The amendment inserted probably goes a little towards meeting some of the criticism levied against the Bill. It does not, however, go very far and there is no assurance that the committee is going to have authority that would remove difficulties created by the Bill itself. It is not necessary, perhaps it is not wise, to go over the whole question of the methods that the Bill provides for meeting the difficulties announced by the Minister on the First and Second Readings. I want to repeat that I have no objection —quite the contrary—to the principle of combined purchasing of standardized articles for local authorities. But I object to the proposal to set up a body—a Department of the Ministry— even though it has an advisory committee of this kind, which will draw up a schedule of articles, and a schedule of contractors who will be bound to supply to any local authority in any part of the country the articles on this schedule at a price named, and makes it penal almost, certainly throws a responsibility for proving innocence upon the local authority, if it attempts by any means to go outside the schedule, even though the purchase price is lower, the quality better, or the service given more satisfactory than could be got from the scheduled firms.
The effect of the Bill will be to encourage combinations of firms, to encourage trusts and rings, and to deprive the local authorities of any power of getting outside the rings or breaking them. We can foresee the possibility, not at all unlikely, that as regards certain articles two or three firms are capable of supplying the whole demands of local authorities; that these firms will arrange amongst themselves what price shall be charged and that, having been put upon the list of contractors, the opportunities for any smaller and struggling local firms to supply similar articles, possibly more satisfactorily, but only capable of reaching a small area, will be nil. I want to stress the provisions of the Bill, and my objection to them, which say that any firm on the contractor's list is bound to supply the article in question to any local authority in any part of the country at the price named in the schedule. You are making a flat rate for the whole country; you are deciding that no local authority will have an advantage over any other local authority in respect to the price they may pay, even though the local conditions would allow the local authority to purchase much more advantageously.
It will be said that the auditor, who has certain powers in this matter, would not object to a local authority purchasing at a lower price; but it may be that the question affecting the local authority's decision would not be price but quality and convenience of delivery, certainty of delivery, regularity of delivery, and a better chance of checking. The auditor will come twelve months after the event, and it will be necessary for the local authority to prove to him that there was greater convenience, greater regularity of delivery, greater certainty of delivery, and better quality from the local supplier than from the scheduled supplier. It may be impossible for the auditor to form any judgment on the facts. His judgment will be based upon his opinion and prejudices. In such a case the onus of proving to the auditor that the local authority was not criminally minded is thrown upon the local authority. I say that that is the wrong way to approach the matter. It is treating the local authorities with discourtesy, to say the very least. It is proclaiming beforehand by legislation that you do not trust the local authorities, and assuming that if they do not purchase within the scheduled limits, then they have had ulterior and selfish motives without regard to the public interest.
We attempted to insert a provision in the Bill which would allow scheduled firms to be scheduled in respect of definite areas, so that a firm which was not in a position to supply the whole country at a given price would be able to quote for a particular class of article delivered at a station, say, within fifty miles, or within the province, or two counties. At any rate, such a firm would be able to take into account the cost of delivery. Under the Bill, as proposed, you are asking the contracting firms, who will be scheduled, to fix a rate in making quotations which will enable them to deliver in any part of the country. They will be asked to calculate upon where the biggest demand will come from—is it likely to come from the west, or the south, or the north-west—and if the biggest demand is likely to come from distant places, then prices will be adjusted accordingly. In practice I think this is going to be most difficult.
Then again a difficulty was pointed out by Deputy Good and myself and others which would arise in respect of the contracts that were entered into between the start of the contracting period and the end of that period. For instance, if a contractor's price was twenty shillings for a certain article delivered in any part of the country, if Cork, Waterford and Wexford bought articles at that price, but Limerick did not want such articles until three months afterwards, the price would have become known to the purchasers and traders or manufacturers in Limerick. Those contractors would then be able to under-cut the price in the schedule and somebody will have a grievance. Would it then be said that the local authority was justified or was not justified in going outside the contractor's list? According to the argument of the President in support of the Bill, I would gather that the auditor would be expected to surcharge the local authority for something—what it would be I do not know—but the responsibility would be placed upon the local authority for having bought outside the contractor's list, even though they bought cheaper and though the price at which they bought only became possible by virtue of the fact that other townships, boroughs or county councils had bought at an earlier date from the contractors at a higher price. I think that the scheme of the Bill is not going to work satisfactorily. The whole method is faulty, and I think the Bill ought not to pass in its present form.
