Let us now come to deal with Private Notice Questions. I have had a number of Private Notice Questions from Deputies. Questions are in order in respect of the ESB dispute. I will be calling the Deputies in the order in which they submitted their questions to my office. First, I call on Deputy Mary Flaherty to put her question.
Private Notice Questions. - ESB Dispute.
In view of the great disruption and, indeed, hardship being caused in every household in the country and to our industry and economy, will the Minister explain to the House and to the country at large what efforts he is making to bring about a resolution in the ESB dispute and what emergency plans he has to deal with any extended or serious disruption of service?
I want to ask the Minister if he will make a statement on the ESB dispute and, in particular, if he will outline the steps he is taking to ensure that these negotiations get under way immediately to secure a resolution of this dispute.
I want to ask the Minister for Labour if, in view of the serious disruption to electricity supplies caused by the current industrial dispute in the ESB, he intends to intervene or to take any steps to facilitate a settlement of that dispute, and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I want to ask the Minister for Energy to outline the latest position regarding electricity supplies in the light of the industrial dispute in the ESB and what steps are being taken to guarantee continuity of essential supplies to users such as hospitals; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I want to ask the Minister for Energy the steps he is taking to impress upon the Minister for Labour the extreme urgency of the ESB dispute in view of the great hardship being caused to the elderly and under-privileged sections of the community and the disastrous effects on industry and agriculture.
I propose to take the five Private Notice Questions together. Before I address the specific questions I should like to make a few general points.
At this morning's Government meeting the serious issues which arise from this dispute were considered very carefully. I should like to read into the record of the House the text of a statement which the Government have issued:
At their meeting this morning the Government considered the very serious situation which has arisen as a result of the strike action by electricians employed by the ESB which is being supported by other key workers in the company.
The Government are extremely concerned that a dispute in this essential industry should have occurred so soon after agreement on a new three year National Programme had been reached between all the social partners and the Government and after this Programme and the Pay Agreement associated with it had been overwhelmingly endorsed by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. They deeply regret the serious disruption to production and employment, and to the social services and the inconvenience and hardship caused to families especially to the aged and the ill which will be inevitable if this dispute continues.
The dispute comes at a time when the country has begun to get on top of many of the fundamental problems both social and economic which we have faced in recent years. Any setback to this progress would be completely unjustifiable when the country faces uncertainty in the international scene. Disputes of this kind make all the more difficult the task of creating the jobs which we need.
The interests of the country and its people cannot be allowed to take second place to the interests of any one group of workers when there are procedures to enable their grievances to be considered.
The Government are determined that the provisions of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress shall be adhered to. The electricians claim can be assessed by procedures in that context. The Government therefore in the public interest call for a return to normal work immediately while the appropriate procedures to look at any possible grievances are put in train.
The House will appreciate from this statement that all members of the Government have been fully informed of the situation. I should like to assure Deputies that my Department are in regular contact with the Departments of Labour and Finance and with the ESB and the Labour Relations Commission.
I want to briefly summarise the background to the dispute. As the House will be generally aware, about 18 months ago the Electrical Trade Union initiated a claim for a salary increase for electricians mainly on the grounds of impact of reorganisation in 1986. A number of negotiating sessions took place with the union but as no agreement could be reached the claim was referred to the ESB's Joint Industrial Council in September 1990. The council issued their recommendation on 14 November 1990 which effectively requested both parties to meet again to find a solution.
The sides met subsequently on at least two occasions. The matter was then referred back to the Joint Industrial Council who ruled that one in-scale increment would apply to all electricians and that electricians on their natural maximum, that is those who may not advance further without promotion or progression through qualifications, as agreed, be paid a once-off lump sum of £650. The ESB accepted the decision of the Joint Industrial Council. However, the ETU rejected the council's ruling. Following expiry of the 30 day cooling-off period which applied after the issue of the council recommendation, which is in accordance with agreed procedures, the union informed the ESB by letter of 5 April 1991 that their executive, having carefully considered the matter at issue, decided to sanction entering into an official dispute with the ESB. This letter formally put the ESB on 14 days notice to that effect.
Further meetings took place all day Friday last but negotiations broke down. The strike took effect from yesterday morning and the Labour Relations Commission immediately invited the parties for exploratory discussions. Those discussions have continued today and are in progress this afternoon. I understand that due to the serious nature of the dispute the full Labour Relations Commission will meet this evening to consider the situation.
Anyone in the House who was listening to the 1 o'clock news will have heard of the widespread disruption which has been caused all over the country. All sections of the community, industry, agriculture, commerce, health services and domestic consumers have had to endure lengthy power cuts. This afternoon the ESB have 1,250 megawatts of operational plant compared with a normal peak load of about 2,100 megawatts. While the situation is finely balanced, the ESB hope they will continue to have sufficient capacity to operate the published rota system. Arrangements to share equitably the available power are hampered by the fact that switching would normally be carried out by ETU members. This may mean that it will not be possible to follow the published rota in all areas. Yesterday the ESB were in contact with hospitals around the country and I understand that almost all of them have stand-by generation facilities. Of course, the ESB will endeavour to give priority to such essential users of electricity.
To summarise, it is, therefore, clear to me that the effects the dispute are having are totally out of proportion to any possible grievances which could be felt by the workers concerned. This, of course, results from the nature of the industry concerned. Adequate machinery exists to have any grievance considered. I want to conclude by reiterating the Government's request for a return to work immediately while the appropriate procedures to look at any possible grievances are put in train.
May I ask for brief, relevant and succinct questions. I take the view that one supplementary question from the five Deputies involved should be adequate in the circumstances.
In that case, a Cheann Comhairle, I am sure you will accept my raising two points in the one question. I should like to indicate that Fine Gael issued a request today to both sides to return to work while discussions are going on. I should like to ask the Minister to deal more specifically with the point raised in my question — the plans he has to deal with an ongoing dispute. Does he have any emergency plans in place? Can he guarantee a minimum level of service? What kind of reassurances or commitments can he give people generally?
Secondly, is the Minister aware that this is the third time during the last decade that we have been faced with a dispute of this nature? Similar disputes took place in 1984 and 1987. Can he be satisfied with a situation where industrial relations problems have clearly not been resolved? Have his Department looked at this matter? Have they made any effort to ensure——
I did ask for brevity.
——that this type of dispute will not occur again?
I should point out first that there are adequate and extensive procedures available to the union in this case which have not yet been fully explored.
In regard to the point raised by the Deputy, it is not possible for me to say with certainty what amount of power will be available at any given time from now on. If this dispute continues for a long period a very serious situation will develop. The reason for this will be the non-availability of electricians who would normally share out supplies, which they have done in previous disputes when the shift workers in the power stations were on strike. That facility is not available to us down the line throughout the country. In the event of power cuts taking place the board cannot operate on the normal rota and zone system which has been used in the past to share out electricity. They cannot guarantee to do this with any accuracy now for the reasons I have given. However, the ESB have assured me that they will, of course, make every effort to share out the available electricity as fairly and efficiently as possible. It is therefore unlikely that definite advance notice of power availability on a geographic or time basis can be given on this occasion.
As you will be aware, a Cheann Comhairle, I initially directed this question to the Department of Labour as I believe it is solely an industrial relations problem and should have been dealt with by the Minister for Labour here this afternoon. On behalf of the Labour Party, I want to recommend a resolution of this dispute. I urge both the ESB and the ETU to resolve this dispute today in the national interest.
Was the Minister not aware of this festering problem in the ESB which dates back to 1986? Was he not aware that the cooling-off period had expired? Was he not further aware that negotiations had broken down last Friday? Where were the Labour Court, the conciliation officers and the Labour Relations Commission on that occasion?
We were told in the House that they would resolve the problems even before they surfaced. Where were they? Would the Minister not agree that this strike could have been avoided if action had been taken last Friday? The Government should take a major share of the responsibility for this strike and for the overall disruption today.
Rubbish.
I welcome the Deputy's initial statement urging workers to return to work. Those sentiments are shared by everybody. All the procedures available to the workers and the union involved have not yet been fully explored. This strike started yesterday morning and the Labour Relations Commission acted immediately so it is improper to seek to place the blame on any of the members for the official response with regard to that commission. They have acted as quickly and as efficiently as they could in the matter.
Exploratory talks between both sides were initiated yesterday by the commission. Those discussions are continuing this afternoon. The full commission will hear the case. This claim went through the Joint Industrial Council which is unique to the ESB workers, under an independent chairman, who made recommendations which were not accepted by the union side but were accepted by the ESB.
I would urge Deputies in the House to be careful. This is a very sensitive dispute. It is having a widespread effect on the lives and well being of our citizens and is causing untold hardship throughout the country. It is important that we should not seek to try to resolve the specifics and the details of the dispute in this House. The Departments of Labour and Energy, the officials in the ESB and the officials in the Labour Relations Commission are devoting all their resources and time to trying to find a solution within the agreed procedures.
The Workers' Party also regret that this dispute has happened having regard to its implications for industry and the consumer. Has the Minister not agreed that the origins of this dispute go back to the rationalisation of 1986, that in fact it is a matter that was proper to the Programme for National Recovery rather than the Programme for Economic and Social Progress and that the union concerned sought to intrude their concerns into the negotiations at the time of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress being put in place? Is it not without precedent, that in a dispute of this gravity the Labour Relations Commission have worked on the matter over the weekend? I would remind the House that my question also was to the Minister for Labour. Are we now to find that as well as the chief executive of the Labour Relations Commission being absent from the country at the weekend, as he is entitled to be, the Minister for Labour was also absent? Although the chief executive of the Labour Relations Commission is entitled to be away, the process of industrial relations is not entitled to be held up as a result. The Government bear a great share of the culpability for this dispute having got to this grave stage.
It may serve the Deputy's interests to seek to place the blame where it does not lie, but that does not help us find a satisfactory solution to a grave problem. This is not the time or place to debate any detail of this dispute. This House in its wisdom has established extensive procedures which have proved to be efficient and effective in the past. I would urge workers to avail of existing facilities under existing procedures and have meaningful discussions which would lead to a resolution of this dispute as quickly as possible.
It is unfortunate that the Minister for Energy is trying to reply for the Minister for Labour. What has the Minister for Energy been doing for the past 44 days — the 30 days cooling off period and the 14 days' strike notice? With a major crisis facing the country, why were the Minister and the management of the ESB caught flat footed? Both of them underestimated the effect of this strike and the support it would have. Did the Minister report to Government 44 days ago that a problem was looming in the ESB which would mean a major crisis, and ensure that steps were taken to resolve the problem? What priority does the Minister for Energy give to major industries such as Irish Steel and Fruit of the Loom, where hundreds of jobs are at stake, and to dairy farmers, in the allocation of electricity supply.
I have already explained to the House the difficulty in guaranteeing priorities. The ESB will exercise as much discretion as they can in trying to meet the greatest needs particularly where there might be hardship. The effect is not confined to the industries which have been mentioned. The effect is widespread. I would again urge the union involved to consider the seriousness of the position and enter into meaningful discussions with the ESB under the procedures available.
So, the Minister did nothing.
Will the Minister agree, in view of the fact of there being no fewer than four strikes in this area in recent years, that it indicates a lack of long-term strategy? Would he agree that every effort should be made to have a "no strike" clause in the agreement between unions and the ESB so that this type of industrial action can never happen again?
The procedures in place were established by this House. If this House wishes to change those procedures at some time in the future, so be it, but the only way this dispute can be resolved is under the existing procedures.
Is it possible for me to ask a further brief supplementary in the context of the seriousness of this dispute?
I was in the House when I thought I heard the Ceann Comhairle get silent agreement at least to an arrangement where, after a series of supplementary questions by each Deputy in whose name the question was tabled, that would satisfy the requirements.
A very brief supplementary?
Deputy Flaherty will appreciate that if we are going to launch round three of questions it will not be in accordance with what I thought was the agreement already reached.
There was not an agreement. It was simply a statement by the Ceann Comhairle of his intention.
Does any-body disagree?
We were hoping you would be taking the Chair soon.
(Interruptions.)
If Deputy Flaherty thinks she has a very relevant and helpful question, of course she can put it.
Thank you. What concerns me, and I hope it concerns the Government, is that, arising from the Minister's earlier reply to my supplementary, he clearly indicated to the House that he cannot give any guarantee in relation to supplies. Can he answer the charge that this must amount to Government negligence in view of the fact that this is not the first time this decade we have faced this situation, and that we could be facing into a week, at the end of which we do not know whether the people will have access to a vital national resource at all?
Very helpful.
Very pertinent.
I could not exaggerate the gravity of the situation because of the difference between this dispute and the circumstances that now obtain vis-à-vis previous disputes. I want to make it quite clear, and to be honest here. The ESB have informed me that they cannot guarantee the operation of the zone and the timescale system that operated so reasonably successfully in the past. There is a tremendous urgency about this dispute because of the widespread support that has been given to it throughout the ESB.