We will now deal with Private Notice Questions to the Minister for Public Enterprise on the industrial dispute at the ESB power stations. I will call on the Deputies who tabled questions to the Minister in the order in which they submitted their questions to my office.
Private Notice Questions. - ESB Industrial Dispute.
asked the Minister for Public Enterprise the ongoing steps, if any, being taken to resolve the industrial problems at ESB power stations, and if she will assure the public that power cuts will be averted.
asked the Minister for Public Enterprise the steps she is taking to resolve the problems at the ESB which resulted in unofficial industrial action in ESB stations at 9 a.m. today and the risk to power later in the day.
I thank both Deputies and the other Deputies present who I am sure will ask questions also.
The current position is that unofficial pickets have been placed on ESB power stations – more than the number Deputy Stagg mentioned—
It is 15 now.
No, more than that. Pickets have been placed by members of the TEEU and AEEU in relation to disciplinary cases involving two staff at Tarbert power station being pursued through the long-established industrial relations procedures in the ESB. The imposition of the unofficial pickets has not given rise to power problems as generating stations are continuing to produce normally and power supplies are being maintained. Nevertheless, as in any industrial relations case, it must be recognised that the situation is subject to change, and, should there be an escalation, there will be a risk to the continuity of power supplies.
Industrial relations in the company is a matter for the management of the ESB in association with its trade unions. In view of the critical nature of the industry to the economic and social life of the country, I am monitoring the position carefully on an ongoing basis.
A formal meeting took place last night between the ESB management, the group of unions and the company. It failed to produce a solution but the parties are committed and continue to maintain contact on the issue. I understand those contacts have continued through the day. I have spoken to the chairman of the ESB and the chairman of the group of unions. I understand ICTU commenced a meeting with the unions concerned at 3 o'clock this afternoon.
This industrial action is unofficial and is in breach of the agreed disputes procedures which apply in the ESB as well as in the Partnership 2000 agreement. I ask the staff and everybody else involved, in the interests of electricity consumers throughout the country, to return to work and pursue their grievances through the appropriate procedures.
Is the Minister aware of the acute hardship that would be caused to many individuals should power cuts occur, including people who do not have access to generators, those on ventilators and others using cardiac equipment in their homes who will be in a perilous state in the event of a power cut? I understand this dispute is about who is in charge of workshops in Moneypoint. Could everybody not revert to the position that pertained last Friday or Saturday, prior to the flare up in Moneypoint on Monday, so that some process of arbitration can deal with the issue that caused the row? People could return to work pending arbitration on the nub of the dispute. Are the Minister's efforts going towards dealing with the dispute in a peaceful way?
We would all like to deal with the dispute in a peaceful fashion but industrial disputes, particularly unofficial disputes, often do not lend themselves to clearcut agendas. I am aware of the acute inconvenience and hardship many people will experience should a break in power supply occur. I hope that common sense and clear heads will dictate the talks currently under way between congress and the unions in question.
Is the Minister aware of the grave situation we are facing in this matter? Is she aware that 15 of the 27 power stations are being picketed by workers from these power stations and that included in these is Moneypoint which represents 30 per cent of our gross capacity? Does she appreciate the danger of escalation in this dispute? Will she agree the unions have been warning both the management and the Minister, through her Department, of the deterioration in industrial relations, particularly in the power generation area, that what we are dealing with now is simply the spark that ignited the tinder box, and that there is no telling where this will end? Will the Minister agree she has a duty to ensure power supply is maintained and that she cannot adopt a hands-off position? Is she aware that her job is not only about good news and photo oppor tunities but that she must deal with the bad as well as the good? Will she tell the House what she, as Minister for energy, proposes to do to lift the threat of cuts in power supplies to the domestic sector, the emergency services and industry, because she has done nothing so far?
I regret my photographs upset the Deputy.
They do not but I would like to see the Minister deal with all situations, not just the "goody goody" ones.
I faced up to some enormous difficulties in my Department which I inherited on coming into office. I have never hesitated in that.
Rubbish. Deal with the strike.
If my nature is optimistic there is nothing I can do about it.
That does not mean keeping away from anything that is bad news.
If the Deputy knew the hours I spent on this issue last night, and the discussions I have had, he would not talk in such a foolish manner.
A hands-on approach is what we need now.
I am aware of the serious nature of the problem. The unions have not warned me, and I have met them frequently. I met the two men involved from Tarbert; they travelled to Athlone and we spent a considerable length of time talking about the matter. I then took up their case with the ESB. If the Deputy calls that a hands-off approach he is wrong. I then got the full history of the two employees in their submission to me and also from the ESB. The Deputy asked me to tell the House what I have been doing. I have spoken to the chairman of the board and, on two occasions, to the chairman of the group of unions. I have been kept up to date throughout the day on what transpired at the six hour meeting last night, which resumed again this morning. This is an unofficial strike. The talks with Congress have started. I cannot say what the outcome of those talks will be but I am glad congress has got involved. It is a hopeful sign. I hope that commonsense, cool heads and wisdom will win the day because an unofficial strike can spread rapidly, which this has done, and get quickly out of hand.
Will the Minister focus on the detail in this problem? Is it accurate or inaccurate to say that in resolving what was the problem on Monday, another has been created that has gone from being a bush fire to an inferno? Was proper consideration given to the settlement of the issue at Moneypoint, where a shop steward was sent home, and the knock-on effect on Tarbert and on fitters as opposed to day workers? In solving one problem, were 14 additional problems being created?
The Moneypoint situation was a fresh difficulty, the Tarbert one was nearly at an end. While both are about people and grievances, they were at different stages of development. Since the dispute is unofficial, and given the complexity of unions involved and the nature of inter-union talks, I cannot say if one led to the other. However, the Tarbert situation was ongoing for weeks if not months. Deputy Moynihan-Cronin brought it up during a recent debate. I met the two employees involved and listened to their stories. I then heard the story from the other side. That matter is nearing the end of its process within the ESB system for dealing with these disputes. The Moneypoint situation is new.
Will the Minister accept this is a symptom of a wider disease or malaise in industrial relations in the ESB and that her inept handling of the electricity brief has led to high levels of stress and uncertainty throughout that organisation? As a result, there is an urgent need for a reappraisal of industrial relations in the ESB, particularly given the Minister's threatened privatisation of the company and the introduction of competition.
Will she initiate a reappraisal of industrial relations to ensure the necessary changes are achieved in a peaceful manner and will she stop acting like a bull in a china shop doing more harm than good? Will she also stop substituting blather for real action in this regard?
The only blather I hear is from the Deputy. He is great at it.
I would not attempt to intervene and tell the ESB it must have a new system of industrial relations—
Of course the Minister should. If she had left it alone in the first place she would not have to intervene now.
This is the arch blatherer of Dáil Éireann. Industrial relations are an ongoing issue within the ESB. It has a long history of good personnel relationships and the CCR, which was started by Deputy Cowen and is due to end in May this year, has been a success. The onset of competition was set down in the directive adopted by the former Minister and Minister of State, Deputy Dukes and Deputy Stagg, respectively, at the Council of Ministers. The ongoing discussions about the directive – I had 23 meetings with the unions over a 12 month period – are bound to be fraught and difficult. However, the Tarbert and Moneypoint issues have nothing to do with that.
They are a symptom of a disease.
I went through the Tarbert issue thoroughly with the men concerned. It has been an ongoing issue for many weeks. I have also heard from the various sides about the Moneypoint issue and it, too, is specific to a method of working and an operation in that station.
I am loath to say much now when congress is talking to the unions involved. I hope the talks are fruitful and that there will be a successful outcome. I hope, as a result, both disputes will be resolved.
Does the Minister not agree Deputy Stagg has a point about the fear of uncertainty among workers in power plants? Given that the CCR is due to expire in a month, can she say anything about a successor which would alleviate the fears of day workers, shift workers, fitters and so forth who work in power stations and who are subject to a new legal and competitive regime?
The Minister is responsible to the general public on this issue. Can she assure elderly people, and shift workers in factories who might be let go if there is a power cut, that there will be no power cuts in the next 48 hours? Can the Government, which is the sole shareholder and in charge of this body, also assure the public that there will not be power cuts and the attendant serious disruption?
I mentioned the successor to the CCR when I spoke to the chairman today. Once, hopefully, the current difficulties are resolved, there will have to be an explicit debate between unions, management and the Government, although I have met the unions and management on numerous occasions. The onset of competition on foot of the directive will be operated in Ireland at a minimal level. Other countries are opening up to competition at levels of between 80 per cent and 100 per cent, whereas we are opening up to only 28 per cent in 11 months. There is a need for open dialogue between management and unions – I am prepared to be absolutely open about everything too – to ensure everybody is aware of the upcoming situation rather than maintaining a belief that things will continue as they always have. Clearly, competition will make a difference.
I cannot tell the public there will be no power cuts because talks are taking place at present. When I receive the result of the discussion between congress and the unions, I will be in a better position to speak about the future. I hope there will be no power cuts. I intend to stay working on this matter all day and night.
This reminds me of Nero fiddling while Rome burns. We are being given a collec tion of clichés from the Minister about openness, the like which have no relevance.
A question for the Minister.
Is the Minister aware there are pickets on 15 power stations and that the shift changed at 4 p.m.? She has done nothing effective to prevent that. Does she know whether the power stations did or did not close seven minutes ago while we debated this matter? Will she agree that her hands off policy is unacceptable? Such a stance demonstrates her lack of concern for the general public who will be without power this evening if the workers do not pass these unofficial pickets.
Will she agree to intervene directly with a view to settling the dispute and removing the threat of widespread power cuts? If she is not prepared or able to do that, will she consider her position and allow somebody who would do something about this matter to take over?
I have no intention of allowing anybody else to take over, and the Deputy knows it.
That is bad news.
Furthermore, 14 of the stations changed shift at 3 p.m. today. Some stations change shift later but all stations change between 3 p.m. and 4 p.m. As I am in the Dáil, I cannot monitor that.
Before I came to the House, I spoke twice to the group of unions. I also spoke to the chairman and to Phil Flynn who has acted on my behalf on several occasions today. I am aware of the serious nature of this. I hope the House will join me in hoping there will be a resolution and that common sense will prevail—
That goes without saying.
I am glad the Deputy said it.
We want the Minister to do something about it.
Apart from spending 14 hours on this matter between last night and today – until 2.30 this morning—
Effectively.
That is another matter. That is why the Deputy thinks I should call in somebody else to do my job. I do not intend to do that.
The Minister acknowledged this dispute has the potential to spread. She said, in response to a question from Deputy Yates, that she cannot state whether there will be power cuts. What contingency plans are in place if power cuts become a reality. Does she accept that power cuts would be quite intolerable for Dublin households who already have to deal water shortages?
There is no electricity to pump the water.
I do not know about water shortages. I asked the chairman of the ESB to let me have a contingency plan when these talks with congress conclude. Such power cuts would affect the people of the country, not only those living in Dublin.
I accept that.
If the talks at congress fail – we all hope they do not – does the Minister have a plan to deal with the inevitable power crisis that would quickly arise?
I am remaining in Dublin. I spoke to the chairman of the ESB and said that when the talks with congress conclude he and I will talk. I will also talk to the group of unions. I will demand, and I expect I will be supplied with—
There is no plan at this stage?
Excuse me, Deputy. I presume the ESB would have a contingency plan for such an eventuality.
The Minister presumes. She is the Minister and she should know if there is a plan.
Please Deputy, allow the Minister to answer the question.
I presume that in the sense that the ESB, which is a management company with thousands of employees, did not wait for Deputies Rabbitte, Yates, Stagg or me, learned as we are, to mention this on the floor of the House. When I speak to the chairman after the congress meeting, I expect that a contingency plan will be put forward to me. I cannot compile one. They are the people with the power; it is their job to submit a contingency plan to me and I expect that is what they will do.
On Deputy Rabbitte's point about a plan B, it will not be the Minister's fault if agreement is not reached, but I would have thought it would be prudent to have a contingency plan – I am not an expert on this area – whereby the Labour Relations Commission, the Labour Court or some official State arbitrary system would be on standby to deal with difficult and complex IR issues. Practices used for 25 years in the ESB have worked well, but if they fail, as in any other industries, there must be a back-up safety net of IR procedures in place. I appeal to the Minister to ensure a suitable person, such as Mr. Mulvey, is on standby to provide a cooling down period so that we can have a guarantee of electricity provision while the matters in dispute are arbitrated.
I hope that is what will transpire informally at the congress meeting this afternoon. This strike is unofficial. The Labour Relations Commission does not intervene in unofficial strikes. I agree that a plan B and, if necessary, a plan C, would have to allow a person, persons or an arm of machinery detail the way to deal with this and call matters to a halt. These matters have engaged me, and many others, yesterday afternoon, last night and this morning, up to 2.30 a.m., and from 7.30 a.m. all day. I intend to continue to be engaged in them. I hope common sense will prevail and there will be a resolution of this dispute.
A resolution of this dispute or a cooling down period would enable these issues, which were near completion, to be addressed and security of electricity supply to be maintained. The alternative would not only cause upset but would pose serious problems for our people, including those in hospitals. This dispute demands, as I am giving it, total consideration and constant attention. I expect it will have ongoing consideration and attention day and night.
As the Minister has had so many meetings with the management and staff without success, will she convey to them that the opinion of all sides of this House is that they should defer action and let due process continue to resolve the matter to the point where the threat of power cuts is removed and the difficulty is resolved? She told us she had met the Tarbert two three weeks ago. What happened at that meeting? Apparently, nothing useful happened. Did they get a dose of auld blather also?
I am concerned about the Minister's reply to Deputy Rabbitte's question. I ask her to be clear on this. She said she assumed there was an emergency plan in place in the event of power cuts occurring about now, at 4.15 p.m. Does she know if there is an emergency plan in place? If so, what is the nature of it or is the Minister washing her hands of this and confirming her adoption of a hands off policy in which apparently she has been involved?
That is pure stupid. The Deputy knows that I have been accused of intervening too much. How can I have adopted a hands off policy if I have been accused of intervening too much? If the Deputy had heard what Tim Hastings said on a lunchtime radio programme, he would know that I have been accused of intervening too much in this matter.
Meddling?
I am now being accused of meddling. I cannot win. The manner in which the Deputy spoke about the two people from Tarbert who took the trouble to come to see me is strange. It was an unusual way for him to talk about people who want to express—
Did the Minister settle their problem?
No, because they did not come to ask me to settle their problem.
I ask the Minister to address her remarks through the Chair.
I will. I keep an open house. Those two people came to my door and I welcomed them in, as I welcome anybody. I spoke to them for 20 minutes. They left me a submission of four pages and asked me to read it later. They did not demand that I read it then as I would not have been able to do that.
The Minister has had three weeks to do something about this.
The Deputy is so smart. I have considered this matter for the past three weeks. I have been in touch with the ESB about it. The company has been in touch with me and I have written back to the two men from Tarbert. Anyone who comes to see me, irrespective of whether they have travelled five, 50 or 100 miles, is welcome because they have taken the trouble to come to see me. That is how I view this, not in the very dismissive way the Deputy addressed it.
Will the Minister deal with the issue of an emergency plan? Is there one in place and, if not, will one be put in place?
An emergency plan will be submitted to me.
When?
I was the first to raise the issue of a contingency plan. We are all pursuing this issue because it is probably the most important one we must deal with here.
I would prefer if the Deputy would ask a question rather than give his opinion.
Is the idea of a contingency plan an ad hoc arrangement or is there one in place? That is what we want to know. This problem may occur next week; it could have happened last week. Therefore, we need to know about the contingency plan.
Deputy Gormley, a question please.
Will the Minister outline what that plan is?
I cannot outline what that plan is. The ESB has informed me that it has a contingency plan, and I assume it has. In 1991, 1987 and 1989 there was a series of power disruptions and the ESB had a contingency plan, which it put in place. It is a large organisation with many employees that provides power. I will be speaking to its representatives in ten minutes. If there is a need to reconvene the Dáil tomorrow, I will be very happy to attend.
Is the Minister satisfied the plan will work?
I would prefer if the Minister did not answer questions put by way of interruption. I intend to take two more questions, one from each of the Members who submitted a question or from his or her nominee.
Is it the case that if those shift workers continue on the picket line, there will be power cuts and ESB management will be unable to maintain supplies? The scenario has been clearly painted that when the shift changes, a new set of workers will come to work who may not pass pickets. From the Minister's discussions with the chairman and management of ESB and the unions, are power cuts unavoidable if insufficient workers turn up? Can management run the facilities and utilities? In that event, does the Minister have a fail-safe IR procedure or is she confident that management can continue to run the stations for a period, irrespective of a walk out?
The chairman of ESB informed me that the imposition of the unofficial pickets had not yet given rise to power supply problems but he also stated that he could not guarantee that would continue. We do not know how many workers are passing the picket line. The strike only started at 3 p.m.
If the strike continues, it seems that there is no choice but to have third party intervention ready if ESB cannot provide electricity. Will the Minister confirm that there will be third party intervention?
I cannot confirm that. As of now there is third party intervention because ICTU is meeting the unions involved. That is worthwhile third party accommodation and it is happening right now.
Does the Minister agree it is extraordinary that she has had 18 hours of meetings in the face of the dire threat of national power cuts and she does not know if there is a plan to deal with the situation? If she is meeting with the ESB after this session, will she ask if it has a plan and will she publish details of it so the public will know whether they will have electricity for two hours a day or ten hours a day? What areas and services are most likely to be first affected if there is a power cut?
The emphasis at present of all those involved is on preventing the scenario the Deputy is painting.
I take that for granted but it is not what I asked.
The Deputy is the greatest gabber, blatherer and nonsense man I have ever met in all my life.
I would prefer if the Minister did not refer to Deputies in those terms.
When the Minister has no case she attacks.
I would not draw up newspaper advertisements. That is not my job. It is my job to see that everything possible is done so the general facilitation of all parties involved can take place.
The Minister cannot find out what her job is.
The Minister should read into the record the note she has just received.
The civil servants must be worried as they see what is happening on the monitors.
It is not from the civil servants. The Deputy is wrong again.
A meeting has been organised tonight with ICTU, officials of the two craft unions and the company. It is being facilitated by Phil Flynn. All the key players are coming to Dublin and will be at key places close to the ESB, where the meeting is taking place.
Pending that, will the Minister be going home?
For all the good that did, she may as well go home.
Is the meeting in Athlone?
I do not intend to go home. Deputy Stagg is a blatherer. That is what he is, a blatherer.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.