Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 8 Dec 1926

Vol. 17 No. 8

ADDITIONAL ESTIMATE—VOTE 67. - MOTION BY THE MINISTER FOR FINANCE.

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £112,208 chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1927, chun ceannach abhair theine le linn na Strusócáide maidir le Gual, 1926, agus chun costaisí a bhaineas leis sin.

That a sum not exceeding £112,208 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927, for the purchase of fuel during the Coal Emergency, 1926, and for expenses connected therewith.

On the 16th November I made a statement here regarding the measures that were being taken to insure a supply of fuel, and in that statement I indicated that these measures, although not large, would involve a certain substantial liability in the event of the normal source of supply becoming available at a date earlier than could be anticipated. That situation has since arisen. Supplies have become available earlier than was anticipated, and this Vote is for the purpose of meeting the Government's commitments. At the end of October, when it became necessary to take measures on behalf of the Government of a special type, the situation with regard to fuel was as follows:— The supply of coal on private order delivery during November and December amounted to 95,000 tons. That represents about three weeks' consumption in Dublin under normal conditions, but we looked to it being about five weeks' consumption, on the basis that the railways, gas, and electricity works were excluded, as it was thought that they were going to fend for themselves. The orders were consequently short of requirements in the two months November and December, and if the strike continued, or even if the strike was settled, there would be a considerable interval between the closing of the strike and the date on which supplies from England became available.

At that time I was unable to obtain from the British Government any forecast as to the end of the strike and when supplies from England might be expected. It was only, in fact, on the 24th November that we got any definite information, and when the information did come it was to the effect that supplies of a certain amount of British coal would be available on the 29th November. At the end of October a decision was taken that supplies on private order should be supplemented for the ensuing six weeks to the extent of about 35,000 tons, to be delivered mainly at the beginning of December. That meant that total provision was made for eight weeks to the extent of about 128,000 tons—95,000 tons on private order and 35,000 tons for which we were making arrangements. That represented a normal import to Dublin for four and a half or six weeks, if we excluded, as before, the larger consumers. It will be seen that the commitments were on a moderate scale, having regard to the situation at the time the orders were placed. Arrangements were made with the Coal Merchants' Association to the effect that the Association would finance the purchase of the Government orders and provide for their distribution to the consumer at a price to be added to the c.i.f. price in Dublin. That addition was fixed by my Department and it ran to 22/- a ton. A further agreement was made that if within seven days from the date of discharge the Association did not take delivery of any of the cargoes ordered by the Government that part was to be taken up by the Government. In all, our commitments were 33,000 tons.

I cannot be more precise at this stage, as a percentage had to be allowed for inaccurate weights, waste from slack, and so forth. 4,500 tons were immediately disposed of at the end of November, and when the release of British coal was announced it was found possible to cancel an order of 1,700 tons. That left 27,000 tons, most of which arrived last week, or will arrive this week. That has not yet been disposed of; a payment for it has now to be made. The average c.i.f. price in Dublin for this; including a certain amount of brown coal and briquettes, will run to £3 10s. per ton.

Could the Minister give us the proportions?

I cannot, at the moment, but if it is thought necessary I can get them immediately. I can take certain items with regard to bricquettes and brown coal if the Deputy means the deficiency there.

And if possible, Continental and American coal.

The average c.i.f. price here of coal, which includes a certain amount of brown coal and bricquettes, is £3 10s. Half of that will be taken into Government stock and the price adjusted to current rates. The remaining half is for sale, and tenders for it have been invited. That is the entire Government commitment, less 4,300 tons disposed of and a cargo cancelled. That represents a normal week's imports to Dublin. If export was still stopped the coal on order would be disposed of immediately. As it is, the difference between the original cost and the present market price represents a very small margin out of the public funds, as insurance provided against further emergency. If I am asked what is the present market value of any coal in Dublin—I am not going to say the present market value of the coal we have—I would have to be guarded in my answer, as it would depend on the date of the order. When we purchased, the price, if the importer was to get even his costs out of it, apart from any profit, was very big. With regard to coal coming from England, brought in by some small firms who had no forward contracts, that should be sold to the consumer in Dublin—and limited to Dublin only—somewhere between 60/- and 65/- per ton. That is for English coal brought in by some of the firms who had no forward orders, and consequently they had not to lay off any losses on forward purchases against present coal prices.

Is that 60/- to 65/- c.i.f. to which is added something equivalent to 22/-?

No. 65/- is the price to the consumer.

So we may deduct 22/- to get the c.i.f. price.

You may deduct something more than 22/-, as c.i.f. was the price fixed by the Coal Merchants' Association for Government coal and did not include any item of profit. Something more would have to be taken into account. This Vote represents money needed to pay for coal brought in in order to tide over the emergency period. It simply represents money for the purchase of fuel and the incidental expenses in connection with loading and discharge. There will come to the Exchequer whatever moneys are got from the sale of this coal, either to the public through tender or whatever amount will be fixed upon as a proper one to be charged to the Board of Works for taking it into Government stock.

Can the Minister say what the net deficit will be?

I cannot say that until I find out what the selling price will be. One could estimate £50,000.

I feel myself in a great difficulty about dealing intelligently with this question. Everything depends, I think, on the wisdom shown by the Minister in making his purchases. We are still awaiting information as to what proportion of these purchases were bricquettes that will burn, and also brown coal, American and other Continental coals. It appears to me that until we get that information we are not able to form any judgment as to the wisdom of these transactions. I ask the Minister if he can to postpone discussion of this Vote until he is able to supply us with the information.

Is it the view of the Deputy that the Vote should not be gone on with until there is some description of the type of coal that was bought? I would like to know what that has to do with the question. Whatever was bought at the time of the emergency was bought when simply anything that could be got to burn was taken. If the Deputy's point is that he wants to raise some debate as to whether any briquettes or brown coal should be taken, or whether any should be taken from Westphalia or Poland, or whether we should have concentrated on American coal, I could see the necessity of giving details.

My point of view should be very easily seen. The Dáil is asked to sanction the expenditure of £112,000 for certain coal purchases. The Minister has told us that it was necessary to make purchases. For the total amount of coal purchased he has given the average price, but he has not given us any information upon which we can judge the wisdom of his Department in making these purchases for this emergency.

We have been reading, for instance, day by day in the newspapers about the amount of briquettes that have been on fire on the quays, and we have had complaints about material that will not burn, and about the inadequacy of the coal supplied to certain establishments because of its unfitness. Now, while it may be true for the Minister to say that it was necessary to purchase anything that would burn, we ought to have at least the information upon which we might base criticism, if criticism is to be applied, as to the qualities and quantities of the respective coals that were purchased, and also as to the relative prices, c.i.f., of American coal. Silesian coal, briquettes, etc. The information the Minister has given is not sufficient, and it seems to me that the policy of the Department in making these purchases can only be criticised when we have information as to what purchases were made, and the prices.

The Deputy wants to criticise what purchases were made and the relative prices.

Yes, and the relative prices. We get an average of £3 10s. for the whole quantity in Dublin. An average of £3 10s. might mean an exceptionally high price for briquettes that are not suitable. We may have something to say upon the wisdom of the Department in making these several commitments. That information, at least, should be made available.

I cannot understand the position the Deputy adopts. The Deputy apparently wants to say that such and such was ordered at such and such a price, and that it was a bad price, irrespective of what the circumstances were, and whether it was a matter of simply snapping at any offer that was made at the particular period, and as to whether briquettes should have been bought at a particular time, when they were the only thing on offer. I do not think there were more than 4,000 tons of briquettes——

Now we are getting on; that is one item.

And if I were to say that there were 24,000 tons of briquettes I wonder to what point the Deputy's criticism would advance?

Wait and see.

Of the brown coal ordered—I am not speaking of the brown coal delivered—that would have amounted to not more than 8,000 tons. I doubt if it would have amounted to 6,000 tons. The position that the Dáil has to consider is this, that there was a situation developed here with regard to the lack of supplies of fuelling in this country. When that situation arose, and the first time it was discovered the reason why forward purchase had not been made by coal merchants in the ordinary way was that the financial commitment was too high and the resources of the coal merchants were not equal to it—at least that the financial resources that the coal merchants thought fit to allocate to this matter were not strong enough. In that situation what amounted to a guarantee was asked for and given, and that amounted to the bringing in of about 33,000 tons of fuelling, of which we, at the moment, are discussing 27,000 tons. There was one cargo cancelled, and another was disposed of without loss. We are discussing, therefore, the question of the provision of a little more than a week's normal imports of coal into Dublin by way of insuring that no further emergency would arise. It is apparently now being put to me that this vote cannot be considered until the Deputies get the details of the consignments and prices at which they were ordered and of any charges that were incurred by way of cancellation charges or anything else.

I do not know that it is a reasonable demand in the circumstances, particularly coming from a Party which alleged that sufficient provision had not been made. The actual commitment of the Government is now discovered to be that of a week's normal supply of fuelling imported into this country in order to prevent any further emergency arising such as arose in October.

The Minister is prejudging my criticism—if there is to be criticism. What I am contending for is that on an emergency estimate of this kind we are in duty bound to ask for such information as would give some justification for granting the vote.

For passing the vote.

Yes, and when asking for particulars of this matter the Minister appears to imagine that it is unfair to ask whether there is anything like fair discrimination used in the purchasing of the various kinds of fuel. I think that is a very reasonable request and I cannot understand why the Minister should cavil at it. Are we not to get this information?

I have asked for a case to be made and I have been told that this information is required if there is to be criticism. I have not seen any case made for the granting of the information asked for. If the House thinks it is necessary I will postpone the Vote until to-morrow and get that information, but I will not postpone it on the case that Deputy Johnson has made.

I cannot understand the Minister. How could the House found any criticism unless it has the information which I am seeking? Surely it is a reasonable thing to expect the Minister to come forward and tell us something about the purchases he has made when he is asking us to vote £112,000. I believe, for one, that it was essential that the Government should enter into commitments of this kind. In view of the failure of the coal merchants it was certainly necessary for the Government to come to the aid of the public when that section of the community which had undertaken to supply fuel to the community had failed. But we have the right to ask ourselves whether in undertaking this abnormal duty to protect the community anything like a fair use was made of the Minister's responsibility —whether the purchases were in reasonable proportion. He tells us that they were prepared to go in for any thing that offered. Is that the position?

Yes, anything that could be got quickly enough.

Then cannot we hear from the Minister what in fact was available, because there is information available as to what other people who were purchasing were able to buy at.

Not in the circumstances. We have not any available information.

A good deal of fuel of one kind or another found its way, it is believed, into Belfast about the same time.

You do not know that.

I am told so.

Yes, that is what you are at again.

We want some information; I want to check my information with the facts that the Minister will adduce.

As regards this Vote, I am not going to insist that it should be passed to-night. I simply come forward with the request that a certain amount of extra money should be voted, and I described the circumstances in which the situation arose. I object, as I objected before, to the use of the word "failure" on the part of certain people—on the part of the Coal Merchants' Association—in this respect.

Was it a success?

If it is a failure, that failure has to come, and that is a matter of which the Deputy knows nothing. It will be seen that whatever the Government may lose it will be nothing to the losses that certain coal merchants may have to suffer, coal merchants who definitely did purchase ahead and who went far beyond what reasonably could be expected of them in relation to their finances. It is not right to throw out casually the word "failure" in regard to the Coal Merchants' Association.

It is very easy for somebody who has no concern with the business, who has absolutely no concern with the thing and no responsibility for anything that may occur—any losses that may fall upon people who are dealing with the situation—to throw out the suggestion that there was failure. It is very easy to say: "If there was not failure, was there success?" That is the attitude of one who is relieved of all responsibility, financial and otherwise, in the matter, and who simply has to oppose. He should see, however, that the word "failure" is not used casually. That word should not be casually thrown out in this way, and the suggestion of failure on the part of the coal merchants to deal with the situation should not be lightly made.

I should say there was very little failure up to recently, and the failure then was on the part of certain people who left an association with which they had made certain commitments. In the circumstances certain emergency action was taken. The net result of it is what I have described already and what I will describe again in the same words. They were left with the prospect of selling a certain amount of coal at a price less than what we bought it at, plus another moiety to be taken over into Government stocks at an adjustment price equivalent to the market rates.

We are left with twenty-seven thousand tons on hands, the equivalent of something a little more than a normal week's supply in Dublin. That alone is sufficient to justify this Vote. An emergency has been tided over. The prevention of another emergency such as that which arose in October has been definitely seen to, and the Government stock of coal is the equivalent of one week's normal supply in Dublin. That is the case I make for putting this Vote forward.

If there are people in this House other than Deputy Johnson who think further details should be given and who can put up a case for these details, I am ready to listen to them. I can get the figures later if they are needed. I want to see first if there is any real reason for objecting to the Vote at the moment.

I do not know whether the Minister thinks that the only duty of the Dáil, when we are asked to vote money, is to accept the Minister's statement, and adopt or refuse the Vote accordingly. The reason that estimates are brought into the Dáil is to give the public, through the Dáil, an assurance that matters of this kind will undergo criticism, or may undergo criticism, and that Ministers are expected to give the Dáil information as to the transactions, especially abnormal transactions, that are conducted by their Departments.

The Minister seems to object to any question being raised regarding the transactions of his Department. We are to adopt or reject the Vote without getting any information. If that is the position Ministers are going to take up in regard to bringing estimates forward, then they had better re-cast their whole financial system, because the theory of bringing forward estimates to the House is surely based upon the assumption that the House is going to have a right to criticise expenditure and demand information regarding the occasion for that expenditure, and, if necessary, details.

The Minister has protested against my use of the word "failure" as applied to the coal merchants in relation to their maintenance of supplies. My information comes from the Minister.

Quote me, then.

The Minister told this House that he had made arrangements with the coal merchants at the beginning of the coal strike, in certain directions; that they were to keep in constant touch with him, and keep him informed as to the course of their trade prospects, the quantities of coal being imported, existing stocks, etc. Up to a point he was kept informed, and was satisfied. Suddenly he learned that the merchants had failed to keep him informed, and had failed to maintain supplies. They found themselves at a point when the city was faced with the prospect of being without coal. Yet he resents the use of the word "failure."

With my reservation, certainly, and it is a very different thing.

The Minister himself is responsible for the charge that the coal merchants failed to maintain supplies, and failed to keep him informed of their inability to face the financial responsibilities, so that he would have an opportunity of protecting the community in the case of the possible failure of the coal merchants. It is entirely his own argument that I use when I use the word "failure."

You should quote me.

Quote? I am in the hearing of the House, and if the Minister denies that he made that statement, then I can withdraw it. If that is not his argument, then anything I have said falls. But it is not only his argument to the House; it is his explanation given to the Press.

If I am any judge of the English the Minister uses, he undoubtedly gave the impression to this House, during the statement he made on the coal situation, that the coal merchants, or the great majority of them, had defaulted. The Minister asks Deputy Johnson to quote him. If the Minister has a copy of the Official Report, I would ask him to look at it, and see if he did not make the statement that only four out of nineteen merchants continued to order coal, although the original arrangement was that they should continue to order coal. The Minister told us then that he was assured coal supplies were being ordered, and that the situation was well in hand. The Minister apparently believed that. Then we were told the Minister suddenly discovered this was not being done, and that only four out of nineteen merchants were doing it; that the other fifteen had failed to do it. If they failed to do that, and did not tell the Minister that they were not doing it, then I do not know what the word failure means.

Apparently not.

If that is not clear evidence of failure then I do not know what is evidence of failure. The Minister cannot make a pawn out of the coal merchants one day and a friend the next day. No doubt the Minister used the default of the coal merchants as justification for his action and inaction during his recent statement in the House. Now apparently he comes along realising that he has overdone it, and he asks the House not to think that the coal merchants have failed. If ever there was dismal failure, the coal merchants failed on that occasion.

You have the information then.

Not merely every Deputy but every citizen knows that there was a combination of failure on the part of the coal merchants and that of the Minister for allowing it.

I talked previously of Deputy Johnson's great gift of sitting without responsibility for anything and of criticising. I did not know that Deputy Norton was such an able aid to him in this matter. Just casually you can say that people failed.

You told us.

I did not tell you anything of the sort. I said there was failure with regard to information, and that was the only phrase in which the word "failure" crept into my statement. Further, when speaking of it I said that with certain reservations I had been informed that the position in Dublin might have been relieved, and I further said: "But it is only fair to say that the sudden Continental embargo on export and the chaos into which American supplies fell during October must have made much confusion in the best-laid plans, and involved inevitably a shortage until deliveries improved." That is described as an indictment of the coal merchants. I had no intention of laying any such indictment against the coal merchants, and I objected on 16th November last just as much as I do now to people who have really no information about what is involved in forward purchases, but who can sit easily without any responsibility or a feeling that loss is going to come upon them, criticising people who were seeing losses ahead for not acting up to the Deputy's theoretical views— shipping finance. Deputy Norton, like Deputy Johnson, has a very easy disregard of the amount of money that has to be spent on the forward purchase of, say, 100,000 tons of coal at 84/- a ton. There are times when freedom of criticism and absence of financial responsibility do not go well. I want to hear if there is complaint from any other side of the House against the passing of this Vote beyond the poor case that has been put up so far. It has been urged that the Vote should not be passed unless details are given of every cargo that came in, and that there should be a division not merely of brown coal and briquettes, the quantities of which I have already given in a rough way, but a further division as to how much was American, how much was Westphalian coal or Polish or any other type, with, I suppose, the price per cargo. I have not yet heard anyone ask for that information except Deputy Johnson. If there is any other section in the House that seems to want that information and thinks that the Vote ought not to be passed until it is given, then I will see about getting the information, but the case made so far for the provision of these details has not impressed me.

Question put and agreed to.
The Dáil went out of Committee.
Resolution reported to the Dáil.
Question—"That the Dáil agree with the Committee in the Resolution"— put and agreed to.
Top
Share