Vol. 88 No. 7
I move:—
That a sum not exceeding £50,264 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1943, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Finance, including the Paymaster-General's Office.
Will the Minister tell us anything about his Department apart from that? Will he not tell us anything about what his Department will do with the £50,000?
I told you all that in the Budget debate.
That was borrowing, as far as I remember.
Might we get a whisper of it now?
What is the procedure now?
Deputy Norton to move to reduce the Vote by a certain amount.
I was assuming that we would hear something about the Estimate itself.
The Deputy is a very innocent man.
It is not the custom for the Minister to give any details. It is not usual.
The House must have treated the Minister very gently?
Yes.
I am not moving formally to reduce the Estimate, but there are one or two matters which I want to raise. One is the matter of fuel, which comes under the Minister's Estimate by reason of the fact that the Parliamentary Secretary's salary appears there.
It is to be hoped that the Deputy does not want to initiate another debate on turf production.
No; I would sooner sing a requiem over turf production than have another long debate on it. I think there is occasion for placing a wreath over turf production, seeing the way it has been handled. I want to impress on the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance that the whole question of turf production is not being handled properly. I say that with all sincerity, and as one anxious to try, as far as possible, to convert our people to a turf-burning mentality. The Taoiseach worked himself into a white heat complaining of the cost of the transport of turf from Mayo and Galway to Dublin. I think it is perfectly fantastic to transport turf from Galway and Mayo and Donegal to Dublin under present circumstances. The nearest piece of imbecility to that is to try to cart sea-foam over that long journey. The commodity itself does not justify that long transportation; the cost of it is abnormally high, and in the long run the people who produce the turf get a low wage while the people who consume it pay a high price. Much as the Taoiseach may disagree, I think there is exploitation of the producer and exploitation of the consumer because of inability to relate the cost of production to the selling price to the consumer.
I suggested to this House two years ago that the sensible policy is to regard counties like Kildare, Offaly, Meath and Westmeath as turf reservoirs for the City of Dublin; that the sensible thing for the State to do is to concentrate its activities on producing turf in those areas on the maximum scale, and transporting it at the lowest possible charge to the City of Dublin. I think the Government mishandled the entire problem of producing turf in Kildare. There is most excellent turf in Kildare, stone turf, brown turf, yellow turf and white turf. You can blend stone turf with kindling turf, which gives the best possible results. Stone turf by itself will not make a fire in a grate. In a range or boiler it will burn, but anybody who tries to burn stone turf in an ordinary grate will find that it will not flame; it is just a dark red patch of combustibility. The County Kildare has enormous turf deposits. Meath, Westmeath, and Offaly could also make a very substantial contribution to providing Dublin with turf. But instead of trying to organise workers to pro duce turf in those nearby counties, and paying a reasonable rate of wages for the production of that turf, the Government embarked upon a policy of paying a wage of 32/- a week in the turf camps in County Kildare, less 5/- for food and 1/5 for unemployment insurance and national health insurance contributions.
The Deputy has surely not lost sight of the fact that there was a three days' debate on turf production.
No, and at this stage I do not hope to get any improvement this year, but I did hope to plant in the Taoiseach's mind and heart some seed of sensibility in respect of turf production which will keep the Government from repeating the mistake it made this year. I believe you could have got workers to fill the camps in Kildare this year if you had paid a good wage.
It is like the question of the price paid for wheat. The argument was that if there had been a sufficiently high price for wheat we need not have worried about anything else.
I am not quarrelling with the price of wheat. I think the price of wheat is all right in present circumstances. I think the problem of wheat is the problem of the bad yield from the crop. Perhaps that problem could have been got over if we had taken steps long before this, but that is an academic issue now. I believe if you had offered the workers a decent rate of wages in County Kildare——
What would the Deputy suggest as a decent rate of wages?
I suggested to the Parliamentary Secretary early this year that a decent rate of wages was probably something on which he and I would differ, but I also suggested that he should call a conference between representatives of the turf workers and himself and try to iron out there a rate of wages which would attract workers to those camps. In that way he would have got enthusiasm for the production of turf, co-operation in the cutting of turf, and, in the long run— this is important—he would have got turf on a bogside 30 miles from the City of Dublin. Instead of that, what did we do? We engaged in the foolish task of carrying turf from Donegal to Dublin. A good deal of the turf was lying in railway wagons for a couple of days before it was transported. When it came to Dublin it was sodden with moisture. If the Government had gone ahead with the camps in Kildare, paid a reasonable rate of wages to the workers there, and generally indicated that they wanted those areas to produce the maximum quantity of turf for the City of Dublin, I believe that they could have got very much better results from the County Kildare and other neighbouring counties than by paying the low rate of wages which has been paid in those camps this year. More than ever this year we need people to win turf for fuel.
This year we have less people engaged in the production of turf than last year. We are getting no coal now, whereas last year we got coal and there were reserves of coal here. The harm is done this year, and people in the cities will have to pay for the short-sightendness of Government policy with regard to turf production. Some effort ought to be made at the end of this year, and before next year's campaign is on the way, to exploit the peat deposits near Dublin, and to pay a reasonable rate of wages to workers engaged in turf production. The matter of determining what is a reasonable rate of wages can be discussed between representatives of the turf workers and the Government. I believe that if the Government take that line they will get a greater quantity of turf produced next year, and that turf production will run smoothly and efficiently, which has not been the case this year.
I want to make an appeal to the Minister for Finance in respect of another matter. The Minister knows that in 1932 and 1933, a very large number of civil servants, many of them very lowly-paid people, retired on pension when the cost-of-living index figure was 50 or 55. Their pensions are governed by what is an overriding maximum, and that overriding maximum provides that a person retiring will retire on the index figure appropriate to the quarter immediately preceding that on which he retired, and provides that while the pension may go down if the cost-of-living index figure falls, it can never go above the point applicable to the pension when he retired. To give an example, a man may have retired when the cost-of-living index figure was 50, and if it fell to 25 he would suffer a reduction in the ratio of 50 to 25. On the other hand, if the cost-of-living figure rises to 150, he could never go above 50. That is manifestly an unfair position. In normal peace times it did not work out in the same way as it works out to-day. Here is the position that exists. For instance, an officer in the post office might have retired on a pension of 25/- or 30/- weekly, measured by the index figure of 50. The index figure would now certainly average 140. Quite obviously a man who retired when the index figure was 50 is suffering very grave hardship if the index figure rises to 140. If the pension was inadequate, as most pensions of lowly-paid people are inadequate, when the index figure was 50, how much more inadequate is it when the figure is raised to 140? Apart from his official position, I am sure the Minister realises the hardship that must be imposed in cases of that kind. While I do not expect the Minister to give a definite answer now, I ask him to examine the matter sympathetically, with a view to making some adjustment in the pension regulations, which will enable persons in that position to have the index figure varied in any upward direction, thus increasing the amount of bonus on pensions. The cost would not be considerable. I feel sure that if the Minister examined the equity of the case he would realise that there is considerable merit in it, and that ordinary justice demands that some effort should be made to remedy the hardship which many lowly-paid pensioners are enduring.
Some time ago I raised a matter with the Minister concerning ten or 12 officials of the ordnance service. At the time there was but one case, but I rather think it governed the others. In this particular case a man entered the service and was promoted surveyor unestablished on May 6th, 1903. He was one of a number of civil servants who were given the option in 1915 or 1916 of joining the Army or taking his discharge from the service. He took his discharge. He was reinstated in February, 1924, and it appears that he would require to have served 15 years from 1903 before he would be an established official, and then 7½ years of that time would qualify for pension. Perhaps it might be as well if I read counsel's opinion in this case.
"I have carefully considered querist's position in the light of his career as set out in his letter of April, 1940, and, in my opinion, he has real grounds for complaint. In my opinion, when querist was reinstated in February, 1924, and obtained a certificate from the Minister for Finance under Section 2 of the Superannuation and Pensions Act, 1923, he was entitled then to claim that he had unestablished service from the date of his appointment as surveyor unestablished on the 6th May, 1903, up to the date of the reinstatement. The certificate of the Minister of February, 1924, was correct and in accordance with the statute in dealing only, as I understand it did, with the period between the dismissal on the 31st March, 1916, and the date of reinstatement. The section does not authorise or require a certificate in respect of the period of previous service. The section provides that the period between dismissal and reinstatement is to be added to the periods of service which he is otherwise qualified to reckon under the Superannuation Acts. If it be necessary further to define what period is intended, Section 7 (f) of the Superannuation Act, 1936, makes it clear that the period is to include the period of the person's service within the meaning of the Superannuation Acts in any British Civil Service.
The position of querist, therefore, in February, 1924, was, in my opinion, that he had nearly 21 years' unestablished service and he was entitled to any rights which that service gave him. Unfortunately, they gave in themselves no right to superannuation claims and all that can be claimed is whatever querist was entitled to under the Minute of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries of the 5th December, 1906, relating to the ‘superannuation of certain temporary civil assistants employed on the Ordnance Survey'. This minute provided that every civil assistant should enter the service in an unestablished capacity and should not be eligible for the establishment until he has served for 15 years. The minute provides that ‘at the end of that period if the board desire to retain his services he may be placed on the establishment subject to his obtaining a certificate of qualification from the Civil Service Commissioners'.
It will be seen, therefore, that after 15 years' service unestablished querist was eligible for the establishment subject to obtaining a certificate, and if established would be entitled to reckon one-half his previous service for superannuation. There was, however, no right to be placed on the establishment and all that can be said is that on reinstatement in February, 1924, querist was eligible to be placed forthwith upon the establishment and to reckon one-half of his service of 21 years for superannuation. In my opinion, querist was in justice entitled to this treatment.
Apparently the course taken was to assert that querist's unestablished service began only on the date of his dismissal and he was required to complete 15 years from that date before being established. I can see no justification whatever for fixing the date of his dismissal as the commencing point. The section referred to is quite clear that on reinstatement the officer is deemed to have continuous service from the date of his actual appointment and the effect of the certificate and the reinstatement is simply to blot out the interruption of the service.... I cannot see, however, that any legal claim could be formulated in the courts."
During my term of office in the Government, civil servants who were affected were provided with compensation in respect of the period of disturbance around 1915 and 1916. This is a case in which, apparently, a man does not get that treatment. He was dismissed from the service in 1916. He had then some 13 years' unestablished service. He was taken back in 1924. The claim I make is that he was entitled to add those eight years he was out of the service, for political reasons, to his 13 years of service, which would make 21 years. He claims to be entitled to add ten and a half years in the computation of his pension. That is not an unreasonable claim. There are not many of these cases. I should be sorry to think that any section of those in the service of the State should feel that they did not get the treatment meted out to others. In this case, the man got the option of joining the Army. He had been a civil servant from 1903 to 1916. We have always taken the view that no man should be prejudiced by reason of his taking a position of that sort. This man's remuneration was about £400 and he goes out on a pension of about £68. I do not think that it is unreasonable to ask for the additional years. I can forward to the Minister, if he wishes, any of the papers in the case which would enable him to reconsider it.
These are the only cases which could be alleged against either Government, so far as I know, of treatment which is harsh. If I understand correctly, the most he could be asked to do would be to give one or two additional years after re-entering the service to qualify for his 15 years. Having regard to the hardship he suffered, these eight years might be regarded as years of service for the purpose of the Superannuation Acts. From 1924 to 1940 would be only 16 years. Add ten and a half years to that and we get 26½ years. The man is now 65 years of age, and he has given 37 years' service. If, in this connection, the section provides that two years' service will only count for one for superannuation purposes, it is obvious that there is additional hardship. The man has no legal redress, but he has a strong case, morally and nationally. He should not be prejudiced by reason of his dismissal in 1916 for exercising what would be re garded as his right.
I intervene on account of the remarks made by Deputy Norton regarding turf production. I find it difficult to understand him when he suggests that Government policy was to get turf from distant parts of the country and not from places close at hand. Some time last year, it was announced in the House that the greatest possible effort was to be made to get turf in areas not far removed from Dublin. A certain quantity of turf was cut last year, and is available in counties like Donegal, Mayo and Kerry, but the policy was to try to get turf cut at the nearest available places to the principal centre at which it was required—Dublin—so as to save transport. We set out to build camps for that purpose. There was considerable difficulty as regards supply of raw materials, and there was not, I think, the progress that the Parliamentary Secretary had hoped for in that regard. The difficulty regarding this question seems to be whatever difference there is between Deputy Norton's view and my view. The Government's view, my view and the view of the Parliamentary Secretary, I think, correspond with Deputy Norton's views—that if it were possible to get turf produced in Kildare, it would be an ideal way of meeting the difficulty. We are agreed that the turf is there, but the manpower was not there. It was difficult to get accommodation for the workers, and there was a certain amount of expense in that regard. From that point of view, Deputy Norton and we are at one.
The only point that appears to arise is that concerning reasonable wages. I do not think that anybody would be more pleased than the Parliamentary Secretary to get an understanding as to what the wage should be to get turf produced there, provided the understanding was reasonable. If we had some kind of common understanding as to what "reasonable" means—if "reasonable" were interpreted in a reasonable way—I think that the Parliamentary Secretary would welcome a proposition of that kind. We must remember that the price paid for the production of turf in Kildare would have an influence on the cost of turf everywhere. I am not sure that it need necessarily be so, but the tendency would be for a person doing the same type of work in Mayo to ask why he should not get the same wage as was being paid in Kildare. The wages paid in Kildare would not alone affect the price of turf here in Dublin but might affect the price right through the country. I do not know whether the Deputy, from the labour point of view, is in favour of trying to get it by piecework. Some people, not accustomed to cutting turf and not knowing how to do it, would not be nearly as effective as those who know how to do it. There should be a reasonable wage—if you could get agreement as to what a reasonable wage is. Above that certain minimum given to everybody in the production of turf, there should be the possibility of paying by results. The people the Parliamentary Secretary would like to see at that work are those who would produce as much as can be produced by a man working at a reasonable rate. We all know that, in the turf counties, men did earn very much more than the wage that would be paid to those who are not good turf cutters. If there really was that spirit of reasonableness that the Deputy suggests, I am surprised that there has not been more progress. I am perfectly certain that the Parliamentary Secretary would welcome any suggestions with regard to wages. I think the Deputy has over-estimated the number of people we could get into Kildare to produce turf. The estimates we got were not anything like sufficient to produce the amount needed for Dublin.
That was after the rate of wages was announced.
I am not so sure: the estimate was made long before that. People producing near their own homes and paid by piece-rate could earn very much more than the ordinary labourer coming into Kildare from one of the turf counties. If we had enough local labour in Kildare, it would be a different matter. When we were examining the possibilities, we did not feel we would get enough men there to produce the quantity required and, very unwillingly, we had to go outside Kildare. I have not read all the Parliamentary Secretary's statements here, but I know his general attitude to this problem. He approached it in a very reasonable way, trying to make the production as economic as possible, so that we might have turf for the people who wanted to purchase fuel. When he could not get sufficient labour in Kildare, he went in a ring outside that county, but even then there was not sufficient labour available.
There have been strikes, even in the outlying places, over the low rate of wages.
The whole question of wages is a difficult one, as you have one set of wages reacting on another. Both food and fuel are important, and it would be disturbing to transfer workers from the land and from turf production to something else. We must make the rates for these things as attractive as for other types of work. Wages paid in various occupations throughout the country must be taken as a whole, as there is a reaction of one on the other. For instance, if there were a big difference between the wages for road work and for agricultural work, there would be many people leaving agriculture to work on the roads. If it is suggested, then, to bring up the wages of the agricultural worker, that brings in the question of the price at which the farmer can produce, with its effect on food prices.
There is no disposition to be in any way unreasonable, and I think it would be contested that the rates suggested were unreasonable. I am not in an absolute position to form any definite opinion, but I know that the approach on the part of the Parliamentary Secretary was one of reasonableness. The idea was to have turf produced as near as possible to the city. I say that so that, if there is a difference between us, we may know where it lies.
The Taoiseach said that there is not sufficient labour in Kildare to produce the quantity of turf required for Dublin City. That is incontestably true. How did the Turf Controller imagine that he would get workers to go into Kildare to live under a Government camp scheme at 32/- per week, when the county council was paying 36/- for wheelers and 48/- for sleánsmen? Why should a man living in Kildare throw away a job at 48/- to go into a camp at 32/-? This whole thing seems to be based on theory and not on practice. A good sleánsman in Kildare can earn 10/- and 12/- a day at turf cutting. Unless the man is a certified lunatic, he will not go into a camp and work at 32/-. If an ordinary private person, cutting turf for sale in competition with the merchants, finds it profitable to employ sleánsmen at 10/- and 12/- a day, how does the Government hope to get men into a camp at 32/-?
I do not think the Government had any idea of doing that at all.
That is the way it worked out. The Government were paying 32/- a week, while men could earn 10/- and 12/- a day. Not satisfied with that, the Government went further. Hospitals Trust employed people last year in Kildare and paid them £2 10s. and £3 to cut turf, but they would not be allowed to do that this year and were told they must take workers from Dublin. You might as well ask people to go down and kick the turf out of the bogs as expect it could be cut by those who have not been trained to do it. The Guild of Goodwill were paying £3 10s. and £3 15s. but they were not allowed to pay those wages this year and employ local workers: instead they were told they must get people from Dublin. All that has caused a very bad atmosphere. I suggest that, in this matter, we should get off the book and on to the bog, and let those who are engaged in the work put their views forward. I want to help the Government, on the condition that decent wages are paid and that there is co-operation.
The Government are looking for co-operation, and no one wants it more than the Parliamentary Secretary.
Did they give co-operation?
I think so.
The word "reasonableness" was used as the basis of all this. I have been faced by some of my constituents, clamouring about the shockingly high price of turf and the shockingly bad quality. It was said here that, as a general rule, the turf is not bad, but there is a large amount of very bad turf in the city.
I wonder if the Deputy is quite sure of that.
I have my own experience, in the first place. I have bought from a variety of people—from recognised coal merchants and from others who were offering turf at various times—and I must say that I thought a large percentage of what I got was good turf, until I went into County Kerry and saw really good turf there. I know that quite an amount of really bad turf has come into the city. Even if it were good, people ask why the price is so high. It is 64/-, or something like that, at the moment, while it appears here from the Estimate that the Government is giving a subsidy at the rate of £1 per ton. How can you ask people in Kildare to be reasonable and to take 32/-, to get the turf out, when they know that it is being sold here at 64/- and that there is a Government subsidy of 20/-?
Can the Deputy point out where the leakage is?
I wish I could get the figures, go into them, and find out. At any rate, I know one thing that it cannot be: it is not the price paid to the person who owns the bog. That would be only an infinitesimal fraction of the whole cost. I remember that, by way of a question here in the House, I mentioned cases of people who were getting only a few pence, and it was thought that I was wrong. I was rung up by officials of the Department to know if I had made a mistake, but what I had stated was correct, and the Parliamentary Secretary stood over it. There was to have been arbitration in connection with it, I understood, but that was over 14 months ago and there has been no arbitration since. Of course, I admit that the place I am talking about—it was in Galway, as a matter of fact—would not bear comparison with other places, on account of the differences, but in any case the price to the owners is only an infinitesimal part of the final cost. Take the case, however, of a worker who comes here to Dublin from, let us say, my own part of the country, up in the north-west, and who knows what he has to pay for turf here in the city, and then goes down to Kildare to work on the bogs there and only gets 32/- a week in wages: he wonders what is the reason for the extraordinary discrepancy between the wages he gets and the price at which the turf is sold. There is no use in expecting a reasonable attitude from that man until he gets a first-class analysis of the figures and is told why there should be this enormous difference.
Apart from that, however, this whole question of turf looms before the minds of the people of this country as the greatest mess that was ever made. If we go back to what I said last night, the one thing that, we have been told, we have a superabundance of in this country is turf, and we were told by one Minister, when he was in charge of that Department, that, so far as the transport problem is concerned, it had been well thought out, but no thought seems to have been given to the fact that the Great Southern Railways Company could not haul the turf here to Dublin because they were allowed to enter the war period with only one week's supply of coal. According to the report of the tribunal on transport that was then sitting, the railway company had only one week's supply of coal. That report was in the hands of the Government in the summer of 1939 and was made public at about the end of August, 1939, and yet they left the situation there. What did they do? We are told that the idea of the turf-cutting programme in Kildare is to get the turf cut and won as near to Dublin as you can get it. I remember the farce that took place last year, when Donegal was thronged with people cutting turf, and they cut so much turf that it is lying there at the moment rotting.
It will not rot.
Well, it is deteriorating at the moment. Why is it left there?
There is the question of transport.
It is not so much a question of transport as because the roads into the bogs broke down under the weight of the lorries. Then, we all remember the farce about the boat that came around the coast to Dublin.
That was just an experiment.
The Taoiseach himself, I think, and the Parliamentary Secretary, and a crowd of officials went down to welcome the boat. Since the famous boat that broke through the boom at the Siege of Derry, I do not think any boat was ever received with such enthusiasm, and the captain boasted that he had not lost one sod. One would think that he had come through mine-infested waters. I think that that farce was gone through even a second time, and an attempt was made to have Donegal come to our rescue. Even that little bit of our territory in the north-west was going to be of use to us, and we were told that the sea passage was grand and we would get plenty of turf. But all that, evidently, has faded out; we did not hear any more about it and Donegal, as a turf area, is more or less abandoned, as far as the city is concerned. Take any one part of the whole scheme in connection with turf, and you will find that there has been a mess all along the line, and, instead of being better off than we were last year, according to the Parliamentary Secretary, we will be worse off this year.
Yes, indeed we will.
And it does not appear that they have learned anything. I can understand the repercussion of an increase of wages to one body of workers over the whole field, but the Government have that under control. I think their way was the wrong way to control it, but they have it under their control and they can prevent a spread of it, and if it was a question of the difference between relieving a certain amount of anxiety with regard to the coming winter's supply of fuel as against an increase of a few shillings a week in wages, that might have induced a larger gathering of workers to go down to Kildare, I think the balance would swing in favour of paying these increased wages as an emergency matter, as something that we must face up to, and possibly as something that might mean a little extra taxation in order to pay them. Instead of doing that, we have let the best part of the season go. We have let the workers go, and there is no way of inducing them to come back. No matter what efforts are made, or what talk you have about the spirit of reason, I do not believe you will get these workers back until they get a satisfactory explanation of the vast gap that there is between the wages they are paid and the final price of the turf.
The figures were given here, and I admit that they surprised me.
They were extreme figures. They were figures for Galway and Mayo.
I had figures for Westmeath also.
I heard figures quoted of what was called the average all-over cost of production, taking in wages, what was paid to the owners, cost of transport—the figures for transport, of course, differed according to the various circumstances—but these figures did not induce me to believe that they had been reduced down to the smallest point, except in regard to wages; and it is the fact that these people believe that their wages have been pared down to the most meagre point, while other costs have not been pared down, that accounts for the absence of the spirit of reason which the Taoiseach deplores. I do not think it can be said to be unreasonable if these people are curious to know the causes of these discrepancies. We are all curious.
So am I curious.
Well, we want to get our curiosity satisfied, and the whole turf scheme, in the minds of the people, is just an unexplained mess. There is not even a defence put up for what has happened. Take the last thing which emerged in the course of the debate on the Central Bank Bill: the question of the way the local authorities were salted when they wanted to get an advance of finances for five months, in relation to a commodity which was bound to be sold and for which the price had been pretty nearly guaranteed to be such as would remunerate all expenses, and yet the county councils, in respect of the advance that they wanted, were salted to the tune of 4 per cent. At no point does there seem to be anybody treating this thing in a large way. There are only niggling, half-hearted attempts, and when attempts at one plan fail, they advance a little to another plan, and it seems to me that, until these figures are explained and made clear to the public, you will not get rid of the sense of annoyance amongst the public at having to pay the price that they have to pay for turf, and the sense of grievance amongst the workers on account of the low wages they get compared with the price at which the turf is sold.
Taking the figures that were given on different occasions here, in reply to Deputy Mulcahy, of prices at the different periods, cost of transport at different periods, and average cost of transport, when the turf came from Kildare, and so on, I think it will be found that transport alone does not justify the difference in price.
There is the handling also. The trouble was that there was a great deal of handling. It was not as if the turf were run through; it had to be handled two or three times.
But transport alone, and even the handling, did not seem to justify the difference in price.
It was very costly.
In one place it would be comparatively low and in another place comparatively high. The figures given, as far as I remember, were the cost to the rail. In many instances that was all that was taken into account, and still the price went up tremendously. I, personally, studied these figures and I could not make out what was the explanation.
The biggest items in the cost that struck me were the handling and rehandling.
Bringing it to the rail was allowed for in the figures, I think.
Yes, but there were also the costs of going into the bog, bringing the turf out to the road, loading it there and bringing it to the rail, then bringing it by rail to Dublin —whatever the distance might be—and then there were the costs of taking it from the rail and loading it on the lorry and unloading it again, and if it went to a dump it added tremendously to the cost, because you had to add on further handlings and rehandlings. These would appear to me to be the items that, relatively, added most to the cost, but I must say that I myself was completely, I shall not say bewildered, but astounded, at the additions in the cost from the time the turf was cut on the bog until it was landed here in Dublin. Then there was the further addition—this is one of the things that I wanted to get, but I have not seen it—of the costs afterwards as it went to the consumer.
There is no doubt that at the present time there is no question of the State trying to make money out of this. The position is quite the opposite. You cannot sell it at all, apparently, at the price it costs. The 64/- per ton is not paying. The turf cutter, like every primary producer, just looks at the intermediate stages which appear to run away with a great deal of the money. The farmer, when he looks at the price the food he produces realises here in the city, he sees a big gap. It is very hard to feel that such a big gap is justified unless you get the details. I agree that organisation ought to aim at trying to get at the root of that gap so that both the primary producer and the consumer will both benefit. Organisation ought to aim at making that gap as small as possible. In the case of turf, the cost of rehandling adds to the ultimate cost to the consumer.
Is it true that the cost of turf in Dublin of 64/- per ton does not pay?
So I am told.
Even supposing there was an estimate for shrinkage, it is quite obvious, if the figures supplied to us are correct, that the estimate for shrinkage could not justify the price of £3 4s. a ton. Where does the grant go—the money that was intended to bridge the gap?
That whole question has got to be settled.
There is no provision in the Book of Estimates for shrinkage.
It was intended originally.
There is provision of £493,000 for the production of turf in the non-turf areas, and after that comes development.
On one occasion we were simply deluged with figures. The figure that bewildered me more than any other was that for shrinkage to which Deputy O'Sullivan has referred. When I saw it I felt that someone was pulling wool over somebody else's eye. I think there was a sum of 12/6 per ton allowed for shrinkage. We might take that to represent one load in, say, every seven. If there was actual shrinkage to that extent, then, in my opinion, the turf was not there to be handled in the end, and could not carry the handling costs to which the Taoiseach has referred. If you are going to make a deduction for shrinkage, the estimate for that ought to have some relation to the original cost of the turf and not to what one may call the finishing or delivery cost.
The point is that shrinkage takes place the whole way along the line. I do not say that an attempt is made to weigh the turf all along the line. I take it there is an estimate of the weight when it is being put into the dumps, and that it is only weighed again when it is being sent to the consumer. I imagine that is the position. An estimate of the weight has to be made when you are paying the producer. I do not know at what point they do that. It may be when the turf is being put on the railway trucks. At that time the turf is comparatively fresh. If it has been well dried out there will not be as much ultimate shrinkage as if it had not been. It may happen that when it is being transported by rail some rain may fall on it.
The Taoiseach is allowing for a good night's rain.
I am making the admission that if it is carried in certain weather that will have a certain effect on it, especially if it is being carried in open wagons. The aim should be to transport it in summer weather, if at all possible. At any rate, from the time at which it is put on rail until it is delivered to the consumer, the shrinkage that takes place represents a very substantial figure and that, of course, has to be taken into account, because you pay the man in the bog in terms of the amount that he has produced, and, ultimately, you will get from the consumer payment in terms of the weight that he gets.
My submission is that it ought not to be a percentage of the all-in cost. I maintain that if a man buys 100 tons of turf at X price, his delivery cost will be X plus Y, and that if there is shrinkage in the dump, or in any other place, it ought not to contain portion of the delivery costs.
When you are estimating the delivery cost by itself, there is a smaller number of tons to be transported.
When the matter was raised here before I understood that the shrinkage cost was a percentage of the all-in cost. I say that is not right.
With regard to particular items, I cannot say anything in the absence of the figures.
The ordinary private turf cutter in Kildare can sell a ton of turf on the roadside, adjoining the bog, at 30/- and, in some exceptional cases, at 35/-. Let us take 30/- as the average price. What must the ordinary consumer think when the turf sold to him costs 34/- per ton in Dublin, plus 30/-? That is the commodity which was dug out of the bog in Kildare, reared, footed and ricked and transported to the roadside and sold there at 30/-. By the time the consumer in Dublin gets it, it costs him 34/- on top of that 30/-. How can the 64/- per ton be justified? And remember that the turf cutter, who sold the turf on the roadside in Kildare at 30/-, has made a profit out of cutting it at that price.
Neither the Parliamentary Secretary nor the Government is out to make a profit out of it. Whatever the ultimate cost is to the consumer is due to the expenses that have been incurred from the time the turf left the bog until it reached the consumer. Naturally, the consumer objects when he sees the gap that is there. In ordinary times we would have less handling if we had petrol available to take the turf straight from the roadside to the city. If it were possible to transport the turf direct from the roadside to the consumer you would not have additions of the sort to which the Deputy has referred. It is the re-handling and the difficulty in regard to transport that, apparently, add to the cost. The Parliamentary Secretary gave the figures. I remember reading them in the House here when I think the Deputy was present. I got these figures. I did not make them up. They were given to me as representing the costs, and I read them out and I asked where any of these figures could be reduced. If you say to me that it is terrible that we should have to pay 64/- in Dublin for something for which the producer in Kildare, not a long distance away, only gets 30/-, I can only say: "There are the costings; that is what it cost to bring it from Kildare to Dublin." It is unfortunate that Dublin is not beside it and that the transport is necessary, but it is necessary.
Shrinkage is also one of the items. If turf is to be bought and sold by weight, then undoubtedly the shrinkage will add to the ultimate cost and will account for a difference. If the shrinkage is one-fourth, you can easily see that that would be adding really one-third to the cost. To get a ton in Dublin, you would have to get one and one-third tons in Kildare. Therefore, if you take the price at the bog, you will have to add one-third to the 30/-, and that would make it 40/-, so that the production of the turf on the bog would be really 40/-; that is the actual turf which would be burned or bought by the consumer. The production of that would really cost 40/-. Shrinkage is a very important item in adding to the cost.
I think the Taoiseach's estimate is unduly high.
I only took it as a calculation.
There is one thing which is akin to fuel; I do not say that the Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister has anything to do with it, but I was asked to raise it here. It is in connection with the way in which gas is restricted in this city. The Electricity Supply Board have instituted a scheme of economies under which they deprive people of the benefit of using electricity for certain needs. They compel them to make certain economies and restrict them to a certain percentage in their two months' bill. The Gas Company seek to do the same thing, but they add that they will not allow people to use gas except during certain hours. Nobody knows why. I imagine the Government must have received many representations in regard to this matter. It is a matter they might have regulated by an emergency Order. I do not see why a private company in an emergency like this should be allowed to act of their own free will, when what they did has repercussions on matters of heating and lighting, without giving some explanation. They insist on people getting home at certain hours and getting out of bed at certain hours. People have to prepare meals in the early hours of the morning and food values are being wasted in an attempt to keep food hot until such time as the individuals who have to consume the food get home. The hours fixed by the Gas Company are not popular or hours which suit the generality of people. Why they have to do that nobody knows. I know a number of people have communicated with them, and the only answer they got was that this was the scheme, and it could not be changed. I have asked about it.
Did the Deputy ask the Minister?
I have asked constituents who wrote to the Gas Company and the only answer they got was that they are making economies. I asked technical people. I suppose the Electricity Supply Board consider that there is a storage of water and it does not matter when you use the electricity. I thought there was an answer, that there was some sort of immediate link between the production of gas and its use, or the other way round; but it is not that at all. I do not understand what is the necessity for it.
It is probably because there will be less temptation to use it.
The temptation could be met in another way. They could make a demand for a certain percentage of economy and say people will be cut off or charged something like 5/- a therm for the use of gas above a certain percentage. There could be penal charges made beyond a certain amount. It is one of the matters that is causing confusion and an amount of disruption in the crowded areas of the city and the working classes are suffering definitely as a result of it. Someone should look into the matter.
Deputy McGilligan has undoubtedly raised a question affecting thousands of wage earners. I have personal experience of that in the position I occupy in the railway service. The majority of the wage earners in the city do not leave off work until about 6 o'clock in the evening. Thousands of them live in suburban areas, such as Crumlin, Kimmage, Dalkey, Blackrock and Dún Laoghaire, and they cannot get home before 7 o'clock, the time when the gas goes off. Protests were made to the Minister for Supplies some time ago and a statement was made that the Minister was in consultation with the Gas Company in connection with the matter. I presume he asked them for a revision of the hours, particularly the hour in which the gas is available in the evening. I suggest that the Taoiseach and the Minister for Supplies should make representations so that the hour at which gas is available in the evening will suit the convenience of workers. In the majority of cases, between six and seven in the evening is not a good hour. If they would make it between seven and eight, the thousands of workers who have to go to Crumlin and Kimmage and outlying areas like Dalkey and Blackrock would arrive home at an hour when gas would be available and they would be able to get their tea after being all day at work without any proper meal.
That is certainly a matter that can be examined.
I hope it will. because it is causing a good deal of trouble.
Has the Minister for Finance anything to say about the matter I raised?
I believe the facts about pensions are as stated by Deputy Norton, but the fixation of the variable point runs through the whole gamut of the Superannuation Acts. It is a thing which we took over from the British system; it has remained there and has not been changed.
Except that the British themselves changed it.
I do not know. I am not aware of what they have done. It is an overriding fact in all the Superannuation Acts. I do not know whether it would be possible to do anything about it, but I will look into it. It is a matter I have not personally investigated at any time, but I will look into it. The Ordnance Survey case that Deputy Cosgrave raised is not new to me. Deputy Cosgrave raised it last year and I promised to look into the matter. I did look into the matter and I found that the injustice was one for which his Government was very largely responsible. Protests were made to the Minister for Finance of the day. In 1924 efforts were made to get the matter rectified, but it was not done. There was a general refusal all along the line. I promised Deputy Cosgrave last year to look into the matter. I think there are 15 or 16 cases altogether. It affects not alone people in the Ordnance Survey, but others as well. I have had a Bill in preparation for a long time and I hope to have it introduced in the next Session. I hope to deal with and rectify the injustices that were inflicted on these people by Deputy Cosgrave's own Government, as well as by former Governments.
