asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if, with reference to the importation of 3,000 wagon undercarriage frames by C.I.E. and to his statement that the welding of underframes before importation represents a value of £10, he will inquire (a) whether such welding was ever done before at Inchicore, (b) whether such welding could have been done at Inchicore, and (c) whether any tenders were invited from Irish firms for the performance of this work before the orders for these frames were placed outside the country.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Welding of Undercarriage Frames for C.I.E.
In reply to the first two parts of the question, I am informed by C.I.E. that such welding was not done before at Inchicore but that it could have been done there if additional shop floor space could be provided and steel sections purchased without any fabrication work done on them. As I stated on the 24th May, however (Official Report, columns 945 and 946), I understand that any attempt to perform this welding would impede the performance of the additional work involved on the frames and would result in a net loss of employment.
As regards the third part of the question C.I.E. state that tenders were not invited from Irish firms as it was considered desirable that the firm responsible for the pressing and bending of the steel sections should also do the small amount of welding necessary; if the welding work were given to another firm it might be difficult to fix responsibility should any defects arise.
In view of the fact that some 3,000 frames were being imported, does the Minister not consider that it would be in the national interest at least to have invited tenders from Irish firms for the welding of these frames before placing an order outside the country?
There is no question of Irish firms being able to supply the steel frames.
No.
The only question at issue is the question of the small amount of welding to be done, representing a value of about £10 to each frame. C.I.E. are the body responsible in this matter and they say they thought it desirable that the firm which would do the pressing and the bending should also do the welding, so that responsibility for the final production of the perfect frame should rest on the shoulders of one firm and not be divided between two firms. In addition, I think it is probably true to say they were enabled to get these frames because of the fact that a certain amount of work was done by way of prefabrication before C.I.E. imported the frames. If these frames were delivered by the exporters in Britain or elsewhere to C.I.E. and if they had to be transported from C.I.E. premises to another firm in the country to do £10 worth of welding on each frame, the cost of the transport involved, of finding space for them and of retransporting them back to C.I.E. would result in the cost of the welding being probably substantially greater than that paid for them by C.I.E. under existing circumstances.
I think the Minister will agree that nobody would be fool enough to think of having consigned to C.I.E. the angle bars and then having them retransferred to another firm for welding. Surely the normal procedure would be to have them sent directly to the firm which would do the welding. Having regard to the fact that there were 3,000 frames involved, even if the Minister's reply were correct the amount of the work that would be available would amount to £30,000. Does the Minister not consider that C.I.E. should at least have made some inquiries from Irish firms as to whether or not they were in a position to do the work?
The information given to me by C.I.E., and checked by my officials subject to final discussions between C.I.E. and me, suggests that if space had been allotted for doing the small amount of welding work, that space could have been allotted only at the expense of the disemployment of C.I.E. workers who would have to be stood-off while the space in which they normally worked was allotted to this welding.
Further arising from the Minister's reply——
Question No. 6.
With respect, the Minister——
No. 6.
May I raise a point of order? I asked the Minister whether or not he thought C.I.E. should have discussions with other Irish firms in order to find out if they could do the work.
I am the authority on the number of supplementary questions which may be asked. Would the Deputy resume his seat? I am the authority on the number of supplementary questions that may be asked. I am ruling that the limit has been exceeded here and I am calling the next question.
May I, on a point of order——
Question No. 6.
I only asked——
I am calling on Deputy William Murphy.
May I, on a point of order, make this submission? I asked only one supplementary. The Minister did not reply to that supplementary. You say you have ruled on a number of supplementaries.
It is not the duty of the Chair to discern or indicate whether the Minister has replied to the proper question or not.
Does the Chair rule that only one supplementary is allowed?
I have not ruled that. I have ruled that the Deputy has put a sufficient quota of supplementaries to the question on the Order Paper.
Will the Ceann Comhairle take me as protesting against the ruling?
If the Deputy has a grievance against my ruling, he has his remedy.
The only remedy I would have is the removal of the Ceann Comhairle.
The Deputy, if he refers to Standing Orders, will see there is a constitutional method by which the ruling of the Ceann Comhairle may be challenged.
Was not the Deputy welded into the inter-Party Government?
I am welded to nothing except to the welfare of this country.
I feel sure Deputy McGrath's welding in Cork will be loosened.
Question No. 6.