Adjournment Debate—Telephone Directory.

Mr. J. Larkin

Yesterday I addressed a question to the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. The question was as follows:—

"To ask the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs if he will state if it is proposed to print the next issue of the telephone directory on imported newsprint and, if so, if he will state the reasons for not using Irish-manufactured paper as has been the practice hitherto."

To that question I received a reply from the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs to this effect:—

"Paper of the quality desired for the next issue of the telephone directory could not be procured with suitable delivery terms and at reasonable cost from the Irish mills. The Stationery Office can, however, meet the bulk of the order by using paper already in stock which is regarded as reasonably suitable. It has, accordingly, been arranged to use this paper which, I understand, was imported in 1952."

I want first to draw attention to the basis set out in the question for deciding to use imported newsprint. The justification lies in the clause that it was not possible to obtain paper of the quality desired at suitable delivery terms and at reasonable cost from Irish paper mills. I say that statement is completely without foundation.

First of all, I want to make a general remark. This House, whatever may be the Government in power, is committed to a policy of affording protection to Irish industry. We expect the public to bear the burden of that protection in the form of higher costs both of ordinary necessities and small luxuries and I submit, Sir, that there is a greater obligation and a greater responsibility on Departments of Government and Ministers in charge, no matter what the Government may be, than on any individual or private member of the public. What has happened in this case we would not condone if it happened in the case of a private employer.

Briefly, the position is that up to the present the telephone directory was printed on Irish made paper, providing employment for Irish paper mill workers. The amount of employment is important, representing some five weeks full work for one of the larger mills, mills which, to a large extent, are at present dependent on the orders they can obtain in the export market on very keen competitive terms.

Now it is proposed to substitute for that imported newsprint, the excuse being that it was impossible to obtain paper of the quality required and at terms and on dates acceptable. I accept the position that it is important that the telephone directory should be issued at the normal dates in October. I am glad the Minister for Finance has undertaken to hear my submission on this matter instead of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs because I am laying responsibility on the Stationery Office. If there has been any delay in respect of delivery dates, that delay is to be laid at the door of the Stationery Office.

Up to last year the paper that was used in the printing of the telephone directory was obtained from Irish mills and was of a good quality. I think all who have occasion to use the telephone directory would agree on that. It was supplied in flat sheets 40 inches by 30 inches. For some reason, which I do not quarrel with, the Stationery Office decided to change its arrangements in regard to the printing of the directory and, because of that, they found they required to obtain paper in reels 40 inches wide. They had, apparently, neglected to inquire from the Irish paper mills whether that would create any difficulty in regard to deliveries of the paper and, when they first invited tenders, it was pointed out to them that that created a technical problem in so far as the paper on all the machines in the main mills was produced on reels 70 inches wide and, therefore, if only 40 inches was required it would be an uneconomic run.

One of the points made is that the Irish mills were invited to tender, that only one tendered and that mill could not meet the delivery dates. In another case—I do not propose to refer to the names of the firms—it is true that they did not tender but they were in contact with the Stationery Office explaining the difficulties that had been created by this change in the specification for the paper and urging that a more economic form of order should be given and, as a result of those consultations, in June, a definite and firm quotation was given for the type of paper required by the Stationery Office and samples were supplied. The delivery dates set down by the Stationery Office were also being met. The only remaining question was that of price.

It was at that point that the first mention of newsprint occurred, when an inquiry was made by telephone to another mill as to whether they could arrange to cut newsprint into the required size and would they tender for it. Subsequently, from the difficulty being a question of delivery dates it turned out it was a question of price, that there was to be a saving of some £6,000 in using newsprint as against the quality of paper which the Stationery Office itself in its original invitation asked the Irish paper mills to quote for—wood-free paper.

If the paper originally sought by the Stationery Office was too dear, then the responsibility is on the Stationery Office. They have the commercial prices in their possession, supplied by Irish and English mills. They have the standard prices for all the standard commercial papers and they know as well as anybody else does the difference between the price of newsprint and the price of the better quality papers but they elected to choose the better quality paper and they got the quotation for the better quality paper and they got the delivery dates they asked for. The only problem was the question of price. It was at that point that the sudden change was made to substitute newsprint.

I submit, Sir, that that whole situation had been created by the Stationery Office so that, when the matter came to the attention of the responsible Ministers, a fixed situation had already been created in which the Minister would find that, if he wanted to secure the publication of his directory on the recognised dates in October, he would be compelled, because of the situation built up, to elect to choose newsprint. If, even then, an escape hole was available, they could block that off on the ground that newsprint was still the cheapest.

That is, briefly, the justification that has been put up, namely, that no Irish mill could supply the paper at a reasonable price, of a reasonable quality, and meet the delivery dates. I submit that, on 9th June, there was a firm quotation made by which paper of a quality sought by the Stationery Office was offered at a price, which although it was competitive, may have been regarded as high by the Stationery Office but that was their responsibility for seeking that quality paper. They were also being met in regard to delivery dates and, more important still, it was Irish manufactured paper.

When I first heard of this matter, I was frankly somewhat surprised and I made inquiries and received certain information. Now I come to what I regard as the gravamen of my charge. I am submitting, Sir, without fear of contradiction, because this is within my own personal knowledge, that on 23rd June, information was directly conveyed to the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs that an Irish mill could, even at that date, supply paper of a better quality than newsprint, made in an Irish mill, at a price which was then reasonably competitive even with newsprint, representing a drop of nearly £25 per ton on the price of the paper originally sought by the Stationery Office, and that all the delivery dates set down by the Stationery Office could even then be kept.

My question, therefore, is to ask whether at that point any reasonable inquiry was made to check on whether that offer, made verbally, could be stood over by any Irish mill and, therefore, offer an alternative source of supply within the delivery dates required by the Stationery Office, of paper of a quality much superior to newsprint and more suitable for use in a telephone directory and at a price that would represent, as far as I was aware, a drop of some £4,000 to £5,000 on the price originally quoted for the type of paper sought by the Stationery Office. If no proper inquiry was made then I suggest, Sir, that somewhere there has been a dereliction of duty, because we are now faced with a proposition that one of the most widely distributed publications of any Government Department—it goes into all quarters of our country and into all types of homes and factories—is now going to be printed on imported newsprint. As a result, a very important order is not going to be available to Irish mills and one of the effects will be that 100 or 200 workers will be seriously affected in regard to their employment. That, I think, is something for which the responsible Government Department should have some regard.

The other point was made that in so far as newsprint is concerned it has been in stock since 1952 and therefore there appears to be no good reason why it should not be used seeing that its original purpose is no longer present. I would like to point out that in so far as newsprint is concerned its importation into this country is dutiable and the Revenue Commissioners will only give duty-free licences when it is imported for three purposes, one—for use in newspapers; two—for the printing of periodicals, and three— for the printing of paper-back novels. I suggest that even though this paper has been in stock, if it is not a direct breach of the policy of protection as extended to paper, it is certainly a breach of the spirit of the order for a Government Department to propose to use newsprint for purposes which would not be accepted by the Revenue Commissioners as justifying duty-free licences. There is no substance in the suggestion that that paper would go to waste. It could readily be sold to be used for the purposes for which it was admitted into this country without the payment of duty.

The other suggestion was that if it is not used on the present occasion for the telephone directory, when it is used on some future occasion it will have the same effect on employment as it is going to have now. That is met by the argument that if used for the purpose for which it was permitted to enter the country duty-free, then it will not affect employment, because it will be used for purposes for which Irish mills do not manufacture paper. This, I think, is symbolical of something that most members of this House have come across and that is that while we are trying to convince people of the importance of maintaining protection for Irish industry and justifying many onerous burdens we lay on their backs in order to carry out that protection, I, in common I suppose with other members of the House, find that Government Departments whom you would expect to set the highest example in regard to support for Irish industry seem to have gone out of their way to create the position in which the final outcome could only be to create an import from outside this country for something that could readily be obtained within the country. This is a very blatant case because from the beginning the Stationery Office has been responsible for the delay by not making an inquiry from the paper mills as to how they would be affected by the change in specification. Even at the end of June there was an offer made direct to the Minister that paper still could be supplied from Irish mills of a quality suitable for the specifications required for the Irish directory at a very considerably less price than the price of paper which the Stationery Office originally sought and which would meet the delivery dates so that there could be no question of not having the directory published in October at the latest.

If my submission is correct, I suggest that there has been gross dereliction of duty on the part of the Stationery Office and I am particularly glad that the Minister for Finance has undertaken to listen to this case and not the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs because the Stationery Office is really under his Department. I submit that this is one case, among others, that merits the Minister giving particular attention to the operation of the Stationery Office.

Minister for Finance (Mr. Sweetman)

Let me say at the outset speaking as a member of the Government on behalf of the Government that I accept without question that it is up to the Government through its Departments to act as a good citizen. It is up to the Government to give the example, as Deputy Larkin has indicated, and I accept that statement fully. I do not think, however, that the facts in this case—and I have made the most exhaustive personal efforts to get the facts—are quite as they have been represented to the Deputy. The position in regard to the telephone directory appears to have been that it was decided some little time ago that the format of the telephone directory for the coming year would be made in a slightly different way to previously. It was, I think, impossible for the Stationery Office to place an appropriate order—or to be more strictly accurate—to look for an appropriate tender until the format had been agreed on by the Department of Posts and Telegraphs and had been submitted.

That having been done, on the 14th April this year, the Stationery Office issued an invitation to firms to tender, as Deputy Larkin has stated, for the purpose of the supplying of 40-inch reels. I might in passing say that the reason for the change in that size this year from other years is that a different printer this year has accepted the contract of printing the directory and this type of machine operates on a different width to previously as far as this contract, at any rate, is concerned.

Deputy Larkin suggests that when the Stationery Office were putting out that invitation to tender they should have anticipated that there would have been objections to the width, but, in fact, one Irish mill was able to submit a proper competitive tender on the revised width of 40 inches. The Deputy and the Chair will appreciate that it is obviously undesirable for me to give names in the case of contracts but for the purposes of the debate let us call it Mill No. 1. Mill No. 1 was able to give a tender for the supply of Irish paper of the quality suggested. It was not, however, able to give the paper on a delivery date that would enable the telephone directory to be distributed at the appropriate time, in the beginning of October. It would, in fact, mean that the telephone directory would not be distributed until Christmas or January. Mill No. 2 to which the Deputy has referred indicated that they were not able to quote for the 40 inch width but—rather than the way it has been put to the Deputy I think— they asked for an economic order. They asked the Stationery Office to take up the balance of the width which, of course, would not be an economic proposition at all, and for that purpose only one tender was received following the invitation of the 14th April.

On the 7th May another invitation was issued to Irish mills and again only Mill No. 1, with the same provision in regard to delivery dates which were unsuitable, tendered. The position was then further examined and that was the position which I found when I came into office. We were faced with the difficulty that there was a strong likelihood at that stage that the telephone directory would not be ready at the appropriate time. As an example, perhaps, if I might say so, of the anxiety of the Government to act, if I may use the phrase, as good citizens, a further effort was made to get tenders from Irish mills. Mill No. 1 again told us that they were very sorry. While they could tender at a price which was quite competitive for the type of paper, they still could not improve their delivery dates.

Mill No. 2 told us they could supply the paper of the quality required on dates that were suitable but—and here is where the Deputy and I part company—I am personally satisfied that the price at which they quoted then was not one which could be called at all reasonably competitive for the type of paper they were quoting for. I do not think that the Deputy would wish, or that any member of the House would wish, that we would do other than accept what was a reasonably competitive price for the type of paper for which we had asked, and I must say that I agree whole-heartedly with the officials of my Department when they took the view that the price that was quoted on that occasion—although the delivery date was satisfactory— was not reasonable. I might add that in coming to that view the officials of my Department did not merely take the quotation that had already been given by Mill No. 1 to deliver paper at a suitable price but at prolonged delivery dates, but added something to that price so as to arrive at what they considered was a reasonably competitive price, and even then the price of Mill No. 2 was not within reason and the difference was out of proportion to the contract. It was for that reason—for the reason that the price for the paper that was offered was not competitive—that the tender was not accepted, and not for the reason that the supply of newsprint would be cheaper than the supply of wood-free paper. Of course, it was perfectly obvious that newsprint would be cheaper than wood-free paper.

We had this newsprint in stock, but if Mill No. 2 had made an offer that was reasonably competitive having regard to the price of Irish-made, paper, on which we not merely had our own views but on which we also had the evidence of the other mill prepared to tender but unable to meet the delivery dates, then there would be no question but that it would have been printed on Irish paper and employment in consequence would not have been affected. It was not a question of paying a small sum in addition. I cannot disclose the exact amount but the difference was in my view—and I accept complete responsibility for it —out of all proportion. I suggest to the Deputy that if the order has not gone to Mill No. 2 it is because the management concerned were not in a position or did not wish to quote a price that was reasonably competitive for the type of paper for which they were asked to quote. It was at that stage and only at that stage that the question of utilising the newsprint was taken into account.

That newsprint had been in stock since 1952. It was, in fact, imported in 1952 for the purpose of printing ration books and there was obviously, on the abolition of rationing, no further need for it. I do not think it would have been possible to dispose of it in the manner that the Deputy has suggested. In fact, efforts have been made, according to the information before me, to utilise it from time to time up to this, and they have always failed. I will quite agree with the Deputy in the submission he has made that if the newsprint had been brought in by the Stationery Office under duty-free licence for some type of use which would exempt it from duty it would be wrong and improper and against the spirit of the concession they had got to utilise it for another purpose. But, in fact, this newsprint when imported paid duty at the appropriate rate at the time at which it was imported in 1952. Therefore, I think the Deputy when he now has that information which obviously was not available to him before will agree that that does affect the contention that was made by him. So far as I am concerned the position was that every effort was made to get a reasonably competitive price from the Irish mills for a type of paper which they were able to produce.

There were only two quotations. In the case of one quotation, they were not able to meet the delivery date although the terms were quite satisfactory. In the case of the second mill, they were able to meet the terms of the delivery date but the quotation would not be accepted and I am quite satisfied that if it had been accepted, the Public Accounts Committee and the Comptroller and Auditor-General could not agree with the view that it was reasonable to accept the quotation at the figures indicated.

We were then in the position that we had this newsprint in stock which had been brought in for another purpose and for which the appropriate rate of duty had been paid at the time. We were faced with the position that if it were to be used for any practical purpose, it should be used to meet this difficulty, that either we had to use it or dispose of it otherwise, by some type of destruction. I do not think that the Deputy would wish that. I am certain that he would not and I think that, having made the final effort that was made, and which was made at some substantial cost, by getting the printers concerned to agree to print, not on a single machine but on a double machine, solely for the purpose of trying to facilitate Mill No. 2, we did everything in our power and that the fault, if any, lay at the doors of Mill No. 2 who did not make a quotation that was proper and reasonable for the supply of the paper which they produce and which they were able to produce.

Mr. Larkin

The Minister has made no reference to the statement to which I was witness on the 23rd June, offering paper at a competitive price and at the specified delivery dates to the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. I have asked has any inquiry been made to follow that up.

Mr. Sweetman

As I understood the Deputy, what he said before was in relation to a supply of an alternative type of paper, akin to newsprint.

Mr. Larkin

It was first quality paper, better than newsprint.

Mr. Sweetman

I understood it was akin to newsprint. I might add that no contact whatever was made by the mill to which the Deputy has referred, Mill No. 2, with the Stationery Office, as I understood such contact was to be made, if they were prepared to carry out the arrangement. As I understood the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, they were going to make that the matter of a formal offer to the Stationery Office, but they certainly did not do so and the only offer we have from that mill is at a price which I am quite satisfied was not a competitive figure. I am equally satisfied that if the Deputy had the facts before him he would also take that view and he would see that certainly the Comptroller and Auditor-General and the Public Accounts Committee on the evidence before me, would hold that it would be entirely out of the question to accept the offer of Mill No. 2 at the price which they quoted.

The Dáil adjourned at 11 p.m. until Thursday, 8th July, at 3 p.m.

Dáil Éireann debate - Wednesday, 7 Jul 1954