Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 10 Dec 1968

Vol. 237 No. 13

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Electricity Extension Contribution.

48.

asked the Minister for Transport and Power why the ESB ask a resident of a new housing scheme for £38 before they will instal electricity.

I am informed by the Electricity Supply Board that it has always been their policy to request a contribution to the cost of an extension of their supply lines if expected revenue appeared inadequate to cover the cost of the extension. In the particular matter of extensions to new housing schemes the decisive factor in assessing the economics is the expected degree of utilisation of electricity in the houses. Thus, if houses are insufficiently wired, or equipped with non-electric means of cooking, waterheating etc., the board must make a correspondingly lower estimate of revenue which, in turn, reduces the amount of capital the board can economically invest in the extension.

I should add that the housing scheme referred to in the question does not come under the rural electrification scheme, as it is in an urban area and there is no state subsidy provided in respect of it.

Is it now seriously contended that the State monopoly in electric power will say to a resident in a housing estate, every house on which is wired, that if he puts in a gas cooker he will get neither light nor power without paying £38; but, if he puts in electric power, he will get both light and power without any charge at all? This is bureaucracy gone mad.

Not necessarily so. The point is that the ESB are anxious to ensure that installations of this nature pay their way. There is no question of insisting that, if there is oil or gas, the ESB must be compensated to the extent of £38. If the people being connected up are, in fact, able to establish there will be a sufficient use of electricity, and can establish that use over a five-year period, this £38 will be refunded. It is a statutory requirement that the ESB must fix their charges to ensure that the revenue will be sufficient to cover expenditure and they are precluded from granting preferential treatment to any consumer.

There is no question of granting preferential treatment to anybody. This is a new housing estate upon which the tenants have entered. Every house on the estate has electric light but, in one particular case, the ESB tells the tenant they will not give him light, power or anything else because he has a gas cooker in the kitchen and, unless he takes the gas cooker out, and puts in an electric cooker, they will not give him electricity. They will not allow him to cook on an open fire. They will not allow him to cook on the hob. He must put in an electric cooker before he will be given electric light, never mind power. It is a shame.

I think the Deputy has really twisted it now.

It is true.

The Deputy has just said that the ESB told a person requiring only light that, if he puts in a gas cooker, they will not give him electricity. That is not so.

Unless he pays £38.

Yes. I am surprised that the Deputy should suggest that we should so arrange it that the ESB need not pay their way.

I am not suggesting that. I am asking the Parliamentary Secretary does he realise that I am not talking about a resident in some remote area? I am talking about a man who lives in the middle of a housing estate, every house in which has got light and power, and this man when he asks for light instead of a dip candle is told that he will not get any light or power without the payment of £38 because he proposes to cook on the hob or on the gas stove. Why in the name of God should he not get electric light if he wants it? What the hell has it got to do with the ESB how he cooks his dinner? Are we to go hat in hand to the ESB and ask may we hang a pot over the fire in order to get light in the kitchen?

The Deputy is being ridiculous.

Why not answer the question?

I am endeavouring to answer the question in spite of the bovine interruptions.

Did the Parliamentary Secretary say "bovine"?

He should be a judge of that.

Let us not get cross about this. Let us be reasonable.

I was hoping the Deputy would be reasonable.

I am saying that the ESB cannot be expected to put electricity in this man's house at a distinct loss to themselves. In view of the fact that that man has other cooking and heating facilities his use of electricity would be limited and the capital outlay would not be justified from this point of view of the ESB. The Deputy says it is ridiculous for the ESB to expect that man to have to pay more because he wants to cook otherwise. Gas or oil will not be supplied without his getting in a cooker for its use.

Is it not a fact that 75 per cent of the people who are using electricity have not this £38 claimed from them?

Far more than 75 per cent.

So certain people are being singled out.

It is a new scheme.

He proposes to use a limited amount.

Is it seriously suggested that if I want to cook on the hob I cannot get electric light in my house, although my two neighbours on both sides have electric light, without going on my knees to the ESB and solemnly swearing I will never cook on the hob again? You are gone stark, staring mad.

We have a national electricity supply industry and the Deputy is endeavouring to insure that we use imported oil and gas.

(Interruptions.)

Question No. 49.

Barr
Roinn