asked the Minister for Transport and Power why applicants for electricity under the subsidised rural electrification scheme, who were required to pay revenue deposits, will be excluded from benefit under the proposed new scheme.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Rural Electrification.
3.
As I stated on 13th November last in reply to questions dealing with the future provision of rural electrification I am drawing up proposals designed to assist those householders who were quoted capital contributions for connection to the electricity supply under the subsidised rural electrification scheme 1971-1975 but who were unable to accept the terms. The capital contributions requested represented the buying out of part of the special service charges appropriate in these cases. It is not intended to assist any other category of consumer or prospective consumer under these proposals.
I am informed by the ESB that revenue deposits which were required in some cases under the 1971-1975 subsidised rural electrification scheme did not represent a buying out of any portion of the special service charge. These deposits were required to provide a guarantee to the Board that any applicant who might accept terms involving substantial fixed payments was in fact likely to be in a position to fulfil these commitments. Where a revenue deposit was required a consumer's account was credited with this deposit following payment of six two-monthly bills.
Would the Minister agree that to base the new scheme on this criterion will operate unfairly in respect of a very substantial number of rural dwellers? I have in mind persons who were quoted supply at the early stages of the 1971-75 rural electrification subsidy and who have subsequently been quoted very high capital contributions outside the subsidy. These people will be denied the right to benefit under the proposed scheme. I would ask the Minister to reconsider his decision in this matter. Does he not consider it unfair that 13 houses quoted £1,000 each for electricity installation will not benefit under the proposed scheme? Before he introduces details, I would ask him to reconsider——
This is more in the nature of a speech than a question.
I am not quite sure the type of people to whom the Deputy is referring. His question asked about people who are required to pay revenue deposits. As I explained in my reply, people who were required to pay revenue deposits have these deposits refunded after one year.
Is the Minister aware that there are parts of this country where people live in very poor circumstances and would not have the type of contribution which the Minister's Department sought at that time, and therefore that those poor people are to be excluded from the scheme?
If they did not have that type of money, and if they come into the category of people who could not afford the capital contribution charge during the 1971-75 period, then they are being catered for in this scheme.
They are not being catered for. People who were quoted——
A final supplementary question, Deputy.
——are to be excluded.
They will get their deposits back.
Where will they get the deposits?
It is a payment over a period, and they will get it back at the end of 12 months.
I do not know the circumstances in rural areas in Cork or whether the Minister is involved in a rural constituency, but I am referring to very poor parts of the country, particularly the west, where people did not have the type of money they were asked to contribute by the ESB and had to pass up the opportunity. We have been fighting their case——
I am giving the Deputy some latitude but I am anxious to deal with other questions.
I do not want to raise this matter on the adjournment, so may I have a further two seconds? For two years we have been pressing the Minister to bring in a scheme to cater for these people, but he is excluding many of the hardship cases along the west coast.
The people along the west were very silent for 16 years.
The Deputy does not even know where the west is.
I am somewhat at a loss here because I do not think the Deputy is talking about revenue deposits. If he is referring to people who could not afford the charges being asked for during the subsidised scheme, they are included. If they did not accept the terms quoted by the ESB, and if there was a capital contribution involved, they are included in the new scheme.
I am sorry, I do not think the Minister understands——
Deputy Molloy, this must be your final supplementary. I am passing on to another question.
The Minister's secretary informed me that subsidised terms to 13 applicants in the Mannin area of Ballyconneely included revenue deposits, and capital contributions were not requested. The terms were refused by the applicants and they are now to be excluded from the new scheme because revenue deposits are requested.
Therefore I presume no capital contribution was demanded in this case.
I said that.
The Deputy did not say that. If there was no capital contribution demanded during the scheme then they are excluded. It was not proposed to extend the scheme any further than I am doing now.
Would the Minister not consider extending it to include those people?
I did not understand what was involved here. I did not understand from the Deputy's question what he was getting at. I thought he wanted the revenue deposit people catered for in another way. If the Deputy gives me a list of the people involved, I will have a look at it.
Would the Minister clarify one final point?
I am sorry, Deputy, we cannot debate this matter to-day. I am calling Question No. 4.