asked the Minister for Transport and Power whether he is aware that there is still belief in certain quarters that the electricity supply failure during the recent strike was deliberately brought about by the Board of the Electricity Supply Board; and whether he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Electricity Supply Failure.
1.
I am aware that when electricity power supplies were disrupted on the morning of Monday, 9th May, 1966, attempts were made to throw the responsibility on the Electricity Supply Board. A further attempt was made in the House on the 2nd November, 1966, to mislead the public into believing that the power restrictions imposed on 9th May were unnecessarily severe and that the Board could, somehow or other, have kept supplies going to a greater extent. Such statements would not be made by any responsible person who had any conception of the highly complex operation involved in maintaining supply in the national electricity network, even in normal circumstances, while ensuring absolute safety of personnel and plant.
There was a poor response to the Board's appeal to consumers to reduce load on 9th May, 1966. Extensive announcements had been made by the Board in the Press, radio and television, yet the load at 8 a.m. that morning was only about 8 per cent below normal.
The staff report for duty at 8 a.m. and there was full scale and simultaneous picketing of all generating stations; operating staffs in all cases refused to pass the pickets; manual staff on duty demanded, as a condition of their remaining on to make the plant safe, that all generating plant should be shut down by midday.
Under these extreme conditions there was no possibility of maintaining a normal or near normal supply.
The Board's overall plan in this situation was to establish and secure an emergency network within the capacity of the hydro-electric stations. The over-riding factor was that if loading at any moment exceeded capacity, cascading would have occurred, that is complete black out conditions such as occurred in New York in November, 1965. Had this happened, restoration of supply would have been a very protracted process.
It will be clear from what I have said that the criticism of the Board in this matter is entirely uninformed. No reductions in power supplies were made before pickets were placed and the reductions then made were essential from the technical viewpoint. The gravity of the situation which emerged was without parallel in the Board's history and all its resources had to be directed to maintaining essential services and at the same time avoiding a complete shut down if demand at any moment exceeded supply capacity.
The position in the 1961 strike to which reference has been made has little relevance in the circumstances of the 1966 strike. In 1961 all the unions not directly involved then instructed their members to pass the pickets and the partial observance of these instructions in the first week of that strike afforded a respite.
Finally I would refer to the statements by some Deputies that several competent electrical engineers and other experts in this field are satisfied that the ESB acted hastily and unjustifiably in this matter. It is clear in view of the information I have given and the safety aspects of the matter that this was not so. If, despite this, the Deputies who raised the question are still not satisfied, I would ask them to let me have the names of their advisers in this matter and I will arrange to have them furnished by the ESB with full detailed technical information of the situation on the morning of 9th May, 1966.
Does the Minister deny that ESB current was cut off in certain areas ten minutes before the pickets went on?
It would be impossible for me to answer a particular question with regard to a particular area but I regard these allegations as extremely serious. In view of the fine reputation the ESB has as one of our State companies through the years. I felt it incumbent on me and my officers during the whole course of the strike negotiations to keep myself in constant touch with the ESB. I talked on numerous occasions with the Chairman. From the very beginning, it was absolutely evident that the entire board of the ESB were filled with a desire at all costs to maintain power. The one thing they wanted to preserve was their magnificent and unsullied reputation down through the years during which no load-shedding had taken place. Moreover, members of the Board had no idea in their minds that by causing a crisis and deliberately cutting off power, they would be right in so doing from the standpoint of the industrial relations then involved Whatever reputation I have in one way or another as Minister for Transport and Power, when I state facts, they are generally accepted in this House. I ask Deputies to accept my statement that the Chairman and members of the Board had no such concept in their minds at any time.
I would be prepared to accept a statement made by the Minister on his own actions, but I am not prepared to accept a statement made by the Minister about things that someone else has told him. I want to make it clear that our information is—and I want to ask the Minister does he not agree—that in fact on the morning of the closedown many people felt there was a deliberate attempt to create a crisis for the purpose of forcing the hands of the trade unionists who were on strike. Furthermore, is the Minister aware that the ESB deliberately prevented one hospital from switching to their own power by refusing to remove a fuse, in order to carry out the wishes of the Board of the ESB to make things as difficult as possible?
As I have said, this is a highly technical matter requiring technical knowledge. I do not think it even necessary to read a definition of "cascading" during an electricity crisis, but if the Deputy has any technical advisers, as I said, I would be glad to have their views and I will submit them to the Board of the ESB because it is absolutely clear that they did everything they possibly could at that time to maintain power.
I do not think anything of a statement of a Board who have themselves refused to listen to advice, whether they were right or wrong. Planted questions in this House will not blacken Deputies but the Minister is anxious to protect the ESB.