Bygone Days: Supply of electricity to farms of 'national importance', says minister (1950)

He told them that the installation of electrical equipment “not only relieved the farmer of much arduous and tedious work, but it also greatly reduced the running costs of his farm”.

He continued: “Take for example milking, a lengthy and tiring task when undertaken by hand, and one which in terms of labour and lime was expensive and wasteful.

“Today the cost of milking a cow by electricity is less than five shillings a year. The job is done more quickly and the time can be devoted to other work.

That was but one example, said the minister. “There are many more which could be quoted, and which you will see for yourselves during the demonstration.”

He added: “In considering this matter, do not let us imagine that all the benefits will accrue to the farmer only.

“The advantage of an increased supply of foodstuffs at a cheaper cost of production and, therefore, at a lower price to the consumer must be of enormous benefit to the whole community.

“Therefore, this question of the supply of electricity to our farms of national importance and must be approached from that angle.”

Mr McCleery expressed regret that more rural homes had not, “up to the present”, been electrified, and added that an expenditure of £900,000 would, it was estimated, enable further 3,750 rural dwellings to be connected.

He continued: “While this is something worthwhile to be going on with unfortunately it represented only a small proportion of the total number of rural dwellings that are without electricity.”

He said that he was sure they would all like see rural electrification paying for itself out revenue.

“Whether or not rural electrification can be made to pay depended almost entirely upon the amount of current that each farmer and other rural dweller would consume,” remarked the minister.

He said that he did not think it would “ever be possible under existing conditions to send out long straggling lines to distant points the income from which after collection would not even pay for the current itself, expecting such a service from public funds would be entirely unreasonable”.

He added: “Obviously if the Electricity Board built a long transmission line to supply electricity to farm, they could not hope to recover their expenditure if the farmer only used it to light two or three rooms.

“It would be a different matter if the farmer made as much use of it possible. There would then be a reasonable chance for the board to recover their outlay.”

The object of the surveys which the board undertook periodically was to assess the likely consumption, but the minister noted that so far the “results had been disappointing and the overall figure of the estimated consumption is regrettably low”.

“We are going to help the countryman all we can to get electricity brought to his home,” said the minister, “but we look to him to help himself at the same time, not only by making the fullest use electricity when he has got it, but also by making up his mind now what equipment he will install, and thus proving to the board that they will get a reasonable return on their outlay.”

Mr McCleery appealed to those desirous of obtaining supplies of electricity to inspect the equipment on show at the demonstration, see the different ways in which electricity could be applied on the farm or the home, and make up their minds now which of the many attractive appliances they would install.

He concluded: “The practical result of doing that will be that when the Electricity Board asks you how much current you are likely to consume when you are connected, you will be able to give a reasonably accurate answer.”