I should like to emphasise in the beginning that this Peat Scheme is entirely experimental. It has been subjected to a great deal of criticism, indeed, to a regular barrage of criticism. But I think that Deputies who have been most vocal in their criticisms have not understood that it is necessary to make a beginning somewhere or sometime. In this country we are in a very fortunate position because we have immense resources in the way of peat deposits. We have something like 3,000,000 acres of peat and about 3,000,000,000 tons of peat. So that it is high time for a native Government to take some steps to develop these deposits and resources. Our attitude in regard to this scheme, as I said in my opening statement, is that we would have been much better pleased had some independent or semi-independent body come along, to whom it might have been necessary to give financial assistance but who would make themselves responsible for the organisation, the production, the marketing and the disposal of peat. There is no such body. It is necessary if this scheme is to proceed that the Government should give certain assistance. We are giving that assistance in connection with organisation. As regards the actual commercial transactions and the commercial arrangements we hope that the Government will be completely excluded from them and that it will not be necessary for us to take part in any trading transactions. We hope that after a short period this scheme will work itself: that once contact is established between the consumers and the body of merchants who have expressed their willingness to cooperate and who are ready to sell peat that it will be possible to do so at a price that will secure a market. Once contact is established between the producers and the markets there is no reason why the Government should be interested in the scheme beyond that we may give some assistance in the way of co-operative societies and carry the scheme forward to a further extent until it is finally on a sound foundation. This scheme is really only a preliminary. We do not expect that a fully effective scheme can be evolved now. Next year we hope it will be possible to market the peat through the ordinary commercial channels and we hope that by then these contacts will be fully established.
The railway company have met us and they promised to try to give us a very reasonable rate indeed—a flat-rate for the whole of the Free State by which the producer of peat in the farthest off area will be able to compete successfully with the man who is only forty or fifty miles away. That flat rate will be of immense advantage in enabling producers in bog areas to compete successfully for the Dublin market. The Irish Agricultural Organisation Society is also at work in the formation of co-operative societies in the bog areas. I explained in my opening statement that some time would elapse before these societies were established on a proper basis. I have had some experience now of the preliminary arrangements, and I think it is essential for the success of the scheme that these societies should be established in a large number of areas.
It may also be necessary for commercial men to come in and make their own arrangements with the producers at one end and with the consumers in Dublin at the other end. Obviously the co-operative societies will ensure that the largest possible share of the money paid for the peat will reach the producers' pockets. The Government is most interested in that side of the problem, in seeing that the arrangements should be as simple as possible and that we should take all the steps necessary to establish direct trade between the producers and the markets so that they will get the largest possible share of the money paid by the consumers and that very little of it need go to middlemen. Transport charges will be reasonable as far as the railway company is concerned. As far as the canal companies go we are in touch with them and hope to have their co-operation also.
The price mentioned by me of about 10/6 per ton for peat delivered at the railway station has been criticised. I could possibly have mentioned a somewhat higher figure, but I think that in the beginning we have to find our way, to instruct the producers and to make it quite clear to them that the best quality of turf will fetch the best price. When I mention 10/6 I am assuming that some profit will have to be made by the middleman who would handle the turf as agent. But if through the co-operative societies it is found that the producers are in direct touch themselves with the consumers the middleman's profits can be eliminated and then there will be no reason why a higher price than 10/6 per ton should not be paid to the producers. But it is necessary to be conservative in the beginning.
As has been emphasised by so many speakers, there are different shades and standards of turf. I am assuming that turf of good, dry quality will fetch at least 10/6 a ton to producers, even where the agent has to be paid a commission. Where there is no agent, then the producer will get more. Good black turf such as we have in Achill, in County Mayo, can compare favourably with coal from the point of view of heating. The ratio that we believe will generally characterise the heating value of peat will be two tons of peat to one ton of coal. In fact, the peat which was delivered to the Curragh last year, when the Minister for Defence purchased 2,000 tons for local supplies, was proved definitely and was certified by Army engineers to have a higher heating value per ton than a half ton of coal. There will be the same flat rate for transport from Achill or from the Midlands. It is up to the people themselves to make a success of it. There is no doubt that good black turf has a high heating value and that it compares favourably with coal. If you went into a house where that turf was being burned you would believe that it was coal was being burned.
I have no doubt, however, that the price will be regulated as in all other transactions by the quality of the turf. The danger is that some people may think, on account of the fact that the Government is providing certain facilities and is making itself responsible for the organisation of the scheme in the beginning, that we are prepared to have bad or wet turf forwarded to the railway stations. The forwarding of bad or wet turf to the merchants and distributors will simply injure the scheme as, of course, producers in every other branch of business associated with agriculture know very well. The sending of bad stuff injures the whole trade. It is up to the producers themselves to see that only turf of the very best quality is sent. Turf not so good can be used at home. In the beginning we must have the co-operation of the producers. We must have with us their public spirit; we must make them realise that it is to their own advantage to co-operate with us, and that it will militate against the scheme if we have not good turf and if we have not that good turf in large and regular supplies. If we get 500,000 tons extra during the coming year it would mean a great deal for the producers. That 500,000 tons is not a great deal when one considers that we are importing 2½ million tons of coal and burning 6,000,000 tons of peat. There is no reason why we should not redress the balance more favourably to our own advantage. I would like to say to Deputies that a quarter million pounds for that 500,000 tons of peat would represent incalculable benefits to the people in the poorer areas.
Those who are not acquainted with these areas do not realise that a pound counts more there very often than £10 in Dublin. People who are rarely accustomed to have money passing through their hands at all, who have only a few acres of land, a certain amount of turf and a little bit of fishing and with a valuation of anything from 10/- to £2—nobody realises what it means to these people to have even £20 or £30 in hard cash coming into their pockets. The fishing industry, we know, has failed and it is extremely difficult to live on these small holdings. I am convinced that the people on these holdings, if given a proper lead and organised properly, can make the scheme work and make it successful.
Some Deputies seem to think it is absurd that we should burn turf. Why on earth should we not? If we try to develop our resources and increase the consumption of peat we are keeping hundreds of thousands of pounds in this country that would otherwise go out of it to provide employment elsewhere. The scheme may have its defects, but it is largely in the experimental stage. The object of it is to keep that huge amount of money circulating in the areas where it is badly needed. It gives the people an opportunity of creating other employment for themselves and enables them to stand on their own feet. The fact that other people did not think of this scheme and made no effort whatever, while they were in office, to develop our peat resources should not affect us although they had a report from the British Government in 1921-22 and reports from experts like Professor Purcell and the late Dr. Hugh Ryan calling attention to the fact that these peat resources were of enormous importance and more important to us than the peat resources of other countries were to these countries. Notwithstanding this, no steps whatever were taken to develop these resources although we know that schemes have been going on in various countries, in Germany, Holland, Denmark and Russia. No steps whatever were taken here, but when we introduce a scheme like this, a scheme which is quite simple and which has for its object that a large proportion of this money, that is at present being spent for fuel, should go back to our own people, we are attacked for doing something ridiculous and absurd. The grates will not burn it, we are told. Well, make grates that will burn it. Deputy Dillon said that the grates in the big Dublin houses would not burn it; they were not installed for that purpose. It was pointed out to him that in fact they were. That is the kind of criticism we get of a scheme that, perhaps, offers more hope than any other scheme introduced by the Government of real assistance and benefit to these poor people.
It may be also that there will be improvements in the methods of packing, the methods of marketing and the methods of cutting turf; but at the moment we have to take the situation as it stands and to realise that there are difficulties. Turf cutting and turf saving in bad weather, for example, may be described as most laborious and tedious and almost impossible, but in reasonably good weather, where the whole family can turn out on the bog, there is no work more health-giving or pleasant that you can turn your hand to or that the people themselves would prefer. It is only amusement to them if they get favourable weather conditions. There may be a certain amount of trouble and the price may look small, but we can only hope that, when the scheme is definitely established and no longer purely experimental and when we have a population in the towns and cities who are purchasing turf, and a regular contact established with the market, other improvements will come. Undoubtedly, the people will see that it is worth their while to invest money in improvements, in local transport for the cartage to the local railway station, in the packing of turf and, perhaps, as I say, even in the actual cutting of the turf. The delivery of turf in Dublin, for example, will be in the hands of the distributors—the coal merchants—and it will be the distributors who will have to make the necessary arrangements. Obviously, as Deputy Moore pointed out, it will be much cheaper to deliver the turf direct to the consumer from the railway station than to have the turf delivered to the coal merchants' yards first and delivered afterwards to the consumer. I think the distributors are fully cognisant of that and they will endeavour to deliver directly from the railway station so as to reduce costs to themselves and the consumer. These problems, however, will ultimately solve themselves if we can ensure sufficient supplies. At the moment, that is the important thing. In order that the railway company and the merchants will be able to handle the traffic it may be necessary to deal with consignments of peat in quantities of, say, 50 tons. Obviously, it would be impossible for those who have promised to co-operate with us in this scheme to communicate with individual producers. The producers will have to group themselves together and communicate either with the local station-master or directly with the Kingsbridge or with the peat office which we are setting up, and to state where supplies of turf are available and in what quantities. Once the distributors or the marketing end of the turf are put in direct contact, as I have already emphasised, with the suppliers, the situation will solve itself, but organisation will be necessary at the producers' end. They must come together in societies or groups and see that the turf is brought to the station on certain days and in certain quantities.
