asked the Minister for Finance if he is aware that the Stationery Office advertising contract has been transferred from the contractor who has held it for over 30 years to a new advertising agency; and, if so, if he will state by whom the contract was placed and, if the transfer was made on the basis of a lower tender, whether the difference was such as to justify a change from the former contractor who has handled the business for 30 years and built up and maintained a highly specialised organisation specially to service this account and if he will further state whether the new contractor has given an assurance that he will hand back to the Stationery Office the whole or any part of the commission which would normally be paid to him by the papers carrying Government advertisements and, in this event, what assurance he has had that the new contractor will be in a position to fulfil this undertaking.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Stationery Office Contract.
I am aware that on the recent termination of the contract for an agency for Government advertising in newspapers and periodicals the new contract was placed with a firm other than the firm which had previously held it. The contract was placed by the Controller of the Stationery Office with the prior approval of the Government Contracts Committee. In the light of assurances sought from and given by the successful tenderer, it appeared to the Stationery Office and the Government Contracts Committee that his tender would be substantially more advantageous to the State than that of any other effective tenderer.
Might I ask whether it is a fact that the previous contractor held this contract for a period of 30 years? Further, was the proposal to change from this contractor submitted to the Minister for his approval or sanction? In addition, the Minister refers to certain assurances. Could he tell the House what were the specific assurances given by this new contractor which would be more advantageous than those given by the previous contractor?
Could the Minister further say if the assurances were part of the contract?
As to the first of the supplementary questions, I cannot say for how long the previous contractor held this contract, but I know that it was for quite a considerable number of years; in fact, I think for well over 20 years. The matter, as I pointed out in my reply to the House, did not come before the Minister for Finance personally.
On a point of order. Is there any precedent for a Minister disclaiming personal responsibility for a matter in respect of which he purports to answer to the House?
I did not understand the Minister to disclaim responsibility. He said the matter did not come before him.
That is all.
It is a new departure.
It is not. As far as I know the Minister is just saying that the matter did not come before him. That is not renouncing responsibility of any kind.
It is next door to it.
I do not know what Deputy Dillon's attitude in this matter betokens. I have answered the question put to me as to whether it was personally submitted to me. I said "No." That is not a disclaimer of responsibility.
I asked the Minister if he could tell the House what were the specific assurances given by this new contractor which would be more advantageous to the State than the previous contractor was able to give?
The question as to whether the assurance would be more advantageous to the State would be a matter of opinion and I do not think there is anything I can usefully add to the answer I have already given.
I wish to give notice that I propose to raise this matter on the Adjournment because I am not satisfied.
I will communicate with the Deputy.