asked the Minister for Transport and Power if he is aware that a surplus of £240,794 was shown in the 39th annual report of the ESB issued on 31st March, 1966; and if this factor was taken into consideration by him in deciding that a prima facie case exists to increase electricity charges by seven per cent.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - ESB Charges.
4.
I am, of course, aware that the annual report of the ESB for the year ended 31st March, 1966, showed a surplus of some £240,000.
The Deputy will be aware from the Report that the heavy rainfall during 1965-66 resulted in greatly increased output from the hydro stations; that this taken in conjunction with increased production from the oil stations enabled the Board to finish the year with a small surplus but that had average climatic conditions prevailed the accounts for the year would have shown a deficit of the order of £800,000.
In stating that there was a prima facie case for the increased charges, I had regard to these factors and also to the reasons for the increases given in the Report and referred to by me in my reply to Deputy Lindsay's question on 28th September, 1966. As I have already stated I have no intention of prejudicing in any way the consideration of this matter by the proposed Prices Advisory Body.
Would the Minister say why the proposed increase was not put to the Advisory Body before he agreed to allow it ?
I already replied to that last week.
In other words, the Minister is going to give an electric shock to the householders.
Would the Minister state whether it is the intention of the ESB to pass on the turnover tax as well as the seven per cent increase to consumers?
The Deputy will have already seen the announcement of the charges and they include the turnover tax.