I conveyed to the Minister for Justice the representations of Deputy Lemass on the question of the continuance of the Rent Restrictions Act, the Minister being in the Seanad. He says that he is not in a position to make any statement on the matter at the moment, beyond that the Bill is necessarily a temporary measure and that it is not intended to keep it indefinitely in operation. It is simply intended to keep it in operation for the next twelve months. Beyond saying that, he is not in a position to say any more.
Twenty-Seventh Report of the Committee of Selection. - Expiring Laws Bill, 1931—Committee Stage.
Question proposed: "That Section 1 stand part of the Bill."
I would like to voice a protest against this procedure. In each year for a number of years back a definite announcement has been made by the Government that the Rent Act was to continue for another twelve months, and then to expire. Yet on each occasion at the end of the year the Act has been continued for another twelve months. The uncertainly created amongst tenants and owners of house property affected by that Act is a factor which the Government appears to leave out of account altogether. The Town Tenants Commission submitted to us definite recommendations which, if adopted, would have dealt with the situation which would have been created by the expiration of the Rent Restrictions Act. That Act did not expire and the Government used that as an excuse for not introducing legislative proposals based upon these recommendations. Now the Rent Restrictions Act is going to continue for another twelve months and expire then. Is it the intention of the Government in the meantime to introduce proposals for the legislation based on the recommendations of the Town Tenants Commission for the purpose of substituting a permanent code in place of the Rent Restrictions Act when it is gone. A definite pronouncement as to the Government's intention would be a very considerable boon to the people who are affected by it. I do not know whether the Acts are going to go and whether unlimited competition is going to take their place or whether some other form of restriction is going to be substituted for them. Each year they have been expecting the axe to fall, but then they find that another respite is granted. The same thing happened this year. I think it is about time the Government should make up its own mind and then definitely inform the country of its decision.
With regard to the Combined Purchasing Act would the Minister say whether paper and supplies of stationery generally are catered for by the Board? In that connection is there any co-operation between the Combined Purchasing Board and the Stationery Office? I understand that the Stationery Office acts for such bodies as the Agricultural Credit Corporation and the Electricity Supply Board in respect of stationery. It would seem at least as reasonable that the Stationery Office should act for the Dublin Corporation or other public bodies generally as for these. I notice in the list of Irish manufactures given in the recent report of the Local Government Department as supplied to local bodies there is no mention of Irish paper. Am I to infer from that either that paper and stationery are not articles contracted for under the Combined Purchasing Act, or that Irish paper is not recommended? I would also like to know in connection with that Act whether, granted that the quality is the same, the price is the sole criterion when fixing the contract. I am thinking of an instance where a firm got a contract under the Combined Purchasing Act that had no connection with this country. Such employees as it kept were entirely foreign, and its competitors who employed Irishmen and spent a good deal of money in the country, did not get any contract. Are we to take it that such general circumstances, whether the firms concerned employ Irishmen and whether it is a company registered in Ireland are taken into account, or if price and quality only are considered?
Can the Deputy say what type of firm he is referring to?
I am referring to a type of goods not manufactured in the country and obtained from abroad. Nobody could say that there is any difference in quality.
On the paper question I think the local authorities have a very close association with local printing firms in the matter of minutes and all that. I do not think there is any combined purchasing system dealing with paper or printing. On the other point, price is not separated from the consideration of quality. As a matter of fact, standard samples of various things are submitted to local authorities and are kept by them. They are a guide for them as to whether they are able to get locally at the same or reduced price goods of equal value. If they can be purchased locally, price is not separated from value. As a matter of fact, I think the Combined Purchasing Department and the Advisory Committee keep up a regular standard of quality, and look into the price in relation to that quality. In the matter of contracts for goods as between different quotations, if there is no difference in quality and no difference in price, my policy has been not to take the contract away from the holder if he cut the price. If, in 1930, the contractor came in with a lower tender than anyone and held it for that year, if he is cut next year by a person whose tender is lower, and if in the next year his tender and another person's tenders are exactly the same, my policy has been to keep the contract with the person who had it the year before. In the first place, he had given service by bringing about a lower price. His staff was organised, and he was serving the local authorities. I think it reasonable in these circumstances to leave the contract to the person who held it.
I think the Minister has missed my point. Take it that there is no difference in price between two firms for goods that come from abroad. They are so standardised that it is largely a question of taste and personal choice as between goods supplied by different firms. Does the Minister take into account in such cases whether one of these firms has Irish associations or not, whether it is a firm registered in the Saorstát or not, and whether it employs Irishmen or not? It means a very big thing as far as some companies are concerned, and I can tell the Minister that some firms consider that they have a very big grievance in the matter. They have tried to make themselves as Irish as possible, and they think they should get some credit when the contract is being decided. With regard to what the Minister has said about getting cuts I am not so sure that he is wise in that matter, because while cuts are welcome, for the sake of the advertisement, or to get established here, a firm will cut. Often such a firm deserves no great credit. It is practically out to sell at no monetary advantage, simply in order to get established. In the case of foreign companies supplying in this country, I would not like to say that the Minister is wise in making such decisions.
The only article of the type that the Deputy mentioned would be one such as tar bitumen. By the central purchasing of these road materials over the last four years I think we have saved the country a very considerable amount of money. Prices have been cut steadily year after year. I have been faced on a couple of occasions in the case of different classes of that material, with a choice of dividing the contract between two persons at the same figure, or giving the whole contract to the person who had cut the year before. The reason why we got big reductions in prices in my opinion is that we adopted the policy of giving the contracts for a particular article to one firm. We advertised approximately the quantities of the various articles that would be used during the year, and we got cuts on account of the bulk buying, even though it was buying by separate county councils that made the bulk. I can see no reason, at any rate at present, to depart from the principle of buying the whole supply of one particular class of article from a person tendering lowest for it, and not taking it a way from the contractor who held it except to give it to someone who undercut him.
Question agreed to
Section 2, Schedules and Title agreed to.
Report Stage fixed for Friday, 20th November.