asked the Minister for Transport and Power why a person (name supplied) in County Galway has been asked to pay £919.12 for electricity installation; and why the Kilternan rural area is closed for subsidised terms.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Electricity Installation Cost.
63.
I am informed by the ESB that the provision of supply to the premises in question would involve the erection of 800 metres of high tension cable, a 5 KVA transformer, service and meter. The terms quoted are the appropriate unsubsidised terms and are based on the cost of extending supply.
During the course of the development work under the final phase of the Government-subsidised rural electrification scheme every householder in the Kilternan area was given an opportunity of availing of supply at subsidised rates. Work in this area was completed in July, 1974, and the area is now closed for subsidised supply. The person in question applied for connection to the electricity supply in October, 1974.
In order that the rural electrification scheme be completed within the timescale and capital available to the board it is necessary that the work be done on a systematic basis, rural area by rural area. Under this arrangement, once an area is closed further applications for connection can be met only if they can be dealt with without interfering with the progress of the scheme, and if the capital cost is put up by the applicant.
I agree with the Minister that the cost appears rather exorbitant. The case I am referring to concerns a new house. If a man decides to build a house subsequent to the inspection of the area will he be victimised because he did not apply prior to the area being closed?
If he has not applied within the specified time laid down by the board for a specific area he will have to pay the unsubsidised rate.
I would ask the Minister to consider the position of the man who had not thought of building a house when the area was being considered but who subsequently marries and builds a house there. Is he to be victimised as against the man living in the neighbouring townland who can get cheaper electricity?
The rural electrification scheme was designed to cater for people who were then living in rural areas so that they would have subsidised electricity. In order to do this in the most economical way and to get the best value for the money made available by the Government it had to be done on a systematic area-by-area basis. If a person applied after a rural area was closed he would not get the benefit of the subsidised terms. This applies to people who were living in the area during the time and to those building houses later.
We are advising people to go back to the land and we are encouraging them to build houses there. It is rather unfair that they should be treated in this way.
This is developing into an argument. I would remind the Deputy that this is Question Time.
There has been a tendency to consider that electricity should be brought to the gable-end of a house no matter where it is situated even though the people who expect this service do not expect the same treatment with regard to roads or water or sewerage services for which they appear to be willing to pay. For some reason they expect that the electricity should be available for a house wherever it is built. In the case referred to by the Deputy, the provision of electricity would involve the erection of 800 metres of high tension cable, a 5 KVA transformer, service and a meter. This would cost a considerable amount which the board would have to bear. Even though local authorities give grants for roads and water supplies they do not bear the full cost; they expect a contribution from the people being serviced.
I would point out to the Minister that if the man involved in this instance had built a house a few years earlier he would have come under the cheaper scheme. Why should we not help him in this matter?
The rural electrification scheme was designed specifically to serve the greatest number of houses at the cheapest cost. At the time there was no intention to have it an on-going scheme catering for people coming into the area afterwards. The scheme was designed to cater for the people already in the area.
It is a deterrent——
This is developing into an argument.
If a person decides to build a house he gets a tender for it——
I would remind the House that this is Question Time. We cannot have an argument on this question.
People should consider the cost of connecting with the electricity supply. The cost can vary even from one side of the road to the other, or from area to area. I brought this matter to the attention of the Minister for Local Government and he has arranged that local authorities will inform people that they should consider the question of the cost involved for electricity supply when they are building a house.
The scope of the question has been totally enlarged beyond what is allowed at Question Time. We cannot have an argument at Question Time.
Would the Minister agree that the subsidy being paid at present bears no relation to the cost of insulation? Would he consider increasing it to a substantial degree?
The subsidy has been set down by an Act of this House and it expires on 31st March of this year.
I am calling Question No. 64.