Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 27 Feb 1946

Vol. 99 No. 13

Turf Development Bill, 1945—Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time".

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. Lemass)

When the Dáil adjourned on Friday last I was dealing, in connection with the Turf Development Bill, with certain arguments which were advanced by Deputies opposite, and which appeared to be directed against the principle of developing systematically our peat resources, on the ground that at some stage supplies of imported coal might become available at lower prices. In that connection I stated that, whatever may be the prospects concerning future coal supplies, it will always be good policy to develop our own resources, and that there is now, by reason of the work done by the Turf Development Board, good reason to believe that by mechanised peat production it is possible to make available from our own resources solid fuel which will be of a consistent and satisfactory quality, and which can be sold in wide areas of the country at all times at a lower cost, value for value, than coal is ever likely to be sold at. Again, time will prove whether that expectation is well founded. Having regard to the work already done and the information gathered as the result of that work, I think there is very little room for doubt that the hopes now entertained will be realised in the event. We have, of course, an immediate fuel problem, which cannot be met either by increased coal supplies or by mechanised turf production, because both methods of improving the fuel supply of the country will take some time to operate. I think there is no prospect whatever that increased fuel supplies to a substantial extent will become available in the near future and, as I have already stated, the programme for mechanised turf production set out in the White Paper, and which it is intended to implement, will take some years to complete.

Deputy McGilligan believes, or endeavoured to convey the suggestion, that it is possible for us now to obtain increased supplies of coal by means of a bargain with the United Kingdom and that the Government has failed in its duty by not seeking to make such a bargain. In that connection he referred to a recent statement reported in the Press by the British Minister for Fuel and Power. Mr. Shinwell is reported as having stated, as one reason why coal miners in Great Britain should produce more coal, that if more coal was available for export it would be possible to obtain increased food supplies from this country in return. It is, of course, correct that if we could obtain more coal, more fertilisers and more equipment, we could increase the production of foodstuffs here and, consequently, the surplus over and above our own needs available for export. But, Deputy McGilligan is aware and the House is aware that there is no bargain with Great Britain involving the exchange of cattle or other foodstuffs for coal nor are our exports of cattle or, other foodstuffs related to our imports of coal.

Deputy McGilligan put in juxtaposition to that statement by Mr. Shinwell a statement I had made here in 1943, that we had no bargaining power. That statement was made by me in 1943 in relation to the circumstances of 1943 and was directed to the contention which was then being put forward that we could in that year have secured increased supplies of coal or other materials from Great Britain by utilisation of what was described as our bargaining power. It was, of course, a dishonest debating trick to relate that statement, made in the middle of the world war, at the most critical period of the war, and which related to the circumstances of that time, to a statement made last week by a British Minister, for the purpose of showing some contradiction.

It is no longer true that we have no bargaining power. As circumstances permit of variation in the forms of production here or as trade with other countries who are now anxious to obtain supplies of foodstuffs, cattle and other farm products, from us, develops, our bargaining power increases but it still would be a dangerous illusion to believe that we have the world by the tail and that we can dictate the terms upon which the world will trade with us. That is not true and it is merely, I think, an indication of Deputy McGilligan's usual contempt for the intelligence of the average person that he put forward that suggestion here knowing himself that it was untrue but in the expectation that some people less familiar with our general national position might be induced to believe it.

Mr. D. Morrissey

Of course, he did not say that.

Mr. Lemass

The Deputy did say it.

Mr. Morrissey

Not what the Minister has just said, not that we had the world by the tail.

Mr. Lemass

He said that we could in fact obtain increased supplies of essential commodities from abroad if we used our bargaining power to obtain it.

Mr. Morrissey

From Great Britain.

Mr. Lemass

From Great Britain.

Mr. Morrissey

That is not the world.

Mr. Lemass

The Deputy may apply my remark to Great Britain. I have endeavoured to bring the House to realise that the problem of coal supplies from Great Britain is not a temporary problem, is not due to any political decision of the British Government to refuse supplies to us, but to the bad position in which the British coal mining industry now finds itself. There were published only last week the British coal production statistics for the month of January and they showed a reduction of output compared with the month of January, 1945, of over 100,000 tons. I believe that at some stage the decline in British coal production will be arrested and that output will begin to rise again but that has not been accomplished yet, as the most recent statistics make clear.

The suggestion which Deputy McGilligan was trying to convey was that we need not have a coal problem here if the Government would go to Great Britain and use this alleged bargaining power to insist that the British would send us more coal than they are sending us now. I have pointed out that a very small further diminution in British coal production will create a situation in which Great Britain will have no coal surplus to its own requirements available for export.

It is always open to us to refuse to supply our products to Great Britain except on conditions. We might find that we could not make a bargain upon that basis. I warned the House when I spoke on this matter in 1943 that we could not bluff on that issue. We knew then, as the British knew then, that the alternative to sending our surplus cattle to Great Britain was not to send them anywhere, to keep them at home even though it meant maintaining them at home by the use of feeding stuffs which were required for other purposes here. It is no longer true that we could not sell a substantial proportion of our agricultural surplus outside Great Britain. We could. Buyers from other countries are now coming here seeking to obtain supplies and we may in fact have to restrict the quantities they will be allowed to withdraw, because of possible reactions upon our internal situation, but there is no basis for the suggestion that it is a simple matter to extract more coal from the British by some process of bargaining with our agricultural surplus. I do not know if the whole of the Fine Gael Party is in favour of this idea of Deputy McGilligan of refusing to sell our cattle to Great Britain except on the terms that we dictate but, if they are, it is certainly a new orientation of that Party's policy.

Mr. Morrissey

You used to have a policy about that before the war, from 1933 to 1939.

Mr. Lemass

We always had a policy, which is more than the Deputy ever had.

Mr. Morrissey

"The market was gone for ever, thank God."

Mr. Lemass

The coal supplies we are now getting from Great Britain are equivalent to about 40 per cent. of our normal pre-war imports in quantity. The main consequence on our position of that contraction in total supplies is due not so much to the decline in tonnage but to the serious deterioration in the quality of the coal we are receiving. The great bulk of the coal which is coming here now from Great Britain is of a quality which ordinarily would not be saleable at all before the war. Whatever our prospects may be of getting increased quantities from Great Britain, we do feel that we should receive coal of a better quality and in recent months the main burden of the representation made by us to the British authorities has been directed towards obtaining supplies of a better quality. If we could obtain even the same tonnage in coal of a better quality it would have most beneficial results upon the adequacy and the cost of the transport facilities which we can provide here, on the production of gas, electricity and the industrial commodities for the manufacture of which coal is being allowed. The quality of the coal available has a very direct bearing upon the cost of the production of electricity.

Deputies asked a number of questions concerning the probable cost of producing electricity from turf and made comparisons with the cost of producing electricity through coal at the Pigeon House or by water power at the Shannon. If people are going to make comparisons between the cost of production of electricity at the stations now existing and the station yet to be created, they must make due allowance for the fact that construction costs will in future be substantially heavier than they were before the war. I do not think anybody is optimistic enough to believe that the cost of building power stations, whether hydro stations or steam stations, will in future fall as low as before the war, and in determining the cost of electricity, both from hydro stations and from steam stations, but particularly from hydro stations, the capital charges arising are a substantial item. Deputy Morrissey appeared to think that the introduction of this Bill required from him a boost for the Shannon scheme. He was mainly concerned to demonstrate that the Shannon scheme was a bigger project than this Bill provides for.

Mr. D. Morrissey

It was not a white elephant.

Mr. Lemass

No such comparison entered my mind. This proposal to develop our peat resources or to produce electricity from peat is not put forward by me as something better than the Shannon scheme or any other hydro-electric scheme. It is being put forward as a necessary corollary to the development of water-power for electricity generation purposes. It may have done Deputy Morrissey good to have emphasised here the importance of the Shannon scheme to this country during the war. Nobody disputes that. If the Shannon scheme had not been begun in 1927, it is probable that the development of electricity generation here by local authorities and private individuals would have mainly taken the form of fuel-burning stations. The Dublin Corporation might have developed the Liffey, but, undoubtedly, the bulk of our generation capacity would have been based upon imported fuel. Nobody is questioning the soundness from the national economic point of view of developing the Shannon. The Shannon was a good scheme, so good that we are going to have two or three more like it in the next five years or so.

Deputy McGilligan was on sounder ground when blowing his own trumpet. He made the case that he was the pioneer of the idea of national enterprise in the development of our resources. Undoubtedly, the first major development of natural resources by the State, as distinct from private individuals or local authorities, was the Shannon scheme. If Deputy McGilligan had not begun that process on the Shannon scheme in 1927, somebody else would have begun it, either in connection with electricity or something else, at a later stage. I do not think there is anyone who would seriously contend that it would be possible for us to secure an adequate and systematic development of our turf resources by mechanical means otherwise than as a State-sponsored enterprise.

I have mentioned that in making any calculation as to the comparative costs of producing electricity between one station and another, or by one process or another, due allowance must be made for all the circumstances. There is little difference in general design between the power station to be constructed on the Erne and the Shannon power station. Although the character of the area and the general circumstances require variations in the particular layout, in essence the water-power of these rivers is harnessed for the generation of power. Deputy McGilligan made what was to me a meaningless calculation as to the cost of current from the Shannon if capital charges were ignored. In the generation of power from water, the only charges which matter are the capital charges. Once the embankments, dams, canals, and power stations have been built and the machinery installed, the actual operation and maintenance charges are negligible. The only item determining the cost of current is the capital charges resulting from the initial expenditure.

The Erne scheme will be comparable in size to the Shannon scheme, but it will cost more because, despite the reduction of interest upon advances, the actual outlay on physical equipment, dams, embankments, stations and plant will be higher, due entirely to the increase in the cost of construction or the cost of equipment arising since the war. Any comparison, however, between the cost of generating current at the Shannon or the Erne with the Pigeon House or any turf-fired steam-station must make due allowance for one important fact. We cannot rely entirely upon water-power to provide our electricity needs. Water-power is contingent upon weather conditions and, when the Shannon was developed, it became essential that there should be developed at the same time adequate steam-power capacity to operate as a stand-by for the Shannon. Construction of the Erne hydro-power station will also involve an increase in steam-plant capacity. Every hydro station will involve an addition to steam-plant capacity and the actual cost of generating current in consequence of the establishment of a new hydro-power station must make due allowance for the expenditure which will also be incurred in the establishment of a corresponding steam stand-by plant.

Furthermore, any comparison to be made now between the cost of generating current at a turf-fired station and the cost of generating at the Pigeon House must make allowance for the fact that the Pigeon House was taken over by the Electricity Supply Board from the Dublin Corporation without compensation and that, consequently, there are no capital charges to be met by the Electricity Supply Board in respect of the capital expenditure upon the station incurred by the Dublin Corporation. Capital expenditure on the station has been incurred by the Electricity Supply Board since, but it would be a false standard of comparison to take the actual ascertained cost of production at the Pigeon House for the purpose of determining the economic value of a turf-fired station. However, as information was asked for, I will give it.

The cost of generating electricity at Ardnacrusha in 1944-45 was .3024d. per unit. The cost of generating electricity at the Pigeon House in 1944-45 was 1.5165d. per unit. The cost for the Pigeon House reflects the abnormal increase in the price of fuel and, to some extent, reflects also the deterioration in the quality of the fuel. Pre-war, the cost of current produced by the Pigeon House was .6632d. per unit. The estimated cost of producing electricity at the Clonsast steam station will be on the basis of turf at 20/- per ton, .725d. per unit and, on the basis of turf at 25/- per ton, .810d. per unit. It is clear, therefore, that, on the assumption of the Turf Development Board that it can produce by mechanical means turf delivered to the turf station adjacent to Clonsast bog at some price between 20/- and 25/- per ton, it is entirely an economic proposition to proceed with the construction of that station.

Mr. Anthony

What about the price to the consumer?

Mr. Lemass

If the Deputy wants the price to the consumer, he must make allowance for transmission costs and a number of other charges which are not included in that calculation. In order to compare the economy of a turf-fired station with any other type of station these figures suffice. It is true that the cost of production at a hydro-station will be lower than the cost of production at a steam station, whether the steam station is fired by coal or not. As I pointed out, a water-power station must be supplemented by a steam station, in any event. Consequently the actual charge per unit from a water-power station is not a sufficient indication of the position. As I have stated, we could not proceed to meet our electricity needs by water-power stations only and, although in present circumstances it appears desirable that the board should proceed with water-power projects, that is due to the anticipated continuance of our fuel difficulties and the fact that it would take some time to step up mechanised turf production to the point at which an increased generation capacity on a substantial scale can be kept going on turf alone. At some future stage, the board's generation plant will have to be supplemented by further steam plant corresponding to any new water-power station now decided upon.

General Mulcahy

What is the percentage figure in regard to stand-by stations for any water-power stations that may be erected?

Mr. Lemass

That depends entirely on the nature of the load. The enormous increase in the demand for electricity which took place here between 1932 and 1939 was mainly due to the industrial expansion which occurred during that time. The big increase was in the industrial load, and an increase in the industrial load is more attractive to the Electricity Supply Board than an increase in the domestic load, because it is more uniform throughout the day, and frequently continues throughout the night in the case of continuous process industries, whereas the domestic load reaches a very sharp peak at certain hours of the day. The capacity of the stand-by plant required is largely determined by the flow of water to the hydro stations and the general nature of the load. We have here in this country a demand for electricity, which runs into acute peaks as compared with some other countries where the demand is more uniform throughout the day and the year.

General Mulcahy

Is the stand-by plant more indispensable for an industrial load than for a domestic load?

Mr. Lemass

In so far as the industrial load is likely to be more uniform, that would not be so. Deputy McGilligan also made very inaccurate calculations as to the consumption of electricity per head in the Six Counties as compared with the consumption per head here. The Deputy reached an amazing result by cutting off 500,000 from the population of the Six Counties and 150,000,000 units from the consumption of electricity here. The consumption of electricity in the Six Counties at the moment is 400,000,000 units, and that does not represent 400 units per head, because the population of the Six Counties is at least 500,000 more than the Deputy stated. Our consumption of electricity is not 300,000,000 units but 450,000,000 units. While it is undoubtedly correct that the consumption of electricity per head in this country is still below that of many other countries, as I pointed out here when introducing legislation last year, the difference is not as substantial as Deputy McGilligan represents it.

We have here a specific problem which does not exist either in the Six Counties or in Great Britain. It is much easier to sell electricity in areas of congested population, in towns and cities, than it is in a country where the bulk of the population live in scattered farms and rural areas. The problem of rural electrification is about to be tackled by the Electricity Supply Board. I believe that with the advent of electricity to rural areas, there will develop in the course of a short time a substantial revolution in the technique of farming here and a very steady and rapid increase in the demand for current by rural users. However, we recognise the fact that our national development has been retarded by the delayed increase in the use of electricity as compared with other countries, and if we are going to make our production as efficient and our town and rural life as comfortable as it is elsewhere, we must succeed in getting a very considerable expansion in the use of electricity. Preparations have been made for that. The rural electrification scheme has been approved by the Dáil; the necessary finance has been made available to the board; the necessary powers have been given to it to undertake the work and, as the House is aware, a generation programme is under way which will provide the board in the course of a few years with sufficient current to meet all requirements.

Some Deputies complained that the calculation as to the price of this mechanically-produced turf mentioned in the White Paper is too indefinite. The White Paper states that turf will be produced on 24 bogs at a price which will vary between 20/- and 25/- per ton. On re-reading the White Paper, I realised that the form of words used might have created misunderstanding. It was not intended to convey that there was any doubt as to the price at which turf could be produced on any one bog, or that the board could at this stage only give an upper and lower limit. The intention was to convey that the actual cost of producing turf will vary from bog to bog. In some cases it will be as low as 20/- per ton and in other cases as high as 25/-. Over all the bogs which the board will develop the average price will be 22/- or 22/6. I want the House to understand that the actual capital investment required in the case of each bog has been determined, the operation costs have been estimated as closely as possible and the board is prepared to give, if required, a firm figure which would represent the maximum cost of production at any one bog.

General Mulcahy

Could the Minister state at this point what are the headings which this figure is supposed to cover?

Mr. Lemass

The capital expenditure set out in the White Paper will be incurred first of all on the purchase of the bog, then the drainage of the bog, on equipment such as production machines and railways, on the construction of houses for the staff to be employed and for working capital. Arising out of a remark made by Deputy Mulcahy, I want to make it clear also that it is intended that work will start simultaneously on every bog of the 24 listed. It is not intended to begin on four or five this year and four or five next year. It is proposed to start work simultaneously on all the bogs although some of them will be brought into production earlier than others because drainage problems may be more difficult in the case of some of the bogs and there may be other factors which will result in more expeditious development in certain cases.

A number of Deputies referred to the size of the project with which the board has been authorised to proceed in relation to our full needs. Deputy Morrissey and Deputy Hughes, of course, were mainly concerned to disparage this undertaking of a Fianna Fáil Government in case we might claim credit for it as a great national project, but Deputy Larkin and other Deputies dealt seriously with the possibility, recognising that we will need, to meet our fuel requirements in the next five or ten years, to increase substantially the output of machine produced turf. I recognise the fact that this scheme could fairly be criticised as too small. It may cost £3,250,000; it may put six or seven thousand people into work; it may involve a large technical staff and produce 1,000,000 tons of machine peat per annum, but it is still small in relation to the resources available to us and to our need for the development of these resources to meet immediate requirements. I mentioned, however, that the scheme set out in the White Paper is not intended to indicate any limitation on the activities which the board may undertake. It represents a project which we believe the board can easily encompass, but if it can do better than that—either get into production at the rate of 1,000,000 tons a year at an earlier date than that contemplated in the White Paper or, having gained for its staff experience in the problems that will arise, can undertake the development of a larger number of bogs —they will get from the Government every encouragement to do so and we will be only too glad to introduce here the supplementary legislation to provide the finance required for that purpose.

Deputy Norton referred to the constitution of the board, and urged that persons should be chosen because of their familiarity with peat production problems and their general technical qualifications. I can assure the Deputy that there is little risk that the Government will have any other considerations in mind. I know the Deputy suggested that persons were sometimes chosen for boards in charge of State enterprises on political grounds. The suggestion has also been made elsewhere recently. I am quite sure that, in Deputy Norton's case, that suggestion was not the outcome of pique that he has not been chosen for one of those boards. The fact of the matter is that, when the Government embarks upon a project of this kind, it is giving a hostage to the electorate and must make sure that the job will be well done. If there were only political considerations to be kept in mind by the Government, then it would be obviously in its best interests to ensure that these projects were entrusted to people who could direct them successfully, as failure would react on the Government's interests. However, I do not think I need assert that the Government in these matters is not concerned solely or even mainly with Party considerations. It believes that the national development of the country by means of particular projects, such as the development of our peat resources, the generation and sale of electricity or other activities of that kind, can in our circumstances be better performed by State enterprises established and directed under statute than by private business enterprise.

A query was also addressed to me as to the marketing methods which the board will employ. The board will be free to employ whatever marketing methods will bring the turf to the consumer at the lowest price. In that connection, I would like to say that, during the emergency, we, of deliberate policy, which was fully explained to the Dáil, decided that the hand-won turf produced under the emergency scheme would be sold through existing fuel merchants. We were anxious that those fuel merchants, the business concerns previously operating here, should be kept in business during the emergency years and that there should be the least possible disturbance in employment. That was done by giving the business of distributing turf to them, even though we knew that their interest in turf would not be as high as it should be, and that their experience was not altogether suitable for the proper discharge of that businéss. We knew it might involve a higher cost for distribution than if a single marketing organisation, specially designed for the distribution of turf, had been created for each centre. I explained to the Dáil at the time why we decided to use the existing fuel merchants, and there was no dissent here. It may be that some proportion of the subsidy now being paid in respect of turf in the non-turf area could be saved by scrapping the existing fuel merchants' organisation, by taking the turf entirely away from them and setting up an ad hoc organisation specially designed for that particular work; but I do not think that, in the long run, would be a desirable practice.

In the future, however, this Turf Development Board will be a commercial organisation, and will be free to adopt whatever commercial practice is most economical. It will sell the turf itself to individual consumers, or will market it through agents who are dealing in turf and whose equipment and organisation make them suitable to deal in it, or will give it to any person who wants to buy on wholesale terms and sell on a retail basis. I stated, in the course of my introductory speech, that it was not at all contemplated that there would be any restriction on the production or sale of hand-won turf; that, in fact, the machine-won production would not interfere at all with hand-won production. In case any misunderstanding might be created by my observations in that connection, I want to make it clear that those remarks related to circumstances in which the fuel scarcity problem has ceased to exist. So long as it is necessary to retain rationing of turf in the non-turf area, then, of course, there will be restrictions on sale in that area, and on movement of turf in and out of it. I do not contemplate that it will be possible for us, this year or next year, to reach the position in which we will have such an abundant supply of fuels of all kinds that rationing can be abandoned.

General Mulcahy

But in the turf area there will be no restrictions?

Mr. Lemass

In the turf area there is no restriction at present upon the sale of turf.

Mr. Norton

Is the Minister moving away now from the State's attitude towards hand-won turf?

Mr. Lemass

Partially, yes.

Mr. Norton

Would the Minister say that the grants which have been made in the past for improvement and drainage or the reconstruction and repair of roads will be continued in the hand-won turf areas?

Mr. Lemass

Yes; I said that in introducing the Bill. Deputy Dockrell made a very elaborate and what appears to be a very absurd calculation as to the cost of turf. He based that calculation upon certain assumptions which I am anxious to get out of his mind. The bulk of the cost of turf under the emergency scheme in Dublin or in areas along the East coast is represented by the loss involved in putting the turf into dumps and storing it there. Deputy Dockrell has never grasped that fact. In order to meet the fuel needs of Dublin during the emergency, it was not necessary merely to produce turf, since in addition to a fuel problem we had a transport problem. The whole of the turf produced in the Western counties for the East coast area had to be transported over a system inadequately equipped for the purpose at the times of the year when transport facilities could be provided, and those transport facilities had to cease entirely once the grain harvest and the beet harvest began to come in. It was necessary, therefore, to devise a system of bringing turf into Dublin in April, May, June and July, and storing it in dumps here. That involved a double handling of the turf, substantially higher labour charges, and a loss of turf itself due to crumbling and evaporation, which has been estimated to be 20 per cent. of the total. Therefore, 20 per cent. of the cost of turf in the dumps in Dublin represents a loss due to the fact that the turf had to be put into dumps. The storage and distribution charges involved were substantially higher than they would have been if turf could be produced and sold on a commercial basis as available.

Furthermore, it is not intended that this machine-won turf should be sold in small lots to domestic consumers in Dublin. I mentioned already that the programme of the board will be to sell the turf, if possible, in the districts immediately adjacent to the bogs on which it is produced. Perhaps one-half of the 1,000,000 tons contemplated in the scheme will be sold to the Electricity Supply Board to feed generating stations located on the bog verges. The other half will be sold for industrial and domestic use in the immediate areas where it is produced and in these areas it is estimated that the cost of turf will, value for value, be substantially lower than the cost of coal.

Deputy Dockrell made his calculation on the basis most favourable to coal. He brought the turf from Turraun to Dublin, added a whole lot of charges that would not ordinarily arise, and related the cost to the cost of coal in Dublin. Why not relate it to the cost of coal at Athlone? Turraun turf will be sold at Athlone and why not add to the cost of coal in Dublin the charges involved in bringing that coal to Athlone? If the Deputy follows that procedure, he will get a fairer estimate of the cost of turf in relation to the cost of coal, even if coal prices were to revert—as at present seems most improbable—to pre-war prices, or anything like that.

Deputy Alfred Byrne, in his usual insinuating way, asked who gets the profit on the turf now being sold in Dublin. He knows, I am quite sure, that there is no element of private profit at all, except to the extent that the coal merchants in Dublin who distribute that turf to individual consumers, including bellmen, get any profit. The turf is produced by the country councils or the Turf Development Board. They recover, in the price received for the turf, their actual costs of production, and nothing more. It is transported to Dublin and sold there by an organisation set up by the Government for that purpose, called Fuel Importers, Ltd. They make no profit. The turf is heavily subsidised, as the Dáil is aware. Deputy Byrne's question was merely intended to convey in a mean manner to the citizens of Dublin that the price of turf was unduly inflated by the introduction of an element of private profit. Having regard to Deputy Byrne's tactics in these matters, his was the type of remark that one would have expected from him.

Some Deputies referred to the desirability of further developing our coal resources. The development of our turf resources in no way interferes with plans for the development of our coal resources. One is not exclusive of the other.

Deputy Cogan expressed the view that it was undesirable that the workers employed on the bogs should be housed in camps and he urged that houses should be constructed for their accommodation where they could live with their families. That is the intention but, as I pointed out, turf production by this method involves not merely permanent employment for a substantial number of workers, but also seasonal employment for an equivalent number of workers. These workers on seasonal employment, drawn mainly from the western seaboard counties, can best be accommodated in camps and hostels, such as the Turf Development Board now operate. I would advise Deputy Commons and the other Deputies who spoke about the conditions in the hostels, to find out for themselves whether there is any foundation for the stories they have heard. The workers are well looked after and well-fed. Deputies reading about rationing in Europe will notice that the expectation is that the majority of the people in Europe will get rations of foodstuffs sufficient to give them 1,500 calories per day. It is assumed that the quantity of food required to maintain an average person in reasonable health is equivalent to 3,000 to 4,000 calories per day. The rations supplied to the turf workers in the camps are equivalent to 5,800 calories per day. There appears to be, therefore, no possible foundation for the suggestion that there is anything inadequate in the rations provided for the turf workers.

I do not think there are any other matters arising out of the debate that I need refer to at this stage. Reference was made to the proposals set out in the White Paper to encourage the use of turf by requiring the installation in houses, institutions and factories, established under Government direction or with Government assistance in the turf-burning areas, of equipment suitable to the use of turf. Our problem during the war has been very considerably accentuated by the fact that in most houses, factories and institutions the ranges, grates and boilers installed were designed to use coal and were not suitable to the utilisation of turf, but with properly designed equipment in boilers, grates and ranges, turf is just as suitable a fuel as coal and can give equally satisfactory results.

The intention is that the Turf Development Board will complete whatever experiments are necessary to ensure that there will be put upon the market suitable equipment for the utilisation of turf for domestic or industrial use and those who should be expected to use turf because it is cheaper than other fuel will be required, as a condition of Government assistance, to instal such equipment. It is also intended that the Turf Development Board should investigate the possibility of producing from turf other industrial products. Deputy Larkin inquired as to intentions in that regard and I want to make it clear that while the main function of the Turf Development Board is to produce turf for sale as fuel, if they can, as a result of experiments, find a use for by-products of turf for industrial purposes, they will be empowered to engage in that work. Some other matters were mentioned, but they were mainly points of details which can be more usefully discussed in Committee.

Mr. Norton

Will the Minister say if there will be any discrimination, as there seems to be at present, against local people in getting employment?

Mr. Lemass

So far as there is any restriction on the Turf Development Board in the recruitment of staff, it is a restriction imposed by the Government, having regard to the local employment situation.

Mr. Norton

In view of the fact that these bogs are to be permanently developed and mechanised so as to be a source of fuel production, it is obvious they will become a part of the local life in these areas and it is to be hoped the Government will recognise the desirability of avoiding anything in the nature of friction by giving an equal chance of employment to local people.

Mr. Lemass

The bulk of the people employed will be residents in the immediate vicinity of the bog, as at Clonsast. The restriction imposed on the Turf Development Board in the operation of the turf camps during the emergency period to recruit labour from western and southern areas was due entirely to the anxiety not to divert labour from agricultural work in the bog areas in the midland counties, when there was labour suitable for turf production available west of the Shannon.

Mr. Norton

Are you going to abandon the policy of putting restrictions on the Turf Development Board so that the local people will get a fair chance of employment with other people?

Mr. Lemass

The restriction applies only to the hand-turf scheme which the board is operating as Government agents and it is intended to ensure that the higher remuneration which is paid there should take out of necessary agricultural work in the vicinity workers previously engaged in that work.

Mr. Norton

Take the case of people in a particular area who live by turf production. Will they get an equal chance with other citizens of the State in getting employment in one of these areas?

Mr. Lemass

So far as the turf camps are concerned, the intention is that the people permanently employed in them will be resident in the immediate vicinity.

Mr. Norton

Normally resident?

Mr. Lemass

Normally resident.

Mr. Norton

The locals will be employed?

Mr. Lemass

I am not promising that the local people will have a preference over others. Around the bogs, workers' houses will be built and in those houses will live those employed in turf production. They might, however, be persons who come from other places for that work.

Mr. Norton

Will the local people have as good a chance as others?

Mr. Lemass

The same chance.

Mr. O'Leary

Will every person be entitled to sell turf without a licence?

Mr. Lemass

I hope so. At the stage where scarcity is ended these emergency restrictions will be completely withdrawn.

Mr. O'Leary

Will that be immediately?

Mr. Lemass

I have not the slightest hope that it will be immediately. There is not the slightest likelihood that we will be able to get rid of rationing for a couple of years.

Mr. O'Leary

Must coal merchants still take out licences?

General Mulcahy

I asked the Minister to state what was the general basis with regard to wages, and whether they are based on the present estimate of cost of turf.

Mr. Lemass

On the present cost.

Mr. O'Donnell

Will the Minister deal with the question of getting turf supplies on the Knockmealdown mountains? There is an enclosed valley in which there is turf 20 miles along that part of the country.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is now asking the question.

Mr. O'Donnell

Turf from that valley supplied that area 50 years ago. The principal draw-back now is the want of roads leading to the turf banks.

Mr. Lemass

The Deputy will have to go to the Board of Works about that matter.

Mr. O'Donnell

I am sure the Minister would be helpful if a survey was made.

Mr. O'Leary

Will the Minister consider giving further help to the county councils for turf production?

Mr. Lemass

So far as the county council schemes are concerned they are recouped by the Government their whole cost of turf production.

Mr. O'Leary

The county council of Wexford provided a road in one district last year but no turf was produced at the time.

Mr. Lemass

I could not go into details now.

Mr. Anthony

Would the Minister take steps to secure that the people who use turf will not be overcharged? I quite understand that transport charges have to be taken into consideration, and that prices will vary from district to district. Will the Minister have a tribunal established to see that consumers are not mulcted?

Mr. Lemass

Under emergency conditions prices are controlled but in normal circumstances prices will be regulated by competition. In conditions of full supply, turf will be sold at whatever price can be got for it, but, at present, turf is sold at prices fixed by the Department.

Mr. Anthony

While the emergency lasted there was an amount of profiteering going on and I want to secure that that will not continue under this Bill.

Mr. Lemass

The price of turf is controlled only in non-turf areas.

Mr. Anthony

Would the Minister have some regulation made to deal with overcharging?

Mr. Lemass

I do not think there is any overcharging in non-turf areas. There may be in turf areas where people can always produce their own turf.

Mr. Anthony

I want to secure that consumers will not be fleeced.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for March 13th, 1946.