The Chair has been handed a list of speakers and times which he understands has been agreed by the Whips. He will ask Deputies to abide by the time when it is read out. Deputy Power has 15 minutes, concluding at 7.15 p.m.
Private Members' Business. - ESB Generating Stations: Motion (Resumed).
The following motion was moved by Deputy O'Malley on Tuesday, 25 October 1983:
That Dáil Éireann rejects the proposal to close in whole or in part fourteen power stations and calls on the Government to give priority to indigenous fuel in its national energy policy and in particular because of the employment they provide in the midlands and the west, to ensure that the ESB's peat fuel stations are kept fully operative.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and insert:
"endorses the action of the Government in setting up the inquiry to investigate systematically the reasons for the high cost of electricity, notes that the ESB has submitted to Government a five-year Strategic Plan and calls on the Government to have due regard to the social, regional and strategic implications of the use of indigenous fuel in national energy policy when considering this plan."
—(Minister for Industry and Energy.)
I am very pleased to have this opportunity to speak to this motion. It is a very definite motion proposing that we reject this call to close the power stations. We have good reasons for doing this. The Government amendment is very milk and watery. It rejects our proposals and talks about what might happen if negotiations are entered into. I listened to the Minister's speech but he made no case, nor did he give any encouragement whatsoever to the workers about their future.
I realise why this motion is before us. We all know that the ESB have become the trend setters with regard to salary increases and, in particular, with regard to huge capital expansion. Possibly the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Industry and Energy have told them that they will have to pull up their socks. It appears that in many cases the powers that be in the ESB have one cure for every ailment and that is to increase the unit cost of electricity. This, of course, reflects on the Government of the day and on the cost of living. Apparently, when the ESB were brought to task and told to do something about changing their attitude, their reaction was to make this proposal with regard to these closures. They probably made it in the knowledge that it was a very politically sensitive area. To my mind it is economic madness and I cannot understand how any board could seriously put forward these proposals. They must be devoid of any national feeling and must have no interest whatsoever in the country's future. We talk about buying Irish but they must not even have heard about it.
The Minister was embarrassed and had every reason to be. He had no case to make, relying very much on the economic aspects. This shows that the bookkeeping mentality of which we accuse the opposite benches is here very much in evidence. This is a case of balance your books at all costs. The Minister should not have swallowed the ESB arguments, hook, line and sinker and relied solely on the price per unit. We were asked to devote ourselves entirely to the economic line. I am quite prepared to speak about the financial aspects, but must refer also to social and national aspects.
The peat-fired station to which I refer is the one about which I know most — Allenwood. It employs 132 people and is not overstaffed, is highly efficient and upstream 300 more people are employed by Bord na Móna. The ESB and Bord na Móna have proved to be a lifeline for our area and the closure envisaged in two years' time would have a very frightening effect on that area which is completely dependent on the ESB and Bord na Móna.
In 1950, when this project was first mooted, it gave the depressed area hope and the cooling tower standing out on the flatlands of Kildare was a symbol to many of the new Ireland. It was a symbol of Irish workers using a national resource and making a success of it. Recently, private turf production in that area has been revolutionised using new machinery and what is locally referred to as sausage turf is now being used in the ESB station there. It offers great hopes for the future. This year alone 6.6 kilotonnes, representing 4.7 per cent of the total fuel consumption, has been put into Allenwood by private suppliers. The closure mentioned would mean 400 or 500 people becoming unemployed and £8 million now circulating in the area would no longer be in circulation.
This is a very depressed area. Some years ago Bord na Móna made a film called Inné agus Inniu, showing what they had done years ago in bringing our turf production up to date and giving a future to our bogs. I want to see this carried through to its natural conclusion so that there will be a future for our cutaway bogs in the next century. I have high hopes that the work being carried out in agriculture, horticulture and nursery work at Allenwood and Lullymore will come to fruition and that there will also be an amárach for our bogs. Fears for the future of our bogs and for that industry have been heightened by the closure last year of Irish Sika Limited, which firm used a native fuel. There are also fears that local firms now employed in engineering and maintenance and the supply of spare parts will lose out if this proposal is accepted.
It is essential that I dispel one misconception which has been mooted abroad — that Allenwood is in poor condition, having a limited life. If it had, this economic euthanasia might have been justified, but this is not so. Allenwood station is in tip-top condition. It had a mid-life renewal: it was started in 1974 when the boilers were refurbished and there was a major overhaul of both turbines in 1981 and 1982. It is now satisfactory in every way and an independent report confirms that the station is in good condition. Mr. P.J. Moriarty, the Chief Executive of Bord na Móna told a general meeting there in 1981 that it was good for another 20 years. The ESB figures show that it is operating efficiently and its general output is 13 per cent above target. I am confident that if every Government Department were as efficient and in as good condition as Allenwood, there would be no need for this cutback at all.
I wish to refer to the supply of turf for the future of this station. In Ballydermot and Timahoe there is a workforce of 430 people geared specifically to supplying sod peat to our ESB stations. There is no other domestic outlet for sod peat. No other area of expansion is open to Bord na Móna, with the exception of a very limited moss peat expansion in that area. Bord na Móna have made the following delivery projections: In 1983 they are prepared to put 135,000 tonnes into Allenwood and will meet that target. In 1984, 1985 and 1986 the figure will be 120,000 tonnes and in 1987, 1988, 1989 and 1990, 100,000 tonnes. These are realistic figures projected seven years hence — much more realistic than the four years that Fine Gael were projecting at their Ard Fheis, I can tell the House. In 1991 the quantities which will be delivered there are yet to be determined. I believe that by that time supplies from private suppliers will have increased. The revenue to Bord na Móna from these 135,000 tonnes this year was £3.85 million.
I come to a subject which is dear to the Minister's heart — the cost of producing electricity from sod peat. He asked us to apply ourselves to that matter. When we speak about the cost of producing electricity from sod peat we must consider three factors — firstly, the balance of payments at national level; secondly, the cost to the ESB of running the peat stations; and thirdly, the savings to this country if we changed over from sod peat to oil, as probably the board would expect us to do.
Regarding the balance of payments, Allenwood and Portarlington stations use 300,000 tonnes of sod peat every year. If that were replaced by the equivalent amount in oil it would be 91,000 tonnes of oil at £147 a tonne, giving a total of £13.4 million. The net result would be 600 job losses and £13.4 extra on our balance of payments. Again we would lose out on both counts nationally. The cost of running Allenwood as a peat burning station where they use 150,000 tonnes of turf at a going rate of £28.50 a tonne amounts to £4.2 million. If we add in an extra £3 million for wages and maintenance, the cost to the board is £7.2 million a year. The value of the electricity produced, at 125,000 MW hours at 7.3 pence per unit is £9.1 million, so the profit on running Allenwood station at the point of generation is £2 million a year.
It is important that the Minister should realise — and he made no reference to this — that when we speak about the production of electricity from oil, coal or gas, we must take into account the huge capital cost involved. The Minister admitted that out of every £1 income the ESB receive, 25p goes towards paying capital costs. There is no capital cost in Allenwood or Portarlington because the capital cost was paid for many times over. It is written off and there is no capital cost involved. What would it cost the country if Allenwood were closed and we moved on to generate electricity by oil, or what would it save us? We use £7.3 million in generating with turf. An equivalent amount of oil to generate the same amount of electricity would cost £6 million. I am using a unit factor of 59 for turf and 48 for oil. The saving would be £1.3 million to our economy. I reckon that the ESB have 1.1 million subscribers. The saving on the closure of Allenwood would mean every household would be saved approximately £1 in the course of a year.
I realise that the price of turf increased last year by 32 per cent. This increase which was granted was sought for many years by Bord na Móna. Had we been using the old price for turf it would still be cheaper than oil today. Even as it stands, the going rate for turf gives us value for money. I have seen figures quoted that the thermal value of turf for heating the home makes it still the cheapest way of doing it.
Who could project the likely cost of oil in 1990? Allenwood and other small stations like it represent only 1.5 per cent of the electricity demand at present and only .7 per cent of ESB capacity. The impact on our economy would be minimal, but the impact of the closure of these stations colossal.
The ESB and Bord na Móna should get together and devise a 20 year plan so that we can utilise our bogs properly and be able to diversify and not, as our spokesman said, have all our eggs in one basket. Small stations enable the ESB to get a balance. That is why they are called into action more often than the bigger stations. This will also ensure that there will be a natural end for our bogs in agriculture and horticulture and even in amenity areas.
The only possible conclusion anyone can come to is that this proposal by the ESB is anti-national. It is an outrage. It is devoid of any iota of patriotism, or an awareness of the national difficulties. We are constantly told from the opposite benches that our priorities should be employment and our balance of payments situation. This proposal strikes at the very heart of that, and would only add to our difficulties.
We have control over the price of our peat, whether it be sod or milled. We have a certain control over the supply and a certain control over the price. We cannot say the same for coal, whether it comes from Poland or America. We cannot say the same for oil, because we are at the mercy of what might happen in the Persian Gulf in the morning. We have not got our own oil yet, although the Minister saw the light at the end of the tunnel recently when he looked out from the Metalman.
Our motion is needed to bring the ESB and the Government to their senses. The Government amendment says something about national considerations. They are paramount in this case. Allenwood was described by a former Minister for Finance as a white elephant, but that white elephant has given employment for 33 years. It would be ironic if another Fine Gael Minister for Finance were to be responsible for its closure.
The ESB and Bord na Móna should work in tandem on this and continue to do so to the natural end of our bogs. If a proposal came before us giving employment to 500 people, with a profit of £2 million a year, utilising our national resources, we would all jump at it. This motion must be accepted to ensure that our peat generating stations and other stations mentioned for closure remain open.
I am delighted to have the opportunity to contribute to this debate. Last week I listened to the contributions from every side of the House. We all seem to agree that, if the ESB's strategic plan is implemented, large areas of the country will be economically devastated. I glanced through the plan during the weekend and there seemed to be two or three themes in it.
The first is the importance of reducing or maintaining the price of energy or electricity at present levels. If the only method of doing that is to phase out 15 turf burning stations, the ESB are taking a very narrow view of our problems and difficulties. If we bring that argument to its logical conclusion, it would be the same as saying we should import all the butter we need from New Zealand or some place else because it is cheaper.
I want to put it on record that I am opposed to the recommendations in this plan. The station I am really interested in is in my own constituency, in fact, in my own parish of Gweedore in north-west Donegal. In 1955 that station was opened. It is a five megawatt station. It was not opened because of its massive contribution to the national grid, but because of the social commitment of the Government to putting the station in an economically deprived area.
Each year since the station was opened in 1958 the people of Gweedore have produced between 20,000 and 30,000 tons of hand cut turf. That has been going on for 25 years and is a record in itself. They did not depend on machines or modern equipment. They went out and cut the turf in the traditional way. So far this year between 15,000 and 20,000 tons of turf have been sent in to the turf burning station in Gweedore.
Before the station was erected in the middle fifties there was absolutely nothing for the people. All they could do was take the emigrant ship to Scotland, or England, or other countries. That was the first major economic input into the area when the ESB built the generating station in Gweedore. I know 15 stations are mentioned in the strategic plan. The Gweedore station is unique in a number of ways. In the first place it is in the heart of an Irish speaking area. I have attended a number of meetings there. The turf producers have regular meetings. I am sure Deputy Gallagher on the other side of the House will bear me out when I say that all discussions and all debates are through the medium of Irish. I wonder how many of the other stations in various parts of the country could say that.
Secondly, in the Gweedore station the turf is not provided by Bord na Móna or any other State or semi-State body. It is provided by over 300 small families. Husbands, wives and children go out for six months of the year and provide this fuel for the generating station in Gweedore. If the unthinkable were to happen, and if the Government were to implement these recommendations by the ESB — and I am confident that at the end of the day they will not — the repercussions in the Gweedore area would be even greater than those in any other part of the country.
In the other stations the producers are employed by Bord na Móna and the workers in the stations are employed by the ESB. If the unthinkable were to happen, at least the blow would be cushioned by redundancy payments, pay related payments and so on — not that we want that to happen. If the Gweedore station were to close down there would be no redundancy or pay related payments. The income of the 320 Gaeltacht families would be cut off, and they would be catapulted back to the mid-fifties. We do not want to go back to those times again.
The third reason I believe Gweedore is unique is that, unless the people use the land for turf production, there is nothing else they can produce. It is probably some of the poorest land in this country or in Europe. If they do not cut turf and send it to the station, there is nothing they can do because the land is not arable. The people cannot produce crops and I do not think it is good enough to rear stock. The only other thing they might be able to do would be to rear goats, and we all know the income they would get from that.
In the mid-fifties the Government at that time, the second Coalition Government, 1954-1957, decided to build this station. One of the members of that Government, a man from the Rosses like Deputy Gallagher, the late Pa O'Donnell, gave his support and backing for this project and that was sufficient to have this station established there. Now we have another Coalition Government in power. If a decision has to be made at the Cabinet table on the turf burning station in Gweedore, I hope this Government will have the same commitment as was seen 25 years ago.
In our parish there is a hydro-electric generating station which generated in the region of 15 million to 16 million units last year and the peat station in Gweedore generated eight million units. If we add them I believe the average cost per unit from that area would compare very favourably with the average unit cost of any other station in this country.
Were this station to close it would be a body blow for the Irish language. This is the strongest Irish speaking area in this country, but economically it is the weakest area. Therefore I appeal to the Minister and the Government to throw out these proposals and to tell the ESB that if they want to reduce the cost of energy they must find some other way to do so.
Deputy Calleary has ten minutes.
I could do with more than ten minutes but because of the tremendous interest expressed, particularly by Fianna Fáil Deputies, I will have to make do with ten minutes.
It is important that we look at this motion which calls on the Government to give priority to indigenous fuels in their national energy policy and in particular because of the employment provided in the Midlands and the West, to ensure that the ESB peat fuel stations are kept fully operative. This is a very important motion because it refers to a national energy policy and asks for priority for indigenous fuels.
Deputy O'Malley listed the stations the ESB strategy plan proposes to close and other Deputies have spoken of the damage closures would do to their respective areas. I will confine most of my remarks to the catastrophic effect the closure of Bellacorick would have on the North Mayo region. What this semi-State body propose to do flies in the face of various Government Departments, plans and objectives. What the ESB propose will make a mockery of the import substitution plans of the IDA. It will make a laughing stock of the "Buy Irish" campaign. It will make a charade of the "Guaranteed Irish" symbol with which Irish goods are marked.
What justification would any Irish Government have in asking the people to buy Irish if a semi-State body could put hundreds and thousands of Irish men out of work and at the same time create employment for American and Australian coal miners? What benefits would accrue to Ireland from such actions? If the Government do not heed the pleas from these benches, I hope they will listen to what their own Deputies say about this motion. How could any Irish Government which agreed to this plan face the Irish people and ask them to buy Irish? How can this House justify an action that creates wealth in other countries and puts thousands of our people out of work?
One thing this move has done is to unite all parties in Mayo. There have been bitter exchanges in Mayo County Council, but on this one issue the council are fully united. The headline from The Western People of 26 October 1983, was “Council unites to oppose Bellacorick closure threat”. As Deputy O'Malley pointed out, it is suggested that Bellacorick would be phased out completely. This is different from most other stations.
Page 12 of the ESB strategy plan sent shivers through thousands of homes in Ireland. When one considers the amount of space taken by the ESB's strategy plan which would put thousands of people out of work — one page — one wonders how much thought was put into that page. What does this report say of the subsequent results of its suggestions? What it says is short and sweet, and again I quote: "Like the sod peat stations, there will have to be prior discussions with Bord na Móna and the Department of Industry and Energy". Short and sweet; like the peat stations there will be prior discussions.
On page 9 of their policy section the ESB strategy plan states: "It is their due that the ESB should give the best possible consideration to all human implications..." They are talking about their staff. What consideration have they given to the hundreds of others? What consideration have they given to the over 500 employed by Bord na Móna in Bellacorick? Where are they going to be reemployed? As Deputy O'Malley pointed out, Bellacorick will be decommissioned completely. Where then will they redeploy and re-employ the 115 they have there? They say there will be a policy of no forced redundancy. So far as Bellacorick is concerned there is no place for the men and women to go. It is very easy for them to offer them work in another part of the country, but who will buy the houses they will be leaving when the whole north Mayo region will be decimated?
Bellacorick is a comparatively new station, approximately 20 years old with a minimum of 20 years life left in it. It is situated in an area away from the rest of the midland region. In that area Bord na Móna have 20,000 acres of bog in their possession. If this station is decommissioned the whole network in that area will have to be changed. Expensive cabling will have to be provided. The effect of decommissioning Bellacorick in the north Mayo region will be catastrophic. It will take approximately £3.4 million out of the region, approximately £800,000 of which is paid back to the Government in PAYE and social welfare.
Prior to 1957 this was a wasteland. There was nothing but high emigration. Now, thanks to Bellacorick and Bord na Móna, it is a thriving prosperous area with industries based on its indigenous fuel, namely, turf. The towns of Bangor, Ballina, Belmullet, Killala and the area in between will be devastated. Crossmolina will be devastated because many of the streets in that town are known as the ESB or the Bord na Móna houses. Where would the people who are employed there get re-employment? This is a hard working, thrifty, industrious community. The schools in the area are expanding. There are very good community facilities based on community co-operation. It is a thriving, vibrant community which will become depressed and return again to the wasteland it was in 1957.
As Deputy Power pointed out, Bellacorick is a valuable section of the midwestern region. This station is making a profit. It is about time we nailed the lie that quite a number of these stations are not making a profit. Bellacorick guarantees a continuous supply to Asahi and when Asahi was being located in this area one of the factors that helped was the fact that Bellacorick was there. It guarantees 11 megawatts to Asahi of which approximately eight are being used. Since Asahi came into commission it has also on a number of occasions been the station which, when other stations tripped, supplied power to Asahi. Asahi power is guaranteed by Bellacorick.
The people in the area are united as never before. We will use very means in our power to prevent the closure of what is a viable station, one paying its way and one which for a number of years, including this year, because of the demands on it still cannot get off-load so that its annual overhaul can be done. This should have been done about three weeks ago. My information is that it will be another three to four weeks before the annual overhaul can be carried out. This year Bellacorick will exceed its quota of the 300,000 tons allocated to it. I understand that up to now over 200,000 tons of turf have been used and in the balance of the year, which is the period when most fuel is used, they will easily use the other 100,000 tons.
Now it has been suggested that the cost per megawatt from Bellacorick is £32. That is not so. This is from the peat burning stations. I think the cost in Bellacorick is less. That can be proved and I question the validity of the ESB costs when they quote Moneypoint as £18 per megawatt. My information is that that does not include the interest costs on the various money borrowed for Moneypoint. It only includes the fuel, the wages and the general maintenance. It does not include any interest costs on the capital sum borrowed. The cost to Bellacorick has been repaid many, many times over.
I repeat just one statement I made. It is made only as a statement, not as a threat. Mayo will fight to the last breath the closure of Bellacorick. The council and the community are united in that. That is not a threat. It is only a statement.
I wish to state to the Minister and to the Government that this Government and this Minister must take a political decision and not accept the proposals in regard to these ESB stations using indigenous fuel. Failure to take such decision will show, as Deputy O'Malley said, a lack of realisation on the part of the Government of local, regional and national economic levels. This lack of realisation and insensitivity is synonymous with this Government's lack of interest in rural areas, particularly in the west of Ireland and in my constituency in the north-west. My colleagues have referred to most of the other stations, so I shall confine my remarks to the station in my constituency, the Gweedore turf burning station built in the early 1950s and commissioned some 25 years ago, against the express wishes and advice of the ESB. Today the ESB are advising the closure of this same station.
I am asking the Minister to take the same courageous decision that the late Seán Lemass, the Minister responsible at the time, took when he told the ESB he would not accept their advice when they advised him against the opening of Gweedore. He, as Minister, took the decisions and he took them for sound, social and economic reasons. He knew the serious unemployment problems of west Donegal and he took this courageous decision and ensured the Gweedore turf burning station was given the go ahead and commissioned some 25 years ago. Prior to that west Donegal was a totally deprived area with no industry whatsoever and the emigrant ships were continuing to carry away the people to Britain and the United States to find employment there in order to provide for their wives and children at home. Seán Lemass slowed down this emigration in Donegal, particularly in Gweedore and townlands like Bloodyforeland and Meenacladdy, where most of the 28,000 tons of handwon turf came from. Year after year the people in these areas have won this turf by hand and ensured they never let down the Gweedore turf burning station. They shall continue to do that for the next 25 years or for as long as it is necessary to ensure that at all times there is available to Gweedore the necessary 28,000 tonnes or more if that should be necessary.
The Government that were presided over by the late Mr. Seán Lemass, as well as successive Governments, accepted the sound social and economic reasons for the commissioning of the Gweedore station. We may well ask whether this Coalition Government who have no interest in the West have abandoned that policy. The Gweedore turf-burning station which has a capacity of 5 megawatts supplements the Clady hydro-electric station which has a capacity of four megawatts. It is important to stress that the staff at Gweedore are common to both stations. In other words if Gweedore is closed, Clady station will be affected also. Together with the output at Ballyshannon, the nine-megawatts capacity at these two other stations would provide sufficient power for the needs of West Donegal or for the whole of the county at a time of crisis. This would mean that there would be sufficient power for the industrial activities of Gweedore and of other parts of West Donegal as well as for the fishing ports of Burtonport and Killybegs. The Gweedore and Clady schemes connect with the Ballyshannon hydro-electric scheme along the 100-mile KV line thus ensuring maximum voltage in west Donegal. There are 45 people working in the station and there are 320 contractors involved, making a total of 365 families being provided for as a result of the decision of the late Mr. Lemass in the fifties to commission the project. Taking an average of four per family we can see that the lives and livelihoods of about 1,500 people in west Donegal are involved. The contractors are prepared to make available an additional 28,000 tonnes if that should be necessary. If the Government decide to close these stations they will be taking a decision to close houses in the area because there is no alternative employment there and neither is there emigration so that what the Government would be doing by such a move would be pushing us back into the last century.
I am delighted that those Members from Donegal who happen to be in the Government party are taking exactly the same line as we are taking in this matter. We will not accept any decision to close the Gweedore station. As I wish to share my time with Deputy Brennan — I think there is an arrangement in this regard — I shall not delay further except to warn the Minister that we in Donegal will oppose vehemently any attempt to close these stations and that every action necessary will be taken by us to prevent their being closed. I am stating personally that I shall give unequivocally every assistance not only to the workers at the station but to the turf cutters concerned in this matter. Apart from the people either directly or indirectly involved, we must have regard also to the various ancillary services concerned. I was very pleased to hear Deputy McGinley's contribution. While I am confining my remarks to Donegal I am hoping that the Minister will take the sensible step of withdrawing the amendment tabled in his name and not embarrass members of his own party. We in Donegal are totally united on this issue.
Deputy Brennan has five minutes.
I understand that Deputy Taylor is to get in at this point for 15 minutes. If Deputy Brennan is being called the ordinary rules of rotation are not being maintained.
When I came into the House ten minutes ago I found before me a sheet of paper on which there were details of an agreement between the Whips. This indicates that Deputy Gallagher would have fifteen minutes but he is now giving up five minutes of that time to Deputy Brennan. This would give Deputy Taylor a little over ten minutes.
It was agreed that I would be called at 7.45 and would have 15 minutes.
This is a fait-accompli situation.
I must insist on the usual procedure being followed in which case you must rotate the speakers. This means allowing Deputy Taylor to get in at 7.45 for 15 minutes.
I do not wish to take from anyone's time.
Perhaps Deputy Gallagher would be brief.
Since an issue has been made of my being called I shall detain the House only long enough to make the point that one of the power stations in question happens to be almost in my constituency. I refer to Arigna where 65 people are employed in addition to the 400 who are employed in the coalmines that supply the coal for that station.
Successive Governments have chosen deliberately to operate a policy of high energy charges.
The merit of this policy is that it is supposed to yield high revenue to the Exchequer but the serious defect in it is that it costs jobs. It is pointed out frequently that unemployment is at a high level throughout the EEC. That is true but why must we be at the top of the unemployment league? There are many contributing factors to this situation but one of the most crucial arises from the fact that in the past, too many of our industries have failed, as they are failing now and will continue to fail, so long as this policy continues.
If we are content with the present employment situation, no change is necessary. Likewise if we are content to accept the ridiculous situation whereby in the first instance we spend millions of pounds building electricity generators and then proceed to close them because the energy is too expensive, no action is necessary. If we are content to see existing energy-intensive industries disappear and potential new ones being frightened away, no action is necessary either. Government Ministers have been saying ad nauseam of late that the Clondalkin Paper Mills cannot be reopened because they would not be viable. It is not that papermaking of itself is necessarily nonviable. It is an operation that is perfectly viable in Norway, Germany, Canada, and in many other locations but apparently it is only in Ireland that it is nonviable. What brings about this situation? It is the deliberate policy of successive Governments, including the present Government, in maintaining for this country a disastrous policy whereby our energy is the most expensive in Europe.
In his speech to the Fine Gael Ard Fheis the Taoiseach said that we must examine our costs with a view to making our goods and services more competitive than is the case in other countries. It is all very well to say that but it is not what the Government are doing. In January 1983 our industrial electricity prices were 25 per cent higher than the average in our competitor countries. Since then our electricity prices have been increased by a further 10 per cent solely because of charges imposed on the ESB by the Government.
The Minister for Industry and Energy has initiated an inquiry into the high cost of electricity, referred to in his amendment, no doubt a worthwhile exercise but clearly we have 10 per cent of the answer already. I agree with the Taoiseach when he said that we must make our goods more competitive. However, as the National Prices Commission pointed out in a recent report, the price of electricity has a significant influence on the competitiveness of Irish industry. Again, in the same report, it is maintained that the Government now have a powerful influence on Irish energy prices.
I should like to pose this one question to the Minister and shall await his reply with interest. When the Government decide, as they did in July last, to increase industrial electricity by a further 10 per cent over and above its already unacceptable level, does anybody in the Minister's Department, or indeed in any Department, do any calculation, carry out any projection, or give any consideration at all to the number of jobs which will be lost in firms which are exposed and utterly sensitive to that very competition referred to by the Taoiseach? The Government's intention in imposing the increased charges is to raise additional taxation. What is the real result? As a direct result of the Government's action yet more firms lose their competitiveness, are forced into liquidation, more workers become unemployed, the import bill goes up and exports are lost. The firms put into liquidation pay no tax, the workers, instead of paying tax, have to be paid social welfare and the taxable base of the country is reduced. The ultimate result is less revenue instead of more and maintenance of our position at the top of the European unemployment league.
There seems to be no integration of policy as between planning for the creation of new jobs and the maintenance of existing jobs and energy-pricing policy. I wonder has anyone ever estimated the number of new jobs that would be created here if our energy prices were competitive? Has anybody estimated how much better our employment position would have been had our energy prices been competitive? Has anybody estimated how much additional taxation would have been received by the State from new employment attracted and existing employment preserved, to say nothing of social welfare payments saved? Is there nobody in the vastness of the public service to carry out that examination and projection? The policy seems to be to soldier on as before, same policies, no change. As long as we do that we will continue to head the unemployment league in Europe.
I want to refer now to the proposal to close some of the peat-burning stations. I feel such a proposal could not possibly be right. It could be right perhaps if we did not have peat and had to import it in ships from other countries. It could perhaps be right if we did not have Irish workers who are ready, willing and able to produce the peat by their labour and supply it to the generating stations. It could perhaps be right if we did not already have generating stations, built at great expense and capable of turning peat into energy. We already have the generating stations; they are built and paid for — well, they are built anyway. We have the workers to produce the peat and we have the peat in abundance in the ground. What then is this proposal to make redundant the power workers, the peat workers, and instead pay out foreign currency for oil or coal giving employment in other lands; and coal, let it be said, from outside our shores instead of exploiting our resources at Arigna?
A key part of the problem arises from the present position in which our capacity to produce energy is massively beyond the actual energy being used. On existing policies that could not be otherwise. I made inquiries recently as to how much approximately the ESB bill would be for the Clondalkin Paper Mills if it was in operation. I was told that the value of the energy they would be using would be approximately £2 million per annum, and that is just one industry.
Therefore, what have we done here? If our energy prices were moderate, the Clondalkin Paper Mills and very many firms like it would today be open and viable, they would be using many millions of pounds worth of energy which the ESB has the capacity to produce and people would be working instead of drawing social welfare. Our competitors in Europe and elsewhere see it differently. They moderate, or even subsidise, their energy costs, with the result that their industries are competitive. They supply us with things we could make ourselves. Their populations are busily employed making things for us while our population, in increasing numbers, goes on the dole.
I do not say that our energy prices have to be the cheapest in Europe but I do say this: they do not have to be the most expensive either. The Minister in his speech referred to the financial problems of the ESB. They have a financial problem because they are not selling sufficient of their product. They are not selling sufficient of their product because its price was and is so high that many of the firms that should be using it have gone out of business. In my view it is time for a radical change of policy on this issue. It is time we showed some backbone and confidence in our abilities by bringing down our energy prices to competitive levels.
I want to end on the subject of the tragedy of the Clondalkin Paper Mills. I would leave the Minister with this question: is it not remarkable that hard-nosed Canadian businessmen had confidence enough in the prospects for paper manufacturing in Ireland as to be prepared to sink £1 million of their money in it, yet we ourselves apparently do not have the confidence to take them up on that offer?
Since it is some minutes to 8 o'clock perhaps some of the other Deputies would care to contribute.
There has been considerable confusion already. I would be grateful if the Deputy would allow the debate to continue at this rate. I have a list here. I am doing the best I can to stand by it, with the Deputy's co-operation, please.
We had not anticipated that Deputy Taylor would finish so quickly.
Neither had I when I was coming in here.
I should like to thank the Deputies on both sides of the House who contributed to this debate. They have demonstrated the very keen interest aroused by the ESB's proposals. I must emphasise again that these are proposals made by the board and management of ESB on their own initiative and responsibility to deal with a situation of high electricity charges and aimed principally as a part of the overall Strategic Plan "to achieve substantial improvement in the price of electricity". It has been the theme of the Minister for Industry and Energy, Deputy Bruton, and of the present Government, that State boards should carry out their responsibilities to the full and manage the organisations entrusted to them by the Oireachtas with competence and effectiveness. This must be done, it should not need saying, within the ambit of Government policy and where areas of Government policy are impinged on by changes proposed, it is right that Government should decide on such matters. In this instance, this House has had a good opportunity to make its views known in this debate.
The document was sent to the Minister for Industry and Energy with that status, and on that basis. While it is almost natural to expect that much of the debate and much of the interest of Deputies has focused on that section of the plan which proposes the closure of peat-fired generating stations or indeed stations within their constituencies, I would have to emphasise again that the plan deals with a variety of measures to achieve cost reductions and the much desired reduction in electricity charges. It needs no reminding from me to the House that there has been widespread adverse comment by representatives of Irish industry about the competitive impact of these charges relative to the charges for electricity to their competitors abroad. Of course this must be taken seriously by any Government and indeed by any Minister for Industry and Energy. I do not have to emphasise, either, that each and every cost where we in Ireland get out of line, is of critical importance to Irish industry, struggling as it now is for its survival, for its competitiveness, and for its long-awaited expansion so as to create employment to absorb not only the queues already unemployed but the young workforce coming to the market. The strategic plan by the ESB deals with voluntary severance for excess manpower which the ESB acknowledge is in the system; with closures of oil and gas-fired generating units as well as of peat-fired units; they deal with improvements in administration, in accounting procedures, in greater control over overheads generally. The plan also proposes strict limitation on premises development and greater efficiency in a wide variety of operations within the organisation. All of these, I submit to this House, are praiseworthy objectives, indeed the least that is to be expected from a board charged with handling a difficult situation of reduced electricity demand, electricity charges which are acknowledged to be higher than they should be, and generally bringing their organisation into line with the very great financial and economic difficulties which both they and every other industry in the country face. What would be the surprise would be not that the ESB have faced these issues and have set out a plan to tackle them, but what would be the surprise and indeed not acceptable to anyone in this House or in this country, in my opinion, would be if they were to fail to do this.
If there is any message which the Irish economy, which management and labour must grasp above all else, is that each and every cost in the structure of production must be examined, must be slimmed down, and must not be allowed to become endemic or to creep upwards unnecessarily. As an economy, we have had more than enough of that. The ESB have a very extensive and far-reaching organisation in this country, have served the Irish economy well, and in this regard a tribute is due to their boards in the past, to their management and to their staff and workers. The quality of supply, the availability of supply, the readiness with which supply is brought to the sources where it is needed, and the ability of the ESB's organisation in coping with breakdowns, interruptions, storms and so on, exemplify that the ESB are a very good organisation indeed. There are few in this country who would dissent from that. It is equally true, however, that the ESB are now facing a unique situation in their experience; that is, that the demand has for a few years turned down and that the organisation must respond to that, must contain costs, must plan on a different basis than a rising boat on a rising tide for some time, and must keep their head above the financial waters while doing that. Any view other than that is simply sticking one's head in the sand. If difficult decisions have to be taken, and changes and adjustments have to be made, then it will be the measure of the ESB's and all other organisations in the country, their efficiency and effectiveness to achieve these changes with the minimum dislocation and the greatest sensitivity to the human factors involved.
As I said earlier, the debate in this House focused on the closure of the peat-fired generating stations and indeed very rightly on the consequences for the social and economic life of the areas involved, if this plan, which touches on settled Government policy for the use of peat as an indigenous fuel resource for the generation of electricity were to be implemented in full. The Minister and the Government must have regard to this Government policy in relation to the use of the valuable indigenous fuel resource which is peat, and to all the factors appertaining to this which I have mentioned. The Government, the Minister for Industry and Energy and myself recognise our responsibilities in regard to these aspects. I am conscious of the role and value of peat as an indigenous fuel source of very great value to this country, not only in terms of import saving in respect of expensive oil or coal, but in the safety and security of it within our own country, of the 30 years of employment and of considerable underpinning to the regions of this country affected and indeed the degree of prosperity that it brought to these regions and nationally. The work of Bord na Móna in the decades since the mid-thirties is one of the success stories of this country. It is more than that, more than a success story; it has been a pioneer, and it has been emulated in other places where peat resources are available. In more recent years, the Government showed their faith by approving the third programme on which Bord na Móna are now engaged. And this was done in the face of rising costs, of scarce capital resources, of increasing interest rates at times virtually to crippling proportions, and of very great risks that these ever-increasing costs, fuelled also by a very adverse inflation rate, could push these Bord na Móna projects well beyond budgeted costs.
That, too, is a problem which this House cannot be unmindful about. It would be reckless in the extreme not to pay full regard to the need for viability and effectiveness in investment decisions. Economic development, the growth in the national product, the affording of new opportunities for employment, these are one side of the equation with which Government must be concerned; the other side is to achieve this effectively, within economic viability and by not depriving other areas of Government investment or activity by cost overruns, by unviable projects or by non-competitive enterprises. Very many spokesmen devote much of their comments to the first half of this equation; not as many are equally realistic or pressuring in relation to the second. I think the times we are in demand that they should be. The link between Bord na Móna and the ESB very easily illustrates how essential full regard to costs and viability on both sides is. Bord na Móna have been a major supplier of milled peat and other sod peat into the ESB for many years. The end result of this product is electricity produced and sent out from the ESB's stations. The fuel unit cost of that electricity has to be as competitive as possible. Without the revenue provided over the years from its sales to the ESB, it is doubtful if Bord na Móna could have developed and provided the level of employment and the level of development in three national programmes which they have done and which have brought to extensive areas of this country the opportunities for the prosperity which have been afforded, and which will continue to be afforded.
Deputy O'Malley in this House on 25 October urged that the heads of these boards should be knocked together in order to impress on them the mutual interest they have in effective achievement; I do not think that hard treatment will be necessary; I think the Minister had made the position clear to both boards; neither can be allowed to cannibalise the other. There is no room either for a soft ride for the one, or for excessive retrenchment by the other save as is justified on hard economic fact and financial analysis, and after that, save in accordance with those areas of Government policy which Government have or will have decreed. The ESB have a statutory obligation at least to break-even while Bord na Móna are charged by Government with repaying their capital development loans. Both must be able to fulfil their tasks and both must complement each other in the achievement of their objectives which, in the main, is to produce turf from which will be produced competitive electricity.
I will touch briefly on the surplus by Bord na Móna in 1982-83. I understand this is approximately £15.5 million. I would refer the House to the board's published accounts for the year 1981-82 showing a loss of £5.7 million. For a considerable period prior to that time, Bord na Móna's prices had fallen substantially out of line with rising energy prices and the board were finding it extremely difficult to make any contribution towards their development programme. I need hardly tell the House that this is a situation, with the rising costs and high capital servicing costs to which I adverted earlier, it would be very foolhardy to allow to continue. It may well be the case that Bord na Móna's prices could profit from an in-depth review so that equity as between the prices for one, and the costs, relative to other fuel unit costs for the other, can be redetermined. The Minister has set this in train by way of letters to both boards.
On a more general note, the Minister and myself have continued the private bog development scheme which has produced over 300,000 tonnes of good quality turf each year. This is a simple scheme, administered progressively by Bord na Móna themselves on behalf of the Minister for Industry and Energy, and with the minimum of red tape. The scheme has had a favourable response and results are encouraging. This, too, is a valuable addition to local and regional income and a valuable contribution to the energy resources, blocking off, as it must, other mainly imported fuels.
Specific stations have been mentioned by several Deputies in the course of the debate. For instance, Deputy Power tonight was concerned about Allenwood; Deputy Calleary was concerned about Bellacorick. Deputies McGinley and Gallagher were worried about Gweedore. All I can do in the context of their concern is to assure the House that the case pleaded for the various peat-burning stations will be examined under a number of criteria with the greatest care and consideration.
On a point of order, is the Minister aware that it is not just peat-burning stations, that there is a coal-burning station at Arigna?
That is not a point of order.
It is relevant to the debate.
Deputy O'Malley must get in at 8.15 p.m. The Minister has two minutes.
If the Deputy looks at the first paragraph of my speech he might be enlightened. Deputies will have seen the details of the ESB's proposals in their strategic plan which has been placed in the Library of the House for information. That report had, of course, come to the Minister for Industry and Energy as a submission from the ESB and found its way, not by the Minister's devices, at a very early stage, into the hands of the public, well before departmental consideration or indeed consideration of it had been completed. Deputy Kenny in his contribution suggested that the price of milled peat by Bord na Móna to the ESB should be reduced. As I said, a full analysis must be made and then decisions can be taken. In the case of the very small sod peat stations, there are very many local factors which the Minister for Industry and Energy will have looked at and will take into account. Deputy John O'Leary went far to impress many of these on this House and it is a useful reminder to have such local concerns so ably put before the House. Deputy Enright rightly asked that due regard be had to the national bill for imported alternative fuels. I can assure the Deputy that that too will be a consideration for the Minister.
I was impressed tonight with Deputy Taylor's intervention. He had one major point. I noticed his criticism of the ESB plan but the criteria which the Deputy has adopted, that of cost-competitiveness, is correct.
The Minister has one minute.
I would like, therefore, to conclude by stressing that whatever courses of action need to be taken will be based on the facts as they will emerge from full consideration and analysis of the proposals in the ESB's strategic plan and analyses of all the ancillary factors including local and regional. Before decisions are taken, the Government will have regard to and take account of the full implications, not only for the two semi-State companies concerned but for the wider social, regional and strategic implications. The amendment to the motion as moved by the Minister commits the Government to this line of action and I would strongly urge the House to support it. I want to thank Deputies for their very constructive contributions to this debate.
In the almost 16 years that I am in this House I never saw so much interest in a Private Members' Motion. There are 12 more Fianna Fáil Deputies who wish to speak and, in spite of this being taken into a second week, there is no opportunity. I requested some weeks ago that this be taken in Government time and it is a great pity that it was not. We have heard 15 speeches in the course of this debate and, apart from the Minister and Minister of State who were somewhat inconclusive about the attitude they took and also Deputy Taylor who seemed to be backing both sides, Deputies from every side of the House were unanimous in their view that the proposals in this strategic plan of the ESB are totally unacceptable on innumerable grounds and not just local or parochial grounds. It has been made clear by virtually every speaker that from a national point of view this whole set of proposals is absolutely unacceptable and ridiculous. For example, I made points on the second last night about the attitudes taken by other countries to their indigenous sources of energy, the degree of support they give them and how they would look on us as crazy even to contemplate what we are doing now.
The ESB have made a very serious error in putting forward this plan. I have read it carefully and I have not time in the less than 15 minutes at my disposal to go through it all. It should be debated here in the House in full in Government time. It is a plan about which one would wish to say a great deal. All I am in a position to say about it now is that its proposals in relation to generating capacity and the closure of 14 power stations are—as I think Deputy Calleary mentioned tonight—contained in one page out of 33 and the remainder of it is couched in a way that makes it appear that the good name etc. of the ESB are paramount. The one page which does all the damage has virtually no commentary.
Everything else in it is argued at some length and in some detail. No justification is given in the plan for the widespread closures that were talked about, whereas several pages are given to saying, for example, that we will not build offices as elaborate as we did in the past. I would jolly well think that they ought not to. In my own city they had a prime office in the very centre of the city and they went off and spent something between £1 million and £2 million on the purchase and rebuilding of an office in a far less suitable place from any point of view. That kind of thing has been repeated throughout the country.
I went through the Minister's speech in the Official Report for last week in order that when replying to it I could deal with matters where I disagreed with him. I find that he said on no less than seven occasions that he agreed with me. Therefore, unhappily, I have not very much that I can reply to in that respect because he and I are very much ad idem on this matter and therefore, I suggest that he and his followers support the motion that we put down in order to ensure that these stations will not be closed and not to echo the Minister's own words when he said, finishing up rather lamely;
I believe the proposal put forward by the Opposition would clearly restrict the freedom of the Government, the ESB and the other boards to do their job.
Certainly if it is passed it would restrict their freedom to carry on in the lunatic fashion which they propose in this plan to do. I invite Deputies on all sides of this House to ensure that that freedom is restricted, to copperfasten that, and they can do that here tonight by supporting the motion. Every Deputy who has spoken has spoken in favour of it. That again must be unique in this House.
I would like to make one point in relation to the Minister's speech of Tuesday, 25 October 1983, as recorded in the Official Report, Volume 345, column 684. Referring to Moneypoint he said:
As far as phase three, which Deputy O'Malley said the ESB have started, is concerned, the Deputy might have mentioned that on 28 March 1980 the late Mr. George Colley, who was then Minister for Energy, gave full approval for the third coal-fired 300 megawatt generating unit at Moneypoint, subject to the condition that it would be dual-firing and would be capable, like the other two units, of operating on oil if circumstances so required.
I want to comment on that because the implication in that to people who do not know the situation might be that the late Deputy Colley as Minister for Energy gave an irrevocable direction to the ESB to go ahead and build that third unit of that power station, the one that in effect was causing the 14 closures that we are debating here tonight. That is not the case. He simply indicated to them, as I did many times in respect of many projects in the four years prior to that, that he had no objection to their building it if they thought it appropriate and economic to do it. I recall in 1979 giving the go-ahead on the same basis to the ESB to build another power station at Arigna in Counties Leitrim-Roscommon, a new 45 MW station to come on stream in the mid-eighties to replace the 15 MW stations which would close, it was anticipated, about 1987. However, the ESB have chosen not to do that. I could not compel them to do it and the present Minister does not seem willing to compel them to do it. The situation is a great deal worse than that. Not alone is the new 45 MW station at Arigna to burn the crow coal not to come on stream but the existing 15 MW station is to be closed down within the next 12 months, and four years of reasonably good quality coal at the existing mine at Arigna is to be left there and nobody is ever going to re-open that mine for the sake of four years' production. It is crazy to contemplate not burning that coal and the truth is that that coal will have to be burned and the station will have to be kept open for as long as that mine has coal in it.
In the same way we must ensure by our vote on the motion tonight that the various other stations—turf-fired and some oil-fired also which may well be burning indigenous fuel in the very near future— will be left open also. Therefore, it is misleading to say that Deputy Colley gave such a direction or that the ESB had no option in the matter. They had every option and they have chosen not to go on with another coal station. I also approved various small hydro schemes in my time and they went ahead and built one at O'Brien's Bridge between Tipperary and Clare. I approved their erecting and operating wind generators and I do not think they bothered to go on with any of those because they did not consider it appropriate. However, in spite of the very arguments that are made successively in this document of theirs, they have gone on with the building of the third unit at Moneypoint. They started to build it in 1982 when it was clear that there was an enormous downturn in demand but have ploughed ahead regardless ever since and the cost of that decision, that policy which they have insisted on implementing, is the 14 stations that we are talking about here, the many people involved in that, the many people involved in Bord na Móna and the many non-Bord na Móna turf producers along the west coast who will be equally affected.
One of the interesting points in the Minister's speech on the first night of the debate was that capital and interest repayments are now costing the ESB 25 per cent of their revenue, which is a startlingly high figure and has shown a big increase in recent years because of the very heavy capital development which they have gone into and the fact that they have borrowed nearly all the money abroad. The devaluation of the Irish currency over the last year or so has also added enormously to their costs. Still they plough ahead, in spite of statements of their own, as on page 7 of their document:
Foreign borrowings will continue to be expensive and will expose ESB to high currency risk, particularly as there is a large capital programme to be financed up to 1988 and major refinancing operations.
Unless ESB succeeds in getting the price of electricity more in line with European levels and perceived as better value for money than at present, there will be an increasing tendency for industry to use natural gas or to develop combined heat and power systems. The unfavourable price situation of electricity will expose it to tougher competition from other energies in the commercial and domestic markets also.
They make there the very points which I made the last night—although, of course, I had not seen this document then because it had not been published—that by continuing with huge capital expenditure they are driving their own costs up. It is not going to cost them anything to keep Allenwood, Rhode, Ferbane, Portarlington, Arigna, Gweedore, Cahirciveen, Miltown Malbay, and all the rest open. That is not costing anything. They are not alone paid for, but are written off in the accounts of the ESB. However, the programme of construction of a third unit of a very large station which is going to use imported fuel is driving up the costs enormously. That is because it is being paid for with foreign money and will burn foreign fuel when we are leaving hundreds of square miles of bog unutilised. That is something which this House cannot tolerate as representatives of the Irish people, because the people will not tolerate such foolishness.
It is bad enough that in these circumstances phase 3 of the Moneypoint project should be going ahead. It is perfectly feasible for the ESB to put a stop to it now, if they so choose. They put out the usual story that semi-State bodies do in these circumstances, that they have gone beyond the point of no return. One of the biggest mistakes I made in my life was not to tell a semi-State body that it might have gone beyond the point of no return but that it had better stop. Had I done so, I would have saved this country almost £100 million. The situation is not at all as advanced as the ESB give people reason to believe, in respect of phase 3. What is more disturbing and what the House will not be aware of—and perhaps the Minister also because these matters tend to be concealed—is that as well as phase 3 going ahead the ESB have already built the foundations for phase 4 of Moneypoint, which is the part that will bring it up to 1,200 MW.
There is little future for the smaller generating stations scattered around Ireland using Irish natural resources and indigenous fuel if the ESB are allowed to get away with both of these phases. The whole point of phasing Moneypoint in four phases was that if there was an economic downturn, then we could stop. We did not have to commit £300 million extra for each of these phases. They need not go ahead. As we all know, there was a serious economic downturn in 1980 and it has continued ever since, but apparently the ESB choose totally to ignore that and do at a great cost.
When economists and financial correspondents have had the opportunity of analysing this document, they certainly will have no great difficulty in tearing it apart and showing that it cannot and does not stand up. It is a very weak production. I would like to express my thanks to the Minister for deciding finally to publish it officially after the debate here last week, because it strengthens very greatly, in the eyes of anybody who has read it, the case that I and many Members of this House have made over the last three nights: that this programme of closures should not be proceeded with and that we should give priority to the sources of energy which we ourselves have.
The ESB have been fundamentally wrong in the past. Deputy Gallagher reminded us tonight that it was the late Deputy Seán Lemass, when Minister for Industry and Commerce, who told the ESB in 1958 "You go ahead with the use of turf in this country to generate electricity". They told him that they would not and he said to them "All right, I will fire the lot of you". They went ahead in those circumstances and can anyone say that Seán Lemass was wrong in that? Remember, it was only four years ago that we thanked God for the fact that 22 per cent of our electricity at that time was generated from peat, because if we had not had that source of energy this country would not have had power cuts every few days as we had, we would have had power cuts which would have lasted for a few days at the time all over the country, and the country would have come totally to its knees. I am sure that the ESB are equally wrong on this occasion, and the House has an opportunity now to show that. I know the whole House feels this. Let us go through the lobbies now and demonstrate it and put an end to this lunacy by the ESB for all time.
Motion in the name of Deputy O'Malley and other Fianna Fáil Deputies and Amendment No. 1 in the name of the Minister for Industry and Energy. I am putting the question: "That the amendment be made".
Question put.
The House divided: Táa, 72; Níl, 65.
Tá
|
Allen, Bernard.Barnes, Monica.Barrett, Seán.Barry, Myra.Begley, Michael.Bermingham, Joe.Birmingham, George Martin.Boland, John.Bruton, John.Bruton, Richard.Burke, Liam.Carey, Donal.Cluskey, Frank.Collins, Edward. Dowling, Dick.Doyle, Avril.Doyle, Joe.Dukes, Alan.Durkan, Bernard J.Enright, Thomas W.Farrelly, John V.Fennell, Nuala.FitzGerald, Garret.Flaherty, Mary.Harte, Patrick D.Hegarty, Paddy.Kavanagh, Liam.Kenny, Enda.L'Estrange, Gerry.McCartin, Joe.McGahon, BrendanMcGinley, Dinny.McLoughlin, Frank.Manning, Maurice.Mitchell, Gay.Molony, David.Moynihan, Michael. |
Conlon, John F.Connaughton, Paul.Coogan, Fintan.Cooney, Patrick Mark.Cosgrave, Liam T.Cosgrave, Michael Joe.Coveney, Hugh.Creed, Donal.Crotty, Kieran.Crowley, Frank.D'Arcy, Michael.Desmond, Barry.Desmond, Eileen.Donnellan, John. Naughten, Liam.Nealon, Ted.Noonan, Michael. (Limerick East).O'Brien, Fergus.O'Brien, Willie.O'Donnell, Tom.O'Keeffe, JimO'Leary, MichaelO'Toole, Paddy.Owen, Nora.Prendergast, Frank.Quinn, Ruairí.Ryan, John.Shatter, AlanSheehan, Patrick Joseph.Skelly, Liam.Spring, DickTaylor, Mervyn.Timmins, Godfrey.Treacy, Seán.Yates, Ivan. |
Níl
|
Ahern, Bertie.Ahern, Michael.Aylward, Liam.Barrett, Michael.Barrett, Sylvester.Blaney, Neil Terence.Brady, Gerard.Brady, Vincent.Brennan, Mattie.Brennan, Paudge.Briscoe, Ben.Browne, John.Burke, Raphael P.Byrne, Hugh.Byrne, Seán.Calleary, SeánCollins, Gerard.Conaghan, Hugh.Connolly, Ger.Coughlan, Cathal Seán.Cowen, Bernard.Daly, Brendan.Fahey, Francis.Faulkner, Pádraig.Fitzgerald, Gene.Fitzsimons, Jim.Flynn, Pádraig.Foley, Denis.Gallagher, Denis.Gallagher, Pat Cope.Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.Gregory-Independent, Tony.Harney, Mary.Haughey, Charles J. |
Hilliard, Colm.Hyland, Liam.Kirk, Séamus.Kitt, Michael.Lemass, Eileen.Lenihan, Brian.Leonard, Jimmy.Leyden, Terry.Lyons, Denis.McCarthy, Seán.McCreevy, Charlie.McEllistrim, Tom.Mac Giolla, Tomás.MacSharry, Ray.Molloy, Robert.Morley, P.J.Moynihan, Donal.Nolan, M.J.Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West).O'Hanlon, Rory.O'Keeffe, Edmond.O'Malley, Desmond J.Ormonde, Donal.O'Rourke, Mary.Power, Paddy.Treacy, Noel.Tunney, Jim.Walsh, Joe.Walsh, Seán.Wilson, John P.Wyse, Pearse. |
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Barrett(Dún Laoghaire) and Taylor; Níl, Deputies B. Ahern and Briscoe.
Question declared carried.
Question put: "That the motion, as amended, be agreed to."
The House divided: Tá, 72; Níl, 62.
Tá
|
Allen, Bernard.Barnes, Monica.Barrett, Seán.Barry, Myra.Begley, Michael.Bermingham, Joe.Birmingham, George Martin.Boland, John.Bruton, John.Bruton, Richard.Burke, Liam.Carey, Donal.Cluskey, Frank.Collins, Edward.Conlon, John F.Connaughton, Paul.Coogan, Fintan.Cooney, Patrick Mark.Cosgrave, Liam T.Cosgrave, Michael Joe.Coveney, Hugh.Creed, Donal.Crotty, Kieran.Crowley, Frank.D'Arcy, Michael.Desmond, Barry.Desmond, Eileen.Donnellan, John.Dowling, Dick.Doyle, Avril.Doyle, Joe.Dukes, Alan.Durkan, Bernard J.Enright, Thomas W.Farrelly, John V.Fennell, Nuala.FitzGerald, Garret. |
Flaherty, Mary.Harte, Patrick D.Hegarty, Paddy.Kavanagh, Liam.Kenny, Enda.L'Estrange, Gerry.McCartin, Joe.McGahon, BrendanMcGinley, Dinny.McLoughlin, Frank.Manning, Maurice.Mitchell, Gay.Molony, David.Moynihan, Michael.Naughten, Liam.Nealon, Ted.Noonan, Michael. (Limerick East).O'Brien, Fergus.O'Brien, Willie.O'Donnell, Tom.O'Keeffe, JimO'Leary, MichaelO'Toole, Paddy..Owen, Nora.Prendergast, Frank.Quinn, Ruairí.Ryan, John.Shatter, AlanSheehan, Patrick Joseph.Skelly, Liam.Spring, DickTaylor, Mervyn.Timmins, Godfrey.Treacy, Seán.Yates, Ivan. |
Níl
|
Ahern, Bertie.Ahern, Michael.Aylward, Liam.Barrett, Michael.Barrett, Sylvester.Blaney, Neil Terence.Brady, Gerard.Brady, Vincent.Brennan, Mattie.Brennan, Paudge.Briscoe, Ben.Browne, John.Burke, Raphael P.Byrne, Hugh.Byrne, Seán.Calleary, SeánCollins, Gerard.Conaghan, Hugh.Connolly, Ger. Leonard, Jimmy.Leyden, Terry.Lyons, Denis.McCarthy, Seán.McCreevy, Charlie.McEllistrim, Tom.MacSharry, Ray.Molloy, Robert.Morley, P.J.Moynihan, Donal.Nolan, M.J.Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West). |
Coughlan, Cathal Seán.Cowen, Bernard.Daly, Brendan.Faulkner, Pádraig.Fitzgerald, Gene.Fitzsimons, Jim.Flynn, Pádraig.Foley, Denis.Gallagher, Denis.Gallagher, Pat Cope.Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.Harney, Mary.Haughey, Charles J.Hilliard, Colm.Hyland, Liam.Kirk, Séamus.Kitt, Michael.Lemass, Eileen.Lenihan, Brian. O'Hanlon, Rory.O'Keeffe, Edmond.O'Malley, Desmond J.Ormonde, Donal.O'Rourke, Mary.Power, Paddy.Treacy, Noel.Tunney, Jim.Walsh, Joe.Walsh, Seán.Wilson, John P.Wyse, Pearse. |
Tellers: Tá, Deputies S. Barrett and Taylor; Níl, Deputies B. Ahern and Briscoe.
Question declared carried.
On a point of order, should we not have a Minister on the Government benches?
The Chair has no control over that.
A junior Minister will not do. We must have a senior Minister of the Government.
When the Chair is standing everybody else takes his seat.
The Dáil adjourned at 9 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 3 November 1983.