Amendment No. 1 is out of order and the Deputy has been so informed.
Electricity (Supply) (Amendment) Bill, 1976: Committee and Final Stages.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
We put down this amendment which has been ruled out of order——
Would the Deputy wait for the section which would offer him a better opportunity, perhaps, to state his views?
Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill."
As I was saying, we had put down this amendment because we maintained on the Second Reading —and we still do—that the amount of money provided under this section, £300,000, is a very small sum and in our opinion would be totally inadequate. I am not disputing the decision of the Chair on the amendment. In our opinion this sum would not be sufficient to meet the needs as we know them in order to give connections and bring current to many people, in rural Ireland particularly. We have no way of calculating what would cover everyone in rural Ireland who is being quoted a very large figure, apart from those who have been quoted prior to March, 1975. Surely the ESB would be capable of providing a figure for the Minister if requested to do so because they have now come up with the terms of the easy payments scheme for those not included in this Bill. They must have figures available.
In the Minister's Second Reading speech it was mentioned that those people who were quoted a figure for electricity supply prior to March, 1975, were the people who would benefit under the Bill. As he put it, all householders in each of these areas where work remains to be done, whether already quoted terms or not, who applied and qualified for subsidised supplies before 31st March, 1975, will still get supply on subsidised terms. The Minister has also said that this was the sum requested by the ESB. I do not know how they justify this. I am sure the Minister will know that, since the Second Reading of the Bill, as most of us on this side of the House also know, there are very many people who are in grave doubt as to whether they will come under the Bill or not. They have been in touch with us and, I suppose, with the Minister and with others on the opposite side of the House in an effort to get the position clarified.
We accept that those who were quoted terms before March, 1975, will get supplies, but people are not clear as to where such people are, in what counties and so on. I ask the Minister to be more specific in order to clarify the position generally. Some people were quoted before March, 1975, and have since been quoted higher figures. Will they still come under the Bill even though some of the higher quotations have come quite recently? There are also people who were quoted before this date and have paid the capital sums they were asked for, in some cases very recently. Will they get a refund under this subsidy scheme because of the fact that they did pay when so many others did not? We would like this clarified.
There are also cases which have emerged since the Second Reading in which householders were quoted, but the houses or properties have now changed hands. Their previous owners would have come under the Bill if they had remained in ownership of these properties. They have changed hands. Will the subsidy apply to the new owners in these cases? I would like if the Minister could clarify these points.
The people who are covered by this section are clearly set out in subsection (1) (a), (b) and (c) which states that this Bill applies to people the cost of whose connection for rural electrification under the subsidised scheme exceeds £700, who are asked for a capital contribution and who refuse this supply because they could not afford that capital contribution. The State will now pay that capital contribution for them.
As regards the size of the sum, I explained in my reply on Second Reading and on a number of other occasions that this is the assessment by the authorities in this field, the ESB, of the amount required, but this is not the total subsidy being paid in connection with these houses. As I also said, the cost of rural electrification during the almost 30 years that it was in operation was about £80 million of which the State paid £27 million. This £300,000 in the Bill is roughly in the same ratio to the total cost as the £27 million is to the £80 million.
As regards those people whom Deputy Barrett speaks about who had the house originally and refused the terms and sold the house to which electricity has not yet been connected, of course that house is entitled to the benefits of the scheme. As regards the people who were quoted terms even recently and have actually paid the money, if the connection has not been made the money will be refunded. However, the Deputy will appreciate that there must be a cut-off point at some stage at which we cannot have a retrospective Bill. Obviously, if you start by including one category there would be pressure from, perhaps understandably, groups of people who are looking to have their category included again and we would get back to 1946, to anybody who paid capital contribution in the last 30 years.
The people who are included in this are people whose cost of connection of rural electrification under the last phase of the rural electrification scheme was more than £700, from whom a capital contribution was required of an amount above £700 and to whom connection was refused because the people could not afford this capital contribution.
Did I leave out any categories that Deputy Barrett asked about?
The people who were quoted before the date of the Bill and have since been quoted higher figures.
If they refused it because they could not afford the capital contribution, they come under the Bill.
I stated on Second Stage that the sum of £300,000 mentioned in section 2 (4) is not adequate.
There is no point in going back over this ground. I have explained it.
I have a further point to make. The sum of £300,000 as far as the ESB and the people of rural Ireland are concerned is nothing. It is chicken feed. It costs approximately £150 to £200 to put down one pole. That is the quotation that any householder will get today from the ESB. For £300,000 you can put down something in the region of 1,600 to 2,000 poles. I am perfectly satisfied that it will take more than 2,000 poles to cover the Black Valley, Ballycroy and Woodford alone, not to mind covering other areas which are left out. I ask the Minister to tell the House exactly how many householders he intends to cover under this legislation.
The Minister mentioned that there were approximately 800 to 900 householders to be covered under this Bill despite the fact that the ESB survey had not been completed at the time he made this announcement. I would ask him to say when the ESB survey will be completed and what he thinks the figure will be then. I would also ask him to say what areas he intends to cover with this small sum of £300,000 which will mean the erection of approximately, 1,600 to 2,000 poles.
I am obviously not getting my point across or else people do not understand what I am saying. I have explained this point dozens of times in this House in answer to questions, on Second Stage and again now. The £300,000 is not the total cost of connecting these houses to rural electrification. It is the State subsidy towards connecting to rural electrification. There are two sets of people who are contributing to the cost. They are the ESB themselves and the people who are looking for electricity supply. The £300,000 is paying only the capital contributions required for them. If it costs £800 to connect a house to electricity that is the cost of the connection, the poles, wiring, everything else that goes into bringing a supply into a house. The ESB will recover £700 of that. One is by the fixed charge and that in rural areas is decided on a square feet or ground floor basis and varies from one house to another. You cannot be precise until you measure a house as to how much it will cost.
On the £700 part of the cost the ESB require a return on the capital they have invested of 5.2 per cent of the £700, that is, £26.40 a year. Out of that £26.40 comes a fixed charge of £12 and the balance is a special service charge which is the customer's contribution towards the capital cost of connecting him or her to electricity. Where this cost of connection goes over £700 the ESB have been asking for a capital contribution of the amount over £700 involved. In the example I have given the customer would be required to pay £26.40 special service charge, £12 fixed charge and £100 cash, money. That is what the State will be paying and this Bill is about the £100 capital contribution the State is now going to pay. This is the amount that is estimated by the ESB and it can only be estimated when the other costs are charged up. This is the amount estimated by competent people. Deputy O'Leary said that the ESB consider this sum totally inadequate. That is not so. It is their estimate that the number of houses in the country is 800 to 900 and the capital contribution cost of those is in their estimation less than £300,000. We are putting a bit more in lest their estimation is on the conservative side and there are more houses involved. I hope Deputies have got this point. I have explained it dozens of times. To me it seems quite simple but, obviously, I am much more familiar with it than anybody else in the House.
Do I take it that in paragraph (b) in relation to the £700 that the Minister is now clearly stating that the Bill applies only in the case where the capital charges are in excess of £700? In his Second Reading speech he mentioned the sum of £36.40 and he now mentions £26.40.
I meant £36.40.
From what the Minister said, I take it that the £36.40 refers to a fixed charge which will be placed on the consumer.
Part of it does.
I am still not clear about the £700. It appears that people will have to pay a portion of this capital charge of £700. In other words, the Bill as presented, does not provide a situation where people are getting electricity free as we were led to believe.
It was never intended that way. I have been quite categoric in answering questions particularly about who was covered by this Bill and what it would mean.
The picture has been presented in a manner which has led the people who have been waiting so long for this service to believe that they will now get it free of charge.
That is not so.
We want to have spelled out quite clearly what is involved for the people whose capital charges are less than £700. I understand the position where charges are over £700. For how long will this £36.40 apply? Is it a fixed charge which will continue over a period of years or is it a charge the consumer will have to pay while he has the electric power?
Everybody pays a fixed charge. That is there on every bill for all time. The special service charge which, in the example I gave, was £36.40 minus £12 would be £24.40, can be bought if anybody so wishes. Special service charges under the rural electrification scheme can always be bought out at a multiple of the amount. The purchase price was 11 years but it is now being reduced to nine years because interest rates have risen.
I was quite specific when I spoke in Deputy Gallagher's constituency and made it absolutely clear and I was satisfied the people knew that what is involved here is that they will not have to pay a capital contribution. Deputy Gallagher mentioned cases where the cost of connection was under £700. They would not have been asked for a capital contribution at any stage. They would have made their contribution to the £700, or a lesser charge, by means of the fixed charge plus the special service charge.
I understood from the beginning that there was nothing free in this. If the capital charge is £800 does that mean that £700 is funded on the £36.40 and that is paid with the special charges?
No.
How much would a normal consumer have to pay? After two months it would be approximately £6.
It would be 10p a day.
It would be about £6 every two months. Does he also have to pay ground rent?
No.
What does he pay?
They are both included in the £36.
Are all his repayments included in the £6 to be paid every two months? This point has been misinterpreted and I want to get it cleared. In other words, if the charge was £700, are all this man's repayments included in the £6 to be paid every two months? The Minister also mentioned that he could buy that any time or redeem it. Is that correct?
No.
I want the Minister to explain some other points I am doubtful about.
If we could take them one at a time it would be simpler.
All right. I am very confused and I want all this cleared up.
The £36.40 will in each individual case be compounded differently according to the fixed charge. In the example I gave it is £12 for the fixed charge and £24.40 for the service charge. The fixed charge cannot be bought, but the £24.40 can be bought at the moment on a nine years' purchase. It could happen that the house next door would have a fixed charge of £8 and a special service charge of £28.40. The £28.40 can be bought on a nine years' purchase, but this varies from house to house. You cannot give a blanket example that covers every house because the floor space in every house is different.
Under this scheme anybody whose house is connected for electricity will be paying £36.40 a year. That will be made up of two elements—a fixed charge, which cannot be bought and varies according to the square footage of the house, and the special service charge which is £36.40 minus the fixed charge, and that portion can now be bought on a nine years' purchase.
Is everything included in the £36.40?
Yes, but I forgot to tell the Deputy that they will have to pay for current as well.
That is different. I understand that. I take it the £36.40 includes all repayments for the connection which cost £700.
That man would have been able to get his terms under the rural electrification scheme.
This does not apply to people whose capital charge is under £700?
No.
Deputy O'Leary mentioned the amount of money in the Bill. In my opinion there will still be very many people who will not be able to avail of this. My next point is of vital importance and requires a straight answer. Suppose a man is quoted £1,200, does he have to pay £500 in cash?
No.
What does he do?
If the cost of connection for this man in an isolated area is £1,200, £700 will be paid by the means I have outlined, by a fixed charge and a special charge, that is £36.40, and the £500 difference will be paid under this Bill by the State.
I am beginning to get the picture now. That means that if a charge is under £700 the consumer pays in the normal way, but if a charge is £1,400, £700 will be paid in the normal way and——
The other £700 will be paid by capital contribution under this Bill.
This means that you pay £700 in the normal way and you subsidise with £36.
No.
I am confused.
It is not simple. In the case of the £1,400 man that is the cost to the ESB of connecting the individual house. The first £700 of that from £0 to £700 is paid for by the £36.40 and the balance as between the £700 and the £1,400 is paid for by the State.
Does that mean that, no matter what your cost is over £700, all you have to pay back is the £36?
Provided you fulfil the other conditions.
What are the other conditions?
Mrs. Hogan O'Higgins
The area.
As regards money, you must have been quoted.
I made inquiries about five people who claim they were quoted during that period and I got a letter from the Minister's Department saying three would be in and two would not.
Raising individual cases in a country of 32 thousand square miles with ten ESB districts, with approximately 500,000 connections, puts me in a difficult position because I could not identify here five unnamed customers in an unnamed area. I am sure the reasons were given in the letter why two were out and three were in, or vice versa.
Am I to take it anyone who made application and was refused between 1971 and 1975 is in? These people claim they did make application.
If they were quoted terms by the board for subsidised connections under the scheme, and part of that quotation was a capital contribution for the amount over £700 involved in connecting them, if they were refused because they could not pay that, then they are in. If there are individual cases about which Deputies are worried they are welcome to talk to the officials of my Department, who will get the information for them.
I do not know if this Bill is as confusing to others as it is to me. Maybe I am not of average intelligence.
Indeed, the Deputy is.
I am getting the picture now. This Bill does not apply at all to anyone under £700. Is that right?
No. They would have to come under the terms of the rural electrification scheme, 1971 to 1975, and people under £700 under that scheme would not be asked for a capital contribution and they would not therefore come under the terms of the Bill. It is only those asked for a capital contribution who come under the terms of the Bill. By definition, the Bill applies to people the cost of whose connection is over £700. Anyone under that would not be in.
This is a Bill for people whose capital contribution is over £700.
Whose cost of connection is over £700 and they have been asked to pay the amount over £700 by way of capital contribution, but the capital contribution could or could not be £700. It could be anything from £1 to £1,000. The capital contribution is different from the cost of connection.
It is obvious from the discussion that there is great confusion. Perhaps the Minister could help to resolve that confusion if he would have a pamphlet prepared outlining in greater detail what is involved and who qualifies for what under the Bill. As we progress the position seems to be getting more confused. The confusion must be even worse where those affected are concerned. Even in the ESB there seems to be a certain amount of confusion as to who will and who will not benefit. In one case I was told that where a person was quoted something over £1,200, as she was not quoted a capital contribution under the subsidised scheme, she was not eligible for a subsidy. It is all very confusing and it is difficult to be helpful or co-operate in this confused situation. Like Deputy O'Leary and Deputy Barrett, I, too, get a number of inquiries and, like them, I am wondering if £300,000 will be enough. Perhaps the Minister would give us something in writing to enable us to explain better the whole situation to the people concerned.
I will endeavour to do that in one last effort. The cost of connection is £1,200. That is the amount of money the ESB will have to expend to bring electricity from the nearest point of connection to the actual house involved. The £700 is made up of (a) a fixed charge and (b) a special service charge. Now the fixed charge varies from house to house depending on the square footage. The example I gave was a fixed charge of £1,200 and the special service charge —the ESB like to have a return on their capital of £700 at the rate of 5.2 per cent—is £36.40 on the £700. Now there are two elements in the £36.40. One is the fixed charge. The special service charge for the £700 is £36.40 less the £12, making a total of £24.40. If the £12 were £15 the special service charge would be £21.40. One is dependent on the other. That accounts for the first £700 of the £1,200 it costs to connect a house and the balance of £500 is called a capital contribution. Under the rural electrification scheme, 1971-75, this was required to be paid by people where the cost of connection was more than £700. It varied in amounts from £50 to £1,000. Many people paid it but there were others in the more remote areas—in the Black Valley, Woodford and in Ballycroy— who had not the cash to pay the capital contribution and they had to refuse the connection. In this Bill we are now paying that capital contribution for those people. I hope everybody is enlightened on the matter.
I am not clear about it.
A short time ago the Minister mentioned that it was necessary to have a cut-off point with regard to refunds. As I understood it, he said that if a person had been given a quotation and had qualified, if he paid the capital charge but if connection had not been made, a refund of the capital charge would be made to him. It appears there is a strong case for referring the cut-off point for refunds back to 31st March, 1975. I do not know what it would involve by way of refunds from the ESB. To a certain extent we are victimising people who have paid after 1975. Would it not be worth considering giving refunds of amounts paid after 31st March, 1975, to make that date the cut-off point? I do not know what money would be involved, but it would appear to be a more just and fair way of rectifying the matter.
There has been reference to people who have received subsidised quotations prior to 31st March, 1975. I take it that this means quotations under the rural electrification schemes of the past. There were occasions when the ESB decided that certain districts were completed under such a scheme quite some time before 31st March, 1975, and there may be people who received quotations but who are now excluded from the provisions of this Bill. Perhaps the Minister will tell the House if areas were completed under the subsidised scheme long before 31st March, 1975.
I think the Deputy is referring to people in what are called "closed" areas who were quoted terms that included a capital contribution but who did not get electricity because they could not pay the capital contribution.
Yes.
They are included. It would not be possible to put back the cut-off point to 1975 because after the 1971-1975 scheme finished it would be necessary to go back to the earlier date, 1971, and include everybody. There might have been a fall-over from 31st March, 1975, in the actual quotations but the people concerned still came under the 1971-1975 scheme. It would be necessary to go back four years and that would not be possible.
I think the Minister will agree that this will lead to a considerable amount of confusion.
Those people who have paid the money but who have not yet got a connection will get a refund but those who are connected will not get a refund.
The Minister pointed out that under the rural electrification schemes in the past the Government and the ESB carried those schemes. I think he said that the Government put up £80 million and the ESB £27 million.
The whole operation cost £80 million, of which the Government paid £27 million.
Therefore, the ESB funded £53 million as against £27 million by the Government. This brings us to the manner in which the ESB carry out their work and fund their various operations. If we look at the annual report for last year and if we take note of a reply by the Minister to a question I put down last week, we will see that since March, 1973, the ESB have borrowed a substantial amount of money outside the sterling area. They have borrowed US $132 million; Swiss francs 51 million; Belgian francs 1,700 million; French francs 40 million. If converted to sterling it means that since March, 1973, the ESB have borrowed £125 million outside the sterling area and this is quite a sum. According to their annual report the currency adjustment losses provided for in their accounts at 31st March, 1976, amounted to £23,871,278 and I estimate that an amount in the region of £24 million at least will have to be provided for the year ending 31st March, 1977. The only way that can be provided is from the accounts paid by the customers. At the same time——
I am sure the Deputy will agree we are departing from the Bill.
It has to do with the manner in which the ESB will make up the remainder of the cost in this instance. The Government are only making up part of the cost. It has to do with the financial structure of the ESB and the manner in which they use the money available to them.
The Chair has to deal with this Bill which, as the short title shows, is amending the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1927 to 1974.
I accept your ruling. If one follows this argument to its logical conclusion it means that 25p out of every £ ESB customers pay in bill goes towards the currency adjustment or the interest on foreign borrowings. We find that £125 million has been borrowed in three years outside the sterling area. Could this be employed in a more advantageous manner? Could part of this foreign borrowing have been put towards the cost of rural electrification which we are now discussing under this Bill?
This is not relevant.
Why could the ESB not offset some of this money towards the capital cost we have under discussion at the moment instead of creating more generating capacity?
This would be completely extending the scope of the Bill. We are confined to the Bill and are on Committee Stage, section 2. We must keep to that section.
A sum of £300,000 has been mentioned in the Bill, which is the Government subsidy towards the capital cost for the people quoted prior to 1975. What would it have cost if the ESB included all houses now receiving quotations in rural Ireland? We all welcome the tendency nowadays to build homes in rural Ireland and maintain the population there. Those people are receiving very hefty bills at the moment. The Minister, in reply to a question last week, said that the new scheme he mentioned on the Second Stage of this Bill, about easy payments which the ESB have now devised, will mean that the people excluded by this Bill will now have to pay the first £300 after the £700 we have been talking about.
That is not correct.
I am talking about the new scheme and the reply the Minister gave to a question last week.
The new scheme has nothing to do with this Bill. This is a marvellous jungle and one could be picking one's way through it for three weeks. The people now being quoted for electricity supply to new houses are not getting subsidised terms and are therefore being asked for the capital contribution. It is not the charge over £700. I do not know what the basis for this is.
A discussion like this on any side of the House would not be welcome at the moment.
Surely those people could have been included in the money provided under this Bill and given some relief towards the amount they are being asked to pay. Our amendment was rejected. We mentioned a figure of £1,500,000. If the Minister increased the £300,000 to even £1,000,000 this would allow the ESB, if they did not require it all, to have something to work on so that they could embrace more people than the number that will be embraced by this Bill. This would have eased the burden for a lot of people. If a sum of £1,500,000 was provided it would help subsidise the people who will not be included in this Bill. Many of those people come with very high quotations to us regularly. Something should have been done for them.
I cannot reply because I am being asked to reply to points made by the Deputy on an amendment which was ruled out of order. I do not know what the amendment was.
It was circulated.
I did not see it.
I am still not satisfied with the Minister's reply to my previous question that the sum of £300,000 under section 2 (4) is sufficient. I am satisfied it is not. Will the Minister specifically reply to the following questions: (1) Why is there no time limit in this Bill for the ESB to carry out their functions in this Bill in relation to the whole country? (2) When was the survey by the ESB which stated that there were 800 to 900 houses only involved in the country completed? (3) How many houses in the Minister's opinion are to be connected in the country and should be connected if all the people eligible accept the terms of this Bill? (4) How many poles—this is vitally important—are to be erected throughout the country under this Bill? The number of poles is far more important than the number of houses because the cost will be incurred in the erection of the poles and not in respect of the householders and the connections. (5) How many transformers are to be erected under this Bill for £300,000? I am not satisfied with section 2 unless the Minister gives me a satisfactory reply to each of the questions I have now put to him. They are reasonable questions which deserve reasonable replies.
The Deputy will not be satisfied because I cannot give him specific answers to the questions he has asked. This estimation was made at the time I went to the Government to have this Bill drafted. The ESB estimation then was 800 to 900 houses. I do not know what information Deputy O'Leary can have that would be different from the information the head office of the ESB have, drawing together information from all parts of the country. The Deputy may have somebody in the ESB in Kerry who says to him: "That is a ridiculous figure. If there are 24 houses in the Black Valley and you multiply that by X you will get far more than 800 to 900 houses." Perhaps that is the kind of sum being done. The ESB head office are a responsible body and if they thought there was more than this amount they would put it in because they would want the Government to pay their share of connecting them rather than leave the ESB to carry the excess.
As regards the fact that there is not a time limit on this, I thought about it and I decided if there was a time limit, such as suggested by somebody on the Second Stage, of 31st December, 1977, there would be a danger, coming to the autumn of next year, that because it was written into the Act, the ESB would have to do this work. They would perhaps have to do it by drawing men away from other areas the houses in which are equally entitled to a supply of electricity or where there are people looking for newer transformers or three phase electricity for milking parlours and so forth.
I thought it best to leave out a time limit but to impress on the ESB that I want it done quickly. I cannot be specific on the number of houses. This is their estimation. The cost is what we estimate it should cost plus a bit of fat in case that is wrong. As to the number of transformers, I just have not got a notion.
This is a sham Bill, an election gimmick and nothing else. The Minister has now admitted that he has brought the Bill into the House without any information as to what the cost will be. He has limited the ESB to an expenditure of £300,000. I know he will say it is more than £300,000 and I admit that. He has limited Government expenditure to £300,000 under this Bill. He has admitted he brought in the Bill without a proper survey being carried out by the ESB and placed on his desk, without a time limit imposed on the ESB for carrying out the proposals in the Bill—not that I would fault it for that—without knowing the number of houses to be connected, without knowing the number of poles to be erected and, a very important point——
Have a bit of sense for heaven's sake.
——without having the foggiest idea as to the number of transformers to be erected in these areas. It costs a lot of money today to erect a transformer, far more than it does to connect an ordinary household. This is no more than a sham of a Bill. It is an election Bill.
There is not much point in replying to that type of speech. Talk about a sham.
I asked five questions and the Minister answered none of them.
I do not know the number of poles or the number of transformers. The ESB say the number is between 800 and 900. The assessment of the cost is £300,000. That is the sum I am asking the Dáil for. Unfortunately, Deputy O'Leary was missing when I explained this on a previous occasion. This is not an election Bill. If it were, it should have been introduced after his by-election in 1967 when he promised it or his speakers promised it.
I did not promise it and my speakers did not promise it.
That is what is raising Deputy O'Leary's blood pressure.
My blood pressure is perfect.
The questions posed by Deputy O'Leary are reasonable. I accept that the Minister cannot answer them today. From calculating their estimate for this work the ESB must have the answers to those questions. In arriving at a figure of £300,000, they must have added up the number of poles, transformers, the mileage of electric wires and the cost of the labour involved. Perhaps that information is not available to the Minister today and, therefore, he cannot answer Deputy O'Leary's questions.
On Second Reading the Minister said he was setting his face against any further extension of the rural electrification scheme. This will be a cause of worry to people who are building houses in rural areas which are not sited near an ESB line. Consequently, the cost of extending electricity to them would be great. The Minister should not close the door altogether. In a few years' time some Government may take up the case of those people, even though they may be excluded from the terms of this Bill and legislation may be introduced or this legislation may be amended to include them. A big number of people in rural Ireland will be affected and I should not like to see the door closed finally on them. They should be given an opportunity of getting the benefit of rural electrification.
It is unfortunate that people in backward places have to suffer because of the fact that they are born in a certain area. They have to live there and bring up their families there. They have no option but to stay there. It is unfortunate that, when schemes of this nature are being introduced, those people have to suffer and they cannot be accommodated in the same way as a person living near a main arterial road. They cannot get the benefits of rural electrification, the telephone service, water supply schemes, and so on. I do not think that is right. Even though it would cost the Exchequer more money to bring those schemes to their doors, they should be accommodated.
When I was speaking on Second Stage I mentioned the importance of having three phase current in most of our small towns and villages where many projects could be started. Small industries could be encouraged if the people concerned had sufficient current to use the necessary machinery and put it into operation. This would be an expensive exercise, but perhaps it would not be all that expensive because many towns are serviced by three phase current already. It would be worth a try to give people in backward areas a chance to improve their area, to encourage industry and give employment to a small number of people—even to four or five would be a great asset to the area. When legislation like this is introduced, those matters should be considered. There should be no need to come back in two or three years' time, when possibly some industrialist is attempting to start an industry, and ask the ESB to provide three phase current. The cost is then too high and the industrialist is frightened away to some other area.
I am not yet quite clear on some of these sections. However, the Minister said he will issue a circular giving quotations and examples of what people will have to pay. When we get that we can read it and digest it. I cannot understand the fact that the Minister was not able to answer some of the questions put to him by Deputy O'Leary. I have no bee in my bonnet. If the ESB and the Minister's Department want to arrive at a realistic figure all these questions about mileage wires, poles and transformers must be gone into. The Minister admitted honestly that he did not know.
And what is more I have no intention of finding out.
If I want to get an estimate for something at home I must go into detail. I must add a certain amount for inflation. Another relevant question is: when is it proposed that this work will be finished? Will there be more inflation before it is finished? I thought with the help of his back-up group the Minister would be able to answer Deputy O'Leary's questions approximately. Apparently no research was done. I am very unhappy about that.
Deputy Hussey mentioned the fact that this is a once and for all Bill. I do not think that should be the case. Some people will avail of this provision and other may not be able to avail of it. We should not give the impression to the country at large that this terminates the job; either one is included or not.
I am still not crystal clear. I suppose the Minister will smile and say it is difficult to be crystal clear about the implications of section 2. But I expect that his Department will furnish us with some kind of an explanatory document we can give to people who inquire whether or not they are included and what it will cost them. I am disappointed that the Minister was unable to give a more clear-cut answer to the questions posed by Deputy O'Leary.
We are still at a loss to understand why the ESB requested only a sum of £300,000. The Minister has told us that that is all they sought. Therefore, the fault must lie on the ESB's side——
There is no fault.
Very well. There is another reason why we dispute this amount. Several months after the Minister's Ballycroy statement—I happened to be present that morning —about introducing the necessary legislation a few colleagues and I visited the ESB. We asked them then if they had any idea how much they would be requesting the Minister to provide in the legislation he had undertaken to introduce in this House. Deputy J. O'Leary was present with me on that occasion and they told us that they expected the amount would be in the region of £1 million which they would be requesting the Minister to supply by way of subsidy. As well as the chairman, there were other top brass of the ESB present. Yet, when the Bill was published, we found a sum of £300,000 mentioned. Even since Second Reading many people have come forward with inquiries as to whether or not they will be included. We raised some of these queries here and the Minister has clarified some. But we are beginning to treat ESB estimates with the gravest suspicion, as has been pointed out by some of my colleagues, with regard to the number of houses and poles that this money, plus the ESB's contribution, will provide and the effect it will have with the exception of a few areas such as Ballycroy and the Black Valley. We fail to see how it will be adequate in easing the burden of those who have to meet huge costs, capital or otherwise, of being connected to electricity, which is a must for all people.
When submitting their request for a given sum of money, it was an opportunity for the ESB to have included many more people in this subsidy, thereby making it easier for people to be connected as well as for those building new houses in rural areas who are very badly hit and who will not be included in the provisions of this Bill. In our opinion this was an occasion to have a proper job carried out; if you like, to set their sights on completing rural electrification in a more general sense than is covered in the Bill.
On Second Reading I mentioned people who have already been connected whether under the rural electrification scheme or otherwise. Some people have built new houses. Even though, prior to building those houses, they were customers of the ESB, they are asked now to pay the cost of connection to the new house. In some cases such houses are only a few hundred yards away from the older ones. I know of one case where the people have had to pay £800. Yet their new residence is only a short distance away from the old one. The ESB are discontinuing the service to the old house but, nevertheless, these people are being treated as new customers. Some provision should have been made for such people.
It is easy to say that the ESB cannot make forecasts very far ahead. They can and they have batteries of accountants and so on in their establishment who from year to year know what is going to be required to meet their commitments. For example, they were able to make forecasts of the growing demand for energy over a period of eight years.
Yet they cannot make estimates about the £300,000.
I am saying they were able to forecast that eight years ahead but, of course, that forecast has been completely deflated by the oil crisis.
If the Deputy says they are so good, why should they be so wrong about the £300,000?
We question the £300,000. We fail to understand how the ESB some months ago told myself and three other Deputies from this side of the House, in the presence of their chairman, that they expected that the sum they would be requiring the Minister to provide in this Bill would be in the region of £1 million. Now we discover that the sum is £300,000. Either they were wrong then and they are right now or they are wrong now and they were right then.
I would suspect what they told the Deputy and his colleagues on that occasion was that the total cost of connecting these 800 houses would be nearly £1 million but they did not go on to say that the State would contribute £300,000; that is the same ratio of 27:80.
I am quite clear that that was not the case.
I hope the Deputy is because it is now going on the record of this House.
I appreciate that. My colleague was present and the way we put the question to them was: How much money will you be requiring under the legislation?
I have a letter here dated 22nd November from the ESB saying the figure of £300,000 was based on the best estimates of the 825 householders; that is in the last week.
I accept that there is a letter. I am quoting our experience. We have also criticised the fact that more people were not included and that the ESB did not see fit to make a request for a larger amount of money in order to facilitate people excluded from the Bill. We continue to maintain that this money is inadequate, that they could have done a much better job had they gone about it a different way. That has been spelled out often enough here. Perhaps the Minister would clarify also the question of the deferred payments system for these people mentioned by the Minister himself on Second Reading.
We are dealing with section 2 of the Bill. We cannot go back to Second Reading.
Since it is of such great importance might I ask the Minister why the deferred payments scheme could not have been included in this section?
It does not need legislation.
Perhaps the Minister would be good enough to clarify it and spell it out again because he did not do so in the course of Question Time last week. After all, we are speaking about the ESB and the many people involved in this legislation, people will be receiving large quotations and who will not be covered under the Bill.
The deferred payments scheme is not part of this legislation. Details of it can be found in the Official Report of Thursday last, 25th November, 1976.
It is only proper that we should welcome this Bill because it is a step in the right direction. Perhaps it is not all we should like it to be but, in the light of what is available, it is to be welcomed.
When the Minister says "rural areas" does he mean individual cases or a group of houses? In some cases in my area the ESB are requesting over £2,000, a sum which could not be met by people living in the area I have in mind. A figure of 825 houses was mentioned. What percentage of that would be in the Gaeltacht areas? The Gaeltacht is an area that we would like to throw a little more light on in every respect to help it to establish small industries and it is only right and proper that something should be done. They have been left in the dark in many respects and I would like clarification. I welcome this Bill. It may not be all that we want but at least it is a step in the right direction.
I do not know what proportion would be included in the Gaeltacht areas. As to whether these areas are in individual houses or in groups, it could be either. Individual houses and groups of houses are included under the Bill.
Who would get the priority, individual houses or areas?
There is no question of priority. All the houses that qualify under this Bill will be connected under the terms of the Bill.
Could the Minister suggest the figure for the Gaeltacht?
I do not know it.
Is it not a fact that specific areas are not involved? Areas have been mentioned.
I understand Deputy Coogan to mean by areas places like Woodford, Black Valley and so on, which are not specific ESB areas.
Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 63; Níl, 57.
Tá
- Barry, Peter.
- Barry, Richard.
- Begley, Michael.
- Belton, Luke.
- Belton, Paddy.
- Bermingham, Joseph.
- Bruton, John.
- Burke, Liam.
- Clinton, Mark A.
- Cluskey, Frank.
- Collins, Edward.
- Conlan, John F.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Cooney, Patrick M.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Costello, Declan.
- Coughlan, Stephen.
- Creed, Donal.
- Cruise-O'Brien, Conor.
- Desmond, Eileen.
- Dockrell, Henry P.
- Dockrell, Maurice.
- Donegan, Patrick S.
- Donnellan, John.
- Dunne, Thomas.
- Enright, Thomas.
- Esmonde, John G.
- Finn, Martin.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom (Cavan).
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Gilhawley, Eugene.
- Governey, Desmond.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Halligan, Brendan.
- Harte, Patrick D.
- Hegarty, Patrick.
- Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
- Jones, Denis F.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kelly, John.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- L'Estrange, Gerald.
- Lynch, Gerard.
- McLaughlin, Joseph.
- McMahon, Larry.
- Malone, Patrick.
- Murphy, Michael P.
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Donnell, Tom.
- O'Leary, Michael.
- O'Sullivan, John L.
- Pattison, Seamus.
- Ryan, John J.
- Ryan, Richie.
- Staunton, Myles.
- Taylor, Frank.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Toal, Brendan.
- Tully, James.
- White, James.
Níl
- Allen, Lorcan.
- Andrews, David.
- Barrett, Sylvester.
- Brady, Philip A.
- Brennan, Joseph.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Brosnan, Seán.
- Browne, Seán.
- Brugha, Ruairí.
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Callanan, John.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Carter, Frank.
- Colley, George.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Gogan, Richard P.
- Haughey, Charles.
- Hussey, Thomas.
- Kenneally, William.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Lalor, Patrick J.
- Leonard, James.
- Loughnane, William.
- Lynch, Celia.
- Lynch, Jack.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacSharry, Ray.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Moore, Seán.
- Connolly, Gerard.
- Crinion, Brendan.
- Cronin, Jerry.
- Crowley, Flor.
- Daly, Brendan.
- de Valera, Vivion.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Farrell, Joseph.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Fitzgerald, Gene.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin Central).
- Flanagan, Seán.
- Gallagher, Denis.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Gibbons, Hugh.
- Murphy, Ciarán.
- Nolan, Thomas.
- Noonan, Michael.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Desmond.
- Power, Patrick.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Timmons, Eugene.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Wilson, John P.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Kelly and Pattison; Níl, Deputies Lalor and Browne.
Question declared carried.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 3, before section 3, to insert a new section as follows:——
"3. —Section 7 of the Electricity Supply Board (Superannuation) Act, 1942, is hereby amended by the insertion after subsection (9) (inserted by the Electricity (Supply) (Amendment) Act, 1972) of the following subsection:
`(10) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this section, a scheme amending the general employees superannuation scheme or the manual workers superannuation scheme may, with respect to any superannuation benefit, provide for the granting of additional superannuation benefits to a contributing member who retires or is discharged because of ill-health.'."
I take it that the Minister is availing of the opportunity of the Bill to make this change.
That is so.
Amendment agreed to.
Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
In view of the fact that the amendments have now been defeated——
The amendment was never put because it was ruled out of order.
The Minister must accept that the amendment from Deputy Barrett——
The Chair ruled the amendment out of order.
I was attending a meeting in the House. I understand the Minister informed the House that the ESB have informed him that £300,000 is adequate to provide for the benefits which follow the passing of this Bill. Has that estimate been drawn up within the past four weeks?
Originally, it was drawn up about three months ago or more but it has been reaffirmed in the quotation in the letter I read out from the ESB.
I would again like to emphasise our disappointment and that of many people throughout the country in regard to the amount of money provided under this Bill. Since it was announced that there would be legislation before the House to bring in extra subsidies for rural electrification very many people have awaited patiently the outcome of that legislation. It was not clear until the Bill was published last June or July that it would be so restricted in regard to the number of people and households to which it would apply. The Bill represented an opportunity for the ESB and the Minister working together to do a proper job regarding ESB installations in connection with this very annoying and ongoing problem which we all come up against every week and every day in some weeks when people come to us asking us if there is any way of getting quotations reduced. This is a very grave problem throughout the country as we have all learned in recent years. We are most disappointed that sufficient money was not made available to tackle it.
Nobody could be under any illusion as to where I stood in this matter. I have spelled out inside and outside the House, on Second Reading both in opening and in replying and here today, exactly what is involved in this Bill. I made a promise which I have kept and I do not owe an apology to anybody for that. Deputy Barrett says that the amount of money provided is inadequate but if he had carried the vote a few minutes ago, no money would be provided because he voted against section 2 which provides the money.
I am disappointed with this Bill. I welcome it in general but I am not satisfied with the figure of £300,000 and I have said this before. Because of the fact that the Minister had no replies to queries which I put to him specifically, I am satisfied that no proper survey was carried out by him or his Department in regard to this matter. He could not tell me how many households would benefit from the Bill or how many poles would be erected throughout the country or how many transformers would be provided for this £300,000.
(Interruptions.)
Did the Minister say something?
If Deputy Molloy had been here, he might understand what had been going on——
I was attending a committee of the House. What could I do? I am very interested in this problem. The sum of £300,000 will not meet the needs in County Galway alone.
If the Deputy had been here, he would know that I have explained all that. It is not my fault that he was not here.
I have read what the Minister said and my colleagues have told me that he did not give any further information.
Let the Deputy read the record for himself.
How many people will benefit?
Deputy O'Leary is in possession.
I am also very disappointed that the Minister has not imposed any time limit on the ESB for carrying out the provisions of the Bill. As I said before, this is a sham Bill. It is nothing but an election Bill.
I think the Minister is playing politics with the Bill when he accuses Deputy Barrett of voting against section 2 which provides the money to carry out the work proposed under the Bill because the Minister is well aware that Deputy Barrett and the Fianna Fáil Party wanted this sum increased to £1.5 million because we felt that £300,000 was not adequate. I should like to make a few pertinent suggestions especially in regard to new works being carried out by the ESB. As far as possible they should try to put wires underground——
Acting Chairman
The Deputy is straying a little from the Bill.
Am I out of order?
Acting Chairman
You are.
I mentioned this matter before and I am sure the Minister will take note of it. Perhaps some other means could be found to carry the supply lines other than the pylons that we see dotted about the countryside. These pylons are unsightly and are in conflict with planning regulations in many counties. If we consider the cost of creosoting poles which the Minister mentioned—he could not give us the cost of this——
Acting Chairman
The Deputy is still out of order.
I believe that if the wires were underground the cost of creosoting would be eliminated. Perhaps in that way the £300,000 would go much further.
Just a final comment in regard to the Minister's remark that if I had carried the vote a short time ago there would be no money for any subsidy: there would be, because if we had won the vote we would have a general election. We would bring in our own Bill and provide sufficient money.
Is it true that the Minister was not able to inform the House of the number of applicants who would benefit under the Bill?
It is not true. I have told the House a number of times that the best estimate at the moment is between 800 and 900.
Will the Minister assure us that he will provide the type of document we sought, an explanatory leaflet giving examples for the benefit of those of us who have not sufficient intelligence to understand this—and, mark you, I met a couple of Deputies from the Minister's side of the House during the vote and they were equally in the dark? I think the Chair understands the matter. She might pass it on to us. So, for the benefit of those without sufficient intelligence, would the Minister give us a leaflet setting out a few examples of the payments?
I shall go further than that and I shall have a statement issued through the GIS explaining exactly what is involved.
This is very important. I want to add my voice in addition to those who have spoken already in saying that we are not at all satisfied about the amount of money provided.
Question put and agreed to.