Deputy Toddy O'Sullivan has given me notice of his intention to raise the matter of the steps being taken to ensure that a threatened ESB strike over the Christmas period by clerks, technicians and supervisors will be prevented. Deputy O'Sullivan knows the procedure, he has five minutes and the Minister has five minutes to reply.
Adjournment Debate. - Threatened ESB Strike.
With the permission of the House, I should like to share my time with Deputy Flaherty.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I should like to thank you for affording me the opportunity to raise this very important matter. I am aware that the ESB board met today and if the Minister can tell us that the matter has been resolved I will be more than happy.
The Minister's role in this whole affair is questionable. As a result of negotiations which took place over three years an agreement was reached earlier this year between the ESBOA and ESB management involving the Joint Industrial Council of the ESB. It had been accepted by the union that management had given an unequivocal assurance that what was agreed would be delivered. The negotiations led to an agreement that would be of benefit to the staff of the company as well as the customers.
The Minister's intervention — I refer specifically to a letter which the Minister wrote to Dr. Moriarty on 29 November — totally undermines and sabotages the industrial relations machinery within the company. It opposes the ICTU position on the Programme for Economic and Social Progress and negates all existing categories of group negotiations. Furthermore it will sour industrial relations which have been improving gradually down the years despite some very acrimonious exchanges in the past between union and management.
The ESB Joint Industrial Council on 13 June last produced recommendations, which were accepted by both sides, on the scale of payments arising from a claim by the ESBOA which was originally served in 1988. As late as mid-November last the chief executive of the ESB informed the company's unions which cover eight categories of workers that proposals on productivity and change would be progressed. On 29 November 1991 the Minister for Energy, Deputy Molloy, communicated with Dr. Moriarty and informed him that the proposals were not to go ahead. What we are witnessing here by Deputy Molloy — it seems he has the full backing of the Cabinet — is interference in the internal industrial relations of the ESB and this is most undesirable and unprecedented.
What we are trying to establish is what the Government are up to in this case. Are they trying to use the ESB unions as a lever to pressurise Congress to accept the revised provisions of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress? If so, they are playing with fire and are treading on very dangerous ground. As a result we may have no electricity supply over the Christmas period and that would be undesirable. We were guaranteed three years of industrial peace if this agreement was allowed to go ahead, with a special charter for customers which would ensure a better service to the community, at no extra cost to the company. This cannot now be achieved by virtue of the fact that the Minister has interfered in what has been the traditional method of industrial relations, thereby creating the present crisis.
I thank Deputy O'Sullivan for allowing me to share his time. I put down a Private Notice Question on this matter yesterday but it was ruled out of order. It is appalling that for the second time this year we are facing the prospect of a cut in ESB supplies and it is particularly unacceptable at this time of the year. Taking into account the 30 day requirement perhaps a cut in ESB supply over the Christmas period is ruled out but we could face a cut in January or February if the issues are not resolved urgently. I share the concern expressed by Deputy O'Sullivan about the way this dispute is being handled by the Minister in that it seems that megaphone industrial relations communications are taking place. Headlines of communications with the Minister — perhaps he is not directly responsible for these publications — certainly read extremely badly.
The new chief executive is trying to reestablish satisfactory industrial relations in a historically poisoned environment. The handling of the dispute to date is certainly unacceptable. If it is to be solved what is required is consumate skill and sensitivity. It is inappropriate that the ESB should become a football in sorting out the current problems in relation to the Programme for Economic and Social Progress. Arising out of the last dispute, a labour relations group was established in the ESB under the chairmanship of Mr. Peter Cassells. Are that group up and running and are they in a position to be of assistance in resolving this dispute quietly and hopefully without cutting off electricity supplies from the Irish public once more?
I find it somewhat regrettable that we are here tonight discussing what best might be described as a hypothetical industrial action. The House can be assured that as Minister responsible for the secure supply of energy all steps are automatically taken to make sure that essential energy services are not disrupted. This concern is not just restricted to periods of potential difficulty but facilitates all worthwhile change and development in our semi-State bodies which have responsibility for delivery of energy services. Similarly the Ministers for Finance and Labour who have their own particular responsibilities in the current ESB industrial relations situation have taken and will take all the necessary steps to ensure that a fair and reasonable solution will be found consistent with Government pay policies.
Primary responsibility, however, for an uninterrupted supply of electricity lies with the management and unions within the company. I am informed that both parties are concentrating all their efforts to avoid any unnecessary industrial action.
In discussing the hypothetical situation put down by Deputy by O'Sullivan, including the unhelpful emotional suggestion that ESB staff would restrict electricity supplies during Christmas, I am very conscious how inappropriate the timing of his motion is. At this moment the ESB management and unions are engaged in what I believe are constructive discussions with a view to finding an equitable solution which conforms to the terms of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress. A public airing of criticism, prejudies and misgivings could only have the effect of making those discussions more difficult and in certain circumstances could jeopardise the goodwill of the negotiating parties. However unwelcome this discussion is at this time I will use the occasion to record the silient facts of the current industrial relations situation in the ESB.
The Programme for Economic and Social Progress was agreed earlier this year following extensive discussions among the social partners about the most appropriate framework for the development of Ireland's economy. Particular consideration was given to balancing everyone's natural desire for improvements in their personal financial situation with the requirements for economic growth, additional employment and improvement in the national finances. The pay provisions contained in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress were the result of this process and they represented a consensus among the social partners as to what the economy could afford.
We are all now aware that Ireland's economic growth in 1990 was exceptional and that the current estimates of much lower growth in 1991 represent a sharp contrast. If anything, this points to a reduction in our ability, as a nation, to pay ourselves more. There is certainly no evidence that the Programme for Economic and Social Progress underestimated our ability to accommodate pay increases.
When the terms of the ESB Industrial Council recommendation for the ESB Officers' Association were examined in the Department of Finance and in my Department it was not clear that they conformed with the provisions of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress. The matter was considered by Government and it was concluded that the proposals in the form originally agreed could not be approved. In particular, the Government decided that self-financing pay increases are only permissible provided there is no increase in the total payroll costs for the group concerned.
On foot of the Government decision I wrote to the ESB on Friday advising them that pay increases for their staff must be compatible with the Programme for Economic and Social Progress and the effect of this was to require re-examination of pay proposals which had been negotiated between ESB management and unions based on a different interpretation of self-financing. This reconsideration is now underway within the ESB and I am hopeful that a settlement will be achieved and industrial action avoided.
What is at issue here is to ensure that the provisions of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress are not exceeded. In these circumstances there would be no justification for industrial action which results in power cuts so that one sector of our community can use its key role in the supply of an essential service in order to get more than provided for in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress. As negotiations are already underway I do not propose to complicate the matter by making any additional unnecessary comment.