Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 8 Feb 1939

Vol. 74 No. 1

Local Authorities (Combined Purchasing) Bill, 1938—Second Stage.

Minister for Local Government (Mr. O Ceallaigh)

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. This is a Bill to amend the Local Authorities (Combined Purchasing) Act. It is introduced to replace the Act that has been carried through from year to year under the Expiring Laws Act, since 1925. The system of combined purchasing originated at the session of Dáil Eireann in 1920, and practical steps were taken in December, 1921, to carry out the decision that was, at that time, arrived at. In 1925 the Local Authorities (Combined Purchasing) Act, 1925, was enacted for a period of three years, but since 1928 it has been continued from year to year under the Expiring Laws Acts. The system has, therefore, been in operation for a period of 17 years. In the present Bill the main features of the Act of 1925 are retained. In some respects extended powers are sought. The prime necessity for the successful administration of a system of combined purchasing is complete co-operation by all local bodies. Although it is generally recognised that the system has been advantageous to local bodies, there is still not a little distrust of it on the ground that it involves the removal of control from the local to a central body.

This view of the position is not warranted. The present Act is administered in co-operation with representatives of the local bodies and representatives of industry and commerce. It is the local advisory committee that examines the tenders for supplies that are obtained at fixed intervals on written specifications, and makes recommendations to the Minister for the appointment of official contractors. There is, therefore, a large element of local control in the administration of the system. It has also been advanced by some opponents of the system that it tends to a concentration of contracts for supplies in the more populous areas. This impression is also not well-founded. Contractors in the smaller towns can and do compete successfully with those in the larger centres of population. The existing contracts are distributed throughout the country. Besides the four county boroughs there are official contractors for supplies in at least 26 other areas.

The current list contains 2,164 items, and the names of 230 contractors. Tenders are not invited for perishable commodities or for commodities which can generally be obtained with greater or equal advantage locally, e.g., cement, coal, and many items of building material. Further, commodities of a highly specialised and technical character, as also those which do not form part of the regular requirements of local authorities, do not come within the ambiz of the scheme. The system of combined purchasing has been helpful in some instances to the establishment of native industries, and in most cases to their development and expansion. It is expected that the changes which are proposed in the Bill with the object of fixing definite quantities to be supplied over a specified period will lead to an advancement of this policy.

The main differences between the present Bill and the Act of 1925 are in respect of the provisions of Section 6 under which an official contractor may be appointed for the supply of commodities to a particular class of local authorities or to particular local authorities; Section 10 which deals with the revocation of the appointment of an official contractor; Section 12 which regulates the procedure to be followed in regard to substitute commodities; Section 13 which requires the submission by local authorities of estimates of their requirements; and Section 14 which contains provisions prohibiting the ordering of supplies by any member or officer of a local authority from any person other than the official contractor.

As regards the provision in Section 6 dealing with the appointment of official contractors it is thought advisable to have wider powers in connection with the supply of commodities to a particular class of local authority or to particular local authorities, and the provision in sub-section (5) of the section is designed to meet the position. The provision would permit of the formation of special economic areas if it is found that the adoption of this course would enable the smaller industries that could not meet the needs of all local bodies under a general contract to tender for the supply of commodities for such special areas on competitive terms. The existing Act does not enable the Minister for Local Government to cancel the contract of an official contractor even if he proves to be unsatisfactory as regards quality and delivery of supplies. Section 10 of the Bill has in view only an official contractor whose retention of the contract would entail serious inconvenience for local authorities if being unable to obtain delivery of supplies at contract prices, they had to purchase commodities at higher prices without any prospect of being able to recover the additional cost from the official contractor.

As regards Section 12 of the Bill there have been instances of local bodies when inviting tenders for supplies having made variations in specifications for commodities or alterations in conditions of supply so that their requirements not being specifically provided for in the combined purchasing list could be obtained from non-official contractors. In reality the requirements of these bodies would be adequately met by commodities obtainable from an official contractor, and to prevent the continuance of such a practice the Bill empowers the Minister to declare that another specified commodity be deemed a substitute for the original commodity, and, therefore, subject to the same regulations as the original commodity.

Provision is made in Section 13 to enable estimates of the commodities required during the contract period to be obtained, so that intending contractors may be given an estimate of the quantities of the commodity or commodities for which they tender. When such contractors know that such quantities will be definitely taken off their hands, and when the contract is thus a firm order, they will be in a position to cover their risks, and, in the case of textile manufacturers, contract at a fixed price for their raw materials. On the other hand, they will not be called upon to supply at the contract price more than the estimated amount of the commodity or commodities—a great advantage to the contractor in the event of rising prices. At present an institution may during the last week of a contract period give the official contractor an order—when the market prices have considerably risen—for a quantity of commodities which he would order normally during the next contract period. Against the liability of such orders the contractor has in the long-run to protect himself by a higher contract price at the beginning of a contract period.

Estimates will only be required for commodities of a stable character and which are in regular and recurrent demand. It is not contemplated to apply this section to miscellaneous articles and those for which the demand is not of a recurrent character. It will apply to such commodities as blankets, tweeds, suits, shoes, tea and tobacco. Even if a local authority exceeds its estimate it incurs no undue hardship as the articles can be used in the next contract period.

Perhaps the most important section in the new Bill is Section 14, which prohibits dealings with persons who are not official contractors. As I have already indicated the prime necessity for the successful administration of a system of combined purchasing is complete co-operation by all local bodies. In fact, Section 12, which I have explained is not possible without the prohibition of dealings with non-official contractors. I shall endeavour to explain as fully as possible the reasons for Section 14. Should the market price of a commodity rise during the contract period, orders for such commodity may be substantially in excess of the quantity estimated for by contractors with consequent diminution or loss of anticipated profits unless contractors have discounted this possibility and covered the risk in prices tendered. Should there, on the other hand, be a falling market, quantities of stocks may be left on the hands of contractors with consequential unexpected loss unless they have discounted such a possibility in prices tendered. Hence, if contractors were in a position to know the quantities of materials for which they would be likely to receive orders prices would be lower and ratepayers would benefit. Further, manufacturers by having the articles manufactured by them for local authorities fully disposed of during the contract period, would be able to manufacture these articles during their dull periods and thereby help to even out their employment of labour throughout the year.

If local authorities were to have the option of purchasing materials locally, the Department would not be in a position to give prospective contractors any idea of the quantity of material likely to be ordered from them and consequently the best possible prices would not be generally obtained. Instances can be cited of unsuccessful applicants for official contracts having subsequently canvassed local authorities that require large quantities of materials, and quoted lower prices than those submitted in applications for appointment as official contractors. This under-cutting is facilitated by the fact that the applicants hope to get firm orders for large quantities, and have not to include in their prices the extra cost and expense entailed by the supplying of small orders to small institutions, at irregular intervals, and at remote places which involve higher transportation cost per unit.

The official contractors in such cases lose the more valuable orders, whereas they have to supply the less valuable. Naturally, successful contractors have to cover themselves against this emergency by tendering higher prices than they would tender if they were assured that the valuable as well as the less valuable orders would accrue to them. The official contractors who deliver to the less profitable areas must be protected against piracy or "creaming the traffic". The creaming of such traffic is liable to result in higher prices for all areas and in depriving the local government institutions, as a whole and in the long run, of lower weighted average prices.

The provisions dealing with tests of commodities supplied contained in Section 12 (1) (e) of the Act of 1925 have been amplified so as to make the results of the tests evidence and also so as to require payment by local authorities applying for tests. In the proposed Bill the Local Supplies Advisory Committee has the same constitution as that laid down by Section 9 of the Act of 1925, save that one representative of employees (paragraph (d)) is added.

Mr. Michael Brennan

The idea behind this Bill originally was sound. It is the same still, but when the Minister is endeavouring to tighten up the machinery, we ought to be very careful that we are not stepping from a small evil into a greater one. Apparently, the Minister has found great fault with under-cutting. I wonder why? After all, that is what we are looking for, as far as prices are concerned. The feeling was abroad, and there was a lot to justify it, that the articles supplied to local authorities were not of standard quality, and that possibly, to a large extent, tenders were being cornered locally. There was good reason for that feeling and, in order to safeguard the interests of the ratepayers, the principle of combined purchasing was introduced. Let us be careful, now that we have safeguarded against the possibility of local cornering, that we are not lending a hand to central cornering. That is my opinion. After all, output is limited in this country, as the number of manufacturers and large suppliers is limited, so that it would be much easier to corner prices now than it was in the past. Speaking as a member of a local authority, who always felt that the principle behind combined purchasing was right, I should like the Minister to ensure that the prices submitted by suppliers or potential contractors are right; not alone the lowest but that they are reasonable.

There is a lot to justify the feeling that is there at present, that prices of a lot of commodities are most unreasonable, and that that has resulted in forcing the cost of living beyond the capacity of the people to pay. There must be some reason for that state of affairs. If we are going to give any help, we must ensure that suppliers are not put in a more unassailable position to force up prices. We should be very careful to see that we have some machinery to deal with such a position. There may be commodities in the supply of which only three or four people may be concerned. It is not enough for the Minister to be satisfied that the lowest tender got the contract. He must be satisfied that the price is reasonable. I am not questioning at all the standard quality of the articles. I think that is all right, though there were complaints about the quality of some articles. When looking for these extended powers the Minister should be sure that there is no loophole for undercutting, and a chance given local people as against centralisation. If we are going to do that we should, at least, have an assurance that not alone is the quality and the price right, but that, from the competitive end, the matter has been examined and the price found to be reasonable. In the past there was a good deal of sympathy with local suppliers who were ratepayers with large interests in the different counties. We are depriving them of much of that business by this Bill. To a large extent they have been deprived of it, but now they will not get in at all.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Except for perishable goods.

Mr. Brennan

Yes. The difficulty is that the number of suppliers may be very small. I do not know that the Minister is wise in ensuring that there will be no loophole for some one to come in and cut down prices, unless he has assured himself that the prices will be right. I do not know how he will be able to do that. I do not think the Minister has made a case for this new Bill. If there has been a certain amount of back-sliding on the part of official contractors, the Minister did not tell us if he had reports from auditors or inspectors to the effect that local authorities were being fleeced or wronged. We had complaints in Ros common about certain supplies, and I remember that some of them had to be sent back to the contractors on more than one occasion. If that happened again what are the local authorities to do if this rigid Bill is passed? There should be some way out. Naturally, the Minister will reply that he has the right to take away contracts from those who do not supply what is required. That is not good enough and, perhaps, would not meet the situation.

I should like to draw the Minister's attention to another matter in connection with hospital and medical and surgical supplies. During the past year the doctor connected with Roscommon Hospital complained to me that he could not get supplies which were absolutely necessary, through combined purchasing, in time, and would not be allowed to get them elsewhere. Eventually he had to buy them out of his own pocket. I am sure the Minister does not want a state of affairs like that to exist. These things were of such a nature that a large supply could not be kept in stock, because the requirements varied with the class of case. The Minister should see that some provision is made whereby local authorities in such cases could get what they wanted. I cannot see any reason for Section 18 (5), under which the local authorities, apparently, are to be saddled with the responsibility of providing whatever pensions are necessary for those engaged under the combined purchasing scheme. The sub-section reads:—

The expenses of the Minister shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to include such charges in respect of superannuation and other allowances and gratuities payable on death or retirement as the Minister shall, with the concurrence of the Minister for Finance, determine to be proper.

Does that mean that an amount will be demanded from local authorities year by year under the heading of "combined purchasing" to include the items mentioned? After all, that should be a State charge. It may be argued that combined purchasing is in the interests of the local authorities, but, as the positions are State positions, it is manifestly unfair to impose on local authorities an obligation to pay yearly any recurring charges for pensions. I do not know if that is the intention. If it is, I should like the Minister to tell us the exact meaning of the sub-section.

Mr. Benson

Anyone listening to the Minister's remarks would think that this Bill was introduced from the point of view of contractors, rather than of local authorities. I agree with Deputy Brennan that I do not consider the Minister has justified several portions of the Bill. Section 12 may be accepted, but on Section 13 there are all sorts of possibilities. I take it that the combined purchasing department would require probably three months' notice from local authorities of their annual requirements. That means that local authorities will have to forecast 15 months ahead. There is a further provision that, if the forecast is inaccurate in any way, they are to be penalised. If they underestimate they have to pay an excess price unknown. The Bill refers to a prescribed percentage. I do not think it says who is going to prescribe it or what it is likely to be. They are going to be penalised by that prescribed percentage on the excess goods they have to buy. If they overestimate, in order to avoid that, they are going to be penalised by having to take the amount of their overestimate. The Minister said that it will not refer to perishable goods. That is, obviously, under those circumstances, essential. If it referred to perishable goods it might create a serious loss to the local authority.

The Minister gave us a list of the articles to which it is suggested this section shall apply. There is nothing in the Act preventing the Minister or his successors applying it to a whole lot more. To my mind this section, combined with further sections later on, opens possibilities which would be very unfortunate for any local authority.

There is a portion in Section 14 which seems to me to be something new, and that is where it declares that a payment shall be illegal, and instructs the auditor to surcharge. I do not know whether it is new to instruct the auditor as to what he should do. I was always under the impression that an auditor was left to make up his own mind as to whether a certain thing was or was not illegal, and whether he should or should not surcharge. Then there is on that same section the case or cases similar to that mentioned by Deputy Brennan. Where the supply of something which may be on the combined purchasing list is urgently required, such as Deputy Brennan mentioned, under that section, if a member of the local authority or an officer thereof decides that he must have it and hang the consequences, if he then does as Deputy Brennan's doctor did— buys it out of his own pocket—apparently all well and good, but if he should try and get that recouped from the local authority, he is liable to be surcharged and fined £20. I certainly think that the Minister must give some attention to that aspect of it in order to improve on it.

Under the present Act there is, I think, a permission given to a local authority to buy outside the combined purchasing list, if necessary, provided that they make a minute of their reasons for so doing. I would suggest to the Minister that he might consider the carrying on of that into this new Bill which would enable such a thing to be done. Admittedly, of course, Section 15 does give permission to apply to the Minister for a regulation allowing a local authority to buy outside the list, but if an effort had been made to buy the dressings which Deputy Brennan's doctor wanted in a hurry, in this way, I think, the patient would have been long dead before any reply was received from the Department of Local Government, according to the delays which take place in that Department at present.

The Minister also referred to the question of tests. There again, at the present moment, there is considerable delay in forwarding the results of those tests. I hope that under this Bill the Minister will take some steps to have the testing department speeded up.

There is also reference in this Bill to the Government of Saorstát Éireann. I do not know where that authority exists or what power we in this House have to legislate for any other Government but our own. Later on in the Bill also there is further reference to Saorstát Éireann.

Other matters arising out of my criticism can be dealt with on the Committee Stage.

Mr. Bennett

There is no doubt that the principles embodied in the original Bill were sound and that at one period there did appear necessity perhaps to safeguard the ratepayers, and, if possible, some local bodies, against unfair prices for commodities, but, as Deputy Brennan said, we ought not run away with the principle to an extravagant extent. To my mind, this Bill establishes centralisation in a very definite way.

I would like to emphasise what Deputy Benson remarked as to the contractor's position in this Bill. The contractor is the main person, as far as I can see, protected in this particular Bill that we are now discussing. There may be some interest in the ratepayers, but the main provisions of the Bill are definitely settled to govern the contractor, to protect him in every possible way. Whatever the result will be on the ratepayer or the local body, his position is going to be made secure. If there is going to be an increased cost for raw materials after his contract is made he is going to get the benefit of it. He is going to get the benefit of everything in every way. He is going to get beforehand, before he actually enters into the contract, an estimate from all local bodies as to the amount of specified commodities they will probably require. They will make known to the Minister what they require, and he can manufacture his prices on that basis if he likes, if we like to use the word "manufacture". If the local bodies afterwards require a little bit more than they said, the contractor can take due benefit, and I suppose the tendency will be to charge more for whatever little extra they require. There will not be any great tendency on the contractor's behalf to reduce prices if the local bodies find that they do not require more.

The point I want to emphasise more than anything else is this, that we are doing altogether away with any idea of competition. There may be reasons, or there may have been reasons to introduce legislation specifying that local bodies must take their commodities from certain specified contractors. For myself, although I may have seen some good in it, I do not think I would have been prepared to vote straight out for such a proposition. I see definite objections. I fail to see how any provision can be made by anybody to safeguard absolutely against unfair prices or unfair quality. It will be almost impossible. There may be a good case made for the original Bill, and there certainly was a good case for it as applied to numerous districts in this country. There were various districts in this country where they found it impossible to obtain goods under contract or any other way at a fair price, but there were very many districts in this country, in Cork, Limerick, Waterford and other places where it was possible to obtain specified quantities of anything you required at a fair price and of a good quality, and the local bodies who did purchase goods in that way were always in the position that they had the contractor readily available, within reach of them, to make any remonstrance they liked. I remember in my own particular time, when I was a member of a local body, we did find difficulties in the operations of the Combined Purchasing Act.

I remember one case where tobacco was supplied at a price at which it could be got from any local provider. At one period the supply for a mental hospital was such that any ordinary smoker could see that it was absolutely below sample. Complaints were made to the Local Government Department, which were referred to the particular contractor without any result except that there were no grounds for the complaint. On the particular body concerned there were 99 per cent. of smokers, who knew what they were talking about, and they unanimously came to the conclusion, after testing this tobacco which was going to be forced on the unfortunate inmates of this hospital, that it was not up to standard. But the whole thing came to nothing, and they were compelled to take it. That is one of the difficulties which I see with centralised contractors who are chiefly in Dublin or some place contiguous. If the members of a local body make a contract, and the supply, in their opinion, is not up to what is specified, a whole lot of elaborate machinery has to be gone through before they can get any redress, and, possibly, in the end they get none. They are told that the Minister, or somebody on his behalf, has investigated the matter and is satisfied that the contractor sent the goods specified. That could not happen with local contractors. You could refer the matter back to them, and if necessary, produce the goods to them, and you had some satisfaction to get for your complaint. That is one of the things that I think it will be impossible to safeguard ourselves against if we are to have wholesale centralisation.

Another thing which strikes me in connection with this Bill is that there might be some little liberty given to local bodies. It is stated specifically in the Bill that when a local body specifies the probable quantity of any article required, the Minister approaches the contractors and they specify the price. If, later on, any council wants a little more than they specified for, the contractor is to have the power to charge them any price he likes for the extra quantity. I suggest that if any local body gives the Minister an estimate of what they probably would require, and the Minister makes a contract for them on that basis, and afterwards they require something extra, they should be at liberty to approach any person they like for the extra amount. In that way there would at least be some semblance of opposition to the contractor. The Minister will probably answer that in that case there would be unfair competition, inasmuch as some contractor might wish to knock out the present contractor and cut the price. That might arise, and I can see the difficulty there. Nevertheless, it would open up to local bodies an avenue of competition to the existing contractors.

I am not altogether pleased with this Bill, and my inclination would be to vote against it. But we have been carrying on this combined purchasing for a number of years. Various complaints have been made against it, but satisfaction has been expressed in a good many cases at the operation of it. I should like to see the Bill limited somewhat in its application. I would like to see less protection given to the contractor, and something more in the way of protection for the local bodies and the taxpayers in general.

Mr. Hickey

I am not opposed to this measure by any means, but I should like to know from the Minister what is the procedure for getting names on the combined purchasing list. The reason I ask that is that quite recently the Cork Corporation had correspondence with a firm in Dublin who gave a list of their prices, which were lower than some of the prices given by one firm on the combined purchasing list. That firm's name was not allowed on the combined purchasing list. Therefore, I am anxious to know what the procedure is. Is any person entitled to become registered on this list for these contracts? If that is so, I am not opposed to the measure. As to the point made by Deputy Brennan about medicines, my experience on public boards is that the medical officers, in making their demands, do not provide sufficiently for the future. If the local authorities, and particularly the medical officers, took more care in specifying their requirements over a period, they might be able to get those things. All I am concerned with is whether there is any restriction on people being put on this list.

Mr. Dillon

I should like to see the Bill postponed. This Government of ours has an endearing habit of learning everything too late. I think there might be a good deal to be said for this Bill if the present system of local government is to continue. I remember a time when the present Minister for Local Government wept salt tears in this House when it was proposed to put in managers in place of certain county councils that were not doing their job. He is now putting in managers in place of all the county councils. I heartily congratulate him on that decision. The only trouble is that he learned six years too late. But, having made up his mind to embark on that eminently desirable reform, he introduces a Combined Purchasing Bill designed, apparently, to remedy the abuses that have arisen under the existing system of local government. I hope, and I anticipate, that under the new system of local government, which is long over-due, we will have very much more efficient local administration.

Mr. Hickey

I wonder.

Mr. Dillon

I think you will and I have had some experience.

Mr. Hickey

So have I.

Mr. Dillon

I think you will; I am sure you will. If we are not going to get more efficient local administration, then I think, instead of increasing centralisation, we ought to decrease it and throw the authority back to the local body, from which we have had to take it in the past few years as a result of the inefficiency that was found to exist.

Mr. Hickey

That all depends on the powers the Minister is going to give the commissioners.

Mr. Dillon

I agree. I hope he will give them wide powers. I presume the Minister is not going to go to the trouble of drafting a completely new system of local government if it is going to be a cod like many other Government schemes. I think in the last six years he has learned that most of the schemes have been a cod; that it is time to consult us and get good schemes, if he is bothering about bringing in legislation. I take it this is going to be a good one and we will help him to get efficient administration by the local authorities. To do that the county manager, or whoever will take the place of the authority in much of our present jurisdiction, should be given ample powers. If that is his intention, surely he should not be trying to centralise in the Custom House functions which could be manifestly much better discharged by a competent local authority who knew his own district and its requirements. I apprehend that he is approaching this problem of combined purchasing with the mentality of the existing form of local government when, in fact, he is in pickle with a completely revolutionary form of local government, and this very process of centralisation, in my judgment, is going to react very seriously against many of the improvements which we might have reasonably expected to flow from efficient local administration, because we are going to take from the local administrator the very thing that makes for his efficiency in the exercise of his duties both from the point of view of the ratepayers and of the beneficiaries of the social services in his own district.

How can an official in an office in the Custom House in Dublin know the difficulties and needs of the people in Roscommon better than the person who lives in Roscommon and who is in daily touch with the people and their problems and difficulties? While I do not by any means disparage either the efficiency or wisdom of the permanent officials of the Department of Local Government and Public Health—indeed, I am often moved to considerable admiration for them—none the less, I think it is ridiculous to ask them to do from Dublin what your local administrator, or your commissioner, or your burgomaster, or whatever you like to call him, is peculiarly, or ought to be peculiarly, fitted and equipped to do, living right in the midst of the people whom he is charged to serve. Therefore, I think that this Bill should be postponed. I presume that six years hence the Minister will discover that he ought to have postponed the Bill, but since I cannot hope that he has yet acquired sufficient wisdom to abandon the Bill now, I must, therefore, come down to the terms of the Bill.

If we are going to pass this Bill, I want to direct attention to Section 10. Under sub-section (3) of Section 10 there is a provision that before revoking the registration of an official contractor, he is to be notified by the Minister and to be given an opportunity of making his case. Now, three times in this House I have raised the case of the contractors, Messrs. Dixon, of the Erne Soap and Candle Works. I have mentioned their name and ventilated fully the circumstances of their case, and yet I never got a satisfactory answer as to why they were removed from the register. My information is that they were offering goods of excellent quality, and I can speak with authority, because a firm dealing with them has dealt with them for the past 70 years—one of the oldest in the country and one that was producing excellent commodities before ever there was any question of a tariff at all. They never sought tariffs or anything else to enable them to operate, and they were able to do an excellent business in this country. They themselves have been in business for I do not know how long —over 100 years at any rate—and suddenly they are removed from the register of approved contractors. So far as I am aware, they have never been offered any opportunity of discovering why they were removed or who removed them. They asked repeatedly for an opportunity to make their case. After great delay, I succeeded in getting an undertaking from the Minister that he would furnish me with the charges, and he did so very courteously. I forwarded that to the firm, and nothing has been heard since. Will this firm be given an opportunity of seeing the Minister and laying before him their answer as to any allegations against them so that they may be restored to the position of profit they once had and to which I think they are amply entitled?

Now, I should like to direct attention to Section 13. That, in fact, is the section designed to fortify existing tariff preferences extended to Irish manufacturers. The people, who are going to pay the expenses of this Bill, ultimately, are the ratepayers, who pay for the supplies. Those ratepayers are the ordinary small farmers of this country and, through their local authorities, they must buy equipment for the county hospital, the county home, the mental hospital, and the other institutions for which the local authority is responsible. I am just taking four items that these bodies ordinarily have to buy: flannelette, sheeting, enamelled goods, and flour. In the case of each of these articles there is an ample tariff in existence— in my opinion, a grossly excessive tariff in existence. The local authority, if it wants to purchase these articles, must pay that tariff if it wants to buy goods outside Ireland. Take the case of flannelette. It is an article which the poor buy largely and which the poor in the local institution must use for their clothing, night clothing, underclothing and so forth. I tell this House now that I am charging the country people of this country a shilling a yard for the flannelette that used to sell for eightpence a yard, and I am doing that because there is a tariff on flannelette from Great Britain and I cannot buy it. I have to buy it in Ireland or else pay the tariff on the flannelette that comes in. The result is that for what they ought to be getting at eightpence a yard they are paying a shilling, and paying 1/6 for what used to cost a shilling before the tariff went on. Those are the facts. What the people used to pay fourpence for, they now have to pay sixpence for, and the result is that they have to go in poor clothes or worse clothes than they used to be able to afford.

Nobody who is comfortably off, or who has a large income, buys this kind of flannelette, but almost every poor person uses it extensively and depends on it very largely for warmth and comfort in the winter months. Every one of those people at present are paying a tax of approximately 50 per cent. on the flannelette they buy. Of course, immediately there will be an answer from the opposite side that there is not a tax of 50 per cent. I do not believe it is 50 per cent. I believe it is 30 per cent., or so. That is a tax on the cost price, but when the flannelette is costing sixpence and you pay 30 per cent., it is costing you about 8? pence. In fact, it costs 8? pence, which is a little better, and you charge a shilling for that because the shopkeeper takes a profit, not on the cost price of the article in Manchester, but in his shop, and if he has to pay out money to the Revenue Commissioners in duty on an article coming in, he has got to get his profit on that, because he is out of money so long as the stuff remains on his shelf. Accordingly, a duty of 30 per cent. really means, for the person buying the article for consumption, a tax of from 40 per cent. to 50 per cent. I mentioned this item of flannelette time and again here in this House because I am well acquainted with the subject. When I stand behind my counter and sell flannelette, I know well what it costs and I know the circumstances of the people.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I think the Deputy is going away from this Bill. Combined purchasing has nothing to do with what people buy over the counter.

Mr. Dillon

Yes, Sir, but the local authority has to buy that flannelette. I am putting the case that, as a result of this Bill, what will happen is that not only is the local authority going to pay the tariff but that it is going to be further constrained now to buy the article from a particular individual and give long contracts to particular individual manufacturers in this country—further to protect the very vested interests that have been built up by the tariff I have described. If the tariff is going to put an increase of 50 per cent., what is the tariff, plus the protection afforded in Section 13, going to cost?

The consumer in this country is the same individual whom I have been describing. The consumers are the ratepayers of the country. I submit with respect that the trouble about this House is that we do not apply our minds to the day-to-day conditions of the people in the country. Everything is discussed in a vacuum. Nobody ever follows out in his mind the ultimate effect upon the individual citizen of what we do here. We slap a tariff on an import or we pass Section 13 but no one ever follows out the workings of Section 13 on the individual whom the section affects. It is only we who are down in the country seeing how Section 13 operates who are in a position to report to the House on the practical results of this kind of legislation. How may Deputies know if they put a tariff of 30 per cent. on an ordinary article of daily use in the household, that this tariff of 30 per cent. is going to operate to raise the cost of the article 50 per cent? I do not think any Deputy would expect that to happen. The last person to guess it would be the Minister for Local Government and Public Health. The reason is that he has no experience of these things. You take, for instance, sheeting and you know how large that bulks in the daily cost of the average householder. Now I do not think I exaggerate when I say that the ordinary consumer is paying 1/6 a yard for sheeting which is not worth more than 11d. per yard.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I do not think that on this Bill the Deputy can go into these things.

Mr. Dillon

What I want to put to the House is this, that these essential commodities are already far too dear, that their cost is already far too high and that the cost of these to public institutions falls on the local ratepayers. I ask the House to consider that these contractors are already enjoying at the expense of the community a protection out of all proportion to what they should demand.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

What do the local authorities pay for flannelette—they do not pay a 1/- per yard for it?

Mr. Dillon

They do. That is the trouble with the Minister. He is depending on a body of civil servants who have very little knowledge of these things themselves. They are sitting in the Custom House and would not know flannelette from sheeting. When they need one of these articles they tell their wives to go out and buy it. If they had to go out to buy these things themselves they would come home with Turkish towelling. The Dublin Board of Health does not buy flannelette across the counter. It buys larger quantities of flannelette than Clerys. They really buy it in larger quantities and they pay the tariff. But under Section 13 they will pay an additional charge which the producers will be able to levy on them. I think I have made my point clear, and the Minister's intervention has stressed that. Section 14 has been referred to by Deputy Benson. I have no doubt the Minister will meet Deputy Benson there. In the event of an emergency presenting itself it is not right to ask the doctor to make himself criminally liable, under sub-section (2). The purpose of the Act is clear, and local authorities under the legislation anticipated to-day are not going to do something that the Bill directs them not to do except in special circumstances. I suggest that the Minister should either withdraw sub-section (3) of 14, or else put in a further sub-section providing that sub-section (3) will not apply in any case where the medical officer or the other responsible official certifies that a general emergency exists.

Mr. Corish

When this legislation was first introduced in this House it had my fullest support. At that time, which is now some years ago, I was fully conscious of the fact that the intention of the Department of Local Government and Public Health was to safeguard the position of the local authorities, and to try to secure for them fair and healthy competition for the sort of articles they would require during the year at a price which they could meet. It strikes me now that this Bill concerns itself more with protecting the contractors than with protecting the local authorities. But now under Section 13 the position of local authorities seems to be disregarded altogether. And the Minister is concerning himself with the contractors. On the question as to the estimate of the local authorities of what their requirements should be at certain times of the year, I submit to the Minister that so far as the comparatively small local authorities are concerned, it would be absolutely impossible for them to estimate what their requirements would be over a period of 12 or 15 months ahead. Let us take one small example. Say a local authority in an ordinary year were to get a certain number of picks, shovels and spades. In all probability they would be estimating on what they had got for the corresponding period previously. But if, during the course of that year for which they were asked to estimate their requirements, they found that certain moneys were given by the Government in the way of relief grants, it would then be necessary for the local authorities to get perhaps five or six times as many of these particular articles such as spades or shovels as they had in the previous year. Under Section 13, if the local authority underestimate their requirements, and if it is found that more of a particular article is required, the contractor is given carte blanche to charge any price he likes after the estimate which the local authority, through the Minister for Local Government and Public Health required, is fulfilled.

On the other hand, when the estimate is high and the local authority does not need all that they contracted for, the contractor can dump down the full estimate, and the local authority must take it whether it needs it or not. I think that sort of legislation should not be passed. Under another section the local authority is prohibited from taking any goods of a certain kind through a local contractor. This system generally speaking, was accepted by the public as being a good system so far as the local authorities were concerned. Up to now the local authority could purchase goods at the same price as quoted by the contractor to the Combined Purchasing Board, or at a lesser price, the local authority was permitted to take these goods from a local merchant. That permission is now being removed through the medium of Section 14 of this Bill.

I believe that there is going to be an outcry amongst local ratepayers because of this fact. For that reason I would ask the Minister to reconsider the situation which is being created by the adoption of this section. To my mind that provision was a sort of safety valve to prevent rings being formed by certain contractors to the Combined Purchasing Board. In some cases only two or three contractors would be able to supply a certain commodity, and one can conceive rings being set up in a case of that kind.

Mr. Dillon

Hear, hear!

Mr. Corish

I suggest that the effect of the local authorities being permitted to purchase from local traders where prices were equal to or less than the prices quoted by the Combined Purchasing Board has had the effect of keeping prices at a fairly low level, and it is a pity that the Minister is not permitting this to continue. I repeat that this Bill shows more concern for the contractors than for the local authorities. Generally speaking, the principle of combined purchasing is a good one, but this Bill is too drastic in its provisions, and should be amended on the Committee Stage.

Mr. Brodrick

I have been a supporter of combined purchasing from the period since it was introduced, and during the same period I have also been a member of several local boards. I became a supporter of the principle because I was led to believe that combined purchasing would be of great benefit to the country and to the small industries we had here at the time. We were told then that the system would help to keep those industries going, that it would be the means of giving more employment, and of providing a reduction in rates for the ratepayer. In spite of all that, what I find is that since the system was introduced, practically all our small industries that were expected to receive so much support from it have dwindled away, and are being replaced by bigger industries. The latter are being subsidised by the State, and are obtaining the contracts to the local institutions. That is the position in the West of Ireland. I think that is most unfair to the shopkeeper and merchant in the country town. He has to pay, first of all his share of the subsidy that goes to those bigger industries, and they in turn compete against him in his business. As a matter of fact, those bigger industries have a monopoly now in the supply of articles to the different public institutions. That has another drawback in this way, that there is an increase in unemployment, due to the disappearance of the smaller industries which were in the country when combined purchasing was introduced, and that have since disappeared.

What I would suggest is that a preference be given to articles produced in a particular county or province and supplied to particular institutions. That is not being done, but I think it should be. It would have the effect of providing additional employment in the areas where these institutions are situated, and would afford some measure of relief to the people who are providing for the upkeep of these institutions. I hope the Minister will bear that point in mind. I would like to know from him what percentage of the fish supplied to public institutions in Éire is taken from Irish waters. Communications which I have received from West Galway indicate that the fishermen there cannot get a buyer to take the fish from them, with the result they have to dump it back in the sea again. I had a letter to that effect within the last month. That is a sad state of affairs, in view of the fact that we are supposed to have a Sea Fisheries Association active in that part of the country. I have never seen that body show any activity. I think I only saw their fish van in the rural areas in the West on six occasions. I would also like to have some information on that point from the Minister.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Does the Deputy expect me to give it to him?

Mr. Brodrick

I think it is the Minister's duty to do so. I take it the position is that when the inmates of those public institutions are not supplied with fish taken from Irish waters, they have to be supplied with rice instead. That should not be, and I think the Minister should take steps to remedy that situation. Whatever Department of State is concerned should certainly see to it that those public institutions are, as far as possible, supplied with fish caught by Irishmen. It may be that they are, or it may not, but if they are not, then something should be done to remedy the situation. Even if to do so costs a little bit more, I do not think the ratepayers will grumble because it will mean keeping more men in employment in the fishing industry.

Mr. Childers

In relation to Section 13 of the Bill reference has been made to the fact that it is going to give additional protection to Irish industry over and above that already afforded by tariffs. I would remind the members of the Opposition that we are engaged at the present time in the work of industrial development, and that we are only a very short time engaged in starting a number of industries, all of which require an experimental period of at least ten years before their success can be assured. One of the things that enables an industry to succeed is to have substantial orders for goods from local authorities. If there is anything in the Bill which prevents industries from receiving these substantial orders, the result, I submit, will be that the cost of production will go up in respect of the articles which are required by local authorities. It is to be hoped that the effect of the Bill will be to assist the general programme of industrial development which has been approved by the House.

With regard to the matter of compelling local authorities to purchase Irish made goods, it has been the experience of associations like the Industrial Development Association, which has a record and a history of 33 years behind it, that, long before the period of high tariffs and the period when industry had adequate protection, local authorities showed a very considerable prejudice in the matter of purchasing goods of Irish manufacture. That prejudice remains still. It is one of the most undesirable features of our national life. One of the things for which additional protection is required, over and beyond the protection required to start industry, is in virtue of the differences in the cost of production in industry here and in England. Section 13 will enable industries to function and to overcome the prejudicial effects of that undesirable feature in our national life to which I have referred. It will afford them the protection that is absolutely essential as far as that particular matter is concerned. As regards flannelette and sheeting which are bought by local authorities, there is a new industry established in Athlone for making these commodities. It has one of the finest plants of any industry in the country. The industry is immensely complex and requires years to become successful——

Mr. Dillon

Hear, hear!

Mr. Childers

——and if there is any industry which should receive additional protection to the ordinary protection of tariffs, I submit that it is that industry.

Again, with regard to industries of small size—Deputy Broderick mentioned industries which employ very few people—there is no evidence in the Census of Production to show that there has been a wholesale decline of small industries in the country. During the Great War, a number of the handcraft industries in the West of Ireland and in Donegal manufactured, at a very high rate of production, articles of more or less inferior quality——

Mr. Broderick

And the local authorities bought from them.

Mr. Childers

——but after the war there was a normal decline in production. In addition, the prevailing habits and tastes have changed which made it difficult for several of the small handcraft industries to survive. So far as industries employing 20 or under employees are concerned, however, there is no evidence in the Census of Industrial Production that industries have been affected by the provisions of the Combined Purchasing Act.

On the question of monopoly, if I were to examine, in detail, for the benefit of the House, the articles purchased by local authorities, in respect of the vast majority of them, it would be found that they have quite an extensive choice and a number of factories from which they can purchase. In the case of some of the newer industries, where the market is small, they may have a rather limited choice. There, again, the point arises that these industries must be given an opportunity of supplying substantial orders, if they are to succeed, and if the cost of production is to be maintained at as low a rate as possible. I submit that Section 13 of the Bill is absolutely essential, if it is to be in conformity with the general industrial policy of the country which was approved at the last election.

Mr. Dillon

Could the Deputy tell us when did Athlone start manufacturing flannelette?

Mr. Childers

I understand that the category of goods under the general heading of cotton piece goods, or goods mostly composed of cotton, is of such a complex character that it is impossible to establish a duty on a certain number of articles without including a great number. It is proposed to manufacture flannelette in Athlone on a considerable scale. A certain amount is already being manufactured in two factories, one in Athlone and another in Dublin.

Mr. Dillon

The Greenmount Linen Company is making it, but when did Athlone start making it?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy cannot start asking questions of another Deputy.

Mr. Dillon

Surely it is in order, to elucidate information? It is a frequent practice.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I am very interested in the debate on this subject. I have been interested in this question of combined purchasing for a great many years. I had no hand, act or part in its inauguration in 1920. It was inaugurated, to the relief of many representatives of local authorities at that time, by the present Leader of the Opposition in the first Dáil, and I was very pleased when I heard of it. I had been a member of some local authorities in Dublin for a number of years and I sat, with others, on supplies committees of various public institutions in the city. I had experience over a good many years of how rings were formed by contractors for a variety of goods that were used by local institutions and how, in that way, prices were forced up. With regard to some items, the quality of the goods, more often that not, was as low as some of the contractors dared to supply, and there was very little remedy. It was probably having all that in mind that Deputy Cosgrave, and those who acted with him in 1920, introduced this system. Deputy Cosgrave had also considerable experience of the working of local authorities in the City of Dublin and he would not have introduced it at that time unless he believed that this system, or some other system of the kind, was necessary and would probably remedy the situation which members of local authorities were up against so far as contractors were concerned.

This system has been in operation for 18 years. It started some time in 1921 with some local authorities and gradually they were all brought in. There are loopholes in the Act which has been in operation since 1925. One section, particularly, leaves it open to local authorities to purchase goods locally, provided they do not have to pay a higher price than that offered by a contractor to the combined purchasing system. Our experience has shown that if we leave that section in and leave the road open to local purchase, the combined purchasing system will not, and cannot, be as efficient as we believe it should be.

Mr. Curran

Would the Minister say if that section has been availed of by local authorities?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

To some extent, yes.

Mr. Curran

To some extent only?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Not very widely. With regard to small items, it has been used fairly freely, but, generally speaking, no large purchase have been made.

Mr. Curran

I take it, then, that local authorities have not abused it?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

There have been abuses, but not to a very wide extent. We are anxious to make this instrument, if it is to be used for the benefit of the local authorities and the ratepayers, as perfect as possible. We believe that it has worked to the benefit of the local authorities, their inmates, the ratepayers and also to the benefit of Irish industry. We are absolutely certain that all these have benefited from the combined purchasing system. Nobody, I must say, has attempted to discuss this in exactly a Party spirit or from that point of view, except that Deputy Dillon had to get in a few welts at the tariffs. He is entitled to that, although I agree with the Ceann Comhairle, if I may say so with respect, that what Deputy Dillon said on tariffs was entirely out of order. I do not blame him, however, for getting his welt in whenever he can.

Mr. Dillon

It means that the ratepayers' money is going out.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

So far as combined purchasing is concerned, the tariff question does not make any difference one way or the other.

Mr. Dillon

What about Section 13?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

You can debate the tariffs and have any views you like on tariffs, but, so far as combined purchasing is concerned, they do not affect the issue one way or the other.

Mr. Hickey

Deputy Dillon knows that.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Deputy Dillon maintains, I take it, that the combined purchasing system adds to the cost of goods supplied to local authorities.

Mr. Dillon

Section 13 of this Bill does.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

As a matter of fact, the whole system could be of value to the country, to the institutions concerned and the ratepayers, but it would be of much less value than it can be, and is at present, if it were to impose any additional cost on the ratepayers of the institutions, but it does not. In respect of every article, it gets better value for an institution, and, generally, at a price less than that at which the ordinary article was supplied to local institutions. That is the history of combined purchasing. In varying degrees, anything from 5 to 40 per cent. of the goods are of better class and the price is lower.

Mr. Dillon

What is going to be the history of Section 13 of this Bill?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

This will enable us to still further reduce the price. Take one of the items the Deputy spoke of— flannelette. We now ask the local authorities to make an estimate of what they require, and we will be able in advance to tell the contractor who proposes to contract that there will be so much flannelette required this year. He knows that he can get sale for all of that because we are taking power to see that he will get sale for the amount he contracts to supply. When he does that, he can quote a lower price than if he were taking the risk of having half the product left on his hands.

Mr. Dillon

Suppose he does not quote a lower price, what can you do?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

There are several manufacturers of flannelette in the country.

Mr. Dillon

There is only one.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I understand that there are at least two.

Mr. Dillon

The Greenmount and Boyne Linen Company.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

There are two and they will be in competition. If we have any idea that there is any combine or any getting-together for the purpose of fleecing the ratepayers, we shall ask the Minister for Industry and Commerce for a licence to allow us to get the stuff outside.

Mr. Dillon

I hope you will do the same with me.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

We have done that with regard to several items since I became Minister, in consultation with the representatives of the local authorities, who are the consultants in all these matters. They are the people who open the tenders, examine them, and make recommendations to the Minister. The Minister takes the responsibility of accepting or rejecting their recommendations. The local authorities are not completely relieved of their responsibilities. We have county councils, municipal authorities, chambers of commerce and employees represented on that committee, and I must say, to their credit, that these representatives have given the greatest care and attention to this work during the years I have been associated with it. They know the contractors. Deputy Dillon was interested in one contractor about whom he put some questions. It was on the recommendation of the committee that he was not allowed to go on the following year. I asked about that particular case, and they said they went into it fully and were quite satisfied they did the right thing.

Mr. Dillon

Did the Minister himself investigate it?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I asked the Department to investigate it and they were quite satisfied.

Mr. Dillon

Under sub-section (3) of Section 10, the Minister himself undertakes to go into such cases.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

That is in the new Bill. I did not go into this case personally, but I asked to have it looked into, and the committee were quite satisfied that the quality of the specific article—carbolic soap—was below the standard which was tendered for.

Mr. Dillon

Will the Minister give the contractor an opportunity of being heard?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

We offered him the opportunity of writing or being heard, and we heard nothing from him since. He will have an opportunity in another week or two of submitting a tender again, and I shall be largely guided in respect of it by the committee of members of local authorities, who are my chief advisers in this matter. Deputies will see that there is a strong case for giving contractors, especially for goods like flannelette, tweeds, sheeting, etc., an idea at the commencement of the year, when they are being asked to send in their tenders, of the amount they will be required to supply. The committee who examined this matter were satisfied in that regard. They made recommendations with regard to the amendments to be included in this Bill, and they considered that it would mean a saving to the contractors if they were told in advance the amount they would be required to furnish. If contractors have that information, and know that the goods will be taken off their hands, they are prepared to meet local authorities to the extent of bringing about a reduction in price. As ordinary businessmen, they must guard against risk. Any risk we leave them means an increase of price. At present, many of the well-managed institutions in different parts of the country do make estimates and give contractors an idea of the amount of goods they will require. With long experience, many of them can forecast very accurately the amount of their requirements. In case they use up more than usual of a particular article during the year, they can order again. If they see a fall in price they may wait until the next contracting period. If they leave material on the hands of the contractor, the Minister has to decide what percentage they may have to pay in addition. They might have to pay an extra 5 per cent., but the Minister will be there to safeguard the local authority against being bled by any contractor.

As regards the standard of the goods supplied, I should like to emphasise that the reports we have got from local authorities and from the committee, whom we meet a couple of times a year and sometimes more, show that the standard has improved wonderfully since the introduction of combined purchasing. Deputy Brodrick was interested in some of the smaller industries. I could produce a list of small industries which have been kept alive by combined purchasing in the West of Ireland. Some small industries may have disappeared, but their disappearance had nothing to do with combined purchasing. Some industries have been established, some kept alive, some improved and some have been given increased production as a result of the combined purchasing system. The committee have been helping and encouraging them, and an endeavour has been made to secure that they got a fair share of the contracts, where that was possible. The committee have gone out of their way, where they felt they could legitimately do that, to help small industries by dividing contracts, and other Ministers for Local Government, as well as myself, have endeavoured to help the smaller industries.

Mr. Brodrick

I know three of them which have gone out of operation.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I know two in Galway which have increased their production because of combined purchasing.

Mr. Brodrick

That is quite possible.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Deputy Bennett spoke about a local contractor supplying tobacco that was of poor quality, in the opinion of somebody who used it. If the local authority were absolutely satisfied that the tobacco was not up to the standard, there was nothing to prevent their buying proper tobacco and charging the contractor with the extra cost. They have power under the Act of 1925 to do that.

I think it was Deputy Brennan who raised a question about prices, making certain that the prices would be right. I have already said, and I repeat it for the Deputy's benefit, that when we had an idea that there was an effort being made, by rings or otherwise, to keep up prices and make the local authorities pay more than we thought was a reasonable price for certain goods, we took steps to defeat that, and we did successfully defeat it in every case that came under my notice since I became the Minister. That is one thing that the committee keeps a very close eye on. There is power given, I think it is under Section 15, to a local authority or its officials, to purchase goods in an emergency. There is power given to the Minister to make regulations to provide for that, and I have never heard of a case, where goods were bought from other than an official contractor in an emergency, where an official was penalised, provided everything else was all right.

Mr. Belton

Why not leave it optional with the local authority?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

We did that under the present Act; we left it optional with the local authorities, and over a number of years we have examined that situation, and the Advisory Committee has examined it, and their strong advice to us is to tighten up and we will get better value by making a local authority buy from the contractor.

Mr. Belton

You will control the local authority with your regulations in regard to tenders. Every expenditure over a certain amount would require to be governed by public tender, and you will control them that way.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Of course, we do have to sanction every tender at present. Under the combined purchasing system they are bound to purchase from the contractors whose names are in the list, and they will be bound in the future.

Mr. Brennan

What I was referring to was a surgical appliance which was required for a particular case, a case of emergency. In that case the secretary of the board of health felt that he could not purchase outside the contractors and the doctor, at his own expense—it cost him a guinea a time —had to purchase the appliance; otherwise his patient would have to go without it.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

No complaint was made about it.

Mr. Brennan

There was a complaint made by the doctor to the board of health.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

The combined purchasing section were never notified of a complaint of that kind.

Mr. Brennan

The combined purchasing people were acquainted of the facts in the first instance, and asked if this could be purchased otherwise. As a matter of fact, there was only one supplier in England of this particular appliance. They were told they could not purchase otherwise. If that state of things is likely to continue, I submit that there ought to be some provision in this Bill to meet an emergency of that sort, particularly in relation to surgical appliances. These things have to be suited to the individual patients.

Mr. Dillon

There is a fine tariff on that type of thing, in any case.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

There is power given under Section 15 to make regulations. I will look into the matter. In any case of that kind, if the secretary of the board of health or the doctor said he wanted a particular drug or an instrument, there would be no question about the right to purchase that in an emergency.

Mr. Brennan

The doctor complained and had to buy it out of his own pocket, at least on two occasions.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I wish the secretary of the board of health had notified us about it.

Mr. Brennan

Does the Minister realise the length of time it would take to write to the Department and wait for a letter to come back? Where would the patient be in the meantime?

Mr. Dillon

Dead and buried.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

There is hardly an hour of the day, in and out of office hours, that secretaries of boards of health are not on the telephone to the Department about one thing or another. They are always on to it, and it would not take them five minutes to get an answer.

Mr. Dillon

The Minister honestly believes that.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Why, I have them on the telephone myself very frequently.

Mr. Dillon

Does the Minister remember, when he was on the corporation, how long it took him to get an answer from the Local Government Board?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

That was in the British days. They had not a Minister there as they have now; they had not a Minister at all.

Mr. Dillon

It takes twice as long to get things done now. The green tape is twice as bad as the red tape.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I was very sorry to hear Deputy Bennett emphasising that the contractor was being made secure and the ratepayer was not being given much thought or security. The whole purpose of the Bill is to get better value for the ratepayer. That has been achieved in the past and it will be achieved to a greater extent under the new Act. The contractor also is getting something in this Bill, a certain amount of security for the contracts he will enter into, that the stuff be taken off him and there will be security with regard to price. But the whole purpose of the Bill is to get better value for the ratepayer and taxpayer, for patients in the institutions, in hospitals and county homes, in mental hospitals and in other institutions all over the country. They get better butter, better tea, better tweeds, boots, and everything of the kind that is purchased by the local authorities for the inmates of these institutions. Goods of all kinds are improved by anything from 5 to 50 per cent. and the cost, generally speaking, is less than it used to be when purchases were made through local contractors. There were many other questions raised, but I think they were more appropriate to the Committee Stage of the Bill, on which stage we can go into them in greater detail. I think I will leave those matters over until then.

Mr. Hickey

What are the facilities in regard to placing contracts?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Twice a year the combined purchasing contracts are advertised and any person, whether a manufacturer or an agent or a merchant, can send in his tender and become a contractor if the price is right.

Mr. Hickey

Are there any regulations to prevent him?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Nothing except the price and the quality of the goods. They are all considered by this committee. There was one representative from Cork last year on the committee. That committee considers the tenders and prices and the record of the man tendering. If his record is all right and his goods are all right, they will make a recommendation to me that he be selected as a contractor.

Mr. Brennan

Will the Minister say what superannuation and other allowances he had in mind under Section 18 for which he will make the local authorities liable?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

It is an extension of what prevails at present. All the costs at present are paid by the local authorities. They will be asked to pay the pensions as well as the salaries charged under this.

Mr. Brennan

Are they already paying the salaries?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

They are paying all the costs, and they have been paying them.

Question agreed to. Bill read a Second Time. Committee Stage fixed for Wednesday, 22nd February.