asked the Minister for Energy if he is aware of the proposed large-scale redundancies in the ESB; and the consultation, if any, that took place between the ESB and his Department before the announcement was made.
Private Notice Question. - ESB Redundancy Scheme.
I am, of course, aware that the ESB propose to achieve a reduction in their work force through natural wastage and the implementation of a voluntary redundancy scheme.
I am advised by the ESB that, while it is not possible at this stage to estimate with precision the number of employees likely to avail of the redundancy scheme, certain comments in the news media substantially exaggerate the level of redundancies likely to be achieved in the short term at least.
My Department were informed of the ESB proposals and there was the consultation between my Department and the ESB which normally takes place in relation to proposals for significant policy decisions by the board.
Will the Minister state if the proposals received the approval of the Department and the Government, both in relation to the numbers proposed to be laid off and the very generous terms offered?
The terms have been agreed by the Government. This is a voluntary redundancy scheme and it is not possible to know how many will opt for the scheme.
The Minister stated the Government have agreed the terms. Will he accept that those very generous terms will set a dangerous and expensive headline for any possible future lay-offs in the State and semi-State sector and also in the private sector?
I do not agree with the Deputy that the terms are over-generous and I do not agree that this will create any precedent in other areas.
I am amazed at the Minister's reply. As a former Minister for Labour surely he is aware that any precedents set in this regard will be used by the trade union movement in future negotiations in any industry in the State or semi-State sector. The Minister should not try to mislead the House. I know he agrees with what I say. Does statutory redundancy mean anything anymore? If it does not, why bring the law into disrepute? Why not change the whole basis for statutory redundancy and have it brought to a realistic level so that we do not have this jumping over the odds every time?
Redundancy offers in other industries in the private sector are far more generous than what has been offered here.
Does the Minister know if these proposed redundancies will affect the intake of apprentices in the ESB given the serious youth unemployment problems and the fact that the ESB is one of the few organisations where people can expect to take up apprenticeships?
I have not been informed that this will affect the take-up of apprenticeships in the future.
I do not want to dwell too much on the point but I am sure the Minister will agree with me that six weeks for every year's service will be carried through in future negotiations. Surely he must agree this is a very dangerous precedent? He is only burying his head in the sand if he does not believe that. Secondly, is this the first step by the ESB in implementing their earlier proposals to decimate the midlands by closing the sod peat and milled peat power stations in that area and also similar stations throughout the country? If that is the case, have the Government agreed and approved the proposals?
The Deputy has picked out one portion of what is being offered by the ESB but that is not the whole proposal.
It is an important part.
It may be an important part but it is only one proposal. Without considering the rest of the proposal it would be wrong to highlight one area. The proposal put forward is to avoid exactly what the Deputy suggests might happen.
Is the Minister now saying the Government do not approve the earlier proposals of the ESB? May we take it from the Minister's reply that the power stations in the midlands to which I referred will not be closed?
The board of the ESB put forward policy to the Government for consideration. There is no policy put to the Government to close any particular stations.
Is the Minister aware that at a meeting here last week considering semi-State bodies an officer of the ESB confirmed that they had firmly in mind the closing of Bellacorick power station, independently of the midlands peat fired stations? How can we reconcile that with the statement of the Minister for the Gaeltacht last weekend that it was not his intention to allow the Government to close the station at Bellacorick? How can we reconcile that with the redundancy package now being offered?
As I said to Deputy Reynolds, the proposal put forward does not include the closing of any particular power station. The strategic plan put forward by the ESB has been under consideration for some time but that consideration has not yet concluded. However, the proposals here do not include and are not consequent on the closure of any particular power station.
Will the Minister state when the proposal was submitted to the Department and what it is hoped to achieve? Was there a specific number whom it was anticipated would avail of the redundancy scheme? I am sure before the Government approved the scheme they had some idea of the estimated numbers involved and the total cost.
On 4 May 1983 the ESB informed the Department of the Public Service that they had an over-staffing problem of about 1,000 personnel. That was the earliest date the ESB had put the actual figure to a Department. The figure the ESB hope to achieve through this policy would be in the region of 500 to 600.
Could the Minister give details of where the ESB expect those redundancies to occur, in view of the fact that he said there will be no closure of any station in the midlands or anywhere else? If he has details of the over-manning, in what areas do the ESB expect the redundancies to occur?
I do not have the details of where redundancies are expected since this is a voluntary scheme and it is up to each individual employee to look at the terms and consider if they are to his advantage.
This is very difficult to understand. First, the Minister said this will not mean the closure of any power station and now he says he has no details of where the redundancies are likely to occur. Can we get a straight answer? The Minister must have all the details because he received a lot of notice about this question and he must know where the redundancies will occur, the grades and the total cost of this scheme to the ESB.
I have given the Deputy all the information he requires. First, I said that the strategic plan of the ESB is still under examination. I also said that no mention was made that any power station will close down as a result of this scheme. This is a voluntary scheme and it is up to each individual worker to decide whether it is in his best interests to opt to be made redundant or to stay where he is.
No station will close down as a result of this scheme?
It is a voluntary scheme.
I am calling Deputy H. Byrne and Deputy De Rossa to ask their final supplementary questions.
The Minister did not give the cost of the scheme to the ESB.
Assuming 500 workers were to opt for the terms, the cost is estimated at £7 million, with a £5 million saving in the first year and a £57 million saving over 15 years.
The Minister told us he expects 1,000 people to opt to be made redundant.
No, 500.
The papers have got it wrong, according to the Minister.
If the Deputy wants to believe the papers that is all right by me.
I take it the figure is between 500 to 600 people. Does the Minister expect that 500 or 600 people will voluntarily retire and that all stations will remain open?
I do not seem to be able to get the message across that this is a voluntary scheme which affects the total employment of the ESB. No particular power station is being asked to make voluntary redundancies; every area can opt for voluntary redundancies. The information I gave earlier was that over-staffing was in the region of 1,000 and it is hoped to achieve 500 redundancies as a result of this proposal.
Can I give a guarantee to the people of Great Island that their station will not be decommissioned and that the full labour force will be kept?
As I told Deputy Reynolds, the ESB's strategic plan is still under consideration and I do not know what the outcome will be.
Can the Minister guarantee the people of Great Island that their jobs——
I am calling Deputy De Rossa for a final supplementary.
Can the Minister give the people in my county a guarantee that they will remain in their jobs? This is a simple question and it requires a simple yes or no answer.
Please resume your seat, Deputy.
It will be decided for the Laois-Offaly by-election.
The board of the ESB make decisions and I have already said that they are considering their strategic plan and that I do not know what their deliberations will be.
The Minister said he had not been informed that redundancies would affect the intake of apprentices. Will he give the House an assurance that he will take the matter up with the board of the ESB and ensure that the capacity of the ESB to take in apprentices will not be reduced in view of the fact that there are thousands of young people unemployed and millions of pounds are being spent by the Youth Employment Agency and AnCO trying to find jobs for them?
I can assure the Deputy that this point will be taken up with the ESB.
The remaining questions will appear on next Tuesday's Order Paper. Item No. 7.
On a point of order, I sought to put down a Private Notice Question concerning the recent collapse of some provident societies and investment companies and the substantial loss of investors' money. You ruled it out of order because you felt it was not either relevant or important enough at this time. While I would like to question your decision, I recognise that you have the authority to do so but because of the importance of these collapses to thousands of small investors, I ask that you allow me to raise it on the Adjournment.
The Deputy is too late. The latest time to raise a question on the Adjournment on Thursday is 3.30 p.m.