at least, put back the promotion of the industry for several years. I am glad to see the Bill eliminates the need for the payment of a lump sum by people in remote areas. That is the essence of the Bill and the Minister is to be congratulated on it.

If I may go back to the mechanics of it, I feel the majority of members of the House do not understand what is involved financially. I want to reassure myself that my views on it are correct. If I am wrong I hope the Minister will correct me. Under the old rural electrification scheme people were subsidised up to an extent of £750. They could pay this £750 in terms of a fixed charge and a service charge. Once they went over £750, they had to pay a lump sum. For instance, if the installation cost £1,500, they had to pay the first £750 on a fixed charge and a special charge over a number of years, ad infinitum. The remaining sum of £750 had to be paid as a lump sum. Since this scheme ceased on 31st March, 1975, I understand the whole £1,500 had to be paid as a lump sum. Now as a result of this scheme, the first £700 will still have to be paid in terms of a fixed charge and a service charge, and the remaining £800 will be paid out of the £300,000 being voted in this Bill today. If I am not correct in that I should like the Minister to contradict me.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): The Senator is substantially correct. I will deal with it when replying.

Mr. Deasy

It is very confusing. I see from the Dáil Official Report that the majority of Deputies were "in a heap" about it. I should like the Minister to clarify those figures. I have always found the ESB officials very helpful in administering the various rural electrification schemes. More recently they got a lot of abuse and criticism because the subsidies which existed under the old scheme were eliminated. The public do not readily understand that the subsidies were eliminated and it is not really the ESB who are to blame. They found it exceedingly difficult to explain this and, as a result, people come to us local representatives and, unfortunately, in the vast bulk of cases we are not able to help in any way whatsoever. The ESB have had a most difficult job, and this Bill will be a help to them. They can offer people more favourable terms.

The Minister said this is a once-for-all scheme. I wish he had not been so definite, because it is not very humane to be so definite. Time and again we come across people in very remote areas who could not get electricity because their neighbours did not want it. As a result, instead of being shared between three or four houses, one individual had to bear the brunt of the complete cost. With the passing of years their might be a change in ownership of the other residences, or a change in attitude, and the contribution might be equally shared.

It is completely unfair to a son or a daughter who inherits the house from parents who were old-fashioned and did not want electricity in the house. Some people had ridiculous ideas about the dangers of electricity, and the cost of it, and so on. Children were often the victims of this type of old-fashioned philosophy. When their parents died they found themselves stranded with no electricity and faced with exorbitant costs of connection. If this is a once-for-all scheme that type of person will still be victimised in ten or 20 years' time. Provision should be made for hardship cases such as that. In that connection, I would have thought the EEC would surely have some scheme where people in remote areas and in such circumstances could be facilitated.

Finally I should like to refer to the matter of overground ESB lines. The suggestion has been made that the ESB should put their cables underground. I agree fully with that suggestion. Some of the most beautiful parts of our country have been spoiled and absolutely raped, once could say, by miles and miles of telephone wires and ESB lines. I know it is more expensive to put these lines underground. I appeal to the Minister to make an attempt to start putting them underground. We all know the poem starting: "I think that I shall never see. A poem lovely as a tree." On the other hand, there is probably nothing as ugly as to see beautiful countryside spoiled by miles of wires and poles. Unless we can get those poles to sprout branches there is no alternative but to place them underground. Our tourists must be appalled when they come across scenic areas which are spoiled in such a manner.

I welcome the Bill. It serves a most useful purpose. I would appeal to the Minister not to put a closing date on it, leave it loose-ended so that victims of circumstances may benefit from it in years to come.

Professor Quinlan

Like other Sentors I should like to take this opportunity of welcoming the Minister to the House in his new capacity as Minister for Transport and Power. It is especially gratifying to see an old Member of the Seanad back wearing his second Ministerial hat. We both have many pleasant memories of our times together on these benches, not to mention the various PR and other campaigns that occupied that period rather fruitfully and happily.

This is a small Bill but affords an opportunity of paying tribute to the work done in rural electrification. It is gratifying that today we have reached a 98 per cent to 99 per cent completion, figures which are fully comparable with those in England and elsewhere. All concerned are to be congratulated on them. Anything that can be done to bring this necessity of modern living to the remaining scattered households in the country will be welcomed, and the sooner the better.

The Minister mentions a figure of £300,000. He says this is a once-for-all scheme. I agree with previous speakers that it cannot ever be completely finished. There will be always some anomalies. Those anomalies simply should be placed on the conscience and or goodwill of the ESB. Whatever little it will cost it will be the contribution of all those who have enjoyed electricity over the years to their less fortunate brothers. If it costs only something of the order of the present figure, getting rid of anomalies, it will have cut the red tape. There should be no need for further legislation, except a simple clause that will give some discretion to the ESB to judge these very rare cases on their merits and make whatever accommodation that can be made available to owners, with the overall aim of ensuring that as far as possible everyone will have connection.

Electricity is not the only means of heating and cooking. In the present situation, with the gas find and its development off Kinsale, in many ways gas is more economical and a more direct way of using energy for heating and cooking rather than conversion into electricity. Perhaps some of the remote places could be brought into some type of scheme—I will not say subsidised—which would encourage them to use gas. The objective of that has been declared before. Some progress has been made. At present it would suit the national interest to encourage the direct use of gas in such situations. In the years ahead we may even be envisaging national schemes.

I appeal to the Government and the Minister to realise the pool of talent and expertise we have got in the ESB at all levels. We should place tasks on their shoulders and give them the necessary discretion for carrying out those national tasks. We should also encourage them to expand and develop further their present contract work with Third World Countries in selling their expertise for development in those countries. That is something that will be beneficial to both of us. It will provide an outlet for the creative talent in the ESB to really show what they can do often on a larger scale than we can provide at home. Great tribute has to be paid to them for the work they have done. Their continuing central role in the country and in the energy field does not need emphasis. I hope they will be given every encouragement.

Mr. Ferris

I should like to join other Senators in the general welcome given to this provision to enable additional assistance to be given from public funds towards the cost of connecting isolated houses in rural Ireland to electricity supply. I do so in the knowledge, which is unbelievable, that even in my county, Tipperary, which was one of the first counties to avail of rural electrification —indeed the late Canon Hayes performed the switch-on in my native village in the first years of rural electrification—much still needs to be done. There are regions within the county, on the slopes of the Galtee Mountains— and Glencushabinna comes to mind immediately—there are still houses some four miles on the side of the mountain without rural electrification. When they applied in recent times, hoping to modernise themselves, they were staggered at the cost quoted by the ESB. I should like an assurance from the Minister in his reply that these applications, although made some time ago, will be treated as valid applications under this new scheme. Although they had applied the terms quoted were so prohibitive they were dropped as a live effort to have rural electrification in their area. Whereas some people on this roadway have achieved rural electrification through intensive farming and so on there are still smaller farmers in the upper regions that have not been connected yet. I am hoping that under this new scheme they will benefit. I compliment the Minister on its introduction.

I agree with the principle that where new households are concerned consulttation should take place with the ESB, Of course, there are exceptions even to this rule. I would hope that certain people, who for economic reasons get isolated sites—isolated in the board's terminology would be a roadway on which there is no electricity. It may not necessarily be an isolated road. Indeed it may be the only suitable site a person, in some circumstances, could get on which to build a house. I know of one such person recently who is incapacitated through a leg amputation. He is now living on social welfare and, through compensation and so on he decided to build himself a house more suitable than his present one. Through the generosity of his relatives a site was offered to him in an area the ESB considered was isolated. The quotation for electricity there was in the region of £600, which means that the man has to further depend on the generosity of his family and others for the provision of what most of us consider now to be one of the essentials of life. Water is probably the first and electricity is very high on the priority list. We have grown so dependent on it as a mode of power and convenience that we look on it as vital to survival. It is a compliment to people in isolated areas such as those mentioned in parts of Kerry and Mayo and in parts of my own county, Tipperary, that they have managed to survive for so long with the problems that can be created because they cannot avail of all the modern conveniences which make life easier.

I should like to join other Members in complimenting the Minister on his first visit to this House as Minister for Transport and Power. With the energies he put into his previous Department I have no doubt that Transport and Power is in very safe hands, and I wish him well.

Minister for Transport and Power (Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick,

Cavan): First of all, I want to express my gratitude and thanks to Senator Lenihan and all others for the welcome extended to me on this my first visit to the Seanad in my capacity as Minister for Transport and Power. I also want to thank them for their complimentary remarks and for their expression of good wishes. As I said on a previous occasion it is always a friendly experience for me, and one which I enjoy, to come back to Seanad Éireann where I started my professional parliamentary career in 1961.

I also want to thank all the Senators who spoke for their general welcome for this Bill and for their general satisfaction with it. It is a small Bill but affords scope for a very wide discussion.

Many Senators complimented the ESB on the work they have done over the years. I should like to add my words of thanks and appreciation to the Electricity Supply Board for the great service they have rendered this nation.

In 1976 it is not amiss to put on the record of this House that the Electricity Supply Board was established in 1926 or 1927, and is now reaching its golden jubilee. I know I will not be misunderstood if I say that the establishment of the ESB in the mid-twenties is further evidence of the very enlightened approach of the Government of that day to the social and economic requirements of this country. The State had only been founded a few years. There were many difficulties to be dealt with. Finance had to be found. The various institutions of the State had to be established. The politicians of those days were young men who found themselves in charge of the government of a country with very little or no parliamentary experience. I say, therefore, that the establishment of the Electricity Supply Board is evidence of the enlightened and farseeing thinking in those days. The ESB, having been established, progressed very satisfactorily. As the years went on, notwithstanding the set-back and interruption of their work brought about by the Second World War which started in 1939 and went on to 1945, we find that, when the Government of the day in 1945 passed the Rural Electrification Act and asked the Electricity Supply Board to take on the job of lighting and bringing a much wanted necessity to rural Ireland, the Electricity Supply Board were ready to undertake that onerous task.

The fact that we can record here today—to which Senators have drawn our attention—that 98 to 99 per cent of the households of this country are connected to the electricity supply and have that benefit and amenity is an outstanding credit to the ESB.

From time to time we are very fond of comparing ourselves with other countries, but for a different reason, comparing ourselves with other countries to show that we are not as good as them, that we are lagging behind or that we are not doing the job as well. Here we find the position is different. We find that 420,000 houses are connected, and that represents 98 or 99 per cent of all the rural houses in Ireland. In Britain and the United States of America the percentage does not reach 99 per cent. It is marginally lower than ours. That is something we should take pride in and something we should record as being an example to other countries. Countries like Germany, Switzerland and Sweden have virtually the same rate of supply or connection as we have. When we find ourselves criticised so often it is good that we should put on record fairly and squarely and in no mistaken manner, the achievement we have reached. I have great pleasure in doing so and join with other Senators in complimenting the Electricity Supply Board.

If I might turn to the Bill before dealing with the various points raised by Senators, which might take a little time, I should like to tell the Seanad— to repeat what I said in my introductory statement, that the rural electrification scheme was got under way in 1945 or 1946. Then everybody in the country had an opportunity of having their houses electrified at subsidised rates. But 1945 or 1946 is 30 years ago and some people, particularly elderly people, were slow to take the light for one reason or another. Some of them said: "An oil lamp will do me for my day". Others said it was too expensive. Others might have been afraid of it. For one reason or another a lot of them did not acquire it. It did not end there. They were given two subsequent opportunities of availing of subsidised electricity, one I think in the sixties and the last one between 1971 and 1975. As rural Senators here will be aware, there could not be any possible question of people not knowing that these subsidised terms were offered to them. Every local newspaper, which is read in most houses in Ireland, carried large advertisements drawing people's attention to it. It did not stop there either. In every place of worship, every church in the country, notices were read out by the clergy drawing the attention of the parishioners to the fact that a last opportunity was being given them to avail of connection to electricity supply at subsidised rates.

Therefore, in all fairness, there can be no question of people not being aware that they were being given a last opportunity between 1971 and 1975. The terms offered in 1971-75 made electricity available to private householders on the basis that the Electricity Supply Board would provide electricity on a rental or a fixed charge in normal circumstances. Where the circumstances were abnormal, or where the amount of work involved in connecting was something out of the ordinary, then a special service charge by way of rental was payable where the capital charge of connecting a house did not exceed £750. In cases where the capital charge of connecting the house exceeded £750 a lump sum contribution of part of the capital cost was required. During the last subsidised rural electrification scheme a number of people all over Ireland refused to take the light or the current because they could not afford the lump sum contribution which, in some cases, ran into hundreds of pounds.

I want to make it clear to the Seanad that those are the type of cases we are dealing with here, under the Bill. We are dealing with people who were offered subsidised electricity, subject to a capital contribution, and who refused to take it. Those people now, whether they are in Black Valley, Ballycroy or any place else in Ireland are now being offered electricity on subsidised terms, but this time there will be no capital contribution of any nature. There will be no lump sum payable. All the cases that we are dealing with now would have cost, in 1971-75 values, £700 at least. There will be no capital contribution of any description now. The only payment that will be required of householders is a rental fixed at present rates of £36.40p per annum. That is the only charge they will have to pay. It is not confined to the Black Valley or to Ballycroy. It includes the entire Republic of Ireland where any person applied for electricity at the subsidised rate, was quoted terms which included a capital contribution, and did not accept it. I hope that is clear.

Mr. Dolan

Might I ask the Minister a question? Would people be included who did not make application on any previous occasion who live in rural Ireland?

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): The answer to that question is “no”. They are not covered by the Bill and I do not pretend that they are. It was only those people who applied and who were quoted terms which they could not accept.

Mr. Deasy

When speaking I raised something on those lines. What about the sons of parents who refused?

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): No problem in the words of one of my illustrious predecessors. This Bill deals with premises, not people. If an application was made in respect of a house and unacceptable terms which included capital contribution were quoted——

Mr. Deasy

The point I am making would not include that type of case. Take the case of parents who did not want electricity in the house; the children did want it. Therefore, there was no application made under the old rural electrification scheme. Now the parents have died and the children want it. Are they disqualified?

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): They are not included in the Bill.

Mr. Deasy

That is the loophole I instanced.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): The Bill is intended to cover people who applied and were quoted unacceptable terms, which included capital contribution. It does not matter who is residing in the premises now. If an application was made in respect of the premises and terms refused because of capital contributions the premises are still covered. But, if no application was made, they are not covered by the Bill.

There is one other very useful provision in this Bill. Many Senators made reference to young married couples and others who build houses in rural areas and then find themselves with a demand for a capital sum of several hundred pounds for the installation of electricity. All of us in the course of our constituency work know of these cases, and cases of hardship. It is true that anybody who is going to build a house would be well advised to consult the local ESB office. There is one in every provincial town and a few in every county. They should inquire there as to the cost of connecting before they build the house. That is only a prudent precaution. Anybody who does not do that is taking a risk just as if he were to build a house without ascertaining whether he would have to bore 50 feet or several hundred feet to get water. He would be well advised to find out the cost of installation.

Where new houses are built in reasonable places there can still be a demand for a capital contribution for the installation of the light. The applicant will be required to pay the first £300 cash down. Up to the next £1,000 may be paid by instalments over a period of three to five years at the election of the applicant. Sums in excess of £1,300 must be paid in full. This is to discourage people from building houses in completely unsuitable places. Payment by instalments is a considerable concession and will be welcomed by a great many people.

Many Senators raised a lot of questions. I will try to deal with them as best I can. Senator Brian Lenihan confined his remarks to saying he was generally satisfied with the Bill and complimented the Electricity Supply Board on the work they had done, with special reference to rural electrification.

Senator Dolan welcomed the Bill also and referred to the social and economic value of electricity. He suggested that I might consider ways and means of generating electricity by a means that would be less expensive than the use of imported oils. I can tell him that this is something that the Electricity Supply Board have constantly under review and that they are anxious to use native fuel and native power as far as that is possible. The Electricity Supply Board started off by using the cheapest of all kinds of power—water—and where possible we use turf. I can tell Senator Dolan that I am anxious that electricity should be generated at the cheapest possible rate. The Senator raised the question also of co-operation between Northern Ireland and ourselves. There is a very close though informal contact between the ESB and the Northern Ireland electricity authorities. It is unfortunate that the inter connector between the North and South has been out of order for several months. It has been blown up a number of times and it is not proposed to restore it at the moment. This is yet another example of the dreadful consequences of the trouble in Northern Ireland. It is another way that is affecting us. Indeed it shows the futility of the actions of some people whose expressed aim is to bring about the union of this country. The actions of some of them in blowing up a connector like this is driving people apart, keeping people apart and doing more to make any sort of a happy relationship between both parts of the country more remote than it is. I want to deplore it, and I am sure the Seanad will join with me in that.

Senator Moynihan dealt with the capital contribution and the fixed charges I have dealt with those questions. Senator Moynihan, too, raised the point of a number of houses being grouped together. The Bill will only cover the houses in respect of which capital contributions were sought but the occupiers refused to accept. That is the position there.

Senator Higgins dealt with a number of questions. In particular he dealt with the section of the Bill which enables me to approve of more generous pension schemes for ESB employees. Though in theory the right of approval to superannuation schemes rests with me, in practice the superannuation provisions are a matter for the Minister for the Public Service. The points made by Senator Higgins will be examined fully and every consideration will be given to them. I can tell the Senator also that proposals to amalgamate the ESB general employees and manual workers superannuation schemes which would give the same benefits to widows and orphans of manual workers as apply to general employees cannot advance until such time as the triannual actuarial evaluation of the schemes is available to the board. I understand that this evaluation will be available early in the new year.

Mr. M.D. Higgins

I am grateful to the Minister for his assistance in this technical matter as it arose to make the point somewhat clear, may I say that in his speech the Minister said that this would bring the scheme into line with the more progressive changes which I acknowledge in the civil service generally and which have been introduced by the Minister for the Public Service, but the point which has been made continually to the ESB staff association when they have approached the Department of Transport and Power is that this is a matter for the board of the ESB and that the board up to the time of this assurance by the Minister, have been intractable in dealing with their approach. I am grateful to the Minister and apologise for interrupting him.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): As the Senator will appreciate, superannuation matters are complex and can involve long and protracted negotiations between the ESB management and staff involving and requiring my approval in consultation with the Minister for the Public Service. However, if the Senator wishes I shall arrange to have these matters discussed with him. They are complex. They are involved. There are on-going consultations, but a member of the staff of my Department will be available to the Senator or to any other Senator who wishes to discuss the matter. Senator Higgins was also concerned about Omey Island. It is linked with the mainland, I understand, and will likely benefit from the Bill. I have a question down on this very matter for answer tomorrow and I will be giving the exact number of people who will likely benefit under the scheme. There may possibly be other householders on the island who will not benefit, but we have no knowledge of them.

Senator Higgins also raised the question of FEOGA. I am told that FEOGA grants are not available for non-farm installations. In other words they are not available for private installations. Again Senator Higgins raised the question of the non-Gaeltacht islands. The position is that Gaeltacht islands such as the Aran islands benefit under the Gaeltacht scheme. Generally speaking non-Gaeltacht islands have not as yet got electricity but they get grants for bottled gas and so on. However we are considering, without any firm commitment at this stage, what can possibily be done to cover the non-Gaeltacht islands. Generally speaking the cost would be very substantial. In general, the offshore islands were excluded from the various schemes of rural electrification. Only islands very close to the mainland were included, but you can take it that if any reasonable way can be found of providing electricity for these areas it will be found.

Senator Willie O'Brien raised the question of a young married couple seeking electricity. I think I have dealt with that. The provisions in the Bill have gone as far as they can go. I think it would be a good thing if there was co-operation between the Department of Local Government and the ESB. I do not think I would go entirely so far as to say that the provision of electricity should be made a planning condition, because if that were made a planning condition I could see some people coming in here and saying that it has nothing to do with the environment, that it has nothing to do with the scenic position in the country, and some people might not want electricity at all. They might be prepared to use gas. So I would not be prepared to go that far.

The question of low voltage was raised by Senator O'Brien. It is true that in the past there were various complaints about low power in rural areas, especially in the dairying areas. While there are some complaints yet, these are less frequent in recent months. The ESB are doing their best to improve power in all such cases, and I will encourage them to continue to do so. Senator O'Brien also dealt with newly married couples seeking to have their homes connected. I have dealt with that.

Senator Deasy raised a number of points. I have dealt with most of them by spelling out clearly what is covered by the Bill and what is not covered by the Bill. The Senator also raised the question of planning authorities, and I have dealt with that, too.

The general statement I made at the opening covers also the points raised by Senator Deasy as to whether every house in the country would be covered or whether the items would be confined to the Black Valley and Ballycroy. I have made it clear that it applies to every house within the category set out in the Bill—those who applied under the subsidised scheme, were quoted terms which included capital contribution, and refused. I would tell the Seanad that a special pamphlet is being prepared within my Department which will give full details of the application of this Bill and, when it becomes an Act, I hope to have that pamphlet circulated to members of the Oireachtas and to other interested parties. It should prove very useful.

Senator Deasy raised the question of the disfiguration of the countryside by overhead wires. We would all like perfection, but we must be practical. We must keep our priorities right. The cost of putting all these wires underground would be enormous and the cost of electricity would have to be increased enormously to the consumer or, alternatively, the taxpayer would have to be asked to pay more. Neither course would be acceptable. It is true to say that even at this stage wires are being put underground in various places as a beginning, but in rural Ireland if wires were to be put underground the cost, I am told, would be ten to 15 times greater than the cost of overhead wires. That is my information from the experts. While the installation of underground wires is something we would look forward to and something that we would desire, it cannot be given priority at the moment. I agree that where convenient or where possible without undue cost, this course should be taken.

Senator Quinlan is fearful that the provisions of this Bill might not be adequate to do the job that it sets out to do. I have spelled out clearly the job that it sets out to do. That is, first, to provide electricity to those who were quoted a capital contribution. I am satisfied and I assure the House that the financial and other provisions of the Bill are adequate to cover every house that falls into that category. The other item in the Bill relates to deferred payments.

Senator Quinlan suggested also that the expertise of the ESB should be availed of to advise people and to provide a consultancy agency, both at home and abroad. I am glad to tell him, and I would not be surprised if Senator Quinlan already knows, that the ESB are just engaging in that sort of activity. The ESB have the Minister's approval to undertake overseas consultancy and related work. They are in fact doing so at the moment, and they also undertake specialised consultancy work at home. They are doing that under authority from my Department, but legislation is being prepared to formalise the authority. I am sure the Senator will be glad to know the board expect to gross about £1 million income for such services during the current year. I am glad that the Senator raised the matter because it gave me an opportunity of saying that.

I have dealt with all the points raised by the Senators, and again I want to thank them for the welcome they have given the Bill. As I said in my opening speech, there will still be the odd house here and there that will not be included, but I put to the Seanad that 99 per cent, and it will be 99 point something per cent at the moment, is a fair performance, a performance that the ESB and the various Governments can be proud of.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed to take remaining Stages today.