asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he will state whether contracts for clothing for demobilised soldiers are issued by his Department or by the Contracts Committee; if he is aware that recently an order for a thousand suits of clothes was given to Messrs. Arthur & Co., Middle Abbey Street, Dublin; that the contractor purchased the clothing ready-made in Great Britain; that the workers of the Clothing Industry in Ireland are mostly on half time or are unemployed, and if he will take steps to see that contracts of this nature will not leave Ireland in future.
CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS. ORAL ANSWERS. - CLOTHING FOR DEMOBILISED SOLDIERS.
Contracts for clothing for demobilised soldiers are not issued by the Ministry of Industry and Commerce. They are as a rule entered into by the Local Government Trade Department on behalf of the Government Contracts Committee, who decide whose tenders should be accepted.
I am aware that an order for civilian suits was recently given to Messrs. Arthur and Company. It was given direct by the Army authorities in the circumstances that demobilisation of the Army has proceeded recently at an unexpectedly rapid rate, and that as a consequence there was a very large number of men to be supplied with civilian clothing. It was essential that suits should be obtained at very short notice and the usual practice as regards contracts and the conditions of buying had to be departed from. I regret that this should have resulted in the importation of the articles, and I shall see that steps will be taken to obviate anything of the kind happening again.
Is the Dáil to understand that the demobilisation was not foreseen and that this was therefore an emergency order? Are we to understand that the demobilisation could not be prepared for? Has it been the continuation of a policy of hand to mouth? The excuse was given before that these orders had to be given quickly and they could not be carried out here because there was no time to spare, and unforeseen circumstances had arisen. Surely the demobilisation had been foreseen?
Perhaps the word "demobilisation" is not a correct one to use in the circumstances. The number of re-attestations was less than had been anticipated, and as a result an unusually large number of suits was required in consequence.
Was the number of re-attestations less than was foreseen, because the number of people qualified for re-attestation was less than what was expected; or was it because the number required to be attested was not accepted?
I do not exactly know under which head the answer would lie. I do say the number of re-attestations was not up to the mark. If the Deputy will put down another question in regard to that matter I will see that an answer is prepared.