I want to put a few questions on this Vote, touching matters which were not referred to in sufficient detail by the Minister, and I want to make some comments on the activities of the Department. The Minister told us that he had been compelled to utilise for the transportation of wheat 90 per cent. of the ocean-going tonnage which we had in commis sion last year, the result being that our wheat supply consisted last year of 300,000 tons of home-grown wheat, supplemented by, approximately, 165,000 tons of imported wheat. This space in the ocean-going vessels was occupied by wheat to the exclusion of many other commodities. I understand from the Minister's statement that that was the position last year. Judging by the statements made this year, there is reason to believe that the internal wheat position may be better. I understand that the area under cultivation is larger than it was last year and that, with a continuance of the weather we are having at present, we may reasonably look forward to a larger wheat crop this year than we had last year. Could the Minister now give us any information as to whether he expects it will be necessary to import a similar quantity of wheat from the time of the next harvest until the harvest of 1946 and, if not, whether he proposes to utilise the ocean-going tonnage for the purpose of transporting goods which had to be excluded previously because of the overwhelming amount of tonnage required for the importation of wheat? If the Minister could give us some information of the type I have mentioned, we could look forward to making our ocean-going ships available for the transportation of goods which the Minister said might have been available were it not that we had to give a pronounced priority to wheat.
The Minister told us of the Government's turf activities and, to some extent, of the Government's turf proposals. He was less informative regarding the Government's proposals in respect of turf than he was in respect of their activities during the past year. A considerable number of people are asking what the future policy of the Government is to be in respect of fuel production. Are we to concentrate, from the standpoint of production of fuel for ordinary domestic purposes, on the exploitation of the bogs? Our timber resources for the purpose of fuel supply are now negligible. We shall have three sources of fuel supply in the future— (1) electricity, (2) coal, and (3) turf. Electricity, so far as the rural areas are concerned and so far as many of the small towns and cities are concerned, has not been the most attractive method of heating because, in many households, the cost of the electrical installations is such as to prohibit their utilisation.
We are, therefore, placed in the position in which, so far as the ordinary citizens are concerned, the method of heating and cooking is by means of either coal or turf. Now, what are the Government's proposals in that regard? Do they intend, as part of a national policy, to concentrate on turf production and endeavour to ensure that turf is used to the greatest maximum extent, or do they intend to use the legislation that was introduced some years ago in order to compel people to purchase a certain quantity of turf as well as a certain quantity of coal, and in that way to ensure the development of our bogs? I think that the Minister would render a great service to the community if he were to concentrate attention on the value to the nation of the production of turf to the greatest extent and get the community to think of our national future, and indicate what the Government intends to do with regard to the turf deposits in this country.
A considerable amount of money has been spent on the development of our turf resources, on the building of roads into the bogs, and on the drainage of bogs, and, in that connection, let me say that there will be a considerable loss of employment if these bogs, on which such an amount of money has been spent, are now to be allowed to become prairie lands again, covered by weeds and vegetation, and not used for the production of fuel. I am afraid that, in the absence of a Government drive to teach our people to regard turf as one of the essential needs for our fuel supply, turf will take a second place, and that the tendency will be to ask for coal, coal, and more coal. One can understand, of course, that the price at which turf is sold now and the price at which coal is sold—the present generation, of course, will never see coal sold at pre-war prices, because it was produced by the blood and sweat of the people who produced it in England at the prices at which it was sold under pre-war conditions— will be different, as compared with pre-war conditions. We have to consider the fact that the coal workers have made up their minds that they are not going back to the scale of prices or wages that operated in pre-war years.
What I am asking is this: What is the Government's policy in respect of turf production? What plans have the Government in regard to the supply of turf? What plans have the Government in connection with the production of coal as related to the production of turf? What steps do the Government propose to take in order to induce our community to pay the price? In that connection, it seems to me that the figures given by the Minister this evening were rather staggering. He told us that turf, bought and sold by Fuel Importers, Limited, cost 39/9 to sell; that the turf was eventually sold at 64/- a ton, but that in order to do that, the price of a ton of turf, bought by Fuel Importers, Limited, and ultimately sold by them, was £5 3s. 9d. I think that anybody who knows anything about the economics of turf production will agree that that figure is very staggering. Take the case of turf production in Kildare, where the cost is about 23/- a ton. It seems amazing that a commodity that costs 23/- a ton to produce should be sold at £5 3s 9d. This is not a question of a raw commodity. It is actually a finished commodity. By the time it is produced from the bog it is a finished commodity, which costs 23/- a ton, and, yet, by the time it is purchased and sold by Fuel Importers, Limited, the turf costs 103/- a ton. That means that the cost of handling, transporting, rehandling, stacking, and so on, of the turf to Dublin costs £4, which means that you tack on to the original cost of 23/- something like £5 for that purpose, which seems to be a staggering figure. It may be that the Minister will say that that is the lowest price at which the turf can be sold here, but I think that it is amazing that turf which, in Kildare, costs 23/- a ton to produce—which is cheaper than the cost of production in other areas—should cost £5 a ton here. I think it will take a long time to convince the public that the putting on of a charge of £4 a ton is an unavoidable charge and one that cannot be reduced, and I think that the Minister should invite some Committee of the Dáil, or some other type of committee, if he likes, to examine the whole question of the production of turf and whether that is a justifiable price to charge, which costs the consumer about 64/- a ton and an additional subsidy, which has to be paid by the consumer, of about 39/- a ton, making, in all, an extra price of about £4 a ton.
The Minister has pointed out that in regard to normal fuel requirements, the transport position is still very difficult. The one thing that struck me when the Minister was speaking on that matter was his apparent inability to indicate whether the situation was likely to improve or to deteriorate in the future. The overriding impression left on my mind, in respect to the Minister's views on transport, was that he was completely at sea as to what our position was likely to be in respect to petrol and oil supplies in the future, chiefly petrol supplies. I think the general expectation of the community both here and elsewhere—and there was beginning to be some grounds for optimism because that optimism has been translated into tangible concessions elsewhere—was that, on the cessation of hostilities in Europe, there would be an easing in the petrol situation and that the community could look forward to the probability of more petrol being made available, with a corresponding improvement in transport services. Everybody knows that public transport services, whether in Dublin or throughout the country, are very far from satisfactory. Indeed the public have been unusually patient in tolerating the type of services they have been getting in the city here. One sees large queues lining up for buses which they cannot get because the transport provided is inadequate for public requirements at the present moment.
I put it to the Minister that he should be able to give the House a closer approximation as to what we may expect regarding transport services in future, with particular reference to the question of when more buses will be available. Secondly, he should be able to tell us when the people are likely to get a later bus service in the city. At present the last bus leaves at 9.30—an appalling transport service, particularly during the summer months. Thirdly, he should be able to tell us when the public are likely to get a bus service on Sundays. To a person who can travel in a motorcar, a bus service does not much matter but for the large section of the community, those who have to work six days per week and who have only one day free, that being Sunday, who have to try to utilise that day to the fullest advantage from the point of view of undertaking some essential journey or from the point of view of getting some much-needed relaxation at the seaside or on a mountain top, a Sunday service is vital. I should like to ascertain from the Minister whether he can hold out any hope of an early introduction of a Sunday transport service so as to provide people in the city and elsewhere with what they have always regarded as an essential part of normal life.
The question of price margins was adverted to by the Minister in the course of his speech. The Minister again was rather vague as to what his proposals were in respect to a continuation of price control here. At one stage he intimated that he wanted to get rid of certain restrictions as soon as possible, to take a chance of getting rid of them too early rather than holding on to them too long. I want to support the point of view expressed by Deputy Morrissey in this matter. The Minister admitted last year that price margins in many respects had been found to be too high and that folk had been allowed to make profits on the basis of yielding a return on their invested capital, even though they might be producing or distributing a lesser quantity of goods to-day. He indicated, I think, that he intended to examine more closely the whole price margin level with a view to getting prices down to a lower level than that which had obtained last year.
Frankly I cannot see that the Minister has done anything in that regard nor does the index figure compiled by his own Department indicate that he has been conspicuously successful in that respect. It is a well-known fact that certain shops in Dublin advertise a particular article or commodity and say: "Control price so much; our price so much less." These firms are not in business for the good of their health nor are they notorious philanthropists. When a firm that is making a pretty good profit and has not distinguished itself by any particular philanthropy advertises commodities on the basis that the control price is so much and that it will sell it at a lesser price than the controlled price, I think that is prima facie evidence that the price margins allowed in respect of that commodity are too high. I think the Minister would be well advised to examine these price margins with at view to ensuring that a lesser price margin is fixed and that the community are not compelled to pay prices which are admitted by these advertisements to be prices which are not in accordance with reasonable or just standards.
I think that in the drapery trade— I have said this before and I want to repeat it—unreasonable profits are being made by certain firms. As a matter of fact, it is in the drapery trade that in many cases one can get commodities at a price lower than the controlled price. Apparently, in order to get sale for certain goods, traders are prepared to sell them at something less than the margin permitted by the Minister. That fact must be within the Minister's knowledge. It is certainly within the knowledge of Deputies. I would ask the Minister to have the matter examined because the public are entitled to protection against that type of trading. Many firms sell goods at less than the controlled price and still can make a substantial profit.
In this connection, I should like to ask the Minister to investigate the price of boots suitable for agricultural workers and also the quality of boots sold at exorbitant prices to such workers. In rural areas it is definitely impossible to get a decent pair of agricultural boots. Almost any price is charged for the small quantity of agricultural boots that are available. In fact, I have known of cases—I reported two of them to the Department of Supplies some considerable time ago—in which agricultural workers were asked to pay as high as 50/- and 55/- for a pair of agricultural boots. What would any member of this House think if he had to lay out his entire week's income for a pair of boots? Yet an agricultural worker who is paid a wage of 39/- per week is expected to put another 16/- to that in order to get a pair of boots. What provision can he make in that particular week for his wife or children? How can he provide the necessaries of life for that week for those who are dependent on him? I think there is a notorious ramp in the sale of boots suitable for agricultural workers. The material used in the boots is so inferior and the cost of repairs so high that probably one could maintain a new motor car for less than it costs to maintain a pair of these boots.
In connection with the Estimate generally, the impression left on my mind by the Minister's speech is that, with the exception of sugar, in respect of which he saw the future with some clarity, although only a limited future, he was rather vague in his survey of other commodities and could not give any real indication as to when there would be an improvement in the supply position, as to how long it would be necessary to maintain rationing or when we could expect to be entering a period in which supplies would be available in greater abundance. While the Minister was giving us what I consider was on the whole a rather sombre review, it struck me that he is probably out of contacts which he ought to have with the centres on which we depend for our imports. Apparently our negotiations with Britain, the United States, Canada and South America are being carried on entirely on a Legation basis, that is, that such representatives as we have in these countries make contacts with those countries and endeavour to radiate contacts which may result in some supplies being available to us, and that we supplement that by contacts made by civil servants. I do not think that is a satisfactory method of dealing with the supply position. If we are going to rely in the immediate post-war period on contacts of that kind, we will be very badly left in the race for commodities. Other countries will not do things in that Micawber-like fashion. They will be much more diligent and pertinacious in seeking goods. We, apparently, are content to rely on Legation and Civil Service methods.
We have here, as Minister for Supplies, a very energetic Minister and, let me add, a Minister with very considerable ability, very considerable resourcefulness. In the situation in which we are short of a very considerable number of commodities and in which we can see no prospect of importing these commodities, the sensible thing to do is to send the present Minister for Supplies to Britain and to permit him to make contacts there and to use his energies, abilities and resourcefulness in making some arrangement with Britain whereby we may get from Britain the commodities which she can give us and give her the commodities which are surplus to our requirements and, when the Minister has negotiated with the British, he ought to go to the United States to negotiate with the people there and then he ought to be sent to South America to exercise his talents there. The Minister would be much more usefully employed in a world tour of that kind, making essential contacts on a Ministerial basis, with countries with which, because of old associations, we have some right to expect that reciprocal trade arrangements can be made. We sent the Minister for Coordination of Defensive Measures to America some years ago to look for ships. I suggest that it is much more important, in the immediate post-war period, to send the Minister for Supplies there, to look for ships, if you like, but especially to look for those civilian needs which America will produce in future to a greater extent than she has done in the past. The other countries which constitute the United Nations bloc will probably not be put at any disadvantage in importing commodities from America or Britain. We, because of our policy of neutrality, may not be treated in the same favourable manner in regard to supplies. If we procrastinate, if we do not undertake the task of securing these goods now, we may find ourselves badly left.
I wish to conclude by recommending to the Minister and, through him, to the Government, that the Minister should take his energies, his undoubted abilities, and his resourcefulness to Britain, the United States and South America and there, as Deputy-Prime Minister of Ireland, as Minister for Supplies and Minister for Industry and Commerce, endeavour to make the best trade agreements possible. If this matter is allowed to drag on purely on the basis of a Minister Plenipotentiary from this small country interviewing a Minister Plenipotentiary of some large country, I am afraid we will not get any quantity of goods in the future. If the Minister himself would essay the task of negotiating trade agreements such as I have indicated, I feel sure that between now and next year he would be able to do so and he would be in a position to come to the House next year and to make a speech, not of the nature of the rather sombre speech he made to-day, but a cheerful speech, and I am sure the House would applaud his efforts in the national interest.