Before the debate was interrupted, I was drawing attention to one of the gravest problems facing the country at the moment. I refer to the problem of providing our basic fuel supply both for domestic use and to fill our industrial and transport requirements. I have always approached problems of this kind from a strictly non-Party viewpoint; I can see no merit in one side or the other seeking to make political capital out of the difficulties that arise.
We are a country with very limited coal resources and with a very difficult problem in relation to the development of our turf resources. A good deal of criticism was levelled at the former Government because of the manner in which they handled the fuel situation during the war years. I have no intention of absolving that Government from all blame, but I think it must in fairness be acknowledged that many of the charges, particularly in respect of the year 1946 and the winter of 1947, were grossly exaggerated; 1946 was an excessively wet year and much of the turf was severely damaged. The winter following was one of successive severity and fuel supplies were quite inadequate to meet the situation. I think any supplies that had been built up were almost completely dissipated during that very severe winter. In the following year there was an intensive drive to produce fuel under somewhat difficult circumstances since it was rather late in the year by the time turf production could be undertaken. In addition to that there was a nationwide demand that the Government should undertake turf production. That demand came from both sides of the House. Some members of Fine Gael and the Independent Deputies, as well as some members of the Fianna Fáil Party, pressed the then Minister for Industry and Commerce to accumulate supplies of firing. Supplies were accumulated and at the beginning of 1948 we had 229,000 tons of turf, 387,000 tons of firewood and 449,000 tons of coal. Last week I asked a question as to whether these reserves were maintained or whether they were dissipated. The information I got in reply was that turf reserves were reduced to 11,000 tons, firewood to nil, and coal reserves were down to 189,000 tons. If we accept the view that the Fianna Fáil Government made a mistake in accumulating these large reserves, we must also accept the view that an even greater mistake was made in completely dissipating those reserves. During 1948, and I think this is on the records of the House, I suggested that while it was desirable to utilise the accumulated firewood and turf supplies as quickly as possible, we should at the same time accumulate alternative supplies of good quality imported coal. I think that would have been a very wise step. Whatever reserve was there should have been increased rather than dissipated.
In a matter like this a Government must always take risks. In any form of stock piling a Government is always open to the criticism that they accumulate reserves at a high price and thereby subsequently incur a loss to the taxpayer. But in matters of this kind there ought always to be fair play as between Opposition and Government and I think the Government is entitled, in the circumstances in which they find themselves, to do the best they can. Notwithstanding the advice that was given and the representations that were made, these reserves were dissipated. We all know that it would have been possible to utilise the turf and firewood that had been accumulated during the years 1948 and 1949, while at the same time building up a new reserve of better quality fuel in order to safeguard the country in the present difficulty. I mention the matter now because it is possible that a similar situation may arise in the future. There may still be some possibilities of stock piling in relation to certain commodities and I do not think the Government ought to be deterred from taking the necessary steps to safeguard the country's position because of possible criticism. The Government must be prepared to take risks on behalf of the people rather than expose them to the merciless brunt of adverse circumstances.
I think it is quite clear now that all the reserves of the nation must be directed towards an intensive drive to produce good quality turf. We all recognise that in the matter of turf production, as in agricultural production, one is to a certain extent dependent on weather conditions; notwithstanding that, every effort should be made and every opportunity should be taken of mechanising turf production. We can produce, and are producing, machines suitable for turf production. We should continue in that direction and produce small machines to speed up the work, since I think nobody will deny that it is possible to produce a better quality turf by machinery than can be produced by hand. No consideration should deter the Government from pushing this policy; not only should they advance courageously, but they should plan ahead. They should guarantee to those who produce good quality turf a fair reward for their labour plus a certain measure of security.
A serious complaint was voiced against the present Opposition when they were in Government that where owners of turbary let that turbary to the county council or any other public body they were penalised by an increase in their valuations. If it is necessary to amend the Valuation Acts in order to safeguard such people in the future, that should be done. People who give their turbary for development for the public good should be safeguarded against injury to their land in relation to its agricultural use.
There is another matter which is important and which should receive more consideration, that is, the method of selling turf. We should endeavour to get away from the system of selling turf by weight. There ought to be an alternative method, such as selling it by measure, for instance, by the cubic yard. That is the traditional method of selling turf. Prior to the recent emergency, turf was never sold by weight. As long as the system obtains of selling turf by weight or charging for transport on weight, there will be a temptation to keep the turf wet and even to add moisture. That is one of the great complaints made in respect of turf generally.
It should be the policy of the Government to see that our coal reserves are developed and utilised to the fullest extent. In many homes cookers have been installed which burn anthracite or coke. It will be a tragedy for a great number of families if they cannot obtain anthracite for cooking purposes. They have incurred considerable expense in installing up-to-date cooking apparatus and it would be very unfair to deprive them of the essential fuel for that apparatus. In installing such cookers many people have been inspired, not merely by a desire for efficiency, economy and comfort, but by a desire to use native fuel, such as anthracite. Therefore, it should be Government policy to ensure as far as possible that they will receive the necessary supply.
One of the great mistakes made by the present Government over the past few years was that they allowed themselves to be bewitched, bothered and bewildered by the Minister for Agriculture. In loud voice he told them what was sound national economic policy. In loud voice he told them that he knew everything about agriculture and that nobody else knew anything. In the first year of the present Government's administration, he diverted agricultural policy to dependence upon what he described as unlimited quantities of cheap imported maize. He told the people during the summer months of 1948, and even during the harvest, when farmers were endeavouring to sell their oats, in 1948, that he would make available unlimited supplies of good quality maize at a very much reduced price. In that way, he sabotaged the harvest of 1948. He drove many farmers, who had more or less changed their economy to tillage, out of that line of production by his action and killed the market for oats in that year. The result was that there was a very substantial decline in the acreage under oats and feeding barley in the following years. That was a criminal act. It may not have been deliberate on his part. He honestly may have believed that unlimited supplies of maize were available from outside sources but he does not seem to have weighed up all the considerations; he seems to have acted in an irresponsible manner and to have exposed those who had engaged in the production of barley in 1948 to severe loss.
The net result of his action has been to leave us dependent to a very large extent on imported feeding stuffs over the past two years. That policy must be changed. The Minister now would appear, belatedly, to intend changing it but the trade statistics show that we imported over £15,000,000 worth of cereal crops from the dollar area during the year 1950, thereby adding very considerably to our indebtedness in respect of dollars.
I believe that the entire policy of the Minister in this respect was completely misguided and misdirected and that he completely misunderstood the trade situation. If he thought that we could import cheap feeding stuffs and convert them into animal produce and re-export to Britain at a profit, he was making a terrific mistake. He found that we could not convert imported feeding stuff into eggs, bacon or pork without incurring severe loss, because the price that we had to pay for maize was too high and the price we received from the British for eggs and bacon was utterly uneconomic.