I beg to move that the Local Authorities (Combined Purchasing) Bill, 1925, do now pass.
LOCAL AUTHORITIES (COMBINED PURCHASING) BILL, 1925—FIFTH STAGE.
In one of the newspapers this morning there is published a report of a statement made by the Minister for Local Government and Public Health in respect to this Bill. In that statement he makes it known that, in his view, at any rate, the Bill will not interfere with any local authority in making a local purchase, unless the price paid is higher than the official contractor's price. I think we should understand where we are in this matter. I have not had much time to make a comparison between the statement made by the Minister and the Bill that is proposed, but with a little patience on the part of the Dáil I may be able to point out that the statement made by the Minister as to his view of what the Bill contains is not in accordance with the facts. Section 2 of the Bill states:—
It shall be the duty of the Minister to take all such steps as may be desirable to enable local authorities to obtain jointly from one or more suitable contractors such supplies of any commodity as may be required by them in the performance of their duties.
Now I will come to Section 3 of this Bill, and it is set out in Section 3:—
(1) The Minister may as and when and in such manner as he thinks proper give public notice that he will, within a specified time, receive applications from persons desirous of being appointed to be official contractors under this Act for a specified period in respect of one or more specified commodities.
(2) Every application for appointment as an official contractor shall be made in writing in the prescribed form and shall contain the prescribed particulars, including a statement of the price at which the applicant is willing to supply to local authorities the commodity to which the application relates...
That would mean including a statement of the price at which the applicant is willing to supply local authorities everywhere in the Saorstát. Now we come on to Section 6, wherein it is stated:—
(1) Whenever a local authority purchases or enters into a contract for the purchase of any commodity for which an official contractor has been appointed under this Act with a person who is not an official contractor for such commodity, an entry shall be made in the minutes of such local authorities stating the reasons for such purchase or contract...
(3) At any such audit, unless the auditor is satisfied that such purchase or contract was not made for any fraudulent or improper purpose or object or for any object other than the bona fide discharge by the members of the local authority making or authorising the making thereof of their duties in the interests of the ratepayers, he shall charge against such members jointly and severally the amount of any loss caused to the local authority by such purchase or contract, whether such loss arises from the price paid for the commodity or from the quality of the commodity so obtained or otherwise howsoever, and in the case of a contract if in his opinion any such loss as aforesaid is likely to result from the continuance of the contract, he may declare such contract to be illegal.
In the course of the discussion the President has pointed out frequently, and did so no less than a couple of days ago, that the local authority would not be allowed to purchase at a lower price than the contractor's price if the purchase was made after the contractor's price had been made public in any form. That was the implication of his statement. The implication was that if one public body learned in the course of its contracting that the contractor's price for a specific article was £X, then no other local body would be allowed to purchase from a local contractor at lower than that contractor's price. If they purchased at that price locally it would be incumbent upon the local authority to prove to the auditor that they had no fraudulent intention and they would have to prove to the auditor that there was better service and better quality given and better satisfaction generally, the price not being the only consideration.
I maintain that the provisions of this Bill do not support the statement made by the Minister for Local Government, if he is reported correctly. They do not sustain the claim that he made, which is that a local authority would be free to purchase from a local contractor if the price were the same, or lower. I think it is necessary that public attention should be drawn to the difference between the Bill and the Minister's interpretation of it.
I have not had an opportunity of reading the Minister's speech, or of hearing it. I might state, briefly, that the idea underlying this measure is, as I have already explained, to enable local authorities to purchase commodities at the lowest possible price. In order to secure that there will be a sufficient amount of competition for any articles which will be required, it will be realised that the competition should take place on the same date. Any other proposal than that would mean that the contractor, not being satisfied that he would get the whole of the business of any particular commodity or commodities, would naturally have to make an alteration in the price at which he would tender. Certainly in the majority of cases that would happen if he were not satisfied that he was going to get all the business. That lesser business would naturally mean in most cases an increase in price. The rights and the privileges of ratepayers in local areas are still secured. If the local authority advertise for particular commodities at the same time as the Central Purchasing Board and if the price in these cases is equal to or less than the Central Authority's price, there is an opportunity for a much bigger business I should say on the part of that local contractor. To that extent, if the Minister made that statement, I should say he was perfectly correct, but we cannot hope to get the very best out of this measure if it were made known that, immediately a particular contractor was notified for any one commodity, it would be open to every trader in the country to supply the local authority at that particular price, or at a lower price. The whole basis of this central purchasing is to get the best articles at the cheapest price and where any industrial or manufacturing concerns exist for the provision of certain articles, there should be some inducement to manufacturers, even in a small way, to extend their premises by reason of their getting the whole of the business. Several examples of that have occurred and it is hoped that by reason of the passing of this measure further extensions and developments will be inaugurated in those industries or businesses which supply the commodities that will be required.
Will the Minister allow me to say that we are not quarrelling with the objects of the Bill? We are disputing the utility of the method proposed.
Question put and agreed to. Message ordered to be sent to the Seanad accordingly.