Deputy Blaney has given notice that he wishes to raise on the Adjournment the subject-matter of Question No. 80 on the Order Paper for the 2nd instant.
Committee on Finance. - Adjournment Debate—Tea Prices.
The matter concerned in this question is one which originally arose out of an estimates meeting in the Donegal County Council a month or five weeks ago. I happen to be a member of that estimates committee and during our discussion as to estimates for the coming year in respect of the different services we found that, according to our officers who are in charge of certain things, one in particular had gone up, according to the prices then quoted, by 8d. per lb. and that was tea supplied to institutions to be purchased under the combined purchasing lists. We accepted the statement then given as being quoted from the combined purchasing lists for the coming year showing this 8d. per lb. increase and budgeted accordingly.
Subsequently, when this report came before our council dealing with the estimates generally and striking the rate, it was contested by some of the Government supporters that tea had not, in fact, gone up 8d. per lb.; that the actual increase on the ordinary average run of tea was somewhere in the region of 1½d. or 2d. per lb. However, to try and find out definitely where we stood before making a final allocation for the purchase of tea for the coming year for our institutions in the county, I undertook, on behalf of the county council, to put down a question to the Minister for Industry and Commerce to give us the prices of tea on the 1st February, 1955 and on the 1st February, 1954. We could see from the tabular statement that the price for lowest grade tea in 1954 was 3/4 and ranging from 3/8 to 5/10 as against 3/4 up to 8/6 in 1955.
The first thing that occurred to us in the county council, when we came to look at these figures at a subsequent meeting, was that the figure for lowest grade tea in 1954 corresponded exactly with the price listed in the combined purchasing list of 3/8, the price we paid and have been paying and which, I presume, we will still pay under contract over the year. This year we find, according to the lists supplied to us in advance of that meeting, that the price we are being asked to pay has gone up from 3/8 to 4/4.
The House will recall that I mentioned the price for lowest grade tea last year was similar to the list price in the combined purchasing list. This year the combined purchasing list says 3/4 for lowest grade tea, whereas the actual price is to be 1/- higher. As a result of this, we decided at our meeting to reduce the amount of money allocated for tea for the coming year by the sum of 1/- per lb.
Following that, I submitted a question to the Minister for Industry and Commerce again and, as it transpired later, I actually put the question to the Minister in error in that he was not responsible for the compilation of this list. However, during the weekend when I handed in this question until the following Wednesday, when it was being answered, there appeared in the national newspapers an advertisement seeking, under the Combined Purchasing Act, contractors for the supply of tea to local authorities for the coming year, 1955-56. Whether that was purely coincidental or not I cannot say, but it struck me, on seeing it, that it was other than a coincidence.
The Minister then asked about this matter was the Minister for Local Government who is at the moment in the House. On putting down a question to the Minister asking for an explanation of this difference in the prices on the combined purchasing list of this year as against last year, the Minister's reply confused me very much, indeed, in that he stated that no alteration was made in the price of tea for the forthcoming year.
If no alteration was made in the price for the coming year, what I want to know from the Minister is where does this 4/4 arise as against 3/8 quoted in the lists last year? How does it come about that while we could buy our tea which was quoted in the combined purchasing list last year at 3/8 per lb. we are now being quoted 4/4? Is that 4/4, in fact, a contract price, and should it have appeared as a contract listed price in the combined purchasing list for the coming financial year? If not, why should it have been submitted to the officers of our local authority who deal with this matter? That is another matter which the Minister for Local Government could possibly answer in his reply.
The net issue of the matter now is that if tea has gone up, as undoubtedly, I think, it will be agreed it has, then our estimate and the provision of money for the year is short in our county by over 1/- per lb. That arises, as I say, from the fact that last year the price paid for tea by our local authority corresponded with the lowest priced tea on the market. That does not follow. I understand that the tea we got was the lowest grade. I take it that the grade supplied last year was similar to the grade we are to get this year, but this year's grade of tea is to cost us 4/4 but, due to this list we got from the other Minister who does not control the combined purchasing section, our council now find themselves with less than sufficient tea to keep our institutions going.
As I mentioned at the start, the whole thing really arose over the fact that it was disputed at our meetings by certain members that an increase of as high as 8d. per lb. had actually taken place in the price of tea in the past 12 months. In order to satisfy those people that it had not increased, we set about reducing the amount that we are going to pay for the year. Between the Department's combined purchasing list and the members of our local authority who are supporters of the present Government, we find ourselves in the dilemma that we do not know what price we are to pay for tea for the coming year. The likelihood is that the amount of money we have now provided on their exhortations will be insufficient.
I will ask the Minister to tell the House whether or not a list was supplied to the officers of the local authority this year giving the price of tea for the coming financial year under contract. On the other hand, if that is not so, why was the price of tea not fixed as it was fixed in respect of the year 1954-1955? It was fixed, as the Minister himself stated, as early as December, 1953. If it was thought fit to fix it so early for last year, why should it be so late in being fixed this year? If we are to buy this tea for the coming year at whatever the price may be, I am still at a loss to know what it is going to be. Are we going to get the same grade of tea, the same blend, as last year, and will the Minister in the last analysis tell the House whether or not there is an increase in the price this year and if so approximately the amount of that increase?
The Deputy is not so innocent as he pretends. I understand the Deputy was a civil servant in the Combined Purchasing Section of the Department of Industry and Commerce charged with the purchase of tea.
I was only a small boy.
I did not suggest you grew up since. The position is this— and the Deputy knows it very well — in the month of December the Minister fixes the price for tea for the following year commencing on the 1st April. The Minister judges the blend of tea which he considers is the most appropriate for local authorities. Having judged it, he fixes a price for a particular blend. In December of 1953 my predecessor, the present Deputy Smith fixed the price of tea for the year beginning on the 1st April, 1954, and ending on the 31st March, 1955. He fixed that price at 4/4 per lb. and that is the price. Having fixed it in December of 1953, he then sought tenders and asked the various brokers to submit to him samples of the tea which they could produce at 4/4 per lb. Having received those samples the Minister submitted them to a tea-tester in London, a tester employed by the Government of this country for the past 22 years — the same tea-tester. This tea-tester selected the blends in order of merit and returned them to the Minister who then appointed a contractor to the local authority. The tea price for the year beginning the 1st April, 1954, and ending on the 31st of this month was fixed by Deputy Smith at 4/4 per lb.
In the month of December last, I fixed the price of tea at the very same figure — 4/4 per lb. I have sought tenders for the best possible blend that I can procure at 4/4 per lb. I have not yet received from the tester the order of merit of the various blends submitted to him. I understand it is not usual to receive them until this month and that the local authority is notified immediately they are received. The Deputy knows very well that the price of tea from the 1st April, 1954, to the 31st March, 1955, is 4/4 per lb. and it will be the same for the coming year.
Would you allow me for just one moment?
Certainly.
In the interests of clearing this thing up — my information is that submitted to us for the estimates sub-committee meeting of the Donegal County Council that the price paid for all tea bought for our institutions last year——
Now, give the dates; the dates are most important.
Dealing with the financial year 1954-55 the price that we will have paid, and have already paid in many cases, is 3/8 per lb. That is from the figures submitted——
I would ask the Deputy now to look at the contract prices fixed by Deputy Smith when Minister for Local Government, and look at the contract prices fixed by me and he will find that the figures are the same — 4/4 per lb. There is no difficulty whatever and the Deputy had ample time between last Wednesday——
Has the Minister got the copies of the list, because actually the clerk of our mental hospital, who is a very reliable man over the years on such matters as these, produced at that estimates meeting his list for the year 1954-55 and the proposed list for the year 1955-56 and those two lists differed in this amount — that the one showed for last year, the current year, a price of 3/8 per lb. and the one for the coming year showed a price of 4/4 per lb. That is the position.
The Deputy must accept my word for this; that the price for tea supplied to local authorities from the 1st April last to the 31st of this month is 4/4 as fixed by Deputy Smith. The price of tea supplied from the 1st April, 1953, to the 31st March, 1954, was fixed by Deputy Smith in December, 1952, at 3/8 per lb. But that was two years ago. I am afraid that is possibly where the mistake has arisen. You can take my word, check it, and come back with a question to me if I am wrong.
Could I ask a question? question?
Certainly.
The Minister has stated that he fixed a price similar to that fixed for last year and at the moment we are in the position that we are waiting on tenders——
No, the tenders have been received.
The tenders have been received but what follows that? Does not the Minister get some option, having received the tenders, of deciding that some firm may supply as good a blend at 4/- per lb. as another would supply at 4/4 per lb? Could it be possible that the Minister's predecessor last year having got the good sample decided to accept it at a figure which was less than he would be prepared to pay?
The Deputy knows this better than I do. The Minister considers the various grades of tea he is going to put into a particular blend. Having decided on that he makes up his mind on the particular blend which he requires and fixes the price of that blend. When he has done that and fixed it at 4/4 per lb. he invites the tenderers to send in samples of blends to him at 4/4 per lb. which is the standard price he has fixed. He sends the samples off to the tester and the tester then sets them out in order of priority and the Minister accepts this as he has done for the past 22 years. I know where the Deputy has gone wrong——
The Deputy has not gone wrong.
I am sorry, I should say where the Deputy's informant has gone wrong. The price of tea as I have already said up to the 31st March, last year — 1954 — was 3/8 per lb., but from the 1st April, 1954, to the 31st March, 1955, it is 4/4 and I have invited tenders at the same price.
Can I ask the Minister a question?
Certainly.
Assuming all this is correct, is the Minister now going to tell the House that the tea he is going to provide at 4/4 per lb. will not be inferior to the tea purchased last year at 4/4 per lb?
I hope it is going to be better tea. I hope that I shall make a better bargain than Deputy Smith.
Then tea is coming down?
With regard to tea coming down, the Deputy knows more about this than I do.
I do not, actually; I am learning.
There is no doubt whatever about it but that the lowest grade last year has gone up 4d. a lb. and the second lowest has come down but there is no blender can get 100 per cent. of the lowest grade——
It is not available.
They have not sufficient quantity but when they find a line of cheap grade tea they automatically push up the price of that and pull down the price of some grade of which they have a surplus.
A better grade.
Yes, for the purpose of blending. May I tell you what the tester has said about the present blend of tea which is being supplied to local authorities. It will be of interest to note that in a recent report on the tea situation the Department's London tea tester states that:—
"The blend you are now using is not common tea. Its true economic value as fair medium quality on today's London market is 6/10. This price is first cost excluding all charges and profits".
He also suggested that there should be a price of 7/- a lb.
What is the date?
4th January of this year. That tea which is costing the local authorities here 4/4 per lb. is being sold on the London market at 6/10, and this price is first cost excluding all charges and profits.
How much would it have been last year?
The same, because even though there has been a difference in the price of the grades the price of the blend has remained the same. I think that if the Deputy checks what I have said, he will find his informant, not intentionally — I know the gentleman to whom he refers and I know very well he would not do it intentionally — has made a mistake, a genuine bona fide mistake. I accept that and I accept the Deputy was not misled and did not raise this question for the purpose of creating a furore in the matter. I hope he will accept my explanation.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.53 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 9th March, 1955.