I move:
That Seanad Éireann expresses deep concern at the decision by the Electricity Supply Board to close down its power station at Lough Allen, Arigna, County Roscommon thereby jeopardising the jobs of some 50 workers at the station and the jobs of some 250 miners in the neighbouring Arigna collieries; further calls on the Government to intervene to ensure that the ESB's decision to cease taking supplies of coal from Leydons, Arigna collieries, Flynn, Lehany and Wynns collieries after the 31st March 1990 is rescinded; and further calls on the Government to ensure that Arigna's power station remains operating while the proposals of the miners and ESB employees for investment, development and employment as outlined in their position paper (January 1990) are fully explored.
With your permission, Sir, I will leave the final two minutes of my time to Senator Mary Jackman.
I have deliberately formulated the motion in the terms I have enunciated to reflect the wishes of the miners in Arigna, the ESB employees in the power station, their families and the local community. These were made very clear at a huge meeting which the Acting Chairman himself attended in the Mayflower in Drumshanbo less than two weeks ago, a meeting that was addressed by five TDs, four Senators, and one MEP. It was unanimously decided that two resolutions would be passed and those resolutions now have been incorporated into the text of this motion, namely, the rescision of the ESB deadline to close the station and cease taking coal from 31 March; and, secondly, implementation of the workers' proposals for the future development.
I would have expected this would be a non-contentious motion and that it would be passed without any problem and I am extremely disappointed to see the text of an amendment that has been proposed by the Leader of the House which to my mind subverts the entire intention of the motion. The section of the motion is dealing with the rescission of the ESB decision not to take coal from 31 March, which is only two months away, would not permit any task force to operate effectively to provide any alternative set of proposals for the area. I am extremely disappointed with that amendment and certainly I will be opposing it as strongly as I can.
The effect of the ESB decision will be to devastate the six parishes of Ballinaglera, Drumkerrin, Drumshanbo, Kilronan, northern Ardcarne and my own home parish of Geevagh, which are located in the four counties of Leitrim, Roscommon, Cavan and Sligo. The last substantial coal mining industry in Ireland will come to an end. A sum of £2.5 million will be lost by that isolated rural economy and community; hundreds of people will be out of work and thousands of men, women and children will be detrimentally affected in the adjoining areas. Schools will close, villages will become deserted, the small holdings in the area will be sold and will be bought out, the mountain ranges and the valleys of Arigna and Slieve na Iarann will be forested, families will emigrate, the social welfare burden will be imposed on the State and the traditional way of life will be gone forever.
According to the workers' calculations, this destruction is being caused to save the ESB one-tenth of a penny per unit of electricity generated in the country. Indeed, listending to an ESB spokesman at the meeting in Drumshambo on 28 January the book-keeping argument of strict financial profit and loss he referred to sounded pathetic, and indeed tragic in the circumstances. Unless the decision is rescinded, the date of 31 March will sound the death-knell for the Arigna community and its environs. I want to record as strongly and as fervently as I can here in the House tonight that the sudden announcement by the ESB without consultation with the workers is grossly irresponsible. I further assert that the Taoiseach's statement, after the announcement to the effect that the closure was entirely a matter for the ESB, is outrageous and a grave dereliction of governmental duty.
Let us be under no misapprehension that it is the Government and the Department of Energy who determine overall energy policy for the nation, having considered social, economic, technological and competition factors. The ESB cannot close down the power station at Arigna without the express permission of the Government of the day. That is where the buck stops. The Fianna Fáil-PD Coalition must be forced out from behind the coat-tails of the ESB and must be forced to raise their collective hand and say, "Yes, we are responsible for the closure of the power station and we are responsible for the consequent effects on the community."
Briefly, Sir, I would like to outline the background to the present situation. This is an area where a tremendous amount of mining has taken place over the centuries. As far back as the 15th Century the iron mines were worked in Slieve an Iarann. Indeed, at its height in the 17th century 3,000 men were working there. It is an interesting and indeed an ironic fact at the present time that in 1790, exactly 200 years ago, Wolfe Tone, leader of the United Irishmen, castigated the British Government for their failure to develop the coal and iron mines in the area. Since the mid-19th century, the Arigna Mining Company having been established, coal has been mined successfully. In the Emergency years of 1939 to 1945, 350,000 tonnes of coal were produced annually. The Arigna mines played a crucial, though unsung, role in the national economy at the critical time.
The railways, the sugar company and the ESB itself relied very heavily on supplies to keep it going during the war years. However, after the war there was a slump in demand and the Government at that stage decided to intervene to protect the jobs of the workers. It was then a feasibility study was undertaken and this study showed it was technically possible to produce electricity with a coalbased generating station. It was not then considered that the project would ever be financially viable, and we must remember that. Indeed, at times it did produce a small profit, but it was constructed for social rather than economic reasons. That was the reason the Government decided to initiate the project. The power station was commissioned in 1958 with a 15 megawatt capacity and Leyden's Arigna Collieries were contracted to supply 35,000 tonnes of coal annually and the smaller collieries in the area, Flynn, Lehany and Wynne's, were given a yearly supply quota of 12,000 tonnes.
The Arigna power station is a very small part of the entire ESB network of power stations. In 1988 it generated 64.5 million units of electricity out of a national total of 12,563 million units, so about 0.5 per cent of the nation's total is generated in Arigna. According to the excellent position paper of the miners and the ESB employees, the power station since its foundation has performed at a very high proficiency level within plant parameters. To quote from the position paper:
In the past year it was the fifth most efficient power station in the ESB network. To put this in context, Moneypoint was well below it in the efficiency table, being only in eighth place. The power station in Arigna has over the past 30 years produced electricity in a very technically efficient manner. Last year it was as efficient as in any previous year and the locally produced coal is as good as the very best as far as the Arigna Power Station is concerned.
In 1979 it was decided to build a second and larger station in Arigna to use the lower grade coal which was termed crow coal and which was abundant in the area.
This station would be three times the size, with 45 megawatt capacity. The construction was delayed until the February 1982 election, when the present Taoiseach announced, in a letter that got wide publicity in the Sligo-Leitrim electoral area, that if Fianna Fáil were returned to power they would immediately commence work on the construction of a crow coal generating station. This famous "crow coal election", as it is known in the area, is still spoken of with reverence in the Arigna area, much like the other holy cow and that equally imfamous scheme, the draining of the River Shannon. However, neither promise, as we all know, has been kept.
In 1984 the ESB went on to propose to close down the power station entirely, claiming it was inefficient and that there were inadequate supplies of coal. The then Minister for Energy, Leader of the Labour Party, Deputy Dick Spring, and the Coalition Government of the day rejected the proposal and confirmed that the station would remain in operation as long as there was coal of sufficient quality to burn in it and no major mechanical breakdown occurred in the station. It is worth noting today that the final decision was made then by the Minister for Energy and by the Government of the day, not by the ESB.
That was the position until 29 October 1989, when the ESB announced their intention to close down the station in two and a half years and because they had a reserve of coal stockpiled they would cease taking all supplies of coal from 31 March 1990. This effectively means the loss of the miners' jobs from 31 March and of the ESB jobs after that. That is the crux of the situation.
It is my contention that the ESB decision was wrong. As I said earlier, it was irresponsible in the circumstances and it should be rescinded, and rescinded immediately. The miners' proposals should be explored with a view to implementation. I quote as an example the recent development in the Nixdorf multinational company in Bray, where an original initial decision was rescinded after intervention by the IDA and the trade union movement. That multinational company decided not to take the early decision for closure it had originally proposed but to allow the plant to remain open to explore alternative uses for the plant and to review the situation on a regular basis.
If a multinational company with no great responsibility to the nation can take such a stance, surely a semi-State body that was founded to exploit and develop the nation's natural resources can do likewise? Why can it not rescind its decision, which is due to take place and the axe to fall within two months, and wait and allow the proposals that have been made to be explored and implemented.
What are these proposals? I would like to deal with them in the context of some of the matters that have been raised by the Minister for Energy in the Dáil on 12 December, when this issue was raised, and also the objections of the ESB.
The first issue is the quality and quantity of coal. The Minister in his speech on that occasion said that the reserves of usable semi-bituminous coal in the area were estimated by the Geological Survey of Ireland as approximately 100,000 tonnes. If that is the case why not continue mining that coal, which would keep the power station open for another two years at least and provide breathing space for everyone? I would like to ask the Minister further: did the survey that was conducted cover the smaller colleries of Flynn, Lehany and Wynne's? I understand that both companies are anxious to continue to supply coal to the power station. Can they not be given contracts for a certain annual supply, as Leyden's contract is at present? I understand there are ten acres of coal in Spinecop mountain in the area which is suitable for open casting and that there are reserves of coal in Greene's mines which have not been touched at all. There is a great degree of confusion about the actual quantity and quality of reserves of coal. If the Minister is unable to make a definitive statement today, then a comprehensive, independent study of the reserves should be commissioned immediately.
Secondly, I want to refer to the crow coal issue and the possibility of a station in the area. Everybody is agreed, without exception, that there are considerable deposits of crow coal in the area. This is the low grade coal which has a high ash content, though nobody is able to say precisely what is the content of ash and the level of combustibility. We know that the power station, using such coal, was considered a feasible option ten years ago. We know that crow coal has little acid and is environmentally friendly. We know that Moneypoint, which relies entirely on imported bituminous coal from the United States, now requires the installation of a scrubber at a cost between £400 million and £500 million to remove the acid that is caused by the burning of that coal. In the context of exploitation of natural resources and the need for a native supply of energy, in view of environmental concerns and modern technology, it is essential that the option of a crow coal electricity generation station be re-examined in this area.
Thirdly, I want to look briefly at the question of the cost — another area the Minister referred to and to which the ESB give so much attention and base so much of their reason for the closure. The Minister compared the cost of producing a unit of electricity at 7.62p in Arigna with the cost in Moneypoint of 1.37p. This difference, of course, is due to the cheap coal coming from the United States at present. That could change with currency exchanges, interest rates, the international market, any emergency that could occur. We know that the ESB's plans are to increase their generating capacity, their dependence on imported fuel from 58 per cent in 1988 to 68 per cent in 1992. That is not a coincidence in the context of Arigna being threatened with closure.
In relation to the actual cost of 7.62p, if we look at our bill from the ESB in 1989 we will see that the cost to the consumer was 7.14p per unit generated. There is a very small difference between the actual cost of production in Arigna and the cost to the consumer. It is less than half a penny on each unit produced.
If the ESB are determined to make a profit from all their power stations, why not look at ways at cost-saving at the Arigna power station and mines rather than closing down the entire operation?
Finally, there is the question of the age of the station. The Minister referred to the station as perhaps being too old. It was six years over the specified period of 25 years. I would like to refer the Minister to an article in the present issue of the internal magazine of the ESB where there is a reassessment of the situation. They state it is not very clear what the intended design life of these units was but values of 25 years, which is the one in Arigna, that is 100,000 hours, have been quoted. These values are now seen to have been conservative and a more realistic internationally accepted value of 200,000 equivalent hours, or 50 years, is now used to signal the need for significant attention for such units. In fact, in the internal magazine of the ESB there is the statement that these stations are not by any means out of date.
Then, the article considers it in the context of the need by the ESB for future unit need. For example, in their own report in 1988 the ESB talk about the increased capacity being required as 2.7 per cent. That was in 1988. In this internal document of 1989 we see that it is a surprising 4.7 per cent, so there has been a very considerable increase. There will be a need for refurbished stations or new stations long before the end of the decade. We must take that into consideration as a major factor before we talk about the closure of the Arigna power station.
The last point I would like to make is the question of the orderly winding-down of the station to which the Minister referred. I am glad he did say that in his statement: he said that he would like to see an orderly winding-down. There is no way we can have an orderly winding-down of the station in Arigna if no coal is going to be taken from the mines after 31 March. That is obvious for anybody to see. The only way there can be an orderly winding-down is first to rescind the decision and then allow for an examination of proposals that have been made — and there is a whole set of proposals in section 8 of the position paper that I do not have time to go into at present — by the miners, the workers, the representatives of the miners and the representatives of the ESB employees. These would enable the station to remain open, alternative sources of employment could be examined, the reserves of coal could be examined, the future of the station could be explored and a task force could be established — indeed, the amendment refers to the establishment of a task force. What is the use of having a task force established unless there is time for the task force to explore the possibilities? That is a critical point.
That is why it is essential that the motion I propose here be passed as it stands and that the amendment be rejected. These proposals are reasonable proposals and they would ultimately save a community from devastation. The decision for the future of that community rests in the hands of the Minister and the Government.
