asked the Minister for Transport and Power the cause of the total shut-down of power by the ESB on 9th May 1966 in view of the fact that the turbines and generators were operating normally; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
3.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - ESB Power Shut-Down.
2.
asked the Minister for Transport and Power if he is aware of the considerable public disquiet at the extensive shedding of electricity loads in the Dublin area on Monday 9th May, 1966, having regard to the considerable potential in the grid at the time; if he will hold a public inquiry into the matter to determine whether the discontinuance of electricity supplies in several areas was in fact technically necessary; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose, with your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, to take Questions Nos. 2 and 3 together.
The cause of the shedding of electricity loads in many areas on the morning of 9th May was due to the placing of pickets simultaneously on all generating stations that morning. The Board's other manual employees refused to pass the pickets and the manual staff who were already on duty demanded as a condition of making the plant safe that it be completely shut down by midday. The position was made worse by the poor response to the Board's prior appeal for load reduction. It was, therefore, not possible for the ESB to maintain supplies to all areas.
The ESB is a responsible public body appointed under statute of the Oireachtas and I deprecate the unwarranted and scandalous reflection on the Board which the Deputies' questions imply.
Is the Minister aware that several competent electrical engineers have disagreed with the statement which the Minister has made now, in repetition of what the ESB said last week, and that the opinion of the competent electrical engineers was that there was ample power available and no question of any lack of safety in the generating stations? Is he further aware that it all points to a deliberate and unnecessary shedding of load to cause the maximum inconvenience in order to embarrass the workers who were on strike?
The Deputy is speaking without knowledge of the facts. The ESB were naturally instructed by me—indeed, I did not even need to instruct them—to maintain the maximum power possible. They had planned for all possible eventualities and the main difficulty was that the widespread notices published by the Board asking industries to close down were not observed and therefore far too much power was being used at the time the pickets were placed. That was the main cause of the non-availability of electricity for the essential or more essential industries or services throughout the country.
In view of the tremendous public importance of this matter, will the Minister consider having a public inquiry into it, because it is again apparent that while in 1961, when there were more people out on strike, it was not necessary to discontinue supplies, on this occasion when fewer people were involved, it was found necessary within 20 minutes to shed the load?
The 1961 strike was totally different and lasted for 19 days during a period of the lowest consumtion in the year. In addition, the Trade Union Congress requested the men to pass the pickets when there was a strike of electricians and——
There were 900 electricians out.
—— and it was possible to maintain power in those circumstances.
Would the Minister not agree that May was a month of low consumption? Would he not agree that the number of generators we have are capable of producing what is required at present? Is he not aware of the fact that the electricity was not available from 9 o'clock in the morning? Obviously, the answer he has given is not satisfactory. There was no great load on it when it was disconnected.
I have already answered that question. I made it clear that industrial consumption remained far too high in the circumstances. The ESB had made plans for any eventuality, which involved amongst other things the re-deployment of engineers and technical staff among the various stations in order to maintain the minimum possible supply. But it was necessary to start shutting down stations immediately. I have already indicated that the manual staff demanded as a condition of making the plant safe that it be completely shut down by mid-day. In the interval the industries were consuming too much power and ESB engineers actually had to go around among some of the industries and remind them of the instructions given by the ESB in connection with every radio announcement and on the previous day which they had not obeyed.
Is the Minister not aware there was a shut-down from 9 o'clock in some places?
It began at 8.20.