asked the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs whether he will state how many contracts for Army boots were placed during the financial years 1923-24, 1924-25, respectively; how many boots were purchased on each contract; what, in each case, was the lowest tender received from a manufacturer in Saorstát Eireann, and from a manufacturer in Great Britain, respectively; and with whom the contract was placed.
CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS. ORAL ANSWERS. - ARMY BOOTS CONTRACTS.
The following contracts for the supply of Army boots were placed during the years mentioned:—
It would not be in the public interest
|
Year. |
Contract placed with. |
No. of pairs of Boots. |
|
1923-24 |
M. Governey, Carlow. |
5,000 |
|
1924-25 |
1. Hearne & Cahill, Waterford. |
10,000 |
|
2. Adams Bros., Wellingborough. |
2,000 |
|
|
3. Hearne & Cahill, Waterford. |
12,000 |
|
|
4. Adams Bros., Wellingborough. |
3,000 |
|
|
5. Hearne & Cahill, Waterford. |
11,000 |
to give any information regarding the prices quoted by the firms who tendered.
Arising out of the reply of the Parliamentary Secretary, may I direct his attention to the fact that the Minister for Defence has already published, in the debate here in the Dáil, certain figures relating to these contracts, and in view of that fact I think we are entitled to have the definite contract figures for these boots.
I have not seen the figures that the Deputy mentions. It has not been the custom of our Department to give the figures of tenders for contracts. I think the Deputy will understand that, in view of the fact that we do give a preference in all cases to Irish manufactured goods, it is undesirable that we should publish the exact amount of the tender in each case.
But the statement was made here in the Dáil and figures were quoted to prove it, that the prices tendered by Irish boot manufacturers were so high that the Department could not see its way to extend a preference in that instance. I think we ought to have definite figures to substantiate that statement.
And give information away to contractors.
Certain figures were quoted, but I do not know that they were the figures mentioned by the Deputy. If the figures he has mentioned were given in a previous debate, I assume that we are free to give them now, but I cannot accept the Deputy's statement that these figures were given.