Deputy Barrett has been granted permission by me to raise a matter of grave public importance. In accordance with Standing Order No. 29 I ask the Deputy to move that the Dáil do now adjourn for the purpose of considering this matter.
Adjournment Debate. - ESB Dispute.
I move: "That the Dáil do now adjourn."
Before the Deputy commences his speech I would point out to the House that the debate is of very limited duration—one and a half hours—and, while the Chair has no control over Members' speeches, I would be grateful if speeches would be kept as brief as possible so that as many Deputies who wish to intervene in this important debate may do so.
On a point of order, accord has been reached between the parties in regard to the distribution of time in this debate.
I am very glad to hear that.
When the present Government took office they promised at the outset that during their term of office they would be a Government of consultation and negotiation. However, they are now faced with what is the gravest test of their creditability since assuming office. At present the country is bedevilled by strikes for which the Government must take the blame. During the past few weeks there have been instances of certain Ministers being absent from their offices at times of vital importance. On this occasion it appears that we are suffering from inactivity on the part of the Ministers for Transport and Power and Industry and Commerce. It is in these circumstances that you, Sir, saw fit to allow this debate to take place and I understand that this is the first occasion since 1947 that Standing Order No. 29 has been invoked.
In common with most people in the country we believe that the Government have displayed a serious lack of any sense of urgency in regard to the present ESB crisis. The situation has been allowed simmer for ten days or more while the Government took no steps to deal with it, at least, not until today when what seems to be involved is a curbing of some types of advertising, such as neon lighting in shops and other places. Our whole economy is being threatened by this dispute and the lives of all our people have been affected by it. The elderly have been left in a state of dire distress. Some serious accidents have been reported, among them one which proved fatal. This involved an elderly lady who fell downstairs at her home in this city as a result of a sudden power cut. The sick and the infirm, too, have been affected seriously by this strike. Many of them are left in a state of complete helplessness. Many sick persons are affected, too, because they are in their own homes at this time as a result of the junior doctors' dispute in the hospitals. Indeed, many inpatients and out-patients of hospitals are being affected gravely by that dispute.
The dispute we are discussing here is of the gravest concern to the nation. The crisis is one both for workers and employers alike. I understand that there have been instances today of up to 1,000 workers being laid off because of power cuts. A very serious crisis has been created not only in regard to industry but also in relation to agriculture which is now totally dependent on electricity because of such modern techniques as milking machines, et cetera. Therefore, productivity at all levels of our economy is being disrupted seriously.
If the situation is not curbed very quickly it will lead to complete chaos throughout the country. There will be further redundancies of workers in both rural and urban areas as well as further hardships for all our people. There is an air of complete frustration among the people because they know there is nothing they can do to help solve the problem. The Country is being held to ransom by a small number of workers.
There is something wrong when a situation like this can occur in a State body which has the monopoly of power and lighting for the entire country; but whatever is wrong should be rectified on this occasion in an effort to avoid a recurrence of a crisis such as we are now experiencing. From time to time there have been reports regarding the ESB. There was the Fogarty Report, the Fletcher Report and others, but I do not believe that all the recommendations of these various reports have been implemented by the ESB, particularly those regarding management-employee relations.
We should direct our attention very seriously to a semi-State body which, down through the years, has allowed crises of this type to develop. I might say here that 1972 was a particularly good year in the ESB in so far as industrial relations were concerned. We all know that the 1960's were very bad in this regard, but at least it can be said that the Governments of those days took drastic action in an attempt to curb the trend that was developing increasingly within the ESB although there were many people who did not agree with those tactics. However, that definite action had the desired effect at the time in so far as it curbed the industrial strife with which the country was then bedevilled.
This Government must take definite action in regard to the present situation before it develops into a far more serious crisis which could lead to loss of life and which would be very damaging to our exports, et cetera especially now that we are in such a competitive market as the EEC.
Therefore, I ask the Minister responsible to inquire in depth into the whole matter of management-employee relationships within this semi-State body. The people are looking for this and are absolutely disgusted with the frequency of these strikes in the lifetime of this semi-State body.
Today we had some curtailment of electricity throughout the country. In regard to advertising signs some hurried measures were embarked on in an effort to conserve power. The necessity for curtailment should have been highlighted in a better manner through the media. Had this been done I believe there would have been more co-operation from the people. However, during the day I saw the offices of the Department of Industry and Commerce, Transport and Power and Agriculture and Fisheries lighted to the full at a time when there was no necessity for it. While this may not appear to be important to some people, it is an example of how we could conserve power better than it has been done during the day.
I should like to ask the Government to look into these matters concerning their own buildings, buildings for which they are responsible, and to ensure that there is no unnecessary use of current while the present crisis lasts. The proposed methods of conserving power and current should be stressed more seriously and brought home to the public in a more definite way than has been done so far. They could be embarked on in a more systematic way so that the people could be forewarned about sudden switch-offs and would not be left in a sudden state of frustration as has happened during the present series of cuts.
The Government have shown a complete lack of any sense of urgency for the last ten to 14 days while this crisis was simmering in the ESB. I understand that some consultation is taking place tomorrow, but something could have been done before it reached the present proportions. It should have been obvious to anybody that unless something was done a serious situation would have arisen. It should also be remembered that we are in what is known as "the valley" in regard to the use of current and that some maintenance is taking place within the ESB. Some people believe this is unnecessary, but whether it is or not the Minister should clarify this point in the interests of the public and the ESB. There has been a lot of criticism about the overhauling that is at present in operation in the ESB and whether it was necessary or not should be spelled out clearly by the Minister. The Minister for Transport and Power should take a hard look at the entire structure of the ESB which has a complete monopoly over our lives with regard to power and to ensure that whatever fault besets this semi-State body will be eliminated thereby preventing any further recurrence of power cuts.
It is time this was done. In our time in office we took very unpopular measures but they had the desired effect at the time of curbing this type of strife. It is up to the present Government to take whatever measures are necessary, popular or unpopular, to deal with this matter.
In seconding Deputy Barrett's motion I agree that the panic that has set in amongst the members of the Government in the action taken in the last few hours is an indication of their failure to deal with this important problem. The Government should know by now that their holiday period is over and that there are problems, and serious ones, affecting the lives of many people in the community. I hope that the consultations taking place will be fruitful and that there will be a suitable termination to this unhappy event.
I am positive that the ordinary decent workers of Dublin and the country would not wish to hold this country up to ransom. There have been problems over a period leading to this unrest. Information was available to the Government relating to this unrest. This did not happen overnight and for this reason the Government must bear full responsibility for the situation that now exists. We must ask ourselves what has gone wrong and why action was not taken before now.
The bad industrial relations of the ESB is a factor that we all have been aware of over the years. We have all been aware of the mismanagement in some sections of this semi-State body. In relation to the load-shedding by the ESB, this may have been done in some instances to transfer the blame from management to worker. The development problems are problems that should have been tackled during the development stages. These problems were treated with a great lack of urgency.
It is heartening to know that tonight we have the Ministers here to deal with the problem. For quite some time the country was without many Ministers to deal with almost any problem. As was pointed out recently the Taoiseach had to bring the Ministers to the reality of the situation by telling them to produce some type of legislation so that this House could continue. We have a serious situation in this House and in the Government.
The country is at present in a state of confusion in relation to the ever worsening conditions in industry. Ministerial lack of action is a major factor in this regard. Many of the Ministers have been travelling the world like a circus on parade, here today and gone tomorrow, but they should bear in mind that their place is in this country to deal with the serious problems that affect the lives of the workers in this state.
The security factor is one of the serious aspects of this case. This House discussed this matter recently and Members are aware that a serious situation exists at present. We are all aware that it is necessary and desirable to ensure that every aid, particularly power, is available to ensure that there is an absolute security. The question of the disabled and particularly of those who are sick and unable to obtain admission to the hospitals also arises. Many of these people are being nursed at home in the dark.
I am positive that if the power cuts continue many of the disabled persons who are unable to obtain admission to hospitals will be badly hit. There should no need to highlight the necessity for heat and light for this section of the community. Our competitiveness in the export market is another factor that should be borne in mind. The housewife is hampered in cooking meals for school children and many industries have been forced to curtail their operations.
According to today's paper more than 15,000 workers in one country were laid off from seven factories. That is only a slight indication of how the country is affected. These factories are without power when at the same time some of the ESB car parks are floodlit and many of the unoccupied buildings in the city and Government Departments are fully lighted. The emphasis appears to be on neon-signs but they are only a very small aspect. The wider aspects have been forgotten but the neon-sign gimmick will not blind the people to the realities of the situation.
An examination of the ESB will show the whole history of industrial unrest in the past. It is an essential service which can put the nation at risk and, indeed, life in the nation at risk. Deputy Barrett has pointed out the many reports compiled in relation to the ESB. For instance, the Fletcher Report pinpointed some managerial faults.
This is a priority area for the introduction of true industrial democracy. We have heard much talk from Ministers when out of office, and some rumblings since they came into office about industrial democracy. If there was participation by workers in the ESB and in other State and semi-State bodies, who should be model employers, then there would be a great improvement in industrial relations. If workers had knowledge of the workings of the industry in which they are involved there would be a greater understanding of the problems on both sides. I am positive that with this participation the workers' attitude to management and the management's attitude to workers would change.
I regret having to interrupt the Deputy, but I would ask him to confine his remarks to the motion under discussion, the power crisis.
This is in relation to the power crisis.
I have given the Deputy a lot of latitude in this matter. He seems to be going into the realm of worker democracy.
This is a very important aspect of this discussion, to ensure that we correct the faults of the past. This question boils down to whether or not the worker and the employer decide on co-operation or antagonism. We can point to many instances of participation of workers on boards which have led to improved industrial relations. Mistakes were made in the past. Some of the decisions taken by Fianna Fáil in the past in relation to the ESB affair were not satisfactory to my way of thinking, and they would not be taken in the future, if I had my way. However, be it right or wrong, positive action was taken in the past. I would not suggest for a moment that that type of action should be taken now. In this enlightened age we should have this participation I have mentioned. We should learn from the mistakes of the past. We are now in a position to seek not just a temporary, stop-gap solution to this problem but a permanent solution. I hope a solution will be found to this unfortunate affair, so that the nation is no longer left at risk. By adopting a system of industrial democracy within the ESB, there would be greater security for this essential service and for the nation as a whole.
I rise to support this motion and also to express my deep concern about what is happening in our country at the present time. The electricity cuts taking place at the moment are much more severe than is generally realised. Certainly in one area electricity supplies were cut for a minimum of six hours. This crisis has occurred at a time of a very cold snap in the weather. There are many elderly people and very young children suffering very considerably as a result of it. What worries me greatly is the plight of many of these people who cannot afford to buy fuel for fires.
Deputy Barrett referred to security as one of the problems. Deputy Dowling also took up that remark, but I would like to refer to the problem of insecurity. There is a growing feeling of insecurity amongst the community because of the in action of this Government. We have one crisis after another. We have a Government who are afraid to act decisively. In 1966 the Electricity (Special Provisions) Bill was introduced, and it was repealed in 1969. This measure, unpopular as it was with many people, was put into effect in order to protect the people. I believe that what the people expect the Government to do is to protect them, not against workers but against the disasterous effects of a dispute between workers and employers.
There are those who argue that if you have legislation similar to the 1966 Special Provisions Bill you do not have democracy for all. However, I would choose to agree with the expressed sentiment that democracy would be a mockery if you could not protect the community against the disastrous effects of disputes between employer and employee. I would further state that, if the strike weapon endangers the life of the community, then the rights of that sector must take second place to the rights of the whole community.
Democracy, by its very nature, is a most difficult thing to defend, because the minute you begin to defend democracy you are accused of attacking it. We have a Government now made up of two parties, one of whom voted with the Fianna Fáil Government for the introduction of the Special Provisions Bill, and the other of whom, the Labour Party, voted against it, fought it tooth and nail. Then we have a tug-of-war emerging, when what the people want is to feel a sense of security, that they have a Government that will protect their interests. This situation should not be allowed to continue. There is too grave a responsibility on the Government to protect the vast majority of the citizens of this State.
On the material side we have exports being lost. We already have a very favourable balance of trade. It is now getting worse. We have, as Deputy Barrett said, the farming community highly inconvenienced by what is going on. What we want to see is positive action by the Government. I am sorry the Minister for Lands is not with us at the moment. He was with us a short time ago. I want to quote for the House what he said in 1966. I am quoting from the Official Report, volume 223, column 227:
Why did they not in the past four or five months, when it became apparent that things had got out of control through their own fault, introduce a measure of some sort or take some steps to protect the lives and property and employment of the people?
He was referring to the Fianna Fáil Government. I want to ask the Ministers now what are they doing. They are the Government now.
Reference has already been made to the lack of co-operation even in Government offices in response to the request to cut down on the use of electricity. In our rooms this evening we were working with half the lights on. I wonder how many Government offices had half their lights turned off. I understand the car park of the ESB was still floodlit as late as today. I do not understand this. There is an expression: "Don't do as we do but do as we say". It is no wonder people will not respect requests to go easy with their use of electricity when they see this request being ignored by the very people urging restraint.
I admit there is some move now; they have said that no neon signs are to be operated. There are many other ways in which electricity could be saved. As I understand it, for every light that is on another light has to be turned off in another area. There are shopwindows in which one light would be sufficient for security reasons. There are many streets in Dublin in which, when the lights go on, the windows immediately light up. There should be some attempt to get the message across. The message should be very strongly put.
Today at Question Time we discussed the doctors' strike and pointed out that life was in danger. Here there is another crisis in which life is also endangered and we have a Government seemingly very relaxed and calm about the whole thing, letting each day work itself out. I have a feeling the Government are wishing away all the problems they are coming up against. Last year, 1972, was one of the best years we had from the point of view of there being very few strikes. This year will go down as one of the worst years for strikes. We have a Government which seem incapable of doing anything. We have a Minister for Labour whom I cannot believe is an adequate negotiator judging by the way things are turning out. I have grave doubts about his competence. I hope as time goes on I will be proved wrong but I have yet to be proved wrong.
Many of the problems with which we are faced are due to a certain incompetence on the part of the Government. When we were discussing the Electricity (Special Provisions) Bill the Minister for Labour, Deputy M. O'Leary as he then was—and this is on the records of the House—asked were we going to fire the board of the ESB. I wonder what his solution will be now that he is a Minister of State. Is he merely going to make irresponsible remarks from that exalted position or will he recognise that he has grave responsibilities?
The people are looking for leadership from the Government and they are not getting it. All the Government are capable of seemingly is jibing at Fianna Fáil, at their alleged discomfort in Opposition, but they are not getting any positive action from their Government. They expect more. In the minds of the people the Coalition have had a fair chance now and the people are calling on them to start getting on with the job they elected them to do. So far they have failed miserably to do anything.
I hope the talks tomorrow will result in a settlement of the strike. We all hope for that but, in the event that they do not, do the Government have a plan? Are they going to do anything or will they just let the situation drift? Will we have a situation in which we will have 200,000 workers out of work at a critical time of the year and old people dying prematurely? What are the Government going to do? I hope when they come to reply they will be a little more positive instead of just referring to us and what we did. We want to know what are they going to do. What are they doing?
I support this motion. As Deputy Briscoe has said, it is time for this Government to stand on their own feet. They have had a period in which most of the legislation coming before the House was legislation by the previous Administration and we were in a position of not being able to criticise it because we had prepared it. The only new piece of legislation was a Bill introduced today by the Minister for Labour.
The question I would like to ask— I have been asked it outside—is why this maintenance work now in progress is not carried out between the months of April and September. I do not have to be an expert on electricity or power supply to realise that the time to carry out major repair or maintenance work is the time of least demand. Instead of that we have a situation where our power supplies are at their lowest ebb while demand is coming up to its highest point. The last few days were very, very cold. No sooner did the cold snap come than we found out just how little reserve of energy we had in the ESB despite the millions spent on development, on oil producing, turf producing, coal producing, water producing sources of supply. Like Switzerland we should never be short of electricity. I believe most of our major rivers have been tapped. Turlough Hill will not be on flow, I understand, until some time next year.
I should like to know if the Minister for Transport and Power was aware that these repairs would be necessary. Was he aware that it was planned to have this maintenance work carried out in the late autumn and winter? If he was not so aware, why not? He is the Minister responsible for this State-sponsored body and he should be kept informed of all these matters.
People who are contemplating strike action will strike when there is a minimum output of power at a time of maximum demand, because that is the time such action will have most effect. The minute the cold spell arrived the demand for heating went up and we had electricity cuts of up to six hours. Almost two-thirds of Dublin was blacked out last night.
I agree with previous speakers who said that there seems to be a great deal of Government inaction, not only in this regard but right across the board. This is a matter of great concern. The fact that we had an announcement today about neon lights and heard that there will be a meeting tomorrow makes us feel that as a result of our effort this evening we have prodded the Government into action. We will continue to prod them and make them take action under other heads.
As has already been pointed out, legislation which was violently opposed by the Labour Party in 1966, was on the Statue Book until 1969. If I remember correctly, part of the deal made at that time regarding pay agreements was the withdrawal of that Bill from the Statute Book. It was withdrawn. I cannot say for certain if that type of action is necessary now. Most housewives and businessmen are asking: "Why should this maintenance work take place at this time of the year?" Was it because the Government were slow in granting price increases and the ESB could not afford to do it during the mild weather? Perhaps the Minister for Transport and Power in his reply will be able to explain this to me and everybody else who is asking the same question.
I confess to being somewhat intrigued when I heard of the motion on behalf of the Opposition which Deputy Barrett put forward. I thought the Opposition had serious thoughts to offer on the ESB labour problems. As Deputies are aware, we have had certain problems localised in the dock area in Waterford. Impartial Deputies will agree that we have not been treated to any serious criticisms or suggestions by the Opposition. Speeches have gone from alarmist to panic. Among the Members of the Opposition there was a feeling that we are wrong not to repeat their error of 1966 in their treatment of the ESB situation and espouse their particular remedies.
No one suggested that.
I am talking about the theme of the various Opposition speeches. The Minister for Transport and Power will discuss the technical aspects later. There is a big responsibility on Members when a request is made to discuss any dispute in an on-going situation where negotiations are taking place. Whatever about political motivation in any debate, there devolves on Deputies, given the opportunity of debate and discussing problems in that situation, the duty to be responsible. I regret to say that in certain instances tonight the treatment by Opposition Deputies has been less than responsible in facing up to what the national interest requires of all responsible Deputies at this time. It appears to be an Opposition feeling that the Government are even responsible for bad weather.
In 1966 ESB workers went on strike. That led to the jailing of these workers. The Government released the strikers, the ESB were forced to pay their fines and the people who had been jailed were sent home in taxis. Soon after, the Government repealed that legislation. That action embittered employer-union relations and has contributed in no small measure to the worsening of relations in the ESB. The answer to the question "why" shines through in every carping criticism made by the Opposition. Their desire to come back to power is so clear that they are ready to use any situation of industrial dislocation and exploit it to return them to office. Sensible, honest people will see through any such stratagem on the part of the Opposition.
The facts are always different to what Opposition spokesmen would like us to believe. The present situation in the ESB originated with the shift workers' desire to restore a loss differential of £1.70 with day workers. This has led to the work-to-rule measures. The shift workers' claim when put to the board failed. When it went to the Industrial Council of the ESB—the Industrial Council is the the domestic board for dealing with questions of this sort—the council ruled that that claim was not an anomaly. Deputies are aware that there are clauses in the National Agreement for negotiation of anomalies. The Industrial Council ruled that the claim of £1.70 did not come within the anomaly definition. They ruled instead that any differential must be based on productivity.
Last Wednesday the ESB presented to the union side a set of productivity proposals. The union met on Friday to discuss them but, it could be said, the meeting was inconclusive. We then had what is producing the present dislocation, a shortage of light, a work-to-rule. Anybody who has experience of industrial relations realises that the trap in any such situation is to think that there is a short cut by dramatic action to industrial peace. That was the trap which the Deputies opposite fell into very often when in Government. It happened to them in 1966 in relation to the ESB. It would be very foolish of a responsible Government to fall into such a trap at the present time. Since the weekend there has been a positive movement under the aegis of the Industrial Council. Yesterday both parties referred the dispute to the Industrial Council, and yesterday I asked that the chairman of the council should give priority to such a hearing. He, as well as being chairman of the Industrial Council, is also a rights commissioner, a very busy and diligent rights commissioner, and I was anxious to ensure that his duties as rights commissioner did not inhibit him at the present time from giving his full consideration and attention to the question of his chairmanship of the ESB Industrial Council. That hearing took place this morning and the result is that the council have given it as their view that there is still room for direct discussion between the ESB and the unions. This recommendation has been accepted by both sides and the discussions are due to start tomorrow at 2.30. Of course, tomorrow's discussions will aim presumably to keep in line with the national pay agreement. I have always been anxious to emphasise that the national agreement is no constructing mechanism inhibiting justifiable wage demands. If any demand is made, based squarely on the productivity clause of the national agreement, workers making such claim can get all they desire. I accept Deputy Briscoe's criticism of my role. He may be right, and I very often feel most incompetent. Time alone and events can say, and I am humble before whatever events tell of me, whether I have been competent or incompetent.
So long as the Miniister is not proud of his humility.
I am not. I would say that my role as, I would hope, a responsible Minister for Labour is, first, to understand the elements of the present situation. I think that understanding the elements of the present situation will prevent me from rushing to absurd conclusions, a course which overtook my predecessors in this position. To understand the elements of the situation is my first job and, having understood them, then to take care to ensure that the domestic procedures in the board are fully utilised. That, I think, I have carried out and these are the events of the last few days.
I do not think we will advance this situation by throwing about silly charges. There is plenty for politicians to disagree about in this House, plenty matters of economic policy. We do not have to, on the basis of an industrial dispute, attempt to score points over the Government of the day. I suppose responsible Deputies opposite must feel in their hearts that it is a vain and silly chore for them to be taking on at this time. It will not fool anybody. I do not believe it fools themselves.
There is no substitute for the steady handling of a situation of this kind. We must not give way to the panic that certain Deputies opposite exhibit. We must not give way to the possibilities of political opportunism and these possibilities are there. I regretted today to see Deputy O'Malley lapse into such political opportunism in speaking of the problems in the health sphere to which the Tánaiste has been giving so much attention. I regretted that Deputy O'Malley appeared to be exploiting that situation for what he conceived to be party political advantage. My advice to Members of the Opposition would be that their own political power would not be enhanced or that their acceptance as a responsible party in the community would not be enhanced by such tactics. There is plenty of scope for them to criticise the various Ministers of this administration on what they conceive to be their short comings in policy areas. There will be plenty of scope over the next four years for such criticism. I would say the people will not really abide this kind of intervention where they base an attack on the Government's incompetence simply on an existing dispute, which has complicated origins, as everybody knows. We have had difficulties in the board for a number of years. It has been the subject of a number of reports and it did not start last week. We will leave that matter at that point.
I would ask Deputies in the remaining period of this debate to be aware of their responsibilities in this matter. We have a delicate situation in which the parties are negotiating. Our remarks here tonight could either worsen or improve the climate for settlement.
The Minister is not helping either.
Deputies, whatever their political differences at election time, at this moment when we are very far from an election, could put aside the hatchets which they might wield on other less important occasions and bear in mind the national interest and consider squarely the problems there are before us.
Deputy Dowling mentioned worker participation. I agree with him that worker participation may have a lot to offer towards improving industrial relations, but I would say worker participation is misunderstood if it is seen as a sort of panacea for industrial ills. I am convinced of one thing, after the little practical experience I have had in this area, that really one is left with the final conclusion that there is no short-cut in this way and that existing institutions and structures, developed by both parties, must be strengthened. No action of ours must override the efficacy of those structures. That is why the idea of legislative shortcuts to industrial peace, dramatic gestures, do not advance the situation. Instead it is an unremitting task of ensuring that the institutions set up by the unions and the employers are made truly effective. I have every confidence that the structures that exist within the ESB at the moment will over the next few days yield some benefit in terms of industrial peace. There is no certainty, of course, that a solution is around the corner. However, I think we can say at this moment that we are on course and that members of this Government are not giving way to any panic. We realise the seriousness of the situation; we are giving it all the serious attention we think it needs; we think the steps we have taken are the correct ones and we would ask the Deputies opposite in the remaining portion of this debate to remember, if they have forgotten them temporarily, their responsibilities.
A real sign of the success of the ESB is the fact that a debate like this is taking place. It has been in existence for over 40 years and if there had been a history of lack of supply of current, if there were constant industrial troubles or the plant continually breaking down so that people would not expect the light to come on when they pressed a switch, then there would be no debate here today. A debate here on a lack of supply of power by the ESB is a very unusual thing. I think Deputy Barrett said that the last time such a debate took place was 26 years ago. The best compliment we can pay to the ESB is that 99.9 per cent of the time when we press the switch the light comes on. They have been very successful when one considers that the demand for electricity increases at the rate of 10 per cent or 12 per cent per year—in other words, it doubles every seven years. They cannot decide this year to put in capacity to meet the increased demand this year. They must look many years ahead. We are all conscious of the time it has taken to bring Turlough Hill into commission. This forward planning has been successful on the part of the ESB. They have been admired and indeed copied by many electricity boards throughout the world, particularly in the matter of planning ahead.
This has been of great benefit to the nation. There were many points in the history of the ESB when it was said that additional loads put on them by various Governments were not strictly what they were there for, or that they could have applied the work in a different way. They did not do that because they accepted the fact that their job was to supply power to the country as a whole. They have efficiently carried this out.
It is unfortunate that this year a series of things happened which brought about the present unhappy situation and I am disappointed that Deputies opposite seem to think that flood lighting near the ESB building and neon lights are a major concern of the people of this country. They are not, but I will deal with that and other matters later. I want, first of all, to come to what the position is in regard to power at the moment.
The total ESB generating plant is capable of 1,789 megawatts and the peak load at any one time would be about 1,300 to 1,400 megawatts. Normal maintenance at this time of year would mean a reduction of 222 megawatts, because of plant out of commission at the moment for maintenance. Either Deputy Briscoe or Deputy Lemass said it is ridiculous to be carrying out maintenance at this time of year, that it should all have been done in the summer months. In fact, ESB maintenance goes on for nine months of the year. It will be finished at the end of this month and will commence again on 1st March. In summer, more plant will be taken out of commission. In June there is three times as much plant down for maintenance as there is at the present time. This is a continuing thing which must be done. Otherwise plant would break down.
I began my remarks by speaking about the organisation of the ESB, which for 40 years have adopted this programme, brought plant out of commission, maintained it, refurbished it and brought it back in again without the people in general being aware of it. There is another problem. Last August, some people may remember, there was a disintegration of a 30 megawatt alternator at Ringsend generating station. At the same time there was disintegration of a 60 megawatt turbine unit in England which was of the same manufacture. The ESB have a further seven such units in this country and these, on the advice of the manufacturers, were "grounded" immediately because they also would have disintegrated. They were taken out of commission for maintenance and three of them are back in service. The other four are not yet back. This accounted for a further shortage of 270 megawatts. Therefore, 222 megawatts are short because of ordinary maintenance and there is a shortage of 270 megawatts because of emergency maintenance, leaving a shortfall of 492 megawatts. This means that the plant available at the moment gives 1,297 megawatts.
The industrial dispute yesterday took out 218 megawatts—that is all. That is roughly one-sixth of the output of the total plant in commission. This one-sixth has been evenly distributed, as far as possible, throughout the country. Certain things like hospitals, sewage pumping, kidney machines, public lighting, airports and so on have not been affected at all and will not be. Roughly two-thirds of the geographic area of the country is affected by power cuts at any one time. When you subtract the essential services I have mentioned, the cuts are spread as evenly as possible throughout the country. Today it was Dáil Éireann's turn. We have to take our share and I think that is right— we should not have extra facilities above anybody else in the country. If there have to be power cuts in the country, TDs, the executives of the ESB and other such people in their own homes should be affected by power cuts as well as people in other businesses.
Somebody mentioned agriculture. It was Deputy Barrett. The ESB are very careful that in agricultural areas power will be available when milking has to be done. It may be impossible to make it available at exact times but the ESB have warned people who have milking machines. They have given them advance notification and they have advised them to advance milking times to hours when the power will be there. This has been done by the ESB and I have not had any complaints from the agricultural community in this respect.
I think the Opposition thought this was a good stick with which to beat the Government. Personally I am glad they did it because it gives me the opportunity to come in here to pay the tribute I did to the ESB and also to explain to the public the amount of power that is available and the shortfall there is. Of course the present situation is aggravated by the fuel crisis, but the ESB hope to conserve their stocks if for no other reason than the fact that the price has trebled in the past few weeks. That is not a major contributing factor at the moment.
As I have said, the plant will be back on 1st December and the first 70 megawatt unit at Turlough Hill will come into commission in December. Probably at the end of January or early in February, the second 70 megawatt generator will also come into operation. That is an extra 140 megawatts beyond what we have, plus another 222 megawatts which will come into operation after ordinary maintenance. Possibly some of the other generators like the one which disintegrated at Ringsend will be back in service. Therefore, if there was not an industrial dispute it is possible we could just squeeze past in the next few weeks. The amount involved because of the industrial dispute is 280 megawatts and the amount we have out for maintenance is 222 megawatts. Even if there had been no industrial dispute it is possible there would have been some cuts.
This morning, the plant in commission produced 1,297 megawatts. Unavailable because of industrial relations problems is 280 megawatts, leaving 1,117 megawatts available. The maximum load is 1,230 megawatts which means a shortfall of about 60 megawatts, which meant there was only load-shedding to the extent of 220 megawatts. The position this evening was different because the demand had gone up and there had to be load shedding to the amount of 250 megawatts. That meant more extensive cuts this evening than this morning. If we had not the industrial problem at all it is possible we would still have power cuts.
We have been accused of doing nothing as a Government. The first intimation the ESB got of an industrial dispute was on Friday and the first Government meeting since Friday was at 11 a.m. today when I brought to the Government an urgent memorandum asking them to bring into operation section 2 of the Fuels (Control of Supplies) Act, 1971, which, by the way, is exactly the same measure as the previous Government brought in last year when there was a dispute with the shift workers, except that I did not go as far as the previous Government. I did not include central heating, which I considered to be essential at this time of year. What this covers is much more than neon lighting. Deputy Briscoe spoke about window lighting. This order includes the use of electricity for advertising or display, the illumination of shop windows, flood lighting or the use of electricity for any other purpose which in the opinion of the Minister is nonessential.
Has this been made public?
It comes into force at midnight tonight.
It was announced only today.
It was only passed by the Government today and it could not have been done any quicker. The first the ESB knew of a dispute was on Friday and the first Government meeting was at 11 a.m. today. There has been no tardiness.
And it has been announced.
It was on the evening papers today and on radio and television.
In other words, there is no problem.
There is a problem and we are taking effective steps to deal with it. Instead of making these futile points Deputies could have read the evening papers. It has been said that the ESB did not issue warnings. There has been a warning system. It has been in force for the last month. I heard it on the radio. In the car this morning I heard the ESB giving notice of exactly where the power cuts would be and how long they could last. The public appreciate the fact. Anybody can tell you what his zone is. The people know the zones that will be affected. The people take action to see that they have alternative fuel supplies. The public realise the difficulties of the ESB. They are sympathetic towards them. Naturally, they want the problem settled as quickly as possible. We are doing that.
The last point is a rather petty one about which many Fianna Fáil Deputies spoke. It is the floodlighting in the ESB car park. Mention was also made of security. This floodlighting is security lighting. The offices of the ESB are the nerve centre of the whole supply system. They happen to be adjacent to the car park. The lighting is security lighting to protect this building. That is as it should be. If that building was damaged there would be no light for anybody. We are acting. We have the situation under control. The people appreciate the situation. Apart from plant problems for the next three or four weeks we can be sure that the power of this country is in very safe hands.
I have a certain fellow-feeling for the Minister because of the difficulty in which he finds himself. At the same time, I have no difficulty in appreciating the case which the Opposition are making. Too frequently I had to listen to what I would have considered unreasonable demands made by the Opposition when we were in office. The ESB are in a unique position vis-à-vis any other industry in this country. One man can throw the country into complete chaos. Havoc can be wrought on the whole economy. The economy of the country can be brought to a complete standstill. Those who seek to take strike action in the ESB have always found themselves with a most formidable weapon in their hands.
Whatever criticism there was of the drastic action which our Government took in 1966 the public at large appreciated that it was possible to reach a position with regard to the ESB when drastic action could and would have to be taken. The present Government could find themselves in the position where, if certain demands were not met and persistent industrial action was taken in the ESB, the whole country could be held up to ransom and every single industry, not to mention the hospitals, could be affected and action would have to be taken to ensure that the strike did not go on. The Government cannot burn their boats in this matter. The Government brought in legislation to bring the banks to heel. A bank strike is not nearly as serious a matter as a strike in the ESB.
The Minister made great play of the fact that the movers of this motion were "playing politics". We will all leave this House tonight satisfied because this motion has done some good. It will have clarified many points. We will have informed people of what is happening. We will prevent the public at large from pointing the finger at the Opposition and asking: "What are you doing about it?" They could ask: "Are we going to live from day to day wondering what tomorrow will bring?"
I know what the Minister has to endure at a time like this. People may ring up his office and say: "My mother is dying and she cannot have even an electric blanket. Can you do anything about it?" I got such calls frequently but had to avoid taking panic action. There is something more fundamental involved than what one can do on the spur of the moment. Two examinations in depth of the situation in the ESB were made. The Fletcher report and the Fogarty report examined the whole situation carefully and identified the cause of the trouble. Before I left the Department, action was being taken at all levels in the ESB to ensure that industrial unrest would be brought to a minimum or even eradicated completely.
I am surprised that the Minister for Transport and Power who gave us much technical advice and particulars of the output of the ESB did not tell us what he knows about the extent to which the Fogarty report or the Fletcher report have been implemented in the day-to-day workings of the ESB? This is the fundamental thinking to prevent disastrous happenings. However much we argue or "play politics" with a motion like this, this is serious enough for an Opposition to take notice of. It is serious enough for us to put down a motion for debate here. If this strike is allowed to go on, the situation could be serious. No matter how much we want to score points off one another, none of us wants to see the economy brought to ruin. An ESB strike can do just that. When I was Minister, I had to answer awkward questions from the opposite benches and listen to what I thought was unreasonable debate. Many institutions have been set up by the Department of Labour for processing disputes in this country. There should be no need for any group to take strike action at the expense of the public when all this machinery for settlement is available to them and if they are prepared to accept some reasonable solution.
The ESB are good employers. Every Deputy knows that there is demand for employment in the ESB. They have a vast income and are spread throughout the country. Sometimes I feel that they act in a rather dictatorial fashion. We must make allowances for the fact that they are a far-flung organisation with many men in the field. They are not always subject to the most strict supervision. They are a State-sponsored body which should give a lead in the matter of industrial relations. It cost quite a lot at the time to have both reports to which I have referred produced and I should like to see better use made of them.
It behoves the Minister for Transport and Power and the Minister for Labour to watch constantly what is happening in the ESB. It would be no harm for them to get an occasional report. The Minister has already revealed that the chairman of the industrial council is also a rights commissioner and in a position to report frequently and regularly on what is happening. I do not accept that this dispute began only last Friday; this case for differential pay is going on for months and that cannot be unknown to either Minister or to the Government. It is in the embryo stage that it could be dealt with most successfully. You are dealing with people who know they have a weapon which if they wish to use it to the extreme limit can extract from the employers anything they ask, unless they are dealing with a resolute Government that in the last analysis will be prepared to take even drastic action. Nobody wants drastic action taken, nor is it a suitable means of dealing with industrial unrest but when you are dealing with the very lives of the people, the economic life of the country, in such extreme circumstances no action can be ruled out. The people of the country would be glad to be assured that the Government are prepared to examine any possibility if circumstances warrant it.
This situation is not to be compared with the banks situation nor with the mining industry or some other concern where prompt action can be taken overnight; this is something which calls for the best in any Government. Unfortunately, I fear the Government have led the people to believe that they have some latent genius that has not yet manifested itself. They have done a perfect job in public relations. I congratulate them on having the best public relations organisation that any Government ever had; they certainly have the news media in their pocket. But that is no good if performance does not match it and the people are waiting to see when it will. Spectacular ballyhoo is no use unless there is resolute action and firmness of purpose in taking the steps necessary in a time of grave crisis. The present situation has not yet reached the proportions of a serious crisis but it could very rapidly escalate to that stage.
We may be accused of being an irresponsible Opposition in putting down this motion but I think it has done good; it has cleared the air and let the people see the position and what is likely to happen. I can assure the Ministers and the Government that if it comes to taking any action that will avert a serious situation whether by successful negotiation through the available machinery for settling such disputes—there is ample machinery there—or, if that fails and the Government have to take any other action to avoid disaster which could ensue as a result of this type of strike, we will support them. That is the best assurance that can go from this House tonight to the people of the country: anything requiring to be done to avert the development of a serious situation will be done with the full backing of a responsible Opposition.
We may be accused of being irresponsible, of not being competent. We are sitting back for the past few months watching the Government. I do not envy some of them, particularly my successor in the Department of Labour, in the jobs they have to do. We have watched them opening the schools and factories we built and enjoying themselves generally, but we are also waiting for the time when their activity will measure up to the reputation that they have projected through their public relations efforts. The public are also waiting to see this latent genius emerge in time of trial. This is one of those times. The EEC negotiations are another test. So is security in the country. These are testing times and these are the things that speak, not what is written by political correspondents or others. The public are aware of what is happening; they are watching to see how this situation will develop. I can assure the people that we will give the Government every possible assistance to avert disaster which could unfortunately result from a strike of this kind.
We are not taking advantage of a political situation. The public and the Press may ask: "What are the Opposition doing? If the Government are doing nothing they are not even being reminded by an inept Opposition accused of not doing its job." On every possible occasion we shall bring to the notice of the people through this House every shortcoming we see in the Government as that Government did when in Opposition while we were in office. I did not get much sympathy as Minister for Labour. The greatest tribute that could be paid to my work was paid to it here tonight in the Government saying: "We have no remedy other than what you were using when you were Minister."
Question put and agreed to.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 7th November, 1973.