asked the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Tourism if he will make a statement on the dramatic increase in the fuel variation element in ESB charges, as reflected in accounts recently issued; if any price control exists in relation to any aspect of these accounts; and, if not, if he has any proposals for such controls.

Following a recommendation by the National Prices Commission, the Government approved an increase in the fuel cost variation surcharge on ESB bills with effect from the February/March 1980 billing period. The increase in the surcharge resulted in an increase of 20.5 per cent on average on electricity prices. The increase in the surcharge was a result of the continued increase in oil prices in the latter half of 1979 and also in other fuel costs. During 1979 oil prices to the ESB doubled.

I would like to assure the Deputy that all increases in ESB charges, both in basic tariffs and in the fuel surcharge, are subject to very detailed examination before being allowed. Applications to increase charges are firstly examined thoroughly by the National Prices Commission. Their recommendation is considered by the Government, who take the final decision on any increase in electricity charges.

Does the Minister consider it satisfactory that he can get up and announce a price increase in the fuel variation surcharge of over 25 per cent in one period of a few months? Surely that is not adequate and some effort must be made in accordance with the promises made in the manifesto.

A question, please, Deputy.

I am asking the Minister if an effort must not be made to do something about that. It is not good enough to come in here and talk about a 25 per cent increase.

It is a 20.5 per cent increase. I would refer the Deputy back to July 1979 when the National Prices Commission were considering a proposal by the ESB to reactivate the FCV surcharge. The ESB incurred fuel cost inflation in 1979 and sought the reintroduction of this surcharge as the most appropriate means of achieving a break even position for the accounting year to 31 March 1980. The commission made recommendations that the ESB be allowed to reactivate the FCV surcharge and that the surcharge be reviewed at four monthly intervals. The point facing the ESB and the taxpayer was whether the board would be allowed to achieve a break even position for the accounting year ending at 31 March 1980. If Deputy Keating wants it otherwise he will have to go back and get tax from the taxpayer to pay for the subsidy.

If the accounting procedures in the ESB were looked at by the Government it might have the effect of reducing prices. Will the Minister comment on that?

I would like if the Deputy would elaborate on the accounting procedures.

That is a separate question; it does not arise.

Is the Deputy referring to accountancy procedures or business from day to day?

I am just asking if the Minister or his Department have looked at the possibility of examining the accounting procedures with a view to reducing costs.

The question deals with the fuel variation. The Deputy would have to put down a separate question.

The Minister replied covering a broad area concerning fuel charges or ESB charges. I am asking if any scrutiny of accounting procedures might lead to a reduction in cost.

Accounting procedures are always taken into consideration and they are always reviewed by the Prices Commission. I am sorry the Deputy does not understand how the Prices Commission works.

Question No. 36.

The fact that Question No. 34 was changed to written reply shows how well the Prices Commission are working.

Question No. 34 is not before the House.

I am not castigating the National Prices Commission in any way. They are doing a fine job.

What is the Deputy doing?

I am trying to jog the Minister's memory. Will the accounting procedures of the ESB, when examined and brought up to date with a view to reducing the price of electricity, effect a reduction? This is from the Fianna Fáil manifesto.

The Chair has called Question No. 36.

Are the other side of the House licking their wounds?

The Minister should not mention licking wounds with a 20.2 per cent inflation rate this morning, 7.4 per cent in the last three months.

The Chair has called Question No. 36.

Might I be allowed to ask the Minister——

Is this the way the Minister is going to treat Question Time?

(Cavan-Monaghan): I did not hear the answer to the last question.

It is not my fault if Deputy Harte does not allow people to hear.

I am entitled to ask a supplementary. It is very bad manners for the Minister to continue talking.

The Chair has already called Question No. 36.

(Cavan-Monaghan): On a point of order, it is the Chair's business to get order and he will not create order by advising the Minister to join in this ruaille buaille by asking the Minister to answer a question during the disorder.

The Chair is asking the Minister to answer Question No. 36.

I was about to ask the Minister what percentage of the electricity increases is directly due to the oil imports?

The Chair has asked the Minister to answer Question No. 36.

I have no way of assessing the cost of electricity in relation to the overall price of oil or in relation to the increased price of oil.

How much of the 20.5 per cent is due to the increased cost of oil?