Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 20 Apr 1944

Vol. 93 No. 9

Adjournment: Standing Order 29. - Curtailment of Coal Imports—(Debate Resumed).

There appears to have been agreement amongst most of the Deputies who spoke that this discussion on our fuel problems was useful. I hope that time will justify that conclusion. I am very doubtful if it is going to prove as useful as some Deputies suggested. I think it is necessary that we should deal with realities and realities only in such matters. Them eluctance of many Deputies to face realities and their apparent willingness to delude themselves as to the facts is going to be a new problem for this House in dealing with the conditions that will undoubtedly emerge for our consideration in the course of the year.

I am not sure that all the misstatements made in the course of the debate were due to lack of knowledge or that every speaker had concern only for helping the country over its difficulties. However, to confine ourselves to the immediate problem with which the original notice of motion dealt, I want Deputies to appreciate that the restrictions which have been imposed upon the use of coal for transport, gas production, electricity production, industrial production, or any other purpose have been occasioned by the realities of the situation—realities out of which Deputies can neither talk themselves nor shout themselves. I do not think that the advent of these exceptional fuel difficulties came, as was suggested, as a surprise or a shock to the people. Not merely has the possibility of rapid accentuation of our fuel difficulties existed at all times for a few years past, not merely has that been emphasised by Government spokesmen on all suitable occasions during that period but, as recently as the 1st March, I went specially to the Dublin Broadcasting Station to talk about fuel and to draw public attention to the fact that our available supplies of coal were barely sufficient for the maintenance of our essential services and industries. I pointed out that the possibility of curtailment could not be ignored and that this was bound to mean serious inroads upon the supply of essential services and goods which could be made available for our people. I do not think that there was any attempt to keep the public from knowing the facts of the situation in so far as a reliable statement of the facts could be given.

Nobody here—and I emphasise the word "nobody"—can say what the fuel position will be in the future. We know what it was in recent weeks. We know the supplies that are available now, but nobody can plan a fuel utilisation programme for many months ahead. Yet, if we are to meet the requirements of essential services and industries, we must attempt to do that without definite knowledge of the quantity of fuel that will be available. The public were told of the possibility of the advent of new fuel difficulties. They were told when these fuel difficulties did emerge. They were told what measures had been taken to secure the conservation of coal and other fuels. They were given ample advice as to how they should co-operate in any such scheme of conservation and, at all stages since this matter developed through the Press and by other means, the public were as fully informed as they could be of what the situation was and what measures to deal with it were being taken. Deputy Dillon says that I should have met the editors of the newspapers. I met the political correspondents of the newspapers and discussed the position fully with them and I must say that we have got from the newspapers a great deal of cooperation in bringing the facts to the notice of the public. I do not know what purpose there is in suggesting that attempts have been made to withhold from the public information that it should have. So far as I am aware, there was no such attempt. On the contrary, our whole aim in recent weeks has been to get the maximum of publicity for the situation and to have its gravity appreciated, so that the public would understand what they have to face. I fully appreciate that it is only by taking the public into one's confidence in these matters that one can get them to stand up to whatever inconveniences and hardships are involved.

I do not know what to do to get Deputy Hughes down to earth. He tells us of the hardships that will arise if coal cannot be given for this, paraffin for that, and petrol for something else. We all know of the hardships that will be involved if supplies of these commodities cannot be made available for different purposes, but complaining about these matters will not make supplies available. We have got to deal with realities. If we cannot get kerosene for agricultural purposes, we must try to do without kerosene. All the available kerosene in our hands now, or which may become available in a month or two, will be reserved for agricultural use. But if we got no more kerosene, we cannot do anything more about it, and Deputy Hughes' telling us of the difficulties which will be created is not going to help us to get supplies any more than the problems of the farmers in the beet growing areas who will be unable to get dried pulp if we cannot give the sugar factories coal to dry the pulp can be solved by deploring the situation in the manner which Deputy Hughes did.

I can well understand the desire of Deputies for reliable information. I myself should like to have reliable information. Deputy Hughes complained that I did not give statistics of the extent to which employment and production will be affected by the curtailment of supplies. I should love to have statistics—reliable statistics—as to the extent to which employment and production will be affected by the curtailment of supplies. But I have not got them. It would be impossible for anybody to have them. I doubt if anyone could say more than that employment and production will be adversely affected by the curtailment of our coal supplies. We shall make the coal supplies at our disposal available to industries in proportion to their essentiality. We shall encourage managers to make the best use of that coal; to supplement it where possible with other fuels or to do without fuel, if possible. We shall give the best expert advice available to those concerned to assist them in getting over the difficulties which the short supply of fuel will cause, but to what extent they will succeed in getting over those difficulties by our advice or with our co-operation nobody can say.

The curtailment of railway services will, of course, affect all commercial interests. I should like to assure the House that there would be no curtailment of railway services if it could be avoided. References were made here to a conference which was, apparently, held yesterday between the management of the Great Southern Railways Company and the unions representing its employees. I pointed out when the first reference to that matter was made that the details of management of the Great Southern Railways Company, the precise method by which it conducts negotiations with representatives of its employees or the agreements which it makes with the representatives of its employees are not a Government responsibility and that nobody here can be held accountable for them. We know from a statement which appeared in the Press that a conference was held and that it was agreed, according to the announcement, that no statement should be published——

Mr. Larkin

The railway company broke that.

To my knowledge, the first breach of that undertaking was not made by the railway company. I do not know what purpose either Deputy O'Sullivan or Deputy Larkin thinks he is serving by making ex parte statements as to the course of events at that conference, which statements cannot be contradicted or amplified or corrected by anybody here, because the company is not represented here and no ordinary Deputy can have information as to what did happen at that conference or to what extent the account of what is supposed to have occurred is accurate.

Mr. Larkin

Deputy O'Sullivan was not——

The Minister is in possession and must be allowed to speak without interruption.

I am merely concerned with securing that we realise what we are doing and where we are going. Several Deputies suggested that, if there is likely to be bad feeling between the company and its employees, it is my duty, as Minister for Industry and Commerce, to intervene. I have often intervened in trade disputes for the purpose of negotiating a settlement, at the request of the parties concerned; but if conferences held for that purpose are to be subjected to ex parte speeches in this House subsequently, intervention of that kind will be of very little value. In these matters, the Dáil should confine itself to its own business and it is no part of its business to interfere in the details of management of the Great Southern Railways or in the course of negotiations, affecting the employment of its workers, between its management and the trade unions concerned.

What the present position is in that matter I do not know. If a situation should arise where my intervention would appear to be of value, then my intervention will be given. It will not be given very gladly, because I know how time-absorbing these conferences can be and I personally, on account of my other duties at present, cannot give the time which I often had to give, in more peaceful circumstances, to the settlement of trade disputes. I would like to make it quite clear that such intervention cannot be of value— and, not being of value, will not be given—if there is always the possibility that statements made at private gatherings of that kind and made for the purpose of effecting a settlement— suggestions thrown out to see how far they may be accepted or rejected—can subsequently be the subject of political orations in the Dáil or outside. Deputies who are also officials of trade unions will have to keep their functions, if not distinetly separate, at any rate, in such separate compartments that they will not necessarily overlap to the detriment of either one or the other.

There were, however, statements made by Deputy Keyes and some of the statements made by Deputy Larkin, which appeared to suggest that the curtailment of rail services is unnecessary, that there is either fuel enough to maintain a full railway service or that there is a possibility of adopting some technical device or managerial arrangement which would prevent a curtailment of the services. That is not true. I do not know what purpose it is hoped to serve by making those statements but, if future discussions between the trade unions concerned and the company are to take place in an atmosphere in which there is doubt as to the necessity for the curtailment of railway services, the discussions cannot possibly be fruitful.

We have asked the Great Southern Railway to effect a reduction of 25 per cent. in the usage of coal over a period of time, but we have warned the company that the peak traffic load will come upon them later in the year and that they must endeavour to provide now, not merely for a reduction of services represented by a reduction of 25 per cent. in coal usage, but an even greater reduction of services, so that they can expand those services again in the autumn, when peak traffic needs have to be met. Furthermore, a 25 per cent. reduction in coal usage necessitates more than a 25 per cent. reduction in actual mileage run.

Is the Minister speaking of 25 per cent. coal or 25 per cent. fuel?

Mr. Larkin

The manager must have been right when he said you instructed him.

I may have interrupted the Deputy on a misunderstanding. It is true that the company were instructed to make a reduction in the consumption of coal. I think I understood the Deputy to say that I had instructed the company to effect certain changes in the employment of their workers.

Mr. Larkin

I did not.

In that case, there was a misunderstanding which is now removed.

Mr. Larkin

Now who is the gentleman?

Toujours la politesse. The fact I want appreciated by those who have spoken in the matter and those outside who may be directly concerned—railway workers, users or managers—is that there is no avoidance of the reduction of transport facilities which the Government has asked the company to effect. We could stop gas production and give the gas coal to the railway company; we could stop electricity production and give the electricity coal to the railway company; but we cannot continue to provide the present supply of electricity and gas, unless we curtail the transport services. The aim and duty of the Government is to distribute the supplies between the various essential services, so as to provide as much as possible of each essential need. If we are to do that, there must be a reduction in railway traffic.

I stated that, where facilities were withdrawn from particular towns or districts, they would be replaced by road transport services. I want to make it quite clear that there will be no increase in the petrol allocation of the Great Southern Railways. The new road services, or expanded road services, required to replace the withdrawn railway services will have to be provided for by economies in other portions of the company's road transport system. We cannot increase the petrol allocation.

Deputy Hughes asked what the prospect was in relation to petrol. I do not know. We are proceeding at the moment to allocate petrol for various purposes on the assumption that we will get the same quantity as we got last year. Whether that assumption will prove to be correct or not, nobody can say. As I am dealing with Deputy Hughes, may I say that, in the course of the inquiries which it was possible for me to make since he spoke, I have found that no application was received up to 12 o'clock today for oil from a coal mining company in Carlow for pumping purposes and which was refused?

Deputy McGilligan asked why there is a limitation on the production of native coal and Deputy Linehan had some observations to make in that regard also. The production of coal is not something which can be undertaken without a great deal of preparatory work. Normally, the Government requires that nobody shall be employed in coal production underground who has not had very considerable experience of that work—a period of training which fits him to work underground without risk to himself or risk to other people working there. An unskilled miner can produce a fall of rock which could have fatal consequences. We have only a limited number of skilled miners. There would be no useful purpose served by doing as Deputy Linehan suggests—opening up new workings. It would merely put upon unproductive work skilled miners who should be employed on existing workings and who certainly would produce far more coal in existing workings than they could produce in new mines.

Normally, it takes two or three years to get a coal mine into production. It certainly would take longer to get it into full production. We have a number of established mines operating for a number of years, where there is machinery, equipment and skilled management, and it is into those mines we should divert any skilled workers available. It is true that workers are tending to drift out of those mines at the moment and tending to drift into smaller workings, because they can have a less strenuous time and, perhaps, make more money in those smaller workings. Every worker who leaves one of the well-organised and old-established mines for one of the new and smaller workings means a diminution, to some extent, in the coal output. However, we have not powers here to direct men into particular employment and we do not contemplate taking those powers, under present circumstances. Consequently, we have tried to deal with that situation by persuasion, by adjustment and by organisation. The coal-mining managements of the country, with the assistance of their workers, have succeeded already in effecting a substantial increase in their monthly output. We hope it may be possible for them to do more, but if there is to be such an increase it will come through increased activity in the existing workings rather than by the development of new mines.

Deputy McGilligan inquired whether we had consultations with the directors of the Electricity Supply Board and other coal users as to the supplies that would be available to them, and as to the arrangements that they could make in regard to the use of these supplies. I may say that there has been almost daily consultation with the directors of the Electricity Supply Board, with the officers of the railway company and with other large scale coal users as to the quantities of coal that could be allocated to them, and as to the economies they should enforce in order to get the best possible results from that coal. There has been no consultation yet with the management of the Dublin gas company. We did not contemplate, and do not now contemplate, a diminution in the supply of coal to that company or any alteration in its present position.

The suggestion has been made that railway services could be run on turf. It is quite true that they could, but most of our railway engines are not designed to make the best use of turf. Nevertheless, they could be operated with turf, but it is a completely false idea that we are likely to have a surplus of turf and could divert it to railway use. That is not so. In fact, the railway company some time ago proposed to purchase a very substantial quantity of turf to constitute a reserve stock for themselves. We had to stop them from doing it because what they were proposing to purchase was turf that was required for the national pool to provide the domestic turf ration. I think that the best effort that we can make this year will still leave us with a deficiency of turf, and there is as much need to ensure that there is economy in the use of turf as in the use of coal. We cannot have precisely the same regulation in regard to turf that we can in the case of coal. Nevertheless, we must ensure that all available turf—turf that is surplus to the immediate needs of producers in the turf areas—will come into the national supply and will be allocated from that supply to the purposes that we consider most suitable. We cannot just contemplate a very substantial proportion of that supply of turf being diverted to railway use, or to any other industrial use, without knowing precisely the consequences which it will have upon the total supply in the national pool.

Where there is a local supply that would not ordinarily pass into the national pool, could not that be made available in providing a rail service?

I think that will be the case as regards the service to Kilfree Junction.

Why does the Minister refuse to disclose to the House the amount of Irish coal that is being used by the railway company?

What does it matter? All the coal that we have, no matter from what source it came, is under Government control and was purchased under Government permit. The railway company would buy all the coal that they could out of Irish mines tomorrow if we let them, but we will not. We are confining their purchases to the allocations made to them.

Is there any objection to giving the information?

I have not got the information.

Is the information at the disposal of the Department?

It is not the kind of information that is worth taking out because it is of no importance.

Mr. Larkin

Could you not give a better service if the owners of the mines let you double production?

I do know that the Great Southern Railways Company speeded up trains and got rid of the late running of trains which, at one time, was so much commented upon. They effected economies in the use of fuel simultaneously with an improvement in the train service. It may be that they could effect more economies if they slowed down trains, but they did effect substantial economies in fuel usage simultaneously with an improvement in the regular train service.

It has been suggested by some Deputies that the company had taken advantage of the present situation to close down branch lines and that these will never be reopened. The company cannot, in normal circumstances, cease to operate a service on any part of its system without the consent of the Minister for Industry and Commerce. The cessation of services upon various branch lines announced this week is temporary only and arises out of emergency conditions. If, at some future date, there is any proposal to abandon those lines, or to close them permanently, that proposal will have to be dealt with under the appropriate legislation, and the necessary authority secured from the Minister for Industry and Commerce.

Can the Minister give a guarantee that all these branch lines will be reopened?

I have said that the closing of them is only temporary.

Can the Minister give a guarantee?

That is the best guarantee I can give. When the Deputy is as long in politics as I have been, he will be chary about giving guarantees. Deputy Cosgrave asked about priorities for passenger traffic. I think it would be practically impossible to work any system for differentiating between the classes of passengers on the available passenger trains. Not merely would any such priority system involve making inquiries into the business of individuals, which would be resented, but it would, in fact, prove to be wasteful of the transport facilities available.

Could you not have some system of various kinds of tickets for different classes?

Suppose the tickets were not used? Suppose you decided that commercial travellers were to get 50 tickets to travel by train on a Monday morning from Dublin. That means that you must keep 50 seats for them, but if only 30 turned up there is so much waste of the facilities available.

Could you not have a system denoting how many tickets were available for different classes?

I do not say that I have reached a final decision on the matter, but it seems to me that any such system would involve an inquiry into the reason why a person was making a journey. That would mean that some civil servant or railway official would come to you and ask: "Why are you going to Cork?" Naturally, he would not take your word. He would seek to prove that the statement made was correct. That would mean an investigation, which is undesirable, or else that the passenger traffic be limited to a certain class of persons. In practice, the company must work on the principle of first come first served. It is bound by law to do so.

Mr. Larkin

Do away with the first-class carriages.

I do not think that the number of first-class carriages will be very great. The company must carry the passengers that offer themselves for transportation in the order in which they offer themselves. That is a legal obligation on the company.

But you could amend that?

We could, but I think it is a very good principle.

Will the seats be reserved on the trains for Deputies?

And on the buses?

We do not contemplate any system of the reservation of seats for Deputies who travel by bus. We are not going to institute a system of controlling traffic on buses merely to convenience Deputies. There will be a system of controlling traffic on trains and they can avail of that system. Any attempt to regulate traffic on buses by means of any priority arrangements, and the issue of special permits, would lead to chaos. I do not think we could attempt that unless the bus traffic had to be very substantially reduced below what it is at the moment.

The number would not be very great.

I do not think you could put a Deputy's hat on a seat in a bus and have a policeman there to see that nobody removed it.

Will Deputies be given facilities to travel to the nearest railway station?

I cannot deal with individual cases.

Deputies can obtain the details in the public office.

I think I have answered all the points that were raised.

The Dáil adjourned at 11 p.m. until 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 25th April, 1944.

Top
Share