Vol. 365 No. 10
asked the Minister for Energy the precautions he is taking to ensure that before the Government takes Dublin Gas into public ownership it will be an efficient operation that can supply natural gas to Dublin consumers at a cheap price while still remaining viable; the likely cost to the State of nationalising the company; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
12.
asked the Minister for Energy when it is proposed that the process of nationalising Dublin Gas will commence and when it is likely that it will be completed; if it is expected that there will be any change in employment levels in the company arising from nationalisation; the measures, if any, he intends to take to ensure that the interests of the consumers and workers are given priority over those of the shareholders and banks; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
17.
asked the Minister for Energy the total cost of the taxpayer of the Government's financial involvement in Dublin Gas including the cost of nationalisation; when all creditors will be paid, including pensioners; if he will consider mutualisation as an option for future ownership of the company; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take questions Nos. 11, 12 and 17 together.
The appointment of a receiver to the Dublin Gas Company is a first step in the restructuring of the company prior to nationalisation. It is our objective to maintain the company as a going concern and to put the company back on a viable footing, supplying gas to consumers efficiently and at a reasonable price. Where proper claims exist they will be met in due to course. It is not possible at this stage to give an estimate of the cost of nationalisation or of the time scale involved until such time as the receiver has had the opportunity to assess the situation in the company.
Mutualisation is hardly a realistic option in view of the heavy State investment which has already taken the place and the further investment which will be required. However any arrangements which involve a contribution to efficiency by consumers and employees can be considered as part of the nationalisation process.
As regards employment, there should not be any reduction in numbers arising exclusively from nationalisation; improvements in efficiency through more realistic manning levels would have been required regardless of the form of ownership. The interests of employees and of the other parties involved in Dublin Gas will be respected in accordance with their respective rights.
Might I ask the Minister to confirm that the actual recorded Government decision has been taken to nationalise Dublin Gas? Second, is he satisfied that the role of the receiver is now proper, and given the circumstances of the decision to nationalise Dublin Gas, and the announcement already made in this House that all creditors will be paid, would he say what is the role of the receiver? Furthermore can he explain how he foresees no reduction in employment levels in view of the fact that the conversion programme is supposed to be completed by July-August?
On a point of information, I think the Deputy has misunderstood what I said. I said that, as regards employment there should not be any reduction in numbers arising exclusively from nationalisation.
In bald terms what is the Minister saying — that there will be a loss of jobs or that there will not be?
I hate to see the Deputy misunderstanding what I said.
I am quite clear on what the Minister is trying to say.
I have no doubt. If the Deputy looks at the question he will see that that was Deputy Mac Giolla's portion of the question.
The Minister should not be trying to give the impression that there will be no loss of jobs when we all know there will be. However, we will get back on the rails.
The Chair was looking at the Order Paper. That remark was uncalled for.
Oh, well it was not intended that way if that is the way the Ceann Comhairle seemed to take it up.
I am going to reply to the Deputy.
The Minister should wait until I ask my question.
How many questions is the Deputy going to ask — a jumbo jet job?
Will there be a loss of jobs or not? Would the Minister please confirm that there will be a loss of approximately 300 jobs when the conversion programme is supposed to be completed in July-August? How can the Minister say there will be no loss of jobs thereafter in view of the fact that the unit cost of production compared with any other gas utility is much higher as are the manning levels in Dublin Gas?
As I said in my reply, the improvements in efficiency through more realistic manning levels would have been required regardless of the form of ownership, and that I intend to see through. The Deputy is aware that the ending of the conversion programme in the month of June or July obviously will lead to the loss of approximately 200 jobs which were temporary of their very nature. Then it is a matter for the receiver to look at the whole question of efficiency and improvements in efficiency to bring about more realistic manning levels in the Dublin Gas Company. In reply to the Deputy's second question: yes, the Government have decided to nationalise Dublin Gas. A receiver has been put in place to keep the company trading at present and he will be communicating with the Government in due course. I said that publicly on at least two occasions previously. The role of the receiver, as the Deputy said and as I stated publicly, is to start the restructuring of the company prior to nationalisation.
Will the Minister now confirm that the banks are back funding Dublin Gas as an on-going business operation because that is what he announced here last week? My information is that the banks are not honouring cheques, that they are confiscating the total cash flow of the receiver. That is why I ask: what is the role of the receiver at present? I know pensioners still have unpaid cheques in their pockets. We were led to believe here last week that the banks would be back funding this operation, that full and final arrangements have been made for funding this company. Is the Minister aware that on Thursday last there was no money available to pay the wages in Dublin Gas, that the banks refused to pay them and that, at the last minute, Bord Gáis had to come to their assistance? Would the Minister say whether the banks have yet accepted the fact that nationalisation is taking place and why they are not going on to fund this operation?
I am satisfied, arising from discussions that have taken place between my Department, Bord Gáis Éireann and the banks, that the necessary funding arrangements are being put in place and that the company will continue to trade——
When?
In the course of this week.
Starting from today?
Three o'clock, four o'clock——
So that I can tell pensioners to go down tomorrow morning and see whether they will be paid. It is a scandalous situation in which poor pensioners' cheques are not being paid.
I want to try to tease out the same matters as Deputy Reynolds. I asked, in question No. 12, when it is proposed that the process of nationalisation will commence. I am still not clear. The Minister when replying said that putting in a receiver was the first step on the way to nationalisation. That is not a satisfactory answer to the question of when actual nationalisation will commence. Putting in a receiver is not a normal process of nationalisation; that can be done for many purposes. Could the Minister clarify when the actual process of nationalisation will commence. The second question I wanted to ask was in regard to job losses. The Minister has said that there should not be any reduction in jobs arising exclusively from nationalisation. The purpose of my question was really to find out how many job losses there would be in the Dublin Gas Company from the time the receiver moved in. Could the Minister clarify what job losses will arise as a result of the appointment of the receiver and the nationalisation process?
As I said in reply to the Deputies, and Deputy Mac Giolla in particular, it is not possible at this stage to give an estimate of the cost of nationalisation or of the time scale involved. The question is somewhat premature in that respect. To some extent the nationalisation process has commenced by the appointment of the receiver and it is my intention to see that process through as quickly as possible. The receiver is looking at all aspects of the Dublin Gas Company at present, will be reporting in full, and then the question of the steps to be taken will be outlined. I am not in any way seeking to be disrespectful to the Deputy when I say that the question is somewhat premature. Obviously there has to be a certain time span until the receiver is in a position to make a full report on the on-going situation in Dublin Gas. At that time I shall come back to the House and outline the steps which will be taken as quickly as possible. In relation to the job losses, I have clarified the situation — there will be some demanning when the conversion is complete. In an effort to improve efficiency it will be necessary to have more realistic manning levels in the Dublin Gas Company. That is a matter which will be finalised as well when the receiver has completed his preliminary reports.
Will the Minister say if the appointment of the receiver is an interim measure pending the implementation of the nationalisation process or is it that the process of nationalisation will take place following a report from the receiver? As the Minister is aware, in many cases when a receiver moves in he dictates the time scale within which he will be in command of the whole structure. In those circumstances would the Minister take the necessary precautions to ensure that the receiver does not remain almost ad infinitum? Has the Minister set a time scale within which the receiver must report to the Government? I would remind him that that is the largest problem he will face. Furthermore, if the receiver recommends redundancies, will they be implemented by the State when it takes over?
As it is now 3.30 p.m. I must move to the questions nominated for priority.
