Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 19 Jun 1942

Vol. 87 No. 12

Committee on Finance. - Vote 67—Employment Schemes—(Resumed).

Mr. M. O'Reilly

Last night I tried to show that the turf workers had some grievance, and I asked the Parliamentary Secretary to rectify that grievance. I went on to show that men with wives and families engaged in this class of work had also a grievance. I could proceed to show that almost the whole community had grievances which it would be entirely impossible to remedy. We have a peculiar position in this country. We are very glad, indeed, to be neutral. The country alongside us, and practically the whole of the rest of the world, are at war. When No. 12 administrative measures such as we are now dealing with have to be faced up to, the position of a neutral country is entirely different from that of a country at war, and the nature of the employment to be afforded is totally different. We have very great difficulty in increasing remuneration which it may be deemed advisable, or necessary, to give, due entirely to the fact that Great Britain, being at war, has, with the spread of inflation, to pay extremely high wages and curtail prices, with the result that the price of our produce going in there is curtailed, regulated and fixed.

The tendency is to fix everything all round. Turf is one of the most vital commodities needed by the city people. In turn, they give services to the community, in the distribution of goods bought from Great Britain. Naturally, those goods are in short supply, and that is bound to reflect itself in the purchasing power of the community in general. No matter how we may wish to increase the remuneration for bog workers and agricultural workers, it is nearly impossible for farmers to do it, as the purchasers are not in receipt of remuneration which would meet such a demand. Consequently, we are compelled to see that there is a curtailment and a cut all round. It is advisable for us to accept those conditions. It is my personal opinion that this country is in an extremely dangerous position. Every day this war continues our danger becomes greater instead of less——

General Mulcahy

To what particular danger is the Deputy referring?

Mr. M. O'Reilly

To the danger of war and of interference with our neutrality in general. That is fairly obvious to everyone. Of course, there may be some people of the opinion that that is not the case. They are all entitled to their own opinions.

General Mulcahy

I was anxious to know——

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputies are scarcely entitled to discuss those matters on this Vote.

General Mulcahy

I was trying to get a clear view as to the danger. There are dangers to which I want to refer, and possibly they might be of the same kind as those mentioned by Deputy O'Reilly.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair foresees other dangers.

Mr. M. O'Reilly

We must try to regulate the costings of the community in general. We must try to protect a community that may become extremely weak in its purchasing power. Day after day it is becoming weaker. The wages paid in Great Britain could not be paid here. It is a very big attraction to see a high standard of wages that exists even within 20 or 30 miles of this country. As I said last night, when we take into consideration the taxes paid here and those paid in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, it indicates very clearly that, although wages are high there, taxation is equally high and possibly is absorbing a very large amount.

There is one other matter to which I wish to refer, though I am not sure if I would be strictly in order in doing so. I understood that the land reclamation scheme—one of the greatest sources of employment and one of the things that could give ideal employment; I think I have convinced the House that the farmer is an ideal employer—is merely an emergency scheme.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance (Mr. Flinn)

It comes within the Vote.

Mr. M. O'Reilly

I would be glad if the Parliamentary Secretary would tell us if it has been relegated to the classification of a war measure. The House will agree that it is an important scheme—one of the best we have had. It means that a good deal of capital can be put into land improvements, which is fixed capital, a thing that is very badly needed. It would be a really good investment if any surplus moneys could be invested in the improvement of land as well as being a source of employment. It would be a pity that a scheme like that should be classified merely as an emergency or temporary scheme. I would like to hear what the House generally has to say on that matter. There may be some technical reason, and a very good one, for putting it into this particular classification; but I and many others thought the scheme would become a permanent one for the relief of unemployment and the benefit of agriculture.

Mr. Flinn

I would like to answer that question by Deputy O'Reilly. There is no change whatever in the policy in relation to land improvements. What happened was that this was previously in the Unemployment Vote, and it could not be justified on that particular ground, as the Unemployment Vote was concerned practically with people in a state of distress and was mainly measured on the ground of the unemployment assistance classification of the particular district. Practically 90 per cent. of the people engaged in this farm improvements scheme did not come within that category, and it was removed in order to prevent its being mixed up with the relief of distress, but its removal does not affect the policy in any way.

General Mulcahy

In his concluding remarks, Deputy O'Reilly gave expression to opinions with which I entirely agree. Therefore, I would ask him if he would join with me in trying to fix the mind of the House on certain figures. He pointed out how important it was that costings be considered and said that the burden of expenditure on our people should be reduced as much as possible. He foresaw that there were dangers in the situation and that those dangers might be the cause of disturbance here. The fact that we are in a neutral position and uninterrupted by any intrusion of warfars here means that, while our supplies here and there of particular things may be short, the administrative handling of those supplies to the best possible advantage is not interfered with in any way. If there is anything that should respond energetically and efficiently to the stimulus we get from the outside threat of trouble, and from the actual trouble of shortage of certain supplies which come in here, it is the administrative machine.

We cannot complain that, in the present situation, the circumstances are such that they do anything but spur us on to more efficient administration. In this question of the handling of turf, all the circumstances of the time, as far as administration is concerned, are to our advantage, as they spur us on to greater energy and clearness in seeing how administrative problems should be dealt with. Everyone admits that, in this particular matter, the materials are not scarce.

We need not go back to the old days when we were told it was going to be the second most important industry in the country. We need not go back to the Taoiseach's statement at the beginning of this year, when speaking before the assembled members of the Institute of Civil Engineers, he referred to the fact that he believed it was the intention to have the whole country with the exception of Dublin, Dun Laoghaire Borough and a few other cities made self-sufficient so far as fuel—that is peat—is concerned. He then expressed the hope that that was a position which would continue to a considerable extent anyhow, even after the emergency had passed. So that in the administrative handling of the situation we had that ideal held out to the people. We had the vision of January, 1942, and then we had the stress of circumstances. On the administrative side, therefore, we can have no excuse for not being better situated than we were a year ago, two years ago or three years ago.

On this question I want to put a few figures before the House bearing on costs. In the beginning of 1934 the question of the cost of turf was raised by us here. I am not going back to that period simply in order to rake up past history; I am going back there to circumstances in which the question was raised because of the cost of turf delivered from the Turraun Peat Works to the board of public assistance in Dublin and delivered in bag lots throughout the country. We asked for details—the cost to the works, the cost for carriage and other things. The figures we have for that time are that the board of assistance was charged 38/4 per ton for turf delivered in the old city and 40/- per ton for turf delivered in Rathmines and Pembroke in small bag lots. From the answer given to me—unfortunately I am not able to give the date on which it was given, but I have the actual answer, which is not dated—it would appear that the cost of machine turf at the wharf in Dublin to the Turraun Peat Company was 26/8 per ton. I was informed that that was made up as follows:—Turf, ex works, 15/-; sacks, 8d.; covering charge, 6d.; carriage, 8/6; unloading charge, 2/-; the total, as I have said, being 26/8.

For the purposes of comparison with the present situation, I am taking that 15/-, the charge of 8d. for sacks and the covering charge of 6d., a total of 16/2. I am comparing that with the figure quoted by the Minister for Supplies in reply to a question of mine on the 3rd December, 1941. In answer to my question, in which I tried to get similar figures to see how the costings of the present day were arrived at, the Minister told me that the average estimated cost of turf purchased by Fuel Importers, Limited, free on rail at loading point or ex-bog, was 24/3 per ton. When I compare that 24/3 with the 16/2 in the other figures I have given, I find an excess of 8/1. The Minister for Supplies also said that the freight charge was 18/6. I compare that with the 8/6 carriage in the other case. There is an increase there of 10/-.

Mr. Flinn

Did the turf in both instances come by the same means?

General Mulcahy

Oh, no, I want to make that clear. The handling charges quoted by the Minister on the 3rd December, 1941, were 8/9 per ton. I compare that with the other figure of 2/- unloading charge, so that there is a difference of 6/9. The cost of turf delivered at the wharf in Dublin in April, 1934, was 26/8, after the cost of carriage and unloading had been defrayed. It was delivered in the City of Dublin for 38/4, that is, the cost of delivery was 11/6 in the city, while the cost of delivery in Rathmines and Pembroke to various houses in small bag lots was 13/4. I find that the cost of 26/8 in April, 1934, for machine turf compares with a cost of 51/6 for hand-won turf to-day. Then I have to examine how the 11/6 for delivery in the City of Dublin and 13/4 for delivery in Rathmines and Pembroke compares with the additional charges over 51/6 which the Minister for Supplies says it costs to distribute turf now. It has been pointed out and insisted upon by the Minister that when the unfortunate citizens are charged 64/- per ton for turf, they are being given turf at a figure which is lower than the total cost involved would justify. The Minister gave some details in that Parliamentary answer of the 3rd December as to what the extra costs really are. He disclosed that the overhead expenses of Fuel Importers, Limited, had been estimated at 4/6 per ton. He further disclosed that sixpence per ton was allowed to Dublin wholesale distributors as a margin on their wholesale sales, and that 16/- per ton was allowed to retailers as a margin on their sales. When he says "margin" I take it he means costs of all kinds and profits, so that we have in this particular class of costs, overheads 4/6, wholesalers 6d., retailers 16/-; a total of 21/-.

Mr. Flinn

Was there any break-up of the overheads?

General Mulcahy

No, there was very little break-up of any of these details. I am going into this in order to suggest how terrifically important it is to break up these details into clear language. The Minister also stated in his answer to the question of the 3rd December:—

"The cost to be borne by the company for shrinkage of turf has been estimated at a minimum of 20 per cent. On this minimum, it is estimated that the company will suffer an added cost of approximately 12/6 per ton under this head. This figure is, of course, purely an estimate of varying factors affecting this cost."

Now, I have shown that 21/- is added for costs at headquarters, wholesalers' costs and retailers' costs. We have to add what the company claims, or the Minister for Supplies claims for the company, as cost of shrinkage, 12/6 per ton. When we add that to 21/-, we find that above the 51/6 which it takes to get the turf, and as it were land it at Dublin, there is also an additional cost of 33/6 to cover the overheads of Fuel Importers, the wholesalers' costs of delivery, the retailers' costs of delivery, and the shrinkage, which has to be borne by somebody. That 51/6 and 33/6 add up to 85/-, so that when the householder in Dublin pays 64/- there is still 21/- a ton to be paid by somebody. That brings me back to where I started, that 11/6 was the cost of delivering in bag lots in Dublin in April, 1934, a ton of turf from the Turraun Wharf, and that 13/4 was the cost of delivering it in Pembroke. Now we have it that those costs, which include the profits of the company, are translated into 33/6, or an increase of 22/- over the Dublin charges in April, 1934, and 20/2 over the Pembroke and Rathmines charges. There is no one of those increases that we ought not to have explained. There are some of them that I am quite satisfied can be explained. Nevertheless, we have this: free on rail, an increase of 8/1; freight, 10/-; handling charges, to land it in Dublin I take it, 6/9. Then there are the overheads here, the distribution here, and the profits of wholesalers and retailers, whatever those are, an increase of 22/- or 20/2. Surely there is a breaking down on the side on which we ought not to break down but ought rather to have improved, when we see the enormous increase in the charges that arise after the stuff is landed in Dublin.

Mr. Flinn

I should like to ask the Deputy a question. Does the shrinkage definitely refer to machine-made turf, or is it a general statement?

General Mulcahy

The shrinkage refers to the general turf landed in Dublin.

Mr. Flinn

It would be different in the two cases.

General Mulcahy

And I take it that the general turf landed in Dublin, and dealt with in my broad question about the whole turf situation and its costs, in December, 1941, would be hand-cut turf rather than machine-cut turf. That makes me add this point: on 27th June, 1939, I think it was, I was told by the Minister for Industry and Commerce in answer to a Parliamentary Question that the predominant price per ton of machine-won turf in Dublin was 30/- in 1937, 37/6 in 1938, and of hand-won turf 25/- in both years. In 1937, therefore, hand-won turf in Dublin was 5/- a ton cheaper than machine-won turf, and in 1938 hand-won turf was 12/6 a ton cheaper than machine-won turf. When I give figures for April, 1934, because they are the only ones I have with those details, it is machine-won turf we are speaking about, so that there is a margin to be examined, as between the cost of turf in 1941 and previous costings. On this basis, the hand-won turf held the field to the extent of perhaps 70 per cent. or 80 per cent. or 90 per cent. as against machine-won turf. Those are figures that want to be gone into. In connection with them, I have not yet got anything like a satisfactory answer as to why, on 27th June, 1941, for the City and County of Dublin, an emergency Order fixed, inclusive of the cost of delivery, 46/- as the price of turf, and why, on 1st November, under an emergency Order then issued dealing with the turf position, that 46/- was raised to 64/- a ton. I do not know when we began to look at the turf situation from the point of view of fuel conditions in Dublin last year, but 46/- was fixed as the price in June, and then in November 64/- was fixed. I would ask whether that is not a shocking commentary on the administrative situation, and whether the poor have not to pay very considerably for it? People who had money and could afford to lay in their stocks of turf during the summer were able to get it at 46/-, but the ordinary purchasers, particularly in poorer districts, who have simply to pay for their turf from week to week as they want it, were not able to take any advantage, may I say, of the 46/- price. The price that they got rapped down on top of them was the 64/- price.

Whatever the causes of the difficulties and apparent administrative blunderings of last year were, we are in a new year now. We have a certain amount of experience. We have a new plan. We may have new difficulties. I want to know is the average freight charge for this year going to be 18/6 as it was last year? The railway company published on 10th January, 1942, a month after the previous information had been given, figures indicating exceptional rates of charges for the carriage of peat and firewood. I notice that the charge of 18/6 a ton refers to a carriage distance of 163 and 164 miles. Well, I just ran my knuckle and a pencil from Dublin around a map of Ireland a few minutes ago, to see where the median line from which we got our turf last year ran, and putting the distance of 163 miles half-way between Galway and, say, Carna, I find that the middle line from which we brought turf last year went to Glenties in Donegal; it was somewhat outside Killybegs; it came through Ballina, it came through Castlebar, it struck half-way out to the Arran Islands, it was well outside Ennis, and came down to about the mouth of the Blackwater. I ask anybody to take a compass and to do more accurately what I suggest there—to draw a circle of 163 miles radius from Dublin and ask himself, if that were the middle distance from which turf supplies came into Dublin last year, whether there was any justification for that kind of position; but, cutting our losses and learning from any mistake there might have been, what is the distance from which we are to get our turf now and what reduction is there to be in freight charges? Deputy O'Reilly last night indicated that they were able to get turf in Meath to-day at 47/6 over a distance of ten miles. I do not think that is necessarily extraordinarily cheap—

Mr. Brennan

Indeed it is not.

General Mulcahy

——in view of the cost to various institutions last year of the turf they got. Nevertheless, I should like to hear a justification of 64/- to the people in Dublin, to the buyers, and of 85/- to the payers, whether taxpayers or buyers, for turf in the City of Dublin. If even under a well-run scheme and accepting the cost to be satisfactory worked out and to be quite economic, of 47/6 in Meath, there is this position: 47/6 in Meath with everybody paying his way and nobody handling it for charity and 85/- in Dublin. It may be that the examination of the points I bring out would show where all the losses lie, but, on the other hand, it seems to me we are spending a very large sum of money from which there ought to be an Appropriation-in-Aid in return, of which there is no account at all.

The approach of the Minister for Supplies to this situation when he was challenged on the question of the 64/- at the end of last year was that "the predominant factor which has determined the retail price of 64/- has been the maximum price which the consumer can in present circumstances be asked to pay." In the first place, the consumer is unable to pay 64/- at present, and I do not want at this stage to go into the extraordinary sufferings of the people who are condemned to use turf, nor do I want to go into the condition of the turf. The last word I had with anybody in my household on turf some days ago was as to whether it was an official from the company which delivered the turf, an inspector from Fuel Importers, Limited, or an inspector from some branch of the Ministry who should come and look at it. I am afraid I was not very helpful because there is too much general talk by the Parliamentary Secretary and the Ministry that, if the turf is not right, it should be made right. If there is any sincerity in such talk, the turf would be right, because there is a sufficient amount of money knocking around and a sufficient amount of prestige in relation to the Government involved to see that proper steps are taken to ensure that it is right. Challenges of that kind seem to fit into the class of challenge we get from the Minister for Supplies: "There is no necessity for bread queues"; "The people are looking for hot bread," and so on. Goodness knows, the turf is there to be examined, and if the position is that the Parliamentary Secretary can say that the turf is quite all right, on that ground and on the ground of proper costings, if it is the inefficiency of the administration at headquarters which gives rise to the extraordinary increase in the costings, the only thing to do is to apply the principle about which the Minister for Local Government declaims so dramatically now, that if the people handling the turf matter do not do their job, they should go.

Mr. Flinn

I agree with the last sentence of the Deputy. I simply want to repeat the statement that every single case of a complaint in relation to turf has been fully examined and properly dealt with. The last time I put it to the Deputy, I specifically said it was not a challenge but a request for cooperation—that he should make those complaints and I would investigate them. In every case in which a complaint has been made, it has been investigated, and, if anything was wrong, it was put right.

Mr. Belton

What is the relevancy of the price of 85/- per ton? Is that the cost of it?

General Mulcahy

Yes.

Mr. Belton

And 64/- is the selling price?

General Mulcahy

Yes.

Mr. Belton

And somebody must be paying the difference.

General Mulcahy

Somebody must be paying it. It is insisted that Fuel Importers, Limited, include no profits for themselves in that.

Mr. Belton

And they get all the facilities the State can give them.

Mr. Flinn

These are Deputy Mulcahy's figures.

General Mulcahy

They are the figures of the Minister for Supplies, as given in reply to Parliamentary Questions on 13th November, 1941, and 3rd December, 1941.

Mr. Keyes

It is rather a pity that Deputy Mulcahy introduced this note of realism in the shape of these commonsense facts, into the beautiful dream of Deputy O'Reilly, because Deputy O'Reilly last night, in his eulogy of the Parliamentary Secretary, gave us a beautiful tonic in words. It was a pleasure to listen to him if one shared the complacency of which he seems to be possessed.

He spoke of how beautifully the turf scheme had been carried out. He spoke about walking over the brow of the hill and seeing a lovely picture against the landscape, with men, women and children—with emphasis on the children—all happily engaged on turf production. He said that everything was perfectly all right, if the scheme was only left alone. There was plenty of wages which were much better than what they could get in England because the money over there was only paper money, as were told by the Parliamentary Secretary some time ago; but behind his lovely picture, Deputy O'Reilly was concealing a picture not quite so nice, because the children so beautifully organised were evidence of the fact that by the methods applied by the Parliamentary Secretary in this and in past years on employment schemes and relief schemes, he has shown a complete misconception of his functions. He has so treated the workers that these schemes have become relief schemes for England rather than for Ireland.

The relief of the shortage of labour in England is the principal result of the carrying out of the functions of the Parliamentary Secretary, because of his headstrong, obstinate and inhuman policy of refusing to give anything like a reasonable wage to the workers engaged upon national work. He has shown no change of heart this year, and I for one would be surprised if he did, because he is the man who told us that we would be torn limb from limb if we asserted that he was not giving a decent, generous wage at 21/- per week to Irishmen some couple of years ago. He has advanced by very slow stages up to 1942, and now, in defiance of the requests of public authorities—people who have a stake in the country, public representatives on county councils, and all types of people who concern themselves with the question of wage-fixing, who have sent resolutions to him asking that a reasonable wage would be paid to the turf workers in return for their efforts in this time of national emergency, and to give us turf at a reasonable price while at the same time paying reasonable wages to the workers—he still persists in his attitude. All this is at a time when people would be prepared to pay any price for coal, if they could get it from across the water. Price would not matter in that case, but when it comes to the question of an Irish industry such as the production of turf, and of keeping Irishmen at home to do that work, the Parliamentary Secretary acts the part of a "Poo-Bah", put his foot down and refuses to give a reasonable wage, and when he says to Deputy Mulcahy that he gave consideration to proposals in this connection, I can assure him that there is one thing that he never gave consideration to, and that is the question of proper wages for the workers. All the Parliamentary Secretary wants is results, and he is not concerned with the conditions of the unfortunate workers.

I think that the picture painted by Deputy O'Reilly should have a very nasty reaction for the Parliamentary Secretary if he were really to examine his conscience about it, because he is the man who is more responsible, to my mind, for deporting so many of our men to Britain, than any other man in the Government. I think that that is a very fair statement with regard to his attitude this year and in previous years. He is responsible for the exodus of all these people. These workers have their ideals and aspirations, like other human beings. They see the high competitive wages that are paid across the water, and while they actually have no real desire to go there if they could possibly obtain work at reasonable wages at home, they are driven across the water because of the unreasonableness of the Department, as led by the Parliamentary Secretary, in refusing to give any recognition to their reasonable claims. Of course, the voice of the public bodies has been treated with the same contempt as it has been treated all along. Even the Minister for Local Government and Public Health said a few days ago, in effect, that if any of these public bodies were going to be bold, bad boys in future, their heads were for the block.

We were told that everything in the bog, if not in the garden, was lovely, and that there was going to be plenty of turf, but now it would appear that we are going to be very short of turf this year, and I believe that that is directly traceable to the reasons I have set out. If proper measures had been taken, and a reasonable inducement offered, there would have been plenty of labour to cut the turf, and it should have been a comparatively easy matter, because, after last year's work, the turf banks must have been improved considerably, a lot of drainage had been done and roads made. Unfortunately, however, a lot of spurious turf was taken from the bogs. In many cases, just the top of the bog was taken, brought in, and treated as if it were good turf. The result is that there has been a deterioration by almost 50 per cent., and I believe that in most cases that turf will be found to be a very poor investment when it comes to be tested in the boilers of public institutions. Some of these boilers were injured last year because of the bad quality of the turf.

Valuable time has been lost because of the refusal of men to come to work on the bogs until they were starved into it by the policy of the Parliamentary Secretary. That time could have been employed in drainage and in making roads, but it has been wasted. We were told by the Parliamentary Secretary quite recently that while we had got 1,600,000 tons of turf last year, which, with the reserve we had in stock, would bring us up to 2,400,000 tons, we would still require about 1,750,000 tons of turf as the barest minimum this year, and that was on the assumption that we would still continue to get in coal in reasonable quantities from Britain. It does not seem likely that reasonable quantities of coal from Britain can be expected to materialise.

That is what we were told by the Parliamentary Secretary with regard to the amount of turf, and that is quite distinct from the question of price, which has been referred to by Deputy Mulcahy. Deputy Mulcahy is asking, quite naturally, as we are all asking, how does the difference come in between 46/- in June and 64/- in November? I cannot tell the Deputy the reason for that, but I can assure him that it was not due to the wages paid to the workers. The workers' wages have very little to do with the high or inflated price of turf to the consumers in the cities. Deputy Mulcahy spoke of the handling and rehandling of turf, and so on, but I want to say that in Limerick, where there is very little of this rehandling, turf was cut at a wage of 5/- a day for the workers, and it was delivered from those Limerick bogs into the public institutions at 35/- a ton, while the recognised price of turf to consumers in the City of Limerick is £3. That takes a bit of explaining, and I certainly cannot explain it. Some of that turf, of course, may have come from farther than the County Limerick bogs, but no matter where it comes from, once it comes into the City of Limerick, it is all turf at £3 to the consumer, although, as I have said, turf was delivered to the public institutions there at 35/-. So, where all this turf control that we are told about comes in, I am at a loss to understand.

General Mulcahy

And the people were charging 64/- and losing 21/- on it.

Mr. Brennan

It is a wonder there is any turf left at all in the country.

Mr. Flinn

I did not catch Deputy Mulcahy's remark.

General Mulcahy

Deputy Keyes says that the ordinary person in Limerick has to pay 64/-, or rather 60/-, and I say that the people who are selling that turf at 60/- in Limerick are losing 17/- a ton.

Mr. Keyes

Presumably.

Mr. Flinn

That is a very interesting calculation.

General Mulcahy

It is based on official figures.

Mr. Keyes

I cannot profess to say much more about the matter, and we shall await with interest the clearing up of that mystery by the Parliamentary Secretary. Perhaps he will be able to tell us the reason of the philanthropy of these dealers, both in Limerick and Dublin, who are giving away turf and pretending to lose on it.

Mr. Brennan

There is no philanthropy we are paying.

Mr. Keyes

I know that. We are paying 17/- on it.

Mr. Flinn

That is what Deputy Mulcahy says.

Mr. Keyes

With regard to this question of employment schemes, that has been mainly concerned this year with the production of turf, and that is quite natural because there was not much necessity to consider anything else. There was the problem of making bog roads, draining bogs, and so on, but unfortunately these schemes have been used, or rather misused, by the Parliamentary Secretary in such a way that the people are no longer here to avail of the work provided by these schemes, and as long as he is in control of that Department, I fear that he will be a force for deporting more of our people who will go across the water to seek employment from alien masters who are more humane and who are prepared to pay them a reasonable wage.

Donnchadh O Briain

Ba mhaith liom cúpla focal a rá ar an scéal seo. I listened with interest to the speech of Deputy Keyes in regard to this question of turf production this year. I was sorry to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary that the production of turf in County Limerick this year had not been as great as last year. We know the reason for that. There was a foolish strike on the bogs, and men were prevented from going to work when they should have gone, as a result of certain agitation by agitators in West Limerick. The result was that the work did not proceed as satisfactorily as it had. Very good work was done last year as a result of the efforts of the county surveyor and the turf workers in the western part of Limerick.

It is a pity that the same amount of work was not allowed to be done this year. I agree that the men had a right to some consideration. I know those men around the West Limerick bogs. The great majority of them are very reasonable, and it was natural, when they saw other sections of the community getting considerable increases for the produce of their work, that they thought they should have their whack out of the emergency situation. They had seen the farmers getting 50/- a barrel for their wheat, they had seen an increased price given, even though a small one, for milk to the dairy farmers, they had seen increases given to the beet growers, and they had seen other sections of the community getting increases. Therefore, I think it will be agreed that the outlook of those men was reasonable. One felt that an increase beyond 5/- a day this year was justified. But the men were misled and ill-advised in the way they went about getting the increase. The result, anyway, is that we find ourselves in the position in County Limerick this year that we probably will not have as much turf production this year as last year, with a scarcity perhaps this winter in the City of Limerick and in some of the towns in the eastern parts of the county where there are no bogs.

Reference has been made to the price of turf in the City of Limerick. Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell me if a maximum price has been fixed for the turf to be sold there? In reply to a question, the Minister for Supplies told me that there was no regulated price there. I cannot understand the price of 60/- a ton for turf in that city, since the county surveyor has stated, and I think it is true, that he sold turf produced under last year's scheme at 35/- a ton to public institutions in the county and City of Limerick. Therefore, there can hardly be any justification for the figure of 60/- a ton for the City of Limerick. In former years it was sold there at 30/- a ton. If the price is not regulated, then this figure of 60/- a ton should, I think, be referred to the Prices Commission with a view to ascertaining whether or not it is a justifiable one. As regards the price fixed for Dublin, the people who live in the bog districts of the country know that it is a fantastic one, whatever the reason.

When the turf scheme was started in 1934 there was an arrangement with the railway companies to carry turf at a flat rate of 6/- a ton—for taking turf from Donegal to Dublin, from Kildare to Dublin or from Kerry to Dublin.

Mr. Belton

At 6/- a ton?

Donnchadh O Briain

Yes.

General Mulcahy

They went before the Railway Tribunal and said that they hoped to reduce the charge to 4/- a ton.

Mr. Belton

I would be prepared to take a lot of it at that rate.

Donnchadh O Briain

That was in 1934. It would be possible to make arrangements with the railway companies to transport turf at a reasonable rate. It might not be possible to get it carried now at a flat rate of 6/- a ton. It is hard to understand this figure of 64/- a ton for turf in Dublin. If turf cannot be sold in Dublin at less than that figure, then I am afraid the thing cannot continue, and you will have the people in Dublin and other parts of the country going back to coal again. The turf scheme was very valuable from the point of view of the good period of seasonal employment it gave in the bog areas. In the County Limerick, for miles around the bogs, we had not a man idle last year. All the men were busily engaged and did remarkably good work. In some areas where new bogs had to be opened up, some of the turf produced was not perhaps of the best quality. There was a good deal taken off the top of the bogs. This year, if the work had been allowed to proceed in the ordinary way and if the ordinary method of negotiating in regard to the question of wages had been adopted, instead of starting a foolish strike that certainly did not serve the workers concerned, the turf could have been produced and everyone would have been far happier. In the County Limerick, and in other places where the work did not start as early as last year, I hope it will be possible to make up for the time that has been lost, and that the situation in Dublin and other places, where a good deal of turf is used during the winter months, will this year be at least as good as it was last year, and, from the point of view of quality, much better.

Mr. Brennan

Deputy Mulcahy referred to a matter which was causing him some perturbation—the provision under sub-head F of Vote 73 of close on £500,000 for the production of turf in the non-turf areas. Seeing that figure one would naturally look for an estimated receipt in some other part of the Estimate, but none is to be found. Surely, we must assume that the turf that will be produced for that expenditure of public money is not going to be presented free, gratis and for nothing to anybody.

If individual turf cutters who cut, save and sell turf are supposed to be able to make money by doing so, surely we are entitled to expect that there will be some return to the State for this expenditure on turf production in the non-turf areas. Has the Parliamentary Secretary any hope of getting revenue for the turf that is to be produced under this sub-head? Are we going to sell this turf or, as Deputy Mulcahy has said, is it going to be absorbed in the difference between the 64/- a ton and the 84/- or whatever the figure is? What is going to happen in regard to the sale of this turf, and is there any estimate of the revenue its sale is likely to produce?

Deputy O'Reilly said last night that he understood we would have more people going into the cutting and saving of turf this year than last year because they found the work so remunerative. If the Parliamentary Secretary is relying to some extent on individual producers, naturally they must expect to make money out of the work. If there is any hope of establishing peat as a general fuel in this country, it can only be established on the basis of being a paying proposition. If we are to enter into competition with other people in the cutting of turf because there is an emergency, we ought to be able at least to cover our costs. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us what he hopes to make out of the transaction.

One of the matters to which the Parliamentary Secretary ought to direct his attention is to make absolutely certain that the turf brought into the cities is of good quality. I come from a turf-producing area and on three or four different occasions in Dublin during the past winter I was shown sods which in my locality would not be considered turf at all. I never saw anything like it being used as fuel. How it came to be brought up here as turf or from what part of the country it came I do not know. Certainly any housewife who would attempt to use it for cooking purposes would have my sympathy; she could not possibly do it. If we have a repetition of that next year, it will be very bad. I do not believe that there was that inexperience all over the country in the cutting and saving of turf which is being used as an excuse for the production of turf of that kind. The county surveyors may not have had the experience that would give us very good administrative production, but the men engaged were all men who understood turf cutting. I think the wool was pulled over somebody's eyes in some parts of the country in connection with that. In any case the turf supplied was really a disgrace.

In addition to that, we had very bad blundering last year in spite of what we told the Parliamentary Secretary at that time with regard to the transport of turf. We on this side of the House, and I think Deputies on all sides of the House, tried to get the turf transported here during the early part of the year when a standstill order was put into operation. In Roscommon, I have seen turf of fair quality being taken out of the bogs in mid-winter, thrown on the roadside awaiting lorries, possibly lying there for days in wet weather, and then loaded in lorries and brought to Dublin and dumped in the Park or some other place. That was not proper fuel by the time it was ricked in the Park, and it will never be any good. This year, I understand, we have a standstill order in operation again. That was a mistake last year, and I think it is a mistake this year, except in so far as it may assist in regulating petrol allowances. I think the Parliamentary Secretary or the people in charge of turf production ought not to prevent any turf coming into Dublin under good conditions. After all, it is a matter of control of price. At least that was the only argument advanced last year by the Parliamentary Secretary, that if turf were allowed to be purchased all over the country by people in Dublin they would corner the supply. That should be capable of being dealt with by a regulated price. If a fixed price is of any use at all, I think that would be a position in which a fixed price would possibly be of the greatest advantage, and could be comparatively easily enforced. If a man in Dublin comes to me and says: "If you can purchase 30 tons of turf for me I will get a lorry and take it to Dublin," Í understand that he will not be permitted to do that. I think that is a mistake.

Last year I heard the Parliamentary Secretary endeavouring to justify the standstill order. I do not see the justice or expediency of it. I have discussed the matter with our county surveyor and he is convinced that the thing is all wrong. I think he gave expression to that view at meetings in Dublin. It appears to me that the one thing which rules the turf control people here is that they must get complete control of the situation; that they and they only must transport turf. It is being transported into Dublin under their aegis. I think that is a mistake. If we had thousands of tons of turf coming into Dublin at present it would help to relieve the situation later on. The Parliamentary Secretary may say that certain people who are able to pay would then be able to get in turf, while other people who are not able to pay would not get any turf. But, if that were allowed, you would have turf in Dublin under the best conditions, and that would be a great advantage. The conditions under which the Parliamentary Secretary tries to get it by mass production and mass transport and all that, are not the best conditions, and never will be the best conditions.

In his opening statement yesterday the Parliamentary Secretary, so far as I am aware, did not indicate the estimated requirements of Dublin and the non-turf areas for this year and the possibility of reaching the required production. Last year various estimates were given. Possibly they were at variance with the actualities of the situation, and therefore the Parliamentary Secretary did not venture on the same type of estimate this year. But, taking the figures he gave yesterday, I am convinced that turf production this year will not nearly reach the mark which it is necessary to reach. He stated that 22,000 people were engaged in turf production, that production was about 50,000 tons a week, and that the tonnage was increasing every week. Taking the basis of 50,000 tons per week, in my opinion, no matter what the Parliamentary Secretary and other people connected with turf development may think, we have only about 16 or 17 weeks for turf production in the year. The Parliamentary Secretary and others last year advised people to cut turf into September. Last year was an exceptionally good year, but the turf that was cut late last year was not saved. That put up the price of turf generally and thus had a bad effect on the whole turf-cutting proposition. That is what happened in my county.

Mr. Flinn

I am rather interested and should like the Deputy to explain that.

Mr. Brennan

I will explain it. With a production of 50,000 tons a week, on the basis of, say, 16 or 17 weeks of turf-cutting, we will have less than 1,000,000 tons in the country and unless we are able to exceed a production of 50,000 tons a week, we will be very much short. I will now come back to the matter which the Parliamentary Secretary would like me to explain.

Mr. Flinn

I would; I am very much interested.

Mr. Brennan

It is quite simple. Turf cut in April or May, in the early months, was tossed out in nine or ten days; it was clamped up inside a month, and was ready for delivery in a very short time afterwards. Turf cut in September, because the drying was bad at that time of the year, was not fit for tossing for three weeks; it had to be retossed and footed; it had to be refooted—a lot of it—and some of it was not clamped at all before the winter set in and, because of that, the whole cost of the year's production was put up enormously while, at the same time, a bad article was produced, an article which gave us a bad name. That was the position.

Last night Deputy Corry gave figures with regard to a contract in Cork. Some people might think his figures were fantastic, but I do not think they were, and I do not think there is any answer to the case made by the Deputy. It is not often I agree with Deputy Corry, and I am not agreeing with him now for the mere pleasure of thwarting the Parliamentary Secretary, but I think that the prices which he quoted for changing and ricking turf in Cork and for which, he said, a certain contractor was prepared to do the work, were reasonable prices. We got it done at a lower rate in Roscommon.

Mr. Flinn

Would the Deputy like a contract for 10,000 tons at that rate in Cork—would he guarantee to do it?

Mr. Brennan

My experience of contracts——

Mr. Flinn

Would the Deputy like a contract under precisely the same circumstances? I will give him a contract for 10,000 tons if he will deposit money against a loss.

Mr. Brennan

The Parliamentary Secretary will not give it to me; I am not in the business and, besides, I am very far removed from Cork.

Mr. Belton

Is the Parliamentary Secretary prepared to give a contract for 10,000 tons in Dublin?

Mr. Flinn

Under the same conditions as applied in Cork?

Mr. Belton

I will make my own conditions. I should like to have a talk with the Parliamentary Secretary on that matter.

An Ceann Comhairle

Such contracts should be arranged outside the House.

Mr. Brennan

It did appear to me, from the figures given in the House last night——

Mr. Flinn

I shall deal with those later.

Mr. Brennan

I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will, because it makes very bad reading. The man in the bog, as Deputy Corry pointed out, gets about 15/- a ton, and very rarely gets £1 a ton, for cutting and saving the turf. If a man gets something like half that amount for changing and ricking the turf, it does seem to be something that requires explanation. One of the items that requires most explaining is that referred to by Deputy Mulcahy, the allowance of 12/6 a ton to the merchants in Dublin for shrinkage. This is how the situation appears to me: If the cost of production is about 15/- a ton in the bog, and the merchant in Dublin is allowed 12/6 a ton for shrinkage, there does not appear to be any turf left, and it seems to be an extraordinary situation. I entirely agree with Deputy Corry that the difference between 15/- or £1 a ton for production cost and 64/- requires some explanation.

Mr. Flinn

I agree.

Mr. Brennan

In the interests of the public and everybody concerned, but particularly in the interests of the people endeavouring to meet the emergency and the fuel shortage, that matter ought to be cleared up, if it is possible to clear it up. I cannot see how it is going to be cleared up. I believe Deputy Corry is right to some extent. There is either gross mismanagement somewhere, or it is a racket. Otherwise, we could not have that discrepancy between £1 a ton on the bog and 64/- a ton in Dublin—and for very bad turf. It will be very interesting to hear the Parliamentary Secretary explaining that matter.

Deputy O Briain, Deputy O'Reilly and others, have said that at one time they hoped turf would take the place of coal as a fuel and we would have no more need to leave this country for fuel. I never shared that hope, but, whatever hope there was of making turf in any sense a general fuel in this country, or in any way substituting it for coal, that has vanished. Somebody must be held responsible for the difference between the cost of production and the delivered cost. In the country, where people live convenient to the bogs, turf is quite a good fuel, and even people who had been using coal, and possibly had got out of using turf for years, and were driven back to it, are quite satisfied and, if it could be got into the cities at a reasonable price, at something which would approximate to its value, it possibly might, to a very large extent, replace coal; but, on the basis of 64/- a ton, or a much greater price if the taxpayer is not to be at a loss, you cannot expect to get anywhere, and there is really no hope in that direction.

Last year, the Taoiseach and the Parliamentary Secretary informed us that they were relying to a large extent upon individual producers. I warned them at the time that I did not think very much would come of that; that the individual producer was generally a farmer who had his hands full of other work and had not the opportunity, the time or the turf bank on which to cut extra turf. This year I think the position is very much worse. I know very many farmers who, because of the lack of help on the farm, have not been able to cut turf. They have not been able to get hired labour to do it. As a matter of fact, they have been thrown on the market themselves for the purchase of turf. That has happened in my locality and I am very sorry it has happened. Again, it is a question which requires to be considered very seriously.

If the whole organisation of the country is going to be allowed to break down and if people are to be allowed to leave this country and look for work elsewhere, while at the same time the people here may be allowed to perish, to starve, even though the work is here for them, then there is something radically wrong. If it is a question of wages, as the Labour Party say, then the people responsible for that situation ought to examine their consciences. If the Parliamentary Secretary or the Government are not able to tackle that situation satisfactorily, they ought to let someone in who will do so. If a democratic institution is not able to tackle it, then some other form of institution will have to do it, because we will not be able to continue on that basis, and it is on that basis that the democratic institutions will break.

If things that require to be done are not being done, if people are going to be allowed to starve, to perish, although the food and fuel can be produced; if people are to be allowed to leave the country and not do the work for themselves, then we are coming to the end of democratic institutions. The Government have the responsibility at the moment. I do not think they are carrying it out well. I fear that they have established in this country, not a feeling of security, not a feeling of trust, but a feeling of insecurity and a feeling of distrust, and that is the worst thing that could happen. This situation in regard to turf production, turf delivery, turf prices and the quality of the turf is about one of the worst situations that could possibly arise.

Mr. Belton

It was a revelation to me to hear to-day that the cost price of turf, in Dublin I presume, is 85/- a ton.

I wonder why the Government did not invite some business people in the country to form companies to cut turf for the non-turf areas, particularly Dublin and the Borough of Dun Laoghaire, at 64/- a ton. I think there would be no difficulty in getting such companies formed, especially if the facilities were given to them that have been given to Fuel Importers, Limited. It did not surprise me that turf costs 64/- in Dublin. In January last I was going to a funeral on the banks of the Shannon. I met about 60 lorries transporting turf to Dublin. They had crates. Not a single one of them was within two feet of being filled. They were Army lorries that were bringing turf from Galway. If turf was produced on the bog for nothing, I wonder if it could be sold in Dublin at anything less than 64/- a ton if the cost of transport alone was taken into account. These lorries had to travel to the bog, consuming petrol, presumably, at a rate of 12 miles to the gallon, and they came back not fully loaded.

Last year it was quite obvious to any practical business mind that the turf scheme would be a failure owing to the way in which it was tackled. Everybody knew that last year, as well as this year, the chief problem of getting turf to non-turf areas was not one of production on the bog, but of transport. Turf was required in large quantities in the non-turf areas, particularly in Dublin and Dun Laoghaire and the suburbs of Dublin.

In January of last year a few of us visited a bog in Dublin. We knew something about the production of turf, and made suggestions as to how the work should be carried out. The principal suggestion was that a practical foreman who knew the job should be employed. Instead of adopting that suggestion, a roads overseer who had never seen turf cut was placed in charge, and what is known in turf language as the cleanings of the bog were cut and carried carefully out, using up good spread bank to dry it for use in steam rollers. That wasted the spread bank last year. It had to be dumped in the bog-holes this year.

The suggestion that was flouted last year was adopted this year. A good practical man from the bog was placed in charge this year and turf was produced this year within horse transport of the City of Dublin if we are driven to using horses. Why was not that done last year? Was it not obvious? Would any businessman who would be putting his own money into such an undertaking put in charge a man who never saw turf cut?

Mr. Flinn

Would the Deputy tell me in which county that was done? Was it in County Dublin or County Wicklow?

Mr. Belton

Glencullen, County Dublin. I suggested a foreman, a Roscommon man, that I knew was a good all-round man and who had good training as a builder's labourer and as a builder's foreman in Dublin. He would not be taken. I am glad that a man who came to me for recommendation was put in charge this year. I had not seen him before but from inquiries I made I knew he was a good man. He is a first-class man from the County Meath, and I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary has a very satisfactory report in respect of that area this year.

Transport was the prime consideration last year and I suppose it is even more difficult this year to get turf to the centres where it is required most and in the largest quantities. Deputy Mulcahy wondered why more turf was not brought into Dublin last year during the period when the controlled price was 46/- a ton. I think he displays some lack of knowledge of what took place during that period. When turf was controlled at 46/- per ton the Parliamentary Secretary would not give a permit to bring turf into Dublin. I think that is correct. That operated from the 1st July. I suppose, when the Government fixed that price, it had no relation to the quality of turf or the price at which it could be produced, but when it went further into the costings, in order to obviate a loss, it increased the controlled price from 46/- to 64/- a ton.

The problem was somewhat similar last year. I have not the relative figures, but I know that in Dun Laoghaire stocks were very low except for some lumber that has been imported, by Fuel Importers, Limited, which the borough corporation has been informed by the Government is being kept as an iron ration, in case there is an interruption of trade or transport, when that ration will be called upon. I know that supplies in coal yards in Dun Laoghaire are very much depleted and that the turf they got has not been satisfactory. I have seen wagons being emptied and I saw 13 cwt of broken stuff going back as the wastage is enormous. It is only the Government could stand the expense. The turf sent to Dun Laoghaire would not bear the cost of transport. Farmers who cut such turf down the country would hardly bring it home. In the part of the country that I know best they call it "pucks," a type of turf that was never brought home. It was generally thrown aside or if there was a great shortage in the spring it might be gathered up by people who would buy it cheaply or who might burn lime with it. It would not generally be used for ordinary household purposes. The idea of carrying useless turf perhaps 100 miles or 150 miles to Dun Laoghaire must have increased the cost of turf normally fit for burning, leaving a big slice of the cost, over 30 per cent., to be paid by the taxpayers. The Government will not let Fuel Importers, Limited, be at a loss. As Dublin Corporation was nervous about the fuel situation before Christmas, the City Manager was instructed to advertise for tenders for the supply of 400 tons of wood fuel. He got two replies, one for 200 tons on certain conditions, and another for 100 tons, but neither tender was worthy of consideration. The Government-probably the Department of Local Government—then directed the City Manager to the forestry division, which had some lumber near Inchicore. The forestry division asked £3 a ton. In addition, it cost the corporation 11/- to have the wood sawn into logs and 5/- for cartage, so that by the time the logs would be delivered they would cost about £4 per ton. It should be remembered that that timber was the by-product of another business and accordingly should be on the cheap side. I would prefer, when dealing with the wood fuel position to be able to do so, without being interested in it. Is it not an extraordinary state of affairs that petrol is given to have turf brought to Dublin from places 100 miles away? I think that statement is correct; that turf is being transported long distances by road to Dublin.

Mr. Flinn

There is no long-distance transport going on at the moment. In all probability there will be. I am not objecting to the Deputy's argument.

Mr. Belton

That is just as good for my argument. I am interested in a concern that is sending out about 200 tons of wood fuel daily in Dublin and Dun Laoghaire. I invite the Parliamentary Secretary to contradict this statement, that a ton of wood fuel is worth two tons of any turf.

Mr. Flinn

I do contradict that statement.

Mr. Belton

Will the Parliamentary Secretary get two dozens of turf users to do so?

Mr. Flinn

I am not dealing with anybody else.

Mr. Belton

I say that not a dozen householders in Dublin or Dun Laoghaire will be got to support the Parliamentary Secretary's contradiction. The Parliamentary Secretary addressed the Chamber of Commerce recently and his address was very informative. He was deservedly complimented on the story he told. All of us knew a little more after the address than we did previously. I wish to pay that compliment to the Parliamentary Secretary. He said that his organisation was then transporting 1,500 tons of turf daily to Dublin, but that that was not enough. He wanted 2,500 tons daily but there was a great demand on transport. The concern I am interested in is putting out 200 tons of timber daily. That is equivalent to 400 tons of turf. It is a private concern. I invite the Parliamentary Secretary to inspect that concern and to verify my figures. Why is petrol not given to that concern? Why is petrol refused to a private undertaking of that kind? A promise was given that petrol would be given it. Without petrol timber has to be carried 30 miles when the journey could be covered directly in 16 miles. It also means double handling on railway trucks which is a dangerous operation.

I received the following letter on June 11th, from Mr. O'Dowd, traffic manager of the Great Southern Railways:—

"Transport of Timber ex Newcastle.

"Yours of 1st inst. I note your remarks regarding the unsuitability of covered wagons for the transport of cut wood. I agree that coal trucks are more suitable for this traffic, but in view of the demands for this type of truck and our present position regarding the coal supply, I regret I am unable to provide a regular supply for the conveyance of cut wood, and I may say that a considerable amount of this traffic is being moved at present in covered wagons. I trust, therefore, that advantage will be taken of the facilities offered in order to get the traffic moved before the grain season starts in September next."

I asked the traffic manager if by cut wood he meant fire logs, and the reply was that it meant lumber about six feet in length. These consist of round timber as cut down in the forest. The railway company says it has facilities for the transport of cut wood of that kind in covered wagons, but men have to risk their lives to put it through the doors and to build it up. These wagons hold scarcely six tons, but there is a fixed rate whether that quantity is transported or not. Fuel of that kind could be placed in houses in Dublin without any loss or any risk to the State. Fuel Importers will be indemnified by the State, and they get the pick of the railway trucks. I challenge contradiction of the statement that Fuel Importers, Limited, have got 50 per cent. of the open trucks on the railways. I was promised petrol on the 13th December in the following letter:—

"With reference to the question of extra petrol for the lorry, it is noted that you will communicate further with the Department, and I am to say that when you are in a position to make a formal application for a supplementary allowance, and supply the necessary particulars, the matter will be given favourable consideration, having regard to the minimum quantity necessary to haul the timber."

That was as explicit as you could expect from a Government Department, and it is signed, "John Leydon, Secretary, Department of Supplies". On the 13th February, I got this letter from the Assistant Secretary, Department of Supplies:—

"I am to state that the Minister has given this matter very careful consideration and he regrets that, in view of the limited supplies of petrol available, he is unable to see his way to grant the petrol licence requested by you for the haulage of timber from Dunran to Killiney."

That letter came on the 13th February —the day I was anointed and when my life was despaired of. That was the sort of help that an individual citizen and public representative, who had invested his money to help the fuel position in Dublin, got.

Mr. Flinn

I am very unwilling to raise a point of order but the Deputy does seem to be wandering a long way from relevancy. It is quite obvious that I cannot be expected to account for correspondence with the Department of Supplies or for the relations of the Deputy with that Department. I do not like to intervene but I think the Deputy is wandering a long way beyond the legitimate limits.

Mr. Belton

I see the Parliamentary Secretary's point. I am not putting up the correspondence against him. I am only quoting the correspondence as proof of the case I am making.

Mr. Flinn

I put the point of order as to whether the detailed examination of a particular timber position is relevant.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The question of the provision of petrol is a matter for the Department of Supplies.

Mr. Belton

The connection is this——

Mr. Flinn

I do not propose to intervene again.

Mr. Belton

Fuel Importers are bringing turf up here in railway wagons. The only feasible way to transport timber by rail, with safety to the workers, is in open trucks. These have been collared by Fuel Importers. I read a letter from the traffic superintendent of the Great Southern Railways which shows that he wants me and private people who are helping the fuel position in Dublin to do the impossible—to transport timber in six-foot lengths, weighing, perhaps, six or seven cwts., in a covered wagon into which it has to be put through the door.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is not the responsibility of the Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. Belton

No, but if individual enterprise can put this fuel into Dublin without loss to the State, as against £1 a ton less in the case of the Parliamentary Secretary, surely we should get as fair treatment as Fuel Importers, Ltd.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is a matter for the Minister for Supplies. The Deputy cannot attach the blame to the Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. Belton

I am putting many tons of fuel into cellars in Dublin for household purposes and into stores for industrial purposes without loss to the State. I am not getting the facilities the Parliamentary Secretary's organisation is getting. What explanation has he that he is not able to do as I am doing? That is the relevancy of my argument. The Parliamentary Secretary is, I think, an older man than I am but he would have to live his life over again and spend it in administering turf schemes before he would know as much about turf as I do. I cleaned the banks, wheeled the turf, footed it, ricked it, planted it and drew it home. I know the difference between turf and the cleanings of the bank. There is no danger in the process of cutting or handling turf. I never insured anybody under the Workmen's Compensation Act who was handling turf. The premiums should not be higher than those in the case of agriculture. There is hardly as much risk in turf production as there is in agricultural work. The rates charged should be about the same—not more than 1 per cent. or 1½ per cent. Very few companies will insure the handling of timber. But that I had other heavy insurances, which I gave them as an inducement, I do not think I could have got a company to take the risk. I had to pay 15 guineas per cent. That is equivalent to about 6/- a week per man in wages. That is an extra as compared with turf production. During the first three days I was operating, a man was killed and my insurance company had to pay about £600. I do not know how they will regard a renewal of that policy. I never heard of a fatal accident in turf production.

Mr. Flinn

There was one the other day.

Mr. Belton

It may have been a fellow you brought down who did not want to work.

Mr. Flinn

No. The bog fell in on him.

Mr. Belton

The Parliamentary Secretary's function is the production of adequate fuel. His big task is to get the turf from the bog to the non-turf areas. Dublin and Dun Laoghaire constitute the biggest part of that problem.

Mr. Hurley

What about Cork?

Mr. Belton

I gather from official sources that the Parliamentary Secretary is not alarmed about Cork. Dublin City and the Borough of Dun Laoghaire contain about a fifth of the population of the State and they are far from a turf area. The price for turf was fixed at 46/-. while the price for wood logs was fixed at 60/-. I am quite satisfied that, if the Government were not directly interested in the production and sale of turf, that figure of 46/- would not have been abruptly increased to 64/-.

If we take the relative burning values, the prices fixed by the Government—46/- for turf and 60/- for timber —would have moved in sympathy with each other: but the timber price did not move in sympathy with that of turf. I am not advocating that there should be an increase, but when the Government found that the production of turf for Dublin could not be done at 46/-, in order to save their face they moved the controlled price from 46/- to 64/-. There is not a man in Dublin who would give 64/- a ton for turf if he could get a ton of timber at 60/-, as there is no comparison in the burning qualities. The Parliamentary Secretary may give us another reason, but so far the only reason I can see for the increase to 64/- for turf is to save the Department concerned from the severe judgement of the public, when they failed to work to the fixed price of 46/- a ton. They had to pay out roughly another £1 per ton, and the State has to bear the loss of another £1 after that. The position really is that the Parliamentary Secretary's Department put turf into Dublin—and inferior turf, too—at double the price at which he set out to produce it.

The prime consideration at the moment is adequate fuel for those areas not in close proximity to bogs with an adequate surplus to supply them. For Dublin and Dun Laoghaire the reserve stocks are alarmingly low, considering the transport available. From the Parliamentary Secretary's remarks, if petrol is not being given for the transport of turf now, it will be given.

Mr. Flinn

It may be given—I do not know—but it is not being given at the moment.

Mr. Belton

I know that lorry owners have been informed officially to be ready. Last year I was a member of a deputation from the Dublin Corporation to the Taoiseach and the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, about the fuel position in Dublin. At that time, the Taoiseach informed us that all the available rail transport was in use in bringing turf to Dublin, and all they were able to achieve was 1,500 tons per day. The same figure was given by the Parliamentary Secretary three or four weeks ago at a meeting of the Chamber of Commerce. I think the Taoiseach said then that they hoped to be able to raise that to about 2,000 tons per day, but he could not say there was a possibility of going any further. When the foot-and-mouth disease would ease off, the transport of cattle would make a great demand on railway rolling stock; and later on the transport of wheat would make a further demand. I believe I am correct in saying that, last year, sufficient could not be transported to Dublin if the ordinary private lorries—road transport—had not been called in and plenty of petrol given to them. I believe the same will have to be done this year.

If you are going to request people within 15, 20 or even 30 miles of the City of Dublin to transport fuel in covered wagons, what case have you for using petrol to run side by side with the railways for over 100 miles? Where is the business brains there? Why are you making the journey longer, making double handling necessary for one set of people by giving all facilities to another set, simply because the Government has the responsibility of supplying fuel here? With the shortage of petrol this year, even allowing petrol for the transport of fuel by road, should not that petrol be used economically? If you are prepared to send that petrol for fuel to Galway, or an equivalent distance, would it not be far more economical to use it to bring in fuel from places 30 miles or less distant from Dublin? Will it not take four times as much petrol to transport a ton of fuel 100 miles as it would to transport it 25 miles? If we want to economise in petrol—and every business man knows we do, and no one has as much to say about the necessity for economising as the Government—why does the Government itself not economise? Otherwise, we will be short of fuel here.

Speaking for the Borough of Dún Laoghaire, which is in my constituency, and where I have distributed this year 4,000 tons of wood fuel myself—not for charity, of course, but on my own responsibility—I can say that the fuel shortage there is very grave. Petrol must be requisitioned. The Parliamentary Secretary has just told us, in effect, that if it is not now requisitioned it will be—and therefore we should economise with it. Should we not scour the country for fuel near the point where it is required, before we go 100 miles away? What case can the Government put up for refusing petrol to transport wood fuel into the City of Dublin from 15 miles outside? Is it the specious argument that there is alternative rail transport? On analysing the rail transport, one finds it is unsuitable: they have no rolling stock suitable for the transport of timber.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Any question about wastage of petrol should be raised on Vote 69.

Mr. Belton

I submit, with all respect to your ruling, Sir, that it is very relevant on this Estimate, in that we are dealing with the cost of fuel, and if we are going to transport fuel 100 miles on petrol, the cost of transport must be four times what it would be if the fuel were taken from a 25-mile radius, and proportionately dearer for shorter journeys. If the Government considers it good business to transport fuel 100 miles on petrol, while refusing petrol for the transport of fuel ten, 15 or 20 miles away, there is something wrong, and it is time public attention was drawn to it. It is a far graver situation than a question of mere cost. After all, one might consider in certain circumstances that it was too much to pay 2/6 for a breakfast, but if one were dying of hunger and had a £5 note in one's pocket, one would willingly give it for a breakfast. This question of the provision of fuel is a matter of life and death for this city. It is wood fuel, that is at present keeping the laundries and many industrial establishments going, and the Parliamentary Secretary or the Government is not responsible for providing that fuel. They have not put a fire log into industrial effort in the City of Dublin. Private enterprise has done that, and I am putting the case that private enterprise ought to get a chance. I am speaking from inside knowledge, without fear of contradiction, and I know the work that is being done by various people engaged in private enterprise within 20 or 30 miles of Dublin.

Here we are called upon to vote a sum of money for a Government Department for transporting the worst fuel that we can get into Dublin, namely bad turf. In addition to the exorbitant price which it is costing the consumer, it is costing the taxpayer a super-price over that of roughly £1 per ton. If private enterprise is prepared to bring in better fuel at a reasonable price without any loss to the State, why does it not get the facilities that the newly-created company, known as Fuel Importers, Limited, is getting? I am surprised, knowing the methods adopted by Fuel Importers, Limited, that turf is not costing £10 per ton in Dublin. No businessman in Dublin would put up with this company for five minutes. No business could be run in the way it is run except by making the taxpayer subsidise it. Let us remember that as far as firewood is concerned Fuel Importers are not dealing with the main industry itself. They are dealing with the by-product and the thinnings of the Forestry Division in its work throughout the country, which they pick up. I ask that the same facilities which are given to Fuel Importers, Limited, should be given to timber fuel producers and I would certainly urge also that private enterprise should get a chance in turf production. If private enterprise got a chance in turf production, and were guaranteed the facilities that are given to Fuel Importers, Limited, I am quite sure that more turf, and better and cheaper turf, would be available in Dublin City and county where it is so urgently needed.

The position is so alarming that those in representative positions in Dublin and Dun Laoghaire have a big responsibility imposed upon them to draw the attention of the Government to the conditions prevailing. A very large number of people are engaged in this wood fuel production. Not only are they not given petrol facilities to transport the fuel by road, but they are refused petrol facilities to supervise the work or to enable them to pay their men. In April last I had to pay out over £200 per week in wages in woods in a quiet part of County Wicklow. I had to supervise the work in various parts of the county, some of which were 30 miles distant from the others. Sometimes I had over 300 men engaged and all the petrol I was given for a van was three gallons. At the same time I could come into O'Connell Street and find it practically filled up with private cars. Of course, this is a matter outside the purview of the Parliamentary Secretary's Department but I merely mention it as showing the unfair treatment meted out to certain people who are dependent on petrol for transport of essential commodities. In my opinion Fuel Importers, Limited, has failed.

I have not the least hesitation in putting it to the Parliamentary Secretary and the Government that I could form a company in one month that would put turf, and fuel generally, on the Dublin market at no higher price than it is selling now without any loss to the taxpayer. That is a very big consideration when we remember that we have been informed that every ton of turf that comes to Dublin costs the taxpayer £1. If you can get private individuals that will provide turf for the citizens of Dublin at its present price without any loss to the taxpayer or the State, that is a matter worthy of consideration. It is not an empty boast. At the present moment I am putting one-quarter as much fuel on the Dublin market as the Parliamentary Secretary, who has the whole resources of the State behind him, yet I cannot get the same facilities as are afforded to Fuel Importers, Limited. I have been forced to send my fuel on a round journey of 30 miles when the direct journey is only 16 miles. Even the open coal trucks have been taken over for the use of Fuel Importers, Limited, and I am offered covered trucks. My men have refused to work them, and I have told the Government that the day they come to that definite decision I am shutting down and 200 men are going out of employment.

That is the position, not a year ago, but this moment, that I am putting quarter as much fuel on the Dublin market as the Parliamentary Secretary or the Taoiseach, after all their travelling around the country, with all the paraphernalia at their disposal, taking photographs here and there showing the effort that has been made. I have done that without any loss to the State, but now the whole thing is going to be obliterated because I will not get the same facilities as Fuel Importers, Limited. I can give the Parliamentary Secretary the names of dozens of industrial enterprises where steam is kept up by means of firewood and which will be compelled to close down if wood or some similar fuel is not provided for them. Everybody appreciates the difficulties of the Government and everybody knows that there is a shortage of petrol, that whereas formerly we were getting 20,000,000 gallons, we are now getting only 12,000,000 gallons.

If the petrol runs out altogether, we will have to work without any petrol, but while there is petrol there should be no favoured few in regard to it; it should be a case of share and share alike, and Fuel Importers, Limited, should not be in any privileged position.

I do not know whether this is a digression, but many people say that deforestation of the country may occur if wood fuel is used in very alarming quantities. If this country is embroiled in war, the youth of the country will be slain in its defence; if we have no fuel, then the provision of fuel becomes a necessary part of our defence, and why should we hesitate to slay a tree in defence of the country? I have built hundreds of houses, and I know the woods that are useful and the woods that are not. I say that this is a golden opportunity to get rid of the rotten muck of timber we have in the country. The sooner it is cut away, and its place taken by trees which, when they have matured, will serve some useful purpose, the better.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I regret to say that the Deputy was right when he feared he was going to digress.

Mr. Belton

But the argument has been put up that deforestation is destroying the countryside, and I wanted to put up the counter-argument. I want to say, in finishing with that aspect of the matter, that I have found from experience that most of those old trees are rotten, and a danger, and the sooner they are cut away the better.

I do not want to enter into the question of wages, though I hold as a very fixed belief that the basic wage of this country should be the agricultural wage. I do not believe that any labourer is entitled to more than the agricultural labourer is entitled to, or, to put it the other way, I believe that the agricultural labourer is entitled to the same wage as any other labourer gets. Agriculture should be the jumping-off ground for wage fixing in this country. Why not? Agriculture is the mother of our industries, so it is reasonable to say that agricultural labourers should not be paid less than those in other industries.

It is alarming news—it was certainly alarming news to me; this is the first time I heard of it—that after all the facilities given for turf production, the State had to come in to the extent of about 30 per cent. of a subsidy. Deputy O Briain deplored this, because he had great hopes of the turf industry. I never had any, and I know turf production. I am quite satisfied that this emergency has killed the name of turf in the City of Dublin. The people will never want to see a sod of turf again. Deputy O Briain is afraid that we will revert to coal. I say that every man, woman and child is longing for the day when we can revert to coal. Make no mistake about it. Turf was gradually being crushed out, even in the rural areas. How was it produced at all? It was simply dove-tailed with the farming economy of the people. Turf was produced in this way: about April or the beginning of May, when the mangolds and turnips were sown, the men on the land had a bit of free time, so they rushed out and cut the turf. I am sure that every Deputy here from the turf areas will corroborate this routine on the farm. They went out and cut the turf and spread it. Then perhaps they thinned the man golds and turnips, and if they had good weather they got the turf saved by the time the hay crop came in. When the days were too broken for the hay, they went to the bog. In that way, the people near the bogs had their turf, you might say, for nothing, because the people who produced it would have wasted away their time if they were not doing that. I think every Deputy from the turf areas will corroborate that statement.

It is a different matter altogether when you start industrial production: everything surrounding the industrial production of turf will be the same as in the case of industrial production of every other sort. There is a peculiar complex here that any fool is good enough to work on the farm, and any wage is good enough to pay him, but that workers who depart from agriculture and go into the simplest form of industrial work are superior to the agricultural labourer, and should get higher wages. I will not stress that point; I merely wanted to give an illustration. We will have plenty of time for finding fault later on. We are in a certain position now, at a certain time of the year, and this House should urge the Parliamentary Secretary to get on with the job. When the season for producing adequate turf has passed, we will then have an opportunity of taking him to task if he has not produced enough, or of complimenting him if he has.

We should urge him to get on with the job now, to ensure that enough turf will be produced, and to make enough transport available. I have said that Fuel Importers. Limited, the children of the Parliamentary Secretary and the Government in this matter, are getting what I consider preferential treatment. There should be equal treatment for all who are in fuel production; the Government should encourage all kinds of fuel production especially for Dublin City and the Borough of Dun Laoghaire. The quantities required there will be more than last year. Last year, many people had reserves in; they have no reserves this year. Last year, they had an unlimited supply of gas for cooking; on the whole, it was the principal means for cooking in the City of Dublin and the Borough of Dun Laoghaire. Now, one might say that gas and electricity are rationed. There was some coal of some kind available last year; there is none this year. We have to fall back then on the native fuel, turf and timber. The Government should see that the organisation which it has set up will work to full capacity and produce all the fuel they can. They should encourage private producers, and give them all the facilities at their command, so that they can get the maximum amount of fuel into Dublin City and the Borough of Dun Laoghaire. The one way to do that is to ensure that there will be an equitable distribution of the available supplies of petrol. Fuel Importers, Limited, should not be in a privileged position in that regard. When the time of reckoning comes at the end of the year it will be found that private enterprise—which has developed all new countries, and which has developed transport in this country, road transport, bus and lorry transport—is what will save this country, and not the clumsy mechanism of a State-controlled institution.

Mr. Byrne

The provision of an adequate supply of fuel for Dublin City and the Borough of Dun Laoghaire is one of the most serious problems the Government will have to face in a few months. I earnestly hope they will see to it that a supply is forthcoming and at a price which our people can pay, especially those people who buy in small quantities. The people who formerly bought coal in stone lots at 4½d. and 6d. per stone are not to be forgotten, and as well as thinking in terms of supply, the Government must also think in terms of their ability to pay the price for it. Even if these people cannot pay anything for it, I hold that they should be provided with adequate fuel for cooking and keeping them warm.

May I get some information as to the position on this debate? Yesterday we gathered that we were discussing all forms of employment and relief schemes, and I should not like this debate to close merely on the supply of fuel, and, later on, when anxious to talk about the unemployment problem in Dublin, as we know it, to be told that it was too late and that it should have been raised on this Vote. I want to ask the Government what steps they are taking to stem the tide of unemployment in various trades. There is, as we know, a shortage of material of various kinds. Timber and other materials for house building cannot be got and building operatives are going across the water in hundreds. Some of them we may never get back. The problem of unemployment to-day is the cause of separating more husbands and wives than ever before. I believe that 28,000 of our Dublin workmen crossed the water within the last few years. I grant that they are sending back good wages, which were urgently needed, but their wives are deprived of their company and they have to keep two homes. They have to look after themselves abroad and send half their wages home.

It is a matter with which the Government should try to deal. They should try to get our men home so that they may have the company of their wives and families, and that can be done by arranging for the provision of the necessary materials for the various trades, if at all possible. It is easy to tell an unemployed person that he can cut turf, and I know of young clerks, not too strong, who have been told that they could go and cut turf. They are not fit to cut turf. There is an element of the unemployed unfit for turf-cutting who ought not to be forgotten by the Government. Some steps should be taken to provide them with some form of employment suited to their ability. Building operatives have gone away and we have considerable unemployment in the motor trades. Shop assistants, tailors and drapery trade workers have become unemployed, and there is a very serious threat of considerable unemployment in the printing trades because of lack of supplies. The printing trade, as everyone knows, was one which paid reasonably good wages, and something should be done by the Government to ensure that employment in that trade is not diminished in the slightest.

It is worthy of note that, according to returns in this morning's paper, the Dublin Board of Assistance is paying out £4,000 in cash per week, which is paid by the Dublin ratepayers, without any assistance from the Government, to unemployed people. In addition, they are keeping 3,000 indoor patients who are in James's Street through no fault of their own. If employment was available, a number of these people might be prepared to come out and take up that employment, but there is none for them. I want to know what the Government is doing in the way of the preparation of schemes to be put into operation after the war to give employment. This week, the number of men registered as unemployed is 60,000 and the number of women and boys is 14,000. In addition to those who are registered, there is a very big number who do not register, so that those figures are not a true indication of the unemployment position.

We ought to be told something of what the future holds for those engaged in industries in respect of which there is a notable scarcity of materials. We ought to be told if the Government are making provision for shipping space to bring in the materials that have to be imported and if they have agents abroad. Has any Minister gone abroad to see if materials can be found? A few days ago, I referred to the printing trade and the Minister for Supplies told me that no shipping space for the import of paper can be given until next September. By September, a considerable number will be added to the unemployed list, and I earnestly hope the Government will make some provision for temporary employment for all those in trade or business who may be knocked out. You will not tell a clerk, a motor mechanic or a draper's assistant to go out and cut turf. If he is not fit to cut turf, he is only in the way, and he should not be deprived of any benefits to which he might be entitled because of inability to cut turf. I have seen letters from young men who were unable to cut turf, but who were deprived of benefit. I have seen letters from Government Departments telling young men who thought they were entitled to certain forms of unemployment benefits: "You are aged so and so and you can join the Construction Corps. You will get no benefits."

I hope I have not in any way interfered with the atmosphere in which this very serious problem of the turf supply has been discussed by introducing these matters. I did so lest I should be told next week that this was the occasion for raising them. I wish now to draw the attention of the House to a statement made by Deputy Belton.

Deputy Belton has stated to this House that as a result of his own private enterprise he is supplying one-quarter of the amount of fuel to the City of Dublin that the Government, with all their resources, are supplying, and yet that in connection with every step he takes to provide cut timber-blocks to the people of Dublin and Dun Laoghaire he gets no facilities whatever from the Government and that, in fact, the direct opposite is the case and difficulties appear to be placed in his way. That is not the way to treat a citizen, and I ask all members of the House to support Deputy Belton's request that private enterprise should get some chance, especially when these people are prepared to show such initiative and courage, because it takes courage to put one's life's savings into this business and compete with the Government or with a body of people who can fall back on the Government to cover their losses. Yet, Deputy Belton is refused petrol. He is refused the ways and means of getting in a good, substantial kind of fuel to our people. According to what Deputy Belton says, good, cut timber is a better type of fuel than turf.

Mr. Belton

Twice as good.

Mr. Byrne

I know that that is so because most of our people, if they get a chance of buying a sack or bag of wood blocks, will go out of their way to get the wood instead of turf. I do not think Deputy Belton is altogether right in his point about petrol to bring wood blocks into the city, because every day in the week I see lorries with two or three tons of turf.

Mr. Belton

On a point of explanation. Yes, you will see lorries coming into the city every day, but this is how it is done: every lorry-owner carrier gets a basic allowance of petrol, with which he can do whatever he likes, and then, of course, if he is lucky, he may get some petrol in the black market, and that is the petrol that you see bringing in the wood.

Mr. Byrne

Well, I think that the Government should encourage men of ability and enterprise, such as the Deputy who has just spoken. I think that they should permit trade rivalry, and it might be all the better for the people of Dublin and of the country generally, if they would permit it. Some time ago, the Dublin Corporation were very much alarmed about the possibility of getting fuel of any kind, and they made efforts to get in wood blocks. We were told, at first, by the Minister's Department that we could get wood blocks at so much per ton from a certain source, but we then found that the pieces of timber would be six feet, eight feet, and even ten feet long, which meant that, by the time it was cut up and distributed, the cost would come to about £5 or £6 a ton. Yet, Deputy Belton says that he can supply cut wood blocks to the City of Dublin at £3 a ton. That is by private enterprise, and I believe that at the moment there is a number of business concerns that are carrying on their industries by using wood blocks as fuel. Every encouragement should be given to those who are engaged in that business.

Mr. Belton

Most of the laundries are carrying on their business on wood blocks.

Mr. Byrne

I hope that when the Parliamentary Secretary is replying, he will not devote all his time merely to turf. The question of the production of turf, of course, is most important, but that atmosphere of turf, so to speak, ought not to prevent him from telling us what he is going to do with regard to the production of other forms of fuel, particularly having regard to the widespread unemployment in the city.

Mr. Lynch

I regret that I was not here for the greater part of Deputy Belton's speech, but I understand that he raised a matter which I have been asked to raise by the private turf producers in County Kerry. Their complaint to me was that all the railway wagons have been monopolised by Fuel Importers, Limited, to carry out their commitments in regard to Government schemes for turf production. I think that that is very unfair to private enterprise, and I am informed that there are thousands of tons of turf, produced by private turf producers in County Kerry, which cannot be removed, with the result that it is going to mean a very serious loss to the persons who are engaged in that business. It is extremely difficult to get to the bottom of this matter, because I wrote to the Great Southern Railways Company about it, and I had a letter stating that it is not correct to say that the company refused to place wagons at the disposal of private producers. The letter is as follows:—

"It is not correct to say that the company has refused to place wagons at the disposal of private turf producers nor is the statement that all wagons are reserved for the use of the county councils and Fuel Importers. The company is, however, committed to a very heavy programme for the conveyance of turf under the Government scheme. In addition every effort is being made to provide a reasonable supply of wagons for private producers, but of necessity this supply is limited. You may rest assured that every possible effort is being made to maintain a reasonable supply of wagons for the conveyance of turf for private producers, having regard to the conditions which prevail."

I thought that that was encouraging, and I sent it down to my correspondent, who is the secretary of a parish council in East Kerry, and he wrote back to me and said that from the railway company's letter:—

"It would appear that we have been making a false charge against them. But such is not the case. On the 2nd May, almost all stations in Kerry were ordered by wire from the traffic manager not to accept turf from private traders or individuals from Monday, 4th inst., unless for loading in covered wagons, and then only by special agreement. Later, a letter was received confirming this and stating that 2,000 trucks were to be set aside for the special use of Fuel Importers for the removal of Kerry County Council turf—the Government scheme referred to in your letter. In answer to letters since, the manager says that he is doing his best to provide wagons and that covered wagons may be used according as they become discharged. Against this, the railway officials are warned not to depart from the original order and they have also instructions not to load timber-blocks except in covered wagons. Fuel Importers are also the principal dealers in timber, and as they are suppliers to the Great Southern Railways they are also getting preference for covered wagons."

Now, if that is the position, it seems to me that it is certainly very discouraging to private enterprise anywhere, apart from the private enterprise of Deputy Belton in connection with the supply of fuel to Dublin. This means that all those persons who went into the business as a concern in which they might make something, while at the same time keeping an eye on the national necessity, are left to lose very heavily if they are handicapped in this way. The letter from which I have been quoting continues as follows:—

"Prior to the order, 50 or 60 wagons of turf were being loaded at this station weekly, but only seven or eight wagons have left within the past month although several applications have been made for a regular daily or weekly supply."

Mr. Belton

That was private enterprise turf?

Mr. Lynch

Yes, from this East Kerry station, prior to this order from the railway company. I think that this is a matter that the Parliamentary Secretary should look into, and that he should issue instructions to the railways that they are not to confine their wagons merely to the needs of Fuel Importers, Limited. He should give a fair crack of the whip to those people who have gone into this business out of their own private resources and as a result of their own private enterprise.

Mr. Norton

I just want to say a few words on this Estimate. I think that the striking characteristic of the Parliamentary Secretary's speech yesterday was its rather doleful tone, because quite clearly the Parliamentary Secretary was by no means happy about the fuel position in this country and still less happy about the turf production programme for the current year. I think he has good grounds to be unhappy, because instead of setting out on a turf production programme in a manner that would be calculated to get the goodwill and co-operation of those who produce the turf, the Parliamentary Secretary, acting, probably, as an agent for the Government, set out to antagonise as many of the turf workers as possible by fixing a very low scale of wages for those engaged in the very heavy and laborious task of winning turf from the bogs of this country. The biggest blot on our national turf drive is the appallingly low wage paid to the turf workers, those who produce the turf. In County Kildare workers are being asked to go into the Government camps and work for a wage of 32/- a week, less 5/- deduction for food, and less deductions for national health insurance and unemployment contributions, so that by the time the worker pays for what food he gets, as well as these contributions, he is left with a net wage of about 25/6. Do we expect turf to be produced by skilled workers in this country for that net wage?

A brave effort was made to popularise the meal which is being provided for turf workers. Members of the House were given the privilege of inspecting it in the dining-room, but the meal the Deputies see there is not the meal you see in Newbridge barracks. The general view of the workers is that it is insufficient, dull, uninteresting and unappetising. The whole policy behind those responsible for its production is apparently to stuff the workers with potatoes. The meal in the dining-room shows that the proportion of potatoes in it is much higher than that of any other kind of food. Is it any wonder that the turf workers have been leaving Newbridge barracks and cycling home to Donegal and Mayo where they may not be able to get employment? They must have some substantial grievance when they do that, rather than work for the low wages paid on the turf schemes and put up with the insufficient diet provided as part of their food ration in the camps. The best test that the food is insufficient is that the workers themselves, out of the small net wage they receive, are compelled to buy food in the towns in County Kildare to supplement it. If the accuracy of that statement is questioned it can be confirmed by having inquiries made from the local guards and shopkeepers.

About half a dozen camps have been put in the County Kildare. Every effort would appear to have been made to make them as attractive as possible. They are finished and ready for occupation, but there is not a worker in one of them. May I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary the reason for that as I gave it in this House two years ago, namely, that he will not be able to get turf workers to cut turf in the County Kildare for 32/- a week, less 5/- deduction for food and less the other deductions that I have mentioned, bringing their net wage to 25/6? This is the middle of June, and the anticipations were that turf would be cut in the parts of Kildare in which the camps are situated much earlier than now. Instead, the camps are like cemeteries. There are no workers housed there, and no turf is being cut in the area except what is being cut by private enterprise. The result is that very valuable time is being lost in these turf producing areas, time which would have been saved if only the Government had decided that it was not possible to get those men to work for the low wage of 32/- a week.

When a wage of 32/- a week was being paid on the Shannon Scheme some years ago it rightly evoked the condemnation of everybody except those responsible for its maintenance. But that wage at that time was substantially better than 32/- to-day, because the cost of living was much lower then. Yet the very Party which condemned the 32/- a week on the Shannon Scheme is responsible for the same rate of wages on turf schemes in living circumstances entirely different from those that prevailed when the Shannon Scheme was being carried out. I suspect that while it may be possible to get some workers into those turf camps it will not be possible to fill them with workers this year. But they ought to be filled with turf workers this year, and could still be filled with them if only the Government would recognise the necessity of paying a wage which would attract workers to them to cut turf in an area where the best turf in Ireland is to be found.

Let us analyse for a second the economics of this wage of 32/- a week. The worker, as I have said, has to pay out of that 5/- for food, and this with the other deductions leaves him with about 25/6 per week. Portion of that latter sum he has to spend on the purchase of food to supplement the inadequate meal he gets in the camp; he has to keep himself in cigarettes, to purchase refreshments, if he needs any, —he may occasionally visit the local picture house—and he has to keep a wife and family in Mayo or Donegal out of what is left—approximately £1 a week. Is it any wonder that so many of those workers have gone back to Donegal and Mayo?

The Parliamentary Secretary, in his speech yesterday, referred to the falling-off in turf production, and attributed it to an inadequate labour reserve. Is that to be wondered at, since agricultural workers in this State, if they cross the Border, are able to get a wage of £2 10s. 0d. a week? In addition, the Six-County Government have undertaken that, if they cannot give those men a full week's work at agriculture, they can go to the local labour exchange and get £2 10s. 0d. there, whether they work or not, so anxious are they to keep people on the land. Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that there are recruiting agents in this country for firms that require civilian labour in Great Britain? I have seen circulars sent out by them offering them £3 15s. 0d. for agricultural work at the other side, with opportunities for unlimited overtime, and the possibility of earning additional money on fire-watching services. In view of the conditions prevailing in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, is it any wonder that our workers should be leaving here? It may be, of course, that a number of them would be attracted away from the country in any case by high wages. I imagine, however, that the generality of them would be willing to remain at home if it had been possible to evolve a wage policy that would entice them to remain here. It seems to me to be something which is economically and nationally unsound to contemplate with complacency the export of our best workers to Great Britain. They are engaged in employment there, and send back to their families here British financial coupons which give their families a lien on our limited production.

One can understand the circumstances which drive these workers out of the country; one can understand the joy they feel at being able to send money back to keep their wives and children. A wise Government would take prompt steps to remedy the condition of affairs which drives these workers out of the country and permits them to send back here coupons giving them a lien on our limited production. Nobody can blame them for emigrating in these circumstances or for seeking work and wages elsewhere. The shame of that emigration rests on the Government and the responsibility for bringing it to an end also rests with the Government. I believe that even yet the Government will be forced off their 32/- a week wage. They ought to force themselves off it at the earliest possible moment because it is an unjustifiable wage. It is particularly unjustifiable when you see what is happening in the County Kildare in respect of wages paid by other persons. Hospitals' Trust employed turf workers in Kildare last year and employed them again this year and are paying from 50/- to 60/- per week. These workers are working within a stone's throw of the workers to whom the Government are paying 32/- a week. Goodwill, Limited, are employing men at from 60/- to 70/- cutting turf and they are satisfied with the quality, the output, and the tonnage cost. Yet the most the Government offer men for cutting practically the same class of turf is 32/- Hospitals' Trust have got willing, satisfied workers; Goodwill, Limited, have got willing, satisfied workers, a good output, a good quality of turf, and very efficient organisation. If the Government had the good sense to follow the wise lead given by these concerns, the Government would to-day have the turf camps full of happy, satisfied workers engaged in a co-operative effort to produce the maximum quantity of turf.

I should like to make a brief reference to the turf supplies in Dublin. I have seen a good deal of turf being carted through the city, and it seems to me that a lot of it is wet scraw, just suitable for starting a fire. The poor people who have to buy it might as well roll up paper in balls and put it in a grate, as use some of the stuff that is being sold; the only difference is that the paper would be dry, while this stuff is saturated with moisture. I have seen other turf delivered in bags, and when the bags were emptied it was simply turf mould suitable for bedding horses, but no use for lighting fires. I know that poor people in this city, and even people who are not poor, are being exploited by having that rubbish dumped on them. In my opinion, the public in Dublin who are compelled to pay 64/- per ton for turf are being shamefully exploited, because the turf which is being sold to them is not worth 24/- per ton. Turf for which they are paying 64/- can be bought on the roadside in County Kildare at 24/- per ton. Yet, Dublin people will not be allowed to buy Kildare turf. They must buy through Fuel Importers, Limited, and are obliged to take an amalgam of scraw and mould with a slight leavening probably of good turf.

I cannot understand how the Government can justify a price of 64/- per ton for turf. That sum obviously is not being absorbed in turf workers' wages, because I think a turf worker would produce three tons of turf for a week's wages. These wages, therefore, do not play a very important part in the 64/- per ton charged for turf. But, although the turf worker is being exploited by being compelled to work for a low wage, and the consumer is being exploited by being asked to pay 64/- a ton for turf, neither the turf worker nor the public is satisfied. Apparently, a whole lot of needless handling and hauling which takes place between the production and delivery eats up a very substantial portion of the cost of the turf. Last year—and I suppose it will happen again this year—we had the spectacle of bogs lying idle in Kildare while turf was being hauled from Mayo and Donegal. I said before, and I say again now, that commonsense demands that counties like Kildare, Offaly and Meath should be regarded as the reservoir for Dublin in the matter of turf supplies. It is nothing short of insanity in present circumstances to be bringing turf from Donegal and Mayo to Dublin. The cost is appalling, the waste of transport is appalling, and the shrinkage of the turf is appalling in a long-distance haul of that kind, and the cost of handling, loading and unloading is such as to send the price sky high.

Commonsense demands that counties adjacent to Dublin ought to be regarded as the reservoir for Dublin's turf requirements. But that is not happening. Many bogs in Kildare are not being worked. Instead of getting the good will and co-operation of people to produce turf in these areas where turf is available and where it can be easily transported, the Government appears to be concerned with saving its face in Kildare, Leix, Offaly, Meath and Westmeath by paying a low rate of wages instead of a rate of wages which would beget the enthusiasm of the turf workers in those areas and attract turf workers from other places to those areas which are convenient to Dublin.

I share the feeling of the Parliamentary Secretary that there will be less turf produced than last year. From what I see on my visits to the country, I am convinced that less turf is being cut this year than last year. This year we have new problems to face. We have the problem created by the fact that we are getting practically no coal now and, instead of producing less turf, we ought this year to be producing substantially more turf, because last year many people were able to fall back on the reserves of coal which they had. These reserves are now either exhausted or approaching exhaustion; but, instead of making a special effort to produce much more turf this year than last year, apparently the Government are quite satisfied with allowing a position to develop in which less turf is being produced than last year. Experts in connection with turf production who have surveyed our requirements estimate that no less than 50,000 workers will be required to satisfy the turf requirements of the country on the basis of our present coal imports. At present we are probably not employing even half that number in turf production and they are not properly organised and are not working to any kind of schedule.

From what I can see I can only conclude that by the end of the year there will be an insufficiency of turf and, because of the fact that it will have to be hauled long distances to supply Dublin the price this year will be higher than 64/-.

There may be a very considerable problem this year in view of the coal and petrol shortage in transporting the turf which Dublin requires. I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that, even though a blunder was made in fixing such a low wage for turf production, a wage which has not attracted turf workers, the Government should even now retrace their steps and not make in regard to turf the same mistake they made in regard to wheat. After telling us that 40/- was sufficient for a barrel of wheat, the Government retreated and gave 45/- and, when it was too late, they increased that to 50/-. If they had taken the bold step in the first instance of paying 50/- a barrel for wheat, we would not have had the wheat problem we had in recent months. If the Government will even now pay a decent wage to turf workers, I believe they can still retrieve the mistake they made in fixing such a low wage.

Mr. Flinn

I understand that Deputy Norton made a statement that there were no people in the camps in Kildare—that there was not a single worker in the camps in Kildare.

Mr. Norton

That was the position when I was there a fortnight ago.

Mr. Flinn

The total number of men there yesterday was 1,038.

Mr. Norton

In what camps? How many were there in Newbridge?

Mr. Flinn

In eight camps.

Mr. Norton

How many camps were idle in Kildare?

Mr. Flinn

There was a total of 1,038 men there.

Mr. Norton

How many were there at Newbridge and Edenderry?

Mr. Flinn

I will tell the Deputy later. His statement, however, is untrue.

Mr. Norton

How many hours are they there?

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Hurley has risen and must be heard.

Mr. Hurley

I think it is generally agreed that the fuel position for the coming winter is very dangerous and that there will not be sufficient fuel in the cities and towns. I am particularly interested in Cork, and I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary is equally interested. I should like to know what the position is there. I am aware that, owing to the class of turf brought into Cork last year, many people have a wrong impression of what turf really is. The stuff sold in the City of Cork last year as turf was not turf at all, in my opinion. I have seen such stuff thrown aside in the bogs, yet it was dumped into Cork and sold at very high prices.

This year a new Order was issued and people anxious to get in their own turf are not allowed to do so. I have a typical case, where a neighbour of mine who is partly unemployed went out with his brothers and bought a turf bank at Bottle Hill. He and his brothers know something about turf and they cut and saved a good deal of it. Now they cannot get a permit to bring in that turf. What is the object of preventing people like that from supplying their own needs? What injury is done to the community if those men bring in the turf they have cut? They had the energy to take over a turf bank and cut and save turf and now they will not be permitted to bring it in. Is it the intention that the people will have to go and purchase turf from recognised suppliers without any consideration at all for their own initiative and energy?

What is the purpose of this new Order? I think it is senseless. I discussed it with various people and they cannot see any point in it. If injury were done to the community, I quite agree that people should not be permitted to do anything like that, but the new Order, on the face of it, does not seem to be sensible. To my mind, if these people are anxious to bring in a couple of tons of turf they are helping in the emergency because that will mean so much less turf from the national pool. I have seen communications in the Press from people who have endeavoured to bring in turf and they have been prosecuted under this Order. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to explain the purpose of it, because to many people the whole thing seems senseless. Notwithstanding all the energy of the Parliamentary Secretary's Department, the county councils and other organisations, I am of the opinion that there will not be sufficient fuel for the coming winter in the cities and towns.

On the question of price, it is a fact that last year turf was cut in various parts of County Cork under the county council's scheme and they were prepared to sell it at £1 a ton on the bank. That turf is being sold in Cork City at £3 4s. 0d. a ton. How is the difference made up? Of course, there are haulage costs and there is something for storage, but there is a very big difference between £1 a ton on the bank and the £3 4s. 0d. charged to people in the City of Cork.

I should like to refer to employment schemes generally and to support the statement made by Deputy Davin with regard to the payment of the men engaged on those schemes. Within the past few years we had employment schemes in Passage West, which is a very depressed area, and at various times the men engaged found themselves without any payment for two or three weeks. I brought this matter to the notice of the Local Government Department and the secretary of the county council, but so far no arrangement has been made to eliminate that hardship.

Mr. Flinn

The local authority can pay weekly if they like to do so.

Mr. Hurley

The local authority said there were difficulties about finance meetings.

Mr. Flinn

They can make difficulties, but they can make weekly payments if they want to.

Mr. Hurley

Now that his attention has been drawn to it, I suggest the Parliamentary Secretary should not permit it to occur again. Last Christmas week there was considerable hardship in that area. The men who started work a short time before Christmas were without their pay for three weeks. They were in a bad way at Christmas time.

Mr. Flinn

Get your local authority to pay them. Those men can get their money at once if the local authority want to pay them. There is nothing to prevent them, so far as we are concerned.

Mr. Hurley

There is a condition of payment.

Mr. Flinn

There is nothing within the jurisdiction of the Dáil to prevent them paying these men.

Mr. Hurley

I agree, but I suggest that some method should be devised by which weekly payments could be made. Now that the matter has been brought to its notice, the Department should see to it that payments are made regularly every week and that the unfortunate people, who have at other times to live on home assistance or unemployment assistance, will get the few shillings they earn. There has been very severe hardship in connection with these schemes. It is not confined to Cork, because Deputy Davin referred to it yesterday. I have been informed by workers of the hardships they have suffered and I have tried to get over the difficulty with the local authority, but I am told there that the difficulty lies with the people higher up. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will do his part. He knows the area and the existing conditions just as well as I do and I am sure he is anxious to help.

About the 1st April the scheme in that area was closed down. I could understand it if people from that locality—I am speaking of the urban district—were drafted to turf work or agricultural work; there would then be some reason for it, but there is no turf in that area, nothing nearer than 20 or 30 miles. The men in that area were not drafted to turf or other work; they were simply thrown out of employment. I understand it is the rule of the Department where there is no work on the land or in turf areas, that these schemes would be continued. I put that to the Parliamentary Secretary for future consideration. There is no reason why work on that scheme should not proceed until it is finished. There is no reason to take men away from that work for any other purpose because employment is very scarce in that particular area. These points have been brought to my notice and I bring them to the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary for action.

Mr. Flinn

I do not know whether the House would allow me to get in before the adjournment so that we could tackle it on the next occasion. Practically the whole of my Department is held up in this matter and officials who should be engaged in active work are held up for the purpose of this discussion. If the House would consider letting us get in before the Adjournment it would certainly facilitate the production of turf.

General Mulcahy

Such part of the debate as remains to be carried through could, I feel, be shouldered by the Parliamentary Secretary on his own responsibility without holding any unnecessarily large number of officials here. In view of the number of very important matters that have been raised—and a few other speakers wish to follow—I think it would be a great mistake to limit the discussion especially when so much time has been taken up by turf and when that question has obscured the question of employment generally. I think the Parliamentary Secretary could dispense with officials.

Mr. Flinn

No, I am afraid I cannot. If Deputies desire to continue, we will continue. That is all that can be done about it.

Mr. Linehan

I do not think I will delay the Parliamentary Secretary very long because most of the ramifications of the turf scheme in County Cork have been covered by other Deputies from various viewpoints. The area in which I live is a very large turf-producing area, and the greatest grievance in that district is the situation in Cork City. The Parliamentary Secretary must be aware that quite recently there were prosecutions in the City of Cork against people from the Kanturk area who took turf by lorry to Cork City.

Mr. Flinn

I will buy every ounce of turf I can get in Kanturk from you. There is no difficulty about that.

Mr. Linehan

That is news to me.

Mr. Flinn

It has been declared.

Mr. Linehan

The one difficulty I see about turf production this year is that so much turf was left on the hands of private producers last year, people who produced good turf, who knew how to produce it and who produced a better quality turf than the Cork County Council produced. A great deal of it was left on their hands last year.

Mr. Flinn

I will buy every bit of turf from you that you offer at a reasonable price.

Mr. Linehan

It is a pity that was not done last year.

Mr. Flinn

I bought tens of thousands of tons of private turf.

Mr. Linehan

Will the Parliamentary Secretary be surprised to know that along the Cork-Kerry border, from Rathmore to Williamstown, there is plenty of last year's turf and nobody looking for it?

Mr. Cosgrave

Will the Parliamentary Secretary say why they are not ready to bring in that turf?

Mr. Flinn

That would take a little time to explain, and I am quite prepared to do so when I am on my feet, but I could not do it in a word.

Mr. Linehan

May I say that one of the peculiarities of the situation is— this may help Deputy Cosgrave to understand the position—that the manager of one of the largest firms selling turf in Cork giving evidence in the witness-box said that they were prepared to take that turf, but the risk of prosecution was very great because that turf was of better quality than the turf offered for sale in Cork by the people who were allowed to sell it there.

Mr. Flinn

That is quite possible. The turf that was offered to him by the State was good turf.

Mr. Linehan

The turf that was being taken in by lorry from the border country was being sold as cheaply as the turf that the Parliamentary Secretary considers good turf. I am not aware—and I challenge the Parliamentary Secretary to say—that the price asked for turf along that country is excessive. I will go so far as to say that even the turf that comes in by horse-load into the towns and villages at the present time is being sold slightly cheaper than it was sold last year, for the simple reason that a good deal of last year's supply is still on their hands. The Parliamentary Secretary may say to me: "What price do you want for the turf?" Would the Parliamentary Secretary say at what price private contractors in the Millstreet-Kanturk district are selling turf to the military in Mallow and Fermoy, and how much cheaper is that than the turf supplied in Cork City or anywhere else?

Mr. Flinn

If the Deputy has the figure I should be glad to have it.

Mr. Linehan

Is it a fact that first-class turf can be delivered to the military hospital at Mallow at 47/6 a ton?

Mr. Flinn

Tens of thousands of tons of turf are being delivered into the cities at less than 47/6 a ton.

Mr. Linehan

Exactly.

Mr. Flinn

But a lot of other turf is delivered at a much higher price, and we have to average it.

Mr. Linehan

I am quite satisfied that the turf delivered at that price is much better, to say the least of it, than a lot of the turf delivered at a higher price.

Mr. Flinn

We are delivering it at that price, but we are delivering other turf that is a lot dearer, and we have to average it.

Mr. Linehan

Will the Minister tell me how the private individual can afford to deliver turf at that price, and does not have to charge any more because he has to average his prices?

Mr. Flinn

I will, when I am replying.

Mr. Linehan

Along the border district there, east Kerry and north-west Cork, there are people who were coal merchants and people who were small transport lorry-owners whose business was dropping out simply because they had no goods to carry. They went into turf production although they were never concerned with turf production before. They operated in exactly the same way as the State. They took banks in the bogs, employed their own men and paid them. These people can sell good turf cheaper to the Army than, apparently, the State-producing body such as the county council can sell it. They are producing first-class turf. I am delighted to hear that the Parliamentary Secretary will buy all the turf we have. I wonder what is the difference in price between us. I have never heard and I do not think that the question of price in that district was so serious that it would prevent anybody buying turf there, because if the price were excessive it would never pay the turf merchant in Millstreet or Kanturk to hire his own men, pay them weekly wages and run lorries, in the present circumstances of running lorries, and deliver good turf to Cork City. They would not do it if it were not a paying proposition and it would not be a paying proposition if they had to pay too much for the turf. No man in that district would have at his disposal sufficient labour or sufficient capital to produce all the turf needed for his own small business. I would go so far as to say that 80 per cent. of the turf people take to Mallow and Fermoy is turf they buy from the private producers, farmers and other persons, who have been producing it all their lives. The man who is supplying good turf from the Cork-Kerry border to the military in Mallow hospital at about 47/6 a ton, cannot be paying an excessive price. He has to take the turf five miles to the station, then by rail and then by lorry to the Mallow military hospital. If he were paying an excessive price he could not afford to do that. I move to report progress.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again on Tuesday next.

The Dáil adjourned at 2 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 23rd June.