Vol. 514 No. 3
39 Mr. Stagg asked the Minister for Public Enterprise the discussions, if any, she has had with the ESB group of unions regarding the arrangement for competition in the electricity industry; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [4357/00]
Since taking office I have had a number of meetings with representatives of the ESB group of unions, the most recent being 16 November 1999, at which a number of issues relevant to the full implementation of the European Union electricity directive were discussed. It emerged from this meeting that a tripartite group comprising representatives of the ESB management, the ESB group of unions and my Department would be best equipped to discuss these outstanding issues in so far as they concerned the ESB. I understand the tripartite group to be nearing finalisation of its discussions and I hope to be in a position soon to make a statement on the principles of transmission system operator and other matters. I thought it might be finalised before I came to the House but it is not. I hope it will be ready by tomorrow, at the latest. It will deal with other matters besides the transmission system operator.
Will the Minister agree that her attempt to hide behind the wig and gown of the Attorney General with regard to the transmission system in the ESB was dangerous brinkmanship that nearly led to a national power strike?
Absolutely not. I am subject to legal advice like anybody else and I get my legal advice from the Attorney General. I will always consult with the Attorney General – it is my duty. The tripartite process was established to examine the transmission system operator, public service obligations, transitional regime, power purchase agreements, the vesting arrangements and reciprocity. A huge amount of work was put into the process by the three sides and great goodwill was engendered.
Many agendas are being carried out in this process, not all of which I approve of. There are the agendas of competitors who must have their say, the agendas of those in charge of the grid and the agendas of the Department, the political parties, the EU directives and the trade unions. There is a myriad of issues and the process has been extremely complex and technical. I would be a foolish person, in light of pending EU directives on other matters, not to take the Attorney General's advice.
Given that the Minister always consults with the Attorney General before doing anything, will she explain the breach of trust that was involved between her and the unions? The Minister made direct and firm promises to the unions concerning the transmission system, that it would be retained in the ownership of the ESB. Would she agree that she was making a back door attempt to privatise large chunks of the ESB by using quasi legal argument which, in the event, did not stand the test of time? Is she aware of the existence of a Mr. Kieran O'Brien who is director of the national grid in the ESB? Given that he has attempted to set up an independent republic within the ESB, would she agree that he should be sacked by the board of the ESB?
Private individuals should not be named in the House.
He is well able to defend himself.
Whoever the board of the ESB decides to engage or sack is its own business. There are many agendas in this drama. I would need about five Attorneys General to deal with it and I am lucky to have the current incumbent. He has given the matter a great deal of attention.
The story will not end with the emergence tomorrow of the tripartite findings.
What about the Minister breaking her promises to the union?
Deputy Stagg knows that the story will not end there. There will be many further steps in the drama and cool heads will be required all round.
Will the report tomorrow be the Minister's or the tripartite group's decision?
The group's decision. It might be this evening. It was not ready when I came to the House this afternoon.
Is the Minister aware of the statement by the regulator, Tom Reeves, reported in today's newspapers with regard to the introduction of competition for the ESB? Is she aware that he puts forward policy proposals for the expansion of the amount of the market available for competition and would she agree that is not within his remit but is a matter for the Minister and the Government? Will she tell the regulator to stick to his knitting, as he was inclined to advise other people in a previous existence?
I read the interview with great interest. He is independent like Etain Doyle.
He is not entitled to make policy.
I make policy and he will know that.
The Minister should tell him that.
No, I do not engage in that fashion with the independent regulators.
Well somebody should deal with it. He is taking over the Minister's role.
He will not do that too handily. This is only the beginning of the drama and cool heads are required. If the report is ready this evening, both spokespersons will be given the tripartite group's conclusions. Hard decisions will be required from everybody. It will be a complex path.
