I am not worried what way Deputy Blaney or the Parliamentary Secretary looks. What I am worried about is the people of the rural areas when I see Deputies coming into this House to play politics. Whatever about generating electricity outside I do not want to start generating it here because there would be too many sparks flying, and I do not want to add to the hot air. I want to get this on a reasonable basis, and I am convinced if this motion is left, as it should be left, to a free vote of the House that rural Deputies from all Parties will support it. I do not see any reason in the world why that should not be done in view of something which the Attorney-General said in the House the other night when he described this matter "as a mere bagatelle." He spoke at some length on this and as reported in Volume 154, No. 1, column 175, he said:—
"After the Parliamentary Secretary's remarks I must go on with what I have already remarked, that is, that reduction in the special charges spread over the whole body of electricity consumers would not make any great difference..."
Now, without mentioning the word "subsidy" at all, the position is that if the extra charge that has been imposed is removed, it would not be any hardship on the consumers as a whole. That is the statement of the Attorney-General, who was a Minister in this Government from 1948 to 1951. Surely, the members of his own Party are not going to contradict him.
When the rural electrification scheme started, there were three points to remember with regard to initial development. The first was that the E.S.B. should not lose on rural electrification; the second was that as far as the economic element was concerned, that would be met or carried by a State subsidy. The third point was that where the capital cost of giving a supply in any case exceeded 16 times the fixed charge revenue, the extra service charge would operate. These are the three points to remember about conditions when rural electrification started.
What has happened since? The last two points I have mentioned have disappeared. The ratio of 16 to 1 has been changed on a number of occasions, in 1951 and again in 1952. That ratio went up from 16 to 1 to 20 to 1 and then to 24 to 1. If it was found desirable to change that ratio on two occasions in order to ease the burden on rural consumers, surely there is nothing to suggest that these people who have to pay the extra service charge in outside areas should not be facilitated to some extent? That is one point that has gone by the board, the ratio.
Another point that has gone is the subsidy. I do not care who likes or dislikes it but I maintain that so far, to my knowledge, the removal of the subsidy has not made any difference with regard to the installation cost in the particular areas of development by the E.S.B. I want to be quite frank about the situation so far as I know it but I am not discussing the areas involved in this case. That has nothing to do with this motion which has regard to the people who are on the fringe of these areas. That is what I want the Deputies to remember when it comes to making a decision. This is a motion to remove a hardship on the people who live on the fringes of development areas. Deputy McGilligan, the other night, spoke at length on this question and one of the points he put up was that if the motion was accepted the large houses and the big holders would get facilities that they did not deserve. He even went so far as to suggest that there should be a form of means test imposed if the motion was carried.
I do not think that anybody would agree with that but I defy anybody to show me, on the western seaboard, in Galway, Mayo, Kerry, Cork and Donegal, any number of big houses involved. Those who are affected mostly by the motion are people with valuations of from £3 to £10, who are living at the end of a boreen and who happen to be one, two or three hundred yards from the end of the E.S.B. poles. Because a man is unlucky enough to be living there, does that mean that he should have to pay double the ordinary charge that other people have to pay for getting the facility of light and the other things that go with rural electrification?
I am not going to enlarge on the question of emigration but the most important amenity that was ever brought to the rural areas is rural electrification. It has changed the minds of the people for the better and it has given the one hope that I can see that a few people will, in the long run, now remain in the rural areas. Let us ensure that the people who live in the most neglected areas will, as far as we can possibly manage it, continue to remain there.
Deputy Desmond was worried that this motion of mine did not solve certain problems or bring in other matters in the South in which he is interested. I believe that bringing in a very far reaching measure here in the form of a private Deputy's motion would be rather foolhardy. I would not dream of doing so unless I were able to argue the whole pros and cons of the matter. What I am trying to do, in my own small way, is to remedy a grievance that affects roughly 3 per cent. of the users of rural electrification. The figure given to me, in the form of replies to questions I have asked, is that of the number who have already had rural electrification installed 3 per cent. are paying the extra service charge. That figure of 3 per cent. will naturally rise to 6 or 8 per cent. when finality is reached with regard to rural electrification.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance, Deputy Donnellan, suggests that I should have patience and do what the Parliamentary Secretary, Deputy Crotty, suggests—postpone this motion until rural electrification is complete. Rural electrification will not be completed for a few years yet. Is it suggested that when it is finished it is the intention to go back on these pockets, these isolated houses and small villages and give them the benefit of rural electrification without the extra service charge? Is that the guarantee that is given?