9/7. We now have Fuel Importers, Ltd., with turf in the dump and it has cost them 51/6. Deputy Byrne said there were contractors prepared to deliver turf in Dublin at 50/- per ton. That is what Fuel Importers, Ltd., are doing. The turf cost them 51/6. They are selling it at 50/6. There is, therefore, a loss of 1/- per ton to Fuel Importers, Ltd. But these are not the only costs. We know that other costs will arise—the cost of administration and the overhead charges which Fuel Importers, Ltd., have to carry. What these costs will be cannot be determined until the total quantity of turf is known. It is only at the end of the period, when these overhead charges are related to the actual quantity of turf, that these costs can be determined. It is estimated that they will be 4/6 a ton and, if we add that to the shilling loss already incurred, we are faced with a loss of 5/6 per ton on the turf supplied by Fuel Importers, Ltd. Another charge must be taken into account. What it will be is hard to determine. There is a wastage in turf. Between the time it leaves the bog, and is put into the clamp, or taken from the clamp and delivered to the consumer, there is, with all the handlings, a wastage. Some of the turf crumbles. Some of it loses moisture-content and shrinks and, generally speaking, the weight of turf which will be taken out of these dumps will be less than that put in.
Through wastage, shrinkage, or pilferage, through one cause or another, there will be a loss sustained, and what that loss will be has yet to be determined. Estimates have been made varying from 20 per cent. to 40 per cent. Turf stored in clamps tends to shrink considerably through loss of moisture. Assuming that the minimum estimate is correct and that the wastage is 20 per cent. and not 40 per cent., then, upon the known cost of the quantity of turf delivered to the middle of November, that represents a further charge of 12/6 per ton. That means that 12/6, plus 5/6, represents the total loss per ton which Fuel Importers, Ltd., may sustain arising out of the turf sold by them. If we are going to let purely economic considerations operate, remove the control, as Deputy Mulcahy asks, then that 18/- must be recovered from somebody, and it can only be recovered, under present circumstances, from the consumers of turf and, consequently, the price must go up by that amount.
At the price of 50/6 per ton fuel is delivered by Fuel Importers, Ltd., to the merchants. The merchants get 16/- per ton for the delivery of turf. It is, of course, impossible to say precisely what the cost to a merchant delivering turf to householders is, because there is no previous experience to go back over. We are doing it for the first time on the present scale, and it is only after a period that actual accounts can be taken out and actual charges determined. We did determine an allowance of 16/- a ton upon the known cost of delivering coal—I am dealing with average figures in the City of Dublin.
I think it will prove to be more expensive for a merchant to deliver turf to householders than to deliver coal. It is greater in bulk, there is more handling and transportation required and, consequently, it is not likely that the cost of delivering turf will be less than the cost of delivering coal. Therefore, that allowance to merchants is not likely to yield them any undue return. However, that matter can be checked up. As soon as accounts can be taken out over a reasonable period, the actual cost can be determined.
In the City of Cork and in other parts of the non-turf areas different costs operate to those existing in the City of Dublin. We have fixed a flat price for the whole of the area. We think that facilitates price control and is fair in any event, because it is in the City of Dublin that the greatest problem arises. It is true that the cost of doing all the operations necessary in relation to turf are higher in Dublin than elsewhere and that the maintenance of a flat price benefits the Dublin consumer on that account, but we think nevertheless, that the maintenance of a flat price is justifiable. If we were to attempt to fix for Cork, Wexford, Waterford, Dundalk and Drogheda as well as for Dublin, the actual price in these districts, it would complicate administration and impair the efficiency of the price control.
I have shown how this price has arisen. It is quite clear that Fuel Importers, Limited, are losing upon that price. What the future arrangement with that organisation will be I cannot at the moment say—it has not been decided. It is quite clear that Fuel Importers, Limited, must be protected against loss; from some source they must get funds to enable them to recover the amount they lose upon the turf. These figures relating to the cost of turf to Fuel Importers, Limited, have been determined upon the known costs of the turf delivered to the middle of November and put into reserve dumps established by Fuel Importers, Limited.
During November when, for the first time, the turf of Fuel Importers, Limited, was released for consumption, we endeavoured to arrange that certain of the charges which arose in connection with the dumping of the turf would be eliminated by having the fresh turf coming in diverted to the merchants, so that the charge of taking it from the wagons, dumping it and then taking it from the dumps and delivering it later to the merchants would be eliminated. When the final accounts are taken out costs may be reduced by reason of the elimination of these charges. To what extent they may be reduced it is impossible to say, but against a possible reduction in cost through that method of operation must be put the fact that a far higher proportion of the total deliveries of turf is now coming by road, and that the cost of delivery by road is substantially higher than the cost of delivery by rail. It may happen that the additional cost arising out of the use of road transportation on a larger scale will more than offset the economy effected by the elimination of storage charges in respect of the turf now arriving.
I am anxious to give the Dáil all possible information concerning this matter. It is true that in fixing the price of 64/- the Government, as it were, thought of a price and determined on a price which had no direct relation to the known cost of the turf. We had to take into account the fact that a loss was likely to occur which would have to be met by somebody, and we were anxious to minimise that loss. We took into account that a very high price for turf would defeat the purpose of the Government in organising this turf campaign, because it would prevent the necessitous class of the population from being able to avail of it. Between the two considerations we fixed on a price of 64/-.
I do not know that it is justifiable to subsidise the price of that fuel in Dublin. As I had occasion to explain to the Dáil in another connection, you do not prevent a rise in the cost of fuel or reduce the cost of the fuel by means of a subsidy. You may conceal the fact that the commodity is costing that particular amount; you may prevent the impact of the cost upon the resources of individuals, but the actual cost remains the same and, whether people pay for the turf as fuel consumers or as taxpayers, they have to pay, nevertheless. Are we justified in imposing upon the whole country an additional tax in order to get the means of subsidising the cost of fuel to one section of the population or members of the population living in particular districts? You cannot, unfortunately, subsidise the cost of fuel to one class of the community only; if a subsidy is given, every class gets the benefit of it, both those who require assistance and those who do not require it, and it is only through the machinery of local authorities that assistance can be given direct to those who need assistance most. It is doubtful, however, to what extent we would be justified, in present circumstances, in burdening the whole community in order to reduce the cost of fuel in one district. Whether the Government will decide to deal with this loss, accruing to-Fuel Importers, Limited, by means of a subsidy, or whether we will attempt to recover that loss by means of higher charges for fuel at a later period, has yet to be decided. Clearly, Fuel Importers, Limited, must be recouped for that loss, but the method of recoupment has not yet been decided upon.
I do not think there was any other matter raised by any of the Deputies who have spoken, to which I have not referred. I have given the analysis of the cost of the turf to Fuel Importers. Limited. I have pointed out that the price at which that turf could be sold without loss is substantially higher than the fixed price now in operation. I have, to some extent at least, explained the reason why that fixed price was determined upon. I ask the Dáil not lightly to nullify the order fixing that price because, if they do, control of turf prices will cease to operate and the effect of the removal of control, inevitably, must be a higher price than that fixed by the order. If there is a proposition to provide out of State funds a subsidy in order to enable turf fuel to be sold at a still lower price in the City of Dublin, then that will have to be considered separately, I think, in relation to the general financial position of the country.
