Dáil Éireann Debate, Wednesday - 12 May 2004
33 Mr. Broughan asked the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources if he has held talks with ESB management or unions in regard to proposals for industrial action at the company; his views on whether industrial action will result in widespread electricity black-outs throughout the country; the efforts he is making to avoid such industrial action; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13875/04]
Amharc ar fhreagra35 Mr. Kehoe asked the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources the role he intends to play to ensure that industrial action is avoided within the ESB in June 2004, yet at the same time ensuring that the ESB can move forward in a competitive and efficient way. [13854/04]
Amharc ar fhreagraI propose to take Questions Nos. 33 and 35 together.
I do not have primary responsibility for industrial relations issues within Government and I have not held discussions with either the ESB management or the unions since the result of the recent ballot undertaken by the ESB group of unions was announced.
Prior to taking the ballot, my Department acceded to the request from the ESB group of unions to enter into discussions on shareholder and policy issues and has had a number of discussions with the group of unions in recent months. While further meetings are not planned, my Department is available to continue discussions at any time.
I am aware that the ESB group of unions has submitted claims which, at first sight, seem to be inappropriate in the context of national competitiveness and the partnership approach to pay in the economy. It is understood that a claim has been lodged for an 18.5% pay rise. Discussions on this matter are being dealt with in accordance with the established industrial relations procedures and machinery in the company.
It is my understanding, however, that the ballot which was recently undertaken by the ESB group of unions provides a mandate for industrial action in circumstances where the company proposes or proceeds with structural or organisational change which impacts on staff without prior agreement. While I view the results of the ballot with concern, it is clear the mandate is a conditional one. Therefore, it is premature, at this stage, to speculate on the impact on customers and the country generally of any industrial action. I have instructed my officials to keep me fully briefed on the situation as it develops.
I reiterate the point I made to the Ceann Comhairle this morning on the Order of Business about questions on the energy market and electricity, specifically two questions the Labour Party asked about the grid code, as related to wind and about which we got some news today, and escalating electricity prices. As the Minister will agree this House is the place to discuss major policy issues. It is not for the Ceann Comhairle to fob us off with the fact that we have a regulator. We will end up with a host of regulators as every Department will have one and, if it is left with nothing to discuss, the House will have no function.
I am glad to hear the Minister is concerned about the result of the ballot and the fact that ESB workers are so aggrieved as to be considering industrial action. Does he agree that he has a heavy responsibility for this situation? In his two years in the job he has not set out clearly national policy on the future of electricity generation and the electricity market nor has he brought forward the electricity Bill, which I understand will be published in early 2005. We have no opportunity, even in committee, to discuss the fundamental issues arising for our economy.
I welcome the fact that we will deal with the funding Bill next week or the week after. However, will the Minister agree that he is responsible for dealing with the issues? Is the uncertainty about the future of generation, the transmission network, distribution and the supply chain not his responsibility? Does he agree that he should spell out to the nation and the work force where he intends to bring the energy and electricity market, something he has failed to do so far?
On the issue of Eirgrid, why has the Minister not requested the ESB to come forward with the infrastructure agreement, which we were led to believe was on the table some time ago, dealing with the decoupling of Eirgrid and the ESB? That agreement should deal with the transfer scheme and issues that affect workers, especially defined pension and other rights. Is this not a key area of the Minister's responsibility?
We hope there will be no industrial action which will lead to black-outs. However, we learned today that the CER has criticised the ESB because several of its generation plants are only running at 74% to 76% efficiency and capacity. There is a fundamental problem in that area which the Minister has failed to address. Is it not time he took the lead in this area and told the House where he expects future electricity generation and market to develop, especially since we are not far from 19 February 2005, when the market will be deregulated for every household and firm in the country?
I am not sure of the question in that rant. Government policy on energy has been clearly stated. The Deputy's question relates to the issue of the ESB ballot. Government policy regarding any move to give a further shareholding to the ESB, from its existing 5% up to 14.9%, can only happen in the context of a sale or outside investor process, which in effect means privatisation. Is the Deputy exhorting a privatisation agenda on behalf of the Labour Party?
The reality is that the public own the shares in a semi-State company. I cannot simply hand over the shares to the unions or the private sector without the proper conditions being met. However, my position on the future of the ESB is well stated. I am not in favour of privatisation. I have said that if there is any sale of the ESB, there will be no sell off of the infrastructure which will remain in State ownership.
The Deputy mentioned Eirgrid and the CER. We expect the difficulties relating to Eirgrid will be sorted shortly and when they are, we will be able to put the agreements together for the complete division from the ESB into Eirgrid.
The ESB gave us an outstanding briefing on infrastructural development in the Dublin region just a few minutes ago, for which Deputies of all parties are grateful. The Labour Party is bitterly opposed to any attempt to privatise the ESB. The history of Telecom and Eircom open up the appalling vista of the privatisation of our national grid. We are opposed to that. As the Minister responsible, is it not Deputy Ahern's job to lay out clearly the future development of electricity generation and the electricity market here? On the matter of Eirgrid, he should indicate clearly which elements of the ESB will be part of the national grid and explain how it will operate.
The Minister has a heavy responsibility. We are approaching the February, 2005 deadline, but so far, he has not met his responsibility.
Who is responsible for the ESB and is it the Minister's responsibility to ensure the country has sufficient energy? I thought the State had a majority share in the ESB. It is scandalous that the Minister cannot come into the House and outline exactly what is happening in the company. I cannot believe that he has not met the unions or management.
On 18 December, when the unions considered holding a ballot on industrial action, the Minister suggested a series of bilateral talks between, first the unions and his Department and second between the unions and the ESB. We are again faced with industrial action, but the Minister says it is not his responsibility. Is there any truth in the suggestions he made on 18 December? I am not sure whether the Minister has had private talks with the ESB, but can he say precisely what issues are being fought for between the unions and the management? Perhaps the Minister would outline answers to those questions.
Regarding the ability of this House to discuss price issues — and this was referred to in earlier supplementary questions — the Oireachtas passed the legislation setting up the Commission for Energy Regulation and independent regulation of a fully liberalised market.
We are not there yet.
We cannot have it both ways. We cannot pass legislation along those lines and then say we cannot discuss these issues. That is the case regarding electricity, gas and telecom prices. Regardless of who was in Government, this House abdicated its responsibility to invest properly in infrastructure. Governments postponed sanctioning ESB price increases. These are now independently granted by the CER. That is why the ESB is able to invest significantly in infrastructure and ensure that we do not experience black-outs as happened in the USA, UK and Italy. People may be assured that the infrastructure here has the necessary capacity even though electricity demand here is twice the EU and OECD averages given the rate of economic growth here.
Regarding the differences between the ESB unions and management, the unions want a pay increase of 18.5% and an increased share-holding in the company but to date no case has been made as to why the taxpayer should hand over extra share-holding to the ESB group of unions. I have met the ESB group of unions on quite a number of occasions. What I said in my reply was that I had not met them since the result of the ballot.
